Xenophon of Ephesus: His Compositional Technique and the Birth of the Novel [Reprint 2012 ed.] 3110143100, 9783110143102

Table of contents :
Preface
I. Preliminary
1. The author and his date
2. Xenophon and his critics
3. Formulae
II. An epitome of the Ephesiaca
III. Xenophon’s compositional technique
IV. Interpretation
V. Formulae and Bearbeiter
1. The epitome – theory
2. The ‘Heliosredaktionstheorie’
VI. Xenophon and Chariton
Appendices
I. The romance of Alexander and Helen and the Greek novel
II. Theme and text
III. Some further scenes
IV. Select index of formulaic expressions
Bibliography and abbreviations
Indices

Citation preview

James Ν. O'Sullivan Xenophon of Ephesus

w

Untersuchungen zur antiken Literatur und Geschichte Herausgegeben von Winfried Bühler, Peter Herrmann und Otto Zwierlein

Band 44

Walter de Gruyter · Berlin · New York 1995

Xenophon of Ephesus His Compositional Technique and The Birth of the Novel by

James N. O'Sullivan

Walter de Gruyter · Berlin · New York

1995

© Gedruckt auf säurefreiem Papier, das die US-ANSI-Norm über Haltbarkeit erfüllt.

Library of Congress Catalogìng-in-Publication Data

O'Sullivan, James N., 1945 — Xenophon of Ephesus : his compositional technique and the birth of the novel / James N. O'Sullivan. p. cm. — (Untersuchungen zur antiken Literatur und Geschichte ; Bd. 44) Includes bibliographical references (p. ) and index. ISBN 3-11-014310-0 (alk. paper) 1. Xenophon, of Ephesus. Ephesiaca. 2. Greek fiction — History and criticism — Theory, etc. 3. Xenophon, of Ephesus—Technique. 4. Oral-formulaic analysis. 5.Oral tradition — Greece. 6. Fiction —Technique. 7. Rhetoric, Ancient. I. Title. II. Series. PA4500.X5088 1995 883'.01 —dc20 94-40953 CIP

Die Deutsche Bibliothek —

CIP-Einheitsaufnahme

O'Sullivan, James N.: Xenophon of Ephesus : his compositional technique and the birth of the novel / by James N. O'Sullivan. — Berlin ; New York : de Gruyter, 1994' (Untersuchungen zur antiken Literatur und Geschichte ; Bd. 44) ISBN 3-11-014310-0 NE: G T

© Copyright 1994 by Walter de Gruyter & Co., D-10785 Berlin Dieses Werk einschließlich aller seiner Teile ist urheberrechtlich geschützt. Jede Verwertung außerhalb der engen Grenzen des Urheberrechtsgesetzes ist ohne Zustimmung des Verlages unzulässig und strafbar. Das gilt insbesondere für Vervielfältigungen, Übersetzungen, Mikroverfilmungen und die Einspeicherung und Verarbeitung in elektronischen Systemen. Printed in Germany Druck: Werner Hildebrand, Berlin Buchbinderische Verarbeitung: Lüderitz & Bauer, Berlin

WALTER AREND KEVIN O'NOLAN MILMAN PARRY

in memoriam

Preface My title with its reference to Xenophon's own compositional technique will doubtless surprise many since it is so widely held that the transmitted text of the Ephesiaca is only an epitome of a much longer original. But the reader who follows me fully will believe at the end that the text we have is composed in a very noteworthy manner that has hitherto scarcely been observed (chapter III below) and is best explained as due to a background of oral story-telling (chapter IV); that it has neither been epitomized (V1) nor extensively interpolated in honour of the Sun-god (V2); that the Ephesiaca, whatever its own relationship to writing, represents the background technique of the novel far more authentically than Chariton and that Xenophon should accordingly be seen as the earlier author (VI; see also I I and n. 48 pp. 169f.). The kernel of the book is a description of Xenophon's technique that will stand even if some or all of the arguments I base on it are set aside. I have also taken care to keep those arguments separate from and independent of one another. For more than a century after the publication of Erwin Rohde's magisterial Der griechische Roman und seine Vorläufer (1876) enquiry into the ancient novel was dominated by the question of its origin. In the past few years a certain despondency has set in and there has been a turning away from this mystery. Lately two Oxford scholars have admonished us against the pursuit of the novel's origins as 'an insoluble and vain enquiry'; 1 the future is to belong largely to theories of narrative and the like. I hope nonetheless that knowing a little more about how the novel came to be and its nature and chronology will not be too great an impediment to modern literary approaches. I use the words 'novel' and 'romance' without distinction, and in particular 'romance' here carries no implication that the Ephesiaca and

E. L. Bowie and S. J. Harrison, "The romance of the novel", JRS 83 (1993) 1 5 9 - 7 8 (172f.)

VIII

Preface

its companions are not novels,2 the earliest examples of what has come to establish itself as the dominant literary form. 3 Historians of prose fiction have tended to give to some arbitrarily chosen development — of which the chameleon novel, always responsive to the Zeitgeist and receptive of modification, has many to show - the status of first invention. The book may be expected to hold something for people working in a number of areas: students of the history of extended prose fiction and those concerned with literature of oral background in various languages and cultures; and it will no doubt be of particular interest to Homeric scholars to have an extensively formulaic work in Greek prose. The old wisdom of the novel as successor to the epic receives a new dimension. I should also like to contribute to a modification of attitude on ancient literary culture. There is a tendency to see things in purely literary terms: if an author has a variant form of a myth or story, he must have it from another author or have invented it himself. But, however justified this approach is in many instances, it is very probable that there was constant interaction between written literature — itself usually read aloud - and oral story-telling and that there was in popular tradition a veritable kaleidoscope of motifs and motif-complexes available to anyone

They satisfy in full, e.g., the definition of the novel in The New Encyclopaedia Britannica (Chicago etc. 51974, repr. 1988; vol. 8 s.v. novel), a definition certainly not made primarily to fit them: 'an invented prose narrative of considerable length and a certain complexity that deals imaginatively with human experience usually through a connected sequence of events involving a group of persons in a specific setting'. See further e.g.: S. L. Wolff, The Greek romances in Elizabethan prose fiction, New York 1912; P. Turner, "Novels, ancient and modern", Novel 2 (1968) 15 - 24; P. G. Walsh, The Roman novel (Cambridge 1970) 224 - 4 3 ; B. P. Reardon, Courants littéraires grecs des 11' et III' siècles après J.-C. (Paris 1971) 332 with η. 53; Α. Heiserman, Ute novel before the novel, Chicago and London 1977; K. Plepelits, Achilleus Tatios. Leukippe und Kleitophon, eing., übers, und eri. von Κ. P. (Stuttgart 1980) 48ff. (esp. 5 3 - 6 , 5 8 - 6 0 ) ; G. Schmeling, Xenophon of Ephesus (Boston 1980) 148ff.; G. N. Sandy, Heliodorus (Boston 1982) 97ff.; T. Hägg, The novel in antiquity (Oxford [Blackwell] 1983) viif., 1 - 5 , 1 9 2 f f . (with bibliography on 249f.); O. Schönberger, Longos. Hirtengeschichten von Daphnis und Chloe. Griechisch und deutsch von O. S. (Darmstadt 4 1989) 45ff.; J. Tatum (ed.), The search for the ancient novel, Baltimore and London 1994 (esp. the essays by D. de Armas Wilson [88-100] and M. A. Doody [117-31]).

Preface

IX

who wanted to draw on it (cf. p. 96 below). 4 The book was conceived in 1977 in the course of work on textual problems in the Ephesiaca. It was written, more or less as it is today, except for the pages on the irenarch and the occasional footnote, in 1978 —80 in Göttingen, where I was supported by the Alexander von Humboldt Stiftung, and in Vandoeuvres at the Fondation Hardt, where chapter VI on Xenophon and Chariton received its final form in the summer of 1980.1 am very conscious of my debt to the Fondation Hardt and particularly to the Humboldt Stiftung, which also provided important assistance in connection with publication. That the book has been allowed to mature in my files for fourteen years is due to a web of circumstance fit more for a life-story than for a preface. But a full-time job as Homeric lexicographer will go some way towards explaining it to all but the most unsympathetically chalcenterous. I am deeply grateful to the friends and colleagues who have given me their help and advice. William Beck, Winfried Bühler and Volker Langholf read the complete typescript and discussed it with me to my profit. In this regard I am also indebted to Hermann Grensemann and Reinhold Merkelbach. After years of intermittent typing of a manuscript no one else could read I was overtaken at the post by the demands of modern publishing. Barbara Schönefeld produced with admirable patience and skill the laser print-out required by the publisher. In this connection I must also thank S. R. van der Mije for help with particular problems of presentation. William Beck took upon him the real pains of proof-reading this book and saved me from many an oversight. My wife, Susan, has not only lived with the book - manuscript, typescript, print-out - for over a decade, but also shared in correcting the proofs. I am very pleased to have a second book in this splendid series and most grateful to its editors, especially to Winfried Bühler: without his

Compare what John Speirs says of oral and written culture in medieval England: 'There was, of course, a long phase of both oral and written traditions, existing side by side. These traditions were certainly not isolated from one another; on the contrary, they drew freely from each other's repertory. Thus tales that were told were made into written tradition and later taken back again into the stream of oral recital and re-shaping' {The Pelican guide to English literature vol. I, ed. Boris Ford [Harmondsworth 1959] 38f.).

χ

Preface

friendly encouragement over the years the birth of 'the birth of the novel' would have been even slower and more painful. I dedicate my book to the memory of three scholars whose work, though not on the Greek novel, provided in large part the foundation of my own. Here I should also like to mention Fr. William Meany who made me aware early in my undergraduate days of the importance of Milman Parry's contribution to the understanding of Homer. Hamburg, September 1994

James N. O'Sullivan

Contents Preface I.

II.

VII

Preliminary 1. The author and his date 2. Xenophon and his critics 3. Formulae

1 1 9 16

An epitome of the Ephesiaca

20

III.

Xenophon's compositional technique

30

IV.

Interpretation

69

V.

VI.

Formulae and Bearbeiter 1. The epitome - theory 2. The 'Heliosredaktionstheorie' Xenophon and Chariton

99 100 139 145

Appendices I.

The romance of Alexander and Helen and the Greek novel

171

Theme and text

174

III.

Some further scenes

177

IV.

Select index of formulaic expressions

179

II.

Bibliography and abbreviations

188

Indices

201

I. Preliminary 1. The author and his date It is very probable that the author of the Ephesiaca was neither Xenophon nor Ephesian. Apart from the novel itself our only source of information about him is a short notice in the Suda going back to the historian Hesychius of Miletus (5th/6th century A.D.): 1 Ξενοφών, Έφέσιος, Ιστορικός. 'Εφεσιακά" εστι δέ ερωτικά βιβλία ι' ττερι Άβροκόμου και Άνθια?· και Περι της ττόλεως Έφεσ'ιων και άλλα. This is sandwiched between notices of two other novelists called Xenophon, Ξενοφών Άντιοχεύς, author of Βαβυλωνιακά, and Ξενοφών Κύπριος, who produced Κυπριακά. The usual view taken is that the name 'Xenophon' was used with some frequency as a pseudonym by authors of έρωτικά, probably to invite comparison in style and / or subject-matter with the famous historian Xenophon of Athens, 2 in whose Cyropaedia the love-story of Pantheia and Abradatas is told; or it might be that the name came to be attached to novels of unknown authorship which were felt to have some affinity to the works of the historian. But there is another possibility, which has nothing, at least directly, to do with Xenophon of Athens. Let us suppose that there was a collection of erotic romances — such as we in fact find in the codex unicus of the Ephesiaca — one of which bore an author's name, say 'Babyloniaca by Xenophon of Antioch', whereas the others, Ephesiaca and Cypriaca, works of a very similar character, were of unknown authorship. If one wanted to provide

Suidae lexicon ed. A. Adler (Leipzig 1928-38, repr. Stuttgart 1967-71) III 495. For a discussion of the points in the Suda entry, with reference to earlier literature, see H. Gartner in RE IX A,2 (1967) 2057-2059. Though my view of the Ephesiaca differs in most respects very widely from Gartner's, it must be said that his RE article on Xenophon von Ephesos (loc.cil. 2055-2089) is in the presentation of relevant material a model of its kind and a blessing to anyone undertaking work on the Ephesiaca. Gartner (n. 1 above) 2058.

2

I. Preliminary

the anonymous works with authors and at the same time distinguish those authors from each other, one could readily do this with the labels 'Xenophon of Ephesus' and 'Xenophon of Cyprus'. The relative frequency of the name 'Xenophon' among novel-writers 3 suggests in itself that the name passed somehow from novelist to novelist and not always directly from Xenophon of Athens to novelist; and the idea of a conspiracy of novelists to take the same name I find unattractive. In any case, anyone drawn to the thesis put forward in chapter IV below will be correspondingly reluctant to see Xenophon of Ephesus in a close context of literary heritage. That 'Xenophon' was Ephesian we find only in the Suda. He shows no very personal knowledge of Ephesus, in which the early part of his novel is set and to which the lovers return at the end, nor does the description of the Artemis-procession in Book I (chap. 2f.) seem to rest on personal observation. It seems that Έφέσιος like Κύπριος in the case of the author of the Κυπριακά, has been extracted by someone from the title of the romance. 4 About the only thing that one can deduce from the novel with fair certainty about Xenophon's provenance is that he did not come from Egypt: otherwise the map of Egypt on which his characters move (see especially Book IV) would not be so bizarre. 5 That this shadowy 'Xenophon of Ephesus' was the author also of a separate work 'On the city of the Ephesians' must be regarded with the utmost scepticism. If περί της πόλεως Έφεσ'ιων is not to be taken as referring — with improbable inaccuracy — to the content of the Ephesiaca and a Περί της πόλεως Έφεσίων really existed, then there is scant likelihood, as will, I hope, become clearer in the course of this book, that its attribution to the author of the Ephesiaca (whom I shall henceforth call simply Xenophon) should be seen as anything but a misattribution. The statement that the romance of Habrocomes and Antheia contained ten books has caused immense trouble and I shall return to it later. 6 Xenophon's name and place of origin are of only very mild interest compared with the question of his date and so of his place in the history

For a possible fourth novelist with the name see Rohde 346 n. 1 (= 31914, 371f. n. 1) and M. D. Reeve, CQ 21 (1971) 531 n. 1. Gartner (n. 1 above) 2058f. H. Henne, 'La géographie de l'Égypte dans Xénophon d'Éphèse', Rev. d'hist. de la philos, et d'hist. gin. de la civil, n.s. 4 (1936) 97ff.; J. Schwartz, ΛC54 (1985) 197-203 (200-203). Pp. 10 and 134f. below.

1. T h e a u t h o r and his date

3

of the novel. It is generally maintained that we have evidence to show that he was post-Augustan and must in fact be dated at least as late as the first half of the second century A.D. The case, which has been set out repeatedly, 7 rests on references in the Ephesiaca to the positions held by two of the characters, the one in Egypt, the other in Cilicia. 8 In my judgement these references fall short of providing the firm chronological footholds that they have usually been regarded as providing. My purpose in what follows here is the limited one of showing that the basis on which Xenophon is generally dated as late as the second century A.D. is not secure and that it does not constitute a fatal obstacle to an earlier dating, if other considerations make an earlier dating seem probable. I shall return to the question of date towards the end of this book, 9 when I have provided reasons for seeing the Ephesiaca as representing the earliest stage of the novel. First to Egypt. At one point in the story the hero, Habrocomes, accused of murder, is brought before τω της Αιγύπτου τότε όίρχοντι (3.12.6); this person is mentioned seven more times, six times as ò όίρχων τη? Αιγύπτου 1 0 and once as τον διοικούντα τήν Αΐγυιττον (4.2.7). This man was — so the general understanding — the Prefect of Egypt, holder of an office created by Augustus in 30 B.C., and so Xenophon must be dated to some time after that. But ό άρχων της ΑΙγύπτου is merely ordinary Greek for 'the ruler of Egypt' without any necessary more specific, technical connotations, and τω της ΑΙγυιττου τότε όίρχοντι, 'the man who ruled Egypt at that time' (3.12.6, the first reference to him), may well be felt even to have something märchenhaft about it, a onceupon-a-timeness. τον διοικούντα (4.2.7) is here synonymous with τον άρχοντα. 1 1 The praefectus Aegypti, who in fact ruled Egypt, was naturally sometimes referred to as ò της Αιγύπτου άρχων (e.g. Dio Cassius 53.29.3), but this cannot be regarded as a technical title specific to him any more than e.g. the words ήγεμών, ηγεμονεύων, also used of

7

8

9 10 11

E.g. Locella's edition (1796) Vlllf.; Peerlkamp's edition (1818) Vf.; Rohde 388f. ( = 3 1914, 416f.)| Haight 40; G ä r t n e r 2086. O t h e r proposed dating criteria (e.g. the use of the older name Μάζακον f o r Καισαρεία) have already been recognized as inconclusive: G ä r t n e r (n. 1 above) 2086f. Pp. 168 - 7 0 below. 4.2.1; 4.2.9; 4.4.1; 4.4.2; 5.3.1; 5.5.2, the case being varied as required. See LSJ s.v. διοικέω I l a and b; the verb carries no necessary implication that its subject is a deputy, subordinate administrator vel sim.

4

I. Preliminary

him, can be confined to the sense 'Prefect of Egypt'. 12 The Romans and their provincial governors had not been heard of when Plato wrote (of a time before even the Persian empire had been founded) είναι μέν γαρ αυτόν ττοιμένα παρά τω τότε Λυδίας άρχοντι ('. . . the then king of Lydia': R. II 359d). 13 This Egyptian ruler, then, does not provide us with firm grounds for dating Xenophon in or later than the reign of Augustus. Since nothing that emerges in the course of this book makes it necessary to put the Ephesiaca much before about 50 A.D., it is clear that this issue is in any case of no decisive importance. Now to Cilicia and the office of irenarch. 14 Perilaus, who at the head of a band of men rescues Antheia from brigands just as they are about to sacrifice her to Ares, is introduced as ò της ειρήνης της έν Κιλικία ιτροεστώς (2.13.3) and later we learn that he άρχειν έχειροτονήθη της ειρήνης της έν Κιλικία (3.9.5). From this it has been inferred that Perilaus was an official of the Roman empire, an irenarch, holder of an office the earliest datable mention of which is in a Carian inscription of 116 or 117 A.D., 15 and that the Ephesiaca was therefore written after that date. This is not conclusive. The kind of argument which assumes that the earliest datable instance of a phenomenon is in fact older than any instance not firmly dated is by its nature insufficient and make-

12

13

14

15

On the various Greek expressions used for the praefectus Aegypti see D. Magie, De Romanorum iuris publici sacrique vocabulis solemnibus in Graecam linguam conversis (Leipzig 1905) 104f.; A. Stein, Die Praefekten von Ägypten in der römischen Kaiserzeit (Bern 1950) 179f.; H.J. Mason, Greek terms for Roman institutions (Toronto 1974) 146. For other uses of όίρχω of royal (vel sim.) power see e.g. the passages referred to in J.E. Powell, A lexicon to Herodotus (Cambridge 1938) s.v. αρχω AI 1 - 3 ; Pl. Cra. 396a, Grg. 470d, Pit. 297e, Ti. 25b; and from later times e.g. Plu. Demetr. 911b, Mor. 174, 181c; Ach. Tat. 1.2.1. I am concerned with the irenarchy here only in so far as it is relevant to the question of Xenophon's date. Those interested in irenarchs in general will find further information in the works cited in the notes. For bibliographical guidance I am much obliged to Prof. Peter Herrmann. See BCH 9 (1885) 347; O. Hirschfeld, Sitzb. Beri. Akad. 1891, 868 n. 119 ( = Kleine Schriften [Berlin 1913] 602 n. 1). On irenarchs in general see Hirschfeld 868ff. (= Kl. Sehr. 602ff.), with n. 22 below; Schultheß, RE Suppl. Ill (1918) 419ff.; C. Daremberg - E. Saglio, Dictionnaire des antiquités grecques et romaines (Paris 1 8 7 7 - 1 9 1 8 ) III 572f.; D. Magie, Roman rule in Asia Minor (Princeton 1950) 647 with n. 46 (pp. 1514f.).

1. The author and his date

5

shift; 16 and the evidence available to us, fragmentary as it is, 17 provides no secure basis for a definite statement that the irenarch, and with him the Ephesiaca, must be dated no earlier than the end of Trajan's reign. 18 Besides, there are some considerations that make it reasonable to suppose — in company with scholars who have had a particular interest in these questions 19 — the existence of irenarchs (officials concentrated in Asia Minor and Egypt) at a much earlier time. Firstly, the Carian inscription itself does not give the impression of referring to a newly instituted office. I give its text in full: 20 Αύτοκράτορι Νέρβα Τραϊανω Άρίστω Κα'ισαρι Σεβαστώ Γερμανικοί Δακικω Παρθικω και τω δήμω τώ Σεβαστοττολειτών Π. Στάτιος Έρμάς άγοραυομήσας και τταραφυλάξας και τειμηθείς ετι τε ύττέρ της στ ρώσε ως της έξξέδδρας της έν τω τετραστύλω τοϋ γυμνασίου τειμαΐ,ς είρηναρχικαϊς, ττάλιν δέ ύττέρ της άναστάσεως της Νείκης έκ τών ίδιων τειμηθεις τειμαις δια νυκτός στρατηγικαις και άττοδοχεύς γενόμενος γ' (= τρίς) (δηναρίων) μυ(ρίων) ασ' και άργυ-

16

17

18

19

20

The historian of antiquity is often forced by the nature of the available evidence to resort to such argument, and to do so is, of course, quite legitimate; but the provisional character of the resulting conclusions must always be kept in mind. It is salutary to think, e.g., of the large chronological gaps in the evidence for the Egyptian άρχκρύλαξ (see F. Oertel, Die Liturgie [Leipzig 1917] 268) and for the δίΛχγμΙτοα (see below). Gärtner (n. 1 above, 2086) expresses the appropriate proviso with regard to the dating of the irenarchy: '. . ., falls nicht das Amt in Wahrheit schon früher eingerichtet wurde, als die Zeugnisse bislang erkennen lassen.' E.g. Hirschfeld (n. 15 above) 868 n. 19 (= Kl. Sehr. 602 n. 1); Schultheß, RE Suppl. III (1918) 419, 421. From L. Robert, Études anatoliennes (Paris 1937) 339 (inscription reproduced as Plate XXV.l) s La Carie II (Paris 1954) 317.

6

I. Preliminary

ροταμίας (δηναρίων) ,δ', καθώς και δια των ψηφισμάτων περιέχει. The word είρηνάρχης/ος does not occur in the inscription. Hermas, something of a collector of offices and honours, was given 'irenarchic honours' for paving part of the colonnade of the local gymnasium. This apparently honorary status, 21 conferred for a service quite unrelated to keeping the peace, and the manner of reference to it naturally presuppose that the office itself was already in existence and well known; and the honour may have been conferred some considerable time before the date of the inscription. Secondly, the impression gained from the inscription is supported by the implication in Aristides, Sacred Tales 4.73 that the irenarchy was an institution of long standing at Smyrna before there was even any hope that Hadriani, the orator's home place, would become a ττόλις, a status granted it in 123 A.D.: παριδών και άτιμάσας ατταντα τα ττεμφθέντα ονόματα (put forward by the people of Hadriani for the irenarchy 22 of 153 A.D.) ττροΰκρινεν (sc. C. Julius Severus, proconsul of Asia 152 — 153 A.D.) αρχειν έμέ, οΰκ ενθυμηθείς . . . δτι τη Σμύρνη προσήκει (•προσήκον Wilamowitz) -πολλοίς ττρότερον χρόνοις, irpìv έκείνοις (sc. the people of Hadriani) γενέσθαι πόλεως ελπίδας. 2 3 Thirdly, the irenarch was closely associated with other, lesser police-

21

22

23

At least the kind of conferment involved here seems very different from the mode of appointment described by Aristides (Sacred Tales 4.71ff., with reference to 153 A.D.) and the office is seen as a desired honour, not as a troublesome λειτουργία. What is in question is the local irenarchy of Hadriani. Hirschfeld (n. 15 above) 870 n.3 (= Kl. Sehr. 604 n. 1) is wrong to take Aristides as implying, against the rest of the evidence, that there was only one irenarch for the whole of Asia: άπάντων in Sacred Tales 4.72 refers only to the ten nominees for the irenarchy of each city. See further C.A. Behr, Aelius Aristides and the Sacred Tales (Amsterdam 1968) 81ff. Whatever the exact wording of the original, the five years between Aristides' birth in 118 and the granting of polis-status to Hadriani in 123 A.D. will hardly accommodate the time-span suggested by πολλοίς πρότερον χρόνοις, πρίν έκείνοις γενέσθαι πόλεως έλπίδας, and there is certainly no hint that the irenarchy was a new institution when Aristides, whose father was already a citizen of Smyrna (see Wilamowitz, Sitzb. Preuss. Akad. [philos.-hist. Klasse] 1925, 334), was born.

1. The author and his date

7

men, the διωγμιται, 24 who were under his command, and we know from an inscription that these 'pursuit police' existed at least as early as the reign of Tiberius.25 They were poorly armed26 and were regularly employed, just like Perilaus' men in Xenophon, to pursue brigands.27 Of the διωγμιται who went out to arrest Polycarp the Martyr in the reign of Antoninus Pius we read έξήλθον διωγμιται και tamis μετά των συνηθώυ αύτοις δττλων, ώς έττΐ ληστών τρέχοντες,28 and with this one should compare the words used earlier, in Luke's Gospel (22.52), of those who arrested Christ when Tiberius was Emperor: ώς έτά ληστήν έξεληλύθατε μετά μαχαιρών και ξύλων.29 Scholars who have concerned themselves specially with διωγμιται and other ancient police forces, without any concern for dating Xenophon, are of the opinion that the διωγμιται 'stammen bereits aus der Organisation der hellenistischen Reiche.' 30 They may be compared with the φυλακιται, the local forces of security police in Ptolemaic Egypt.32 We can be sure that wherever and whenever διωγμιται or comparable policemen were to be found there was someone in charge of them who could properly be described as 6 της ειρήνης ττροεστώς / άρχων.

24

25

26

27

28 29 30 31

32

On διωγμΐται see P. Le Bas and W. H. Waddington, Voyage archéologique en Grèce et en Asie Mineure pendant 1843 et 1844. Pt. 3, Inscriptions (Paris 1870) 992; Fiebiger, RE V 1 (1903) 784; L. Robert, BCH 52 (1928) 409 (further literature ibid. n. 2) and Él. anatol. (n. 20 above) 103 n. 2; Magie (n. 15 above); C. P. Jones, III. Class. Stud. 12 (1987) 179f. CIL III 1416514. See Α. von Domaszewski, RhM 67 (1912) 151f. and Schultheß, RE Suppl. III (1918) 421 (but the διωγμΧται were not horse-soldiers). Ammianus Marcellinus (27.9.6) speaks of them as semiermes and MaTcus Aurelius had to arm them when he put them into action against the Marcomanni (HA, Vita Marci 21.7; see J. Schwendemann, Der historische Wert der Vita Marci bei den Scriptores Historiae Augustae [Heidelberg 1923] 72). E.g. Mart. Polyc. 7.1; Amm. Marc. 27.9.6. See Hirschfeld (n. 15 above) 872f. (= Kl. Sehr. 606f.). Mart. Polyc. 7.1. Cf. Hirschfeld (n. 15 above) 873 ( = Kl. Sehr. 607). So von Domaszewski (n. 25 above) 152; cf. SchultheB (n. 25 above) 421. Cf. Schultheß (n. 25 above) 419. On φνλακίται Kießling, RE XX 1 (1941) 987f.; Hirschfeld, Sitzb. Beri. Akad. 1892, 817 (= Kl. Sehr. 615); also LSJ s.v. φυλακίτης, F. Preisigke, Wörterbuch der griech. Papyrusurkunden III (Berlin 1931) 178f. s.v. φυλακίτης. It is of interest here that the only mention of these police outside Egypt comes from Asia Minor (Phrygia): in an inscription (OGI238) from the reign of Antiochus III of Syria (223—187 B.C.) we find ol tv Tfl irepl "Εριζαν ϋπαρχίφ φυλακιται. Cf. also the παραφυλακίται of Pergamum in Hellenistic times: Magie (n. 15 above) II 1516.

8

I. Preliminary

It is worth while to elaborate a little on this last point. Perilaus is not in fact given the title 'irenarch', bur referred to in words that might apply to anyone, whatever his exact title, who exercised the policing function in which Perilaus appears: 'the man in charge of the peace'. 33 And there were in fact officers with this peace-keeping function in various regions around the eastern Mediterranean in the first century A.D. and earlier. So the security police of Hellenistic Egypt, the φυλακίται mentioned above, were led by άρχιφυλακιται; 3 4 and the Phrygian φυλακίται mentioned in an inscription 35 from the reign of Antiochus III of Syria (223 — 187 B.C.) and the τταραφυλακιται of Hellenistic Pergamum 36 will have had their commanders too, a function perhaps exercised at Pergamum by the τταραφύλαξ, whose duties were very similar to those of the irenarch 37 and brought him into contact with brigands. 38 The most interesting such officer for purposes of comparison with Perilaus is probably the άρχιφύλαξ of the κοινόν of neighbouring Lycia: his office existed at least as early as 43 A.D. and his chief duty was the maintenance of the peace (της τε ειρήνης και τής εΰθυνίας μετά ιτάσης φροντίδος προνοούμενος ΤΑΜ II 905, II Ε 7—9; cf. τη ττερι την ε'ιρήνην έττιμελε'ια IV Ε 8, V Β 14) 3 9 Just as the άρχιφύλαξ was in charge of peace-keeping in Lycia, so Perilaus is represented as having responsibility for the whole of Cilicia, whereas the irenarchs appear always to have been attached to particular towns. 40 The lack of relevant evidence concerning Cilicia itself is doubtless due to chance. The people of Cilicia too will have needed to protect themselves against robbers long before the second century A.D.: Cilicia was in fact particularly notorious in antiquity as a centre of piracy and brigandage, a problem with which

33

34

35 36 37 38 39

40

It is not, of course, the case that the expression Tfjç ειρήνης ¿ίρχειν must presuppose the title είρηνάρχης, but rather that the title was fashioned on the basis of these ordinary words expressing the function in question. Hirschfeld (n. 15 above) 867 (= Kl. Sehr. 600); Kießling (n. 31 above) 987f. s.v. Phylakites; Schultheß, RE Suppl. Ill (1918) 152f. s.v. άρχκρυλακίτης; also Preisigke (n. 31 above) III 96. See n. 32 above. See n. 32 above. Magie (n. 15 above) I 647f., II 1516 n. 47. Magie (n. 15 above) I 648. J. Deininger, Die Provinziallandtage der römischen Kaiserzeit (München u. Berlin 1965) 76. See the literature cited in n. 15 above (with n. 22 above).

2. Xenophon and his critics

9

the Romans had to concern themselves specially in the early decades of the first century B.C. 41 It would seem, then, that the references to Perilaus' policing function are less useful for dating the Ephesiaca than has been believed and that they allow the possibility that it was composed much earlier than the second century A.D.

2. Xenophon and his critics Xenqphon's early editors and critics thought highly, too highly, of him, 42 but the tide of taste soon turned. Already in 1775, less than fifty years after the appearance of the editioprinceps (1726), the German poet Gottfried August Bürger, in the foreword to his translation of the Ephesiaca, felt the need to forestall criticism of his chosen undertaking by voicing himself the harsh judgement of the romance that he felt his likely critics would share: 'Eigentlich sollte ich nun wohl hier mein Original loben. Allein — leider! weiß ich selbst nur zu gut, daß ich viel was Gescheiteres hätte tun können, als ein albernes Romänlein verdeutschen. Dieses brauchte mir also kein Kunstrichter zu sagen . . .'. A hundred years later Erwin Rohde, in dealing with Xenophon in his monumental work Der griechische Roman und seine Vorläufer;43 speaks of 'die Armut dieses wirklich bornierten Kopfes'. 44 Of the many writers

41

42

43 44

See H. J. Ormerod, JRS12 (1922) 35ff. and his Piracy in the ancient world (Liverpool and London 1924) 190 - 2 4 7 (esp. 191ff.); Magie (η. 15 above) 1287ff„ II 1167ff.; R. MacMullen, Enemies of the Roman order (Cambridge, Mass. 1966) 161f. Politian (1489, in Miscellanea chap. 51; see further e.g. Locella's edition pp. VI [with n. 5] and 132f.) thought him 'non insuavior' than Xenophon of Athens; the translators Salvini (1723) and Jourdan (1748) extol him in their prefaces; enthusiastic too were e.g. P. Burmann and I. A. Fabricius (both quoted by Locella p. XI n. 25), the judgement of Fabricius being typical: 'Est sane suavis lectu ac delectabilis hie scriptor: dictio pura, elegans, candida, facilis: narratio pressa, aperta, mirabilis, amoena'. Cocchi (ed. prin. 1726) is more reserved (one senses a note of politely diffident understatement) in his prefatory address to the Earl of Huntingdon, but still in no way unfavourable: 'Est in tenui et simplici argumento et oratione quod huius Xenophontis fortasse probes, et quare non postremum il 1 i locum vel antiquitate, si coniicere hinc fas est, vel ingenio tribuas inter Graecos huiusmodi fabularum scriptores'. Leipzig 1876. 407 ( = 3 1914, 435).

I. Preliminary

10

on the ancient romances since Rohde none but Miss Ε. H. Haight 45 seems to have dissented markedly from his view. The general dissatisfaction with Xenophon's effort at a work of art is well reflected in Gärtner's RE article. 46 In his discussion of the Ephesiaca Rohde remarks at one point 'Stellenweise liest sich diese Erzählung fast wie eine bloße Inhaltsangabe einer Erzählung; fast könnte man auf den Gedanken kommen, gar nicht einen voll entwickelten Roman, sondern nur das Skelett eines Romans, einen Auszug aus einem ursprünglich viel umfangreichern Buche vor sich zu haben'. 47 In a footnote 48 he tells us 'Ich meine dies ganz ernstlich* and goes on to give the grounds for his view that our Ephesiaca may well be only an epitome, 49 noticing prominently the mention in the Suda of ten books as against the five we have. 50 This idea of Rohde's was taken up by K. Bürger, 51 who sought not only to show that the transmitted Ephesiaca is an epitome but also to point out exactly where the epitomator has been at work, and it has bedevilled the study of Xenophon ever since. The weakness of Bürger's case (which subsumes the points made by Rohde) has recently been exposed by Thomas Hägg, but the epitome-theory persists. In his recent Teubner edition 53 A. D. Papanikolaou, according with a suggestion made by Prof. Merkelbach, 54 includes a special apparatus noting (unfortunately not

45

New York 1943, 55. She refers to the Ephesiaca as 'this gem of a novel', a judgement for which she has been rebuked by Prof. Gärtner (2056).

46

2060ff.

47

401 ( = 3 1914, 429).

48

401 n. 1 ( =

49

This view is, of course, inconsistent with the hurling of insults at Xenophon on the basis of the transmitted text. Contradictoriness of this kind has tended to pervade literature on the Ephesiaca ever since the almost universally accepted epitome-theory was proposed (cf. η. 59 below).

50

It is worth noting, however, that Rohde says of the statement in the Suda, 'Auf diese isolierte Aussage wäre freilich wenig Gewicht zu legen, . . .' . Hermes 27 (1892) 3 6 - 6 7 .

51

3

1914, 429 n. 1).

52

Classica et Mediaevalia 27 (1966) 118 — 161. The date on the periodical is misleading: it did not appear until after Gärtner's RE article (1968). Gärtner's full acceptance of the epitome-theory is noted by Hägg (119).

53

Leipzig 1973. It needs urgent replacement. Reeve, in his otherwise excellent review of Papanikolaou's edition (JHS 96 [1976] 1 9 2 - 1 9 3 ) , shares the view that the Ephesiaca is an epitome (193 col. 1).

54

Roman und Mysterium in der Antike (München-Berlin 1962) 91 η. 1.

2. Xenophon and his critics

11

without errors) the places where Bürger saw the hand of an epitomator. Almost all those who have written on the Ephesiaca since Bürger's article appeared have accepted his conclusions, 55 and Prof. Merkelbach has added the complication of a Heliosredaktion which is supposed to have preceded the epitomization. 56 There have been very few doubters, 57 and Hägg is the only one to have given sufficient grounds for his doubts. To Rattenbury it seemed 'more likely that the shortcomings of the Ephesiaca are due to the incompetence of the author rather than to the hand of an epitomizer'. 58 The similar judgement of Prof. Lesky, delivered in his universally used history of Greek literature, is worth quoting: 'Nun zeigt die Komposition des Romans, der die Fülle der Abenteuer recht kunstlos reiht, in manchen Partien eine auffallende Knappheit. So hat Rohdes Vermutung, uns liege ein Auszug vor, manches für sich. Doch ist es bei diesem kümmerlichen Skribenten nicht auszuschließen, daß die genannten Erscheinungen einfach aus seinem geringen Können zu erklären sind'. 59 The Ephesiaca, we are told, may be an epitome, or it may just be the work of a 'wretched scribbler'. In this book I hope to show that it is certainly not an epitome and that the overwhelming probability is that its peculiar character has much less to do with scribbling than it is at first natural to think. Instead of spending one's powers attacking Xenophon it would be better to make a more thorough effort to understand the Ephesiaca. I shall show in chapter III that Xenophon's romance consists largely of

55

56

See the list in Hägg (η. 52 above 119 η. 3). It is a pity that in the recent Cambridge History of Classical Literature I, bound to be much consulted, Bowie (1985) simply presents the epitomization as a fact (pp. 685, 690f.). See pp. 139 - 4 4 below.

57

Doubters, rather than outright disbelievers, apart from Hägg are: Haight 41 ('It seems to me possibly an intentionally short romance written briefly and simply by an author whose taste was akin to that of Chariton and who perhaps was intentionally showing a definite reaction against the verbosity of other novelists', reflecting the common belief that Xenophon came after Chariton); Th. Sinko, Eos 41 (1940 - 4 6 ) 34; R. M. Rattenbury, Gnomon 22 (1950) 75; Q. Cataudella in II romanzo classico (Roma 1958) XI η. 2; Α. Lesky, Geschichte der griechischen Literatur (Bern und München 3 1971) 965.

58

N. 57 above.

59

Ν. 57 above. What Lesky says involves some confusion of thought: if we entertain at all the notion that the features in question may be due to epitomization, and have done nothing to show that they are not, how can we so confidently characterize the original author? (Cf. η. 49 above.)

12

I. Preliminary

repeated themes built up with series of standard theme-elements, which are in turn expressed to a great extent in formulaic language. This is crucial to all criticism of the romance and has a direct bearing on the theories that have been put forward concerning it. It is, then, in place here to show in some detail how little Xenophon's critics, the originators and supporters of those theories, have understood the work with which they were dealing. Nobody who reads the Ephesiaca with the least attention can fail to notice that it contains some formulae. New characters are constantly being introduced as (άνήρ) των τά ττρώτα (εκεί) δυναμένων, 60 people are all the time falling in love in exactly the same words (έρά . . . σφοδρόν έρωτα) or finding their love overwhelming in stereotyped phrases (μηκέτι φέρειν δυνάμενος/η; οΰκέτι καρτερώυ/οϋσα); the frequent voyages are always expressed in the same way (διανύσας/αντες τον -ιτλοΰν), and so on. Some particularly frequent formulaic features of the novel have, then, inevitably been noticed, and the secondary literature regularly contains more or less passing reference to this aspect of it. I shall here document the level of awareness shown in this connection by those who have devoted most attention to such regularities. Rohde (1876), in most respects the inspirer of later approaches and attitudes to Xenophon, wrote of him: 'Im übrigen [i.e. apart from what Rohde saw as 'einzelne wenige fast poetische Wortbildungen' 61 and the few verses in the novel 62 ] darf man nicht befürchten, daß er sich vom dichterischen Taumel leicht über die Ebenen der gewöhnlichsten Prosa emporreißen lasse. Vielmehr ist er froh, mit einigen stets wiederholten durchaus hausbacken prosaischen Redewendungen gerade über die poetisch gehobeneren Stellen seiner Erzählung hinwegschlüpfen zu können; und so zeigt sich die Armut dieses wirklich bornierten Kopfes überhaupt in dem dürftigen Vorrat stereotyper Formeln und Ausdrücke, mit welchen er zumal in den Übergängen von einem Abschnitt der Erzählung zum anderen die Verbindungsbrücke zu schlagen pflegt'. 63 In two footnotes (to '. . . hinwegschlüpfen zu können' and to '. . . zu

60

For the occurrences of this and the other formulae mentioned in this section see the 'Select index of formulaic expressions' at the end of this book (Appendix IV, pp. 179ff. below).

61

Rohde 406 with n. 2 ( = 3 1914, 434 with n. 2).

62

The two oracles (1.6.2; 5.4.11), the epitaph (3.2.13) and a dedication (1.12.2). 407 ( = 3 1914, 435).

63

2. Xenophon and his critics

13

schlagen pflegt') he brings together a small and indiscriminate mixture of what in general might be called regularities: in the first he notices how 'heftige Erregungen des Gemütes' are constantly dealt with by means of a brief expression like ιτολλά άμα έννοών, άναμίξασα ιτάντα, 'έννοια δέ ττάντων αϋτόν είσήρχετο, or κατείχε δ' αυτούς ττολλά άμα ττάθη 64 followed by a catalogue of the moods and passions involved; in this footnote he also remarks how simply Xenophon gets over the circumstances in which lovers fall for Antheia: 'man verliebt sich jedesmal εκ ττολλης της καθ' ήμέραν όψεως, έκ της συνήθους διαίτης, usw.' 65 In the second footnote he cites these phenomena: the constant use of έν τούτω in passing from the fortunes of one character to those of another; the 'ähnliche Armut' with which new characters are regularly introduced by means of the formula 'proper-name τούνομα. ούτος ό propername' 6 6 ; the expression of the standing of a newly introduced, respected man with the words τών τα ττρώτα έκει δυναμένων, 67 'wie mit einem unabänderlichen Titel'; the constancy of (τών ττοδών) ττρουκυλίετο; 68 the frequency of the aorist participle of δύναμαι in expressions of successful effort such as δυνηθείς είσελθεϊν, δυνηθεΐσα έν ταύτώ μοι γενέσθαι. 6 9 This conveys the full extent of Rohde's awareness of the kind of phenomenon I describe in chapter III. Apart from the general inadequacy of that awareness, it should be noted that he regarded those regularities that he had noticed as a stylistic fault and seems never to

64

He refers (by page and line of Hercher's 1858 Teubner text) to Ephesiaca 1.11.1 (πολλά ύίμα έννοοΰντες); 2.5.5 (άναμίξασα πάντα); 3.5.2 (ένενόει δε άμα πολλά); 3.10.4 (έννοια δέ πάντων Άβροκόμην είσήρχετο); 3.12.4 (πολλά άμα έσκόπει); 5.13.3 (κατείχε δέ αϋτοϋς πολλά άμα πάθη); 5.1.4 (a false reference, out of order in Rohde's list and leading to an instance of τών τά πρώτα έκεΐ δυναμένων; cf. n. 67 below).

