The
_Ephesiaca_
or _Habrocomes and Anthia_ by Xenophon of
Ephesus.
Ephesus.
Elizabeth Haight - Essays on Greek Romances
ESSAYS ON
THE GREEK ROMANCES
BY
ELIZABETH HAZELTON HAIGHT
_Professor Emeritus of Latin, Vassar College_
_NEW YORK_
LONGMANS, GREEN AND CO.
M D CCCC XLIII
HAIGHT
ESSAYS ON THE GREEK ROMANCES
COPYRIGHT · 1943
BY LONGMANS, GREEN AND CO. , INC.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED, INCLUDING THE
RIGHT TO REPRODUCE THIS BOOK, OR
ANY PORTION THEREOF, IN ANY FORM
PUBLISHED SIMULTANEOUSLY IN
THE DOMINION OF CANADA BY
LONGMANS, GREEN AND CO. , TORONTO
FIRST EDITION
PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
_To_
BLANCHE FERRY HOOKER
IN HONOR AND FRIENDSHIP
The Publication
of this book was made possible
by the
J. LEVERETT MOORE RESEARCH FUND
IN CLASSICS
and the
LUCY MAYNARD SALMON FUND
FOR RESEARCH
established at Vassar College
in 1926
_PREFACE_
If all the world loves a lover, as the old proverb says, then this my
book should win wide fame. For these Greek Romances of the first to the
fourth century of our era seem still to be singing the immemorial
refrain from the old spring-time song of “The Vigil of Venus”:
Cras amet qui numquam amavit,
quique amavit cras amet.
“Let those love now, who never lov’d before;
Let those who always lov’d, now love the more. ”
At a time when fiction is the most popular form of literature, these
wonderful old Greek stories of love, adventure and worship are half
forgotten and rarely read except by the scholar. Yet here, as in epic,
lyric, elegy, drama, oratory and history, the Greeks were pioneers. In
the second and third centuries they had created four different types of
romance (of love, of adventure, the pastoral, the satiric) which were to
have great influence on French, Italian and English fiction. The student
of comparative literature, the student of the history of fiction cannot
afford to neglect these pioneer Greek novels.
Their appeal, however, should be just as great for the general reader as
for the scholar. For here are stories that mirror the life of the
Mediterranean world in the Roman Empire with all its new excitements of
travel, piracy, kidnapping, the new feminism, the new religious cults.
And through all the different types of romance except the satiric the
Love-God holds supreme sway over the hearts of men. So human, so
vivacious are the love-stories that I offer to my readers Longus’
assurance of profit in his introduction to his Pastoral Romance:
“I drew up these four books, an oblation to Love and to Pan and to the
Nymphs, and a delightful possession even for all men. For this will
cure him that is sick, and rouse him that is in dumps; one that has
loved, it will remember of it; one that has not, it will instruct. For
there was never any yet that wholly could escape love, and never shall
there be any, never so long as beauty shall be, never so long as eyes
can see. But help me that God to write the passions of others; and
while I write, keep me in my own right wits. ”[1]
My hope in writing on the Greek Romances is that I may lure readers back
to them. My essays aim to be guideposts pointing the way. I venture to
suggest that along with my book readers should peruse at least four
novels of different types for which good translations are available.
These are _Chariton’s Chaereas and Callirhoe_ by Warren E. Blake
(beautiful in English and format) and three volumes of _The Loeb
Classical Library_: _Daphnis and Chloe by Longus_, Lucian’s _True
History_ (in Lucian vol. I) and the Latin novel which combines the
different Greek types into one great synthesis, Apuleius’
_Metamorphoses_. If I can win new readers for these my favorites, my
writing will be as successful as it has been happy!
It is a pleasure once again to express grateful thanks to publishers and
authors who have allowed me to quote material. I am indebted to the
Harvard University Press for its courtesy in allowing me to quote freely
from volumes in _The Loeb Classical Library_; to the Clarendon Press,
Oxford for the use of material from R. M. Rattenbury, “Romance: the
Greek Novel,” in _New Chapters in the History of Greek Literature_,
_Third Series_, from F. A. Todd, _Some Ancient Novels_, from J. S.
Phillimore, “Greek Romances” in _English Literature and the Classics_,
and from _The Works of Lucian of Samosata_ translated by H. W. Fowler
and F. G. Fowler; to Longmans, Green and Co. , for the use of a quotation
from F. G. Allinson, _Lucian Satirist and Artist_; to the University of
Michigan Press for the use of Warren E. Blake’s translation of Chariton;
to the Columbia University Press for permission to quote from S. L.
Wolff’s _The Greek Romances in Elizabethan Prose Fiction_; and for
generous permissions for quotations from Professor M. Rostovtzeff and
Professor B. E. Perry.
My writing has been greatly facilitated by the cooperation of the staff
of the Vassar Library, especially of Miss Fanny Borden, Librarian, who
has provided me with a study in the Library, patiently borrowed many
books from other libraries for me and shown unfailing interest in my
work. A constant stimulus to my writing has been the appreciation of my
colleagues and students expressed in invitations to read different
chapters of this volume to the Classical Journal Club and to the
Classical Society. Finally my profound gratitude is due to the donors of
the funds which made possible the publication of these Essays.
