No More Learning

Indeed the plot centers on the recognition of the young Greek heroine as
the white Ethiopian princess by the tokens exposed with her in babyhood:
her jewels, her mystic ring, her lettered fillet. This dramatic device
of an agnorisis or recognition is multiplied by Heliodorus for repeated
situations: the recognition of Chariclea in beggar’s rags by Theagenes
through her watchword, the identification of Charicles as her
foster-father and of Sisimithres as the noble Greek who found and saved
the exposed child.

No less important is the usual Greek peripeteia, or reversal of fortune,
for hero and heroine are repeatedly reunited only to be separated anew;
together or separately they are rescued from one catastrophe only to be
plunged into a worse danger. Calasiris’ long narrative resembles not
only the minstrel’s songs at the court of Alcinous of old far-off divine
events, but also the messenger’s speeches in tragedy wherein events too
horrible or too complicated to be presented on the stage are told with a
realism which starts the imagination. The mechanism of a parallel
subplot is employed in Cnemon’s life-story. The letter in Thisbe’s dead
hand is indebted to Phaedra’s in Euripides’ _Hippolytus_. Cybele,
Arsace’s maid, owes much in her character of confidant to Phaedra’s
nurse though she is more cynical and familiar. The crowd takes the place
of the chorus, now demanding human sacrifice in the name of tradition,
now releasing Chariclea from it through pity, now approving of the
appeal of the noble Gymnosophists in the name of the gods to abolish the
immolation of human victims. The _deus ex machina_ is supplied by these
very gods of the Gymnosophists, Helios, the Sun, and Selene, the Moon,
celestial symbols of pure deities of space and time conceived in the
philosophical mind.

Against this structure of drama the characters move as though on a stage
and even through the stylized formulae of dramatic conventions usually
attain individuality and vitality. Maillon seems to me undiscriminating
when he speaks of them all as general types, not individuals, as
marionettes who can talk, lament and complain, but are without
life. [115] Even characters that fall into general groups may as in real
life have distinguishing traits and in the list of characters certain
are unforgettable personalities.

The hero Theagenes is of course supremely handsome and physically
strong. He is also as Wolff says spectacularly courageous but easily
discouraged. [116] He has to be kept from suicide by Cnemon. He has to be
cheered by Chariclea. And his Lady Fair is the resourceful partner in
emergencies who whispers to him “Call me your Sister” or invents means
of recognition in case of separation or makes a plot to share with him
his fate be it life or death. She demands too when they start off on
travels together that her lover swear a sacred oath to respect her
virginity. Indeed her leadership deserves the tribute given Dido, _dux
femina facti_. As Calderini notes, cleverness and deception were valued
traits in those times and both she displayed. [117] But she guarded her
chastity even from her dearest and her courage never failed. On the
battle field she can shoot her arrows. She is surrounded by a divine
aura of radiant beauty that illuminates her holy garb.

The real hero of the romance is her father, the Ethiopian King Hydaspes,
whose qualities she seemed to have inherited. He is the type of the good
king, but beyond that he is very human. He has his humor so that when
his nephew presents him with a gigantic athletic champion he smilingly
gives him in exchange an elephant. He is generous to a defeated foe,
freeing Oroondates and restoring him to his office so that the viceroy
makes obeisance to him and calls him the most just of mortals. He
follows tradition in preparing to offer to the gods foreign captives as
human victims, but when convinced by the Gymnosophists of the
inappropriateness of such sacrifice he leads his people to the right
decision about abolishing it and happily crowns his daughter and her
lover as new priests of a purified worship.

Persinna his queen is a type of frustrated motherhood, timid enough to
expose at birth her beautiful white baby for fear of the charge of
adultery, but when her daughter is restored to her she glows with ardent
parentalism and interprets Chariclea’s wishes to her husband.

The characters in the sub-plot (Cnemon’s story) are less clearly
delineated than those in the main narrative. The story serves however
not merely to introduce Thisbe, who is useful for the main plot, but
anticipates and prepares for certain main characters. Aristippus the
betrayed husband, Demaeneta the wanton wife, Thisbe the corrupt maid and
Cnemon the coveted youth parallel Oroondates, Arsace, Cybele and
Theagenes himself.

The far east opens up before us under the shadow of the Great King of
the Persians. He never appears, but his viceroys, their lieutenants,
their eunuchs work his will with the complete subservience which their
act of obeisance symbolizes. Oroondates is a good fighter, but he is
ready to desert secretly the city of Syene, which he has been defending,
before terms of surrender had been concluded, to start another war in
the name of the Great King. His will conveyed by letters must be law to
his eunuch or his wife. This arbitrariness when imitated by his eunuch
Euphrates becomes sadistic tyranny over prisoners given to his care.

Arsace his wife finds her escape in intrigue and amours. [118] Highly
over-sexed she stops at nothing to satisfy her passion as her wanton
fancies shift from one desired lover to another. She has no mercy for
Theagenes when he is obdurate or for Chariclea when she finds she is the
object of Theagenes’ affections.

Cybele her maid abets her machinations and her lust. Though her position
as confidante recalls Phaedra’s nurse in the _Hippolytus_, her character
reproduces all the venality, cunning and complaisance of the maids in
new Attic comedy. Torture and murder are natural tools for success in
her eyes and when she is hoist with her own petard, she dies asserting
that she has been poisoned by the innocent girl whom she had hoped to
make her victim. Arsace with her Cybele is a complete foil for the
purity and loyalty of Chariclea.