65

Rohde's references are: 1.14.7 (έκ πολλής τής καθ' ήμέραν όψεως έρδ . . .); 2.3.2 (έκ τής συνήθους μετά τοΰ Άβρ. διαίτης άλίσκεται. . .); 2.13.6 (ή δε συνήθης αϋτόν τής κόρης οψι,ς εις έρωτα ήγαγε); 4.5.4 (ή καθ' ήμέραν τής Άνθειας οψις έξέκαεν αϋτόν είς τον έρωτα). I deal with the passages containing this theme-element in chap. Ill p. 61 below.

66

Already noticed by Hercher (p. LIV of his edition), to whom Rohde refers. Rohde gives four references: 1.1.1; 3.2.1; 3.2.5; (4.3.1, a false reference: it should be to 370.6 [i.e. 3.9.5] instead of 376.6; see 5.1.4 in n. 64 above).

67

68

He refers to 2.7.5 (τών ποδών προυκυλίετο); 3.5.9 (τών ποδών αύτοϋ προυκυλίετο); 3.8.4 (τών ποδών αύτών προκυλιομένη); 5.13.4 (προυκυλίοντό τε τοΰ τεμένους).

69

2.7.4 (δυνηθεΐσα είσελθείν . . .); 3.2.4 (τέλος δέ ήδυνήθημεν καίρου λαβόμενοι γενέσθαι . . .); 3.2.13 (δυνηθείς εύπορήσαί . . .); 5.1.7 (τελευταΐον δέ δυνηθεΐσα έν ταύτώ μοι γενέσθαι,); 5.3.3 (δυνηθείς λαθεΐν).

14

I. Preliminary

have considered the possibility of seeing them as a compositional device. Several of the miscellaneous regularities discovered by Rohde and others, though they should be seen as belonging to Xenophon's formulaic technique, lie some way below the surface and I shall not be greatly concerned with them in this book, for we are dealing with a text that offers much clearer material to work with. K. Bürger (1892), 70 arguing that the Ephesiaca is an epitome, shows particular interest in two regularities (structural regularities rather than verbal formulae), maintaining that the epitomator can be detected at work where they are strikingly departed from: they are the introductory formula 'proper-name τοΰνομα. ούτος 6 proper-name' 7 1 and the way in which 'am Ende eines Abschnittes die Situation, in der sich der Held gerade befindet, noch einmal in einem kurzen mit καΐ ò μεν oder ò μεν oiv eingeleiteten Satze zusammengefaßt und dann mit ò δέ der Name der Person, zu deren Schicksalen übergegangen werden soll, angeschlossen wird'. 72 In a footnote 7 3 Bürger refers to Rohde's remarks on formulaic features of the Ephesiaca and adds numerous examples of the following formulae: èpa σφοδρόν έρωτα, διέκειτο ττονήρως, οϋκέτι φέρειν δυναμένη, οΰκέτι καρτερών, όψέ άνενεγκών; he goes on 'Uberhaupt finden sich bei der Wiederkehr derselben Situationen regelmäßig eine Menge der auffallendsten, oft wörtlichen Übereinstimmungen: man sehe z.B. die Reden der Antheia 4.6.6, 5.7.2, 5.8.7, die alle mit φεΰ resp. ο'ίμοι των κακών beginnen, und vergleiche besonders die beiden Monologe 5.5.5 und 5.7.2, 74 sowie die Anfänge der beiden eingelegten Novellen 3.2.1 und 5.1.4'. Bürger's 'Überhaupt' might suggest that he had a strong awareness of the formulaic character of the novel, but the few examples that follow it are by no means the most impressive that could be given and the specific reference to the beginnings of the two love stories in his last example shows that he was unaware e.g. of the more general parallelism between the openings of books III and V. 7 5 The fact is that, though he had noticed some of the formulae that occur in the Ephesiaca,

70 71 72 73 74 73

N. 51 above. Bürger 44f. Bürger SI; he is concerned with this phenomenon on pp. 50-54. 44 n. 1. For my treatment of these monologues see p. 41 below. See pp. 52ff. below.

2. Xenophon and his critics

15

he had no notion of the extent to which it is formulaic or of the way in which the formulae are used, and he never properly realized their importance to his own undertaking, confining his general treatment of them to a footnote. It is clear that he regarded those repetitions that he had noticed as coming from the original author, yet he did not attempt to discover where and to what extent the Ephesiaca is formulaic or to study how the formulae are used. If he had concentrated on finding Xenophon rather than on finding an epitomator, he would at least have been saved from condemning heavily formulaic passages as the work of a Bearbeiter. I shall deal later 7 6 with the implications of Xenophon's repetitions / formulae for the epitome-theory. Gärtner (1967) devotes about half a column of his RE article to 'die ständige Anwendung bestimmter formelhaft erstarrter Floskeln' and related phenomena in Xenophon, but, with one or two minor exceptions, the examples he gives coincide with material cited by his predecessors. At one point (2082), discussing some minor formulaic expressions common to Xenophon and Chariton, he makes the significant statement 'Zugleich darf aus solchen Indizien geschlossen werden, daß trotz der Epitomierung der Ephesiaka doch vieles vom originalen Wortlaut stehengeblieben ist'. Gärtner belongs in this connection firmly with Κ. Bürger, and he too, starting from the important flicker of insight in the words just quoted, might have undertaken the search for Xenophon. Dalmeyda (1926) I have kept out of chronological order because he is the only one to have offered an interpretation or overall view of the few formulae and other regularities he had noticed. A short section of the preface to his Budé edition is devoted to what he calls 'physionomie de conte populaire'. 77 Again we find άυήρ των τά πρώτα έκεΐ, δυναμένων and the passion-formulae noted by Bürger; Dalmeyda himself adds ένθέμενοι δε πάντα τά αυτών νηι άνήγοντο and και ήμέραις ού ττοΧλαις διανύσαντες τον ιτλοΰν, 78 and notes besides the occasional double yq expression of a single idea and the repetition of words 'avec une

76 77 78 79

Pp. lOOff. below We are specially concerned with pp. XXVIIf. There is a certain carelessness about what Dalmeyda quotes as being formulaic. His one example is έθεράπενε τον Άβρ. . . . και iräaav έπιμέλειαν προσέφερεν (1.15.2).

16

I. Preliminary

certaine gaucherie'. 80 All this he sees as part of a 'simplicité' which he would not attribute to Tabréviateur', in whom he is a firm believer, and which gives Xenophon, as opposed to the other romance-writers, 'un air de conteur populaire'. Dalmeyda, then, saw Xenophon as a writer who used, among other devices, the occasional formula to give himself the air of a popular story-teller. He seems, like everyone else, to have had no real idea of the extent to which the text he was editing is formulaic and, though his mention of the popular story-teller is interesting, it is not at all clear what exactly he, writing in pre-Milman Parry days, meant by that. In any case, he seems never to have asked 'Why in the world should a romance-writer want to imitate the manner of a popular story-teller?' or 'Why should he think the use of formulae appropriate to this?' Merkelbach 81 picks up Dalmeyda's observation and remarks that the formulaic expressions mentioned by Rohde might be best understood as relics from an oral tradition. He adds no new formulae himself and does not arrive at the idea of an oral tradition through consideration of formulae, which he mentions only by the way in a footnote, but from the belief that the romance drew on aretalogies that may well have been oral. In chapter III I shall show how extensively formulaic the Ephesiaca is and how the formulaic use of language is related to recurrent themes, but first I shall say a general word about formulae and give an analytical summary of the romance itself.

3. Formulae Although in any formulaic text some recurrent expressions are easily recognizable as formulae, it has proved notoriously difficult to arrive at a satisfactory definition of the formula in literature and agreement on the scope of the term has not been reached. 82 In fact what has been happening in the search for the final definition is that people have tended to define 'formula' for their own purposes; thus e.g. those who want to

80

81 82

He cites 4.3.5-6; 5.9.9-10 (where άττεξηγείτο is a false reading). This phenomenon is of no great interest for my purposes. N. 54 above, p. 113 n. 4. For a guide to the controversy among classicists see N. Austin, Archery at the dark of the moon (U. California Press 1975) 255f. (n. 10); further M. W. Edwards, Oral Tradition 1/2 (1986) 189-192.

3. Formulae

17

claim that the Homeric epics are well-nigh totally formulaic simply tailor their definition accordingly, so that it encompasses single words and metrical and syntactic 'patterns'. 83 In the modern debate on the composition of the Iliad and the Odyssey, beginning with the work of Milman Parry, the Homerists, those chiefly concerned with formulae, have generally treated the formula in literature as an exclusively poetic phenomenon. That prose works can also be heavily formulaic is shown by a body of Irish prose tales that, like the Homeric epics, derive from an oral tradition, and the relevance of these tales in the study of Homer has been prominently pointed out by Kevin O'Nolan in an article in the Classical Quarterly,84 Though the shapes and behaviour of Homer's formulae are metrically controlled, the requirements of metre should not be seen as a basic cause of formulae, and one's general concept of the formula should not include metrical notions. To include any such notions is to confuse the formula itself with description of its behaviour in particular conditions, however interesting and useful in particular arguments that behaviour may be. Parry's own definition of the formula 85 has been subjected to extensive criticism by A. Hoekstra 86 and J. B. Hainsworth. 87 Hainsworth himself has made the most elaborate and systematic attempt to provide an alternative. 88 Interested in the flexibility of formulae within the hexameter verse, he finds a terminology by which 'we say nothing about the function, shape, manner of use, or position of the formula, nor about the order, proximity, or syntactical relations of the words in it'. This seems to hold great promise for someone seeking a definition that can be applied to a prose work, where the author was entirely free of

83

These excesses are criticized by J. B. Hainsworth, CQ 14 (1964) 155ff.; W. W. Minton, TAPA 96 (1965) 241ff.; A. Hoekstra, Homeric modifications of formulaic prototypes (Amsterdam 1965) 14f.

84

CQ 19 (1969) Iff.; see also CQ 28 (1978) 23ff. For further essays by O'Nolan on Irish material see the bibliography (p. 195 below). 'une expression qui est régulièrement employée, dans les mêmes conditions métriques, pour exprimer une certaine idée essentielle' (L'Épithite traditionelle dans Homère [Paris 1928] 16), translated by Parry himself as 'a group of words which is regularly employed under the same metrical conditions to express a given essential idea' (HSCP 41 [1930] 80 = MHV 272).

85

86

Hoekstra (n. 83 above) 12ff.

87

The flexibility of the Homeric formula (Oxford 1968) 33ff.; CQ 14 (1964) 155.

88

Flexibility (n. 87 above) 35f.; cf. CQ 14 (1964) 155.

18

I. Preliminary

metrical restrictions, but Hainsworth's actual definition is disappointing. As the genus of the formula he takes a 'repeated word-group' and as his differentia a 'degree of mutual expectancy' between the words in the group; by this differentia we would be 'stating only that the use of one word created a strong presumption that the other would follow'. This definition seems to me to have serious flaws in it: (1) I do not see what useful addition the differentia makes to the genus, how saying that the occurrence of one word creates a strong presumption (or expectancy) that the other will follow significantly differs from saying that the combination is repeated often; thus the definition does not (if it is intended to allow formulae of fixed word-order: see (3) below) exclude recurrent word-groups (e.g. common combinations of particles) which can hardly be usefully regarded as fomulaic (their exclusion being the object of the differentia); 89 (2) in so far as the differentia introduces, or attaches special importance to, frequency of occurrence, it is unsuitable: Hainsworth himself counts 'as a formula any expression occurring at least twice in the Homeric text'; 90 (3) the concept of mutual expectancy seems to rule out all formulae whose word-order is constant (though this may simply be due to a lack of clarity in Hainsworth's terminology); (4) the 'strong presumption' that a particular word is to be expected hardly applies e.g. to the whole range of Homeric formulae containing generic epithets; (5) it is not clear to me that 'expectancy' is an objective criterion. This last is a fault only in terms of Hainsworth's purpose of avoiding the 'subjective and psychological'. In this whole area I believe that a certain amount of subjectivity is unavoidable and that it is illusory to think that it can be avoided. The failure to find and agree on a definition the mere application of which would objectively separate the formulaic from the unformulaic should not, in my view, be found surprising; what is surprising is to And scholars striving to define 'formula' in a watertight, 'scientific' way, expecting to draw through the intricate continuum of language a hard and fast line on the one side of which everything will be

89

The point from which Hainsworth (η. 87 above, 36) starts his search for a differentia does not in fact hold any promise in itself: we are simply to look at the text and observe recurring word groups and 'Even if the text were in an unknown language, it would be natural to call such groups formulae'. It is hard to see how this approach would ever allow us to exclude any repeated word-groups whatsoever.

90

Flexibility (n. 87 above) 42; 'Homeric text means Iliad and Odyssey

42 η. 1.

3. Formulae

19

clearly formulaic, on the other clearly unformulaic. It is the hopelessness of the undertaking that explains its lack of success. In fact there is little enough wrong with 'repeated word-group' as a working definition, provided one keeps certain restrictions on it in mind. The object of any differentia would be to exclude certain categories of repeated word-group which have no usefulness or validity in determining the peculiarly formulaic character of a particular text, 91 e.g. common combinations of particles, και and the article, (καί) article noun, and so on, and any repeated word-groups (e.g. of a technical character) that may be regarded as due to necessity rather than to stylistic practice or habit. One might, without attempting to deprive human judgement of its necessary role, try to incorporate this in a working definition as follows: formulae are recurrent word-combinations (i.e. occurring at least twice within a text, and tending in general to occur whenever content they are capable of expressing occurs) whose recurrence cannot adequately be accounted for in terms of the structure of the language involved or in terms of the limits of its resources; the term 'word-combination' is intended to allow for variation in word-order, morphology, and syntax and for the separation of the constituent words. When this formulaic use of language occurs, the question that arises is 'Why should the author constantly use one particular combination of words, when his subject-matter and the language in which he is composing readily allow him other possibilities?'. The normal practice of literary authors is to exploit the freedom allowed by their subject-matter within the language in which they are composing, to seek variety of expression as a virtue.

91

I would not, in fact, want to say that such word-groups are not formulae of a kind, only that for our purposes they are not relevant formulae. Herein lies the basic difficulty in defining 'formula' for purposes such as ours: what we really want to define is 'some formulae', 'formulae of stylistic significance'. This amounts to a definition of 'formula' with exceptions, exceptions of such variety as to defy encapsulation in any very useful defining phrase. The real difficulty is to define the exceptions.

II. An epitome of the Ephesiaca In a work in which constant reference is made to the plot of the Ephesiaca it will be useful to have a plot-summary. The following summary (the numbers in the margin refer to chapters, the book-number being given with the first chapter of each book) is to some extent interpretative, and I have taken the opportunity to deal in footnotes here with a few points that would clutter the argument elsewhere. 1.1 In Ephesus lived Habrocomes, a youth of sixteen, extremely beautiful and accomplished, and treated by his fellow citizens as if he were a god. Proud of his own beauty, he regarded himself as being more handsome even than any representation of the god of love and 2 immune to his power. Eros, angered by this arrogance, launched a campaign against Habrocomes. In the procession that took place during the festival of Artemis, an occasion on which the young customarily found their marriage-partners, Habrocomes led the youths and the maidens were led by the exceedingly beautiful fourteen-yearold Antheia, to whom the crowd did honour as to Artemis. The onlookers shouted out in praise of the beauty of Antheia and of Habrocomes in turn, and some remarked on what a marriage theirs would be. Curiosity about each other was thus aroused in the young 3 pair. In the temple of Artemis they fell in love at first sight and left 4 each other's presence firmly in the grip of Eros. Habrocomes' 5 attempts at resistance were futile. The condition of the love-sick pair, who confessed their love not even to each other, deteriorated, so that at length the anxious parents of each of them consulted the oracle of 6 Apollo at Colophon. They received in common this oracle: Why do you desire to learn the end and the beginning of a sickness? Both are in the grip of a single sickness, from which a release is possible. 1 But I see for them λΰσις 'ένθεν άνέστη cod. Though 'ένθεν άνέστη is a Homeric formula (perhaps the reason for corruption, committed by a scribe who knew his Homer?) the verb is suitable here neither in tense (gnomic??) nor in meaning ('arose') and is suspect in the extreme. None of the previous conjectures is very attractive. My translation

An epitome of the Ephesiaca

21

dreadful sufferings and endless toils: both shall flee over the sea pursued by madness, and they shall be burdened with fetters at the hands of sea-faring men, and for both the bridal chamber shall be the tomb and consuming fire. But after their woes they shall have a better fortune, and thereafter by the currents of the river Nile 2 set up rich gifts for august Isis, the saviour goddess. 3

7 The parents, unable to understand what was referred to in the oracle, eventually decided to take the edge off it, by themselves taking action that would amount to a mild fulfilment of its predictions: 4 they decided to join Habrocomes and Antheia in marriage and to send 8-9 them on a journey after the wedding. The couple were married amid 10 great celebrations and passed a blissful wedding-night of love. After a little time their parents sent them on the planned journey, which was to take them to Egypt, 'to see another land and other cities and, in so far as possible, to take the edge off the god's oracle by staying 11 away from Ephesus for some time' (1.10.3). In the course of the voyage the lovers swear to remain faithful to each other, should they be separated. The ship puts in to Samos, 'the holy island of Hera' 12 (1.11.2), where they sacrifice and pray, and to Rhodes, where the beautiful couple are admired by the whole population and dedicate in presupposes a tentative ενεστι, for άνέστη. It seems in any case very probable that λύσι,ς 'ένθεν ( = λύσι,ς τ·ής νούσου) means 'deliverance from it' (cf. λύσι,ς τοϊ δεινοί 1.5.6 and 1.S.8), i.e. that 'ένθεν belongs closely with λύσι,ς rather than with the verb. In the latter case the literal meaning, with άνέστη, would be 'a deliverance arose thence', where ϊνθεν would best refer to the whole preceding clause ('from which circumstance'). Zimmermann's view (pp. 258, 263) that some (perfectly idiotic) Oberarbeiter inserted both the name of the river into the oracle and the question about what river was meant into the following text does not appeal to me. See also p. 91 n. 47 below. Merkelbach's transposition of w.7—8 of the Ms. to the end of the oracle must be accepted: the offering of gifts would naturally follow the attainment of a better fortune; and v.9 (Ms.), 'But after their woes . . .', must follow directly on the catalogue of woes in w.3—6 and not be cut off from them by the offering of the gifts. The form ττοφαστί^ς (v.8 in the Ms.) gives no sense here. The mention in the oracle of these thank-offerings to be offered in Egypt (in the original, uncorrupt text either a statement of what would happen or a command) does not, of course, oblige the author to return to the subject in his narrative. On the oracle in general see pp. 91f. below. τταραμυθήσασθαι (1.7.2; 1.10.3) has been correctly interpreted (mitígale the severity of the oracle by implementing a mild interpretation of it; cf. Alciphr. 1.1.2, Plu., Mor. 248b) often enough: e.g. by Cocchi (ed. prin. 1726 'mitigare'), Hemsterhuys (ap. Locella 'Duras oraculi praedictiones, et denuntiata pericula, qua licebat, emollire'), Locella (1796 'mollius interpretan'), Hadas (1953 'mitigate'), Kytzler (1968 'dem

22

II. An epitome of the Ephesiaca

the temple of Helios a golden panoply with an inscription giving their names. On the second day out from Rhodes Habrocomes has a dream 13 boding ill for the ship, and it is soon fulfilled: they are attacked by pirates; Habrocomes and Antheia give themselves into the hands of 14 Corymbus, the pirates' leader, and beg for their lives. The pirates set the captured ship on fire and sail away, taking Habrocomes and Antheia and some few of their servants with them and leaving the others to burn; those being left behind say 'Where are you being taken to, masters? What land will receive you, and in what city will you dwell?', those being carried off Ό happy you, about to die fortunately before experiencing bondage, before seeing the day of slavery to pirates'.5 Habrocomes' old paedagogus jumps into the sea and drowns trying to reach the ship carrying off his master. The pirates sail to Tyre and take their captives to an estate outside the 15 city, which belonged to their chief, Apsyrtus. On the voyage Corymbus has fallen in love with Habrocomes and Euxinus, one of his fellow 16 pirates, with Antheia. Each of them acts as the other's go-between, Euxinus approaching Habrocomes, Corymbus Antheia. The young 2.1 couple each ask for time to consider, and then, alone together, lament 2 their situation and resolve to die. They are, however, removed from their plight by Apsyrtus, the pirate-chief, who sees them on the estate and, struck by their beauty, takes them and two servants of theirs, Leucon and Rhode, back with him to Tyre, where the inhabitants look 3 on them as gods. Apsyrtus' daughter, Manto, falls in love with Habrocomes and tries with threats to get Rhode to help her win his compliance; but Rhode, instead, tells Leucon, who is her lover, of 4 Manto's approach, and he tells Habrocomes in Antheia's presence. Habrocomes declares himself ready to suffer anything rather than be unfaithful to Antheia, but she begs him to comply with Manto rather than expose himself to the wrath of a barbarian mistress, saying that Spruch, was er auch besagen wolle, nach Kräften eine freundliche Deutung zu geben'; 'abmildern'). This interpretation (as against e.g. Zimmermann's 'erfüllen' [p. 262] or Dalmeyda's 'conjurer') allows the oracle to function properly as a motivating force. The difficulties otherwise encountered with regard to the parents' motivation can be seen from Gärtner 2061. Gärtner (2062) finds fault with Xenophon here, maintaining that Antheia and Habrocomes, who have just begged Corymbus to spare their lives, now count as fortunate those being left to die. We should rather think of the storyteller as exploiting the rhetorical possibilities of each scene as it comes with no care for the

An epitome of the Ephesiaca

23

5 she will put herself out of the way by suicide. Manto, impatient at the delay, writes to Habrocomes declaring her love and offering herself to him with a mixture of promises and threats. He writes her a defiant letter of rejection and her thoughts turn to revenge. She goes to Apsyrtus, who has just come back from Syria with a husband for her, accuses Habrocomes of having attempted to rape her and demands his 6 punishment. Apsyrtus condemns Habrocomes without a hearing and 7 has him tortured and imprisoned in a room. Manto is married to the Syrian, Moeris, and when she sets out for Syria, Apsyrtus gives her Antheia, Rhode and Leucon as slaves. [Antheia and Habrocomes are 8 thus separated and do not see each other again until 5.13.3.] In his prison-room in Tyre the distressed Habrocomes has a dream which 9 gives him hope of eventually being reunited with his beloved. On reaching Antioch the vengeful Manto sends Rhode and Leucon to be sold into slavery in a far off land and consigns Antheia to cohabitation with a goatherd, Lampón. He, however, when he hears her story, 10 promises to respect her chaste fidelity to Habrocomes. Back in Tyre Apsyrtus finds the letter Manto had written to Habrocomes and thus discovering his innocence, frees him and makes him steward of his household; but Habrocomes yearns above all to find Antheia. Meanwhile Leucon and Rhode have been sold in Lycia to a kindly old 11 man who treats them as his children. Moeris, the husband of Manto, falls in love with Antheia; he finds it impossible to woo her without the knowledge of Lampón, who from fear of his mistress tells her about her husband's passion. Manto orders the goatherd to kill Antheia, but he takes pity on her and sells her to Cilician traders instead. On the way to Cilicia the ship is wrecked and those who reach the shore, including Antheia, are captured in the night 'by 12 Hippothous the brigand and his men' (2.11.II). 6 Meanwhile Manto writes to her father, Apsyrtus, telling him of Moeris' love for Antheia and saying that she has given orders to the goatherd that the girl be sold. Habrocomes, hearing of this, steals away to Syria, learns from

disapproval of the study; and in any case the last sentiment may be ascribed not (only) to the lovers but (also) to the servants being carried off with them (άλλους τέ τι,νας τών οίκετών ¿λίγους: 1.14.1). 6

See pp. 125f. below.

24

II. An epitome of the Ephesiaca

Lampón of Antheia's being taken to Cilicia, and sets out to find her 13 there. On the day after Antheia has fallen into their hands, Hippothous and his brigands 'set about the sacrifice' (2.13.1):7 Antheia is to be sacrificed to Ares. In the nick of time Perilaus, 'the man in charge of the peace in Cilicia' (2.13.3), arrives with a force of men and rescues Antheia. Of the brigands Hippothous alone escapes. The wealthy Perilaus, who has neither wife nor child, falls in love with Antheia, takes her to his house in Tarsus, and proposes marriage to her. Antheia, under pressure, pleads successfully that the marriage be 14 postponed for thirty days. Habrocomes, journeying to Cilicia, wanders from the straight road and meets the fleeing Hippothous near the robbers' camp.8 He goes along with Hippothous' proposal that they travel to Cappadocia together, without mentioning his search for 3.1 Antheia. Habrocomes and Hippothous travel to Mazacus in Cappadocia (where Hippothous intends to assemble a new band of brigands), 2 take lodgings there and get to talking about their past lives. Hippothous tells the tragic story of his love-affair with the boy Hyperanthes, which ended in Hyperanthes' being drowned at sea and led to 3 Hippothous' taking to brigandage. When Habrocomes relates his story, Hippothous recognizes Antheia as the girl he captured and tells Habrocomes of the events at the robbers' camp. Habrocomes begs Hippothous to return with him to Cilicia to search for Antheia. Hippothous agrees, saying that they ought to collect a few men, for safety on the journey. Meanwhile in Tarsus the thirty days were up 4 and all was ready for Perilaus' marriage to Antheia. During Antheia's sojourn in the house of Perilaus one Eudoxus was introduced to her, a shipwrecked physician from her home-town, Ephesus, who needed help to return there. He visited her often, always asking her to help s him get back to his home. On the day of her projected marriage the girl secretly tells Eudoxus of her love for Habrocomes and of her vow of fidelity to him, and asks the physician to give her a deadly drug, in return for which she will provide him with the means of getting back to Ephesus; Eudoxus brings her not a fatal but a sleep-inducing drug 7 8

See pp. 124f. below. The transition here is not quite flawless as far as the relative times of the actions are concerned: Antheia's story has progressed somewhat since the attack on the robbers, whereas the fleeing Hippothous is still only a short way from the camp. There can, however, be no doubt that this minor fault is to be attributed to Xenophon himself.

An epitome of the Ephesiaca

25

6 and straightway takes ship. That night, before Perilaus comes to her, 7 Antheia takes the drug and falls down in a deep sleep. When Perilaus finds his bride, he thinks she is dead and laments over her body, exclaiming inter alia on the good fortune of Habrocomes, for whom his beloved has given her life (3.7.3).9 Next morning Antheia is 8 buried, richly dressed and adorned with much gold. She wakes up in the tomb, laments at being still alive and separated from Habrocomes (whom she believes to be dead) and determines to stay where she is and let hunger do the work of the drug. 10 But that night robbers break into the tomb to steal the riches buried with her; they see Antheia alive and, despite her pleas to be left in the tomb, take her with them too and sail for Alexandria, where they intend to sell her 9 to traders. Perilaus is greatly distressed on discovering the loss of her body. Habrocomes, failing to discover anything about a girl brought in as a captive with brigands, returns to where he and those with him are lodging. As Hippothous and his men 1 1 ate and drank, an old woman told them, in Habrocomes' hearing, all about Perilaus and Antheia, relating that Antheia had killed herself with a drug. Habrocomes begs the old woman to show him the girl's grave, only to hear that it has been opened by robbers and the body stolen. 10 Habrocomes laments and resolves to die, but first he must find his beloved's body. That night Habrocomes slips away secretly and takes ship for Alexandria, hoping to find the grave-robbers in Egypt. Hippothous and his men decide to go on a campaign of piracy in the 11 direction of Syria and Phoenicia. In Alexandria the grave-robbers sell Antheia to merchants and they in turn sell her to an Indian king, Psammis, who straightway tries to rape her; she saves herself for the time being from the superstitious barbarian with the story that her 9 10

11

See p. 91 below. Gartner's criticism (2083f.) of Xenophon here and the unfavourable comparison with Chariton 1.9 are unjustified: Antheia wakes up in the tomb as a failed suicide, still wanting death, whereas Callirhoe had never wanted to die. This accounts for, indeed necessitates, the difference in their reactions, φείσασθαι τοΰ σώματος (3.8.4) means 'leave the corpse' as opposed to τα συνταφέντα: Antheia speaks of herself, already dead and 'dedicated to death' (3.8.S), as 'the corpse'. There is, pace Gärtner (2073), nothing very surprising about finding Hippothous at the head of a band of men at this point: as we left him at 3.3.6 his intention of providing himself with companions was made clear (where neither όλίγοv τ^ηρησατ διηγείται δέ ήτις ήν, τήν ττροτέραν εϋγένειαν, τον άνδρα, τήν αίχμαλωσίαν* άκουσας δέ ò Αάμττων ο'ικτε'ιρει τήν κόρην καΐ δμνυ^ σιν — —ή^ μήν 1— «φυλάξειν i · · * · · · · · ·άμόλυν····· τον, και θαρρειν ir αρεκελ^υετο. 2.11.2-5 δεδοικώς δέ τήν Μαντώ Ερχεται ττρός αύτήν και λέγει τον Ερωτα τόν Μοίριδος. ή δέ έν "^υστυ^εστάττι γυναικών έγώ" τήν ζήλην περιάξομαι, δι' ήν τά μέν ιτρώτα έν Φοινίκη άφηρέθην έρωμένου, νυνί δέ κινδυνεύω του άνδρός· άλλ' ού χαίρουσα γε "Ανθεια φανεΐται καλή καΐ Μοίριδι· έγώ γαρ αύτήν καΐ ΰττέρ των έν Τύρω ττράξομαι δίκας." Τότε_μέν οίν τήν ήσυχίαν •^γαγεν^ άττοδημήσαντος δέ του Μοίριδος μεταττέμττεται τόν αίττόλον καΐ κελεύει λαβόντα τήν "Ανθειαν εις το δασύτατον άγαγόντα της υλης άττοκτειναι και τούτου μισβόν αύτώ δώσειν ύττέσχετο. ό δέ οίκτείρει μέν τήν κόρην, δεδοικώς δέ τήν Μαντώ 'έρχεται παρά τήν "Ανθειαν καΐ λέγει τα κατ' αύτής δεδογμένα. ή δέ άνεκώκυσέ τε καί άνωδύρετο, "φεΰ" λέγουσα "τοΰτο τό κάλλος έττίβουλον άμφοτέροις • · i » » « * · · · · » «ττανταχοϋ· · · · · »· ·

δια

άλλα ^άττόκτεινόν_ αυτός ούκ οΐσω ττορνοβοσκόν δεσιτότην σωφρονεΐν, ττίστευσον, εΐθίσμεθα." ταΰτα έδειτο, τ)λέει δέ αύτήν ò Κλυτός. 7 Και ή μέν άττήγετο είς Ί τ α λίαν, ή δέ 'Ρηναία έλθόντι τω Πολυίδω λέγει δτι άιτέδρα ή "Ανθεια, κάκεΐνος έκ τών ήδη πειραγμένων έτάστευσεν αύτη. ή δέ "Ανθεια καττ|χ£η_ ^,έν _είς Τάραντα, » * » · · · · * ττόλιντής — — —^'Ιταλίας· « · » · ···· ένταϋθα δέ ό Κλυτός δεδοικώς τάς τής "Ρηναίας έντολάς άττοδίδοται αύτήν πορνοβοσκώ.

Xenophon's compositional technique

35

τήν^ ^»^φον_εύ£ορφΙαν Άβροκόμης μέν έν Τύρω τέθνηκεν, 5 έγώ δέ ένταϋθα· άλλα δέομαι σου, Λάμττωυ αΐιτόλε, δς μέχρι νΰν εύσέβησας, δν άττοκτείνης The passages in the column on the left relate the revenge of Manto, who has been rejected by Habrocomes, on him and Antheia and on their servants Leucon and Rhode. She deceives her father, Apsyrtus, into punishing Habrocomes as a would-be rapist (2.6.1-5) and, having acquired Antheia, Leucon and Rhode as her slaves, at first, after having Leucon and Rhode sold into a foreign land, forces the heroine to cohabit with a goatherd, but then, on learning that Moeris, her own husband, has fallen for Antheia, orders the goatherd, Lampón, to kill the girl. Lampón pities Antheia and sells her to slavers instead. 5 The passage on the right relates one of the adventures of Antheia during her separation from Habrocomes. The jealous wife, Rhenaea, first chastises Antheia and then has her sold into a foreign land through the agency of the servant Clytus. In these stories Rhenaea corresponds to Manto (the parallel being, of course, limited to relations with Antheia), Polyidus to Moeris, and Clytus (without the cohabitation motif) to Lampón, while Antheia, so to speak, plays herself in both. In the first story Habrocomes is chastised (2.6.1—4), Leucon and Rhode are sold into slavery in a foreign land (2.9.2), and Antheia is at first made to cohabit with Lampón (2.9.2—4) and then, when she is suspected of being a danger to Manto's marriage, is sentenced to death, but reprieved by her intended executioner and sold into slavery instead (2.11.2-4); in the second, simpler, story Habrocomes, Leucon and Rhode are no longer available for punishment, so poor Antheia must stand in for them so that the author may keep the motifs that are the stuff of his tale. Antheia, then, suspected of marriage-

5

Of the omitted sections of text the first (2.6.5 - 2.9.1) tells of Habrocomes' anguish in prison, Antheia's visits to him until she is carried off to Syria by Manto, and an encouraging dream that he has after her departure, the second (2.10.1 - 2.11.2) relates how Apsyrtus learns of Manto's deceit, frees Habrocomes and puts him in charge of his household, how Leucon and Rhode find a kind master in Lycia, and how Moeris falls for Antheia and Manto learns of this from the goatherd.

36

III. Xenophon's compositional technique

breaking, is chastised by the jealous wife and sold into slavery in a foreign land. At least she is spared the death sentence, but for compositional reasons rather than out of compassion: to link her present experiences properly to those that follow, it is necessary that she be sold to a brothel-keeper, not killed, and since the selling to a ττορνοβοσκός is best motivated by the kind of thinking attributed to Rhenaea herself in 5.5.3-4 (above), she cannot at the same time order Antheia to be killed. It is better to have Rhenaea out of natural motivation order sale to a brothel-keeper than have her give an order for the girl's execution which would in any case have to end somehow or other in Antheia's being sold to a brothel-keeper. In the Rhenaea story, where we are without not only most of the characters to be punished but also, of course, the motivation for their punishment, the thematic building-blocks must be shifted around. The marriage-breaking motif comes near the end of the Manto version, motivating only the abortive execution-order; in the other story it comes, as it must, at the beginning, motivating all the vengeance. Other jugglings, at the level of word and formula, are necessitated e.g. by the fact that Manto deals with Antheia indirectly through Lampón, as is natural since she merely issues an execution-order, and necessary for the action since Lampón must be free to disobey that order unobserved, whereas Rhenaea chastises Antheia herself just as Habrocomes in the corresponding scene is chastised before Apsyrtus. The relationship between the versions at this level is further complicated by the multiplicity of victims in the Manto version and the fact that Antheia's punishment there has two separate stages, first enforced cohabitation with the goatherd and then, later, the commuted death-sentence: thus Habrocomes is sent for to be punished (2.6.1) and Lampón is sent for twice in connection with the punishment of Antheia (2.9.3 and 2.11.3); whereas in the second story when Antheia has been brought to Rhenaea everyone needed for this telescoped version is present in her house, including the οΐκέτης (5.5.4) Clytus, and there is no significant time-gap between the physical maltreatment of Antheia and her being shipped off to Italy.6

The reason why Clytus emerges into the light with a name, as opposed to the tlvos of 2.9.2, is doubtless his being given the special commission by this mistress to sell Antheia specifically to a πορνοβοσκός: for that a known person, one who is irurrôç, is needed. Note that the real function of the goatherd motif was to create circumstances for Moeris' falling in love with Antheia; Polyidus had had his opportunity for that in the war against

Xenophon's compositional technique

37

The lines of connection between the two versions are, then, as follows: the indefinite έ-ιτέττυστο of 5.5.1 corresponds to λέγει (sc. ò Λάμιτων) of 2.11.2; τιμωρήσεται . . . μεταττέμττεται τήν "Ανθειαν (5.5.2) is the suitable amalgam of μεταττεμψάμευος δέ τόν Άβροκόμην . . . τιμωρήσομαι (2.6.1), τιμωρήσασθαι. . . μεταττέμττεται δέ τον αίττόλον (2.9.2—3) and μεταττέμιτεται τόν αίττόλον (2.11.3); the main body of 5.5.2 gives the grounds (derived naturally from the preceding episode) for Polyidus' absence and άττόντος δέ αύτοΰ (5.5.2) corresponds to άττοδημήσαντος δέ τοΰ Μοίριδος (2.11.3); ττεριρρήγνυσι τήν έσθήτα . . . αίκίζεται in the punishment of Antheia (5.5.2) parallels αίκίαν . . . ττεριρρήξαι τήν έσθήτα in that of Habrocomes (2.6.1—2). Rhenaea's speech (5.5.3) goes with that of Manto in 2.11.2, the key ideas being the same in both (Εδοξας Πολυίδω καλή οΰττοτε . . . χαίρουσα / άλλ' οϋ χαίρουσα γε "Ανθεια φανειται καλή και Μοίριδι); note also the formulaic άλλ' οΰτι χαιρήσεις in the judgement of Apsyrtus (2.6.1), and further that τολμηρά (2.6.1; the word occurs only here in Xenophon) is most probably a mistake for ιτονηρά (caused by assimilation to έτόλμησας, with which it jars) and that the speeches of Rhenaea and Apsyrtus are therefore very likely to have both begun with ώ ιτονηρά;7 the speeches of Rhenaea and Manto each contain material appropriate to its own wider context. Moving on, τταραδοΰσα οίκέτη τινί ττιστώ, Κλυτω τοΰνομα (5.5.4) answers to αίττόλω τινί άγροίκω Λάμττωνα τοΰνομα . . . τταραδίδωσι (2.9.2—3) in the first stage of Manto's revenge on Antheia, and Rhenaea's order to ship Antheia abroad and sell her (5.5.4 κελεύει έμβιβάσαντα εις ναΰν . . . άττοδόσθαι) corresponds to Manto's order relating to Leucon and Rhode in 2.9.2 (κελεύει έμβιβάσαντάς τινας ττλοίω . . . άττοδόσθαι). Antheia is led away by Clytus (5.5.5 ήγετο δέ ή "Ανθεια) as she was by Lampón (2.9.4 καί ή μέν ήγετο, cf. 5.5.7 καί ή μέν άττήγετο), lamenting (5.5.5 όδυρομένη) as before (2.11.4 άνωδύρετο); both speeches of lamentation begin . . . κάλλος έττίβουλον . . . εΰμορφία(ν) (the speech in 5.5.5 is, as we shall see, interestingly parallel to another); in 5.5.6 Antheia addresses Clytus directly, falling down at his knees (ττροσττεσοΰσα T O Î S γόνασι τοΰ Κλυτοϋ) as she had already done with Apsyrtus (2.6.5 ττροσττίτττει T O I S

7

the brigands; the adaptation of the motif to Gytus leads to some otiose features, δεδοικώς and ήΧ,έει. Cf. RhM n. F. 127 (1984) 269.