_CONTENTS_
CHAPTER PAGE
I. The Greek Romances and Their Re-dating. 1
II. Chariton’s _Chaereas and Callirhoe_. 14
III. The _Ephesiaca_ or _Habrocomes and Anthia_ by Xenophon of
Ephesus. 38
IV. The _Aethiopica_ of Heliodorus. 61
V. _The Adventures of Leucippe and Clitophon_ by Achilles Tatius. 95
VI. _The Lesbian Pastorals of Daphnis and Chloe_ by Longus. 119
VII. Lucian and his Satiric Romances: the _True History_ and
_Lucius or Ass_. 144
VIII. A Comparison of the Greek Romances and Apuleius’
_Metamorphoses_. 186
Index 203
ESSAYS ON
THE GREEK ROMANCES
I
_THE GREEK ROMANCES AND THEIR RE-DATING_
The term “Greek Romances” is applied to long stories in Greek prose,
written from the end of the first to the beginning of the fourth century
before Christ and later imitated by Byzantine writers. It was one of
these last, Nicetas Eugenianus, who prefixed to his own romance a
prelude of verses which described their content:
“Here read Drusilla’s fate and Charicles’—
Flight, wandering, captures, rescues, roaring seas,
Robbers and prisons, pirates, hunger’s grip;
Dungeons so deep that never sun could dip
His rays at noon-day to their dark recess,
Chained hands and feet; and, greater heaviness,
Pitiful partings. Last the story tells
Marriage, though late, and ends with wedding bells. ”[2]
The subjects listed in these lines are typical of nearly all the novels.
An author selected new names for his hero and heroine and portrayed the
same quest for love and adventure. The young pair always marvellously
handsome fall desperately in love and plight their eternal fidelity in a
sacred oath. Soon they are separated by misadventure or the cruel will
of Fortune and suffer alone every misfortune and temptation, but by
superhuman effort and often by the aid of the gods, they at last emerge
triumphant and chaste and fall in exultation into each other’s arms.
It was just because of this similarity of pattern that it became the
fashion for critics to belittle these melodramas, to emphasize their
similarities, and to disregard their individual characteristics and
enthralling style. Erwin Rohde’s great critical study, _Der griechische
Roman_, was perhaps the first to treat them with the serious
consideration which they deserve. Now Rohde’s theories have to be in
large part rejected because of new discoveries in papyri which have
necessitated the re-dating of the extant novels and adding to their
study fragments of novels hitherto unknown which help establish new
types and give a basis for a new critique.
My own discussion is to be concerned with the novels themselves, their
individual characteristics, their literary qualities, viewed on the
basis of their new dating. For this reason I shall spend little time on
the famous theories of the origins of the Greek Romances and on their
precursors. For my purpose of intensive, literary study it is enough to
present these in outline.
In regard to the origins of the Greek Romances, two special theories
must be mentioned since they have had more vogue than any others. These
are the theories of Erwin Rohde and of Bruno Lavagnini. Erwin Rohde in
_Der griechische Roman_, which first appeared in 1876, recognized two
essential elements in the Greek Romances: stories of love and stories of
travel. He studied the precursors of these two types. He finally
affirmed that the synthesis of the two, the romance, is a direct product
of the rhetorical schools of the Second Sophistry which flourished in
Greece during the Empire. Rohde based his work on the extant romances
and the summaries of Photius (Patriarch of Constantinople, 858-886) and
believing that none of this material antedated the second century of our
era, he constructed his theory that “Greek romance was a product of the
_Zweite Sophistik_, and had no direct connection either with the short
story as represented by the Milesian Tales or with any Greek or
Alexandrian literary form. ”[3] W. Schmid in the third edition of Rohde
(1914) summarized in an Appendix the new discoveries and theories after
Rohde’s death.
I omit a résumé of the work of Huet,[4] Dunlop,[5] Chassang[6] and of
Chauvin,[7] all significant in their times, to present a theory which is
now more striking. In 1921 Bruno Lavagnini in a learned monograph, _Le
Origini del Romanzo Greco_, traced the development of the Greek romance
from local legends of Magna Graecia, Greece proper, the Greek Islands
and Asia Minor. He found support for his theory in the titles of many of
them:
Ἐφεσιακά by Xenophon of Ephesus,
Βαβυλωνιακά by Xenophon of Antioch,
Αἰθιοπικά by Heliodorus,
Κυπριακά by Xenophon of Cyprus,
Ῥοδιακά, Κωακά, Θασιακά by
a Philippus of Amphipolis, which Suidas mentioned. In his study he took
into account the novelle or short stories which Rohde believed had no
influence on the novel, and studied the Μιλησιακά, the short _Love
Romances_ of Parthenius, the fragment of the _Aitia_ of Callimachus,
_Acontius and Cydippe_. He showed that Rohde had entirely neglected the
important influence of the novella in the Greek romance and had been
mistaken in his insistence on the fundamentally different character of
the two. Rohde claimed that the novella was realistic, the romance
idealistic and hence declared that any derivation of the romance from
the novella was impossible. Lavagnini recognized other influences in the
development of the romance, especially those of satire and of the new
comedy, but he maintained that an essential feature was the historical.
He admitted that in the use of his local legends the events are
projected into an ideal and remote past.
The tendency in the new criticism of the Greek Romances, notably in the
work of Aristide Calderini,[8] is not to seek for any one main source
for their “origins,” but rather to consider all possible precursors in
the field of fiction who directly or indirectly influenced them. Their
name is legion and they appear in the fields of both poetry and prose.
For from the earliest times of Greek literature the art of narration was
in use. Epics presented narratives of war in the Iliad, of adventure in
the Odyssey, of love in Apollonius Rhodius. Drama produced narrative
speeches particularly in tragedy in the role of the messenger. Elegiac
poetry developed subjective-erotic stories, based on myths, or history,
or real life, and written in lyric mood in narratives or letters. Idyls
finally portrayed against a pastoral setting the outdoor loves of
shepherds.
In prose, there are full-grown novelettes combining love and adventure
embedded in the Greek historians: Herodotus’ story of Candaules’
wife,[9] the story of Rhampsinitus’ treasure,[10] the story of the love
of Xerxes,[11] the story of Abradatas of Susa and Panthea in Xenophon’s
_Education of Cyrus_ which Whibley calls “the first love-story in
European prose. ”[12] Short stories or novelle in prose are known from
the accounts of the Milesian Tales and from Parthenius’ miniature _Love
Romances_. The Μιλησιακά were written in the second century B. C. , by
Aristides of Miletus and a collection of them was translated into Latin
by Cornelius Sisenna who died 57 B. C. Their character was definite: they
were erotic stories of a lascivious type. Their philosophy of life was
that all men—and women—are sinners, and this belief was embodied in
episodes from every-day life. Their amorality was such that the Parthian
Surena was horrified when in the Parthian War of 53 B. C. , a copy of the
Milesian Tales was found in the pack of a Roman officer. Other short
local tales, for example those of Sybaris and of Ephesus, shared these
characteristics of realism, irony and disillusion.
