The Ostensible Author of Ps.-Aeschines Letter 10 Reconsidered

Home , Laches (general)

Journal of Hellenic Studies 139 (2019) 210–221 doi:10.1017/S0075426919000703 © The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies 2019

THE OSTENSIBLE AUTHOR OF PS.-AESCHINES LETTER 10 RECONSIDERED

ZILONG GUO Northeast Normal University*

Abstract: This article examines the alleged author, or first-person narrator, of the tenth pseudonymous letter in the Corpus Aeschineum. It argues that the forger, in a short epistolary novel that describes the seduction of a certain Callirhoe in Troy, uses puns (αἰσχύνειν, ἀναισχυντία, etc.) on the name of the fourth-century BC orator Aeschines. It notes that αἰσχρός-words recur in ancient works and, as a rhetorical device, are attested in Demosthenes. The forger’s aims are, first, to serialize the ‘Aeschinean’ letters as a whole by relating them to the same author and, second, to create an ‘aischrologic’ counterpart of the Callirhoe, which is attributed to Chariton (Χαρίτων/‘The Graceful’). Thus there is less likelihood of suggesting other figures such as the eponymous Aeschines Socraticus.

Keywords: pseudonymous letters, authorship, Aeschines, Chariton, pun

In the manuscript tradition of Aeschines we find a collection of 12 letters that purport to describe the orator’s exile from Athens after the ‘crown trial’ in 330 BC. These letters are called ‘pseudonymous’ because of their questionable authenticity: Letters 2, 3, 7, 11 and 12 imitate the letters of Demosthenes and are reminiscent of the historical declamations and progymnasmata familiar from Hellenistic times onward; Letters 1, 5, 6, 8, 9 and 10 reconstruct a fictitious narrative of Aeschines’ exile, and have traditionally been accepted as products of the so-called Second Sophistic. Letter 4 is a prose paraphrase of Pindar’s victory odes.1 Among them, Letter 10 has occasioned extensive scholarly discussions. It is unique in resembling what scholars call Briefromane, or ‘epistolary novels’, in that the actual author mixes the theme of adventure with that of the passion of love in a manner similar to the ‘canonical’ novelists Chariton, Xenophon of Ephesus, Achilles Tatius, Longus and Heliodorus.2 Its centrepiece – the seduction of a certain Callirhoe by one Cimon in the guise of the river god Scamander (λαβέ μου, Σκάμανδρε, τὴν παρθενίαν, §§ 3, 5, 6) – holds a special position in classical literature as an outstanding example of the Milesian Tales alongside such Roman counterparts as the works of Petronius and Apuleius;3 the term has its origin in the now lost collection of erotic (if mostly salacious) stories attributed to Aristides of Miletus (ca. first century BC) and was first applied to the account of Letter 10 by Karl Dilthey.4

* [email protected]. I am grateful to the two 4; Reardon (2008) 9; Tilg (2010) 2. But the scandalous anonymous JHS readers for their excellent suggestions. element is more common in some fragmentary and Thanks are also due to Mirko Canevaro, Sven Günther ‘fringe’ novels: Stephens and Winkler (1995) 4–7. For and Qiang Zhang, as well as the Editor of JHS and my example, ὁ Σκάμανδρος Κίμων (§ 5), associating seduc- colleagues at the Institute for the History of Ancient Civi- tion with the theme of disguise, finds an echo in Iolaos’ lizations at Northeast Normal University for their novel (P.Oxy. 42.3010): Puiggali (1988) 34–35; generous help and advice on this article. Mignogna (1996) 318 n. 11. 1 See Reiske (1771) 650–55; Schäfer (1885–1887) 3 Cf., following the Latin adaptation by Lucius 3.292 n. 2; Blass (1887–1898) 3.2.185–86; Drerup Cornelius Sisenna (ca. 120–167 BC), Ov. Tr. 2.413–14, (1904) 51; Wilamowitz-Moellendorff (1905) 147–49; 443–44; Petron. Sat. 85, 111; Apul. Met. 1.1, 2.21, 4.32. On Schwegler (1913); Martin and de Budé (1927–1928) Sisenna’s work, see Aragosti (2000); on the Milesian Tales 2.121–22; Goldstein (1968) 7, 49 n. 70, 100, 128, 131– and Roman novels, see Lefèvre (1997); Jensson (2004); 32, 265–66, 284–86; Salomone (1985); Holzberg (1994) Harrison (2013) 57–68. Less established is the view that 17–22; Glaser (2009) 63–84. These are the subject of my Letter 10 exerted an influence over Petronius’ Satyricon: commentary on the epistolographic corpus that excludes Abbott (1911) 265–66; Konstan (1994) 122 n. 47. Letter 10: Guo (2018). 4 Dilthey (1863) 102 n. 1; see also Weinreich (1911) 2 Also known as the ‘big five’: Rohde (1960) chapter 37–38; Schwegler (1913) 17–18; Martin and de Budé