38

III. Xenophon's compositional technique

γόνασι τοΰ Άψύρτου) and Lampón (2.9.4 ττροστάτΓτει τοις γόνασιν αύτοΰ); the motif of killing occurs in both addresses (5.5.6 άττόκτεινόν, 2.11.5 άττοκτείνης), though the two uses of it are different; the two servants, Clytus and Lampón, experience the same emotions: ήλέει δέ αυτήν (5.5.6; cf. 2.13.5 'έλαβε τήν "Ανθειαν Περίλαος καΐ ττυθόμενος τήν μέλλουσαν συμφοράν ήλέησευ; 4.6.5 ήλέει μάλλον αύτήν και της συμφοράς ωκτειρεν; cf. 4.6.7; 5.4.7 τής τύχης αύτήν ήλέει) corresponds to the related formula ο'ικτείρει (μέν) τήν κόρην (2.9.4; 2.11.4) and Clytus' final motivation in carrying out his mistress's instructions (5.5.7 δεδοικώς) parallels the fear felt by Lampón before Manto (2.11.4 δεδοικώς; cf. 2.11.2 where the same motivation is used in a rather different connection). Several expressions are repeated within the Manto story. Those (parts) of them that occur in the Rhenaea version as well have been noted above; the others are: 2.9.3 μεταττέμιτεται δέ τον αίττόλον . . . . . . και κελεύει / 2.11.3 μεταττέμιτεται τόν αίττόλον καΐ κελεύει; 2.11.2 δεδοικώς δέ τήν Μαντώ άρχεται [ττρός αύτήν] και λέγει / 2.11.4 δεδοικώς δέ τήν Μαντώ ερχεται [τταρά τήν "Ανθειαν] και λέγει (notice how the formulaic wording is adapted to the different situations). Furthermore, each of the two stories has links of theme and phrase with various other parts of the romance: (1) Manto's father, Apsyrtus, enters the Ephesiaca at 2.2.1 as ò ττροεστώς τοΰ ληστηρ'ιου to which the pirates who have captured Antheia and Habrocomes belong. Shortly after that (2.2.3-4) he leads his captives in something like triumphal procession through Tyre (the scene A

parallels 1.2.7; cf. 1.7.3) and his pirate status slips away unnoticed. By 2.6 he is a respectable father and head of household judging and punishing his daughter's alleged would-be rapist. He has, in fact, undergone a thematic metamorphosis from robber-chief to judge 9 to

He is, it is true, never represented as less than a stay-at-home big-boss. It is important to realize that one must not talk of characterization in the Ephesiaca as if one were dealing with, say, a modern novel, in which story and characters have, so to speak, a common history. The constituent themes, episodes, novellae of Xenophon's romance, often repeated as they are, should be seen as prior to and independent of the larger work they go to make up, and a character in Xenophon must play as best he can the part that falls to him in each successive episode as long as he has a function in the compound tale. Compare howTrenkner (p. 178) envisages the composition of a longer story from novellae: 'We may suppose that a story-teller,

Xenophon's compositional technique

39

become the counterpart of no less a personage than ò άρχων της Αιγύπτου who in 4.2.1 undertakes the judgement and punishment of Habrocomes for the alleged murder of Araxus, husband of the deceitful Cyno, the Potiphar's wife of the romance. 10 With 2.6.1 (above) compare 4.2.1 ò δέ Άβροκόμης ώς ήκε παρά τόν^ fip^qvTCtjrTjç_ΑΙ^ντττου (έττεστάλκεσάν τε ol Πηλουσιώται τά γενόμενα αΰτω καΐ τόν τοϋ Άράξου φόνον και δτι ο'ικέτης ών τοιαύτα έτόλμησε), μαθών οίν έκαστα, οΰκέτι οΰδέ ττυθό|λενος τα γενόμενα κελεύει τον Άβροκόμην άγαγόντας ιτροσαρτησαι σταυρω. οίκέτης ών . . . έτόλμησε . . . κελεύει clearly repeats "έτόλμησας . . . ο'ικέτης ών;" (2.6.1) . . . έκέλευε (2.6.2), but the similarities go beyond this obvious verbal repetition: οΰκέτι οΰδέ ττυθόμενος τά γενόμενα corresponds to ήρεύνησε μέν τό ιτραχθέν οΰκέτι (2.6.1), which is resumed after Apsyrtus' words, just before έκέλευε, in οΰκέτι άνασχόμενος οΰδέ λόγου άκοΰσαι (2.6.2). μαθών οίν έκαστα is parallel to άκουσας (2.6.1): 'the ruler of Egypt' has the whole story at second hand from the people of Pelusium, who believed Cyno, whereas Apsyrtus was directly deceived by Manto, δόξας άληθη λέγειν (2.6.1), then, finds its counterpart in 3.12.6 έδόκει λέγειν τω ττλήθει ττιστά, where Cyno deceives her fellowcitizens. (2) In 2.6.3-4 Habrocomes is evidently not merely punished by scourging, but is subjected to various forms of torture to wring a confession from him. The development of this theme would clearly be awkward and it is merely sketched and dropped. What is of special interest is that the physical effects of the torture on Habrocomes are described with the aid of the same formulae used — now split between Habrocomes and Antheia — to express the effects of lovesickness in

10

whose duty it was to entertain a company for a set time, or a dinner-guest who had a gift for narrative, would often be inclined to produce a rather longer story. They could then resort to stringing together particular stories to form a larger whole.' See also pp. 40 (Lampón) and 49 (Perilaus and Hippothous) below. Bürger wrongly saw Cyno as another Manto (missing Rhenaea entirely), at the same time failing to see the parallel between Apsyrtus and 'the ruler of Egypt'. See further pp. 103ff. below.

40

III. Xenophon's compositional technique

χρόνου προϊόντος οΰκέτι TÒ μειράκιον έκαρτέρει, ήδη δέ αύτώ καΐ τό σώμα ττάν ήφάνιστο καΐ ή ψυχή καταττετιτώκει, ώστε έν ττολλή άθυμία τόν Λυκομήδην και τήν Θεμιστώ γεγονέναι, ουκ είδότας μέν δ τι εΐη τό συμβαίνον "Αβροκόμη, δεδοικότας δέ έκ των δρωμένων, έν όμοίω δέ φόβω και ò Μεγαμήδης και ή Εΰίτπτη καΐ ττερί τής Άνθειας καθειστήκεισαν, όρώντες αυτής τό μέν κάλλος μαραινόμενον, τήν δέ αιτίαν ο-ύ φαινομένην τής συμφοράς. 1.5.5-6

Some readers may perhaps be inclined to feel against the evidence that it may somehow not be proper to think of Xenophon as using formulae, that somehow, unusual and extensive as it is, the whole thing is all a matter of coincidence of word and phrase corresponding to coincidence of subject-matter in an author of strangely limited vocabulary. Anyone of this inclination should take pause from the passages here compared and the kind of formulaic adaptation they evince. (3) Lampón, the good goatherd, 11 has about him shades of the undesired lover, the potential rapist whom we meet so often in various guises later in the novel, shades deriving from Manto's plan for his cohabitation with Antheia. To this theme belongs not only the keyword βιάζεσθαι (2.9.3; cf. 2.13.8 [Perilaus]; 3.11.4 [Psammis]; 4.5.4 [Anchialus]; 5.4.5 [Polyidus]) but also Ικετεύει . . . τηρήσαι (2.9.4; cf. 2.13.8 Ικετεύει δέ αυτόν . . . άχραντον τηρήσαι; cf. 4.3.3 γάμον άχραντον Άβροκόμη τηρώ; see also the phrases with άγνήν quoted just 1 · below) and ομνυσιν ή μήν φυλάξειν άμόλυντον (2.9.4), which aligns Lampón with Antheia's good (in the moral sense) lovers (2.13.8 [Perilaus] έιτόμνυται τηρήσειν αΰτήν γάμων άγνήν; 5.2.5 [Amphinomus] τόν ήλιον έττόμνυσι . . . σεμνήν [for which Abresch's ή μήν is to be read] τηρήσειν γάμων άγνήν; 5.4.7 [Polyidus] δμνυσι μήττοτε βιάσασθαι τήν "Ανθειαν . . ., άλλά τηρήσαι άγνήν).

11

12

His otherwise spotless character is blotted right at the end of his dealings with Antheia when he becomes a moral victim of compositional necessity: the plot says that he must sell the girl to slavers, not a very nice thing to do, and not really what we have come to expect of him. The use of of this unique φυλάξειν άμόλυντον here is probably due to a desire, natural, I should think, to any storyteller with the freedom of prose, to avoid the awkward use of two τηρέω-phrases in such quick succession. He does not, it is true, show the same sensitivity at 2.13.8.

Xenophon's compositional technique

41

(4) Antheia's lamentations in 5.5.5 (above), as she is being led away to be sold to a ττορνοβοσκός, are to be compared to her words as she is led by the brothelkeeper to the οίκημα where she is to work: 5.7.2-3 ^εϋjL£L_TÖv_KOiK(Jji/'_ε1ττεν' "οΰχ Ικαναι γαρ αϊ ττρότερον συμφοραί, τά δεσμά, τα ληστηρια, άλλ'Ετι και ττορνεΐιειν άναγκάζθ|ΐαι; ¿ κάλλος δικαίως ΰβρισμένον, τί_ γαρ τ)|χίν άκαίρως παραμένεις; άλλα τ'ι ταΰτα θρηνώ καΐ ούχ ευρίσκω τινά μηχανήν, δι' ής φυλάξω την μέχρι νυν σωφροσύνην τετηρημένην;" ταΰτα λέγουσα ήγετο έτά τό οίκημα . . . . The close correspondences in idea, expression and structure are clear, though the ordering of the content varies, "φεϋ μοι τών κακών" εΐττε(ν) (5.7.2) occurs also at 1.4.1; 2.1.5 (without μοι); cf. 5.10.4 "φεϋ" £φη "τών κακών . . ." . Let us now look at formulaic features of the stories of Manto and Rhenaea that have not yet been dealt with: (a) 2.6.2 and 5.5.2 ττεριρρ. την έσθητα: cf. the lamentation-formulae 1.4.1 την κόμην . . . στταράξας και ιτεριρρηξάμενος τήν έσθήτα; 2.5.6 στταράξασα τάς κόμας (also 3.5.2) και ττεριρρηξαμένη την έ.; 3.7.2 τήν έ. ττεριρρηξάμενος; 3.10.1 ττεριέρρηξε (surely -ξατο) τον χιτώνα; (b) ήν δέ τό θέαμα έλεεινόν (2.6.3) also introduces the very different scene in 1.14.2—3 after the pirateattack at sea; (c) 2.9.4: τΓροσττίτΓτει τοις γόνασι(ν) occurs also at 2.10.2 and 5.12.4 (cf. 2.5.6 ττροσττεσοΰσα ττρός τα γόνατα), τΓροσττί/ΐΓτει τοις γόνασιν αΰτοϋ και Ικετεύει also at 3.5.5, Ικετεύω κατοικτειραι at 3.2.3 (where Hippothous asks his boy-friend to show him compassion sexually, a rather different use), Ικετεύει . . . και άχραντον τηρήσαι at 2.13.8; at 2.5.6 and 5.4.10 ττροσττ'πΓτω is also associated with ο'ικτείρω (in direct speech); θαρρειν τταρεκελεύετο (2.9.4) is found also at 5.9.9, the more usual form of the expression, with παρακαλέω, at 1.11.1; 3.5.6; 3.10.3; 4.6.5; 5.2.4; θαρρειν ιταρεκάλει follows on ττροστάτΓτει . . . at 3.5.5—6 and θάρσει (direct speech) is associated with the same verb at 2.10.2, . . . άνίστησι(ν) intervening in both places; (d) 2.11.2 ή δε εν όργη γενομένη: cf. 2.5.5 ή Μαντώ έν όργη άκατασχέτω γίνεται; 4.6.2 where read αύτοις έν όργη γενομένοις (Castiglioni); compare too e.g. ή δέ έν άμηχάνω κακώ έγεγόνει 2.3.5; 4.5.5 (γενομένη); 5.7.4 ή δέ έν άμηχάνω γενομένη κακώ; (e) 2.11.2: και λέγει τον έρωτα τον Μοίριδος (subj. gen.) reminds one of 2.3.4 και λέγει τον £ρωτα τοΰ Άβροκόμου (obj. gen.); 3.5.6 λέγει δή αύτώ τον Άβροκόμου (obj.) έρωτα (this formulaic

42

III. Xenophon's compositional technique

parallelism is confirmed by the further link between 2.11.1—2 and 2.3.4 noted below p. 63); (f) 2.11.2 πασών . . . δυστυχεστάτη ·γυναιχών έγώ: compare the beginning of Habrocomes' speech at 5.1.12, σέ δ έ . . . ώ πασών δυστυχεστάτη κόρη; (g) 2.11.3: τότε μέν ήσυχίαν ήγαγεν also at 5.9.9; (h) 2.11.4: with [τό κάλλος έπίβουλον] άμφοτέροις πανταχού' Sui τήν άκαιρον εύμορφίαν compare 2.1.3 ώ της άκαιρου πρός έκατέρους εύμορφίας; (i) 5.5.1: cf. 15.4 μή παρευδοκιμηθη φοβούμενη, where Antheia is the subject; (j) 5.5.2 ήν δέ έπί της οΙκίας: this seems to me to form with three other clauses (all of them in book 5) an interesting formulaic chain: 5.4.3 καΐ αύτή μέν Μτυχευ έπί της οικίας; 5.9.13 και τήν μέν είχεν έπί της οΙκίας; 5.13.1 έτρεχον δέ ώς είχον ètri τήν οΐκίαν (to include the last may be going a little far, but the others are certainly linked both in sense and, interestingly, in sound); (k) 5.5.6 άπόκτεινόν με αύτός: at 1.14.5 the appeal of the old παιδαγωγός to Habrocomes goes αύτός άπόκτεινόν με . . . . Section II While imprisoned in Tarsus Habrocomes, as I have already mentioned, has a prophetic dream (2.8.2). This can usefully be compared with his earlier dream on board ship (1.12.4), in which the pirate attack of 2.13—14 was foretold. 2.8.2

1.12.4

καΐ αΰτω δναρ έφίσταται. Ίδοξεν Ιδείν αύτοΰ τόν πατέρα Λυκομήδην έν έσθήτι μελα'ιντ| π^νώ^ενον_κατά _ττάσαν καΐ _θάλατταν, έπιστάντα δέ τώ δεσμωτηρίω λΰσαί τε αύτόν καΐ άφιέναι έκ τοΰ οικήματος· αύτόν δέ ΐ π πον γενόμενον έπι πολλήν φέρεσθαι γήν διώκοντα ΐππον όίλλην θήλειαν, και τέλος εύρεΐν τήν ΐππον και άνθρωπον γενέσθαι, ταΰτα ώς έδοξεν Ιδεΐν, άνέθορέ^ _τε_ καΐ μικρά εΰελπις ήν.

τώ δέ Άβροκόμη έφίσταται γυνή^ό^ρθηναι φοβερά, τό μέγεθος υπέρ άνθρωπον, έσθήτα 'έχουσα φοινικήν έπιστάσα δέ τήν ναΰν έδόκει καίειν και τους μέν άλλους άπόλλυσθαι, αύτόν δέ μετά της Άνθειας διανήχεσθαι. ταΰτα ώς ευθύς είδεν έταράχθη και προσεδόκα τι δεινόν έκ τοΰ όνείρατος, καΐ τό δεινόν έγίνετο.

Xenophon's compositional technique

43

These dreams, though in their prophetic function they refer to quite different areas of the action, are clearly constructed on a common framework, έφίσταται . . . έν έσθήτι μελαίνη . . . έπιστάντα δέ . . . αυτόν (i.e. Habrocomes) δέ . . . ταύτα ώς 'έδοξεν Ιδειν (2.8.2) corresponding to έφίσταται . . . έσθήτα έχουσα φοινικήν έπ ιστά σα δέ . . . αύτόν (i.e. Habrocomes) δέ . . . ταύτα ώς εύθύς είδεν (1.12.4). Moreover, 2.8.2 is remarkably linked to Antheia's dream at 5.8.7, the account of which ends: και τέλος . . . ταύτα ώς εδοξεν Ιδειν, εύθύς μέν άνέθορέ τε καΐ άνεθρήνησε . . . . Note also the use of ευθύς in 5.8.7 and in 1.12.4. In 2.8.2 πλανώμενον κατά πάσαν γήν καΐ θάλατταν, which here refers to Habrocomes' father, is formulaic: at 5.1.13 Habrocomes laments "ττλανώμαι μέν κατά πάσαν γην και θάλασσαν"; and so is εΰελπις ήν, which also appears at 5.12.2. With γυνή όφθήναι φοβερά (1.12.4) compare 4.6.4 όφθήναι φοβεροί (of the dogs thrown in the pit with Antheia; note the mention of size here too, μεγάλοι); 5.7.8. In this last passage a kind of graveyard spectre or zombie is described: ήν μέν όφθήναι φοβερός, φωνήν δέ πολύ (scrípsi: πολλήν F) είχε χαλεπωτέραν; with this we should compare the description of Cyno in 3.12.3 γυναίκα όφθήναι μιαράν, άκουσθήναι δέ ιτολύ χείρω. Section III

In the Ephesiaca there are two clashes between the forces of law and order and robbers led by Hippothous: 2.13.3-4

5.3.2-3

ήν δέ ό τής εΙρήνης τής έν Κιλι- 2 ούτος ò Πολύιδος παραλαβών το στράτευμα, άπήντα κατά Πηλούκίςι προεστώς, Περίλαος τοΰνομα, σιον τοις περί τον Ίππόθοον, και άνήρ τών τα πρώτα έν Κιλικία J ——— — —— ·· · · ·····4 εύθύς παρά τάς οχθας μάχη τε 4 δυναμένων, ούτος έττέστη τοις αύτών γίνεται και πίπτουσιν λησταις 6 Περίλαος μετά πλήέκατέρων πολλοί- νυκτός δέ έπιθους πολλού καΐ πάντας τε γενομένης τρέπονται μέν ol ληάπέκτεινε, • · · · · · · · · · όλίγους · · · « · » · · δέ · · ^καΐ ^ ^ ^ζών^^ σταί και πάντες ΰπό τών στρατας Ελαβε· μόνος δέ 6 Ίππόθοος τιωτών φονεύονται* είσί δέ < οι ήδυνήθη διαφυγεΐν άράμενος τα δπλα. 3 και ζώντες έλήφθησαν. Ίππόθοος μόνος, άπορρίψας τά δπλα, Εφυγε τής νυκτός καΐ ήλθεν εις Άλεξάνδρειαν —

44

III. Xenophon's compositional technique

In 2.13.3—4 Perilaus and his men fall on Hippothous' robbers in the middle of a wood and more or less annihilate them, and so rescue Antheia, who was about to be sacrificed to Ares; in 5.3.2-3 we have a full scale battle of some duration by the banks of the Nile, an event of a kind unique in this novel, and it is accorded a correspondingly (in so far as we can detect) unformulaic description, until we come to its outcome, which is expressed in language strikingly similar to that used for the outcome of the earlier clash. A point of very special interest is that those robbers taken alive in 5.3.2-3 have an important role in the plot: without their help Polyidus could never have identified Amphinomus (5.4.3) and so could not have found Antheia; the prisoners taken in 2.13.3—4, in the earlier battle, are on the other hand otiose. The variation άπέκτεινε / φονεύονται, should be seen in terms of that between active and passive; όλί/γους δε / ε'ισί δέ ol seems arbitrary, and I see no special point in the variation άράμενος / άπορρίψας. It is true that after 5.3.2-3 Hippothous never takes to robbery again, but I rather doubt that άπορρίψας can be made to bear in Xenophon the symbolic and prophetic burden of conveying that idea. Perilaus is introduced with the common formula (άνήρ) τών τά πρώτα (. . .) δυναμένων, έν Κιλικία being substituted for the usual έκει, which would have nothing to refer to here. Polyidus has already (5.3.1) been given a special introduction as a relative of the 'ruler of Egypt'. Perilaus, Polyidus, and Hippothous all, as we shall presently see, fall in love with Antheia. Section IV 2.13.6-8

ήν δέ ούτε γυνή τω Περιλάω οΰτε παίδες, και περιβολή 7 χρημάτων ούκ όλίγη. έλεγεν οίν πρός τήν "Ανθειαν ώς πάντα δν αυτή γένοιτο Περιλάω, γυνή καΐ δεσπότις καΐ 8 παίδες. ή δέ τά μέν πρώτα άντεΐχεν, ουκ Εχουσα δέ δ τι ποιήσει βιαζομένω και πολλά έγκειμένω, δείσασα μή και τι

3.11.2-5

2 'έρχεται δή τις els Άλεξάνδρειαν έκ τής 'Ινδική? τών έκει • Φ

·

· · ·

·

* « · · · «

· ·

•

• I Μ· I • • I

βασιλέων ^ τ ^ θ ^ α ν ^ ή ς πόλεως και κατά χρείαν έμπορίας, 3 Ψάμμις • · · · · · · τό · · · όνομα, · · • · # · · ούτος ^^^^^ 6 Ψάμμις όρά · ·τήν · · · ·"Ανθειαν **·· « · παρά τοις έμπόροις καΐ Ιδών άλίσκεται και άργυριον δίδωσι τοις έμπόροις πολύ και λαμβάνει θεράπαιναν αύτήν.

Xenophon's compositional technique

45

τολμήση βιαιότερον, 4 ώνησάμενος δέ^νθρωττος_βάρτίθεται μέν τόν γάμον, Ικεβαρος κατευθύς έταχειρεϊ _βιάτεύει δέ αύτόν άναμειναι χρόζεσθαι καί χρήσθαι irpòs συννον όλίγον δσον ήμερων τριάουσίαν οΰ θέλουσα δέ τά μέν κοντα ¡cal Jtxpay^oyjTTjp^aat/ ττρώτα άντέλεγε, τελευταίον δέ και σκήτττεται < μέν ή "Ανσκήτττεται ττρός τον Ψ ά μ μ ι ν θεια >, ό δέ Περίλαος πείθε(δεισιδαίμονες δέ φύσει βάρται και ^ττόμν^αι_τΐ]ρήσειν βαροι) δτι αυτήν ò ττατήρ γεναυτήν 2.άμων_ άγνήυ_είς _οσον νωμένην άναθείη τή "Ισιδι μέfiv ό χρόνο? διέλθη. χρις ώρας γάμων, καί ελεγεν έτι τόν χρόνον ένιαυτοϋ τε5 θεισθαι. "ήν ούν" φησιν "έξυβρίσης είς τήν Ιεράν τής θεού, μηνίσει μέν εκείνη, χαλεττή δέ ή τιμωρία." ττείθεται Ψ ά μ μ ι ς καί τήν θεόν ττροσεκύνει καί Άνθειας άττέχεται. 5.9.12 3.2.5-6 ή δέ τά μέν ττρώτα άντέλεγεν 5 καί 'έρχεται τις άττό Βυζαντίου αύτω, άναξία είναι λέγουσα (ττλησίον δέ το Βυζάντιον τή ^ — — —Β· ·«· ········· »·i εύνής δεσττοτικής· τέλεον δέ Περίνθω) άνή£ τών jrà_ ττρώτα ώς ένέκειτο Ίττττόθοος, ούκέτ' εκεί δυναμένων, δς έττί ττλούτω 'έχουσα δ τι ττοιήσει, κάλλιον καί ττεριουσία μέγα φρονών είναι νομίζουσα είττείν ττάντα 6 'Αριστόμαχος έκαλεΐτο. ούτος αΰτω τά άττόρρητα ή τταραέττιβάς ευθύς τή Περίνθω, ώς βτ|ναι_τάς_ ττρος_ ' AgpoKÓjLiQy ύττό τίνος άττεσταλμένος κατ' συνθτ^κας, λέγει τόν Άβροκόέμοΰ θεού, òpa • * · τόν · · · · ·Ύττεράν· ·«··· μην, τήν "Εφεσον, τόν 'έρωτα, θην · · · · σύν · · · · έμοί · · · · · —καί ευθέως τους δρκους, τάς συμφοράς, τά άλίσκεται, τοϋ μειρακίου θαυληστήρια καί συνεχές "Αβρομάσας το κάλλος. κόμην άνωδύρετο* In these passages four lovers are referred to, three of them, Perilaus (2.13), Psammis (3.11) and Hippothous (5.9), lovers of Antheia, the fourth (3.2) Aristomachus, the villain who tries to deprive Hippothous of his boy-friend, Hyperanthes. Perilaus and Hippothous, especially the

46

III. Xenophon's compositional technique

latter, are more deeply involved in the plot of the romance than the other two, they have wider functions than those of the adventitious lover, and each of them has already been introduced in connection with other events, Hippothous as chief of the brigands who capture Antheia in 2.11.11, Perilaus as leader of the men who rescue her in 2.13.3 (very shortly before the passage with which we are concerned here; 2.13.3-4 is quoted and analysed in section III above). Psammis and Aristomachus on the other hand are brought into the story each for a single particular purpose, Psammis as the means of getting Antheia from Alexandria to Ethiopia, where she is captured for the second time by brigands under the command of Hippothous (4.3.S), Aristomachus as principal motive force in the tragedy that drives Hippothous to brigandage in the first place. These two, then, are simply brought in suddenly from outside, and they are introduced in terms that are clearly formulaic, that clearly follow an introductory recipe (3.2.5—6 and 3.11.2—3), άρχεται τις dirò . . . άνήρ τών τά πρώτα έκει δυναμένων . . . Άριστόμαχος έκαλεΐτο. ούτος . . . όρα . . . συν έμοί και . . . άλίσκεται corresponding to 'έρχεται . . . τις . . . έκ . . . τών έκεΐ βασιλέων . . . Ψάμμις τό ονομα. ούτος . . . όρά . . . παρά τοις έμπόροις κ α ΐ . . . άλίσκεται. Psammis, from the exotic East, is most appropriately seen as a king and so the usual formula of introduction for persons in the upper reaches of Greek society is adapted to τών έκει βασελέων; the variation συν έμοί / τταρά τοις έμπόροις is, of course, determined by context. The eastern potentate comes to Alexandria partly κατά θέαν της ττόλεως; Hippothous and his brigands in the course of their rampage from Tarsus to Ethiopia take a break in Laodicea in Syria ώς κατά θέαν της πόλεως ήκοντες (4.1.1). Aristomachus, who travels merely from Byzantium to Perinthus, Hippothous' native city, needs no special excuse for his journey; the parenthesis πλησίον δέ τό Βυζάντιον τη Περίνθω suffices. And it, with the formula that follows it, reminds us of another passage: though Hippothous had been introduced into the romance by the narrator at 2.11.11, he introduces himself properly to Habrocomes over a meal at 3.2.1 (and goes on immediately to tell the story in which Aristomachus figures): "έγώ" Ιφη "είμΐ τό γένος πόλεως Περ'ινθου (πλησίον δέ της Θράκης ή πόλις) τών τά πρώτα έκει δυναμένων . . ."; cf. also 2.10.4 • · · •

·

· 4 · · » · · » »

* « * · '

ι

..

1

είς πόλιν Ξάνθον (άνώτερον δέ θαλάσσης ή πόλις). Aristomachus was captivated by Hyperanthes θαυμάσας τό κάλλος; when Apsyrtus led

Xenophon's compositional technique

47

Antheia and Habrocomes into Tyre, πάντες έτεθαυμάκεσαν τό κάλλος, καΐ άνθρωποι βάρβαροι μήπω πρότερον τοσαύτην ιδόντες εύμορφίαν . . . (2.2.4); when Antheia appeared at the brothel, πλήθος έπέρρει των τεθαυμακότων τό κάλλος (5.7.3); Psammis, like the Tyrians, is άνθρωττος βάρβαρος and έπιχειρεί βι,άζεσθαι (sc. τήν "Ανθειαν); in 5.4.5 έπεχείρησεν ò Πολύιδος βιάζεσβαι τήν "Ανθειαν. The introductions of Aristomachus and Psammis are partially paralleled by that of Eudoxos, the shipwrecked physician of Ephesus who has the single function of providing Antheia with the hypnotic potion in return for conduct to his home:14 3.4.1 ήλθεν είς τήν Ταρσόν πρεσβντης Έφέσιος ιατρός τήν τέχνην, Εΰδο£ος τοΰνομα' ήκε δέ ναυαγίω περιπεσών εις Αΐγυπτον πλέων. ούτος ò Εΰδο^ος περιήει . . . . The framework here is specially close to that of the Psammis passage. All the special ingredients seem to be loaded with significance: Eudoxos must not complicate things by falling in love with Antheia, and, of course, his not falling in love with her must not cast any doubt on her universal attractiveness. So he is πρεσβύτης, more or less past it. His being from Ephesus provides the motive for introducing him to Antheia (3.4.3), also a native of that city; and who better than a physician to supply the potion so vital to the plot? He is represented as a victim of shipwreck in need because that allows Antheia to demand from him the potion, and his silence, in return for the help he needs. Eudoxus has a unique role in the romance and the sections dealing with him are, therefore, relatively unformulaic, though by no means free from formulae, as we shall see. We shall return soon to Aristomachus, but for the present let us concentrate on Antheia's lovers, and more particularly on her efforts to preserve herself from their advances and remain faithful to Habrocomes. Perilaus, Psammis and Hippothous have different roles in the plot of the

13

14

κατευθύς is Radermacher's suggestion; the manuscript reads ώνησάμ«νος δέ άνθρωπος βάρβαρος και (καΐ del. Hercher, Dalmeyda) εϋθύς έπιχειρεί βιάζεσθαι. In my view some words have been lost from after και; perhaps . See pp. 175f. below. We are never told explicitly that he did not deliver Antheia's message to her parents. See p. 92 below.

48

III. Xenophon's compositional technique

romance; they are differently related to Antheia through those roles and the rejection scenes vary accordingly. Perilaus, her rescuer, keeps her in his house and wants to marry her, thus putting her in a position where suicide seems the only way out; whence the sleeping-draught and its sequel. At first she puts him off for a month with some excuse,15 to give herself time to seek a more permanent solution; the honourable Perilaus swears to respect her wishes for that time. Psammis, the relatively crude barbarian, 16 buys her as a servant and straightway tries to rape her; she puts him off for a year, playing on his natural superstition, which renders an honourable oath on his part (it would in any case be out of character) superfluous. Hippothous, her husband's friend, must recognize her so that he can operate as an instrument of the lovers' reunion, and so she is made simply to tell him the truth. Allowing for the variations necessitated by these different circumstances, the three rejection scenes show remarkable similarities: each opens with (ή δέ) τα μέν πρώτα άντέλεγε(ν) (άντειχεν, remarkably, in 2.13.8); the sequence σκήπτεται . . . πείθεται occurs in both 2.13.8 (where there is a lacuna after σκήτττεται, and Locella's supplement is hardly adequate; see also p. 174 below) and 3.11.4—5; ούκ εχονσα δέ ö τι ποιήσει . . . έγκειμένω in 2.13.8 corresponds to ώς ένέκειτο . . . οΰκέτ' έχουσα δ τι ποιήσει in 5.9.12. This last sequence would be inappropriate in the Psammis episode: the lustful barbarian is έ-γκείμενος from the beginning, his personality and behaviour corresponding in simplicity to his role in the romance. 2.13.6—8 has strong links of its own with other parts of the Ephesiaca. First actual verbal coincidences: with έγκειμένω . . . συγκατατίθεται compare Habrocomes' apparent capitulation to Cyno, 3.12.4 τέλος δέ (note τέλεον δέ in 5.9.12) έγκειμένης της Κυνοΰς συγκατατίθεται; and Ικετεύει . . . καΐ άχραντου τηρήσαι . . . έττόμνυται τηρήσειν αΰτήν γάμων άγνήν corresponds to Ικετεύει. . . και άρχαντον τηρήσαι . . . δμνυσιν ή μήν φνλάξειν άμόλυντον in the scene with Lampón (2.9.4). The oath (with its temporal clause) also connects 2.13.8 with the scenes involving Amphinomus and Polyidus, which we shall presently consider. Apart from these verbal coincidences with other

15 16

See p. 174 below. Cf. Tereus in Ach. Tat. 5.5.2.

Xenophon's compositional technique

49

episodes, the description of Perilaus' Familienstand (ήν δέ οΰτε γυνή τώ Περιλάω οΰτε παίδες) and the terms in which his marriage proposal is expressed (£λεγεν ο ί ν ττρός τήν "Ανθειαν ώς πάντα δν αυτή γένοιτο Περιλάω, γυνή και δεσπότις καί παίδες) lends him another thematic shade: in 2.10.4 Leucon and Rhode are taken to Xanthus, κάνταϋθα έπράθησαν πρεσβύτη τιυί, δς αυτούς είχε μετά -πάσης επιμελείας, παιδας αΰτοϋ νομίζων καί γαρ άτεκνος ήν; in 3.12.2—4 Habrocomes is bought by Cyno's husband and treated like a son: ώνεϊται δή τον Άβροκόμην πρεσβύτης στρατιώτης . . . ό μέυ δή "Αραξος ή γ ά π α τον Άβροκόμην και π α ϊ δ α έποιειτο; in 5.1.2 Habrocomes ένοικίζεται . . . παρά άνδρΐ ΑΙγιαλεΐ πρεσβύτη . . . ΰπεδέξατο δέ τον Άβροκόμην άσμενος καί π α ΐ δ α ένόμιζεν αΐντοΰ καί ή γ ά π α διαφερόντως. Perilaus, who rescues Antheia from brigands and keeps her in his house, certainly, as well as his role of lover, has something in him of this standard old man who harbours people and adopts them as his children. At the end of the romance even Hippothous, already somewhat ambiguous as brigand and hero's friend, suffers a thematic shift towards this persona: when Cleisthenes first appears on the scene at 5.9.3 he is clearly Hippothous' boy-friend, owing his position to his beauty (καλός ών), but in Xenophon's last sentence we read καί τον Κλεισθένη π α ι δ α ποιησάμενος ò Ίππόθοος διήγεν έν Έφέσω μετά Άβροκόμου και Άνθειας. Apart from the three just discussed, and Lampón and Moeris (whose wife had intervened at an early stage), Antheia has to ward off three other lovers (not counting, of course, the crowd at the brothel: 5.7.3-4): Anchialus, whom she stabs when he tries to rape her in the robbers' cave (4.5), Amphinomus, the guard who saves her from the death to which she has been condemned by Hippothous for killing Anchialus, and Polyidus, the military commander who finds her with Amphinomus and takes her back to Alexandria. Anchialus, who belongs neatly with Aristomachus, the pederast of 3.2, I shall leave until later, and now consider the two others:

50

III. Xenophon's compositional technique 5.4.7-8

5.2.4-5

7 ò δέ Πολύιδος άμα μέν τήν ό δέ Άμφίνομος Ανορύσσει τήν θεόν έδεδοίκει, άμα δέ ήρα της τάφρον και έξάγει τήν "Ανθειαν Άνθειας καΐ της τύχης 5 καΐ ^αρ£ε^ν_τταρεκάλει. τής δέ αύτήν _ήλέει· ιτρόσεισι δέ τω 'έτι φοβούμενης και ύττοιττευΙερώ μόνος και δμννσι μήιτοτε ούσης, τόν ήλιον έττόμνυσι βιάσασθαι τήν ΆνθΙαν, μήτε τούς έν Αίγύτττω θεούς ύβρισα ι τι είς αύτήν, άλλα σεμνήν τηρήσειν ^ájj-ων τηρησαι άγνήν είς δσον αύτή άγνήν, ^ιε^ρι &ν καΐ αύτη θελήσει* αΰταρκες γαρ αύτφ ιτοτε ττεισθεισα θελήση συγκαφιλοΰντι έδόκει είναι κδν βλέταθέσθαι. ττείθεται τοις δρκοις ιτειν μόνον καΐ λαλεΐν αύτη. Άμφινόμον "Ανθεια και £ττεται αύτω* 8 Έττείσθη τοις 5ρκοις ή "Ανθεια κ a i κατήλθεν έκ τοϋ Ιεροϋ· Again the correspondence in thought and language is striking. We have seen that Lampón and Perilaus also swore similar oaths: 2.9.4 (Lampón) οίκτείρει τήν κόρην και δμνυσι ή μήν φυλάξειν άμόλυντον καΐ θαρρειν παρεκελεύετο 2.13.8 (Perilaus) ιτείθεται και έττόμνυται τηρήσειν αύτήν γάμων άγνήν είς δσον 4 2 κάλλους οΰτε έν 'Ιωνία οΰτε έν άλλη γη ιτρότερον γενομένου, in what is really another crowd-scene;43 and τό κάλλος των παίδων κατα-

40

41

42 43

See RhM n. F. 125 (1982) 57. The following ττροσηύχοντο (coni. Hemsterhuys: προσειτοιοΰντο F) is clearly right. The theme-element 'beauty such as they had never seen before' (see 2.2.4; 5.5.8; cf. the use of καταπλήσσομαι, with its implication of astonishment at first sight) is omitted from 1.2.7, where it would not be appropriate: Antheia had often been seen by her fellowcitizens. In 1.1.1 we have a version of the theme-element adapted to suit the context (see n. 43 below). See RhM n. F. 125 (1982) 54. The bones of the first page of the novel are those of a crowd-scene: < τοσούτου > κάλλους οϋτε έν ΊωνΙφ οϋτε έν &λλη 71) ιτρότερον γενομένου (1.1.1) . . . προσείχον δέ ώς θεώ τώ μειρακίω . . . προσεκύνησαν Ιδόντες και προσηΰξαντο (1.1.3). This is fleshed out with a full introductory description of the hero's beauty and attainments.

Xenophon's compositional technique

67

ττεττληγότες in the crowd-scene of 1.12.1 can be paralleled in Xenophon only by κατειτλάγη τήν εΰμορφ'ιαν in the μέγα κέρδος scene of 2.2.1. The two scene-types have two semi-formulae (expressing the same theme-element) in common and exclusively to themselves, and they are in close contact with each other in 2.2. These scene-types seem to have been specially associated in the author's mind. The profit motif and that of letting the girl recover from a voyage occur together in 5.5.8, where the brothelkeeper sees Antheia for the first time after the voyage is over; in 3.8.3 - 3.9.1, where the pirates capture Antheia in Tarsus and recognize her profit-potential before the voyage to Egypt, the same two motifs are separated by speeches and voyage-narrative. This framing of material largely peculiar to a particular context with theme-elements (usually fairly hard-set verbal formulae) elsewhere found together, in a simpler context, is not unusual in Xenophon: compare also e.g. 1.5.5—6 with 2.6.3 (p. 40 above); 1.1.1—3 (p. 66 n. 43) with the crowd-scenes at 1.12.1 and (especially) 2.2.4; 5.1.6-7 with 3.2.4 (pp. 54 and 58f. above). We have now considered sufficient material to see that the Ephesiaca consists largely of repeated themes of varying extent constructed with stock theme-elements expressed for the most part in language that either is already hard-set into formulaic phrases or shows a very strong tendency to settle into such formulae. Apart from the recurrent themes one finds single formulae sprinkled with varying liberality throughout the novel. Stretches of text relatively or entirely free of detectable 44 formulae occur in general where the subject-matter is more or less unique within the romance. Thus considerable parts of book I, where the hero and heroine are introduced at some length and fall in love, and their marriage is arranged and they undertake their initial journey, are not detectably formulaic. Other generally non-formulaic passages, with nonrecurrent subject-matter, are e.g. 2.7, where Apsyrtus celebrates his daughter's marriage and gives her inter alia Antheia as a present, and Antheia visits Habrocomes in prison; 2.11.5 — 11, the scene between Lampón and Antheia after he has been ordered to kill her, her sale to

44

Cf. p. 71 below.

68

III. Xenophon's compositional technique

slave-traders and her capture by Hippothous;45 2.13.2, the description of the brigands' sacrificial practices; 3.2.12 (from τελευταΐον δέ . . . ) — 3.3.5, the drowning and burial of Hyperanthes and Hippothous* turning to brigandage (3.2.12-15), the exchange between Habrocomes and Hippothous from which they both realize that the girl captured by Hippothous was Antheia (3.3.1—5; but 3.3.1 consists of a standard recapitulation); and so on. In general the novel consists of a varying mixture of the formulaic and the non-formulaic.

45

It is true that she was later captured a second time by Hippothous (4.3.5), but in very different circumstances.

IV. Interpretation The features of the Ephesiaca described in the preceding chapter are clearly unusual and need special explanation. We have to ask why the author composed his work to such an extent in repeated scenes or themes made up of more or less standard series of theme-elements the expression of which is largely stereotyped. In this chapter I shall offer an explanation that, if it is right, will also provide the solution to the old problem of the origin of the novel of love and adventure. I shall suggest that the features in question and some other phenomena are best understood as deriving from an oral tradition of story-telling. The argument will be largely, though by no means exclusively, from analogy, the analogy of the Homeric epics and of the Irish prose stories already mentioned. 1 In his justly famous work on Homer Milman Parry concentrated on verbal formulae and in particular on their relationship to, their behaviour within, the hexameter verse. 2 In his unjustly much less famous work on Homer Walter Arend 3 analysed sets of recurrent scenes

2

3

P. 17 above. These two traditions, the one Greek, the other prose, fit my present enterprise well. There is, of course, literature (almost exclusively verse) of oral background from many other lands in many other tongues: see the excellent descriptive bibliography by J.M. Foley, Oral-formulaic theory and research: an introduction and annotated bibliography, New York and London 1985. Milman Parry's works, including some previously unpublished material, are conveniently collected in The making of Homeric verse ed. A. Parry (Oxford 1971). W. Arend, Die typischen Scenen bei Homer (Problemata 7, Berlin 1933). Arend's work, along with that of Parry, has inspired e.g. B. Fenik's important Typical battle scenes in the Iliad (Hermes Einzelschriften 21, Wiesbaden 1968); see Fenik p. 1. Arend's basic influence on Fenik is clear from Arend's Vorwort: 'Der Verfasser weiß, daB die Arbeit nur ein Anfang ist. Notwendige Ergänzungen wären eine Darstellung der Kampfszenen bei Homer . . . ' . It should be noted that Parry read Arend's book at the time when his own interest in 'themes' was developing. A. B. Lord, Parry's pupil, collaborator and follower, refers prominently to Arend's book in his 'Composition by theme in epos', TAPhA 82 (1951) 7 1 - 8 0 (73): 'The theme can be defined as a recurrent element of narration or description in traditional oral poetry. . . . It is approximately what Arend has called "die typischen Scenen" in his work on Homer . . .' .

70

IV. Interpretation

in the epics — what he called typische Scenen — and demonstrated that each occurrence of a particular scene contains a more or less standard series of simple actions or happenings, some of these lesser sceneelements being sometimes omitted and additional material being sometimes inserted in a particular occurrence of a scene. Arend's purpose was to establish the repetition and variation in the typical scenes as the art of a single poet; 4 his basic understanding of the phenomena he studied, being couched in terms of a 'Greek view of reality', is rather vague and unsatisfactory: he talks of them as preserving for us 'ein Bild der eigentümlichen griechischen Wirklichkeitsauffassung, die in der Vielheit das Eine sah, und über die Einheit das Viele nicht vergaß'.5 Parry was concerned with showing at first that the Homeric formulae are traditional and later that they are the traditional building-blocks of orally composed verse. In his posthumous review (1936)7 of Arend's book (1933) Parry, who had become interested in the repeated 'themes' of oral poetry towards the end of his short life (1902 - 35),8 saw the standard elements of Arend's scenes as evidence of oral composition corresponding at a different level to the verbal formulae: 'the singers, even as they tended, for reasons of easier verse-making, to keep only the one best and easiest formula for expressing a given idea in a given length of verse, so tended also to keep only a single set of details for a given action. The fixed action patterns and the fixed formulas, of course, depend on one another: an action which each time took a new form would call for new words, and in the same way the formulas are useful only inasmuch as the singer uses the schemes of composition in which they are meant to serve'. Like Homer and the Irish tales, which represent two traditions of orally improvised story-telling, the one in verse, the other in prose, the

4

5 6

7 8

The title of the dissertation on which he based his book was 'De Homérica in narrationibus arte et repetendi et variandi capita selecta' (accepted at Marburg in 1930). Op. cit. (η. 3 above) 27. 'My first studies were on the style of the Homeric poems and led me to understand that so highly formulaic a style could be only traditional. I failed, however, at the time to understand as fully as I should have that a style such as that of Homer must not only be traditional but also must be oral' (MHV 439; see also e.g. A. Hoelcstra, Homeric modifications of formulaic prototypes [Amsterdam 1965] 9—10). CPh 31 (1936) 358 - 9; repr. in MHV 4 0 4 - 7 . See MHV e.g. 451, with A. Parry's introduction xli.