Parthenius of Nicaea wrote a collection of short _Love Romances_ of a
very different type. This Greek elegiac poet of the Augustan Age wrote
his _Love Romances_ in Greek prose as a storehouse for his friend,
Cornelius Gallus, to draw upon for material for epic or elegiac verse;
and for this reason he put them forth in the briefest and simplest form
possible. Most of them are unfamiliar stories even when they are about
well-known mythological characters. In many the love tales are set
against a background of war. Short as they are, both their subject
matter and style are significant for the development of Greek prose
fiction.
Moreover, the work of the rhetorical schools must be considered among
the forerunners of the novel, both in Greek and Latin. Although we know
now that the Greek Romances were being written before the time of the
New or Second Sophistry which Rohde postulated to be their origin, still
in the Greek Romances as well as in the _Satyricon_ and in Apuleius’
_Metamorphoses_, there are many illustrations of the influence of the
practice cases of the rhetorical schools. A study of the _Controversiae_
in Seneca the Elder and in the pseudo-Quintilian, a study of _The Lives
of the Sophists_ by Philostratus demonstrates that in these school
exercises where “oratory became a theatrical fiction”[13] lay many first
drafts of a new literary genre, the romance. [14]
It is a pity that Erwin Rohde could not have lived to revise himself his
great work on the Greek Romances in the light of the new discoveries
about them. No scholar has yet arisen equipped with his tremendous
erudition and penetrating criticism to succeed him worthily. Perhaps
indeed the time has not yet come to write a new critical history of the
Greek romance, for at any time added discoveries may demand still
further revision of dates and consideration of types. But at this stage
it is essential to review the new discoveries and to try to estimate
their significance. This outline is based on three important summaries:
the introduction by Aristide Calderini to his translation of
Chariton;[15] the “Appendix on the Greek Novel” by Stephen Gaselee in
the edition of _Daphnis and Chloe_ and Parthenius in _The Loeb Classical
Library_;[16] and the chapter on “Romance: the Greek Novel” by R. M.
Rattenbury in _New Chapters in the History of Greek Literature, Third
Series_. [17]
Most spectacular and important of the new discoveries was that of the
fragments of the Ninus Romance, first published in 1893. They were found
on an Egyptian papyrus, on the back of which are written some accounts
of A. D. 101. The writing of the romance is so clear and beautiful that
it is dated by experts as belonging to the first century B. C. As
Rattenbury says: “The Ninus Romance is therefore the only pre-Christian
specimen of its kind; it is indisputably two centuries earlier than the
earliest of the completely extant romances (Charito), and probably as
much earlier than any of the known fragments. ”[18] The remains consist
of two separate fragments with parts of five columns on the first and of
three on the second. Gaselee writes of the content:[19] “in the first
(A) the hero, Ninus, and the heroine (unnamed), deeply in love with one
another, approach each the other’s mother and set forth their love,
asking for a speedy marriage; in the second (B) the young couple seem to
be together at the beginning, but almost immediately Ninus is found
leading an army of his Assyrians, with Greek and Carian allies, against
the Armenian enemy. ”
Fragment A is short enough so that we can read Gaselee’s translation of
it:[20]
Ninus and the maiden were both equally anxious for an immediate
marriage. Neither of them dared to approach their own mothers—Thambe
and Derceia, two sisters, the former Ninus’ mother, the latter the
mother of the girl—but preferred each to address themselves to the
mother of the other: for each felt more confidence towards their aunts
than towards their own parents. So Ninus spoke to Derceia: “Mother,”
said he, “with my oath kept true do I come into thy sight and to the
embrace of my most sweet cousin. This let the gods know first of
all—yes, they do know it, and I will prove it to you now as I speak. I
have travelled over so many lands and been lord over so many nations,
both those subdued by my own spear and those who, as the result of my
father’s might, serve and worship me, that I might have tasted of
every enjoyment to satiety—and, had I done so, perhaps my passion for
my cousin would have been less violent: but now that I have come back
uncorrupted I am worsted by the god of love and by my age; I am, as
thou knowest, in my seventeenth year, and already a year ago have I
been accounted as having come to man’s estate. Up to now I have been
nought but a boy, a child: and if I had had no experience of the power
of Aphrodite, I should have been happy in my firm strength. But now
that I have been taken prisoner—thy daughter’s prisoner, in no
shameful wise, but agreeably to the desires both of thee and her, how
long must I bear refusal?
“That men of this age of mine are ripe for marriage, is clear enough:
how many have kept themselves unspotted until their fifteenth year?