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Athens, on 02 Oct 2021 at 02:05:53, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0075426919000703 THE AUTHOR OF PS.-AESCHINES LETTER 10 RECONSIDERED 211

Such generic taxonomies notwithstanding, Letter 10 presents some thorny problems. The story takes place in Asia Minor, where Aeschines spent his exile according to the biographical tradition, but apart from its presence in the manuscripts there is no explicit sign of Aeschinean (or Ps.- Aeschinean) authorship.5 The author (or, as I shall argue, the forger) eschews any direct mention of Aeschines and all we have is little more than a first-person narrated erotic adventure with one Cimon.6 As a result, the ostensible author and the bewildering relation with the rest of the collection of letters have dominated previous scholarship on the letter. While some scholars connect it to the ‘Aeschinean’ letters, there has long been a tendency among others to treat it as a chance insertion that has nothing to do with the orator. Christoph Stöcker, for example, offers a novel interpretation of how it was misplaced in the process of transmission;7 that is, this letter was included erroneously in the epistolographic corpus, primarily due to a series of coincidences of names.8 He conjectures that the letter was addressed to the ‘Socratic’ Aeschines of Sphettus, supposedly by Stesimbrotus of Thasos in the mid-fifth century BC. The latter figure was an exegete of Homer and so expressed a keen interest in sightseeing around the heroes’ graves in Troy (§ 2).9 Cimon is identified with the distinguished Athenian statesman and general.10 Aeschines of Sphettus is as plausible a recipient here as he is in the ‘Socratic’ letters. He was supposed to know how to enjoy the charm of an erotic story as a result of his spiritual superiority, i.e. σὺ δὲ ἂν ἱκανῶς οἶμαι γελάσειας (‘I guess you would find it worth a laugh’, § 10).11 At the same time, since Callias, Cimon’s brother-in-law, is a recurrent figure in Aeschines of Sphettus’ works, it is plausible to establish a connection between this Aeschines and the Cimonian circle.12 The Melanippides that received the two travellers when they were chased by the Trojans (§ 10) would, then, be a Melian contemporary of Aeschines of Sphettus, i.e. Melanippides the dithyrambic poet.13