Interpretation

71

Ephesiaca too is extensively characterized by repetition at the three levels of theme, theme-element, and verbal formula. In attempting to argue from compositional technique to oral origin or background in the case of a prose work one is, of course, without the possibility of producing any such neat arguments as Parry's demonstration of the economy and extension of the epithet + proper-name systems in Homer, a demonstration that depends on the behaviour of formulae within a metrical structure. One must in the first instance content oneself with pointing to the strong analogy in structure and formulaic character between the work of unknown origin and those of known oral background, subtler arguments from the systematic behaviour of formulae being out of the question; later one can explore the work of unknown origin in greater depth and look for other phenomena of various kinds that are specially paralleled in works of oral background and / or that are best explained in themselves in terms of oral origin. I have already shown that Xenophon is strikingly formulaic to an extent that sets him off clearly from normal, literary authors. I am not concerned to show that he is as formulaic as, say, Homer in terms of percentages, either that he is in general as formulaic as Homer or that his themes share stock words and formulae to the same extent as Homer's. The justification for this is twofold: firstly, every work of oral background that has been transmitted in writing is to some extent transitional,9 is at some remove from purely oral technique, the particular degree of remove depending on the circumstances in which it was initially recorded and possibly on other, subsequent modifying factors, and it does not seem reasonable to assume that all such works will show the same relationship to a posited purely oral technique, to expect that they will be equally formulaic, as if they had all been recorded and transmitted under exactly the same conditions and influences; secondly, there are good reasons why any passage of Homer should contain a greater number of detectable formulae than a passage of Xenophon: we have 27,853 lines of Homer in which to find repetitions as against the equivalent of about 3000 lines in the case of Xenophon; and, though formulae should not be seen as basically caused by the necessities of metre, there can be little doubt that metre would have the

See M. Curschmann in Homer: Tradition und Neuerung (Wege der Forschung 463) ed. J. Latacz (Darmstadt 1979) 481 (repr. from Speculum 42 [196η 36ff.).

72

IV. Interpretation

effect of intensifying the formulaic character of a work because of the comparatively greater usefulness of formulae and the indispensability of strict adherence to them in the composition of verse. 10 In composition with formulae one must be prepared to fînd a prose author exercising a degree of prosaic licence, of freedom from the pressures of verse. Since, then, there is little to be gained by comparisons merely in point of formulaic density, I shall at this stage present from Homer and from the Irish tales sets of recurrent scenes or themes analogous to the sets of themes in Xenophon. 11 The choice of material from Homer needs a word. A. B. Lord has defined 'theme' as 'a recurrent element of narration or description in traditional oral poetry1.12 This embraces Homeric phenomena of rather different kinds. On the one hand are more or less set descriptions, e.g. of arming 13 or bathing,14 which are minimally, and sometimes hardly at all, affected by context and tend to contain heavy concentrations of shared formulae; on the other are scenes of e.g. visiting, which are closely bound up with their contexts and tend to share a framework or skeleton of ideas and words rather than a large stock of common formulae, though of course each passage in itself will consist very largely of formulae not special to the theme. 15 Though any set of Homeric

10

11

12

13 14 15

Cf. what M. Parry (MHV 445) says on why the Homeric poems show a greater fixity of phrasing than Southslavic oral poetry: 'the far greater rigour of the hexameter as a verse form might have imposed a highly rigorous conservation of phraseology, whereby the poets one and all were obliged to have recourse to the traditional phrases, which only with the greatest difficulty could they alter or replace.' See also Bowra, Heroic Poetry (1952) 236. On the significance of the theme as a mark of oral style see Parry, MHV 451f.: '. . . the characteristics of oral style (of which the most important is probably the theme) » TAPhA 82 (1951) 73. The confining of the theme to poetry is unwarranted, though understandable in view of the evidence Lord was working with. I am not concerned with any other uses to which the term 'theme' has been put in connection with oral composition: see M. W. Edwards, TAPhA 105 (1975) 51f. Arend 92ff. Arend 124ff. In the former case one may suspect at least an element of recitation, of selfquotation, as opposed to genuine formulaic composition: e.g. the bathing scene of Od. 4.48-50 is reproduced word for word thirteen books later in 17.87—89, and in both places is followed after an interval of one line (4.51 and 17.90 differ for contextual reasons) by the exact same block of five lines (4.52—6 = 17.91—5); moreover, two other bathing scenes (Od. 6.224ff., largely an odd man out, and 23.154ff.) have each

Interpretation

73

themes would do, it is better to compare contextually-influenced scenes that fall clearly into the category of narrative with the contextuallyinfluenced repeated narratives of the Ephesiaca. Let us take, then, some examples of what Arend called the 'arrival' scene 16 in Homer: II.

2.16ff.

"Ω? φάτο, βή δ' äp' "Ονειρος, έιτεί TÒV μΰθον «ϊκουσε· καρτταλίμως δ' ικανέ θοάς éiri νηας 'Αχαιών, βη δ' äp' έττ' Άτρεΐδην ΆΎαμέμνονα- τον δέ κ'ιχανεν εϋδοντ' έν κλισί/η, . . . (Here elements special to the dream scene [Arend 61ff.] take over.) II. 2.167ff. βη δέ κατ' ΟύΧ/ύμ-πΌΐο καρήνων άΐξασα· καρτταλί,μως δ' ΐκανε θοάς έττΐ νήας 'Αχαιών. ευρεν 'έττειτ' Όδυσηα, ΔιΙ μήτιν άτάλαντον, 170 έσταότ'· ούδ' ö γε υηός έϋσσέλμοιο μέλαινης ά-ιττετ', έττεί μιν άχος κραδίην και θνμόν ΐκανεν άγχοϋ δ' Ιστάμενη ττροσέφη γλαυκώ-ιτις Άθήνη· II. 6.369ff. ~ίϊς &ρα φωνήσας άττέβη κορυθαίολος "Εκτωρ· 370 αίψα δ' δττειθ' ΐκανε δόμους ε-fi ναιετάοντας, οΰδ' ευρ' Άνδρομάχην λευκώλενον έν μεγάροισιν, άλλ' . . . (Here the scene is naturally truncated by Andromache's absence.) II. 10.150ff. 150 βάν δ' έττι Τυδεΐδην Αιομήδεα* τον δ' έκίχανον έκτος άττό κλισίης συν τείιχεσιν άμφΐ δ' έταιροι ευδον, virò κρασιν δ' 'έχον άσττίδας· 'έγχεα δέ σφιν 0ρθ' έττι σαυρωτηρος έλήλατο, τηλε δέ χαλκός λάμφ' ώς τε στεροττή πατρός Διός* αΰτάρ 8 7* ήρως

16

inserted in them a 'recited' beautification scene (6.230 —35 = 23.157-62, with very slight variation in the last line). Arend 28ff.

74

IV. Interpretation

155 ευδ', inrò δ' 'έ στρωτό βινόν βοός άγραύλοιο, αΌτάρ ΰττό κράτεσφι τάιτης τετάνυστο φαεινός, τόν παρατάς άυέγειρε Γερήνιος Ιτπτότα Νέστωρ, λάξ ΊτοδΙ κινήσας, δτρυνέ τε νεί,κεσέ τ' Λντην II. 11.769ff.

Πηλήος δ' Ικόμεσθα δόμους εΐ ναιετάοντας 770 λαόν άγείροντες κατ' Άχαιΐδα ττουλυβότειραν. 'ένθα δ' Εττειθ' ήρωα Μενοίτιον εΰρομεν £νδον ήδέ σε, ττάρ δ' Άχιλήα· (Here follows description of Peleus' activity [sacrifíce], of the welcoming and entertainment of the visitors.) II. 18.616 - 19.7

ή δ' ΐρηξ ως άλτο κατ' Ουλύμιτου νιφόεντος, 617 τεύχεα μαρμαίροντα παρ' Ήφαίστοιο φέρουσα. 1 'Ηώς μέν κροκόπεπλος άπ' Ώκεανοϊο βοάων δρνυθ", ΐ ν ' άθανάτοισι φόως φέροι, ήδέ βροτοίσιν ή δ' fes νήας ΐκανε θεοΰ πάρα δώρα φέρουσα. ευρε δέ Πατρόκλω περικείμενον δν φίλον υΐόν, 5 κλαίοντα λι/γέως· πολέες δ' άμφ' αΰτόν έταΐροι μύρονθ'. ή δ' έν τοισι παρίστατο δια θεάων, 'έν τ' άρα ol φΰ χειρί 'έπος τ' 'έφατ' 'έκ τ' όνόμαζε* I have underlined key-words and phrases that occur more than once in the quoted passages.17 Each passage is, besides, heavy with formulae not found in the others.18 The similarity to the sets of themes in the

17

The standard elements of the arrival scene are set out as follows by Arend (p. 28; see also Tafel 1, Schema 1): 'Teil I: Der Held bricht auf (ßf| u.ä.). T. II: Er kommt an (ΐκανε). T. I und II werden nicht selten verschmolzen wie Κ150. T. III: Er findet den Gesuchten, sitzend oder stehend oder mit etwas beschäftigt (Situationsschilderung, ευρε u.a.). T. Illa: Meist werden die Umstehenden genannt (άμφί). T. IV: Er tritt heran (παριστάμενο?). T . V : Er redet.'

18

It should not, however, be thought that the Homeric epics consist all but entirely of verbal repetitions. The nearest thing to exact statistics that we have is in the Vorwort to C. E. Schmidt's Parallel-Homer (Göttingen 1885, repr. 1965) VIII; on the limits of the formulaic in Homer see also M. W. M. Pope in Latacz 338 - 367 (esp. 352ff.), Hoekstra, Modifications l l f . , 15f., Lesky, Horneros (1967) 13f., Hainsworth, Flexibility (1968) 16ff., HOff. (with the tables [except VII, Χ, XV] on 131ff.), Bowra, Homer (1972) 28, Silk 19ff.; on &παξ λεγόμενα in Homer see N. J. Richardson (building on M. W. M. Pope, CQ 35 [1985] 1 - 8 ) in Homer: beyond oral poetry ed. J. M. Bremer

Interpretation

75

Ephesiaca is unmistakable: in each case a scene is constructed on a model framework of ideas and words which functions as a support for the author. This framework is varied to suit different contexts;19 in Homer the metre necessitates a certain amount of verbal variation in expressing the key ideas in different contexts.20 Among works deriving from oral tradition the Irish tales 21 are of particular interest here because they are in prose. 22 Above all they dispose one used to hearing about oral poetry to accept that repetition of scene and formula is also the hallmark of oral prose works. We must not, however, expect that they will therefore be exactly like the Ephesiaca, if that too is of oral background; we must not expect oral traditions to be too closely parallel apart from certain essential features of technique. The Irish tales are set in a heroic and marvellous past and are often jocose / burlesque in tone; and they tend to be relatively short, much shorter than the Ephesiaca. Their repeated scenes or cycles of action — e.g. battle-scenes; complexes of arrival, sojourn and departure — often follow each other in quick succession, and often with some frequency, within a particular story and there is no doubt a strong element of recitation in any particular typical scene. This means that the scenes within a set will show a higher level of verbal coincidence than

19 20

21

22

23

et al. (Amsterdam 1987) 165-184; Michael M. Krumpf, Four indices of the Homeric hapax legomena (Hildesheim, Ziirich, New York 1984). One must also keep in mind that of works deriving from oral tradition the Homeric poems have a particularly high level of formulaic density: see e.g. Bowra (1952) 233, 236. On scene-variation in Homer see Arend passim (on arrival scenes 28ff.). So e.g. είρεν etc. 11. 2.169, 6.371, 11.771, 19.4; κίχανεν, έκίχανον (Allen's editing is inconsistent in a minor way) 2.18, 10.150. What is of basic importance, prior to any particular form of words, is the conceptual theme with its elements (see n. 17 above); the standardization of the words in which these are expressed is secondary, both chronologically and in significance. Cf. Lord, Singer (1960) 69 ('Theme, even though it be verbal, is not any fixed set of words, but a grouping of ideas.'), A. Thornton (1984) 93, 97f. with n. 22 on p. 98; see also p. 31 above. In O'Grady, Silva Gadelica. On the generally formulaic character of these tales see O'Nolan (esp. 1969). They contain a sprinkling, and sometimes quite long passages, of verse. C. M. Bowra's suggestion (Bowra [1952] 15) that they originally consisted entirely of verse has nothing to support it (cf. LCM 13.3 [1988] 46). Exceptional is The Colloquy (O'Grady vol. 1 pp. 9 4 - 2 3 3 [Irish; the text breaks off before the end], vol. 2 pp. 101-265 [English transi.]), but that is a frame within which various mostly very short tales are related rather than a single tale. It does, however, have its own cycles and repeated scenes.

76

IV. Interpretation

one finds in Xenophon. However, the generally formulaic character of the Irish tales makes it certain that this is an intensification of formulaic composition, due to the frequency and proximity of like scenes, rather than something different in kind from what one finds in the Ephesiaca. All verbal formulae owe their origin to repetition, to the repeated expression of the same idea, and the more intense the repetition, the denser the formulaic texture, the closer, in fact, formulaic composition will come to recitation.24 Overall, it should be said, a higher proportion of the Ephesiaca than of the Irish tales would seem to be formulaic. This has, as one would expect, to do with the extent to which subjectmatter is repeated. Though the Irish tales contain heavily formulaic repeated scenes, these scenes often make up frames for long passages that contain only a sprinkling of formulae, their subject-matter being for the most part unique. I. To illustrate composition by theme in the Irish tales I shall first take the following passages from An Gilla Decair:25

24

25

Cf. Thornton (1984) 15, 73f., 97f.; also Lord, Singer (1960) 69 ('Some singers, of course, do not change their wording much from one singing to another, especially if the song is one that they sing often.'). The Difficult Lad (O'Grady vol. 1, pp. 257 - 75 [Irish], vol. 2, pp. 292-311 [English transi.]); from a MS written in 1765 (O'Grady vol. 2, p. xii). Here and in the other sets of Irish scenes words common in a way that is significant for our purposes to the passages being immediately compared are underlined with an unbroken line; close correspondence of content without identity of expression is marked by a dotted line; in the case of the two sets of scenes in section I words above a broken line occur in only one passage of the set immediately in question but are also found in at least one passage of the other set. Apart from the underlined material, several phrases occurring only once in these texts are part of the floating formulaic stock in trade of the Irish tales; this applies in particular to some noun-epithet phrases, a type of formula that would seem to belong to (mock-)Aeroi'c oral literature (though it is not very strongly represented in the South Slavic tradition studied by Parry and Lord: see Lord, Singer [1960] 34). On noun-epithet formulae in the Irish tales in general see O'Nolan (1969). The translations accompanying the Irish texts here are my own. I originally thought of simply adapting O'Grady's translations, but, apart from being occasionally inaccurate, they hardly reflect at all the verbal parallelism between the repeated scenes. I have kept as near to the originals, even in word-order, as English would allow without too much strain, being specially careful to reproduce as exactly as I could identity and variation of diction from scene to scene.

Interpretation

77

(1) O'Grady 1.259f.

(2) O'Grady 1.263f.

ocus ní^chian_do in tan atchonnairc sin náird anair gach ndírech dá_ innsaigid. in fomór ferrda fírghránda. ocus in dúil diablaide dodelba. ocus in mogh modarda mísciamach. ocus is amlaid ro bí ocus sciath dron dubh dathghránda doilbir ar stuaiglcirg a dhroma. ocus_ eloidem claislethan glainbhéimnech ar a chroisshliasaid chírdhuib chlí. ocus dhà sh]eig shénta shlinnlethna nár tógbad cian d'aimsir roime sin i naimsir throda ná thegmála rena ghualainn amach. brat briste bogshnáithech ar uachtar a eirrid ocus a éidid. ocus ba dhuibe iná guai gobhann arna bhádad i nuisce fhuar oigreta cach aighe de. capali modarda mísciamach eretlom le caoildeired liath lúdartha fannchosach ocus aghastar agarb iarnaide uirre ocus é acá tarraing ina dhiaid. . . .

Fhéchus Fionn do thaob na fairrge in tan sin ocus atchonnaire dias gaisgedach sin chonair chuige ba mhó do mhíledaib ocus ba láidre do laochaib ocus ba chalma do churaib. ocus sciath druimnech dathálainn ar stuaigleirg a dhroma ag in gcédfer díob co ndeilb leoman ocus onchon ocus gríob ingantach arna mbuain ocus arna mbechttarraing innte. colg toirtemail trénbuillech cruadloinnerda lánáibsech ar shliasaid a choise eli, ocus dá mhanaois móirremra rena ghualainn. ocus brat buançhorçra uime _ocus _delg_ jjij· sin mbrot _ós _a Jbhruinne. fíese ingantach fhionndruine ima _çhenn ocus ór fá gach cois de ocus a leithéid sin d'innioll ar in dara fer. ocus ni fada in comnaide do rignedar co dtáncatar do láthair ocus do chromadar a geinn ocus do fhilledar a nglúine ocus tucatar comartha umla d'Fionn. tóebus Fionn a lám ós a geionn ocus tue ced aithisc ocus uirghill dóib. fiarfaigios Fionn scéla díob eia d'folaib uaisle nó anuaisle in domain dóib. adubradar gur chlann do_ríg na hlnnia iat ocus gurab é fáth a dturais co hEirinn .i. ar thí beith bliadain ar thuillem ocus ar thuarastal Fhinn in Eirinn. ocus co gcualamar nach bfuil in Eirinn duine bud ghlice íná é. ocus breith do breith idir na cerda do bí aca.

ocus gér gherr uatha é is fada do bí ac techt ar oleas a aistir ocus a imthechta. ocus do bhennaig d'Fionn in tráth tháinic dà lâthair ocus do chrom a chenn ocus do fhill a ghlún ocus tue comartha umla d'Fionn. tóebus Fionn a lám ós a chionn ocus tue ced aithisc ocus uirghill do ocus fhiarfaigios Fionn scéla de. eia d'folaib uaisle nò anuaisle in domain mhóir thu ar Fionn. adubairt seisen nach

78

IV. Interpretation

raib a fhios sin aige eia dhíobsan έ. acht aonní amháin gur bfomór é do bí ag siubal ar rígaib certbhrethacha na crístaigechta ag iarraid tuillme ocus tuarastail i ngell air féin ocus co gcuala nár eitig Fionn duine ar thuarastal ariam. Translations: And it _was_ not k>ng_for _him till the time he saw _agp£qaçhiri£ him straight out of the eastern quarter a Fomorian virile but truly ugly. And the creature was devilish and illshapen. And his demeanour was forbidding and unlovely. And his equipment was a shield solid, black, uglv-coloured. gloomy gn the arched slope of his back: and a_sword wide-grooved, clean-strikinç Qn his jet-black left thigh's slant and two iavelins trusty, broad-headed that for a long period of time before had not been raised in time of fight or battle protruding at his shoulder: a mantle torn, soft-textured over his armour and his harness; and every limb of him was blacker than smith's coal quenched in cold ice-water; a horse forbidding, unlovely, gaunt-framed with narrow hind-quarters, grey, sluggish, weak-legged and a rude halter of iron on him, and he dragging the horse behind him . . .

Finn looked towards the sea at that time and he saw on the way of « · i · towards · · » · · · · · him · · • a pair * champions, the biggest of soldiers and the strongest of warriors and the most valiant of heroes; and a shield curved, beautfullv-coloured on the arched slope of his back by the first man of them with forms of lions and wild dogs and marvellous griffins drawn and exactly depicted upon it; and a blade massive, mighty-hitting, steel-bright, full-splendid on the thigh of his left leg; and two spears big thick at his shoulder: and a mantle deep-purpje_arpund him _and,a_brooch_qf gold_ in_the mantle_ovej· his_breast; a marvellous fillet of white-bronze around his_head and gold beneath each foot of him; and the same kind of array on the second man. And not long was the tarrying they made till thev came into his presence and thev bowed their heads and bent their knees and gave a sign of homage to Finn. Finn raised

Interpretation

. . . and though he was but a short space from them, 'tis long he was in coming because of the poorness of his travelling and of his progress. And he saluted Finn when he came into his presence and bowed his head and bent his knee and gave a sign of homage to Finn. Finn raised his hand over his head and gave him leave of speech and utterance and Finn asked information of him: "Is it of the noble or ignoble bloods of the wide world you are?" said Finn. He said he did not know of which of them he was, but one thing alone [he knew], that he was a Fomorian who was on his way to the right-judging kings of Christendom lookingfor pay and wag£S on his own account, and that he heard that Finn had never refused anyone wages.

79

his hand over their heads and gave them leave of speech and utterance. Finn asked information of them whether their lineage was of the noble or ignoble bloods of the world. They said that they were children In• · ·· · · · » to "**the™king, ™ ™of ··«·»» dia sind that the reason for their journey to Ireland was that they were seeking to be a year on the pav and wages of Finn in Ireland, and that thev heard that there was not in Ireland a person cleverer than he for giving judgement between the skills they had.

That scenes of this kind and their repetition within a single work were traditional, not peculiar to a single story-teller or generation, is shown by the following material from Agallamh na Senórach:26

x

The Colloquy of the Ancients (n. 23 above); dates from about 1200.

80

IV. Interpretation

O'Grady 1.113 Nfr chian dóib iar sin co facadar in dirim degshluaig dÁ ninns^igi^ ocus amdhabach do sciathaib donnchorcra ina nuirthimchioll ocus fidneimhed do .shlegaib urárda órchrái re_guaillib dóib. ocus tánçatar isin phupaill arraibe Pátraic. ocus tucastar a tigerna a chenn i nucht naem Pâdraic ocus ro shléchtsat do. da. thu féin a óglàich ar Pâtraic. Bran • · · · ·mac « · · Deirg · · ··· • mise ar in tóglach: mac rig Muman. cid um a tánacais alé ar Pátraic. fiannaigecht do b'áil dam d'foglaim a naeimchléirig. ór [do chuala] óclách do mhuintir Fhinn do [bheith i]t farradsa ocus do b'áil lem [foglaim] dúird fiansa do dénam aige.

1.171 Ni cian do bátar ann co facadar aenóclách forusda fìnnliath dà ninnsaigid. brat corcra uime ocus delg óir ann. ocus_ cloidem órdaide im a bhrágait. ocus lorg fhionnchuill isin dara láim do. ocus tue a rhp.nn i nucht Phátraic ocus sléchtus dho. cácomainm thu a óclàich ar Pátraic. Bogan _ ardbrugaid _ m'ainm ar in tóclách. ocus_do mhuintir rig Eirenn dam .i. Diarmada meic Cherbaill. in acatsa átelos · · · · · · · ·dúinn «·* * in maithes mór do beith ar Pátraic. is acam ar eisium. in adaig anocht ar do sheilb ar epscop Soicheill .i. prímronnaire Pátraic.

1.204f. In am ro bói Cáilte oc innisi in sceoil sin d'Eochaid lethderg do rig Laigen co facadar aenóclách dà ninnsaigid ocus léine do shról rig ria chnes ocus inar maethsróill tairsi dianechtair. brat corcra corrtharach uim delg 6ir isin_brut ós a bhruinne. clai[dem órdhuirn] ina láim ocus cathbarr óir im m a_ [chenn. ocus is é] do bòi ann Donn mac Midir. ocus tue a [chenn i nucht] Phátraic ocusjuç comas tuaithe dé danann nann do ocus [ro shléchtsat uile da Phátraic]. ocus tue Donn mac Midir féis [dithat na hoidche sin do Phátraic cona mhuintir].

81

Interpretation

Translations: It was not long forjthem after that till thev saw a fine troop of men approaching them and a bulwark of shields brown-purple round about them and a sacred grove of javelins exceeding-tall, gold-socketed at J. he ir shoulders. And they came into the tent where Patrick was; and their lord laid his head in the bosom of Saint Patrick and they did obeisance to him. "Who are you yourself, o warrior?" said Patrick. "I am Bran { son of Derg," said the warrior, "son of the king of "For what did you · · ·Munster." ······· come here?" said Patrick. "The ways of the Fianna it is my wish to learn, o holy cleric, for I_ .heard that a warrior of Finn's people is in your company and it is my wish to learn how to do the warrior's chant with him."

It was not long that they were there till thev saw a warrior dignified, silver-grey approaching them, a purple mantle around him and a brooch of gold in it; and a sword gold-adorned around his neck; and he had a staff of whitehazel in one hand. And he laid his head in the bosom of Patrick and did obeisance to him. "What surname have you, o warrior?" said Patrick. "Owen the Chief-hospitaller is my name," said the warrior. · · · · · · · « %

· ·

·

· ·φ Φ

"and _to_ the people of the king of Ireland I belong, i.e. of Dermot son of Carol." "Is it you that we had hearing of as having the great wealth?" said Patrick. "It is I," said he. "The night tonight is on your resources," said bishop Soichell, Patrick's head-dispenser.

The while Cailte was telling this story to Eochaid Red-side, to the king of Leinster, they saw a warrior approaching them and a shirt of king's satin on his skin and a tunic of soft-satin over it on the outside; a mantle purple, fringed around him, a brooch of gold in the mantle_oyer J m breast; a sword goldhilted in his hand and a head-piece of gold around his head. And it was Donn son of Midear that was there. And he laid his [head in the bosom] of Patrick and_gave command over the Folk of the Goddess Dana to_him, and [they all did obeisance to Patrick]. And Donn son of Midear gave the repast of food of that night to Patrick with his people. · · · · · · »τ · ·

4

A

82

TV. Interpretation

Considering these five scenes together, we can observe, in particular on the basis of the words underlined with a broken line, how an author might compose with varying combinations of standard elements, and we also see that the more material we have for comparison, the more of any individual occurrence of a scene is revealed as formulaic. In these respects the Irish scenes may be compared profitably e.g. with the scenes from Xenophon discussed on pp. 44ff. and on pp. 55ff. above. II. Let us now take a further set of scenes from An Gilla Decair: (1) O'Grady 1.268 Tri là ocus teora oidche do mhac úi Dhuibne sin gcathraig • V · · · · · ·

«τ

ocus in fled as ferr dà bfuair ariani acá tabairt do. fiarfaigios mac úi Dhuibne i gcionn na haimsire sin eia hi in chathair nò eia in chríoch ina raib nó eia ba chenn uirre. adubairt in gruagach gurab i sin tir fá thuinn . ocus gurab é ri thíre fá thuinn in fer sin do bi ac comrac ris. ocus gurab gruagach na tibraide ba fhorainm gaiscid do. ocus gurab náma ocus esgeara láime deirge do féin é. innsios do mhac úi Dhuibne mar in gcétna gurab é féin gruagach in ghaiscid. ocus co raib bliadain ar thuillem ocus ar thuarastal Finn mhic Chumaill in Eirinn ocus nâr chuir tairis bliadain ba haite leis iná í.

(2) 1.269 tri là ocus teora oidche dTionn ocus dà mhuintir sin dún sin ocus in fhled as ferr dà bfuair ariam acà degthabairt dóib. fiarfaigios Fionn i gcionn na haimsire sin eia hi in chathair nó in chríoch ina raibe. adubairt gurab í sin críoch na Sorcha ocus gurab é féin ri na Sorcha. ocus co raib bliadain ar thuillem ocus ar thuarastal Finn in Eirinn ocus nâr chuir thairis bliadain ba haite leis inà i.

Translations: Three days and three nights was the son of O'Duibhne in the stronghold and the best feast that

Three days and three nights were Finn and his people in that fort and the best feast that ever thev

83

Interpretation

ever he got being served to him.

got being well served to them.

The son of O'Duibhne asked âî

Finn asked at the end of that time

the end of that time what was the

what was the stronghold or the

stronghold or what the country in

country in which he was. H e said

which he was or who was head

that that was the Country of Sor-

over it. The wizard said that that was the land beneath the wave; and that that man who had been fighting with him was the king of the land beneath the wave; and that the wizard of the well was his sobriquet of chivalry; and that he was an enemy and foeman of the

« * · · · · · » »»4

cha and that he himself was the king of

Sorcha, and that he had

been a year on the pay and on the wages of Finn in Ireland and that he had not put over him a year more agreeable to him than that one.

red hand to himself. H e told the son of O'Duibhne likewise that he himself was the wizard of chivalry, and that he had been a year on the pav and on the wages of Finn son of Cumhall in Ireland and that he had not put over him a year more agreeable to him than that one.

III. The following passages from two different tales, (1) Cetharnach UÍ Dhomnaill

27

and (2) Bodach in Chóta Lachtna,28

show how the same

conceptual framework with some identity of expression could be adapted to the needs of rather different narrative situations (cf. e.g. the adaptation in Xenophon of the crowd-scene framework to the introduction of Habrocomes: see p. 66 with n. 43 above):

27

O'Donnell's Kern (or The Kern in the Narrow Stripes: O'Grady 1.276 - 89; 2.311 - 2 4 ) ; composed during the life of the Irish chieftain Black Hugh O'Donnell (ob. 1537) or shortly after his death (O'Grady 2, p. xii n. 2).

28

The Carle of the Drab Coat (O'Grady 1.289-96; 2.324-31); from a nineteenth century MS (O'Grady 2, p. xiiif.).

84

IV. Interpretation

(1) O'Grady 1.286 línus ferg mór in clesaide cor tharraing a chloidem ocus tue buille ina mhuinél do'n ghilla cor theilg a chenn dà »cholainn. » » » •»•· »•· » »««··adu• bairt Tadg O Cellaig nár maith leis gním chom michubaisech sin cá dhénam ina fhiadnaise féin. má ghoillenn sé ortsa mar sin ar in clesaide is furus limsa a lesugud is do ruc ar in geenn ocus tue urchar de ar in gcolainn ocus d'éirig in gilla ina shesam ocus do leith a dhroma do bí a agaid. do b'ferr do beith gan anam iná beo mar sin ar Tadg O Cellaig. arna chlos sin do'n chlesaide do ruc ar in ngilla ocus d'impaig in cenn ar in gcaoi chóir air ocus d'fág slán é mar do bí roime.

(2) 1.295 ar bfaicsin Chaoil ar an órdugad sin do'n bhodach thócbus lán a chráige do'n mhin ocus do na sméraib ocus thucus urchur nertmar ar Chaol díob gur chuir a τ

· » • · ·

· · ·

·

chenn fedh maith ferainn óna chorp. rithios in bodach mar a raib in cenn ocus tucus in dará urchur de •d'innsaigid · •· • « · · ·•· · na · colna gur dhaingnig é chom daingen is do bí riam. acht is amlaid do bí a agaid ar a dhruim ocus a chúl ar a bhrollach. do rith in bodach mar a raib Caol ocus do bhuail compar a chléib ocus a chuirp go hathlam sin talam ocus do chengail co cruaid docrach doscaoilte é.

Translations: Great anger filled the conjurer so that he drew his sword and gave a blow on his neck to the servant such · · · · · ·that · · · · ·he · · ·knocked « · · · · « his head ·off ··· his trunk. Tim O'Kelly said he did not like an act so unconscionable as that to be done in his presence. "If it grieves you like that," said the conjurer, "it's easy for me to remedy it," and he seized on the head and gave a shot of it at the trunk and the servant stood up and it was towards his back that his face was, "'twould be better to be without life than alive

When the churl saw Cael in this array, he took up the fill of his paw of the meal and of the berries and gave a powerful shot of them at Cael such that he sent his head a good space of ground from his body. The churl ran to where the head was and gave the second shot of it in thedirection of the trunk so that he fastened it as fast as it ever was. But it's so that his face was on his back and his poll on his chest. The churl ran to where Cael was and dashed the hulk of his chest and of his body

Interpretation

like that," said Tim O'Kelly. When the conjurer heard that, he seized on the servant and twisted his head in the right way on him and left him sound as he was before.

85

nimbly to the ground and tied him up firm, tight, hard to loose.

It is clear that we are dealing in the Irish texts with a much more complex phenomenon than the mere repetition of material that the author has by rote: for the repeated scenes of his story he resorts to familiar, contextually variable narrative sequences, which, used over and over again, have come to be couched in largely settled vocabulary, that may still, however, display a degree of the casual flexibility of ordinary prose. We have already seen in abundance that repeated scenes displaying compositional features of the kind noted here, features that are the hallmarks of the oral character of the Irish tales, are characteristic of the Ephesiaca too. In the Homeric and Irish traditions a set of basic theme-elements may be used to build a scene more or less on their own; but they can also sometimes be interrupted by other material, which they frame to form a larger, expanded complex. Thus e.g. the arrival scene in Odyssey 7.14ff. is greatly expanded, including e.g. an elaborate description of the house and garden of Alcinous (84—132), or the elements of the assembly scene in Iliad 2 (50—52 and 99ff.) are interrupted by a council of the Greek leaders (53—85) and by a description of the gathering of the host (86 - 98); 29 in An Gilla Decair the scene in which the Gilla himself is introduced (section I above) has inserted in it a description of his struggles with his stubborn nag; in the same story three standard battle scenes follow one another in quick succession 30 and the third is interrupted by the introduction of Taise, daughter of the king of Greece, who loves Finn, the leader of the Irish Fianna, and runs away to him after the battle. Within the framework of his familiar themes with their wellmarked stages the oral storyteller, whether in verse or in prose, could insert elaborations or whole scenes, according to his own wish or the

29

30

Arend 32 and 118 (with Tafel 9, Schema 13); for similar phenomena see also Arend e.g. 36f., 39, 74, 82. O'Grady 1.305 - 7.

86

IV. Interpretation

needs of the context, without fear of losing his way. The same phenomenon is to be observed in the Ephesiaca: the elements found all together within a short compass at S.S.8 are split in 3.8.3 - 3.9.1 by the intervention of a voyage in the course of which we have two speeches from Antheia; 31 we have also seen how in the first page of the novel the elements of a simple crowd-reaction scene are used to frame the much fuller introduction of the hero. 32 Usually in the Homeric epics when a standard element of a scene would be superfluous or inappropriate in a particular occurrence of the scene because of contextual considerations, it is omitted; 33 but sometimes the bond of association between a set of theme-elements, a bond forged by their being frequently repeated together from performance to performance and within each performance of a poem, proves stronger than the requirements of a particular context and results in the retention of a theme-element which is here otiose or out of place.34 A similar weakness of a theme-element in one occurrence of a theme as against another can also be seen here and there in the Ephesiaca. In this connection the two battle scenes (2.13.3—4 and 5.3.2—3) set out on p. 43 above are of special interest. In the later battle the taking of prisoners is essential for the subsequent plot: without them Polyidus would have no way of identifying Amphinomus and so finding Antheia; whereas in the earlier passage the prisoners (whose capture alive is emphasized, by και, just as in 5.3.2) are entirely otiose, having no function in what follows. It is significant that the otiose occurrence of the theme-element comes first, suggesting that Xenophon already had in his mind a standard scene that contained that element, which through its strong association with the other components of the scene also came to be included at 2.13.4, where it has no appropriateness. A similar inap-

31

32 33 34

See pp. 64f. above. On the occurrence of speeches between typical theme-elements in Homer see Arend 39 and 74. See p. 66 above with n. 43. E.g. Arend 29, 31 η. 1, 38, 41, 46, 47, 80, 82ff., 95, 99 η. 1, 102. So e.g. in Od. 8.54 the typical spreading of sails is unsuitable in the case of the Phaeacian ship, which is propelled by rowing (Arend 83 with n. 2); or αύτάρ ΙπεΙ πόσιο« και έδητύος έξ ϊρον ϊντο is used inappropriately at II. 1.469 (see O'Nolan, CQ 19 [1969] 7 n. 2) as against, say, Od. 3.473. See further Arend 70f. with notes, Lord, Singer (1960) 94 - 97 (on Yugoslav material), F. M. Combellack, TAPhA 96 (1965) 53, Fenik (1968) 53 et saepe; related phenomena are discussed by Combellack, loc. cit. 41ff. and by M. W. Edwards, TAPhA 105 (1975) 51ff.

Interpretation

87

propriateness of a theme-element in the earlier of two scenes occurs in the love-story of Hippothous and Hyperanthes (3.2.4) as against that of Aegialeus and Thelxinoe (5.1.6—7).35 A phenomenon of this kind is best understood in terms of repeated oral performance. Another instance of the same sort of thing, but with the otiose occurrence of the element coming later, is found at 5.11.2, where the rather full introduction of an unimportant landlady raises false expectations: the explanation is to be found in the fact that the passage in which she occurs is an arrival-andlodging scene parallel to 5.1.1—2, where the name and age of Aegialeus are important; the giving of parallel details about the landlady in 5.11.2, here superfluous or even inappropriate, is due to strength of association between these details and the other elements of the theme. 36 Related too is the motivation of Clytus in carrying out Rhenaea's orders and selling Antheia to a brothelkeeper in Italy (5.5.7 ένταΐθα δέ ò Κλυτός δεδοικώς Tàç rfjç 'Ρηναίας έντολάς άττοδίδοτοα αντήυ πορνοβοσκω): Clytus and Rhenaea parallel Lampón and Manto 3 7 and Clytus' obedience to his mistress is inspired by fear, just like the services of Lampón to Manto in connection with Antheia (δεδοικώς 6è τήν Μαντώ 2.11.2 and 2.11.4). But whereas Lampon's fear is realistic, that of Clytus, as a motive for carrying out in Italy the orders of Rhenaea, who is at home in Alexandria, is less than convincing. It seems again that a standard theme-element has been used despite a lack of plausibility in a particular context. The less than appropriate use of a stock element has also been provoked in at least two other places by the similarity of the context to other contexts in which the element in question is in place. At 5.2.1 we read ol δέ irepl τόν Ίτπτόθοον μέγα μέν ήδη τό ληστήριον κατεστήσαντο, 'έγνωσαν δέ άττα'ιρειν Αιθιοπίας καί . . . , and the careful reader is surprised to be told that 'by now they had made their band large' since at the beginning of the episode now ending (in which few, if any, robbers were likely to have been lost) he has been told that it was already large: 4.1.2—3 έδόκει γαρ avröls καταδραμειν Α'ίγυτττον. καί συλλεξάμενοι μέγα ληστήριον άρχονται . . . 4.1.5 ήν δέ αύτοίς καί τό ληστήριον άυθρώττων πεντακοσίων. . . . διέγνωσαν . . . . On examining

35 34 37

See pp. 58f. above. For the theme see pp. 55ff. above. See p. 35 above.

88

IV. Interpretation

these two passages more closely it emerges that in each of them the size of the robber-band is associated with a decision; it is the strength of this association in the composer's mind, an association doubtless developed not just in this telling of this tale, that caused him to include the offending clause at 5.2.1. We may explain on a similar basis Antheia's pointless lying when, on falling into the hands of Polyidus, she tells him that she is Egyptian (5.4.4 ή δέ των μέν άληθών οϋδέν λέγει, ötl δέ ΑΙγυτττί,α ε'ίη): she had, on falling into Hippothous' hands for the second time, told him the same lie (4.3.6 τό μέν άληθές ούκ 'έλεγευ, εφασκε δέ ΑΙγυτττί,α είναι έιτιχώριος και τό ΰνομα ΜεμφΙτις), there necessary to the concealment of her identity required by the plot. Clytus' unconvincing fear raises the whole question of motivation in Xenophon. In the Ephesiaca, as in Homer, one occasionally finds an inadequacy of motivation that one would not expect in an ordinary work of literature, where the author is at pains to achieve the utmost plausibility in such matters. The oral composer on the other hand sometimes finds himself in a position where he wants to introduce a particular subject or give his story a particular turn and where it would be distractingly awkward (for composer and listeners), or even impossible, to provide adequate motivation for the behaviour thus required of his characters: in such cases he simply makes his characters take the necessary step with little or no attention to their motivation, a procedure at which his audience, interested mainly in the coming action, would be unlikely to take offence: here the real motivation is that of the composer, not of his characters. So e.g. in Odyssey 9.337—9 Polyphemus, against his usual practice, drives all his animals into the cave on the second night ή τι όΐσάμενος, ή και θεός ώς έκέλευσεν. The real motive force is, of course, a requirement of the poet's plot. The same is true earlier in Odyssey 9, when Odysseus takes with him to the Cyclops' cave a skin of the powerful Ciconian wine, αντίκα γάρ μοι όΐσατο θυμός άγήνωρ / όίνδρ* έττελεύσεσβαι μεγάλην έττιειμέυον άλκήν, / οίγριον,

38

One could see some point in it in relation to Polyidus' later visit (5.5.2) to the ruler of Egypt, who knew about Antheia (4.4.1—2), but I do not think that would be right: Polyidus has no special reason to mention Antheia to the ruler, and in fact he does not do so, and in any case his wife's prompt action in getting the girl out of the way (5.5.4ff.) would have prevented discovery of her identity from interfering with the plot. We may regard ourselves as dealing with the stock reaction of the heroine of oral romance in this kind of situation.

Interpretation

89

οΰτε δίκας ε ί είδότα οΰτε θέμιστας (213-15). Particularly notable is the famous scene in Iliad 3.161ff., where, in the tenth year of the Trojan war, Priam, who by this time would have no need of such information, is made to ask Helen to identify Greek leaders for him. Again the composer's concern is not with plausibly motivating his character, and here it would have been impossible to do so, but with enabling himself to take his poem in the desired direction. A corresponding weakness of motivation is to be found now and then in the Ephesiaca. In 3.10.4 Habrocomes steals away from Hippothous' camp and takes ship for Egypt έλτάζων τους ληστάς τους συλήσαντας ιτάντα έν Αίγίπττω καταλήψεσθαι - ώδήγει δέ αυτόν ε'ις ταΰτα έλ-ιτίς δυστυχής; 3 9 but this hope has no grounds and Habrocomes has no real reason for heading for Egypt. He goes there because the author wants him there in what is to follow. The same applies to his later departure from Egypt for Italy έκει ττευσόμενός τι περί Άνθειας (4.4.2, formulaic 4 0 ), and to Hippothous' choice of Sicily as a destination, έκει •γαρ έδόκει μάλιστα διαλήσεσθαί τε καΐ διατραφήσεσθαι - ήκουε δέ την νήσον είναι, μεγάλην τε και εύδαίμονα (5.3.3; ήκουε κτλ. is an amalgam of two formulae 4 1 ). The author simply shifts his characters around the Mediterranean to suit his plot, providing them with only the flimsiest of stock, formulaic motives. And implausibility of this kind is not confined to the motivation of journeys. Habrocomes and Hippothous first meet in 2.14 in Cilicia, but Habrocomes keeps quiet about his search for Antheia (2.14.4), and it is not until they reach Mazacus, after a journey of ten days (3.1.3), that the two eventually get around to talking about themselves and realize that the girl captured by Hippothous was Antheia (3.3.5); the unnatural reticence and delay is to be explained not by any plausible motive on the part of the characters, but again by the requirements of the plot: Habrocomes must be removed far from Cilicia without discovering that Antheia is there, so that the heroine's adventures with Perilaus and Eudoxus and the pirates (2.13.5—8; 3.3.7 —

39

40 41

For the stock character of έλπίζων here see p. 57 above. Note that the hope involved at 2.12.3, and to a lesser extent that at 2.14.4 and 5.10.2, is reasonable. See pp. 55f. above. See p. 54 above.