But I am injured by a law, not a written law, but one sanctified by
foolish custom, that among our people virgins generally marry at
fifteen years. Yet what sane man could deny that nature is the best
law for unions such as this? Why, women of fourteen years can
conceive, and some, I vow, even bear children at that age. Then is not
thy daughter to be wed? ‘Let us wait for two years,’ you will say: let
us be patient, mother, but will Fate wait? I am a mortal man and
betrothed to a mortal maid: and I am subject not merely to the common
fortunes of all men—diseases, I mean, and that Fate which often
carries off those who stay quietly at home by their own fire-sides;
but sea-voyages are waiting for me, and wars after wars, and I am not
the one to shew any lack of daring and to employ cowardice to afford
me safety, but I am what you know I am, to avoid vulgar boasting. Let
the fact that I am a king, my strong desire, the unstable and
incalculable future that awaits me, let all these hasten our union,
let the fact that we are each of us only children be provided for and
anticipated, so that if Fate wills us anything amiss, we may at least
leave you some pledge of our affection. Perhaps you will call me
shameless for speaking to you of this: but I should indeed have been
shameless if I had privily approached the maiden, trying to snatch a
secret enjoyment, and satisfying our common passion by the
intermediaries of night or wine, or servants, or tutors: but there is
nothing shameful in me speaking to thee, a mother, about thy
daughter’s marriage that has been so long the object of thy vows, and
asking for what thou hast promised, and beseeching that the prayers
both of our house and of the whole kingdom may not lack fulfilment
beyond the present time. ”
So did he speak to the willing Derceia, and easily compelled her to
come to terms on the matter: and when she had for a while dissembled,
she promised to act as his advocate. Meanwhile although the maiden’s
passion was equally great, yet her speech with Thambe was not equally
ready and free; she had ever lived within the women’s apartments, and
could not so well speak for herself in a fair shew of words: she asked
for an audience—wept, and desired to speak, but ceased as soon as she
had begun. As soon as she had shewn that she was desirous of pleading,
she would open her lips and look up as if about to speak, but could
finally utter nothing: she heaved with broken sobs, her cheeks
reddened in shame at what she must say, and then as she tried to
improvise a beginning, grew pale again: and her fear was something
between alarm and desire and shame as she shrank from the avowal; and
then, as her affections got the mastery of her and her purpose failed,
she kept swaying with inward disturbance between her varying emotions.
But Thambe wiped away her tears with her hands and bade her boldly
speak out whatever she wished to say. But when she could not succeed,
and the maiden was still held back by her sorrow, “This,” cried
Thambe, “I like better than any words thou couldst utter. Blame not my
son at all: he has made no over-bold advance, and he has not come back
from his successes and his victories like a warrior with any mad and
insolent intention against thee: I trust that thou hast not seen any
such intention in his eyes. Is the law about the time of marriage too
tardy for such a happy pair? Truly my son is in all haste to wed: nor
needest thou weep for this that any will try to force thee at all”:
and at the same time with a smile she embraced and kissed her. Yet not
even then could the maiden venture to speak, so great was her fear
(_or_, her joy), but she rested her beating heart against the other’s
bosom, and kissing her more closely still seemed almost ready to speak
freely of her desires through her former tears and her present joy.
The two sisters therefore met together, and Derceia spoke first. “As
to the actual (marriage? ),” said she. . . . ”
In fragment B the seventeen-year-old warrior is found marshalling his
forces, “seventy thousand chosen Assyrian foot and thirty thousand
horse, and a hundred and fifty elephants,” and at the end beginning the
advance at the head of his cavalry:
And stretching out his hands as if (offering sacrifice? ), “This,” he
cried, “is the foundation and crisis of my hopes: from this day I shall
begin some greater career, or I shall fall from the power I now
possess. ”[21]
In this Ninus Romance as we have it, the name of the heroine is not
mentioned, but her mother’s name is Derceia and that is a close variant
of Derceto, the name of the divine mother of Semiramis in the usual
legend. So although the type is different from that of the queen of
Babylon, the character is probably hers. It seems evident that this
early novelist was, then, building his romance around historical
characters. Rattenbury points this out and also shows conclusively that
the characteristics of all the other romances are indisputably present
in this early fragmentary story:[22]
“The impetuous but honest Ninus reappears clearly enough in the
Theagenes of Heliodorus, and the lovesick maiden of unassailable
virtue and almost intolerable modesty might be the heroine of any
Greek romance. ”
Ninus pledges his faith as later heroes take an oath. He like them is
the toy of Eros or Aphrodite. In the extant romances,
“The characters, the treatment, and even the plots are almost
stereotyped; and yet one difference is observable—a tendency to
abandon an ostensibly historical background in favour of a purely
fictitious setting. The relative dates of the authors are by no means
certain, but the fortunate discovery of papyrus fragments of Charito
and Achilles Tatius supports the view, probable on other grounds, that
Charito is to be considered the earliest, and Achilles Tatius the
latest. It is therefore of interest to notice that Charito, though his
hero and heroine are creatures of his imagination, introduces some
historical characters and some historical events; his main story is
fictitious, but he seems to have been at pains to lend it a historical
flavour. Heliodorus, somewhat later, presents a picture of a fairly
definite historical period, but no more; his characters are all
fictitious and there is no historical authority for the sequence of
events which he describes. Achilles Tatius degrades romance from the
realm of princes to the level of the bourgeoisie. His story is frankly
fictitious, and he evidently had no feeling that romance should be
related to history. ”
Rattenbury goes on to illustrate his theory of the change from the
semi-historical to the purely fictitious romance by a study of the
Alexander Romance and the new fragments of other stories. The
pseudo-Callisthenes Alexander Romance in the oldest version extant is
dated about A. D. 300. But papyrus fragments indicate that a large part
of the material in it goes back to a time shortly after Alexander’s
death. From the evidence of our late pseudo-Callisthenes version which
probably followed tradition it would seem that history was treated as
fiction and little attention paid to the love-story of Roxane which
could have furnished such a lively erotic interest. New fragments of
other romances show other great rulers used as heroes. [23] One is the
Egyptian prince, Sesonchosis, called by the Greeks Sesostris.
Mythological characters too become protagonists in romances: Achilles
and Polyxena; the Egyptian Tefnut, daughter of Phre, the sun-god, who
took her adventures in the shape of a cat wandering in the desert of
Ethiopia. Other fragments run true to the general type of the Greek
Romances in manifesting now this, now that characteristic.
The sum total of all the fragments discovered up to date gives
convincing evidence of two important facts: first, the extant Greek
Romances are only a small part of the output of this genre; second, the
dating of all the fragments places them between the end of the first and
the beginning of the fourth century of our era. The Ninus Romance is the
earliest fragment, Chariton’s the earliest complete romance, that of
Achilles Tatius the latest. On this framework a chronological list of
the extant novels arranged on the basis of proved data and the
probabilities of internal evidence and comparisons, shapes like this:
The Greek Romances
_Date_ _Author_ _Title_
I Century B. C. Unknown The Ninus Romance (frag. )
Before A. D.