The most interesting among the upright characters in the play are the
priests: Calasiris, high-priest of Isis in Egypt, Charicles, priest of
Apollo at Delphi, Sisimithres, the Greek Gymnosophist. They are
consecrated to service, devoted to worship. They are men of the world
extending their knowledge by travel and talk. Calasiris on his visit to
Delphi spent his days in philosophical discussion of religious rites and
the meaning of the gods of Greece and of Egypt. Charicles is a
humanitarian who educates the little waif Chariclea as his own daughter.
Sisimithres dares withdraw from the human sacrifices proposed by a great
king and people and by his personal authority converts them from such
abominable customs to a purer conception of deity and of worship.
Calasiris in his role of interpreting the events of the story and
solving its problems, in his clear philosophical interests probably
represents Heliodorus himself. [119]

To return to the structure of the romance, the plot with such borrowings
from epic and dramatic poetry, with such characters, some types, some
highly individualized, moves forward in a manner that resembles the
modern cinema. There is no carefully interwoven plot such as tragedy
presents, for example in _Oedipus Rex_. Rather there is a progression of
episodes, each a clear picture in itself, all after many involutions and
evolutions falling into an orderly narrative. Rattenbury thinks that
after Heliodorus’ original beginning which secures the interest and
sympathy of the reader through his curiosity he fails to maintain the
interest throughout. The long retrospective narrative of Calasiris
becomes monotonous. The reader is irritated by the postponement of the
denouement after he as well as the hero and heroine knows the secret of
Chariclea’s parentage. Maillon, however, finds in Heliodorus a great
talent for narration. After the impressive opening scene, he says, from
narrative to narrative, from description to description, one is led
slowly but without ennui to the grandeur of the final chapters. The
variety of the episodes does not detract from the unity of the narrative
because we keep returning to Theagenes and Chariclea in whom we have
been interested from the first. [120]

To me personally the defects in the romance lie not in the long
narrative of Calasiris or in the early revelation of Chariclea’s
identity, but in the excessive use of descriptive passages. Planned
though they undoubtedly are to satisfy the craving of the age for a
knowledge of the novel and the strange, or to give local color, they
retard the development of the story. Often they are prolix and difficult
because of an unfamiliar vocabulary and a complicated sentence
structure. There are many such passages: descriptions of natural
phenomena (the island city in the delta of the Nile, the straits at
Calydon); of curious animals (crocodile and giraffe); of operations of
war (a naval battle, the siege of Syene, the duel of Thyamis and
Petosiris); the religious ceremonies at Delphi. These vary greatly in
clarity and effectiveness, but in general they tend to be verbose and to
retard the narrative. Such descriptions are however one of the
conventional features of the Greek romance. And with all Heliodorus’
originality in plot, in his tripartite structure of epic, dramatic and
cinematic features, he employs all the usual devices of Greek romance.
These are oracle and oath, résumés, conversation and rhetorical
speeches, letters and soliloquies, meditated suicide and apparent death,
dreams and epiphanies. But Heliodorus makes these conventional devices
integral parts of his plot.

The oracle given by the Pythian priestess at Delphi early in the story
motivates the plot until the very end when its meaning is explained and
its prophecy fulfilled. The oath which Chariclea requires of her lover
early in her travels protects her chastity through all the intimacies of
palace apartment and prison dungeons. Résumés of events given several
times by Cnemon, by Calasiris in his long narrative, by Charicles,
clarify and facilitate the plot. [121] Conversation is used constantly on
the battle field or in the boudoir, in palaces, in dungeons. Turn over
the pages of Heliodorus’ Greek as you would a modern novel and test how
often the pages are broken and enlivened by talk. Rhetoric colors some
of the longer speeches, but in the court-room scene (the trial of
Chariclea for poisoning Cybele) the procedure is described but the
speeches are not quoted.

Letters are as important as oracles for the development of the plot. The
letter of Persinna inscribed on the fillet exposed with her child
furnishes the indisputable evidence for the recognition of Chariclea.
The letter in Thisbe’s dead hand is of prime importance in the sub-plot
in announcing to Cnemon the death of his wicked step-mother. Business
letters of Mithranes to Oroondates, of Oroondates to Arsace and to the
eunuch Euphrates, of Hydaspes to the Supreme Council of Ethiopia and to
his queen Persinna furnish documentation for the march of events. The
letter of Oroondates to Hydaspes in the last book prepares the way for
Charicles’ final explanation of his relation to his foster-daughter and
his own recognition of Chariclea.

Soliloquies reveal emotional states and meditated suicide. At Chemmis
one night Chariclea left alone yields to despair and vows that if she
learns Theagenes is dead, she will join him in the shades. An apparent
death nearly precipitates tragedy when in the dark of the cave the body
of Thisbe is mistaken for that of Chariclea. Theagenes bursts into
despairing lamentation and proposes suicide. But Cnemon foreseeing this
has filched his sword and presently the light of Cnemon’s torch reveals
the truth and there ensues a happy reversal of fortune.