90

IV. Interpretation

3.9.1) can take place undisturbed. 42 For similar reasons Manto writes an unmotivated letter (2.12.1); brigands cooperate with their captor (5.4.3); Leucon and Rhode (5.6.4), Habrocomes (5.10.3), and Hippothous and Antheia (5.11.2) all sojourn in Rhodes; and Habrocomes stays behind despondent (5.12.3) at the very point where he has every ground for hope (5.12.2). Implausibilities of other kinds are not only tolerated, but arranged, for the sake of the plot: in her letter to Apsyrtus (2.12.1) Manto tells an intended lie about Antheia's fate that corresponds remarkably with the truth; Hippothous, the robber who has captured Antheia, and Habrocomes, her husband, bump into each other by chance in the wilds of Cilicia; Hippothous and Antheia are repeatedly brought together by chance in widely separated parts of the world, in Cilicia (2.11.11), in southern Egypt (4.3.5), and in Italy (5.9.5); at their second meeting they do not recognize each other, though Hippothous was able earlier to describe Antheia perfectly to Habrocomes (3.3.4-5), and at the third meeting Antheia again fails to recognize Hippothous, and he recognizes her only from the second meeting and not from the first. Implausibilities of motivation and event such as I have been dealing with here may be felt to belong to naive rather than to specifically oral storytelling, but given the parallel phenomena in Homer and the rest of the material set out in this and in the preceding chapter, this naiveté in the Ephesiaca should be allowed to play its part in the cumulative argument for popular, oral origin. In any case, how naive can we allow this novel to become before feeling ourselves compelled to see a significant rift between it and the sophisticated literary tradition of antiquity, between it, indeed, and the other, carefully composed, members of its own genre? Apart from implausibilities, we also find in the Ephesiaca, as in Homer, 43 actual inconsistencies of a kind that are best accounted for in terms of oral composition or background. They may be regarded as due to policy, or at least indifference, on the part of the composer rather than as errors which he would have avoided, had he been aware of them.

42

43

Cf. Odysseus' long withholding of his name from the Phaeacians: without this reticence, in itself rather unnatural and never explained, much of Odyssey 7 and 8 would have been impossible. See C. M. Bowra in A companion to Homer ed. A. J. Wace and F. H. Stubbings (London 1962) 46ff.; G. S. Kirk, The songs of Homer (Cambridge 1962) 212ff.

Interpretation

91

The oral composer would not, it is true, have had the same control over his material as a writer, but he also had the advantage of being able to take for granted that his audience, unlike a critical reader, would be concentrating very much on the present moment at every point in the story rather than on the detailed relationship between that moment and other moments in the narrative. Thus he has a certain freedom to compose in a way that is suited to the particular moment rather than dictated by stringent demands of consistency. The most striking inconsistency in Xenophon occurs at 3.7.3, where Perilaus, lamenting over the apparently dead Antheia, exclaims on the good fortune of Habrocomes, for whom Antheia has given her life. That Perilaus' sudden knowledge of Habrocomes is at variance with what precedes 44 matters little against the rhetorical appropriateness at this point of the contrast between the rejected Perilaus and the beloved Habrocomes. The fluctuations of Habrocomes between certainty that Antheia is dead (3.9.7; 5.10.5) and uncertainty as to whether she is or not (5.8.4) 45 should also be understood in these terms;46 and so should the puzzlement of the parents (1.7.1) about what river was meant in the oracle (1.6.2), even though it had mentioned the Nile by name 4 7 As far as further problems of consistency involving the oracle are

44

45 46

47

Gärtner (2074; after Dalmeyda) attributes to an epitomator 'das Pehlen einer Angabe darüber, woher der Eirenarchos Perilaos von Habrokomes wissen kann'. But there is no readily de-epitomized text in which Perilaus could be given that knowledge: Antheia reveals her love for Habrocomes only to Eudoxus, and she does so secretly and by word of mouth, and in a highly formulaic scene (3.5.5—6; see p. 63 above), which must be attributed to Xenophon himself (there is, therefore, no question of, say, letters that might have been lying around for Perilaus to find); and Eudoxus, who in any case cannot be imagined as having revealed his own plotting with Antheia behind Perilaus' back, sails for Ephesus straight away after providing the girl with the drug (3.5.11). I would not include 5.1.12-13 here: see p. 27 n. 12 above. Compare too the fluctuations of spirit experienced by Antheia's parents (1.10.7; 5.6.3 and 5.15.3), and the vacillations of Antheia herself about whether Habrocomes is dead (2.11.4; 3.5.7; 3.6.3; 3.6.5; 3.8.1-2) or perhaps, after all, alive (4.5.6; 4.6.7; cf. 3.8.7); on this she sometimes wavers within a single short speech (3.5.3 [H. may be d e a d ] - 4 [is dead]; 4.3.3 [dead]—4 [perhaps alive] ). She also goes from confidence that she will be reunited with him (5.4.11) to the despairing belief that he has taken up with another woman (5.8.5-9). To heighten the impression of άμηχανία, the composer makes the parents puzzle over all the elements of the oracle and this leads to the inclusion of an inappropriate question about the river. See also p. 21 n. 2 above.

92

IV. Interpretation

concerned, it is in general a mistake to insist on a need for close correspondence between the oracle, a rather ramshackle composition that may have served in more than one version of the story, and the rest of the novel.48 To Xenophon's inconsistencies also belongs Eudoxus' failure to deliver Antheia's message (3.5.8) to her parents (cf. 5.6.2): it is appropriate that Antheia should send the message, but its delivery would be awkward and Eudoxus is therefore simply forgotten. Perilaus' impossible knowledge of Habrocomes may also be seen in the light of a fairly common Homeric phenomenon, the granting to a character of knowledge which the composer and his audience have, but which the character really has had no way of acquiring.49 It is in a similar light that we should see Manto's sketchy letter to her father (2.12.1):S0 viewed as a letter intended to inform Apsyrtus properly about what has taken place in the preceding narrative (2.9 — 2.11) it is highly inadequate, since he does not have the knowledge that would enable him to fill the gaps; but the important point is that the composer and those he is addressing have that knowledge, and for convenience, to avoid awkwardly full repetition of the contents of the preceding narrative, the recipient of the letter is, so to speak, put on a level with them in this respect. Apart from these compositional aspects of the Ephesiaca it is also worth while for our purposes to consider certain features of Xenophon's formulaic language, instances of analogy that may best be understood in terms of the voice and the ear rather than of the pen and the eye:51

48

49 50 31

One thinks in particular of Zimmermann's objections (pp. 257f.) to άμφοτέροις (line 6 of the oracle) on the grounds that τάφος . . . θάλαμος concerns only Antheia (cf. 3.7.2) and irOp άίδηλον only Habrocomes (4.2.8-9). See C. M. Bowra in A companion to Homer (n. 43 above) 69f. See also pp. 126f. below. It may be that not all of these will convince everyone, but everyone will perhaps take to his own selection of them. On related features of the Homeric diction see M. Parry, UHV 71ff., 319ff„ Nagler Iff. With (2) cf. e.g. Λ.5.533 άκόντισε δουρι θοώς, βάλε δέ . . . άνδρα / //.S.722 άμφ' όχέεσσι θοώς βάλε . . . κύκλα or II.5.784 'ένθα στ&σ' ήυσε θεά λευκώλενος "Ηρη (cf. //. 11.10) / Od. 10.311 ϊνθα στάς έβόησα (ήυσα v.l.), θεά δε μεν ϊκλυεν α ύ δ ^ or IL 22.501 ΐδεσκε . . . uto να δημόν (cf. Od. 14.428) / Od.9.464 μήλα . . . πίονα δημώ (cf. //. 23.750) / Od.17.241 ΰ μ μ ' tiri μηρία ιοήε, καλύψας π Covi, δημώ, with (3) cf. e.g. //. 1.48 ϊζετ' 'έττειτ' άπάνευθε νεών / Od.6.236 ϊζετ' ¡ξιτειτ' άιτάνενθε KMÓV / //. 14.189 άπάνευθε θεών or Λ.11.466 ΐκετ' άυτή / //.14.174 Ικετ" ά ν τ μ ή or //. 17.393 πολλών έλκόντων, τάνυται δέ τε . . . / II. 20.405 κούρων έλκόντων* γάνυται. δέ τε . . . or Od. 21.411 χελιδόνι, εΐκέλη αύδήν / Od. 22.240 χελιδόνι εΐκέλη ίίντην.

Interpretation

93

(1) where the analogous expressions are equivalent in sense: (a) 1.14.6 δυανύσαντες . . . τόν ττλοϋν κατήχθησαν είς ιτόλιν . . . (cf. 5.1.1.; 5.6.1) 1.11.2 διανύσαντες τόν ττλοΰν είς Σάμον κατήντησαν τήν . . . νήσον (b) 3.10.4 έιτί τήν θάλατταν 'έρχεται και έτατυγχάνει νεώς . . . άναγομένης, και έπιβάς . . . 5.10.2 κατελθών έιτί θάλασσαν έττιφθάνει ττλοίω άναγομένω και έ-ιτιβάς . . . (2) where expressions have the same words differently related to one another: (a) 2.5.1 [Μαντώ] έρά [σου]· μηκέτι φέρειν δυναμένη . . . 2.12.1 [6 καλός Μοιρις] έρά' μηκέτι δέ φέρειν δυναμένη . . . Both passages come from letters from Manto. (b) 3.2.6—7 [. . . θαυμάσας τό κάλλος, πάντα όντινοΰν έττάγεσθαι] δυνάμενον. έρασβεις δέ [. . . τα μέν -πρώτα τώ μειρακίω "ΐτροσέττεμιτεν] 4.5.1—2 [. . . μεγάλα έν τώ λτμττηρίω] δυνάμενος, έρασθείς δέ [αυτής τα μέν ιτρώτα λόγους ττροσέφερεν] For further connection between these passages see pp. 51f. above. (c) 5.6.2 διέγνω (Habrocomes) . . . είς "Εφεσον ττλεΰσαι ιτλούν δυστυχή 5.10.4 ιτλεύσομαι (Habrocomes, to Ephesus) ττλοϋν ò δυστυχής κενόν (3) miscellaneous: (a) 1.4.6 ούκέτι φέρειν δυναμένη έττεγείρει . . . 4.5.4 οΰκέτι δέ φέρειν δυνάμενος έιτεχείρει . . . (b) 5.1.8 (5.8.1; 5.9.1; 5.10.5) άττορία ( . . . ) τών έττιτηδείων 3.1.2 άφθονία τών έττιτηδείων (c) 2.9.4 διηγείται . . . . άκουσας δέ 6 Λάμττων οίκτείρει τήν κόρην (2.11.4 οίκτείρει μέν τήν κόρην; cf. 3.5.9; 4.6.5) 4.4.1 ττυνθάνεται. . . και μανθάνει τό διήγημα και οίκτείρει τήν τύχην (d) 5.4.3 και αΰτή μέν έτυχεν έιτί τής οικίας

94

IV. Interpretation

5.5.2 ήν δέ έττΐ της οίκ'ιας 5.9.13 καΐ τήν μέν είχεν έτΛ τής οΙκίας 5.13.1 Ιτρεχον δέ ώς είχον èiri τήν οίκίαν The instances in (2) are related to another feature of formulaic composition found in both Homer and Xenophon, the tendency to use a formula not just in a single connection with a single fixed meaning, but wherever a sense occurs that the formula is capable of expressing. Thus the same form of words can have substantially different shades of meaning in different contexts.52 In Homer e.g. the phrase κράτος έστι μέγιστον refers inter alia to the power of Zeus to destroy cities (//. 2.118 = 9.25), to the martial strength conferred by youth (II. 13.484), and to the might of the eagle (77.24.293 and 311) with its powerful wing-span (317—19); or μαίνε(τ)αι ούκέτ' άνεκτώς refers both to Hector's furious charging in battle (7Z.8.355) and to the heinous conduct of Polyphemus (Od.9.350); or σμερδαλέον κονάβησε(-σαν) / κονάβιζε(ν) is used both of various sounds of battle (77.2.334, 466; 13.498; 15.648; 16.277; 21.255, 593) and of Telemachus' sneeze (Od. 17.542). From the Irish tales (on which almost everything remains to be done) I offer one good example from Agallamh na Senórach: 'so that breast and chest of him were wet' is used several times in connection with weeping (O'Grady [1892] vol. II 123. 150. 185. 188 = 'gur ba fliuch blái ocus bruinne do' vol. I 114. 137. 166. 169) and 'without breast or chest of him wetted' occurs with reference to one who has been submerged in the sea (vol. II 199 = 'ni bha fliuch blái ná bruinne do' vol. I 177). So in the Ephesiaca we find e.g. the same set of formulae (see pp. 39f. above) expressing the effects of love-sickness (1.5.5-6) and of torture (2.6.3-4); or όδόν ( . . . ) δυστυχή μέν άλλ' άναγκαΐαυ describing both a voyage (1.10.10) and death (3.6.5); or όφθήναι φοβερά (-oí, -ός) used of a woman in a dream (1.12.4), of dogs (4.6.4), and of a graveyard spectre (5.7.8); or Ικετεύει (-ω) κατοικτείραι referring to Antheia's entreaty to Lampón to respect her chastity (2.9.4) and to Hippothous' plea to his boyfriend for sexual

52

On this tendency in general in Homer see C. M. Bowra in A companion to Homer (n. 43 above) 35f.

Interpretation

95

compassion (see p. 60 above). 53 This striking parallel in the manner in which formulae are employed surely has the same explanation in Homer, in the Irish tales and in Xenophon: it is a form of economy natural to the oral story-teller. We have, then, a whole range of features of the language and composition of the Ephesiaca that all conspire strongly to the common conclusion that it derives from a tradition of oral story-telling.54 This result of the study of formal aspects of Xenophon's romance fits perfectly with the view arrived at by Sophie Trenkner with reference to the subject-matter of the Greek novel, that it was the stuff of popular story-telling.55 In The Greek novella she studied the various popular stories and motifs, readily paralleled from folk-tale, 56 that occur again and again in various genres of Greek literature, and her final chapter, on the Greek novel, begins 'We have established the existence in Athenian popular traditon of all the essential elements from which the future Greek novel was to construct its plots.' Miss Trenkner saw the novel as yet another literary genre exploiting, far more extensively, to be sure, than its predecessors, popular narrative tradition; I, on the basis of the

53

Theme-elements can have the same flexibility without being quite verbally formulaic: compare 3.12.3 γυναίκα όφθ·ήναι μ,ιαράν, άκουσθήναι. δέ πολύ χείρω, of Cyno, and 5.7.8 όφθ-ήναι, φοβερός, φωνήν δέ πολύ (scrípsi : ιτολλήν F : ιτολλώ Cobet) είχε χαλεπωτέραν, of the graveyard spectre; or 5.1.3, where Habrocomes and Aegialeus become firm friends έκ πολλές τ·ής irpôç άλλήλους συνηθείας, and the various passages where sexual love is given a similar basis (1.14.7; 2.3.2; 2.13.6; 4.5.4; 5.9.11: see p. 61 above).

54

For evidence of oral story-telling in antiquity see Scobie (1979) 229ff. (esp. 234 - 4 4 , 258f.). There was certainly a large audience for the oral story-teller: see W. V. Harris' sensible and realistic paper on the level of literacy in the Roman Empire (ZPE 52 [1983] 87ff.). See now Harris' Ancient literacy (Cambridge, Mass. and London 1989): on the late Roman Republic and the high Empire pp. 175 - 2 8 4 (273 - 8 2 on literacy in Greek); summary of findings pp. 323ff. (esp. 326—331). A fund of oral story drawn on by the Greek romance is also envisaged by F. Wehrli, MH 22 (1965) 133 - 5 4 , J. Winkler, JHS 100 (1980) 156; see also Perry, AJPh 51 (1930) 93ff. (esp. 95 n. 5) and Romances (1967) 320f., Merkelbach (1962) 333, Scobie (1979) 253ff. (on p. 255 Scobie has badly misunderstood Delargy: Delargy quoted the plot summary involved from M. Schlauch, who was describing Byzantine romance). See the 'Index of Motifs' in Trenkner (pp. 189-91), also the review by Perry in AJPh 81 (1960) 442ff. (445). Perry strangely, and unfortunately, says nothing about Miss Trenkner's chapter on the novel, and one also misses attention to it in his own The ancient romances (1967). Schmeling (1980) 23ff. notes the frequent occurrence of folktale motifs in Xenophon; even if he sometimes goes too far in seeing parallels to folktale (see J. R. Morgan's review in CR 32 [1982] 95), the approach is valuable.

ss

56

96

IV. Interpretation

formal character of the Ephesiaca, would see it as the emergence at last into the realm of letters of a broad stream of that tradition. The elements in earlier literature that Rohde and others have seen as the sources of the novel appear rather as literary draughts from that same, then underground, stream. If it is accepted that the Greek novel derives from an oral tradition, represented or reflected for us by Xenophon, then light is thrown on two considerable problems that have troubled scholars: how did the novel come into being against the strong traditional conventions of ancient literature, which did not tolerate such lengthy prose works of mere entertainment?; 57 and how is it that the novel received, in so far as we know, no attention from contemporary literary critics? 58 Both problems will at least be greatly reduced, if not quite made to disappear, if one accepts that the novel was in its beginnings not literary at all. Once those beginnings had been made, it would have become easier for literati who wanted to do so to write novels, but at the same time the genre would still have had an uphill struggle to gain acceptance in literarycritical circles. If the theory of oral background is accepted, there remain, as in the case of other literature of oral origin written down before modern times, two interrelated and not fully answerable - and in any case, it is crucial to note, in relation to the central issue of the novel's oral background entirely secondary — questions. In what circumstances did our written text come into existence, and what is the relationship between it and any oral delivery of the story? It is certain that a written text from antiquity cannot be a record of an entirely normal oral performance delivered at normal speed. 59 One may perhaps regard the Ephesiaca as a transitional text, 60 that is a work that derives from and shows the influence of

57

58

59 40

See e.g. Perry, Romances (1967) 82f., Scobie, Aspects (1969) lOff., Hägg, Novel (1983) 98f. On the general neglect of the novel by ancient critics see e.g. Reardon, Courants (1971) 323f., E. L. Bowie in The Cambridge history of classical literature I ed. by P. E. Easterling and B. M. W. Knox (Cambridge 1985) 683. Cf. Lord, Singer (1960) 148f., Austin Archery (1975) 22f. On this concept see Curschmann in Latacz, Homer (1979) 478ff. Specially noteworthy is his view that there is 'ground and room for the assumption that all texts that have been preserved in writing are more or less transitional' (p. 481). This, provided 'transitional' is used in the general sense of 'not faithfully reflecting a normal oral performance', is certainly true of all works of oral background preserved without the

Interpretation

97

oral tradition, but also has features to indicate that it was composed by one who could write. We have medieval vernacular texts that fall into this category, even containing evidence of a debt to literature. 61 Or the Ephesiaca may have otherwise come under the influence of letters, either from a literate collaborator when it was first written down, or from some other person or persons at a later stage in its transmission. The partially atticizing language 62 of Xenophon's tale, the relatively low incidence of hiatus in it 6 3 (though its failure to avoid certain kinds of hiatus altogether, or at least more strictly, distinguishes it sharply from the other novels), and its occasionally rhetorical tone (especially in the narrative frame, where the lovers are together 6 4 ) can be taken as speaking for literary authorship. It is, however, hard to tell what a good story-teller might be capable of in the way of rhetoric here and there, 65

61

62

63 64

65

aid of modern recording methods. See also W. Kullmann, GRBS 25 (1984) 319ff. (in connection with the Iliad). See Curschmann in Latacz, Homer (1979) 480ff. There is probably nothing in the way of literary allusion in the Ephesiaca. The supposed borrowings from Herodotus are of slight extent and not very convincing: see Hägg, Naming (1971) 41—3 with n. 32 p. 42; n. 49 pp. 50f.; 57f. On the relationship between Xenophon and Chariton see chapter VI below. RuizMontero's determination (1993) to see extensive literary-rhetorical debts in Xenophon is unfounded: for her, motifs that the schools of rhetoric had from popular culture Xenophon must have from the schools; personal names found in Herodotus, in real life of imperial times and in Xenophon, Xenophon owes to Herodotus; names found in myth, in real life and in Xenophon are proof that Xenophon was learned in the mythological handbooks; and so on and so forth. Few acquainted with both authors will regard Xenophon as stylistical close to Thucydides and the style described by Dionysius of Halicarnassus (Demosth. 38, De comp. verb. 22 — 24; Ruiz-Montero 1117 with n. 161) is hardly that of Xenophon (in Thuc. 6.30.2, by the way, κατά θέαν is used in the context of people coming to see the expeditionary fleet as it left Athens and has nothing to do with tourism!) As descriptive bibliography Ruiz-Montero's essay is useful and what she has to say about the καί-Stìl is in some respects interesting (though for her Xenophon here too is indebted to rhetoric and only aping a popular style). Mann pp. 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 17, 22, 25, 32, 33, 34, 38. But the alleged atticism in the Ephesiaca is so hit-or-miss as to cast doubt on whether the phenomena in question should really be seen as the exclusive property of literary atticists. I deal with hiatus in Xenophon on pp. 135ff. below. Schissel claimed to discover in the Rahmenerzählung (as partly rearranged by himself!) a highly artificial structure, of which K. Bürger (BPh W 30 [1910] 355) rightly says: 'Es dürfte nicht zweifelhaft sein, daB vieles in diesen Aufstellungen [i.e. Schissel's analysis of Ephesiaca 1.1 - 2.1 and 5.14 - 15] allzu gesucht und schematisch ist'. See e.g. DelaTgy's remarks (p. 184) on the illiterate Seán Ó Connaill's qualities as a story-teller: 'He was a conscious literary artist. He took a deep pleasure in telling his tales; his language was clear and vigorous, and had in it the stuff of literature'; or

98

IV. Interpretation

and purely linguistic features of the text could be the result of later interference rather than of authorial ambition: a relatively crude work like the Ephesiaca, closely associated in its transmission with other, linguistically sophisticated, novels, would have been particularly open to refining interference.66 All in all, the relatively low level of hiatus in the text provides the strongest argument for a literate author or extensive Bearbeitung.61 On the other hand, Xenophon's language abounds in elements of an un-attic Volkssprache68 (the syntax in general being extremely simple and unperiodic 69 ), his work is strikingly without the texture of literary allusion typical of the other novels, and it is very strongly characterized by compositional techniques and weaknesses that link it to oral as opposed to literary practice. Even if Xenophon himself could write, he was very close to and heavily influenced by oral story-telling, and he was certainly no littérateur.

66

67

48 69

Robin Flower (The Western Island [Oxford 1944] 49) on Peig Sayers: 'Big Peg - Peig Mhór — is one of the finest speakers on the Island; she has so clean and finished a style of speech that you can follow all the nicest articulations of the language on her lips without any effort; she is a natural orator, with so keen a sense of the turn of phrase and the lifting rhythm appropriate to Irish that her words could be written down as they leave her lips'. In this connection one must also remember that the Homeric epics derive from an oral tradition. It is in general clear that considerable freedoms were sometimes taken with the wording of romance and other texts not regarded as being of the highest literary merit. So e.g. the text of Achilles Tatius offered by F, Xenophon's codeχ unicus, shows considerable tampering (see E. Vilborg's editon of Achilles [Stockholm 1955] LXVII - LXXI with J. Diggle's note in CR 22 [1972] 7); on Chariton (peculiarity of the codex Thebanus) see Christina Lücke, ZPE 58 (1985) 21f. See further M. L. West, Textual criticism and editorial technique (Stuttgart 1973) 17 and M. D. Reeve's Teubner edition of Longus (Leipzig 1982, 2 1986) XI with n. 7. The peculiar level of hiatus smacks perhaps more of an attempt to accommodate the Ephesiaca to its hiatus-avoiding fellows and so may support the idea of a reworked text. In any case any reworking was such as to preserve, at least in large measure, the characteristics of oral technique. Mann passim (summary pp. 40f.); Gärtner 2070 - 72. Mann 29, 37f.; Gärtner 2071.

V. Formulae and Bearbeiter In this chapter I shall argue against two theories according to which the text we have is not the original: the epitome-theory suggested by Rohde and elaborated by K. Bürger 1 and the theory of Prof. Merkelbach, building on the work of Kerényi, that, before the epitomization, an original 'Isis-romance' was extensively adapted by a devotee of the Sungod, a process that involved inter alia large-scale interpolation. I shall be concerned largely, though not exclusively, with the implications of the repetitions in the Ephesiaca for these theories. Though my own view is that the Ephesiaca is a work of oral background which has neither been epitomized nor adapted to the greater glory of Helios, it is important to make clear, in case anyone should particularly dislike any part of this view, that the arguments put forward here do not depend for their validity on acceptance of what is said in chapter IV, and vice versa: one may see the repetitions and other features of the Ephesiaca as evidence of oral background without establishing that the work as we have it is complete and has not been extensively tampered with; and the use of typical features of the text against the theories discussed here does not involve the necessity of providing any positive interpretation of those features, though it is, of course, of great advantage if they can readily be interpreted in a way that adequately accounts for the nature of the text, thus rendering other theories and explanations in any case superfluous. What this chapter and the preceding one have in common is the basic belief that the various levels of repetition in the Ephesiaca are to be attributed to one person and that this person was the original composer. This seems to me to be well beyond reasonable doubt. The repetitions at the different levels of theme, theme-element, and verbal formula are intimately bound up with one another as levels of the same compositional technique, and are certainly not due to an epitomator, to whom the

Hermes 27 (1892) 36-67.

100

V. Formulae and Bearbeiter

repetition of scenes could not be ascribed, apart altogether from the absolute unlikelihood that the process of epitomization would result in a formulaic text; on the other hand, before accepting repetitions as interpolated on any considerable scale, one would need very compelling reasons for belief in interference with the text by someone capable of operating as a most impressive imitator with an insight into Xenophon's style that generations of scholars have not had. In what follows I shall examine the extent to which parts of the romance condemned as the work of an epitomator or interpolator are typical of the original author, combining this approach with other kinds of argument where appropriate.

1. The epitome-theory The theory that the Ephesiaca is an epitome has become orthodoxy, doubted by very few and questioned at systematic length only by Hägg.2 Bürger regarded himself as having shown how his epitomator 'einige Abschnitte ziemlich unverändert herübergenommen, andere aufs äusserste zusammengestrichen und noch andere ganz weggelassen hat'. He considered as unepitomized about two-thirds of the transmitted text:3 book 1 (apart from some interference with 1.8.2); 2.1.1 — 2.11.9 (apart from a lacuna at 2.9.4); 3.2.1 - 3.10.5 (apart from a lacuna at 3.7.4); 4.2 (with some interference at 4.2.1) and 4.6; 5 . 1 - 2 and 5.10.6—5.15.4. 'Die andere chronikartige Manier herrscht dagegen am Ende des zweiten Buches von Cap. 11 an, ebenso am Ende des dritten von Cap. 10 an und im grössten Theile des vierten und fünften.' 4 The specific points made by Bürger in favour of the epitome-theory may be summarized and categorized as follows:

2 3 4

T. Hägg, Classica et Mediaevalia 27 (1966) 118-161. Cf. Hägg (1966) 134. Bürger 41.

1. The epitome-theory

101

I. Parts of the Ephesiaca are, by contrast with others and with the other romances, narrated in a very brief and bare manner: (1) parallel episodes are treated on a very unequal scale: (a) Manto (2.3.1 - 2.6.5) as against Cyno (3.12.3 - 3.12.6) (b) Perilaus (3.3.7 - 3.8.1) as against Psammis (3.11.2 - 3.12.1) and Polyidus (5.4.5 - 5.4.7) (2) in some places we have no more than a mere Inhaltsangabe: (a) (b) (c) (d)

4.4.1-2 5.2.4-6 and 5.2.7 5.5.7 - 5.6.2 5.10.2-3.

II. In passing from the doings of one character to those of another Xenophon regularly employs the structural formula καΐ ò μέν (or ò μέν οίν) . . . . ò δέ . . . . , and there is telltale departure from this practice in the following places: (1) where the μέν section is missing: 2.11.1; 2.13.1; 3.12.1; 4.2.1; 5.2.7; 5.4.1; 5.5.1; 5.6.1 (2) where the δέ section is missing: 2.9.4; 3.7.4. III. There are actual flaws (for details see pp. 123ff. below) in the work as we have it at: (1) 2.11.11 (the introduction of Hippothous) and 2.13.1-2 (the preparations to sacrifice Antheia) (2) 2.12.1 (Manto's letter to Apsyrtus) (3) 3.9.2 (no mention of Habrocomes' journey from Mazacus to Tarsus) (4) 3.12.1 ('έτι) (5) 3.12.5 (νυκτός γενομένης) (6) 4.2.1 (anacoluthon) (7) 5.4.11 — 5.5.1 (the transition from Memphis to Rhenaea in Alexandria) (8) 5.6.2—3 (the references to the parents) (9) 1.8.2 (the description of the σκηνή) (10) 3.10.1 (Habrocomes' reaction to the report that Antheia's body has been stolen).

102

V. Formulae and Bearbeiter

Beginning with category I, one may remark in general that there is no basis for B&rger's assumption, which rather begs the whole question, that the Ephesiaca must originally have been composed in the expansive, rhetorical manner of the other novels and that the author was bound to give equal space and attention to the occurrence of parallel episodes and indeed to all 'sections' of his story.5 Furthermore, in arguing against Biirger's basic view that the variation of scale in the narrative is to be seen as a 'Zwiespältigkeit' indicating that the briefer episodes have been epitomized, Hägg, with special reference to the parts of the romance in 1.1 above,6 puts forward another argument of general importance in favour of regarding our text as the original. He observes that of the 120 or so events mentioned in various recapitulatory catalogues within the romance all but four (none of these exceptions offering any basis for an epitome-theory) 7 have clear points of reference in the preceding narrative and that there is, moreover, a remarkable correspondence between the importance attached to events in the recapitulations, which mention some events once, some repeatedly, some not at all, and the scale and importance of the various events in the narrative itself. Thus the Manto episode, which is narrated at length, is mentioned several times in normal recapitulations, whereas the brief Cyno episode is not mentioned in them at all, and again the lengthy Perilaus episode is referred to repeatedly, whereas Antheia's corresponding, but briefer, adventures with Psammis and Polyidus are afterwards mentioned only at 5.14.2. Hägg is surely right in considering that while a skilled and careful epitomator might have eliminated from the recapitulations references to episodes that he had eliminated from the narrative, it is extremely unlikely that he would also have removed or reduced with exact care references to those episodes which he had merely shortened, so as to produce in the recapitulations a kind of mirror-image of the action of the romance precisely in point of the varying scale of parallel episodes. Moreover, Biirger's epitomator cannot be represented as skilled and careful: one need mention only the alleged traces of his incompetence

5 6 7

Cf. Hägg (1966) 122f. Also the Schiffbruchszene, Hägg (1966) 125. Hägg (1966) 124 nn. 9 and 10. With regard to the four exceptions identified by Hägg, the question in each case is not whether the element of recapitulation has any point of reference in the preceding narrative, but rather what precise event is referred to.

103

1. The epitome-theory

at 2.11.11, where Antheia is captured by Hippothous for the first time, and 2.13.1, where she is to be sacrificed; or at 3.9.2, where the narrative switches to Habrocomes without telling us properly that he has in the meantime moved from Mazacus to Tarsus. An epitomator to whom both flaws of this kind and extreme care with the recapitulations could be attributed would be a strangely contradictory practitioner. Let us now consider further the Cyno, Psammis and Polyidus episodes, taking each of them separately. First Cyno. Biirger's treatment of this episode is marred by failure of perception: he regarded the Potiphar'swife story of 3.12.3—6 as balancing the Manto episode down to 2.6.S without allowing for changes of circumstance that make the Cyno episode necessarily simpler, and he shows no sign of having noticed the relationship between Apsyrtus and the ruler of Egypt.8 The Cyno episode extends in reality from 3.12.3, where Cyno is introduced, to 4.4.2, where Habrocomes leaves Egypt for Italy and Cyno is crucified;9 the Manto episode extends from the introduction of Manto at 2.3.1 to 2.12.2, where Habrocomes leaves Tyre for Syria. In the analysis of the two episodes given below I enclose in square brackets material in each that can have had no counterpart in the other and is not essential to the basic plot of its own episode: Manto I 2 . 3 . 1 - 2 : Introduction of Manto and her love for Habrocomes (4 lines of Teubner text) [complicated by Antheia's presence: 2.3.2-3].

Cvno 3.12.3: Introduction of Cyno and her love for Habrocomes (4 Yi lines).

[2.3.3—2.4.6: Manto's unsuccessful attempt to use Rhode as a go-between]. Π 2 . 5 . 1 - 4 : Manto writes to Habrocomes and is rejected by

8

9

3.12.4: Cyno propositions Habrocomes, kills her husband,

Or between Rhenaea and the later part of the Manto episode: see pp. 32ff. above. It is interrupted by passages dealing with Hippothous and his brigands (4.1) and with the capture of Antheia by them.

104

V. Formulae and Bearbeiter

him (22 lines).

and is rejected by Habrocomes

(10).

ΙΠ 2.5.5—7: in anger she brings a false accusation against Habrocomes (14 Vi).

3.12.6: she falsely accusses Habrocomes of her husband's murder (7 Vi).

IV 2.6.1—2: Apsyrtus condemns Habrocomes without a hearing

4 . 2 . 1 - 2 : the ruler of Egypt condemns Habrocomes without a hearing (5). [Habrocomes consoles himself with the thought that Antheia is already dead: 4.2.2].

(9)·

V 2.6.3—5: the punishment of Habrocomes (7). [Antheia's pleas are rejected: 2.6.5]. 10

4.2.2—10: the attempts to punish Habrocomes (40). 1 0

[2.7.1—5: Manto is married and sets out for Syria with Antheia and Leucon and Rhode as her slaves; the lovers' farewell]. 2.8.1—2: Habrocomes laments his situation; he has a dream (14). [2.9.1-4: Leucon and Rhode are sold; Antheia is sent to live with the goatherd]. VI 2.10.1—3: Apsyrtus discovers that Habrocomes is innocent, frees him, and compensates him. Habrocomes is full of thoughts of finding Antheia

(20).

10

4.4.1—2: the ruler of Egypt realizes that Habrocomes is innocent, frees him, and compensates him. Habrocomes wants only to go in search of Antheia (6).

Note the next sentence in each episode at this point: 2.7.1 και ό μεν έδέδετο και ην έν είρκτ-ή, 4.3.1 και 6 μέν ήν έν Tfj είρκτ-ή.

1. The epitome-theory

105

[2.10.4-2.11.11: concerning Leucon and Rhode and Antheia] [2.12.1: Manto's letter to Apsyrtus] VII 2.12.2: Habrocomes sets out to search for Antheia (3).

4.4.2: Habrocomes sets out to search for Antheia (2).

The Manto episode contains not only Manto's direct attempt to win Habrocomes (2.5.1 - 2.5.4), her accusation against him (2.5.5 - 2.5.7), and his punishment (2.6) and pardoning (2.10.1 - 3 ) by Apsyrtus, but also all that is entailed and allowed by the presence of Antheia and of Leucon and Rhode, including Manto's attempt to get to Habrocomes through Rhode (2.3.3 - 2.4.6), and the account of her vengeful dealings with Antheia in Syria (2.9.1 — 2.11.9), complicated by Moeris' love for Antheia. In the Cyno episode Habrocomes is alone and so the episode is naturally simpler, containing only Cyno's direct attempt to get Habrocomes for herself (3.12.4—5), her accusation against him (3.12.6), and his punishment (4.2.1 — 4.2.10) and pardoning (4.4.1—2) by the ruler of Egypt. In comparing the two episodes one must, of course, take these necessary limitations on the Cyno episode into account and at the same time consider the existing parallelism over its whole range, so as to embrace not only the approaches made to Habrocomes but also the punishments. In the earlier part of the Manto episode the presence of both of the lovers and their servants is easily exploited to give a much fuller campaign to win Habrocomes (2.3.3 — 2.5.4), while the punishment is related briefly (2.6.2-5); in the Cyno episode Habrocomes is alone and the account of the attempted seduction (3.12.4—5) is correspondingly simple and brief, but here the narrative dwells at length on the punishment, the two attempts to execute Habrocomes, with the repeated miraculous intervention of the Nile (4.2.2 — 4.2.10). It is mainly for these scenes involving the Nile that Habrocomes has been brought to Egypt at all (he leaves again without searching for Antheia), and Cyno and her accusation are merely a ploy to introduce them. In the Manto episode, then, it is the attempted seduction of Habrocomes, in the Cyno episode the punishment, that is elaborated. There is no ground here for maintaining that the beginning of the Cyno episode is an

106

V. Formulae and Bearbeiter

epitome. One might as well say that the punishment scene in the Manto episode has been epitomized. But the authenticity of that scene is guaranteed by its correspondence with the scene in which Antheia is punished by Rhenaea (5.5.2—3: see pp. 32f., 37 above). The Cyno episode occupies in all about 77 Teubner lines, the parallel parts of the Manto episode about 80.11 Cyno kills her husband νυκτός γενομένης (3.12.5). Bürger (54) offers this as evidence of epitomization, saying that the temporal phrase necessarily presupposes a detailed narrative with exact information about the chronological sequence of events. But νυκτός γενομένης here means no more than νυκτωρ, 'at night', the proper time for murder: cf. 3.2.10 λαβών ξιφίδιον (συνδοκοΰν τοΰτο καΐ τω Ύττεράνθει) εΐσειμι νύκτωρ είς τήν οΐκίαν τοΰ Άριστομάχου και . . . ιταίω τον Άριστόμαχον καιρίαν. νυκτός γενομένης is also used at 3.2.12 and 5.2.4 without an accompanying exact chronological scheme. Biirger's other specific remark about the text here is equally insubstantial. Cyno accuses Habrocomes of murder before the crowd at Pelusium καΐ έδόκει λέγειν τώ ττλήθει ττιστά. To Bürger (40) it seemed 'nicht sehr angemessen, dass das letzte Satzstück καΐ έδόκει λέγειν τω ττλήθει ττιστά, das die Nachricht über die Aufnahme enthält, die die Anklage der Kyno bei den Pelusioten findet, mit der vorherigen Erzählung jener Anklage durch ein einfaches και verbunden ist.' One can only say that there is no more wrong with the καί in question than with the 'and' in 'She spun an emotional tale that Habrocomes had killed her husband and the crowd believed her'. Finally, a formulaic feature of the Potiphar's-wife story is worth some attention. At first Habrocomes abhors Cyno's proposition, τέλος δέ έγκειμένης της Κυνοϋς συγκατατίθεται (3.12.4). This clause certainly comes from Xenophon: it is a transference to the attempt on Habrocomes' virtue of an element 12 from the scenes in which Antheia is confronted with unwanted lovers (see pp. 44ff. above). It is important to notice the summary nature of the words, designed to carry on the

11

12

94, if one were to count Habrocomes' lament and dream in 2.8.1—2. But these are specially occasioned by the initial separation from Antheia. Note that the standard element is not quite appropriate here, since it appears to involve his consent not only to sexual dealings with Cyno but also to murder, which he abhors both before and after the apparent consent. The inappropriateness cannot be explained in terms of epitomization. On the kind of phenomenon involved see pp. 86f. above.

1. The epitome-theory

107

narrative without detailed description of the characters' dealings with one another and without any direct speech. The presence of such a formulaic device suggests clearly that the beginning of the Cyno episode never was more than a brief, unadorned narrative. Bürger also maintained that the accounts of the attempts on Antheia by Psammis (3.11.2-5) and Polyidus (5.4.5-7) were epitomized, pointing to their brevity as against 'die Werbung des Perilaos' (3.3.7-3.8.1). The comparison involved here is much too simple, ignoring important differences between the episodes and between the functions in the plot of the characters concerned. Perilaus' love for Antheia (2.13.6—8) is to lead to her Scheintod and burial, and this entails the proposal and postponement of the marriage (2.13.7—8), the introduction of the physician Eudoxus, suitably Ephesian and in need (3.4), Antheia's confiding in Eudoxus and his provision of the deceitful non-fatal drug (3.5.5 — 11), the wedding with its preparations (3.3.7; 3.5.1—4; 3.6.1—3), as well as the Scheintod (3.6.5) and burial (3.7.4) themselves, and the lamentations of Perilaus and his household (3.7.1-3). The part of the romance containing all this is necessarily of some length and complexity. Psammis and Polyidus on the other hand have quite simple functions to fulfil and the parts of the text dealing with them are correspondingly short. 13 There is no question of Antheia's marrying or being buried by either of them or anything of that kind. They are both used basically to get her from one place to another, Psammis from Alexandria to Ethiopia (and into the hands of Hippothous), Polyidus back to Alexandria (and into the clutches of his wife, and so of the brothelkeeper). The passages impugned by Bürger really correspond only to the beginning of the Perilaus episode (which Bürger did not even include in the stretch of text with which he contrasted them): 3.11.2 (Psammis' entry) . . . 3.11.5 (ττείθεται. . .) to 2.13.3 (Perilaus' entry) . . . 2.13.8 ( π ε ί θ ε τ α ι . . .); and 5.4.5 (Polyidus' love for Antheia) . . . 5.4.7 (τηρησαι άγνήν είς δσον . . .) to 2.13.6 (Perilaus' love for Antheia) . . . 2.13.8 (τηρήσειν αΰτήν γάμων άγυήυ els δσον . . .). And one can do much more to establish the authenticity of the two shorter episodes than show that their relative brevity is natural in view of their relative simplicity. The passages specially mentioned by Bürger

13

Though not so short as Bürger makes out: Psammis occupies not only 3.11.2—5 but also 4.3.1—5; Polyidus is introduced at 5.3.1 and lasts until 5.5.7.