The _Ephesiaca_ or _Habrocomes and Anthia_ by Xenophon of
Ephesus. 38
IV. The _Aethiopica_ of Heliodorus. 61
V. _The Adventures of Leucippe and Clitophon_ by Achilles Tatius. 95
VI. _The Lesbian Pastorals of Daphnis and Chloe_ by Longus. 119
VII. Lucian and his Satiric Romances: the _True History_ and
_Lucius or Ass_. 144
VIII. A Comparison of the Greek Romances and Apuleius’
_Metamorphoses_. 186
Index 203
ESSAYS ON
THE GREEK ROMANCES
I
_THE GREEK ROMANCES AND THEIR RE-DATING_
The term “Greek Romances” is applied to long stories in Greek prose,
written from the end of the first to the beginning of the fourth century
before Christ and later imitated by Byzantine writers. It was one of
these last, Nicetas Eugenianus, who prefixed to his own romance a
prelude of verses which described their content:
“Here read Drusilla’s fate and Charicles’—
Flight, wandering, captures, rescues, roaring seas,
Robbers and prisons, pirates, hunger’s grip;
Dungeons so deep that never sun could dip
His rays at noon-day to their dark recess,
Chained hands and feet; and, greater heaviness,
Pitiful partings. Last the story tells
Marriage, though late, and ends with wedding bells. ”[2]
The subjects listed in these lines are typical of nearly all the novels.
An author selected new names for his hero and heroine and portrayed the
same quest for love and adventure. The young pair always marvellously
handsome fall desperately in love and plight their eternal fidelity in a
sacred oath. Soon they are separated by misadventure or the cruel will
of Fortune and suffer alone every misfortune and temptation, but by
superhuman effort and often by the aid of the gods, they at last emerge
triumphant and chaste and fall in exultation into each other’s arms.
It was just because of this similarity of pattern that it became the
fashion for critics to belittle these melodramas, to emphasize their
similarities, and to disregard their individual characteristics and
enthralling style. Erwin Rohde’s great critical study, _Der griechische
Roman_, was perhaps the first to treat them with the serious
consideration which they deserve. Now Rohde’s theories have to be in
large part rejected because of new discoveries in papyri which have
necessitated the re-dating of the extant novels and adding to their
study fragments of novels hitherto unknown which help establish new
types and give a basis for a new critique.
My own discussion is to be concerned with the novels themselves, their
individual characteristics, their literary qualities, viewed on the
basis of their new dating. For this reason I shall spend little time on
the famous theories of the origins of the Greek Romances and on their
precursors. For my purpose of intensive, literary study it is enough to
present these in outline.
In regard to the origins of the Greek Romances, two special theories
must be mentioned since they have had more vogue than any others. These
are the theories of Erwin Rohde and of Bruno Lavagnini. Erwin Rohde in
_Der griechische Roman_, which first appeared in 1876, recognized two
essential elements in the Greek Romances: stories of love and stories of
travel. He studied the precursors of these two types. He finally
affirmed that the synthesis of the two, the romance, is a direct product
of the rhetorical schools of the Second Sophistry which flourished in
Greece during the Empire. Rohde based his work on the extant romances
and the summaries of Photius (Patriarch of Constantinople, 858-886) and
believing that none of this material antedated the second century of our
era, he constructed his theory that “Greek romance was a product of the
_Zweite Sophistik_, and had no direct connection either with the short
story as represented by the Milesian Tales or with any Greek or
Alexandrian literary form. ”[3] W. Schmid in the third edition of Rohde
(1914) summarized in an Appendix the new discoveries and theories after
Rohde’s death.
I omit a résumé of the work of Huet,[4] Dunlop,[5] Chassang[6] and of
Chauvin,[7] all significant in their times, to present a theory which is
now more striking. In 1921 Bruno Lavagnini in a learned monograph, _Le
Origini del Romanzo Greco_, traced the development of the Greek romance
from local legends of Magna Graecia, Greece proper, the Greek Islands
and Asia Minor. He found support for his theory in the titles of many of
them:
Ἐφεσιακά by Xenophon of Ephesus,
Βαβυλωνιακά by Xenophon of Antioch,
Αἰθιοπικά by Heliodorus,
Κυπριακά by Xenophon of Cyprus,
Ῥοδιακά, Κωακά, Θασιακά by
a Philippus of Amphipolis, which Suidas mentioned. In his study he took
into account the novelle or short stories which Rohde believed had no
influence on the novel, and studied the Μιλησιακά, the short _Love
Romances_ of Parthenius, the fragment of the _Aitia_ of Callimachus,
_Acontius and Cydippe_. He showed that Rohde had entirely neglected the
important influence of the novella in the Greek romance and had been
mistaken in his insistence on the fundamentally different character of
the two. Rohde claimed that the novella was realistic, the romance
idealistic and hence declared that any derivation of the romance from
the novella was impossible. Lavagnini recognized other influences in the
development of the romance, especially those of satire and of the new
comedy, but he maintained that an essential feature was the historical.
He admitted that in the use of his local legends the events are
projected into an ideal and remote past.
The tendency in the new criticism of the Greek Romances, notably in the
work of Aristide Calderini,[8] is not to seek for any one main source
for their “origins,” but rather to consider all possible precursors in
the field of fiction who directly or indirectly influenced them. Their
name is legion and they appear in the fields of both poetry and prose.
For from the earliest times of Greek literature the art of narration was
in use. Epics presented narratives of war in the Iliad, of adventure in
the Odyssey, of love in Apollonius Rhodius. Drama produced narrative
speeches particularly in tragedy in the role of the messenger. Elegiac
poetry developed subjective-erotic stories, based on myths, or history,
or real life, and written in lyric mood in narratives or letters. Idyls
finally portrayed against a pastoral setting the outdoor loves of
shepherds.