Among all these usual features of the plot a new importance is given to
dreams and epiphanies. They are peculiarly significant because of their
bearing on Heliodorus’ philosophical and religious interests. Some
motivate minor events or simply create atmosphere. Thyamis in the night
before the battle with another band of brigands had a vision of Isis who
gave Chariclea to him with the mystic words: “Having her, you will not
have her, but you will be unjust and will kill the stranger. And she
will not be killed. ” At first Thyamis, interpreting the dream in
accordance with his own wishes, thought it meant that he would murder
her virginity, but she would live. Then when the battle went against
him, he changed his interpretation and to save Chariclea from his foes,
killed her (as he thought) in the cave. So Thisbe’s death is explained.
Another dream of little importance is Chariclea’s in which a wild
looking man appeared and pierced her right eye with his sword. Opposing
interpretations are given by Theagenes and Cnemon. The epiphanies,
however, which are vitally significant for the plot all foretell the
final fortunes of the hero and the heroine. To Calasiris Apollo and
Diana appeared, the god leading Theagenes, the goddess Chariclea, and
intrusted them to him. Diana too bade him consider the pair as his
children and take them to Egypt when and how the gods should decree.
Charicles too dreamed that an eagle flew from the hand of Apollo, seized
Chariclea and bore her away from Delphi to a land of dark forms.
Calasiris again had a vision, this time of Odysseus, the great
traveller, who demanded sacrifices and presented Penelope’s blessing on
Chariclea. Calasiris after his death himself appeared simultaneously to
Chariclea and Theagenes, telling the heroine that the Pantarbè jewel
would protect her, and telling the hero that he would be freed from
Arsace and take his Lady to Ethiopia. Hydaspes, when the prisoner
Chariclea is brought before him, recalled a dream that a full-grown
daughter was born to him and the face of this dream-girl was
Chariclea’s. This prepared him for the real recognition of her identity.
Now the validity of these apparitions is sometimes questioned: are they
dreams or visions? The author comments that desire often prompts
favorable interpretation. He has Hydaspes’ officers tell him that the
mind creates for itself fantasies which seem to foretell future events.
He has the optimistic Chariclea encourage Theagenes to trust in the gods
and interpret Calasiris’ prophecies as beneficent. But all the same
Heliodorus motivates his plot by this popular belief in dreams and
epiphanies.

This structural element fits in with the religious-philosophical
coloring of the whole background. Dreams and epiphanies, miracles and
necromancy are partial manifestations of a deep-seated interest in cults
and philosophies that is a phenomenon of the times. There is a long
description of the festival of Neoptolemus at Delphi with its pageantry,
sacrifices, hymn, dance, libations and the lighting of the pyre. It is
here that Theagenes and Chariclea meet and at first sight fall in love.
Nausicles the merchant must sacrifice to Hermes, god of trade. The
festival of the overflowing of the Nile is celebrated in Egypt. And
among the Ethiopians the first fruits of victory in war are offered in
the form of sacrifice of human captives to their gods. The most
prominent cults are those of Apollo-Helios of Delphi, Egypt and Ethiopia
and of the Egyptian Isis. These are savior gods to whom mortals offer
petitions for salvation.

Opinions differ as to whether the representation of the cult of Helios
is the usual conventional religious background of a Greek romance or
whether it is the author’s glorification of the cult of his native city
with which he and his family had some official connection. At the
antipodes in criticism are Rattenbury who perceives only the usual
religious conventions and Calderini who thinks the unique feature of the
_Aethiopica_ is its rich philosophical coloring. [122] All would agree on
marked influence in Heliodorus of Neo-Pythagoreanism and the teachings
of Apollonius of Tyana as recorded by Philostratus. [123] Maillon in his
preface gives this discriminating summary of his own position towards
Heliodorus’ philosophical interests. He says that the Pantheon of
Heliodorus does not contain many deities. He refers to the gods under
the Neo-Pythagorean name of οἱ κρείττονες. Calasiris whose role is most
important may well represent the author’s state of mind. This priest of
Isis practices a large eclecticism. He goes to Delphi and divides his
time between the service of the temple and theological discussion. He
worships especially one god, Apollo of Delphi, Helios of Emesa. Apollo
directs the drama of his story, Helios crowns it in Ethiopia. One sees
in Heliodorus the intention of simplifying and unifying mythology and of
bringing back religion to its eastern and Egyptian origins. Instead of
wishing to discredit pagan stories, he treats them philosophically to
make them acceptable to an age which was becoming emancipated and more
severe and to a new faith which wished to reconcile the philosophical
tradition and the sense of the divine and the mysterious.

Neo-Pythagoreanism was a curious attempt to found a religion which would
satisfy both the critical spirit and the people. At the beginning of the
third century appeared _The Life of Apollonius of Tyana_, a magician and
a disciple of Pythagoras. Philostratus takes his hero to the Orient,
Ethiopia, Greece, Rome. He writes a real romance. And that of Heliodorus
recalls it often. Both authors show the same admiration for the
Gymnosophists, the same distinction between magic and theurgy. Both
Apollonius and Calasiris are opposed to impure sacrifices. The story of
the magical Pantarbè jewel appears in both Philostratus and Heliodorus.
Calasiris like Apollonius is a model of Pythagorean asceticism.
Apollonius defends himself about working miracles and lets a doubt
appear about his theurgic powers. Calasiris shows in daily life a common
wisdom and reserves for exceptional cases an appeal to great demons.

In the _Aethiopica_ dreams play a more important role than the demons.
Communications with the invisible world are constant, but only
exceptional human beings who have had long experience in divine matters
and a life mortified and purified by expiation know the mysteries of the
invisible world.

