Novel typologies of the Imperial period

Disclaimer

The article below was originally written as an undergraduate assignment for the Greek Open University in 2006, when the author’s academic skills were still developing. Although it does not match the quality of later examples of the same author’s work, it is written thoroughly and contains useful information for students and other readers with non-specialised knowledge; therefore, it has been proudly included on this website.

The reader needs to be warned that the original assignment, on which this article was based, was written in Greek and intended for specialised academics. Despite the author’s best intentions to present his essay clearly, some points and arguments might still be lost in translation. The author recommends that readers consult the web for additional information on any unfamiliar words or specialised vocabulary.

The author admits that the bibliography for this article is limited, as required for an undergraduate assignment of this level. He did not include any additional bibliography during the translation of his work into English due to time and access limitations. It must also be noted that the original bibliography for this article was studied from translated copies in Greek; therefore, the page numbers suggested in the citations below match the page numbers of the translated copies and not the original volumes.

Introduction

This brief article discusses the typologies of Greek novels during the Imperial period. The study compares three characteristic examples written between the 2nd and 4th centuries AD: Chaereas and Callirhoe by Chariton of Aphrodisias, who probably lived between the late 1st and early 2nd century AD; Daphnis and Chloe by Longus of Lesbos, who probably lived during the 2nd century AD; and Aethiopica by Heliodorus of Emesa, who either lived in the mid-3rd century or late 4th century AD.

Greek novels of the Imperial period

The Greek novels of the Imperial period are characterised by formalised plot and standardised thematology. The stories focus on the love affairs and adventures of two protagonists, a young man and a young lady. The plot is stereotypical and follows three steps: the union of the young couple, their separation, and their final reunion, which always ends in bliss (Lentakis 2001, 179).

Structurally, the novels of the Imperial period consist of extended prose narration. Although the protagonists are fictional, the stories contain certain elements of plausibility. They are portrayed daily, with standardised or perhaps stereotypical characteristics. As the plot unfolds, they experience extreme emotional fluctuations, driven by love and fear. The descriptions are realistic; however, the time and place of the story are usually far-fetched and fictional (Lentakis 2001, 180-1).

The typology of Chariton

In his novel Chaereas and Callirhoe (8.1.1-15), Chariton of Aphrodisias tells the story of a young couple's love. His protagonists fall in love, then become separated and go through various adventures apart, only to finally reunite and fulfil their destiny. A typological characteristic in Chariton is that the young protagonists appear helpless and are manipulated by their own passions (e.g. Chaereas’ jealousy) or by divine forces. They do not control their own destinies, but the events in the story are determined by the goddesses Aphrodite and Tyche (luck). Both characters are fictional, and the story takes place far back in time, during the 5th century BC; however, Chariton includes some historical information, which is most likely used to increase the plausibility of events and create an illusion that his story is real. In this way, the ancient Syracusan General Hermocrates and King Xerxes II of Persia are incorporated into his story (Stephanopoulos 2002, 336-7).

The recognition scene between the two protagonists (Chariton, Chaereas and Callirhoe, 8.1.8-10) is highly formalised: the couple meets without knowing each other’s identity and, as soon as they recognise each other, they both faint (Stephanopoulos 2002, 340). The reunion of the protagonists is followed by a mutual exchange of stories up until the time they re-met and culminates with their erotic union in bed (Chariton, Chaereas and Callirhoe, 8.1.14-15). Chariton also introduces an innovation that deviates from the norm of Imperial novels. In his story, the protagonist couple is already married before they split up, an element that is noted for the first time in compositions of this period (Stephanopoulos 2002, 336).

The story is narrated in the first person, with the writer directly addressing the reader (Chariton, Chaereas and Callirhoe, 8.1.1). The narration technique recurs through successive recapitulations, a typical structural element of Imperial novels (Stephanopoulos 2002, 337). Chariton’s narrative is formal, with a simple tone and plain descriptions of events and people. For example, to idealise female beauty, he describes the reactions of Chaereas’ soldiers when Callirhoe appears next to him (Chariton, Chaereas and Callirhoe, 8.1.11-12).

The typology of Longus

In the novel Daphnis and Chloe (2.4-7), Longus presents the love story of a young couple set in the bucolic landscape of Lesbos. The novel’s plot deviates from the typical Hellenistic love novels. The couple’s separation and their adventures until their reunion are secondary events. Instead, Longus places greater importance on nature, which shapes the plot as a sequence of events that follow the alteration of the seasons; therefore, as the seasons succeed each other, so does the course of events and the couple’s story, which moves from union to separation and final re-union. In essence, the wandering of the two protagonists is esoteric, and it resembles an initiation ceremony, where young people move from childhood to adulthood, realising that their erotic maturity follows the cycle of the seasons. (Stephanopoulos 2002, 346-7).

As with Chariton, the protagonists in Longus are controlled by a strong external force: the love-god Eros. Both protagonists are fictional, and the only plausible element in the story is chronological. There is a mention of Philetas (Longus, Daphnis and Chloe, 4.5), a known poet from the island of Kos who lived sometime between the second half of the 4th century BC and the beginning of the 3rd century BC. Furthermore, there is a mention of Amaryllis (Longus, Daphnis and Chloe, 4.3), who can be historically attested as one of Theocritus’ love affairs, placed sometime in the early 3rd century BC (Stephanopoulos 2002, 348-9). The major difference between Longus and Chariton is evident in the final scene, where Daphnis and Chloe reunite but do not go to bed together.