In prose, there are full-grown novelettes combining love and adventure
embedded in the Greek historians: Herodotus’ story of Candaules’
wife,[9] the story of Rhampsinitus’ treasure,[10] the story of the love
of Xerxes,[11] the story of Abradatas of Susa and Panthea in Xenophon’s
_Education of Cyrus_ which Whibley calls “the first love-story in
European prose. ”[12] Short stories or novelle in prose are known from
the accounts of the Milesian Tales and from Parthenius’ miniature _Love
Romances_. The Μιλησιακά were written in the second century B. C. , by
Aristides of Miletus and a collection of them was translated into Latin
by Cornelius Sisenna who died 57 B. C. Their character was definite: they
were erotic stories of a lascivious type. Their philosophy of life was
that all men—and women—are sinners, and this belief was embodied in
episodes from every-day life. Their amorality was such that the Parthian
Surena was horrified when in the Parthian War of 53 B. C. , a copy of the
Milesian Tales was found in the pack of a Roman officer. Other short
local tales, for example those of Sybaris and of Ephesus, shared these
characteristics of realism, irony and disillusion.
Parthenius of Nicaea wrote a collection of short _Love Romances_ of a
very different type. This Greek elegiac poet of the Augustan Age wrote
his _Love Romances_ in Greek prose as a storehouse for his friend,
Cornelius Gallus, to draw upon for material for epic or elegiac verse;
and for this reason he put them forth in the briefest and simplest form
possible. Most of them are unfamiliar stories even when they are about
well-known mythological characters. In many the love tales are set
against a background of war. Short as they are, both their subject
matter and style are significant for the development of Greek prose
fiction.
Moreover, the work of the rhetorical schools must be considered among
the forerunners of the novel, both in Greek and Latin. Although we know
now that the Greek Romances were being written before the time of the
New or Second Sophistry which Rohde postulated to be their origin, still
in the Greek Romances as well as in the _Satyricon_ and in Apuleius’
_Metamorphoses_, there are many illustrations of the influence of the
practice cases of the rhetorical schools. A study of the _Controversiae_
in Seneca the Elder and in the pseudo-Quintilian, a study of _The Lives
of the Sophists_ by Philostratus demonstrates that in these school
exercises where “oratory became a theatrical fiction”[13] lay many first
drafts of a new literary genre, the romance. [14]
It is a pity that Erwin Rohde could not have lived to revise himself his
great work on the Greek Romances in the light of the new discoveries
about them. No scholar has yet arisen equipped with his tremendous
erudition and penetrating criticism to succeed him worthily. Perhaps
indeed the time has not yet come to write a new critical history of the
Greek romance, for at any time added discoveries may demand still
further revision of dates and consideration of types. But at this stage
it is essential to review the new discoveries and to try to estimate
their significance. This outline is based on three important summaries:
the introduction by Aristide Calderini to his translation of
Chariton;[15] the “Appendix on the Greek Novel” by Stephen Gaselee in
the edition of _Daphnis and Chloe_ and Parthenius in _The Loeb Classical
Library_;[16] and the chapter on “Romance: the Greek Novel” by R. M.
Rattenbury in _New Chapters in the History of Greek Literature, Third
Series_. [17]
Most spectacular and important of the new discoveries was that of the
fragments of the Ninus Romance, first published in 1893. They were found
on an Egyptian papyrus, on the back of which are written some accounts
of A. D. 101. The writing of the romance is so clear and beautiful that
it is dated by experts as belonging to the first century B. C. As
Rattenbury says: “The Ninus Romance is therefore the only pre-Christian
specimen of its kind; it is indisputably two centuries earlier than the
earliest of the completely extant romances (Charito), and probably as
much earlier than any of the known fragments. ”[18] The remains consist
of two separate fragments with parts of five columns on the first and of
three on the second. Gaselee writes of the content:[19] “in the first
(A) the hero, Ninus, and the heroine (unnamed), deeply in love with one
another, approach each the other’s mother and set forth their love,
asking for a speedy marriage; in the second (B) the young couple seem to
be together at the beginning, but almost immediately Ninus is found
leading an army of his Assyrians, with Greek and Carian allies, against
the Armenian enemy. ”
Fragment A is short enough so that we can read Gaselee’s translation of
it:[20]
Ninus and the maiden were both equally anxious for an immediate
marriage. Neither of them dared to approach their own mothers—Thambe
and Derceia, two sisters, the former Ninus’ mother, the latter the
mother of the girl—but preferred each to address themselves to the
mother of the other: for each felt more confidence towards their aunts
than towards their own parents. So Ninus spoke to Derceia: “Mother,”
said he, “with my oath kept true do I come into thy sight and to the
embrace of my most sweet cousin. This let the gods know first of
all—yes, they do know it, and I will prove it to you now as I speak. I
have travelled over so many lands and been lord over so many nations,
both those subdued by my own spear and those who, as the result of my
father’s might, serve and worship me, that I might have tasted of
every enjoyment to satiety—and, had I done so, perhaps my passion for
my cousin would have been less violent: but now that I have come back
uncorrupted I am worsted by the god of love and by my age; I am, as
thou knowest, in my seventeenth year, and already a year ago have I
been accounted as having come to man’s estate. Up to now I have been
nought but a boy, a child: and if I had had no experience of the power
of Aphrodite, I should have been happy in my firm strength. But now
that I have been taken prisoner—thy daughter’s prisoner, in no
shameful wise, but agreeably to the desires both of thee and her, how
long must I bear refusal?
“That men of this age of mine are ripe for marriage, is clear enough:
how many have kept themselves unspotted until their fifteenth year?