This paraphrase of Maillon’s paragraphs shows how completely logical is
the conclusion of the romance where the noble Gymnosophist Sisimithres
persuades the king of the Ethiopians and his people to renounce human
sacrifice and accept the divine blessing on the loves of Theagenes and
Chariclea.

“At length Hydaspes said to Sisimithres, ‘O sage! What are we to do?
To defraud the gods of their victims is not pious; to sacrifice those
who appear to be preserved and restored by their providence is
impious. It needs that some expedient be found out. ’

Sisimithres, speaking, not in the Grecian, but in the Ethiopian
tongue, so as to be heard by the greatest part of the assembly,
replied: ‘O king! The wisest among men, as it appears, often have the
understanding clouded through excess of joy, else, before this time,
you would have discovered that the gods regard not with favour the
sacrifice which you have been preparing for them. First they, from the
very altar, declared the all-blessed Chariclea to be your daughter;
next they brought her foster-father most wonderfully from the midst of
Greece to this spot; they struck panic and terror into the horses and
oxen which were being prepared for sacrifice, indicating, perhaps, by
that event, that those whom custom considered as the more perfect and
fitting victims were to be rejected. Now, as the consummation of all
good, as the perfection of the piece, they show this Grecian youth to
be the betrothed husband of the maiden. Let us give credence to these
proofs of the divine and wonder-working will; let us be fellow workers
with this will; let us have recourse to holier offerings; let us
abolish, for ever, these detested human sacrifices. ’”[124]

A few words must be said on the style of Heliodorus. It is predominantly
literary, but extremely varied. He uses Homer almost as much as Chariton
does. His adaptation of Homeric episodes has already been
described. [125] A discussion of Homer and his parentage between
Calasiris and Cnemon is introduced in the style of the rhetorical
schools. [126] Descriptions as well as episodes owe much to Homeric
coloring, witness the epiphany of Odysseus. [127] But above all the
language itself is almost as rich in quotations from Homer as is
Chariton’s.

Often reminiscent phraseology betrays quotations in solution. Frequently
too very famous phrases are quoted directly. Calasiris greets Nausicles
with that best of all wishes: “May the gods give you your heart’s
desire! ” Nausicles reminds Calasiris that the gifts of the gods are not
to be despised. The maid Cybele assures Arsace that soon Theagenes will
desert Chariclea for her, exchanging bronze for gold. [128] Emotional
crises are described or expressed in Homer’s words. Arsace’s
sleeplessness has the same manifestations as Achilles. Cnemon upbraids
Chariclea for her pessimism about Theagenes’ fate in the words of
Agamemnon to Chalchas. And Chariclea when she is questioned by
physicians as to the cause of her illness only keeps repeating:
“Achilles, Peleus’ son, noblest of Greeks! ” as though only the
apostrophe uttered by Patroclus could describe her dear Theagenes. [129]
These are but a few illustrations of Heliodorus’ constant use of Homeric
diction.

No less did he use the language of the theater. [130] We have already
seen how much his plot owes to the structure of Greek tragedy. From
drama he took also a vocabulary of pungent metaphors to describe the
progress of events in his story. Repeatedly the action is referred to as
a tragedy. [131] And certain scenes by their wording imply a recognition,
a _deus ex machina_, a prologue and a change from tragedy to comedy.
These may, as Calderini suggests, be reminiscences of contemporary plays
now lost, which readers of the time would recognize. [132] Certainly
structure and language of the romance attest Heliodorus’ deep interest
in the theater.

The third striking element in the diction of Heliodorus is the
rhetorical. He often uses all the artifices taught in the schools:
alliterations, antitheses, set phrases. He loves the grand style. A
speech, even one uttered by his charming heroine, is an opportunity for
pomposity. He uses in excess that fine writing for descriptive passages
which the schools taught and he scatters throughout his narrative pithy
truisms or _sententiae_ which were part of the capital of the
rhetorician.

But these lapses into over-refined phrases, laborious symmetry and
decorative rhetoric are less of a barrier to a modern reader than is his
syntax. His sentence structure in general is not paratactic as is so
much of Chariton and of Xenophon, but complex. Moreover these complex
sentences are often exceedingly long with a kind of agglutinative
accumulation of participial constructions that demands re-reading for
comprehension. Yet he can be simple and pellucid in rapid narrative and
emotional crises as the final Book shows. And it is just because much of
his narrative is so exciting that we fall into resentful criticism when
Homer nods in dull drowsiness. [133]

Although we cannot date the _Aethiopica_ more exactly than somewhere in
the third century (probably in the first half), the romance reflects in
general the life of the times in which Heliodorus lived. The east daubs
its brilliant colors upon the story as the power of oriental rulers
impinges on the life of the Greeks. The absolutism of the Great King of
Persia is the model for minor courts of viceroys and their queens who
demand of their subjects and captives the obeisance that they must
render to their Super-Ruler. Military officers and eunuchs are the
descending steps in this hierarchy of tyranny.