Structurally, Longus narrates the story in the third person through a shepherd named Philetas. There are elements of idealisation in the description of the love-god Eros (Longus, Daphnis and Chloe, 5.1-5), but also realistic descriptions, such as the biological symptoms inflicted by erotic emotions: loss of appetite, sleep deprivation, mental instability, strong heartbeats and shivering (Longus, Daphnis and Chloe, 6.4-7).

Longus’ novel belongs to the creations of the Second Sophistic (Lentakis 2001, 181-2), a term coined by Philostratus to describe a literary movement that flourished during the 1st century AD until c. AD 230. The texts of the Second Sophistic are characterised by a rhetorical style and project specific philosophical and theological ideas of the period. For example, Eros and Nature appear in unity and are regarded as the same element (Longus, Daphnis and Chloe, 7.3-4). Eros is the primordial force of creation in the universe and a god that is even older than Cronus, the father of all gods (Longus, Daphnis and Chloe, 5.3). The same idea is also noted in Plato’s Symposium (178b, 195b), which leads Stephanopoulos (2002, 349) to a direct comparison between the Platonic School and the Second Sophistic. However, the idea of Eros as the primordial force of creation is likely much older, dating back to the 7th century BC, as it is first noted in Hesiod’s Theogony (116-25).

The typology of Heliodorus

The novel Aethiopica by Heliodorus (1.1.1-1.2.6) presents the love story of a young couple, Theagenes and Chariclea. The story resembles Chariton’s formalised plot, consisting of the couple’s separation and the various adventures that follow. The two young lovers are indirectly guided by divine force, and goddess Artemis permeates the story. For example, Chariclea, who is a priestess at the goddess’s temple in Delphi, is described as massacring the pirates as a female warrior wearing a laurel wreath and carrying a bow and a quiver full of arrows (Heliodorus, Aethiopica, 1.2.1-1.2.2).

Heliodorus uses the flashback technique, in which the narration of past events is presented through a third-person narrator, the priestess Calasire, who is also one of Chariton’s protagonists (Stephanopoulos 2002, 352-3). The final scene in the Aethiopica resembles Longus, as both couples end up in bed.

Heliodorus employs an elaborate rhetorical style characteristic of the Second Sophistic (Lentakis 2001, 181-2). He carefully manipulates his narrative and changes perspectives according to the person leading the narration each time. In sections 1.1.1-1.2.6, the story is told by the pirates, who arrive at the place of the actual events without knowing what happened before. By adopting this narration style, Heliodorus conveys to the audience the same feelings of curiosity, wonder, and horror as witnessed by the pirates (Stephanopoulos 2002, 352-353). The horrific scenes after the battle (Heliodorus, Aethiopica, 1.2.1-1.2.8) are realistic and reflect the feelings of those who witnessed them. Furthermore, there is a certain element of mystery concerning the future course of events. This element maintains a degree of plausibility in the story despite the fictional characters and the ambiguity regarding its time and place.

As with Chariton, Heliodorus idealises Chariclea’s natural beauty and her moral character (Heliodorus, Aethiopica, 2.2.1-2.2.6). Finally, he employs a combination of idealised and realistic descriptions throughout the text, a style that resembles Longus's rhetoric.

Conclusions and summary

A comparison of the three novels of the Imperial period shows that all writers follow a standardised plot, where a young couple moves from union to separation, to re-union. The stories are fictional despite some elements of plausibility. Their style is formal, and the descriptions of the protagonists are idealised. Despite the standardised content of these novels, there are differences in relation to the structure of their plots. Chariton and Heliodorus follow the typical model of both heroes wandering in various adventures during their time of separation. By contrast, Longus introduces an esoteric state of wondering, which follows the cycle of the seasons. Chariton uses direct first-person descriptions, while Longus and Heliodorus skillfully employ multiple narrators and shift perspectives, offering a rhetorical tone in their works. Furthermore, they introduce a philosophical manner to idealise the deeper meaning of love and devotion. Finally, all three authors do not neglect the importance of divine intervention in the course of the plot; however, the degree and the form (direct or indirect) of this divine intervention differ.

Bibliography

Lentakis, V., 2001, ‘The novel’, in Melista, A. (ed.) Letters 1: Ancient Greek and Byzantine Philology, Volume 2, The Hellenistic and Imperial Periods, Patra: Greek Open University, 179-98.
Lesky, A., 1981, A History of Ancient Greek Literature, fifth edition, translated by A.G. Tsombanaki, Thessaloniki: Kyriakidis Bros. SA.
Stephanopoulos, Th.K., Tsitsiridis, S., Antzouli, L. and Kritseli, G., 2002, Anthology of Ancient Greek Literature, second edition, Athens: OEDB.

Ancient sources

Chariton, Chaereas and Callirhoe
Heliodorus, Aethiopica
Hesiod, Theogony
Longus, Daphnis and Chloe
Plato, Symposium