But I am injured by a law, not a written law, but one sanctified by
foolish custom, that among our people virgins generally marry at
fifteen years. Yet what sane man could deny that nature is the best
law for unions such as this? Why, women of fourteen years can
conceive, and some, I vow, even bear children at that age. Then is not
thy daughter to be wed? ‘Let us wait for two years,’ you will say: let
us be patient, mother, but will Fate wait? I am a mortal man and
betrothed to a mortal maid: and I am subject not merely to the common
fortunes of all men—diseases, I mean, and that Fate which often
carries off those who stay quietly at home by their own fire-sides;
but sea-voyages are waiting for me, and wars after wars, and I am not
the one to shew any lack of daring and to employ cowardice to afford
me safety, but I am what you know I am, to avoid vulgar boasting. Let
the fact that I am a king, my strong desire, the unstable and
incalculable future that awaits me, let all these hasten our union,
let the fact that we are each of us only children be provided for and
anticipated, so that if Fate wills us anything amiss, we may at least
leave you some pledge of our affection. Perhaps you will call me
shameless for speaking to you of this: but I should indeed have been
shameless if I had privily approached the maiden, trying to snatch a
secret enjoyment, and satisfying our common passion by the
intermediaries of night or wine, or servants, or tutors: but there is
nothing shameful in me speaking to thee, a mother, about thy
daughter’s marriage that has been so long the object of thy vows, and
asking for what thou hast promised, and beseeching that the prayers
both of our house and of the whole kingdom may not lack fulfilment
beyond the present time. ”
So did he speak to the willing Derceia, and easily compelled her to
come to terms on the matter: and when she had for a while dissembled,
she promised to act as his advocate. Meanwhile although the maiden’s
passion was equally great, yet her speech with Thambe was not equally
ready and free; she had ever lived within the women’s apartments, and
could not so well speak for herself in a fair shew of words: she asked
for an audience—wept, and desired to speak, but ceased as soon as she
had begun. As soon as she had shewn that she was desirous of pleading,
she would open her lips and look up as if about to speak, but could
finally utter nothing: she heaved with broken sobs, her cheeks
reddened in shame at what she must say, and then as she tried to
improvise a beginning, grew pale again: and her fear was something
between alarm and desire and shame as she shrank from the avowal; and
then, as her affections got the mastery of her and her purpose failed,
she kept swaying with inward disturbance between her varying emotions.
But Thambe wiped away her tears with her hands and bade her boldly
speak out whatever she wished to say. But when she could not succeed,
and the maiden was still held back by her sorrow, “This,” cried
Thambe, “I like better than any words thou couldst utter. Blame not my
son at all: he has made no over-bold advance, and he has not come back
from his successes and his victories like a warrior with any mad and
insolent intention against thee: I trust that thou hast not seen any
such intention in his eyes. Is the law about the time of marriage too
tardy for such a happy pair? Truly my son is in all haste to wed: nor
needest thou weep for this that any will try to force thee at all”:
and at the same time with a smile she embraced and kissed her. Yet not
even then could the maiden venture to speak, so great was her fear
(_or_, her joy), but she rested her beating heart against the other’s
bosom, and kissing her more closely still seemed almost ready to speak
freely of her desires through her former tears and her present joy.
The two sisters therefore met together, and Derceia spoke first. “As
to the actual (marriage? ),” said she. . . . ”
In fragment B the seventeen-year-old warrior is found marshalling his
forces, “seventy thousand chosen Assyrian foot and thirty thousand
horse, and a hundred and fifty elephants,” and at the end beginning the
advance at the head of his cavalry:
And stretching out his hands as if (offering sacrifice? ), “This,” he
cried, “is the foundation and crisis of my hopes: from this day I shall
begin some greater career, or I shall fall from the power I now
possess. ”[21]
In this Ninus Romance as we have it, the name of the heroine is not
mentioned, but her mother’s name is Derceia and that is a close variant
of Derceto, the name of the divine mother of Semiramis in the usual
legend. So although the type is different from that of the queen of
Babylon, the character is probably hers. It seems evident that this
early novelist was, then, building his romance around historical
characters. Rattenbury points this out and also shows conclusively that
the characteristics of all the other romances are indisputably present
in this early fragmentary story:[22]
“The impetuous but honest Ninus reappears clearly enough in the
Theagenes of Heliodorus, and the lovesick maiden of unassailable
virtue and almost intolerable modesty might be the heroine of any
Greek romance. ”
Ninus pledges his faith as later heroes take an oath. He like them is
the toy of Eros or Aphrodite. In the extant romances,
“The characters, the treatment, and even the plots are almost
stereotyped; and yet one difference is observable—a tendency to
abandon an ostensibly historical background in favour of a purely
fictitious setting. The relative dates of the authors are by no means
certain, but the fortunate discovery of papyrus fragments of Charito
and Achilles Tatius supports the view, probable on other grounds, that
Charito is to be considered the earliest, and Achilles Tatius the
latest. It is therefore of interest to notice that Charito, though his
hero and heroine are creatures of his imagination, introduces some
historical characters and some historical events; his main story is
fictitious, but he seems to have been at pains to lend it a historical
flavour. Heliodorus, somewhat later, presents a picture of a fairly
definite historical period, but no more; his characters are all
fictitious and there is no historical authority for the sequence of
events which he describes. Achilles Tatius degrades romance from the
realm of princes to the level of the bourgeoisie. His story is frankly
fictitious, and he evidently had no feeling that romance should be
related to history. ”
Rattenbury goes on to illustrate his theory of the change from the
semi-historical to the purely fictitious romance by a study of the
Alexander Romance and the new fragments of other stories. The
pseudo-Callisthenes Alexander Romance in the oldest version extant is
dated about A. D. 300. But papyrus fragments indicate that a large part
of the material in it goes back to a time shortly after Alexander’s
death. From the evidence of our late pseudo-Callisthenes version which
probably followed tradition it would seem that history was treated as
fiction and little attention paid to the love-story of Roxane which
could have furnished such a lively erotic interest. New fragments of
other romances show other great rulers used as heroes. [23] One is the
Egyptian prince, Sesonchosis, called by the Greeks Sesostris.