Adventures center in war and travel. Cities and tribes revolt. Heroes
must display military virtues. Merchants, priests and women travel
widely, braving the dangers of storms at sea and of attacks by pirates.
Women have found a new freedom and are leaders in courage and endurance
as the story of Chariclea shows. Women take part in banquets and
religious ceremonies as well as in adventures. Romantic friendship
between men and admiration of young men’s beauty are a counterpart of
the famous relation between Hadrian and Antinous. Slaves and captives
may become court favorites or be subjected to indignities, imprisonment,
torture.
The times are characterized too by an eager search for the new, the
unfamiliar, by scientific curiosity, by an interest in art. So
descriptions of strange countries and peoples, accounts of strange
adventures and sights are part of the novelist’s stock in trade. He
describes vividly the island city in the Nile’s delta, its water-ways
through the reeds, its cave refuge with its secret entrance; or he gives
a technical account of the engineering processes by which a city is
besieged by threat of inundation; or he pictures such a curiosity in the
animal world as a giraffe. Works of art are featured with admiring care:
Theagenes’ embroidered robe and its clasp, Chariclea’s robe and its
girdle, the amethyst ring with its carved scene, the painting of Perseus
and Andromeda, nude, shining, chained to the rock.

And part of the picture of the times centers in man’s quest for new
values for life itself. Ethical standards for conduct are weighed and
emphasized in contrasts between Greeks and barbarians. Aspiration
towards the higher life is portrayed in the worship of the gods and its
ceremonials and in the philosophical discussions in which the priests
take part. The Gymnosophists and Calasiris share a large humanity.

The primary interests of the romance, however, far outweighing its
philosophy and its adventures, is love. Once more two enchanting young
people meet at a festival of a god, fall in love at first sight, plight
their troth, accompany each other through world-wide adventures,
preserve their faith and their chastity and for their piety are at last
united in perfect happiness. Theagenes and Chariclea join Chaereas and
Callirhoe, Habrocomes and Anthia, Clitophon and Leucippe, Daphnis and
Chloe in the undying annals of true love. And the reader closes
Heliodorus’ novel with Cnemon’s comment:

“I am at feud with Homer, father, for saying that love, as well as
everything else, brings satiety in the end; for my part I am never
tired either of feeling it myself, or hearing of its influence on
others; and lives there the man of so iron and adamantine an heart, as
not to be enchanted with listening to the loves of Theagenes and
Chariclea, though the story were to last a year? ”[134]




V
THE ADVENTURES OF LEUCIPPE AND CLITOPHON
_BY ACHILLES TATIUS_


“Every romance,” says Aristide Calderini in writing of the Greek novels,
“represents successively a new advance or a new type in its genre. Now
the closest affiliation is with history, now with pastoral poetry, now
with philosophy. While certain common elements persist, the general
pattern of the whole changes; often the content is varied; often the
limits. ”[135]

The variation within this new form of literature is richly illustrated
by the novel we are now to study, the one which was probably written
last of the extant Greek Romances as Chariton’s was the first. This is
_The Adventures of Leucippe and Clitophon_ of Achilles Tatius.

We know little of the author. Suidas, the lexicographer of the tenth
century, wrote his brief biography:

“Achilles Statius” (note the incorrect form of the name ‘Tatius’) “of
Alexandria: the writer of the story of Leucippe and Clitophon, as well
as other episodes of love, in eight books. He finally became a
Christian and a bishop. He also wrote a treatise on the sphere, and
works on etymology, and a mixed narration telling of many great and
marvellous men. His novel is in all respects like that of the other
writers of love-romances. ”[136]

Now though Suidas used earlier material and essayed accuracy, two
statements in this biography are manifestly incorrect. There is nothing
whatever in the romance to indicate that Tatius was ever a Christian and
the story about his conversion and bishopric probably duplicates the
similar tradition about his predecessor, Heliodorus, who was identified
with a bishop of Tricca who bore his name. Moreover Tatius’ novel is
very different in many particulars from all the romances which are now
known. And it is these contrasts rather than the similarities which make
him in our studies so excellent a foil for Chariton.

The date of about A. D. 300 is probably right for the novel because the
author seems to imitate the style of certain romancers of the third
century and because a recently discovered papyrus fragment[137] shows
that for palaeographical reasons this earliest manuscript could not have
been written later than the first half of the fourth century. This
evidence about the lateness of Achilles Tatius we shall find borne out
by a deterioration in style from Chariton’s simplicity to an
over-elaboration and exaggeration and a change in spirit from sincerity
to ironic parody. [138]

One important reason for knowing Achilles Tatius is “his contributions
to Elizabethan prose fiction and, through this, to the making of the
modern novel. ”[139] The first Greek text was not published until 1601
but before this he was made known to the sixteenth century by
translations in Latin, Italian and French. And in 1597 the first English
translation, that of William Burton, appeared. Todd succinctly states
his resulting influence:

“With Heliodorus, though in less measure, he furnished structure and
material for Sidney’s Arcadia, and thus was among the influences that
formed the novels of Richardson and Walter Scott; of Greene, as Dr. S.
L. Wolff puts it, he was the ‘first and latest love’; in Lyly himself,
and not only in him, we recognize Tatius as one of the sources of
English Euphuism. ”[140]

My plan in taking up Achilles Tatius is first to analyze briefly his
plot and then summarize its similarities to _Chaereas and Callirhoe_ and
the other Greek novels. Then I shall discuss more in detail the unique
features in Tatius and his special characteristics.

An epigram in the Palatine Anthology, attributed to Photius, patriarch
of Constantinople, but by some to Leon the philosopher gives a bird’s
eye view of the story. [141]

“The story of Clitophon reveals to the eyes, as it were, a bitter love
but a virtuous life. The very virtuous life of Leucippe puts all in
ecstasy, (for the story tells) how she was beaten and shorn of her
hair and clothed pitiably, and—the greatest point—having died three
times she endured to the end. And if you too wish to be virtuous,
friend, do not consider the side issues of the plot, but learn first
the outcome of the story, for it joins in marriage those who love
sanely. ”

For the expansion of this epitome it is necessary to have before us a
list of the many characters in the romance.

