TWO ROMAN LOVERS

While I am convinced that all these things are as stated, I do not wish to deny that monopolism of a violent kind may and does occur in love which is merely sensual.  In fact, I have expressly classed monopolism among those seven ingredients of love which occur in its sensual as well as its sentimental phases.  For a correct diagnosis of love it is indeed of great importance to bear this in mind, as we might otherwise be led astray by specious passages, especially in Greek and Roman literature, in which sensual love sometimes reaches a degree of subtility, delicacy, and refinement, which approximate it to sentimental love, though a critical analysis always reveals the difference.  The two best instances I know of occur in Tibullus and Terence.  Tibullus, in one of his finest poems (IV., 13), expresses the monopolistic wish that his favorite might seem beautiful to him only, displeasing all others, for then he would be safe from all rivalry; then he might live happy in forest solitudes, and she alone would be to him a multitude: 

     Atque utinam posses uni mihi bella videri;
     Displiceas aliis:  sic ego tutus ero.

     Sic ego secretis possum bene vivere silvis
       Qua nulla humano sit via trita pede. 
     Tu mihi curarum requies, tu nocte vel atra
       Lumen, et in solis tu mihi turba locis.

Unfortunately, the opening line of this poem: 

     Nulla tuum nobis subducet femina lectum,

and what is known otherwise of the dissolute character of the poet and of all the women to whom he addressed his verses, make it only too obvious that there is here no question of purity, of respect, of adoration, of any of the qualities which distinguish supersensual love from lust.

More interesting still is a passage in the Eunuchus of Terence (I., 2) which has doubtless misled many careless readers into accepting it as evidence of genuine romantic love, existing two thousand years ago: 

“What more do I wish?” asks Phaedria of his girl Thais:  “That while at the soldier’s side you are not his, that you love me day and night, desire me, dream of me, expect me, think of me, hope for me, take delight in me, finally, be my soul as I am yours.”

Here, too, there is no trace of supersensual, self-sacrificing affection (the only sure test of love); but it might be argued that the monopolism, at any rate, is absolute.  But when we read the whole play, even that is seen to be mere verbiage and affectation—­sentimentality,[15] not sentiment.  The girl in question is a common harlot “never satisfied with one lover,” as Parmeno tells her, and she answers:  “Quite true, but do not bother me”—­and her Phaedria, though he talks monopolism, does not feel it, for in the first act she easily persuades him to retire to the country for a few days, while she offers herself to a soldier.  And again, at the end of the play, when he seems at last to have ousted his military rival, the latter’s parasite Gnatho persuades him, without the slightest difficulty, to continue sharing the girl with the soldier, because the latter is old and harmless, but has plenty of money, while Phaedria is poor.