Mythological characters too become protagonists in romances: Achilles
and Polyxena; the Egyptian Tefnut, daughter of Phre, the sun-god, who
took her adventures in the shape of a cat wandering in the desert of
Ethiopia. Other fragments run true to the general type of the Greek
Romances in manifesting now this, now that characteristic.
The sum total of all the fragments discovered up to date gives
convincing evidence of two important facts: first, the extant Greek
Romances are only a small part of the output of this genre; second, the
dating of all the fragments places them between the end of the first and
the beginning of the fourth century of our era. The Ninus Romance is the
earliest fragment, Chariton’s the earliest complete romance, that of
Achilles Tatius the latest. On this framework a chronological list of
the extant novels arranged on the basis of proved data and the
probabilities of internal evidence and comparisons, shapes like this:
The Greek Romances
_Date_ _Author_ _Title_
I Century B. C. Unknown The Ninus Romance (frag. )
Before A. D. 150 Chariton of Chaereas and Callirhoe
Aphrodisias
II Century A. D. Lucian of Samosata A True History Lucius or
Ass (an epitome of the
lost _Metamorphoses_)
II-III Centuries Xenophon of Ephesus Ephesiaca, Habrocomes and
A. D. Anthia
II-III Centuries Heliodorus of Emesa Aethiopica, Theagenes and
A. D. Chariclea
II-III Centuries Longus Daphnis and Chloe
A. D.
About A. D. 300 Achilles Tatius of Clitophon and Leucippe
Alexandria
_Byzantine_
XII Century A. D. Eustathius Hysmine and Hysminias
XII Century A. D. Nicetas Eugenianus Charicles and Drusilla
(verse)
XII Century A. D. Theodorus Prodromus Dosicles and Rhodanthe
(verse)
XII Century A. D. Constantine Aristander and Callithea
Manasses (verse)
Also known by translation or abstract
II-III Centuries Unknown Apollonius of Tyre (Latin
A. D. translation)
II-III Centuries Iamblichus, a Babyloniaca, Rhodanes and
A. D. Syrian Sinonis (abstract in
Photius)
II-III Centuries Antonius Diogenes The Wonderful Things
A. D. beyond Thule (abstract
in Photius)
Not before A. D. pseudo-Callisthenes Alexander Romance
300
It is to be observed that from internal evidence Xenophon of Ephesus
probably came before Heliodorus. Longus is _sui generis_, and so stands
apart from the typical genre of the novels; in fact is a unique specimen
of another type, the pastoral romance.
The new discoveries from the papyri with the consequent re-dating of all
known material has given a strong impetus to new study of Greek
Romances; new editions of text with translation are being brought out by
English, French, Italian and American scholars. [24] The introductions to
some of these editions, especially those of Calderini and Dalmeyda, are
the first distinguished literary work in the field since Rohde with the
exception of Samuel Lee Wolff’s monograph on _The Greek Romances in
Elizabethan Prose Fiction_, New York, 1912.
The time has now come for a literary study in English which will make
available foreign criticism and present perhaps some new ideas. I plan
to discuss in successive chapters Chariton, Xenophon of Ephesus,
Heliodorus, Achilles Tatius and Longus, and to suggest something of
their influence. Then I shall take up the Λούκιος ἢ ὄνος attributed to
Lucian and his _True History_ and finally I shall show the synthesis of
the novel of adventure and the true Greek romance of love in the great
Latin novel, Apuleius’ _Metamorphoses_.
II
_CHARITON’S_ CHAEREAS AND CALLIRHOE
There are two reasons for beginning a perusal of the Greek Romances with
Chariton’s _Chaereas and Callirhoe_. It is “the earliest Greek romance
of which the text has been completely preserved. ” It is “a lively tale
of adventure in which a nobly born heroine is kidnapped across the sea
from Syracuse to Asia Minor, where her beauty causes many complications
and she is finally rescued by her dashing lover. ” I quote from Warren E.
Blake whose publication of the Greek text and a literary translation of
it are a monument to American scholarship.
The date of the manuscript of this novel has been proved to be not later
than the middle of the second century A. D. , by the recent discoveries of
papyrus fragments of it. [25] Warren Blake comments on the significance
of these discoveries:[26]
“In view of the complete absence in ancient literature of any certain
allusion to Chariton, he was long supposed to be the latest of the
authors of Greek romance, and was dated, purely by conjecture, about
500 A. D. But by a turn of fortune as truly remarkable as any
attributed by Chariton himself to that fickle goddess, three scraps of
his book have been turned up in Egypt during the last forty years. One
of these scraps was found in company with some business documents
which date from about the end of the second century of our era.
Inasmuch as the place of discovery was a small country town to which
new works of literature would not likely penetrate immediately on
publication, and since in any case an expensive book is almost sure to
be preserved longer than day-by-day business papers, we seem quite
justified in setting the date of publication back some twenty-five or
even fifty years. Thus it is probable that this novel was written at
least as early as the middle of the second century, only about one
hundred years later than most of the books of the New Testament. ”
The identity of the author is made known by the first sentence: “I am
Chariton of Aphrodisia, secretary to the advocate Athenagoras. ”
Aphrodisia was a town in Caria in southern Asia Minor. Its locality
helps little in expanding the autobiography of the author out of this
one crisp sentence. But the romance itself reveals more of his
personality. His fondness for court-room scenes and his elaborate
descriptions of them are what we would expect from a secretary to a
ῥήτωρ or advocate. His learning is evident from his many literary and
mythological references. And occasionally he steps out of the role of
the impersonal narrator into his own character and speaks in the first
person to his reader. We will come to feel rather sure of his interests
and tastes as we read his πάθος ἐρωτικόν.
Before proceeding to outline the plot of the eight books of this
romance, it will be well to clarify the story by presenting a list of
the characters.