108

V. Formulae and Bearbeiter

as the products of epitomization, 3.11.2-5 (Psammis) and 5.4.5—7 (Polyidus), are both heavily formulaic, each containing a standard scene and much other standard material besides. They are quite typical of Xenophon. I begin with Psammis: έρχεται δή Tis είς 'Αλεξάνδρειαν έκ τής 'Ινδικής των έκει βασιλέων κατά θέαν τής πόλεως καΐ κατά χρεία ν έμ3 ποριάς, Ψάμμις τό δνομα. ούτος ò Ψάμμις όρά τήυ "Αν3.11.2-5

•

·

•

• · ·

·

· »

·

» » · · ·

·

^ ^ ^

»

• • ·

·

» »

θειαν παρά τοις έμπόροις και Ιδών άλίσκεται και άργύριον δίδωσι τοις έμπόροις πολύ καΐ λαμβάνει θεράπαιναν αυτήν. 4 ώνησάμενος δέ άνθρωπος βάρβαρος και * * εύθύς επιχειρεί βιάζεσθαι και χρήσθαι πρός συνονσ'ιαν οι) θέλουσα δέ τά μέν πρώτα άντέλεγε, τελευταιον δέ σκήπτεται πρός τόν Ψάμμιν (δεισιδαίμονες δέ φύσει βάρβαροι) δτι αϋτήν 6 πατήρ γεννωμένην άναθείη τή "Ισιδι μέχρις ώρας γάμων, και έλεγεν ετι 5 τόν χρόνον ένιαυτω ^τίθεσθαι*. "ήν olv" φησιν "εξύβρισης είς τήν Ιεράν της θεοΰ, μηνίσει μέν έκε'ινη, χαλεπή δέ ή τιμωρία." πείθεται Ψάμμις καΐ τήν θεόν προσεκίινει και Άνθειας άπέχεται. 3.11.2—3 έρχεται. . . άλίσκεται: see ρ. 46 above; 3.11.3 άργύριον δίδωσι τοις έμπόροις πολύ και λαμβάνει . . ., cf. 3.11.1 . . . παρέδωκαν έμττόροις πολύ λαβόντες άργύριον (3.11.3 relates the resale of Antheia by the same traders); 3.11.4 with άνθρωπος βάρβαρος in connection with Psammis' behaviour towards the beautiful Antheia compare άνθρωποι βάρβαροι of the Tyrians where their response to the lovers' beauty is described (2.2.4); 3.11.4 έπιχειρει βιάζεσθαι, cf. 4.5.4 έπεχείρει βιάζεσθαι τήν "Ανθειαν (of Anchialus) and 5.4.5 έπεχείρησεν . . . βιάζεσθαι τήν "Ανθειαν. On 3.11.4—5 βιάζεσθαι . . . πείθεται see pp. 47f. above together with the texts on pp. 44f. The scale of this scene (ca. 8 lines built on the framework βιάζεσθαι. . . τά μέν πρώτα άντέλεγε . . . σκήπτεται . . . πείθεται) is guaranteed particularly by 2.13.8 (ca. 7 lines14 built around τά μέν πρώτα άντείχεν . . . βιαζομένω . . . σκήπτεται . . . πείθεται). The Polyidus passage is similarly full of stock ideas and phrases:

14

There is a probably short lacuna after σκήιττεται.

1. The epitome-theory

109

5.4.5-8 έν τούτω èpâ καΐ 6 Πολύιδος Άνθειας Ερωτα σφοδρόν (ήν δε αύτω έν Άλεξανδρεία γυνή) · έρασθείς δέ τά μέν ττρώτα έττειράτο ττείθειν μεγάλα ύττισχνούμενος· τελευταΐον δέ κατήεσαν είς Άλεξάνδρειαν - ώς δέ έγένοντο fev Μέμφει, έττεχείρη6 σεν ò Πολύιδος βιάζεσθαι τήν "Ανθειαν ή δέ έκφυγεΐν jnjvrjj θεΐσα, έττι τό της "Ισιδος Ιερόν έρχεται και Ικέτις γενομένη "σόι με" είττευ "ώ δέσποινα ΑΙγύιττου, ττάλιν σώσον, ή έβοήθησας ττολλάκις· φεισάσθω μου και Πολύιδος της δια σέ σώφρονος 7 Άβροκόμη τηρούμενης." ό δέ Πολύιδος ά μ α μέν τήν θεόν έδεδοίκει, ά μ α δέ ήρα της Άνθειας και τής τύχης αύτήν ήλέει· ττρόσεισι δέ τώ Ιερώ μόνος καΐ δμνυσι μήττοτε βιάσασθαι τήν "Ανθειαν, μήτε ΰβρίσαι τι ε'ις αύτήν, άλλα τηρήσαι άγνήν ε'ις όσον αύτή θελήσει· αύταρκες γαρ αύτώ φιλούντι έδόκει είναι 8 κδν βλέττειν μόνον καΐ λαλειν αύτή. έττείσθη τοις δρκοις ή 'Άνθεια καΐ κατήλθεν έκ τοΰ Ιερού. 5.4.5 έρα . . . έρωτα σφοδρόν, see index p. 182 below s.v. έρως; ibid. έρα . . . έρασθείς δέ τα μέν -πρώτα . . . ττείθειν, cf. 4.5.1—2 έρα . . . (here the introduction of Anchialus [4 lines] intervenes; Polyidus has already been introduced at 5.3.1) έρασθείς δέ αύτής τα μέν ιτρώτα . . . τΓείσων; ibid, the parenthesis about Polyidus' wife must be authentic: there can never have been any more here about Rhenaea, who is not properly introduced until 5.5.1 (her name is not given until 5.5.2). Such parentheses are common in Xenophon: 1.5.4, 1.8.1, 1.8.2, 1.13.4, 2.9.1, 2.10.4, 3.1.5, 3.2.1, 3.2.5, 3.5.9, 3.7.4, 3.10.4, 3.11.4, 3.12.2, 4.6.4, 5.2.2, 5.5.2 bis, 5.9.7, 5.12.1. Ibid, τά μέν ιτρώτα . . . τελευταΐον δέ, so 1.13.4, 3.2.14, 3.11.4 (Psammis), 5.1.7, 5.10.1 (cf. 5.9.12, 5.12.1). Ibid. τά μέν ιτρώτα έττειράτο . . . τελευταΐον δέ . . . occurs also at 2.11.1. Ibid. μεγάλα ύττισχνούμενος, see index p. 186 s.v. ύττισχνέομαι and pp. 60 and 63 above. Ibid, ώς δέ έγένοντο έν Μέμφει: Xenophon frequently uses γίνομαι with έν to express arrival in a place: 15 2.9.4 γενομένη δέ έν τω χωρίω, 4.3.3 ώς . . . έγένετο έν Μέμφει, 5.10.3 έν Κύττρω γενόμενος, 5.10.5 γενόμενος έν Έφέσω, 5.11.4 έν "Ρόδω γενομένη, cf. 5.1.7 έν ταύτώ μοι γενέσθαι. Ibid. έττεχείρησεν . . . βιάζεσθαι τήν "Ανθειαν: see ρ. 108

15

Cf. 3.2.12 κατά Λέσβον . . . γενομένοις, 3.5.8 έκεΐ δέ γενόμενο«, 5.1.2 ένταίθα . . . γενόμενος, 5.15.4 κατά Λέσβον γενόμενος.

110

V. Formulae and Bearbeiter

above; note also Polyidus' oath in 5.4.7 μήττοτε βιάσασθαι τήν "Ανθειαν. 5.4.6 έκφυγειν δυνηθείσα: Rohde 16 has already drawn attention to Xenophon's constant use of the aorist participle of δύναμαι in expressions of this kind (2.7.4, 3.2.13, 5.1.7, 5.3.3).17 Ibid.·, the direct speech of Antheia's address to Isis offers in itself no hold for Bürger's views, and it contains at least one formulaic phrase: της . . . σώφρονος Άβροκόμη τηρουμένης, cf. 2.1.3 μέχρι νϋν σώφρων έτηρήθην, 5.5.5 τήν μέχρι νϋν Άβροκόμη τηρουμένην σωφροσύνην, 5.7.2 τήν μέχρι νϋν σωφροσύνην τετηρημένην, cf. also 4.3.3 γάμον ¿ίχραντον Άβροκόμη τηρώ (in the corresponding speech of Antheia to Isis on her way south from Alexandria to Ethiopia). 5.4.7 τήν θεόν έδεδοίκει. . . καΐ της τύχης αυτήν ήλέει: compare the motivation of Lampón (who did not love Antheia) in selling her instead of killing her, 2.11.7 καΐ θεούς δεδιώς και TÒ κάλλος οίκτείρας. See also pp. 38 and 51 above. 5.4.7—8 δμνυσι μήττοτε . . . "Ανθεια και . . . : on this standard scene see pp. 50f. above. No one is, I think, likely to feel that the few bits passed over, which are thoroughly in the manner of the rest, provide a basis for the view that the passage has been epitomized. I shall now examine for signs of genuine Xenophon some parts of the text (in 1.2 p. 101 above) regarded by Bürger as especially drastically epitomized, as places where we have from an epitomator a bare precis of the original. First let us take 5.5.7 — 5.6.2 where, according to Bürger, 'Besondere Anstösse sind zwar nicht zu entdecken,' but four whole 'Abschnitte', one of which is usually given at least two to three pages, have been compressed into nineteen lines: 5.5.7 - 5.6.2 καΐ ή μέν άττήγετο είς Ίταλίαν, ή δέ 'Ρηνα'ια έλθόντι τω Πολυίδω λέγει δτι άιτέδρα ή "Ανθεια, κάκείνος έκ των 5 ήδη πεπραγμένων έττίστευσεν αύτη. ή δέ "Ανθεια κατήχθη μέν είς Τάραντα, ττόλιν τής 'Ιταλίας- ένταϋθα δέ ò Κλντός δεδοικώς τάς τής 'Ρηναίας έντολάς άττοδίδοται αυτήν Ίτορνοβοσκώ. ò δέ Ιδών κάλλος οίον οΰττω ττρότερον έτεθεατό, μέγα κέρδος έξειυ τήν τταιδα ένόμιζε, και ήμέραις ·

16 17

Rohde 407 [= 31914, 435] η. 3. See ρ. 13 η. 69 above.

·

·

·

·

·

·

· · · ·

·

·

·

·

Φ

1. The epitome-theory

111

10 μέν τισιν αυτήν άνελάμβανεν έκ του ττλοΰ κεκμηκυίαν και έκ των farò της 'Ρηναίας βασάνων* ò δέ Κλυτός ήκεν εις Άλεξάνδρειαν και τά ττραχθέντα έμήνυσε τή 'Ρηναίςι. ò δέ Ίτπτόθοος διανύσας τόν ττλοΰν κατήχθη μέν ε'ις Σικελίαν, ούκ είς Συρακούσας δέ, άλλ' είς Ταυρομένιον, 15 καΐ έζήτει καιρόν δι' ου τά έττιτήδεια Ιξει. τω δέ Άβροκόμη έν Συρακούσαις ώς χρόνος ιτολύς έγένετο, άθυμία έμττίτττει και άττορία δεινή, δτι μηδέ "Ανθειαν εύρίσκοι μηδέ είς την πατρίδα άνασωζοιτο. διέγνω ούν άττοττλεύσας έκ Σικελίας είς Ίταλίαν άνελθεϊν κάκειθεν, εί μηδέν εΰρί20 σκοι τών ζητουμένων, είς "Εφεσον ττλεΰσαι ττλοΰν δυστυχή· I have underlined formulae and key-words marking standard themeelements. Other features of the passage at the level of form and language also bear the stamp of Xenophon: lines 3 — 5 (in the lineation I follow Papanikolaou's edition) consist of a και ή μέν . . . ή δέ . . . structure of the kind seen by Bürger himself as typical of the original author; also typical is ουκ είς Συρακούσας δέ, άλλ' είς Ταυρομένιον (line 14): see p. 56 above. Much of the syntax and wording of what is peculiar in the passage is more or less guaranteed by the typical elements (e.g. by και ή μέν . . . ή δέ . . ., by δεδοικώς [line 7], άθυμία . . . και άττορία 16-17) and so, it seems to me, is the generally simple and economical character of the passage as a whole, a character it shares with the heavily formulaic sets of scenes, which with their extensive parallelism must surely be considered the intact work of Xenophon. To regard what we have here as a preçis from the hand of Biirger's epitomator, one would need to see that hopeless blunderer as at the same time an extremely knowledgeable and skilful user of Xenophon's own jig-saw pieces, bent on using his skill to preserve not only the story-line but also, for some reason, the peculiarities of the original style, accentuated through compression. It is useful to consider the passage further with reference to Biirger's view that we have in it four 'sections' that originally occupied between eight and twelve pages, these sections being represented respectively by lines 3 - 6 (. . . Ιταλίας), 6 - 1 1 (. . . βασάνων), 1 3 - 1 5 (. . . εξει), 1 5 - 2 0 (. . . δυστυχή). What exactly Bürger meant by 'section' and how he would parallel these 'sections' within the romance is altogether unclear: the first and second 'sections' together form only part of the

112

V. Formulae and Bearbeiter

experiences of Antheia at the hands of Clytus, which in turn are part of the Rhenaea episode. But let us look at them. The first consists of a formulaic μεν clause, a report within the standard transitional μεν . . . δέ structure of a conversation between defunct secondary characters that was of no conceivable interest for the further development of the plot, and the statement of Antheia's arrival in Tarentum, which no one acquainted with Xenophon's manner of relating such events will want to expand.18 The next 'section' begins with the unobjectionably simple statement that Clytus carried out Rhenaea's orders, his motivation being a stock element, paralleling the motivation of Lampón in the latter's doings with Antheia and his mistress (see p. 110 above). The rest of the 'section' is as good as exclusively formulaic and offers no hold that I can see for the view that it is the result of epitomization; indeed an epitomator might be expected to have omitted the stock (see p. 59 above) but unnecessary καΐ ήμέραις μεν τισιν . . . (lines 9-11); and the story is, after all, to return to Antheia and the brothelkeeper and give them their due (5.7.1—9; see also 5.9.4—9). The sentence ò δέ Κλυτός . . . τη 'Ρηνα'ια (11 — 12) Bürger would attribute to Xenophon, seeing it as the surviving part of a transition! The third 'section' is Xenophon through and through, everything except the words και έζήτει καιρόν δι' oí being standard, and they are needed to complete the sense with the formula τά έιτιτήδεια £ξει. Here there is certainly no ground for expansion: we are simply being told that Hippothous' voyage from Egypt (5.3.3) has now brought him to the part of the world where the hero and heroine are; his further activities, prepared for in και έζήτει καιρόν δι' ου τά έιτιτήδεια £ξει, are postponed until 5.9.1, where they are picked up with ò δέ Ίτπτόθοος ò Περίνθιος έν τω Ταυρομενίω τά μέν πρώτα διήγε ττονήρως άττορία των έτατηδείων, χρόνου δέ ττρο'ίόντος . . . . The last 'section' (15-20) seems to be less formulaic than the others, 19 but it is as free of Anstösse as they are and it is on a scale with them; we must not expect detailed descriptions of the journeys in lines 18—20, since they are presented as plans (note διέγνω, a very frequent verb in Xeno-

18

19

See pp. SSf. above. At most one might think of inserting διανύσασα tòν πλοΰν, but here we are not concerned with such minor supplementation. Cf., however, e.g. εΐ μηδέν εύρίσκοι τών ζητουμένων with 5.8.2 ώς δέ οϋδέν ηΰρκτκεν (. . . εδρεν 3.9.2; ούδέν ενρίσκοντες 5.12.2). See also p. 113 n. 20 below.

113

1. The epitome-theory

phon 20 ) and the journey from Italy to Ephesus (Rhodes) does not, in fact, take place until 5.10.1-3. The clear impression that emerges from an informed and unbiased examination of the passage is that it is the genuine work of the original author. Its diction contains so much that is characteristic of him and its content, despite Bürger's talk of four 'sections' that would originally have occupied up to twelve pages, offers so little opportunity for expansion. Within a deliberately brief compass Xenophon conveys the presence of all his main characters in the same part of the world and sets the stage for their coming adventures. For the expression of the stock activities involved he characteristically resorts to his limited stylized diction. We may now make two important observations: firstly, Xenophon was capable of composing in a simple and unadorned manner alien to the other romances, the 'auffällige Kürze und Trockenheit der Darstellung',21 the 'ungewöhnliche Gedrängtheit und Knappheit' through which the narrative manner of the Ephesiaca 'unterscheidet sich von derjenigen der übrigen uns erhaltenen Romanschreiber' 22 is due to Xenophon himself; secondly, it seems certain that Bürger, who attributed the few formulae he had noticed to the original author, had no adequate awareness of the nature of the text he was dealing with, but mistook the spare formulaic composition of Xenophon for the work of an epitomator. These observations are confirmed by considering other parts of the text assigned to an epitomator. 4.4.1—2 Bürger (56) regarded as 'nichts als eine kurze Inhaltsangabe' of an original 'Abschnitt' of two to three pages: 4.4.1-2 κ α ι ή μ έ ν ή ν τταρά τ ώ Ί τ π τ ο θ ό ω t v τ ω ά ν τ ρ ω τ ώ

ληστρι-

κώ· εν τ ο ύ τ ω Sfe μ ε τ α τ τ έ μ τ τ ε τ α ι τ ο ν Ά β ρ ο κ ό μ η ν ò ά ρ χ ω ν τ η ς ΑΙγύτττου κ α ι τ τ υ ν θ ά ν ε τ α ι τ ά κ α τ ' α υ τ ό ν κ α ΐ

20

21 22

μανθά-

See Papanikolaou's index verborum under (δια)γινώσκω. δίΛγινώσκω introduces travel plans, as here, at 3.2.14; 4.3.1; 5.6.3; cf. 1.7.2; 5.6.4; 5.11.1; with the present passage cf. esp. 5.9.2 διέγνω δέ ττλεΰσαι. μέν είς Ίταλίαν, and 5.10.1 διίγνω νέως έπιβάς εις "Εφεσον άναγέσθαι, referring to Habrocomes' journey homewards from Italy. Bürger 36. Rohde 401 (= 31914, 429).

114

V. Formulae and Bearbeiter

15 νει TÒ διήγημα και οίκτείρει τήν τύχην καΐ δίδωσι χρήματα καΐ είς "Εφεσον άξειν ϋπισχνειτο. ό δέ άπασαν μέν ήδει χάριν αύτω της σωτηρίας, έδειτο δέ έπιτρέψαι ζητήσαι τήν "Ανθειαν. Here there are fewer clean verbal formulae, but one can nonetheless show that the passage is made up almost entirely of syntactic structures and ideas found elsewhere in the Ephesiaca, some in combination, and here adapted to the new context. The passage begins with a και ή μέν . . . έν τούτω δέ . . . structure, recognized by Bürger (52) as a genuine alternative to και ή μέν . . . ò δέ . . ., and compare further e.g. 2.10.1 και ή μέν παρά τω αίπόλω ήν έν τω χωρίω πάντα χρόνον Άβροκόμην θρηνούσα· 6 δέ "Αψυρτος . . . . The sentence μεταπέμπεται τον Άβροκόμην 6 άρχων της Αιγύπτου I would be very slow to attribute to anyone but Xenophon: cf. 2.6.1 μεταπεμψάμενος δέ τον Άβροκόμην (sc. ò "Αψυρτος); 2.9.3 μεταπέμπεται δέ τόν αίπόλον (cf. 2.11.3, 2.12.1); 4.4.2 6 δέ άρχων τής Αιγύπτου . . . μεταπεμψάμενος άνεσταύρωσε τήν Κυυώ; 5.5.2 'Ρηναία . . . μεταπέμπεται τήν "Ανθειαν. With πυνθάνεται τά κατ' αύτόν και μανθάνει τό διήγημα και ο'ικτείρει τήν τύχην (lines 14 — 15) compare 2.9.4 διηγείται δέ ήτις ήν, . . .· άκούσας δέ ό Λάμπων οίκτείρει τήν κόρην; 2.13.5 πυθόμενος τήν μέλλουσαν συμφοράν ήλέησεν; 4.2.1 μαθών οίν έκαστα, ούκέτι ούδέ πυθόμενος τά γενόμενα . . . (se. ò άρχων της Αιγύπτου), cf. 2.6.1 (see p. 39 above); 5.9.11 κατφκτειρεν αύτήν ό Ίππόθοος και ήτις μέν ήν έπέπυστο ούδέπω. In regard to the rest of the passage it is crucial to have noticed that the 'ruler of Egypt', the judge in the Cyno episode, is the counterpart of Apsyrtus, the judge in the Manto episode. As we have already seen (p. 103 above) Bürger had no proper perception of the relationship between these episodes. What we have here in 4.4.1—2 is the pardoning of Habrocomes by the ruler of Egypt and it is to be compared with the corresponding scene between the hero and Apsyrtus (2.10.1—3). δίδωσι χρήματα καΐ είς "Εφεσον άξειν ϋπισχνειτο (lines 15—16) corresponds to the promises of Apsyrtus to make good the wrongs done to him (2.10.2); there we have, it is true, a few lines of direct speech from Apsyrtus, the content of which, be it noted, is especially suited to that earlier situation: the mention of marriage should probably be seen as related to Habrocomes' loss of his wife through Manto's machinations, and the granting of a position in Apsyrtus' household means that

1. The epitome-theory

115

Habrocomes stays where he is until Manto's letter arrives (2.12.1). Allowing for the different circumstances the rest of the passage being considered is closely parallel to what we find at the corresponding point in 2.10.3: 'έχαιρον δή πάντες ol κατά τήν οΐκίαν ϋττέρ Άβροκόμου και χάριν ήδεσαν υπέρ αύτοϋ τω δεσπότη· αυτός δέ έν μεγάλη συμφορά κατά "Ανθειαν ήν. Cf. also 5.13.4 σοι. . . τήν ϋττέρ της σωτηρίας ήμών χάριν οΐδαμεν. 4.4.1—2 bears, then, the clear stamp of Xenophon. It is not easy to imagine how one could expand the passage tenfold or more without obliterating that stamp, and it is even less easy to credit Bürger's epitomator with the effect in the text we have. Next let us look at 5.2.4-6, of which Bürger (57) says that it is 'theilweise bis zur Unkenntlichkeit zusammengestrichen': νυκτός δέ γενομένης ol περι τον Ίππόθοον έπί κώμην έληλύθεσαν της ΑΙγύπτου, Άρείαν καλουμένην, ττορθησαι θέλοντες" ò δέ Άμφίνομος άνορύσσει τήν τάφρον και έξάγει 5 τήν "Ανθειαν καΐ θαρρειν παρεκάλει. της δέ £τι φοβουμένης καί ύποπτευούσης, τόν ήλιον έπόμνυσι τους έν Α'ιγΰπτω θεούς σεμνήν τηρήσειν γάμων άγνήν, (¿εχρι &ν καί αύτή ποτε πεισθεΐσα θέληση συγκαταθέσθαι. πείθεται τοις δρκοις Άμφινόμου "Ανθεια και επεται αϋτω* οΰκ άπελείποντο δέ ol κύνες άλλ' 'έατεργον συνήθεις γενόμενοι. 6 άρχονται δή είς Κοτττόν, κάνταΰθα έγνωσαν ήμέρας < τινάς > διαγαγειν, μέχρις άν ττροέλθωσιν ol ττερΙ τόν Ίππόθοον της όδοΰ' έπεμελοΰντο δέ των κυνών ώς εχοιεν τα έττιτήδεια. 5.2.4-6

The first sentence (νυκτός . . . θέλοντες) can hardly be seen as the result of epitomization: it states the simple fact that Hippothous and his men had gone off to carry out an attack. The attack itself, here represented as an intention, was never described at this point: it is described later, in 5.2.7. The next sentence is just as free of suspicion: it states clearly and concisely all that can be expected to have happened at this stage, and the formulaic θαρρειν παρεκάλει makes it clear that Amphinomus did not deliver any speeches here, this frequent Xenophontic phrase being specifically designed as a substitute for the speeches with which he is supposed to have adorned his work at every opportunity; and with the series of short clauses including this formula (which would itself be something of a luxury in the epitome envisaged by Bürger) compare

116

V. Formulae and Bearbeiter

1.15.2 ¿θεράπευε τόν Άβροκόμην καΐ θαρρείν παρεκάλει και πάσαν έπιμέλειαν προσέφερευ, 2.9.4 οίκτείρει τήν κόρην καΐ δμνυσιν ή μήν φυλάξειν άμόλυντον, καΐ θαρρείν παρεκελεύετο, 3.5.6 άνίστησιν αύτήν 6 Εΰδοξος πολλά θρηνούσαν και θαρρείν παρεκάλει και έπώμνυε . . ., 3.8.5 έθεράπευον αύτήν καΐ θαρρείν παρεκάλουν; 4.6.5 άρτους ένέβαλλε καΐ ΰδωρ παρείχε καΐ έκ τούτου τήν "Ανθειαν θαρρείν παρεκάλει; 5.9.9 άγει πρός έαυτόν καΐ θαρρείν παρεκελεύετο και δ στις ήν λέγει και τών έν Αίγύπτω γενομένων άναμιμνήσκει και . . .; 5.9.13 άσπάζεταί τε αύτήν και εΰθυμειυ παρεκάλει και τήν αΰτοϋ πρός Άβροκόμην φιλίαν διηγείται; 5.10.12 όίγουσιν εις τήν οίκίαν, ένθα αύτοί κατήγοντο, και τα κτήματα αυτών παραδίδωσι καΐ έπεμελοΰντο καί έθεραπεύοντο καί θαρρείν παρεκάλουν. In some of these places θαρρείν π. is combined with other words and expressions that are part of the basic repetitive stuff of the novel, and this strengthens the feeling that we are dealing throughout with Xenophon alone. 5.2.5 (apart from the dogs) is one of Xenophon's standard formulaic scenes (see pp. 50f. above). There is nowhere a hint that Bürger was aware of this. It was not the activity of an epitomator but his own lack of perception that made the passage 'unkenntlich' for him. It is worth stressing that the character of this almost word-for-word scene, its unadorned brevity, guarantees the authenticity of the 'Dürre', 'Trockenheit', 'Knappheit' etc. attributed to an epitomator by those with an inadequate understanding of the work. With 'έρχονται δή είς Κοπτόν, κάνταϋθα έγνωσαν (5.2.6) compare 3.1.3 ει? Μάζακον έρχονται κάνταϋθα, 3.9.1 κατήραν εις Άλεξάνδρειαν κάνταϋθα έξεβίβασαν τήν "Ανθειαν καΐ διέγνωσαν, 4.1.1 ε'ις Λαοδίκειαν της Συρίας έρχονται κάνταϋθα, 4.1.4—5 είς Κοπτόν έρχονται τής ΑΙΘιοπίας πλησίον, ένταϋθα έγνωσαν, 4.2.7 είς τάς εμβολάς έρχεται τάς είς τήν θάλασσαν τοϋ Νείλου, κάνταϋθα, 5.1.1—2 κατήχθησαν είς πόλιν Συρακούσας . . . . ένταϋθα ò Άβροκόμης γενόμενος έγνω, 5.10.3 ήκεν είς 'Ρόδον ένταϋθα, 5.11.2 είς 'Ρόδον καταίρει νυκτός έτι κάνταϋθα, cf. also 1.11.2, 2.10.4, 3.2.14, 3.7.4, 3.12.2, 5.5.7. Xenophon tends to use a particularly stereotyped phraseology in describing journeys and several of the expressions just cited belong to larger standard descriptions (see

1. The epitome-theory

117

pp. 55f. above, with 5.1.1-2). 2 3 For a further association of (δια)γινώσκω with travel see p. 113 n. 20 above. With the whole of the first sentence of 5.2.6 ('έρχονται . . . της όδοΰ) compare 5.6.4 ήκον ε'ις 'Ρόδον, κάκεΧ . . . διέγνωσαν . . . χρόνω . . . τινι έκει γενέσθαι, μέχρι? ου . . . ττύθωνται. The last sentence of the passage seemed to Bürger (57) to be 'in dem gegenwärtigen Zusammenhang ganz unerklärlich und verständlich nur als Rest einer weiter ausgeführten Erzählung, in deren Verlaufe die Hunde irgendwie von Bedeutung waren'. This is at best exaggerated: the dogs have played an important part in the preceding narrative and here and in the final sentence of 5.2.5 they are simply receiving due mention at the end of the episode, with appropriate attention to their new tameness (contrast 4.6.4). And the two sentences themselves are entirely unobjectionable: in content they would have to be seen as preparatory to any missing episode, not as a part of it 'zusammengestrichen'; and they both bear the stamp of Xenophon: the underlined formula in 5.2.6, and 'έστεργον συνήθεις γενόμενοι in 5.2.5, which is to be compared with the language used when humans fall in love: 1.14.7 ëpa . . . συνήθεια, 2.3.2 συνήθους . . . άλίσκεται, cf. 5.1.3 συνήθειας (in which the friendship of Habrocomes and Aegialeus developed). Bürger (56) complains that the account of the attack on Areia in 5.2.7 (ττροσβαλόντες τη κώμη τη Άρεία πολλούς μέν των ένοικούντων άττέκτειναν καΐ τα οικήματα ένέττρησαν) is so brief and insufficient 'dass man nicht recht einsieht, warum das Ganze überhaupt erst erwähnt wird'. But the account, adapted to a single village, is closely paralleled by 4.1.1 (where the southward progress of Hippothous and his men is described: ένέττρησαν δέ καΐ κώμας και άνδρας άττέσφαξαν ττολλούς) and is certainly to be ascribed to the original formulaic author. And why the attack 'überhaupt erst erwähnt wird' is to be learned from the text itself: it is this outrage, committed on Egyptian soil, that prompts the ruler of Egypt to send an army against the brigands (5.3.1). Of the passages specially singled out as the work of an epitomator we are left with only 5.10.2—3, where according to Bürger (54 n.l) 'die Erzählung besondere Hast und Kürze zeigt':

23

The lack of more elaborate description in 5.2.6 is due to the fact that the journey was very short: the robber-camp from which Antheia and Amphinomus set out was very near Coptus (4.1.4—5).

118

V. Formulae and Bearbeiter

καΐ 6 μέν νύκτωρ κατελθών έττΐ θάλασσαν έιτιφθάνει ττλοίω άναγομένω καΐ έττιβάς Εττλει τήν feirl Σικελίας ττάλιν, ώς εκείθεν feirl Κρήτην τε καΐ Κύττρον καΐ "Ρόδον άφιξόμενος κάκειθεν είς "Εφεσον γενησόμενος* ήλιαζε δέ fev τω μακρω 3 ττλω καΐ ττερί Άνθειας τι ττυθέσθαι. καΐ ò μέν όλίγα Εχων τά έττιτήδεια Αναγόμενος καΐ διανύσας τόν ττλοϋν τά μέν ιτρώτα feirl τής Σικελίας 'έρχεται καΐ ευρίσκει τόν ττρότερον ξένον τόν Αίγιαλέα τεθνηκότα- έττενέγκας δέ . . . . 5.10.2-3

In defence of ò μέν νύκτωρ . . . ήλιαζε one need only cite 3.10.4 έττί τήν θάλατταν 'έρχεται καΐ έττιτυγχάνει νεώς είς Άλεξάνδρειαν άναγομένης, καΐ έιτιβάς άνάγεται έλπίζων. ώς . . . γενησόμενος is merely an expression of purpose, the intended journeys being described later, in 5.10.3. For έλιάζω expressing the object of a journey see p. 57 above. With the hope expressed here compare 5.1.2 άναζητειν 'έτι ττερί Άνθειας ε'ί τι ττύθοιτο, 5.11.3 άναζητήσοντες ε'ί τι ττερί Άνθειας ττύθοιντο, cf. 5.6.4; also 4.4.2 έκει ιτευσόμενός τι [μαθεϊν] ιτερί Άνθειας, 5.11.1 ώς . . . ττερί Άβροκόμου έκει τι πευσόμενος. Bürger regarded the two instances of καΐ ò μέν 'ohne correspondierendes Glied' as coming from his epitomator, although 'die darauffolgenden Sätze nicht das Vorhergehende zusammenfassen, sondern die Erzählung weiterführen'. It must be noted straightway that the second καΐ ò μέν clause does not refer to quite different events from the first one, but is a resumption of it after the interrupting account of Habrocomes' intentions and hopes. This structure may be felt as a further guarantee of the authenticity of the passage, precisely of its brevity, and it certainly means that we have no reason to expect a 'correspondierendes Glied' after the first καΐ ò μέν. And I simply cannot see how the second gives any ground for suspicion: there is no hint here, as Bürger saw, of a transition to the doings of any other character, and so there is no reason to expect ό δέ . . . or anything of that kind. And with και ά μέν . . . ευρίσκει . . .· έιτενέγκας δέ . . , 24 compare 2.9.4 και ή μέν ήγετο έττ' άγρόν . . .· γενομένη δέ . . ., where the text also carries on with the adventures of the subject of the μέν clause, and, pace Bürger, is not epitomized (see p. 122 below). In all the passages examined on the preceding pages there is in my 24

The Be here does not seem to belong specially with the μέν of τά μέν πρώτα.

1. T h e epitome-theory

119

judgement no doubt that we have the peculiar manner of the original author of the Ephesiaca. The character of this romance is certainly such that it needs some special explanation, but the epitome-theory is no more than a make-shift explanation and its propagators have had no proper perception of Xenophon's essential repetitive technique. Let us turn now to Bürger's argument regarding the transitions from the doings of one character to those of another (II on p. 101 above). Drawing attention to the frequency with which Xenophon uses καΐ ò μέν (or ò μέν oiv) . . . ò δέ . . . in such transitions, he points to some passages where this practice is not observed and maintains that the absence or modification of part of the transitional formula is due to the surgical activities of his epitomator, who is supposed to have omitted whole sentences of an original romance and to have interfered with the adjacent transitional clauses in the process. Against this Hägg (132 η. 19) has already made the general and obviously strong point that there is no sufficient basis for demanding from the author absolute consistency in the structure of his transitions. But one can go further than this. I shall deal first with the places where Bürger misses a μέν member in a transition (II. 1 p. 101 above). Between 2.8.1, the initial separation of the lovers, and 5.11.2, Antheia's return to Rhodes, where she is reunited with Habrocomes, Hägg, in a later publication, 25 identifies thirty-two transitions. For purposes of the present argument one must add 5.5.1, the only place mentioned by Bürger as lacking a μέν member and not included by Hägg. Of the resulting thirty-three transitions, real or alleged, eleven 26 are clear, uncomplicated examples of the structure 2 7 identified by Bürger, and it is with these that his allegedly altered transitions are to be compared, since it is to these that he would assimilate them. The eleven standardized transitions all have two important charac-

25 26

27

Narrative technique in ancient Greek romances (Stockholm 1971) 15Sff. 2.9.1; 2.10.1; 2.14.1; 3.3.7; 3.12.6 (from Habrocomes to Hippothous and his brigands); 4.3.1; 4.4.1; 5.2.1 (transition to Antheia; there is a slight delay in actually mentioning her, in which the stage is set for the brigands' removal from the scene to clear the way for her escape); 5.8.1; 5.8.5; 5.11.1. There is a slight variation at 4.4.1, where we have καΐ ή μέν . . .· έν τούτω δέ μετοιτέμίΓΕΤαι τον Άβροκόμην . . . .

120

V. Formulae and Bearbeiter

teristics in common: (a) the transition is always f r o m 2 8 the fortunes of either Habrocomes (7 times) 29 or Antheia (4 times); (b) there is always a clean break from the first narrative line to that taken up in the δέ clause, there being no significant common factor between them at the particular point reached in the novel. The function of the μεν clause in these transitions is to bring into clear relief the point at which we are sharply leaving one of the principal characters and at which we will pick him / her up later. 30 In passages of the transmitted text that do not share the two related characteristics we have even less right to expect the transitional structure in question than we would in any case have, since the conditions in which it occurs do not exist, and so no right to fault the transmitted text and regard it as having suffered interference. The two characteristics may be regarded as conditions to be fulfilled before we even begin to listen to suspicion of a passage merely because it does not contain the formulaic structure και ò μέν (or ò μέν oiv) . . . 6 δέ . . . . If we examine from this point of view the eight places where Bürger faults the text because of the absence of a recapitulary μέν clause, we get this result: in 2 places (2.11.131; 4.2.1) condition (a) is not fulfilled, the transition being from the fortunes of neither of the two main characters; in 4 places (2.13.1; 3.12.1; 5.2.7; 5.5.1) condition (b) is not fulfilled; at 5.4.1 neither (a) nor (b) is fulfilled. The eighth passage (5.6.1) is more complicated than the others: within thirteen lines (5.5.7 — 5.6.1, the brevity, as I have shown on pp. llOff. above, not being due

28

29

30

31

In all but one case (3.12.6: Habrocomes to Hippothous and his men) the transition is from one of the lovers to the other. At 3.3.7 Habrocomes and Hippothous are together and the latter is naturally included in the transition (και ol μέν . . .). In these standard transitions the μέν clause is always purely recapitulatory and not at all progressive, i.e. the clause contains nothing beyond what has been conveyed in the preceding narrative (cf. Bürger Slf.). There is a very good parallel to 2.10.4 - 2.11.1 at 5.6.3 - 5.7.1 (a passage not faulted by Bürger): 2.10.4 — 2.11.1 ό μέν ovv [Άβροκόμης] έν τούτους ήν . . .· Α δέ Λεύκων καΐ ή 'Ρόδη . . . (5 lines on Leucon and Rhode), ή δέ "Ανθεια íjv . . . (2.11.1, with no μέν clause); 5.6.3 — 5.7.1 και 6 μέν Άβροκόμης ftei. . .· 6 δέ Λεύκων και ή 'Ρόδη . . . (11 lines on Leucon and Rhode). & δέ πορνοβοσκός b τήν "Ανθειαν ώνησάμενος . . . (5.7.1, with no μέν clause). These passages are best regarded as examples of the interruption of a μέν / δέ transitional structure by information about a third party, a phenomenon recognized and accepted by Bürger himself (52): see also 3.9.1 — 3.9.2; 3.10.5 - 3.11.1; 4.4.2 - 4.5.1; 4.6.7 - 5.1.1.

1. The epitome-theory

121

to epitomization) the narrative switches from Antheia to Rhenaea and Polyidus to Antheia and the pimp to Clytus to Hippothous to Habrocomes. Here the author is within a brief compass setting the stage for what follows (he goes on a few lines later to give us the latest on the lovers' parents and on Leucon and Rhode) rather than narrating adventures and passing between them in the normal way, and in these circumstances we must not expect elaborate transitional structures. Besides, the transition would in any case have to be from Antheia, and it could not be a normal, uncomplicated transition, but would have to be interrupted by the sentence relating to Clytus, which must surely be seen as parenthetic, not the second pole of a transition. In these special circumstances we must be prepared to accept deviation from the standard structure. The application of condition (b) is obviously less clear-cut than that of (a) and so I give here the factors that I see as linking the two parts of the narrative involved in each case and constituting an element of continuity between them: 2.13.1 Habrocomes is on his way to Cilicio hoping to find Antheia there (2.12.3); the narrative switches to the fortunes of Antheia in Cilicio·, 3.12.1 Antheia is still (note ετι) with Psammis (i.e. in Alexandria)·, Habrocomes' ship goes off its course for Alexandria·, 5.2.7 here there is no real transition, but rather a continuation of a strand of the foregoing narrative: Hippothous and his men figure both in the continuation and in what precedes, carrying out in the continuation the intention they had previously formed (5.2.4); 5.4.1 here also we have merely a continuation of the narrative with Polyidus as the common factor; at 5.5.1 again there is no transition, only a continuation of the story to include Rhenaea as well as the principal characters in what precedes, Antheia and Polyidus. The difficult question of what episodes could plausibly be thought of as having originally occupied the gaps postulated by Bürger, who gives no help here, I leave the reader to consider for himself, noting only that we have in the transmitted text the continuous, unbroken story of every character with an extensive role in the plot (the lovers, Hippothous, and Leucon and Rhode), with the single minor exception of the journey of Habrocomes and Hippothous from Cappadocia to Tarsus, which I shall discuss below. We come now to the two places (II.2 p. 101 above) where Bürger considered that the δέ clause of a transition has been lost through the activity of an epitomator: 2.9.4 and 3.7.4.