Chief characters:

_Clitophon_, a Greek of Tyre, son of Hippias
_Leucippe_, daughter of Sostratus of Byzantium, the uncle of Clitophon
_Clinias_ of Sidon, cousin of Clitophon
_Chaereas_ of Pharos, a fisherman
_Melitte_, a woman of Ephesus
_Thersander_, the husband of Melitte
_Callisthenes_ of Byzantium
_Calligone_, the half-sister of Clitophon

Minor characters:

_Sostratus_, of Byzantium, father of Leucippe
_Panthea_, his wife
_Hippias_, a Tyrian, father of Clitophon and Calligone
_Charicles_, the _amicus_ of Clinias
_Menelaus_, an Egyptian
_Sosthenes_, the bailiff of Thersander
_Satyrus_, a slave of Clitophon
_Clio_, Leucippe’s chambermaid, in love with Satyrus
_Charmides_, an Egyptian general
_Gorgias_, an Egyptian soldier

For the plot I condense Phillimore’s well-written summary. [142] The
author begins with a description of Sidon. He has reached Sidon in his
travels and is touring the city, looking at the temples. He describes a
painting of Zeus and Europa, also a statue of Eros. He was reflecting on
the Eros: “Think of such a brat being lord of earth and sea! ” When a
young man near testifies to Eros’ power which he has felt, the author
invites him to tell his story. In a Platonic scene under a plane-tree
near a stream they sit down.

The stranger, Clitophon, a Greek of Tyre, tells his story in the first
person. Clitophon has been unwillingly betrothed at nineteen to his
half-sister, Calligone. Now his uncle, Sostratus, writes that he is
sending his daughter Leucippe and her mother from their home in
Byzantium to Tyre for safety during a war. Clitophon at once falls in
love with Leucippe. He makes his cousin, Clinias, his confidant. Clinias
is sympathetic because he had a tragic love affair with a youth who was
killed by a fall from a horse which Clinias gave him. (Here is
introduced a purple patch on the driving accident. )

Encouraged by Clinias, Clitophon makes love constantly. Various scenes
of his wooing, for example a garden, are described in detail. Finally
the lovers elope, find a ship at Berytus, embark and start to
Alexandria. They meet an Egyptian fellow-passenger, Menelaus. There
comes a great storm. Hero and heroine are cast on shore at Pelusium near
the temple of Zeus Casius. Enter black brigands. Soldiers rescue
Clitophon, but Leucippe is kidnapped. Clitophon joins in an attempt to
save her, but it is baulked by a deep, impassable canal between the
rescuing party and the ten thousand brigands. Across it Clitophon
watches the bandits perform a human sacrifice by disembowelling the
victim before an altar. It is Leucippe. The body is put in a coffin.

The next day the canal is diked and crossed. Clitophon resolves to die
on Leucippe’s body, but suddenly he meets his slave Satyrus and
Menelaus, both saved from the wreck, who assure him that Leucippe is
alive. On the coffin being opened, she comes out—“Gashed open and minus
all viscera. ” But the murderers had been deceived by a sheepskin full of
animal entrails attached to her and by a stage sword which never
penetrated her body. Clinias too was saved from the wreck. Now a
punitive expedition under Charmides, the Egyptian, starts, but
unfortunately he falls in love with Leucippe and has a philtre given her
which drives her insane. On her recovery they go to Alexandria. There a
new rival, Chaereas, abducts Leucippe. Clitophon pursues on a ship of
war, but has to endure seeing Leucippe beheaded on the deck of the
enemy’s vessel. Clitophon recovers the head from the sea and gives it
burial.

Six months later Clitophon meets Clinias again. Clinias who had been
home in Sidon reports that “the cruel parent had actually betrothed the
loving cousins” so Clitophon and Leucippe might have married in peace.
Clitophon who naturally believes Leucippe dead is pursued by Melitte, a
lovely, wealthy and amorous widow of Ephesus. He finally yields to her;
they are betrothed in the temple of Isis and are to be married when they
reach Ephesus. On their arrival, Melitte drives Clitophon around her
great estates. There he has the overwhelming surprise of encountering
Leucippe who is working in the garden as a miserable slave. This
difficult situation is made more complicated by the sudden reappearance
of Melitte’s husband, Thersander, who had been falsely reported drowned
at sea. Thersander beats up Clitophon as an adulterer with his wife and
has him imprisoned.