122

V. Formulae and Bearbeiter

2.9.4 καΐ ή μέν ήγετο έπ' άγρόν συνεσομένη τώ αίττόλωγενονένη δέ έν τω χωρίω Ινθα Λάμττων ένεμε τάς αίγας, προσπίπτει τοις γόνασιν αύτού καΐ Ικετεύει κατοικτείραι . . . . Bürger (53—54) refers to the clause και ή μέν . . . αΐπόλω as 'purely recapitulatory5, says that it does not belong with the following 'weitererzählenden' clause, and maintains that a whole 'piece' has been removed from between the two clauses, adding 'Wenn der Zusammenhang trotzdem lückenlos erscheint, so ist das kein Gegengrund', a curious point of view! Biirger's whole case here rests on the supposedly recapitulatory character of the μέν clause, which would create the impression that we had to do with a transition from the adventures of Antheia to those of another character. The whole case collapses once it is recognized that the clause is in fact not recapitulatory but progressive; it does not sum up what we have been told already, but carries the narrative further: in it the heroine is taken to the country, whereas in what precedes it we have only got to the stage where she is handed over to the goatherd and he receives instructions concerning her. Progressive clauses beginning with και ò μέν, having nothing to do with transitions, occur in a number of other places in the Ephesiaca, e.g. 3.5.11 . . . ττολλήυ γνούσα χάριν αύτω άποπέμπει. και ό μέν [sc. Εύδοξος] εύθύς έπιβάς νεώς έπανήχθη, ή δέ καιρόν έπιτήδειον έζήτει irpôç την πόσιν τού φαρμάκου. Here there is no question of transition to another narrative line: the same episode simply carries on after the departure of the minor character who has supplied the drug needed for its plot. See also e.g. 4.6.4; 5.10.2; 5.10.3. The authenticity of 2.9.4 as it stands is confirmed by the fact that ή-γετο and προσπίπτει . . . also occur together as elements of the corresponding scene between Antheia and Clytus within the wider parallelism between the Manto and Rhenaea episodes (see pp. 33f. and 37f. above). 3.7.3-4 6 μέν τοιαύτα έθρήνει, περιβεβλήκει δέ άπασαν και ήσπάζετο χείράς τε καΐ πόδας "νύμφη" λέγων "άθλια, γύναι δυστυχεστέρα." έκόσμει δέ αύτήν ττολλήυ έσθήτα ένδύων Between δυστυχεστέρα and έκόσμει the original text had, according to Bürger, an account of the missing journey (see pp. 127f. below) of Habrocomes and Hippothous from Cappadocia (3.3.7) to Tarsus (3.9.2). He

1. The epitome-theory

123

regards the μέν section as the recapitulatory first member of a transition with which the δέ section, which carries on the preceding narrative, does not fit properly; originally, he says, the story passed after δυστυχεστέρα to Habrocomes in Cappadocia and carried on with ò δέ Άβροκόμης . . . . There is a catalogue of objections to this: 32 (a) the μέν section here does not have the form of a standard transitional clause, unless one accepts, as Bürger does, Hercher's unnecessary μέν < o t v > ; (b) unlike the eleven standard transitions, the μέν section here has neither of the lovers as its subject; (c) the μέν section is not in fact recapitulatory: from και ήσττάζετο on it is clearly progressive (even containing further direct speech), ττεριβεβλήκει δέ αττασαν tells us rather more than the preceding έταττεσών τω σώματι (3.7.2), and τοιαύτα έθρήνει is merely the kind of expression with which the resumption of narrative is regularly introduced after direct speech; (d) the mourning and the adorning of the seeming corpse for burial belong closely together, and nowhere else in the novel is a narrative line broken off between such closely related activities; (e) nowhere else is a narrative line broken off immediately after direct speech. These objections seem to me to be fatal to the suggestion that anything has been removed from after δυστυχεστέρα. Moreover, as Hägg (132—33) has already pointed out, if there is a fault to be found in the text in connection with this dispensable journey, it is at 3.9.2, and so if anything has been lost, which seems unlikely (see pp. 127f. below), it should be seen as having been lost from there. It remains to consider those places where Bürger saw, or believed he saw, flaws in the text that he would explain as due to epitomization (III on p. 101 above). 33 He has, one can say in general, drawn attention to a few details that may be regarded as needing some special explanation, but the points he makes belong mostly in the category of devoted thesisserving, sometimes uncomprehending, sometimes excessively subtle or demanding. I shall deal with the affected passages in the same order 3 4

32 33

34

For (a) and (c) - (e) see Hägg (1966) 132. I say nothing about the alleged small lacunae treated briefly by Biirger on pp. 61-64 after concluding his main argument: where what he says about the text has any substance to it, it is beyond me why the fault (e.g. the loss of the verb at 3.4.1) should be attributed to epitomization rather than to ordinary corruption. In any case, Burger's supplements here amount to no more than a couple of dozen words in all. The same as the order in the text, in fact, except for the last two passages.

124

V. Formulae and

Bearbeiter

as Bürger, avoiding, where possible, mere repetition of Hägg's arguments by simply referring to his treatment where appropriate. (1) 2.11.11 and 2.13.1-2. Hägg (126-31) has dealt at length with Biirger's arguments (43—48) regarding the capture of Antheia by Hippothous and his men (2.11.11) and the preparations to sacrifice her to Ares (2.13.1—2) and has demolished most of them. I confine myself to those points on which something further remains to be said. Biirger's case for epitomization has in fact been reduced to three occurrences (two of them double) of the definite article where the noun each time denotes a person or thing being mentioned for the first time in the transmitted text: (a) we first hear of Hippothous at 2.11.11: imò των ττερί τον Ίτητόθοον τον ληστήν συνελήφθησαν (sc. Antheia and the traders who had bought her from Lampón); (b) the idea of a sacrifice is first introduced at 2.13.1; τη δέ έξης ττερί τήν θυσίαν έγίνοντο (sc. Hippothous and his men); (c) the robber's cave is mentioned for the first time at 2.14.1, where Habrocomes meets the fleeing Hippothous οΰ irpò πολλοί του άντρου τοΰ ληστρικού. To take the last first, the use of the article with the robbers' όίντρον at its first mention can be dismissed straightway as evidence for an earlier mention of the cave in an original text: the robbers themselves have been in the story for some time and the existence of robbers implies the existence of a robbers' den or cave ever before it is mentioned, so that it can have the article already at its first actual occurrence. 35 At 3.3.4, where Habrocomes has as yet heard nothing of a cave, only of robbers, Hippothous tells him: irpò ολίγου τοΰ το ληστήριου άλώνοα έττέστη τώ άντρω κόρη καλή. τήν θυσίαν at 2.13.1 could be taken as referring to a particular act of sacrifice so that one would be entitled to expect some earlier

35

Bürger (46 n. 1) compares 4.3.6 and 5.2.3 (the reference to Hercher's p. 382,31 is a mistake for 382,21) V o jedesmal bei der erstmaligen Erwähnung der Räuberhöhle der Artikel fehlt'. But in 4.3.6 the article does in fact occur (!), and anyway, in neither case is the cave in question 'die Räuberhöhle': in 4.3.6 it is apparently a separate cave used for storing loot, and in 5.2.3 merely some cave in the vicinity of the robbers' lair.

1. The epitome-theory

125

reference to the intention of performing it, but it is also possible to regard it as having the more general and abstract sense 3 6 of 'the (activity of) sacrifice' and the text will then mean 'they set about the business of sacrifice', 'they set about sacrificing'. In such an expression the article is quite natural 3 7 and should not give rise to speculation about earlier mention of a particular sacrifice or of plans for it. The interpretation I suggest will imply at most an acquaintance on the part of the reader, or hearer, with the fact that in stories of this kind the next item on the agenda, after the robbers had made the capture, was 'the sacrifice'. It is important to note that the article with θυσ'ιαν would not in any case indicate any interference with the text of 2.13.1 but could suggest only that some earlier mention of plans to sacrifice Antheia had been lost. Any such plans would have been mentioned at 2.11.11, between the capture of Antheia by the robbers and the switch to Habrocomes in the narrative, and it is to that passage, where Hippothous is first mentioned, that we now turn. It is somewhat odd to find Hippothous introduced as τον Ίττττόθοον TÒV ληστήν, in a manner that falsely suggests that we have heard of him already; and Bürger finds this particularly unacceptable in Xenophon, who elsewhere introduces his characters carefully with the formula 'proper-name τοΰνομα. οντος ò proper-name'. 39 Before concluding, however, that we no longer have the original wording here, three considerations must be given due weight: (i) we have to do with a tradition of story-telling, be it written or oral, in which we may think of the robber-chief as a stock character, well known to all independently of any particular mention of him, and so his introduction in terms that imply familiarity with him, while it strikes the modern reader as an offence against logic within this particular story, may be understood against such a background; (ii) it is not improbable that Xenophon's conceptual and linguistic habits led him into writing των ττερί τον Ίττινόθοον at 2.11.11: he needed to say not just 'by a robber called Hippothous' but 'by a robber called Hippothous and his men' and in

36 37

38

39

See Ed. Schwyzer, Griechische Grammatik I (1939) 469. Cf. X. Cyr. 1.2.11 ήν . . . έθελήσωσι διατρίψαι περί τήν θήραν (where the reference is not to a particular hunt). Cf. Ach. Tat. 3.15; Lollianus, Phoenicica frag. BI recto (A. Henrichs, Die Phoinikika des Lollianos [Bonn 1972]). See G. N. Sandy in AJPh 100 (1979) 369-71. Bürger 44.

126

V. Formulae and Bearbeiter

these circumstances he slipped, regardless of the slight breach of logic, into his invariable expression for 'Hippothous and his men'; (iii) more sophisticated authors than Xenophon are capable of making the sort of slip he may have made here: in Chariton 4.3.2 Polycharmus in referring to Theron, the robber-chief, in conversation with Mithridates, who has never heard of him before, calls him θήρων ò λ-ηστής. And even if the text has suffered some alteration at 2.11.11, this cannot, of course, automatically be taken as evidence for epitomization. I agree with Hägg (131), that if we do not have the original wording, what we do have is best understood in terms of the makeshift filling of a lacuna at some stage in the transmission. Having dealt with 2.11.11 Bürger (48) confesses that 'ein so zwingender Beweis [for the epitome-theory] thatsächlich an keiner anderen Stelle geführt werden kann'. (2) 2.12.1: Manto's letter to Apsyrtus. The sole purpose of this letter is to motivate Habrocomes' journey to Syria, and more specifically to the goatherd Lampón, 40 in search of Antheia. This it does perfectly well, and we have no firm grounds for demanding more of it. Bürger (49 — 50) has two specific complaints about the text of the letter: (a) the first sentence, £δωκάς με άνδρί έν ξένη, seems to him to have no proper connection with what follows and in this context to be 'vollständig unverständlich'. This is surely a straightforward failure of perception. The sentence in question very economically 41 conveys the relevant essence of Manto's situation — she has been given to a husband in a foreign land far from home — and the connection with what follows is that this man to whom her father has abandoned her in a foreign land has, to make matters worse, gone and unfaithfully fallen for the slavegirl, Antheia, which has led to the alleged sale of the girl, (b) Bürger's

40

It is in order that he will learn of Lampón and know exactly to whom he must go in Syria that Habrocomes is made to wait for the letter. He already knows that Antheia has been taken to Syria (2.7.4) and his delay in beginning the search for her is nowhere motivated, plausibly or otherwise. This implausibility certainly cannot be satisfactorily explained in terms of epitomization; it must be accepted as a feature of Xenophon's own composition (cf. pp. 89f. above) and should be taken as a further warning not to demand too much of him.

41

And in a complaining manner very much in character for Manto, one may perhaps say, but it is hazardous to talk of character in this way in the Ephesiaca, where so much is stock and formulaic and there is so little evidence of transcending genius. Cf. pp. 38f. n. 9 above.

1. The epitome-theory

127

second complaint is that the letter mentions 'the goatherd' without Apsyrtus' having heard of him before in the transmitted text. But it is perfectly plausible to regard the letter as meant from the start primarily for the reader or hearer and not really for the information of the fictional minor character Apsyrtus. The ordinary reader or hearer of a story of this kind, already fully acquainted with the goatherd, will hardly notice, let alone be offended by, the use of the article with αΐπόλον. Moreover, it must be noted that μετεττεμψάμην τόν αίττόλον is itself a formula (see p. 37 above) and that the words that surround it are formulaic.42 Xenophon's formulaic language has maintained itself against the strict logical requirements of the context.43 (3) 3.9.2: the missing journey. At 3.3.7 we leave Habrocomes and Hippothous in Cappadocia and follow the experiences of Antheia (in the house of Perilaus, in the grave, and with the grave-robbers) until 3.9.2, where the narrative returns to Habrocomes searching for his wife; he is in the company of Hippothous and a band of robbers. It is not until ten lines later that we are given to understand, and then indirectly, that he is in Tarsus in Cilicia and we have been told nothing about his journey from Cappadocia. Bürger (50 —53) demands an account of the journey and maintains that the novel must originally have contained one, but his attempt to find a home for it in the available stretch of text between 3.3.7 and 3.9.2 fails completely.44 Hägg has suggested 45 that the fault should be put down to a lapse on Xenophon's part, and that is in fact the simplest and best view. When we leave Habrocomes and Hippothous in Cappadocia (3.3.7) there is no doubt about their intentions: they plan to go to Cilicia to look for Antheia and Hippothous wants to collect a band of men 'for safety on the journey'. It is, therefore, not in itself surprising to find them later in Cilicia with a band of men, and an account of their journey would be superfluous. What we miss — and the fault is indeed not very

42

43 44 45

On . . . ë p f μηκέτι Sè φέρειν δυναμένη see p. 93 above, also 4.5.4 and 1.4.6; with μετεπεμψάμην τον αΐπόλον κ α ι . . . compare 2.9.3 μεταπέμπεται Sè τόν αΐπόλον . . . και κελεύει.; 2.11.3 μεταπέμπεται, τόν αίττόλον καΐ κελεύει, (to which the letter refers!). Cf. pp. 86f. above. See pp. 122f. above. Hägg (1966) 133 n. 21; in the main text of his article (p. 133) he envisages the possible loss of a clause or two at 3.9.2.

128

V. Formulae and Bearbeiter

obtrusive, the kind of thing only intellectuals worry about — is a clear indication on their reintroduction into the narrative that they have in fact completed their planned journey. The absence of such a clear statement of where they are may be explained satisfactorily in the following terms: at 3.3.7 we leave Habrocomes in Cappadocia intending to travel to Tarsus·, then the story switches to Antheia in Tarsus and the action continues to take place t h e r e 4 6 until 3.9.1, ending with Perilous' reaction to the loss of Antheia's corpse; here (3.9.2) Habrocomes, who was, as we (and above all the author) know, on his way to Tarsus, is reintroduced enquiring about Antheia in terms 4 7 that can only refer (as the author, above all, knows) to her being taken to Tarsus (2.13.5) by the last character the author has mentioned, Perilaus. In these circumstances Xenophon, by an understandable enough oversight, has neglected to include for the convenience of the reader or hearer an explicit statement that Habrocomes has in fact arrived in Tarsus; instead he slides straight from Perilaus in Tarsus to Habrocomes in Tarsus making enquiries about events that in the author's mind are closely associated with Perilaus. (4) 3.12.1. I have already said something (p. 121 above) about Biirger's view that there was originally at this point in the text a transition of the form καΐ ή μέυ . . . δέ . . . . H e finds that the clause ή δέ £τι παρά Ψάμμαδι ήν φρουρουμένη, Ιερά της "Ισιδος νομιζομέυη 'absolut nichts neues bringt' and complains particularly about 'έτι, saying that it gives the impression that this clause has nothing to do with what precedes but refers to a different, later time 4 8 But it is not true that the clause contains nothing new: in fact 'έτι is precisely 'das Neue', and

44

47

48

Apart from the grave-robbers' voyage with Antheia from Tarsus to Alexandria, after which we straightway return to Tarsus and Perilaus. 3.9.2 6 δέ Άβροκόμης έζήτει καΐ έιτολυπραγμόνει ει Tis έττύσταιτο κόρην ιτοθέν ξένην αίχμάλωτον μετά ληστών άχθείσαν. There is no need to go very deeply into Biirger's belief that the clause was originally the first member of a transitional structure and that the epitomator (to whom he attributes inter alia the thematic key-word πείθεται, in 3.11.5!)· after he had drastically abbreviated what preceded, changed καΐ ή μεν 'έτι into ή &à 'έτι, 'damit seine Angabe nicht gar zu kahl aussehe'. The motivation ascribed to the epitomator for allegedly botching a clause that would have gone perfectly well with what precedes it, if he had left it alone, is not very impressive. And I cannot see how the change from Sé to καΐ . . . μέν would make a jot of difference to the temporal relationship between ετι and what precedes it (or what is supposed to have preceded it before epitomization).

1. The epitome-theory

129

the impression that the clause refers to a later time than the preceding activities is quite deliberate and unobjectionable. With £τι the author, just before breaking the news that Habrocomes' ship in fact went off its course for Alexandria, draws attention to how close the hero came to finding his beloved, or at least to being in the same city as her: she was still with Psammis in Alexandria and Habrocomes might have found her, but his ship, alas!, wandered off course. (5) 3.12.5: νυκτός γενομένης. I have already (p. 106 above) dealt with Biirger's view of this harmless phrase. (6) 4.2.1. Bürger (56 n. 1) tries here to make much of what can be perfectly well understood as a simple case of anacoluthon associated with a parenthesis 4 9 and attributes the most improbably senseless procedure to his epitomator. If there were a fault here, the reasonable and unprejudiced view would be that it was due to ordinary textual corruption. (7) 5.4.11 — 5.5.1 άκούσασα είιθυμοτέρα έγένετο και προσεύχεται τοις θεόίς· και ά μ α μέν άττήεσαν είς 'Αλεξάνδρειαν. έττέττυστο δέ ή Πολυίδου γυνή δτι άγει κόρην έρωμένην, καΐ φοβηθεϊσα μ ή πως αύτήν ή ξένη παρευδοκιμήση, Πολυίδω μέν οΰδέν λέγει, έβουλεύετο δέ καθ' αύτήν δπως τιμωρήσεται τήν δοκούσαν έττιβουλεύειν τοις γάμοι,ς. In connection with his demand for a 'normal' transition here (see pp. 120f. above) Bürger (57—58) has two specific complaints: (a) about όίμα of 5.4.11 and (b) about the combination of tenses in 5.5.1. (a) The improvement in Antheia's spirits and her prayers must, says Bürger, have followed immediately on her hearing the favourable oracle and one cannot possibly think of them as coinciding with the departure of Antheia and Polyidus for Alexandria: 'Eine Verbindung der beiden Satztheile durch και ά μ α μέν ist also vollständig undenkbar'. The transmitted narrative sequence (Antheia at a temple [in Memphis] . . . a form of εύχομαι . . . a form of [άπ]ειμι) and scale receive protection here from two other passages 5 0 : 4.3.3—5 ή δέ (sc. "Ανθεια) ώς Άλεξάνδρειαν παρελθούσα έγένετο έν Μέμφει, ηύχετο τή "Ισιδι στάσα irpò

49

50

Hercher's δέ (which Bürger too accepts) is surely right for the τε of F. On Xenophon's frequent use of parentheses see p. 109 above. Cf. also the 'pray . . . depart' sequence at 1.11.2 (εύξάμενοι. . . . έπανήγοντο) and 5.10.3 (εύξάμενος . . . άνήγετο).

130

V. Formulae and Bearbeiter

τοϋ Ιεροϋ" " " ταϋτα ·ηΰχετο καΐ ττροήεσαν (sc. Antheia and Psammis) Tfjs όδοϋ and 5.11.6 ταύτα ιτοιήσασα και εύξαμένη (sc. Antheia in the temple of Helios on Rhodes) άττηει μετά τοϋ Ίτπτοθόου. Besides, there is no reason to believe that Antheia and Polyidus had any further business in Memphis; and that they should have gone straight from there to Alexandria without further adventures is supported by the fact that the sequence Coptus (5.4.3.) — Memphis (5.4.5ff.) - Alexandria (5.4.11ff.) without intervening stops exactly reflects Antheia's corresponding southward journey with Psammis: Alexandria (3.11.Iff.; 4.3.3) - Memphis (4.3.3-4) - Coptus (4.3.5). Nor can Biirger's objection to άμα be allowed to stand, άμα does not necessarily indicate the absolute coincidence in time of two actions, but may convey that one follows immediately upon the other: 5 1 this is clear from its use with reference to the relationship between a main verb and a dependent aorist participle, e.g. PI. Prt. 335c και άμα ταντα είττώυ άνιστάμην, Χ. An. 3.1.47, Th.2.5 της άγγελία? άμα Ρηθείσης έττεβοήθουν. και άμα may be used (as here) with a finite verb to express the idea that its action followed immediately on that of a preceding finite verb ('and with that'): this use is fairly common in Achilles Tatius, e.g. 2.7.2—3 τταρήνει, λέγουσα μηδέν άχθεσθαι - τταύσειν γαρ αύτήν της άλγηδόνος δύο έττάσασαν βήματα* . . . καΐ άμα έττηδε, 4.16.3 ". . ." εφη, . καΐ άμα κελεύει . . ., so too 5.17.3; 7,2,4; 7.15.1 (cf. 3.9.2; 5.17.6; 5.19.5; 5.25.4; 7.15.4). However, though not for Biirger's reasons, the text cannot be left quite as it is: άμα μεν necessarily raises false expectations of άμα δέ and we must read either καΐ ol μεν 5 2 or και άμα < o l > μεν. (b) According to Bürger the two clauses εττέττυστο . . . έρωμένην and φοβηθεϊσα . . . γάμοις can hardly have been joined to each other originally, 'da im ersten des Polyidos Ankunft erst erwartet, im zweiten schon vorausgesetzt wird'. The epitomator, he maintains, probably

51

52

Cf. Passow's lexicon s.v. £μα (ad init.): 'hauptsächlich gebraucht, um zu bezeichnen, dass ungleichartige Zustände zu gleicher Zeit eintreten od. wenigstens möglich (sie) rasch einander folgen'. The suggestion of Winfried Bühler, to whom I am grateful for making me think again about this passage; in connection with the corruption he draws attention to the occurrence of another όίμα three lines above. Cf. esp. 1.11.1 και ol μέν άπήεσαν είς τήν ττόλι,ν ... .

1. The epitome-theory

131

omitted from between these two clauses the news of Polyidus' arrival. 53 While agreeing with Bürger that έττέττυστο refers to a time before Polyidus' arrival (or at least expresses his wife's state of knowledge on his arrival) and λέγει to the time after he had got to Alexandria, I cannot for the life of me see what the problem is. The clause preceding έττέττυστο, viz. άττήεσαν els Άλεξάνδρειαν ('they went away to Alexandria'), at least clearly implies arrival in Alexandria, and certainly makes its expression in what immediately follows unnecessary; έττέττυστο . . . tells us that Rhenaea already knew all about Antheia and Polyidus before they turned up, and οΰδέν λέγει, that she concealed this knowledge from her husband on and after his arrival. There is nothing the matter with the text here. Bürger was grasping at straws. (8) 5.6.2—3. Between the statement of Habrocomes' decision to return home to Ephesus and that of his undertaking the journey there are two sentences referring to the state of things in his home city and especially to the lovers' parents: 5.6.2-3 ήδη δέ και ol γονείς αυτών καΐ ol Έφέσιοι ττάντες έν Ίτολλω ττένθει ήσαν, οίτε άγγέλου imp' αυτών άφι/γμένου ο!5τε γ ρ α μ μ ά τ ω ν άττέττεμιτον δέ ττανταχοΰ τους άναζητήσοντας. virò άθυμίας δέ καΐ γήρως οΰ δυνηθέντες άντισχειν oi γονείς έκατέρων έαυτοΐις έξήγαγον τοΰ βίου. That news of the parents should be given at this point is perfectly natural. Habrocomes' decision at last to return home raises by more or less automatic association the question of how things are at home, and I simply cannot follow Bürger in feeling that the quoted words objectionably cut off Habrocomes' decision to make the journey from its implementation. Bürger claims that the Bearbeiter omitted two separate sections dealing with the parents 5 4 earlier in the novel and, under pressure of the need to include news of the parents at this stage, clumsily brought together two sentences concerning them, one from each of the omitted sections. His case rests on two specific allegations about the text: (a)

53

54

Bürger goes on to relate how the epitomator is supposed to have botched the text for what, by his own account, would have been remarkably little gain. It is, of course, a considerable unlikelihood in itself that the body of the novel ever contained episodes relating 'adventures' of the parents at home in Ephesus!

132

V. Formulae and Bearbeiter

that the sentences ήδη δέ καΐ ol γονείς . . . τους άναζητήσοντας and iroò άθυμ/ιας . . . . έξήγαγον τοϋ βίου do not belong together 'ohne jedes verbindendes Zwischenglied', referring to quite different 'Zeitmomente'; (b) the subject, ol γονείς, is quite unnecessarily repeated with έξήγαγον. The second allegation is simply false: without the repetition of ol γονείς, who are only part-subject of ήσαν and άττέττεμιτου, we should have not only the parents but the whole population of Ephesus expiring.55 The first argument Hägg (134) describes as 'eine subjektive Empfindung'; beyond this one may say that what we have here, far from looking as if it comes from two separate sections, belongs together as a statement of cause (distressing lack of news) and effect (despondency and death). The Greek unobjectionably56 states that by the time of Habrocomes' decision to head for home (ήδη) the parents and the rest of the Ephesians were in a state of deep grief, having had no news of the lovers, and that the parents proved unable to hold out in these circumstances and died, 57 'after some time', 'eventually' being clearly understood. The parents had plenty of time to die between Habrocomes' decision in 5.6.2 and his actual arrival at Rhodes in 5.10.3: in the meantime he worked in the quarries at Nucerium (5.8.2—5) and did an

55

56

57

Note also the availability of the searchers as a potential subject for έξήγαγον in a text without the second ol γονείς. Cf. Hägg (1966) 134. At most one might feel (with Winfried Bühler) the lack of some indication that those sent out to look for the lovers came back with no news of them. But such an explicit statement does not seem strictly necessary and the parents (who are, besides, only part-subject of άπέπεμπον) had in any case enough reason for άθυμία without the actual return of the envoys empty-handed; and indeed άντκτχείν may be felt to convey 'hold out until the search could lead to any results': the aged parents lost all hope despite the communal efforts that might have made complete despair seem premature. There is no substance in Biirger's claim (59 with n. 1) that the novel contains a contradiction about the manner of the parents' death: 5.6.4 and 5.15.3, the other places where their death is mentioned, refer to the fact of their death without saying anything about the manner of it (cf. Hägg [1966] 134 n. 22). In any case I am not convinced that ¿αυτούς έξήγαγον τοϋ βίου ('they betook themselves out of life') necessarily means that they committed suicide. The expression is most probably only a euphemism (perhaps with a connotation of resignation, lack of resistance on the part of the despondent, old parents) for death, Εαυτούς έξήγαγον meaning 'they departed', 'they went out o f : cf. Xenophon's use of the simple βγω with a reflexive pronoun to express 'betake oneself, 'go': 5.13.5 (αυτοί? Locella, rightly: αυτούς F); and 'old age' seems more likely to be given simply as a cause of death than as a reason for suicide.

1. The epitome-theory

133

extensive tour of the Mediterranean (5.10.1—3). (9) 1.8.2-3: the description of the Βαβυλωνία σκηνή. Bürger (64) holds that, while the second part of the description is 'einigermassen unversehrt erhalten', the first is 'in der unverständigsten Weise verstümmelt': the epitomator omitted the beginning of the original and then, to explain the words ol μέν Άφροδίτην θεραττεύοντες, was forced to add the parenthesis ήν δέ και 'Αφροδίτης εΐκών. The description would be a little more symmetrical if Aphrodite were given more prominence in the first part as against the Erotes, but Bürger's condemnation of what we have is a gross exaggeration. The two parts of the description, each having about three lines, balance each other in scale and the parenthesis that is the main target of his disapproval is to be regarded as typical of Xenophon (see p. 109 above). Besides, it does not seem plausible to think of an epitomator omitting a block at the beginning of Bürger's original description and thereby getting himself into difficulties rather than just omitting the whole thing, which would have been eminently removable. (10) 3.10.1. Bürger has two objections to the transmitted text: (a) there is no verb of saying; (b) elsewhere in the novel άνοδύρομοα in introducing laments is used absolutely, followed by λέγων, 58 but here it has an accusative. On this basis Bürger constructs an elaborate account of how the passage has been epitomized. The basis is utterly flimsy and an unprejudiced look at the text will show that it is prefectly acceptable as it stands. At 3.10.1 Habrocomes has just been told that Antheia is dead, and in these circumstances 59 it is no surprise that άνωδύρετο means 'he lamented' (trans.) and takes the accusative of the person who is (believed to be) dead: cf. 3.12.6 άνωδύρετο τον άνδρα. 60 At this point we could stop, saying that we have to do here with a simple scribal error, through which a verb of saying has been lost. But I think that this is not the case either and that the absence of a verb of saying from the direct speech is to be understood as follows: the participial phrases qualifying "Ανθειαν, in themselves beyond objection,

58

59

60

This is not quite accurate: λέγων (-ουσα) occurs three times after άνο8ύρομαι (άνωδύρεσθαι. on p. 65 of Biirger's article is a false form), ελεγεν once. In the instances of άνοβύρομαι cited by Biirger what is in question is the general lamenting of one's lot, not specifically the mourning of the dead. Cf. 5.9.12.

134

V. Formulae and Bearbeiter

already express, almost as if they were oratio obliqua, a good part of the substance of Habrocomes' lament, and after them the author passed easily and naturally into direct speech without any need to insert a verb of saying. In the course of his efforts to find flaws in the text that he might use as evidence for epitomization, Bürger does focus attention on some effects that one would not expect to find in a literary work of the highest class: the manner in which Hippothous is introduced, the purely functional character of Manto's letter to Apsyrtus, and the absence at 3.9.2 of a specific statement that Habrocomes is in Tarsus. But these features of the novel must be seen as related to other phenomena (e.g. Perilaus' sudden knowledge of Habrocomes, the frequent inadequacy of motivation), 61 that cannot be accounted for in terms of epitomization, and it is a mistake to try to explain a few oddities by means of a radical theory of epitomization that leaves other, similar features of the text, to say nothing of Xenophon's generally peculiar style and manner of composition, unexplained. I have already set out in chapter IV how I believe the nature of the Ephesiaca is to be accounted for. It must be extremely doubtful that the epitome-theory would have won such acceptance, or even ever have been proposed, but for the statement in the Suda that Xenophon's novel contained ten books (see p. 10 above). It is, therefore, remarkable that Bürger (41 η. 1) was inclined to reject that statement: he regarded the marked difference in length between the five books we have (six pages in book 4, twenty in book 5) as best explained by the activity of an epitomator who had retained the original division into books. In considering the statement in the Suda and the present division into five books we have to do with a problem to which there is no single, clearly correct solution, but, instead, a great deal of scope for speculation. In any case the simple view '10 books in the Suda + 5 in the transmitted text = epitomization' is unjustified. There are more probable, less radical possibilities, the most immediate of which is that the statement in the Suda is false: we could have to do with a mistake, made either by Hesychius of Miletus, the source of the Suda notice on Xenophon, or by the compiler of the Suda or with a scribal error (i' for ε') 6 2 in the transmission either of

61 62

See pp. 88ff. and 91f. above. It has repeatedly been suggested that the Suda 's t is a scribal error: see Gartner 2072.

1. The epitome-theory

135

Hesychius or of the Suda. We do not have to leave Greek novels to find in the Suda itself what is almost certainly a false statement of the number of books in a work: according to the Suda the Babyloniaca of Iamblichus contained the massive number of thirty-nine (in a variant reading thirty-five!) books, whereas in Photius' summary 6 3 of this novel it has sixteen books. Another, somewhat less appealing, possibility is that the statement in the Suda is based on a manuscript in which the same text that we have was divided into ten books. 64 In this connection one must note that the present division into five books is unlikely to have any special authority: at least the divisions between books 2 and 3 and 3 and 4 cut off in each case a μέν clause from a δέ clause with which it belongs closely, and one cannot feel that any of the four book-divisions occurs at a particularly appropriate point in the story.

Hiatus and the epitome-theory The subject of hiatus in the Ephesiaca has received some attention in the past, but a fuller investigation is needed as a basis for reliable conclusions. Mann devotes a footnote 6 5 to hiatus: 'Xenophon ist überhaupt gegen den Hiat nicht sehr empfindlich. Abgesehen von den Hiaten, die nach einsilbigen Partikeln wie και, δή, oder nach μέχρι, περί, ιτρό, ferner bei den Formen des Artikels, bei Eigennamen, Sinnespausen und Interpunktionen erscheinen, treffen auf jede Seite des Textes 6 - 8 Hiate, die nicht durch geläufige Elision beseitigt werden können.' This assessment derives from too simple and unsystematic an approach, and

63

I see no sufficient reason to doubt that Photius (Bibl. 94) summarized the whole work: his book 16 contains the happy reunion of the lovers. Cf. Lesky, Gesch. d. gr. Lit. ( 3 1971) 965; also Rohde, Roman 364 n. 2 (= 3 391 n. 2), E. Habrich (ed.), lamblichi Babyloniacorum Reliquiae (Leipzig 1960) 70 n. on fr. 92, Holzberg, Roman (1986) 101, 102f. The Suda is also apparently wrong in saying that the fables of Babrius were in ten books, rather than two: see B. E. Perry (ed.), Babrius and Phaedrus (Loeb 1965) Ivi. Mistakes or discrepancies in statements of the number of books in a work are in general not infrequent: see e.g. R. Henry (ed.), Photius: Bibliothèque (Budé) vol. I (1959) 19 n. 2 (cod. 34), vol. II (1960) 108 n. 1 (cod. 140), 182 n. 1 (cod. 178), 192f. n. 2 (cod. 182); cf. 161 n. 1 (cod. 169, regarding the number of chapters in a book).

64

On division into books in antiquity see in general Hägg (1966) 144 n. 44 with citation of the relevant literature. Mann 35 n. 1.

65

136

V. Formulae and Bearbeiter

Mann, though he accepts the epitome-theory as elaborated by Bürger, does not consider the relationship between the occurrence of hiatus and that theory. This last is also true of Gärtner, who talks simply of Xenophon's 'Gleichgültigkeit gegenüber selbst schweren Hiaten'.66 In his important article on hiatus in the Greek novelists M. D. Reeve 6 7 deals much less fully with Xenophon than with the others, believing that he has in any case only Bürger's epitome to work with. He suggests, though — an hypothesis certainly worth exploring — that Xenophon avoided illicit hiatus (i.e. hiatus of a kind that the other Greek novelists would have avoided) and that this might help 'the critic intent on rescuing Xenophon from the clutches of the epitomator',68 who is thought of as having allowed hiatus freely. If this were so, one would expect to find a remarkably uneven distribution of illicit hiatus in the Ephesiaca, the occurrences being concentrated in the epitomized sections. This is not in fact the picture that emerges from investigation. In what follows I accept Reeve's definition of illicit hiatus 69 and include in my statistics only such instances as would have been avoided by the other novelists. The following chart shows the distribution of illicit hiatus over the seventy-one Teubner pages of the Ephesiaca7° A vertical broken line ( ι ) marks the beginning, a vertical dotted line ( j )

66 67 68 ω 70

Gärtner 2071. CQ 21 (1971) 514-38. Ibid. 534. Ibid. 515-17. If one also includes hiatus between long terminal vowels (excluding monosyllables [e.g. δή, μή] after which the other novelists allowed hiatus) and the syllabic augment (19 instances) or a verbal prefix (15 instances), the figures are: 2, 2, 1, 2, 2, 5, 2, 3, 2, 5, 1, 0, 1, 2, 3, 3, 3, 0, 1, 3, 1, 2, 2, 3, 2, 2, 2, 2, 4, 0, 3, 0, 0, 2, 0, 3, 1, 1, 1, 0, 3, 3, 1, 2, 0, 1, 0, 1, 2, 2, 2, 0, 2, 4, 2, 4, 5, 1, 4, 2, 1, 1, 1, 3, 2, 3, 4, 1 (excluding the inscription at 5.11.6), 1, 2, 2. The chart includes instances involving proper names (or adjectives derived from them: pp. 37, 53). They are distributed as follows: (1) after proper-names with long terminal vowels (35 instances) on pp. 1 (2 instances), 7, 10, 13, 14 (before verbal prefix), 20 (2), 22, 23, 26, 27 (2, once before verbal prefix), 28 (before augment), 31 (3), 36, 37 ("Εφεσίου Ιατροί), 42, 44, 46, 49 (2), 51, 54, 55 (2, once before pluperfect augment), 56, 59, 62, 64, 65, 67 (2, once before verbal prefix); (2) before proper names (8 instances) on pp. 6, 8, 9, 24, 48, 53 (ταφ·ή ΑΙγυπτία), 69, 71. I exclude Άνθία/"Ανθεια: the latter is probably the correct form (Gärtner 2060); Άνθία would give hiatus on pp. 3,4, 8,17 (accepting Jackson's supplement), 18, 22, 25, (50: the μεν deleted by Hercher [4.5.6] seems acceptable, and so the hiatus is pause-stopped), 51, 57, 58, 64; so before a syllabic augment or verbal prefix on pp. 36 (pluperfect augment), 51, 69, 70.

1. The epitome-theory

137

the end, of a passage assigned by Bürger to the epitomator. 71 p. = page-number in Papanikolaou's text; h. = number of instances of illicit hiatus on the page (the number being divided around a broken or dotted line where appropriate).

71

P·

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

84

9

10

h.

2

I1

1

22

1

33

2

2

1

2

P·

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

h.

0

0

1

1

2

3

I5

0

I6

3

P·

21

22

23

24

25

26

28

29

30

h.

0

2

2

37

2

2

27 I 1 «0 I

1

4

0

P·

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

h.

3

o jo

0

2

0

38

1

0

I9

0

P·

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

h.

I10

I11

2

0

I12

0

1

213 0

1

P·

51

52

53

55

56

57

58

59

60

h.

1

0

2

54 1 0' 4

1

4

2

1

P·

61

62

63

64

66

67

68

69

70

h.

014

1

1

2

65 1 · •oil 1

2

3

1

1

0

P·

71

h.

1

3

1 "

3

0

2

It is sufficient to mark the general areas which Biirger (41) regarded as epitomized. The passages singled out by him as having suffered particularly badly (see above) are not, in keeping with what we have already seen of them, distinguished from the rest of the text by a higher incidence of hiatus.

138

V. Formulae and Bearbeiter

Notes to the chart: 1. If Jackson's transposition is accepted, this instance (έορτή farò 1.2.2) is removed. 2.

Including έπειδή eW (1.3.4). The only other instance of hiatus after έπειίή occurs before the augment (5.4.8); hiatus occurs twice after έπειδή in Chariton (Reeve 527) and once in Achilles Tatius (8.17.4).

3.

Four, if there is no pause in έν τούτω tv . . . διημερεύοντες (1.5.3).

4.

Bürger (64) regards 1.8.2 as showing signs of epitomization. The words concerned contain no illicit hiatus (Βαβυλωνία έπεποί,ιαλτο, probably not to be included in the 'epitome', is likely to be legitimate, and in any case the augment could be due to a scribe).

5. 'έργου 'έχεσθαι (1.15.4), which may be legitimate (cf. Reeve 520). 6. ληστή έρώντι (2.1.3): the participle seems too strongly attributive to allow a pause. 7.

Including έπεί "Ανθειαν (2.7.1.). Cf. έπεί ώπτήθη Ach. Tat. 3.15.5.

8. The lacuna at 3.4.1 (ληστηρίου * * ήλθεν) is to be accepted. 9. Tfl άγωνί? ύπό δίψους (3.6.4). It is not clear that Jackson (CQ 29 [1935] 96) meant to delete ύπό δί,ψους (as well as suggesting άφωνίφ). In any case, I see no cogent reason to remove it. 10. Not including the certainly corrupt τόπου A (3.9.4), where read προΐοΰσι, Sé τοΟ πότου +ό κύριος^ . . . (without Papanikolaou's embellishments). 11. Keeping σοδ (del. Wifstrand, νΰν Castiglioni) Α δυστυχής (3.10.2). 12. tiri Λεοντώ (Λεόντων Hercher) Ερχονται. (4.1.4). 13. Accepting Cobet's ΑΙγυπτία (αίγυπτίαν F) at 4.3.6. 14. At 5.7.8 read πολύ (πολλήν F, wrongly: πολλώ Cobet) είχε χαλεπώτεραν: elsewhere Xenophon uses the form πολύ with comparatives.

Illicit hiatus is distributed randomly over the text with no significant difference between the areas where Bürger thought he saw an epitomator at work and the rest. The material in the chart suggests two related conclusions: (1) that in the composition of the Ephesiaca some attempt, at whatever level of literary consciousness, was made to avoid hiatus, since the incidence of the kind of hiatus registered is low when compared with that in authors who allow hiatus freely;72 and (2) that the transmitted text is the work of the same hand throughout, the

72

Applying the same criteria as in the case of Xen. Eph., the figures for twenty Teubner pages each, chosen at random, of Xenophon of Athens (Anabasis 2.5.36 — 3.2.19, ed. C. Hude [21972] 74-93) and Thucydides (2.5.5 - 2.34.1, ed. O. Luschnat [21960] 124-143) are respectively: 3, 4, 7, 7, 6, 4, 5, 8, 8, 7, 2, 7, 5, 9, 5, 4, 4, 8, 4,10; and 5, 2, 9, 8, 7, 9, 7, 6, 10, 3, 4, 10, 8, 6, 4, 4, 7, 6, 6, 6.

2. The 'Heliosredaktionstheorie'

139

particular level of avoidance / tolerance of hiatus showing no significant variation. 73

2. The

'Heliosredaktionstheorie'

In his Roman und Mysterium in der Antike (91-113) Reinhold Merkelbach 7 4 puts forward the view that the Ephesiaca is an Isisromance, a veiled narrative of Isiac mystery-ritual. A difficulty in the way of this view is the prominent part given to Helios in the Ephesiaca. Merkelbach's way around this difficulty is to maintain that (before the supposed epitomization) the original romance was reworked by a devotee of the Sun-god to the glory of that deity. The reworking would have consisted mainly in the interpolation of the passages in which Helios appears as the saviour-god and of passages intimately connected with his «ς

role: thus everything concerning the slave-pair Leucon and Rhode, whose function in the present plot is so closely bound up with the temple of Helios (5.10.6 — 12, 5.12.1 — 6), would have to be seen as interpolated. Moreover, the original story ended, in Merkelbach's view, in Egypt in accordance with the oracle of 1.6, and those parts of the romance representing adventures subsequent to those in Egypt, and culminating in the scenes in the temple of Helios at Rhodes, must be regarded as added by the sunworshipper. According to Merkelbach, then, the following parts of the Ephesiaca are to be attributed to a 'Heliosredaktor' (with Papanikolaou's line-numbers): 76

73

74

75 76

See A. Q. Morton, Ά cautionary tale for classical scholars', Revue de l'organisation internationale pour l'étude des langues anciennes par ordinateur, Liège 1977.1 ( = Computationes grammaticae zum 60. Geburtstag von Jürgen Mau) Slff. Developing ideas in Κ. Kerényi, Die griechisch-orientalische Romanliteratur in religionsgeschichtlicher Beleuchtung (Tübingen 1927; Darmstadt 3 1973) 232ff. (see Gärtner 2076). Since this section was originally written Prof. Merkelbach has abandoned the idea of a Heliosredaktion, as he states in a forthcoming book of which he kindly let me see the chapter on Xenophon; he now sees Isis and her spouse Helios-Sarapis as compatible deities within a single Mysterienroman. I leave the section as I wrote it, because it shows how my observations may be used in relation to this question too and offers the opportunity of analysing and discussing further passages of the text. Merkelbach allows the praying to Helios ('Osiris-Sarapis-Horus') in Egypt at 4.2.4. One can work out without much doubt where the alleged interpolations are supposed to begin and end. Merkelbach is not entirely clear about their exact extent, and he does not e.g. say how we are to see the interpolator's work in relation to the typical

140

V. Formulae and Bearbeiter

(1) 1.11.6.12 έν τούτω δέ . . . 1.12.3.7 τό 'Ροδίων Ίτλ-ηθος (the stop at Rhodes with its Helios-temple) (2) 2.2.3.6—7 καί οΐκέτας δύο, Λεύκωνα καί 'Ρόδην (3) 2.3.3.26 £γνω ττρός τήν 'Ρόδην . . . 2.5.1.17 ούκέτι καρτερούσα (Manto's attempt to win Habrocomes with the help of Rhode) (4) 2.7.3.2 καί τήν 'Ρόδην καί τόν Λεύκωνα (5) 2.9.1.30 καί 6 Λεύκων και ή 'Ρόδη (6) 2.9.1.2 έμνησικάκει . . . 2.9.2.5 άιτοδόσθαι γης (Manto's punishment of Leucon and Rhode) (7) 2.10.4.13 ò δέ Λεύκων . . . 2.10.4.19 δρώμενοι (the sale and adoption of Leucon and Rhode in Lycia) (8) 4.4.1.13 έν τούτω δέ . . . 4.5.1.22 έν τω άντρω (the freeing of Habrocomes by the ruler of Egypt and his start for Italy) (9) 5.1.1.1 ò δέ Άβροκόμης διανύσας . . . 5.2.1.14 της τέχνης ΑΙγιαλεΙ κοινωνών (the episode of Habrocomes and Aegialeus in Sicily) (10) 5.3.3.4 Ίιπτόθοος μόνος . . . 5.3.3.9 μεγάλην τε καί εύδαίμονα (the escape of Hippothous from the battle and his start for Sicily) (11) 5.5.4.16 και τταραδοΰσα οΐκέτη τινί . . . to the end of the romance 'enstammt bis auf wenige Abschnitte der Heliosredaktion' (110). The attribution of these passages to someone other than the original author would be necessitated solely by Merkelbach's main contention that the Ephesiaca was originally an Isiac mystery-text in the guise of a romance. This contention, though much disapproved of, 77 has never been disproved, and so it should be noted here that it stands or falls with the more tangible attribution of specific passages to an interpolator. The 'Heliosredaktionstheorie' itself has been countered by Gärtner

77

Xenophontic transitions at 4.4.1 and 5.2.1. As part of Merkelbach's general thesis, which sees the Greek romances, except for Chariton, as Mysterientexte. References to reactions are usefully collected in B. P. Reardon, Courants littéraires grecs des II' et IIIe siicles après J.—C. (Paris 1971) n. 202 pp. 394f. See further T. Hägg, The novel in antiquity (Oxford [Blackwell] 1983) 242. Merkelbach's work, unlike that of some of his sharpest critics, has the considerable merit of providing a concrete basis for discussion.