Sosthenes, the bailiff of Thersander, interests his master in Leucippe,
so he tries to seduce her, but unsuccessfully. Clitophon in prison is
told a false story that both Leucippe and Melitte are faithless to him.
Clitophon resolves to denounce Melitte as an accomplice in a plot for
the murder of Leucippe and then to die. He is tried for adultery and
self-confessed murder, but Clinias foils his attempt by telling the
whole truth in court. Sosthenes departs, leaving Leucippe free.
Leucippe’s father, Sostratus, by good fortune arrives in Ephesus on a
sacred embassy just in time to assist his daughter. The trial of
Clitophon is resumed in a long court scene in which finally Thersander
challenges Leucippe and Melitte to tests of chastity by the magic pipes
of Pan and the magic spring of Rhodopis. Both pass the ordeals.
Thersander, since everything is going against him, for his slave,
Sosthenes, has been captured and will be forced to confess the truth,
flees. Sosthenes confesses. Clitophon is acquitted. Leucippe tells her
whole story: how the bandits beheaded another woman dressed in her
clothes to prevent Clitophon from following; how a quarrel over her
arose among them in which Chaereas was slain; then she was sold by the
other pirates to Sosthenes, who bought her for Thersander. Sostratus
then relates the secondary romance of Callisthenes and Calligone. The
novel ends with a happy reunion of all at Tyre where prayers and
sacrifices are offered in behalf of the lasting felicity of Clitophon
and Leucippe, of Callisthenes and Calligone.

Such is the story which Phillimore characterizes as “a breathless
succession of improbable incident. ”[143] The settings move with the same
cinematic rapidity which Chariton employed: from Sidon to Berytus, to
the sea and shipwreck, to Pelusium and Alexandria, to Ephesus and the
great court scene, to Byzantium and back again to Tyre.

In one point particularly the structure of the plot differs from
Chariton’s and indeed from the plots of all the other Greek Romances.
The author in the beginning hands over the story to a narrator, the
hero, Clitophon, who then tells the events in the first person. Very
soon, however, the reader has forgotten this device: so many other
characters are given the floor to relate their own tales. And at the end
the author too has forgotten this beginning, for Clitophon does not
round up his narrative with a polite farewell. He does not even explain
how he happened to be at Sidon where he started the tale. And the author
does not express his appreciation of the entertainment Clitophon has
given him. [144]

The chief interests of the romance are again love, adventure and
religion. There are two love-stories of primary interest instead of one.
Yet the bulk of the plot turns on adventure rather than on sex or
worship. And delight in adventure adds to the typical travellers’ tales
a flaming curiosity which demands description of many strange novelties.

In general the technical devices common to all the romances are used.
There is much conversation. There are many soliloquies. Clitophon
upbraids himself for swerving from Calligone to Leucippe. [145] Later he
bemoans Leucippe’s fate when she has been kidnapped by the blacks. [146]
Leucippe, sold as a slave, laments her whole sad love-story while
lustful Thersander is eavesdropping outside the door. [147] Clitophon, on
hearing in prison the false story that Leucippe has been murdered by
Melitte, voices his horror over her death and over the fact that he had
kissed her slayer. [148] These soliloquies are employed to reveal the
intense feelings of hero and heroine at emotional crises.

Three letters are used. The first is a brief business letter which
serves to develop the plot, for in it Sostratus writes to his brother
Hippias that he is sending his daughter Leucippe and his wife Panthea to
him for safe-keeping until the war between the Byzantines and the
Thracians is over. [149] The other two are love-letters. One is
Leucippe’s to Clitophon telling him that she has been sold as a slave,
begging for ransom money, wishing him happiness in his coming nuptials
with Melitte, and assuring him she is still a virgin. The other is
Clitophon’s answer declaring that he has “imitated her virginity, if
there be any virginity in men,” begging her not to judge him until he
can explain all, but to pity him. [150] Leucippe’s letter is found by
Melitte and helps motivate the plot in its emotional aspects, for it
works Melitte up through jealousy and despair to such passionate ardor
that she persuades Clitophon to sleep one night with her. [151]

Oaths are not important in the structure of the plot. Once Leucippe
swears to her father by Artemis that she has told him a true story about
being still a maid. [152] Dreams are frequent and are significant. Four
are reported which are vital factors in the plot. Clitophon’s father
dreams that while he is conducting the wedding ceremonies of his son and
Calligone the torches are extinguished. This dream leads him to hasten
the marriage so distasteful to Clitophon and it would have been
consummated at once had not Calligone been kidnapped by Callisthenes
under the impression that she was Leucippe. [153] Then Clitophon had
persuaded Leucippe to let him spend the night with her and with the aid
of Satyrus was already in her bedroom. Leucippe’s mother who had just
had a dream that a robber with a naked sword was playing the part of
Jack the Ripper with her daughter, rushed in and interrupted the
amour. [154] Later on, Leucippe and Clitophon on the same night have
similar dreams. A goddess appears and warns each that their love must
not be consummated until the goddess decks the bride and opens her
temple to the bridegroom. This apparition makes them postpone the rites
of Aphrodite. [155] In Book VII Sostratus, Leucippe’s father, sees in a
dream an apparition of Artemis who tells him that he will find Leucippe
and Clitophon in Ephesus. He goes to Ephesus then on a sacred embassy
and finds that Artemis does not lie. [156]

This tendency to a repeated use of the same device for forwarding the
plot is seen in greater extravagance and exaggeration in the use of
apparent deaths. Leucippe is supposed to meet violent death three times,
twice before the eyes of her lover, once in vivid narrative told to him
in prison. First she is sacrificed by brigands by being disembowelled
before an altar. Second she is beheaded on the deck of a ship by black
pirates and her head tossed into the ocean. Third she is murdered by an
assassin hired by Melitte. [157] In the first two cases ghastly details
make the executions seem real, but Leucippe always survives and
reappears with a plausible but exotic story. Surely in this exaggeration
Achilles Tatius is using thinly veiled satire of the device of
improbable reappearances in the Greek romance.