2. The 'Heliosredaktionstheorie'

141

(2076 — 2080). His main line of argument is as follows: 78 to the 'Heliosredaktor' one would have to ascribe gross incompetence in some points: (a) the failure to change the oracle of 1.6 so as to bring it into line with his reworked plot; (b) the fact that the lovers' reunion is allowed to take place before the temple of Isis instead of in or near that of Helios, where the scenes preparatory to their reunion are set; besides, (c) it is hard to see how the purpose of a 'Heliosredaktor' would in any way be served by taking the characters from Egypt to Sicily and Southern Italy, where there is no opportunity for Helios to play a part in their fortunes, rather than directly to Rhodes and the Sun-god's temple. On the other hand one would have to see the interpolator as at the same time a person of considerable skill: the story of Aegialeus and Thelxinoe (5.1.4ff.), which would be from him, is composed as a deliberate counterpiece to that of Hippothous and Hyperanthes (3.2.1ff.); 79 and Manto's use of Rhode as go-between (2.3.3ff.) is 'in mehrfacher Hinsicht nicht übel motiviert' and the narrative here is e.g. convincing in its psychological portrayal of Manto. The alleged 'Heliosredaktor' would, then, be a most improbable mixture of incompetence and skill. Gärtner's argument has force, but one can go further and put the falseness of Merkelbach's theory beyond doubt by considering the allegedly interpolated passages in relation to what we have seen of Xenophon's peculiar compositional technique. First let us take together 2.9.1.2 - 2.9.2.5 and 5.5.4.16 - 5.5.7.8 (. . . ττορνοβοσκώ, i.e. 6 and part of 11 in the list of passages above). These passages we have already considered in detail, 80 and we have seen not only that they are themselves composed in the manner typical of Xenophon, but that they are essential parts of an elaborate and complex parallelism between the Manto and Rhenaea episodes. In my judgement it is out of the question that these effects, of which Merkelbach was not aware, can be ascribed to anyone but the original author. Of the other alleged interpolations,

78

79

80

The other points he makes, though sensible and, I am sure, right, are not nearly so telling. Gärtner (after M. Schnepf, De imitationis ratione, quae intercedit inter Heliod. et X. Eph., commentatio [Progr. Kempten 1887] 15f.) gives no sign of having realized the true extent of the correspondence between the two passages. Pp. 32ff. above.

142

V. Formulae and Bearbeiter

not counting the brief and careful 81 mention of Leucon and Rhode at 2.2.3, 2.7.3, and 2.9.1, these, or significant parts of them, have already been dealt with and shown to be utterly typical of Xenophon: 1.11.6.12 - 1.12.3.7 (1 in the list above);82 4.4.1.13 - 4.5.1.22 (8); 83 5.1.1.4 5.2.1.14 (9); m 5.3.3.4 - 5.3.3.9 (10); 85 the end of the romance from 5.5 on (II). 8 6 Of the two passages we are left with, one, 2.3.3.26 - 2.5.1.17, contains a brief standard scene (2.3.4) 8 7 and a fair sprinkling of single formulae besides, 88 and close examination of the other shows that it too is in Xenophon's manner: 2.10.4

ò δέ Λεύκων κ α ΐ ή 'Ρόδη ή χ θ η σ α ν elç Λ υ κ ί α ν s i s ττόλιν

Ξ ά ν θ ο ν ( ά ν ώ τ ε ρ ο ν δέ θ α λ ά σ σ η ς ή ττόλις) κ ά ν τ α ΰ θ α έ τ τ ρ ά θ η σ α ν ττρεσβύτη τ ι ν ί , ôç αί»τού? ε ί χ ε μ ε τ ά ττάσης έ τ τ ι μ ε λ ε ΐ α ς , τταιδας αΰτοϋ νομί,ζων

καί γ ά ρ ά τ ε κ ν ο ς ή ν δ ι ή γ ο ν δέ έν ά φ θ ό ν ο ι ς μ έ ν

ττάσιν, έλύττουν δέ αϋτο-ùç "Ανθεια και Ά β ρ ο κ ό μ η ς ονχ όρώμενοι.

Here we have the standard motif of coming into the hands of a childless old man and being adopted by him. We have already seen the various instances and variants of it in the Ephesiaca.89 It is an entrenched part of Xenophon's repertoire, used here to get Leucon and Rhode conveniently out of the way until they are needed again towards the end of the romance, where they turn up (5.6.3) having inherited a fortune from the old man, just as Hippothous inherits a fortune from the old woman who

81

82 83 84 85 86 87 88

89

Cf. also the reference to Leucon and Rhode at the close of Manto's letter in 2.5.2. Such care would hardly be compatible with the careless incompetence pointed to by Gartner. Pp. 64ff. above. Pp. 55, 113ff. above. Pp. 52ff. above. Pp. 43f„ 54, 56, 58 above. Pp. 32ff., 44ff., 56, 61, 64ff. (with 59) above. Pp. 63f. above. 2.3.5 ή δέ έν άμηχάνω κακώ έγεγόνει (4.5.5; 5.7.4); 2.3.7 έρφ . . . σφοδρόν 'έρωτα (1.14.7; 1.16.4; 2.11.1; 5.4.5; cf. 1.15.4); ibid. δεινά . . . έργάσασθαι (1.15.1); 2.3.8 άντειιτεΐν Tfl βαρβάρω σφαλερόν (cf. 2.4.2 άντειιτεΐν . . . βαρβάρω. . . χαλεπάν); ibid. Αψέ δέ άνενεγκών (1.9.2; cf. 2.1.2 [cf. 2.4.5; 3.9.7]); 2.4.2 πονήρως . . . διάκειται (1.15.4; 2.3.3; 5.8.3); 2.4.3 with ώ πονηρέ . . . έτόλμ,ησας cf. 2.6.1 (with p. 37 above); 2.4.5 'έκειτο άχανής (5.12.4; cf. άχανής ήν 1.16.6; 4.2.2; cf. 5.10.11 άχανείς έγένοντο [esp. with 1.16.6]); 2.4.6 ταϋτα . . . είς μεί{ονα συμφοράν . . . ήγε (4.5.4; cf. 1.5.4). Pp. 49f. above.

2. T h e 'Heliosredaktionstheorie'

143

takes him in, as her husband, in the variant of the motif at 5.9.1. In general content, then, the passage has the stamp of Xenophon, and closer consideration of the ideas in it and how they are expressed seals the impression that it is his and no one else's. With ήχθησαν . . . εις πόλιν Ξάνθον . . . κάνταϋθα έπράθησαν πρεσβύτη τινί . . . παίδας αυτού νομ'ιζων compare 3.12.2—4 άγουσιν . . . εις Πηλούσιον τής Αιγύπτου πάλιν, καί ένταΰθα πιπράσκουσιν άλλον άλλω. ώνειται δή τόν Άβροκόμην πρεσβύτης . . . παιδα έποιειτο and 5.1.1—2 κατήχθησαν είς πόλιν Συρακούσας . . . ένταΰθα . . . παρά άνδρί Αιγιαλέ! πρεσβύτη . . . παιδα ένόμιζεν αΰτοϋ, also, as far as it goes, 5.5.7 κατήχθη μέν είς Τάραντα, πόλιν τής Ιταλίας" ένταΰθα . . . άποδίδοται . . . . 90 The parenthesis in ττόλιν Ξάνθον (άνώτερον δέ θαλάσσης ή πόλις) closely parallels that at 3.2.1 πόλεως Περίνθου (πλησίον δέ τής Θράκης ή πόλις), cf. 3.2.5 Βυζαντίου (πλησίον δέ τό Βυζάντιον τή Περίνθω). With αύτούς είχε μετά πάσης έπιμελείας compare 1.15.2 πάσαν έπιμέλειαν προσέφερεν, 2.2.5 δι' έπιμελείας . . . 'έχειν, 4.2.10 έπιμέλειαν . . . εχειν πάσαν, 5.9.13 πάσαν προσάγων έπιμέλειαν: έπιμέλεια (usually with πάσα) is a standard key-word in Xenophon for expressing the good treatment of slaves, prisoners vel sim. The regular alternative in expressing the same theme-element is θεραπεύω,91 and αϋτούς είχε μετά πάσης έπιμελείας . . .· και γαρ όίτεκνος ήν corresponds to τήν δέ "Ανθειαν έθεράπευεν. ήν δέ οΰτε γυνή τώ Περιλάω οΰτε παίδες in the variant of the motif at 2.13.6, where Perilaus' lack of a wife had to be given due prominence and the simple adoption-element had no place. With the thought and language of διήγον . . . έλΰπουν . . . δρώμενοι compare 5.1.8 διήγομεν άπορία μέν τών έπιτηδείων, ήδόμενοι δέ καί πάντων άπολαύειν δοκοΰντες, δτι ήμεν μετ' άλλήλων. It is clear that 2.10.4 is Xenophon through and through. What interpolator of this

90

A t 3 . 1 2 . 2 - 4 the elements of the theme are interrupted by the introduction of the old man's wife, Cyno, needed for the following narrative; at 5.1.1—2 the inappropriate selling is replaced by formulaic searching and lodging; at 5.5 J Antheia is sold not to an old man but to a brothelkeeper, and so the adoption element is omitted and replaced by a theme of the kind discussed on pp. 64ff. above. All this illustrates well the variation and combination of standard themes.

91

1.15.2 (in association with π&σαν έ π ι μ έ λ ε ι α ν προσέφερεν); 3.8.5; 5.7.4; 5.10.12. It is varied to ώς π ά ν τ α δ ν α ύ τ η γένοιτο Περιλάω, γ ν ν ή καί δεσπότις καί παίδες (2.13.7). Note also that Perilaus, like the old man of 2.10.4 and Hippothous' spouse, was wealthy: 2.13.6 καί π ε ρ ι β ο λ ή χρημάτων ούκ ό λ ί γ η . Corresponding information is given in the case of the poor Aegialeus: 5.1.2 πένης μέν ήν.

92

144

V. Formulae and Bearbeiter

simple text, even if he had had the necessary ability, would have taken the enormous care to make his additions so utterly indistinguishable thematically and stylistically from the original work? And why in any case would a Helios-worshipper, especially one so able, interpolate an Isis-romance so laboriously rather than produce a Helios-romance of his own?93 All the passages, then, that Merkelbach, under pressure of his Isisromance theory, would see as interpolations are typical of Xenophon himself and hardly to be attributed even to a highly talented interpolator, let alone to one at whose door the incompetence pointed to by Gärtner would have to be laid; and at least in the case of 2.9.1—2 and 5.5.4—7, essential to Merkelbach's case, there is no need to resort to the argument of the schizophrenic interpolator, since the removal of the alleged interpolations would destroy an elaborate thematic parallelism which must certainly be seen as belonging to the original work.

93

Cf. Gärtner 2080.

VI. Xenophon and Chariton The extent to which Xenophon and Chariton have been seen to share motifs and language 1 has led to general agreement that one of them must have used the other. 2 But agreement has not been reached on the crucial issue of who the source and who the borrower was, 3 though in recent years opinion has begun strongly to favour Chariton as the earlier. 4 Gärtner and Papanikolaou argue for his priority, rejecting the view of Petri, a follower of Merkelbach, that the Chaereas and Callirhoe was the work of a later writer who did not understand the alleged original function of the romances as mystery-texts. Though I believe that Xenophon did precede Chariton, Petri's argument seems to me to have no plausibility and it will appeal only to one who adheres fully to Merkelbach's theory. The issue must be decided on the basis of common elements of content and language in the novels of Xenophon and Chariton, the approach adopted by Gärtner and by Papanikolaou. Gärtner seems to me to have no very forceful argument for Chariton's priority. What he says is rather a matter of subjective impression: that in some places (e.g. the motivation of the marriage; the rescue of the hero from the cross: Gärtner 2083) Xenophon can be seen as trying to outdo Chariton; or that in others (the grave-robber-scene; 5 the scene where Chaereas takes leave of his parents: 2083 - 84) Chariton's version is

1 2

3 4

3

See Garin (1909) 423 - 9; Papanikolaou (1964) 305 - 20; Gärtner 2082ff. E.g. Rohde 489, 492 (= 31914, 521, 524); Papanikolaou (1964) 305 and (1973) 153; Petri 53; Gärtner 2082ff.; see further n. 4 below. Hägg, Novel (1983) takes the view that *we cannot exclude the possibility of a common model, or common models, rather than direct imitation between the two accidentally preserved specimens' (p. 21). For a variant of this as a possibility in line with the argument of chapter IV of the present work see pp. 169f. n. 48 below. See also p. 165 below. See e.g. Papanikolaou (1973) 153; Gärtner 2085f.; also Nickau (n. 13 below). Papanikolaou (nn. 8 and 11 below) and Gärtner 2082ff., followed by e.g. Reardon (1971) 353 (cf. 359) and in Bowersock (ed., 1974) 23; Schmeling (1974) 161 and (1980) esp. 76, 128; Holzberg (1986) 63f.; see also Bowie (1985) 690; R. Johne in Kuch (ed., 1989) 217. On the shortcomings of Gärtner's remarks on the grave-robber-scenes see p. 25 n. 10 above.

146

VI. Xenophon and Chariton

somehow better or more sensible than what we find in Xenophon. We can of course agree with this latter judgement without excluding the possibility that Chariton improved on a more primitive model. In arguing against Garin's attempt to show that Xenophon imitated Heliodorus, Gärtner himself (2080—81), influenced by his prior belief about the chronological relationship between the two authors (2080), favours the view that Heliodorus has improved on material taken from Xenophon. His argument for the dependence of Xenophon on Chariton seems also to have been largely determined by prior chronological considerations: he accepts Papanikolaou's argument for dating Chariton much earlier (2085) than the traditional date also accepted by himself for Xenophon (2086-87). In 1964 Papanikolaou, who had already 6 argued on mainly linguistic grounds 7 that Chariton should be dated to the first century B.C., published an essay 8 in which he examined motifs and phrases common to Chariton and Xenophon and concluded rather tentatively 9 that Xenophon was the imitator. Most of the material he presents falls, in his own arrangement, into the categories of topoi, which tell us nothing useful about the relationship between the two authors, and of passages which, while they point to a dependence of the one on the other, do not tell us who depends on whom; and the weight of Papanikolaou's conclusion must be borne by a third category consisting of a very few sets of parallel passages. What he feels to be the best of this evidence for the use of Chariton by Xenophon he has republished, with slightly modified

6 7

8 9

Papanikolaou (1963). The bones of his argument are: Chariton's use of earlier literature shows him to have been a cultivated man; but, as against the other surviving novelists, he wrote a relatively unatticizing Greek containing numerous traces of the κοινή; a man of his culture would, if he had lived in the time of the atticizing movement, himself have atticized; he must accordingly be dated to a time before that movement (papyrus fragments [on which see Perry (1967) 343] forbidding a date later than ca. ISO A.D.). On the limitations of this argument see n. 44 below. Papanikolaou (1964). Papanikolaou (1964) 320: 'Vielleicht vermag keine einzelne Stelle voll zu überzeugen, aber jedenfalls ist die umgekehrte Tendenz nirgendwo feststellbar. Im ganzen kann man wohl sagen, daB die Masse der Indizien die Abhängigkeit des Xenophon von Chariton doch sehr glaubhaft macht, ...'. Eight lines later Papanikolaou shows a confidence inconsistent with this appropriate caution: 'DaB [Chariton] ... bei der Gesamtkonzeption sich an eine Vorlage so eng angeschlossen habe, wie offensichtlich Xenophon an ihn, dafür findet sich nicht der geringste Hinweis' (my italics).

Xenophon and Chariton

147

discussion and a much more confident conclusion,10 as an additional chapter in an adapted version of his dissertation on Chariton. 11 In a review of this last work Reardon 1 2 sees Papanikolaou as 'demonstrating definitively that Xenophon of Ephesus imitates Chariton and not vice versa'; Nickau, 13 reviewing the original 1964 essay, was less enthusiastic: 'So wenig überzeugend der Versuch letztlich ist . . . , muß doch anerkannt werden, daß P. selbst die bestehenden Unsicherheitsfaktoren gesehen und sein Ergebnis entsprechend bescheiden formuliert hat'. The material set out by Papanikolaou does not seem to me to support his conclusion or to constitute an obstacle to the opposite conclusion, if evidence can be found to point to it. I shall deal with what he presents in Chariton-Studien (1973), to which one can safely confine oneself. He begins with these passages: Char. 6.6.4

Xen.Eph. 5.5.5

ώ κάλλος έττίβουλον, σύ μοι πάντων κακών αίτιον, δια σε άνηρέθηυ, δια σέ έπράθην, δια σέ 'έγημα μετά Χαιρέαν, δια σέ είς Βαβυλώνα ήχθην, διά σέ παρέστην δικαστηρίω. πόσοι? με παρέδωκας; λησταϊς, θαλάττη, τάφω, δουλεία, κρίσει.

"ώ κάλλος έπίβουλον" λέγουσα, "ώ δυστυχής εύμορφία, τί μοι παραμένετε ένοχλοΰντα; τί δέ αίτια πολλών κακών μοι γίνεσθε; οϋκ ήρκουν ol τάφοι, ol φόνοι, τα δεσμά, τά ληστήρια,

5.5.3

κάλλος έπίβουλον, ε'ις τοΰτο μόνον υπό της φύσεως δοθέν, ίνα μου πλησβήση των διαβολών.

2.11.4

τούτο τό κάλλος έιτίβουλον άμφοτέροις πανταχού' δια τήν άκαιρον εΰμορφίαν Άβροκόμης μέν έν Τύρω τέθνηκεν, έγώ δέ ένταύθα. 2.1.3

ώ της άκαιρου πρός έκατέρους εΰμορφίας, εις τούτο άρα μέχρι νυν σώφρων έτηρήθην, ίνα έμαυτόν ΰποθώ ληστη έρώντι τήν αίσχράν έττιθυμίαν. 10

Papanikolaou (1973) 159: 'Wenn also die Übereinstimmungen zwischen Chariton und Xenophon von Ephesus so deutlich werden, daB sie philologisch erklärbar sind, erweist es sich jedesmal, daB dafür nur eine Möglichkeit besteht, nämlich daB Xenophon Ephesius von Chariton abhängt und nicht umgekehrt.'

11

Papanikolaou (1973) 153 - 9.

12

CR n.s. 26 (1976) 2 1 - 3 .

13

Gymnasium 73 (1966) 543 - 5 (544).

148

VI. Xenophon and Chariton

Papanikolaou argues that the double expression for beauty in Xenophon (κάλλος . . . εύμορφία[ν] 5.5.5; 2.11.4) indicates that he found the phrase κάλλος έπίβουλον, which occurs only in the two authors in question, in Chariton and felt it (as did the epitomator after him) to be so unusual that he regarded the addition of εύμορφία as necessary in both cases; but by splitting 'diesen plastischen Ausdruck . . . in zwei anscheinend verschiedene Begriffe von Schönheit' he has ruined it; the plurals παραμένετε and -γί,νεσθε (5.5.5) mean that we are not dealing with a mere pleonasm and Xenophon is probably unintelligently echoing Plato Symp. 218e where κάλλος and εύμορφία refer respectively to inner and outer beauty, not, as in Xenophon, to physical beauty alone. This seems to me to be threadbare from start to finish: the expression κάλλος έπίβουλον is in its context immediately intelligible and no one could have imagined that it needed any 'Ergänzung'; κάλλος and εύμορφία are merely synonyms in Xenophon, not 'zwei verschiedene Begriffe' 14 and the double expression for beauty is only a piece of simple rhetoric, carried on at 5.5.5 in the plural verbs. That Xenophon uses the words as synonyms is clear from the following passages where he is merely varying his vocabulary with definite reference to the same concept: 1.1.5 εϊ τινα ή παιδα καλόν άκούσαι ή παρθένον εΰμορφον, κατεγέλα των λεγόντων ώς ούκ είδότων δτι είς καλός αύτός;15 1.2.5 ήν δέ το κάλλος της Άνθειας οίον θαυμάσαι . . . 'έτη μέν τεσσαρεσκαίδεκα έγεγόνει, ήνθει δέ αύτής το σώμαfeir' εύμορφία; 1.4.3 καλή παρθένος- τι δέ; τοις σοϊς όφθαλμοΐς, Άβροκόμη, εΰμορφος "Ανθεια; 1.9.4 'δοκώ σοι καλή, και μετά τήν σήν εύμορφίαν άρέσκω σοι;'; 1.9.8 μήτε Άβροκόμη ¿ίλλην δείξητε καλήν, μήτε έμοί δόξη τις άλλος εύμορφος; 2.2.4 πάντες έτεθαυμάκεσαν τό κάλλος, και άνθρωποι βάρβαροι μήπω πρότερον τοσαύτην Ιδόντες εύμορφίαν . . . . Note that the theme-element έτεθαυμάκεσαν (etc.) το κάλλος 16 is varied at 2.2.1 to κατεπλάγη τήν εύμορφίαν where εύμορφίαν is clearly a synonymous substitute for κάλλος. In κάλλος (καλός) / εύμορφία (εΰμορφος) we are dealing with

14

15

16

κάλλος may, of course, be regarded as a slightly more abstract, less graphic, term, εύμορφία conjuring up the idea of μορφή, 'features and figure', but that is not at all a significant distinction. If there were any doubt (because of the sex-change: but note the reversed application of the adjectives in 1.9.8) about the synonymity of καλόν and εΰμορφον, it would be dispelled by καλός, which clearly picks up both. See pp. 46f. above.

Xenophon and Chariton

149

synonyms closely associated with each other in the habit-ridden language of Xenophon. As we should expect of Xenophon, bare of literary allusion as he is, he is not echoing curiously misunderstood Plato at 2.11.4 and 5.5.5. And even if we could suppose that κάλλος and εΰμορφία were somehow two different concepts in Xenophon and that the addition of εΰμορφία somehow or other ruined κάλλος έιτίβουλον, why could we not imagine Chariton coming along later and improving on this unhappy state of affairs 1 7 by confining himself to the apt and on its own perfectly intelligible κάλλος έιτίβουλον? Papanikolaou's further argument that κάλλος έιτίβουλον is used appropriately only in Chariton, marking him as the original, since in his novel Callirhoe's beauty is really 'das auslösende Moment', whereas in Xenophon 'das auslösende Moment' is the oracle, will not stand examination either. Apart from the fact that the beauty of Antheia and Habrocomes, which brings the couple together, plays a key part in Xenophon's romance from the start, each of the particular misfortunes mentioned in the passages in question is in fact a direct consequence of the beauty of the hero or heroine 1 8 and it is quite natural and appropriate that the beauty, rather than the more remote oracle, which Xenophon lets fade into the background in general, should be blamed for these misfortunes in emotional outbursts. Chariton has a fondness for compound adjectives in φιλο-, using 13 such words in 30 places in all; Xenophon has only 3 φίλο- adjectives, all of which are also found in Chariton; one of the three (φιλόζωος) does not occur in the other novelists, and another (φιΑόνεικος) is used of the god of love only by Chariton and Xenophon, though related expressions are to be found elsewhere in the genre. Papanikolaou concludes that Xenophon has taken the words concerned from Chariton. But may one not just as easily think of Chariton, a confirmed collector of φιλοcompounds, enriching his stock from Xenophon? A further argument of Papanikolaou's goes as follows: in both novels the lost bride is sought in Italy; in Chariton a search in Italy 'paßt zum

17

18

On the fallacy 'better is older* in the Homeric field see Combellack, AJPh 83 (1962) 194f.; B. Fenik, Studies in the Odyssey (Wiesbaden 1974) (= Hermes Einzelschrift 30) 134. At S.S.S the immediate occasion of Antheia's lamentations is her being forced into prostitution, a direct consequence of her good-looks; cf. 5.7.2.

150

VI. Xcnophon and Chariton

Handlungsablauf, while it is, as Rohde put it,19 'unbegreiflich' why Habrocomes should, after being freed by the ruler of Egypt, set out to look for Antheia in Italy; the solution to the puzzle is that Xenophon took over 'diesen Schauplatzwechsel' from Chariton. First, it is inaccurate to talk of 'diesen Schauplatzwechsel': in Chariton there is no corresponding change of scene from Egypt to Italy. Second, Papanikolaou gives a misleading prominence to what is in Chariton a passing mention of τινές being sent from Sicily to search for Callirhoe in nearby Italy, a search doomed to fruitlessness and accordingly forgotten: 3.3.8 Σικελίαν μέν yàp αυτός Έρμοκράτης έρευνα, Χαιρέας δέ Λιβύην els Ίταλίαν τινές έξεττέμττοντο, και άλλοι ιτεραιοΰσβαι τον Ίόνιον έκελεύσθησαν. The main search in Chariton takes place in the East. There seems to me to be no real likelihood that anyone would have been moved by this mention of a natural, but altogether unimportant, search for the Sicilian heroine in Italy to setting a great part of his own novel there. And in any case, what Rohde found 'unbegreiflich' was not just that Habrocomes goes to Italy, but that he so abruptly goes anywhere at all away from Egypt without properly carrying out his purpose of looking for Antheia there, and this can in no way be illuminated by the mention of Italy in Chariton. It can, however, be understood, even if not justified by normal literary standards, in relation to the structure of the Ephesiaca and the general practices of its author. The departure from Egypt belongs in a set of two corresponding lines of action: Manto's accusation

Cyno's accusation

The punishment of Habroco-

The punishment of H. by the

mes by Apsyrtus

ruler of Egypt

The proof of H.'s innocence

The proof of H.'s innocence

Restitution Apsyrtus

H. receives gifts from the ruler

made

to

H. by

H. leaves Tyre to search for Antheia in Syria

19

399 n. 2 ( = 31914, 427 n. 2).

H. leaves Egypt to search for Antheia in Italy

Xenophon and Chariton

151

We have already seen the extent to which these story-lines, including the final scenes,20 are parallel in thought and expression. It belongs then to this parallelism in Xenophon's novel that Habrocomes should leave Egypt. And why not for Italy? We have already seen too 2 1 that it is characteristic of Xenophon, without any prompting from Chariton, to make his characters act without sufficiently motivating them; and it is, after all, not as if there were some other place to which Habrocomes could be sent with very plausible motivation, if the story is to carry on. It must be allowed that Sicily and Italy, separate yet suspensefully close together, suit the author's own further purposes at very least as well as any other part of the world as the theatre of action. Here too, then, we have no good reason for seeing Xenophon as dependent on Chariton. The remaining passages with which Papanikolaou seeks to establish his conclusions are these: Char. 3.5.4-6

'Αρίστων δέ, ò Χαιρέου πατήρ, έσχάτω γήρα καί νόσω φερόμενος, περιέφυ τώ τραχήλω τον παιδός καΐ άυακρεμάμενος αϋτοϋ του τραχήλου κλαίων ελεγε "τίνι με καταλείπεις, ώ τέκνον, ήμιθνήτα πρεσβύτην; δτι μέν γαρ οΰκέτι σε ΰψομαι 5 δήλον. έπίμεινον δέ κάν όλίγας ήμέρας, δπως έν ταις χερσί ταϊς σάίς άποθάνω· θάψον δέ με και άττιθι". ή δέ μήτηρ των γονάτων αΰτοΰ λαβομένη "έγώ δέ σου δέομαι" φησίν, "ώ τέκνον, μή με ένταΰθα καταλίπης ερημον, άλλ' έμβαλοϋ τριήρει φορτίον κούφον . . . λέγων . . . .

3.9.2 τό μέν πρώτον άφωνος εΐστήκει, μόλις δέ έφθέγξατο 3.9.10 έξεθανεν ò Δ. άκουσας και νύξ αύτοϋ τών όφθαλμών κατεχύθη· . . . μόλις δέ καί κατ' όλίγον . . . τόν δεσπότην άν^κνησατο . . . . Note also 1.8.1 μόγις καί κατ' όλ'ιγον άνεττνευσευ. 4.2.13 ταΰτα άκουσας ò Μ. έρυθήματος ένεπλήσθη . . . όψέ δέ καί μόλις ò Μ. συναγαγών έαυτόν . . . φ η σ ι . . . . 8.1.9 άφωνος δέ καί Π. τό πρώτον είστήκει πρός τό παράδοξου, χρόνου δέ προϊόντος . . . είπεν . . . .

32

See RhM n.F. 129 (1986) 83f.

5.12.6 άκούσασα ή "Α. έξεπλάγη τοΰ λόγου, μόγις δέ άνενεγκοΰσα . . . .

Xenophon and Chariton

161

In these last passages Chariton offers something of a standard scene of his own, using some elements (underlined) found also in Xenophon, one (άχλύς . . . κατεχύθη) from Homer, and some (άφωνος ήν / έγένετο / είστήκει, μόλις έφθέγξατο, ττρός τό άνέλττιστον / τταράδοξον, έρυθήματος ένεττλήσθη) either of his own invention of from a third source. Cf. also in Chariton the variations 1.8.1 μόλις και κατ' όλίγον άυέττνευσεν, 3.9.10 μόλις δέ καΐ κατ' όλίγον . . . άνεκτήσατο. Char. 3.6.2 ol μέν ούν άλλοι κεκμηκότες έκβάντες ε'ις την γην ττερί την άνάληψιν ήιτε'ιγοντο τήν έαυτών. Cf. Xen.Eph. 3.1.3; 3.9.1; 3.10.5; 5.5.8 (see p. 59 above). The idea of recovering oneself or of letting someone recover is always associated with a preceding journey (in 3.10.5 with the brigands' journey from Cappadocia to Tarsus). Cf. also Char. 1.11.5 (the grave-robbers let Callirhoe recover after the voyage). Char. 4.2.6 κάκεΐ,νος ούδέ ίδών αυτούς ούδέ άττολογουμένων άκουσας εύθύς έκέλευσε . . . άνασταυρώσαι. Xen.Eph. 4.2.1 ούκέτι ούδέ ιτυθόμενος τα γενόμενα κελεύει . . . ιτροσαρτησαι σταυρώ, cf. 2.6.1—2 ήρεύνησε μέν τό ττραχθέν ούκέτι, . . . ούκέτι άνασχόμενος ούδέ λόγου άκοϋσαι έκέλευε . . . . Char. 7.5.14 ττολλούς μέν έζώγρησε, ιτλείονας δέ άττέκτεινεν. Cf. Xen.Eph. 2.13.4 και ιτάντας τε άττέκτεινε, όλίγους δέ και ζώντας 'έλαβε; 5.3.2 ιτάντες ύττό των στρατιωτών φονεύονται· ε'ισΐ δέ οΐ και ζώντες ελήφθησαν. Chariton seems to improve on Xenophon's logic. (b) Where Chariton contains an idea or phrase used more than once in Xenophon, but not as an element of a standard scene closely resembling the context in Chariton, and where the idea / phrase occurs (a) once in Chariton: Char.

Xen.Eph.

1.4.7 άχανής Εκείτο (cf. 4.1.9 άχ. κατέττεσεν; 6.5.10 £στη . . .

2.4.5; 5.12.4 (cf. 1.16.6; 4.2.2; 5.10.11)

¿X.) perhaps 3.2.12 ττάντας λαθοΰσα (Naber: έκβαλοϋσα F and Blake)

2.12.2 λαθών . . . ιτάντας . . .; 3.10.4 (cf. e.g. 1.4.6; 4.5.3)

3.7.6 άττοθανόντες έξομεν

2.1.6 £ξομεν άλλήλους μετά θάνατον; cf. 5.1.6 ώμόσαμεν

άλλήλους

162

VI. Xenophon and Chariton

άλλήλους . . . £ξειν (edd.: ήξειν F) κοί μέχρι θανάτου (cf. 4.6.7; also 1.7.4) (β) more than once in Chariton: Char.

Xen.Eph.

έτι λέγοντος αύτοϋ: 1.2.6 (πάντες £τι . . .); 4.3.4 (£τι . . . άνεβόησε . . .); Iti δέ αύτοΰ λ έ γ ο ν τ ο ς / δ ι η γ ο υ μ έ ν ο υ : 1.10.4; 2.1.3 (έτι . . . άνεβόησεν . . .); Ιτι (δέ) λέγοντος: 3.4.17 (Ιτι λ. ό δήμος άνεβόησε . . .); 5.8.1; 7.3.11 (ΪΊΙ λ. πάντες άνέκραγον ...); 8.1.8 (Ιτι λ. . . . συνεβόησαν . . .)

έτι λέγοντος αύτοϋ: 3.3.2 (έτι . . . συνανεθρήνησεν 6 Ί π π . λέγων . . .); 3.3.5 (έτι . . . άνεβόησεν Άβρ. . . .); έτι λέγοντος του Αϊγ.: 5.1.12 (. . . άνωδύρετο 6 Άβρ. . . . λέγων . . .)

1.11.5 'Αθήναι πλησίον, μεγάλη καΐ εύδαίμων ττόλις 3.3.9 itti Κρήτης δέ τόν πλουν έποιοϋντο, νήσον άκούοντες εύδαίμονα καΐ μεγάλην, έν ή τήν διάπρασιν των φορτίων ήλπισαν Ισεσβαι βαδίαν.

5.3.3 ήκουε δέ τήν νήσον είναι μεγάλην τε και εύδαίμονα (cf. 1.11.6 κατεφαίνετο δ' ή 'Ροδίων νήσος μεγάλη και καλή; 5.1.1 κατήχθησαν εις πόλιν Συρακούσας μεγάλην και καλήν). Note also 2.14.3-4 . . ΐωμεν . . . έπΐ Καππαδοκίαν . . .· λέγονται γαρ οίκειν άνδρες εύδαίμονες ." 3 3 . . . ήλπιζε δέ και ò Άβροκόμης . . . τήν "Ανθειαν εΰρήσειν; 3.2.1 άκούεις . . . τους άνδρας ώς εύδαίμονες ένταΰθα.

The further link (ήλπισαν, ήλπιζε) between Chariton 3.3.9 and Xenophon 2.14.3-4 may well not be accidental. See p. 57 above.

33

See RhM n.F. 127 (1984) 275.

Xenophon and Chariton Char.

3.10.3 τήν ερρήξατο

163

Xen.Eph.

έσθήτα

5.2.4 περιρρηξάμενος χιτώνα (cf. 3.3.15; 3.5.6)

περι-

3.7.2 τήν έσθήτα περιρρηξάμενος

τόν

3.10.1 περιερρήξατο τόν χιτώνα (cf. esp. Char. 3.3.15, with contexts)

7.1.5 καταρρηξάμενος οίυ τήν έσθητα καΐ σπαράξας τάς τρίχα? 3.10.4 τάς κόμας σπαράξασα

1.4.1 λαβών δή τήν κόμην . . . καΐ σπαράξας τήν έσθητα 2.5.6 σπαράξασα τάς κόμας και περιρρεξαμένη τήν έσθητα 3.5.2 σπαράξασα τάς κόμας

(5) We also find some phrases that do not occur in Xenophon used more than once in Chariton: 1.4.5 συναγαγών τάς όφρΰς . . . σοΙ μάλιστα εΰνους; 2.10.3 αγαγοΰσα τάς όφρϋς . . . δια τήν εΰνοιαν τήν πρός σε

συν-

1.5.6 ταύτα λέγοντος θρήνος έξερράγη, καΐ πάντες . . .; 3.3.7 θρήνον το πλήθος έξέρρηξεν έπί τούτοις και πάντες . . .; 4.1.12 θρήνον έξέρρηξε τό πλήθος καΐ πάντες . . .; 8.8.2 θρήνον έξέρρηξεν επί τούτοις το πλήθος 1.14.3 τήν . . . Κ. . . . κατακλίναντες εϊασαν ήσυχάζειν; 5.9.4 κατεκλίθη, καΐ εϊασαν αύτήν (Hercher: έασεν αυτήν F) ήσυχάζειν Τύχη βάσκανε 1.14.7; 4.1.12; 5.1.4 ταΰτα όίμα λέγων/ουσα 3.2.3 (. . . και δακρύων [partie.]); 5.1.7; 5.5.7; 6.3.3 (. . . ένεπλήσθη δακρύων); 6.7.10 (. . . δακρύων πηγάς άφήκεν). Cf. Xen. Eph. 5.1.10 καΐ άμα λέγων. 3.2.6 Διονύσιος δέ άνήρ πεπαιδευμένος; 4.7.6 οία γαρ πεπαιδευμένος; 5.5.1 ola δή φρόνιμος άνήρ και πεπαιδευμένος; 6.5.8 ola δέ γυνή πεπαιδευμένη καΐ φρενήρης 3.3.8 ή Τύχη δέ έφώτισε τήν άλήθειαν; 8.1.5 ή θεός (sc. Aphrodite) έφώτισε τήν άλήθειαν 4.1.11 'πώς άν τις διηγήσηται κατ' άξίαν τα τελευταία τής πομπής;'; 5.8.2. 'τις fiv φράση κατ' άξίαν έκεινο τό σχήμα . . .;'; 8.1.14 'τίς άν φράση τήν νύκτα έκείνην πόσων διηγημάτων μεστή, πόσων . . .;'; 8.4.1 'τίς âv φράση τήν ήμέραν έκείνην πόσας εσχε πράξεις, . . .;'; cf. 1.1.12

164

VI. Xenophon and Chariton

'τίς ήτωρ by Thomas Magister, wrote his Leucippe and Clitophon in a non-formulaic, rhetorical manner, but in him we still

39

On history in Chariton see Perry (1967) 137ff. We have no evidence for historical novels before Chariton (though, of course, plenty of 'romantic' history: see in general E. Schwarz, Fünf Vorträge über den griechischen Roman [Berlin 1896, 2 1943]). Nowadays the view has become strongly established that the novel at its very beginning presented itself in the guise of history, with at least the Mnui-romance showing Chariton the way (see Perry [1967] esp. 32ff., 69, 74, 78, 97 [with 343 ad fin.], 146 - 8,153, 173f.; Reardon [1971] 315; Schmeling [1980] 22; H. Gärtner, 'Der antike Roman — Bestand und Möglichkeiten' in P. Neukam [ed.], Vorschläge und Anregungen [München 1980] 4 8 - 5 4 [esp. 53], 55; Hägg [1983] 17, with bibliography 243; cf. Bowie [1985] 685; Holzberg [1986] 4 3 - 5 1 ) . But it is not clear that the M'nws-romance predated Chariton; and, in any case, it seems doubtful that the type of Herrscher-Roman with a love-interest that the Mmu-fragments represent (cf. the Sesonchosis-Tomance: ZPE 56 [1984] 39 - 4 4 ) is not to be distinguished carefully from the romance of nonroyal love and adventure with which we are specially concerned: two genres could share a great deal, drawn from the cornucopia of popular Erzählgut available to all, while being generically distinct, witness e.g. the love-romance and the apocryphal Acts of the Apostles (see R. Söder, Die apokryphen Apostelgeschichten und die romanhafte Literatur der Antike [Stuttgart 1932]; Hägg [1983] 154ff.); on motifs common to hagiography and the novel see Q. Cataudella, 'Vite di santi e romanzo' in Letterature comparate: problemi e metodo. Studi in onore di Ettore Paratore (Bologna 1981) 931-52: not everything that is romanhaft is a Roman in our sense (cf. Perry [1967] 320).

40

Rohde 336ff. ( = 31914, 361ff.); Trenkner (1958) 183-5.

Xenophon and Chariton

167

sometimes find a very direct reminder of Xenophon. 41 Particularly interesting in the present context is the following passage: Ach.Tat. 8.17.3-4

Μαθών κατά τόν πλοΰν ώς ούκ εΐη θυγάτηρ έμή, διημαρτηθείη δέ τό πάν Ιργον αύτω, ήρα δέ όμως καΐ σφόδρα της Καλλιγόνης. προσπεσών αύτής τοις γόνασι, 'Δέσποινα,' είπε, 'μή με νομίσης ληστήν έΐναί τινα καΐ κακοϋργον άλλα γάρ είμι των εί γεγονότων, γένει. Βυζάντιος, δεύτερος ούδενός. 'έρως δέ με ληστείας ϋποκριτήν ττεποίηκε καΐ ταύτας έπί σοΙ πλέξαι τάς τέχνας. δοΰλον ούν με σεαυτής dirò ταύτης της ήμέρας νόμιζε, καί σοι προίκα έπιδίδωμι, τό μέν πρώτον έμαυτόν, έπειτα δσην ούκ