The same exuberance appears in the use of the forensic speeches, of
long, mythological narratives and of wordy descriptions. All these will
be considered in the study of the style of the romance. Two more
technical devices of the plot must be mentioned here: the use of résumés
and the usual happy ending. Book VIII is crowded with résumés: Clitophon
tells all his adventures to Sostratus and the priest of Artemis.
Leucippe relates to Sostratus how the pirates decapitated another woman
in her place. Finally Sostratus relates to his daughter and to Clitophon
the romance of Callisthenes and Calligone. [158] The romances of both
pairs of lovers, Clitophon and Leucippe, Callisthenes and Calligone, are
concluded by happy weddings. And among the leading characters only
Melitte suffers final disappointment. Achilles Tatius ironically grants
her at least one memorable embrace on a prison floor!

The character drawing is much less elaborate than the plot. While plot
and counterplot of the two romances interplay, the young hero Clitophon
and the beautiful Leucippe are more or less conventional figures who
move glamorously, weeping, fainting, dreaming, voyaging, through
preposterous adventures. But Callisthenes, the secondary hero, is far
more interesting than Clitophon because his character shows startling
development. And Melitte, though she plays the part of temptress, is a
great human creation.

In Book II Callisthenes first appears as a wealthy orphan, who is
notoriously dissipated and extravagant. Wishing to marry beauty and
having a strange streak of romanticism he asked Sostratus for the hand
of the beautiful Leucippe although he had never seen her. Rejected by
Sostratus as a suitor because of his bad reputation he plotted vengeance
in his willful and violent way. He journeyed to Tyre, saw Calligone at a
festival, mistook her for Leucippe, fell in love at first sight, hired
some gangsters to kidnap her and sailed off with his prize. [159]
Callisthenes does not reappear until in the end of Book VIII Sostratus
tells the story of his reform. [160] On the voyage Callisthenes found
himself madly in love with Calligone, revealed to her that he was no
pirate but a wealthy Byzantine noble, offered her honorable marriage and
a large dowry, and promised to respect her chastity as long as she
desired. At Byzantium, love transformed him so that he appeared
courteous, virtuous, self-controlled. He showed great respect for his
elders. He was no longer extravagant, but became philanthropic. He gave
large contributions to the state. He trained for military service and
won distinction in actual warfare. In this changed guise he secured
Sostratus as an advocate to persuade Hippias to give him the hand of
Calligone, whose chastity he had scrupulously respected. Eros thus
salvaged Callisthenes and then rewarded him.

Melitte the widow of Ephesus is the most elaborately drawn character in
the romance. There is even a long personal description of her: she is as
beautiful as a statue with skin like milk, cheeks roses, hair thick,
long, golden, and about her the radiance of Aphrodite. Clitophon admits
he saw her with pleasure. Indeed she is so magnetic that the kisses she
was pleased to bestow on him stirred him. [161] She knew what she wanted
and how to get it. During four months she had to woo Clitophon though
she was rich and young and her husband has been lost at sea. Finally
since Clitophon was convinced that Leucippe was really dead, he yielded
and agreed to marry her, though on condition that they should not be
united until they arrived at Ephesus. She was as passionate as Clitophon
was cold. On the ship she made ardent love to him while he begged her to
philosophize on love’s nature. After Clitophon secretly received
Leucippe’s letter, he had to pretend illness to postpone the fulfillment
of her desires. Then Melitte sent for her so-called Thessalian slave
Lacaena (really Leucippe) and begged her to concoct a philtre that would
arouse Clitophon’s feeling. She is very outspoken about the fact that
Clitophon seems made of iron or wood; that indeed she seemed to love a
statue. [162] And she had the ability to express to Clitophon every
feeling she had without inhibition and in most picturesque language. At
her wedding breakfast in Alexandria she punned merrily about the
postponement of their union. “I’ve heard of a cenotaph but never before
of a cenogam. ”[163] The bellying sail on the ship she compared to a
pregnant woman’s body; indeed she converted the whole ship into symbols
of marriage. [164] She also compared herself to thirsty Tantalus standing
by a river but not allowed to drink. She could match Clitophon’s
arguments and his quibbles did not deceive her: “You are playing the
sophist, dearest! ” she commented. When from the discovery of Leucippe’s
letter to Clitophon and her husband’s safe return she knew that she had
lost Clitophon, she visited him secretly in prison and poured out on him
all her wrath and all her passion. Her denunciation of him as eunuch,
hermaphrodite, senile nonentity shifted to adoration; and passion
finally concentrated into so ardent and well argued an appeal for one
embrace that she was victorious. Clitophon admitted ironically that love
had taught her rhetoric and that he was vanquished, so he gave the
remedy to a sick soul and even on the prison floor enjoyed her! [165]

Melitte was no less subtle and plausible in the speech in which she made
her peace with her enraged husband Thersander: Clitophon was only one of
many refugees whom she aided in memory of her husband lost at sea;
indeed she had helped Clitophon to find his wife. [166] When Thersander
challenged her by the ordeal of the water of the Styx, Melitte at once
accepted the test on a quibble because her husband had demanded from her
an oath that she had not fulfilled the rites of Aphrodite with the
stranger _during the time while he himself was abroad_. And it was just
that unfortunate stipulation which makes her last appearance in the
romance unforgettable. She is led out of the water of the Styx by the
judge, proved by indisputable ordeal a chaste woman! Achilles Tatius has
won his readers by this time to rejoice in Melitte’s vindication.