(1927–1928) 2.133 n. 1; Cataudella (1957) 107, 147–48; tigation of the manuscript tradition. A very different Rohde (1960) 596 n. 1; Lesky (1966) 608, 763; narrative order is represented by the 14th-century Salomone (1985) 232 n. 4; Puiggali (1988) 29–30; Stire- Harleianus 5610, which preserves only Letters 1, 6, 7 and walt (1993) 25 n. 74; Ferrari and Zanetto (1994) 77; 3, but the editio princeps of 1499 and two relevant manu- Gallé Cejudo (1996) 41, 43–44; Mignogna (1996) 86– scripts, Helmstadiensis 806/Guelferbytanus 902 and 87; Lefèvre (1997) 73–74; Benz (2001) 79–83; de Dios Laurentianus 70, 19, may offer evidence for a single (2002) 621 n. 37; Jensson (2004) 170; Bowie (2008) 21; point of origin of the pseudonymous letters, since the Hodkinson (2013) 323 n. 1; Giaquinta (2014) 9–10, 12– editor-scribes read ὁ δὲ Κίμων for ὁ δὴ Κίμων to mark 13, 25. Other notable Greek exponents are the Lucianic continuation: see Dobree (1831) 346; Drerup (1904) 30. Erotes and (probably) P.Oxy. 40.4762; generally on the 8 But this thesis seems rather farfetched to many Milesian Tales, see, for example, Ferrari and Zanetto scholars: for example Mignogna (1996) 316 n. 3: (1994); Benz (2001); Bowie (2013). ‘l’ipotesi tanto ingegnosa quanto poco convincente’. 5 Cf. Plut. Dem. 24.3; [Plut.] Mor. 840c–e; Philostr. 9 Cf. Stesimbrotus of Thasos BNJ 107 T 3 = Pl. Ion V S 1.481, 509; Phot. Bibl. 61.20a; Vitae Aeschin. 1.4–6, 530c–d. 2.12, 3.3–4 Dilts; P.Oxy. 15.1800. 10 As Stöcker points out, the forger may have based 6 For clarity, ‘first-person narrator’ (Ich-Erzähler) or his tale significantly upon Cimon’s unrestricted sexual simply ‘narrator’ are suitable alternatives to ‘author’ or life at an early age – for instance, the incestuous relation- ‘forger’ here, given that they are compatible in the ship with his sister Elpinice – which was probably known context of literary fabrication: cf. Stöcker (1980); Puig- to Stesimbrotus. Cf. SEG 46.79; Stesimbrotus of Thasos gali (1988) 30, 34; Ferrari and Zanetto (1994) 77; BNJ 107 T1, F4; Plut. Cim. 4.4–10, 15.4; Comp. Cim. Holzberg (1994) 19; Giaquinta (2014) 9 n. 4. Notice too Luc. 1.7; Anth. Pal. 11.224; Nep. 5.1.2. See also Davies, that the (alleged) author presenting himself as narrator of APF 302–03; Blamire (1989) 11, 95, 97, 161; Zaccarini an erotic story is typical of the Milesian Tales; accord- (2017) 35–36. ingly, the third-person narrator in P.Oxy. 40.4762 is 11 Cf. Socr. Epp. 10, 16, 22–23. In Socr. Ep. 23.3, deemed ‘exceptional’: cf. Jensson (2004) 192; May for example, he is said to have urged Plato and Aristippus (2010) 76–77; Bowie (2013) 247 n. 17, 257; Harrison to stop poking fun at each other so as not to degrade (2013) 67–68. themselves: Stöcker (1980) 310–11. 7 Stöcker (1980); see also Weinreich (1911) 36; 12 Cf. Ath. 5.62; Plut. Arist. 25.4–9; Diog. Laert. Schwegler (1913) 17; Martin and de Budé (1927–1928) 2.61. 2.133 n. 1; Stirewalt (1993) 25 n. 74. This has been 13 Cf. Theophylact. Ep. 64, in which the poet is said upheld most recently by the team of the ongoing Manch- to be accused by Socrates of shamelessness in old age. I ester Ancient Letter Collections Project through an inves- follow other scholars in identifying this figure with a

These scholarly constructions, however, have focused solely on historical contextualization and overlook the literary elements in Letter 10. Cimon, for instance, was quite a common name, as shown by ancient lexicographers.14 This article seeks to re-examine the letter as something deliberately attached to the ‘original’ forgeries. To support this claim, I begin (in section I) by establishing the interconnections between Letter 10 and the other ‘Aeschinean’ letters and between it and Chariton’s Callirhoe. Then, by shifting the focus to the wordplay on the orator’s name (in section II), I propose that the ‘aischrologic’ Aeschines was chosen as a mouthpiece of the forger, and that contemporary audiences were led to compare him to a ‘degenerate’ Chariton.

I. Letter 10 in context: intra- and intertextuality Rhetorical theory indicates that a speaker could use poetic references to add authority to his own statements whilst running the risk of being frivolous and unreliable.15 This notion recurs in Letter 10, and is made manifest at the beginning:

Ὁ δὴ [or δὲ] Κίμων οἷα κατὰ πόλιν ἑκάστην καὶ αἰγιαλὸν ἡμᾶς δέδρακεν, οὐκ ἔθους, οὐ νόμου φειδό- μενος οὐδενός. Κατὰ θέαν εἰς Ἴλιον ἀφικόμην τῆς τε γῆς καὶ θαλάττης. Καὶ ἃ μὲν αὐτόθι, γράφειν ἐπεὶ δοκεῖ ὕλην ἄφθονον ἔχειν, σιωπήσω· δέδοικα γάρ, μὴ ποιητικῆς λαβόμενος φλυαρίας ἀπειροκαλεύεσθαι δόξω. Τὰ δὲ Κίμωνος ἔργα καὶ τὴν ἀκρασίαν, ‘οὐδ’ εἴ μοι δέκα μὲν γλῶσσαι’, δυναίμην ἂν ἀρκέσαι λέγων.

What the fellow Cimon has made us go through in every city and littoral area we visited, reckless of both common decency and law! I had come to Troy, eager to see the land and sea. As for what I saw there, since the topic seems to provide an abundance of material for descriptions, I will keep silence in mine: I am afraid that I may appear to be tasteless for adhering to the nonsense poetry stuff. But as for the things that Cimon has actually done and his immoderate behaviour, my language would not be good enough to describe it all, ‘not even if ten tongues were mine’. (§ 1)16

The ‘many tongues’ cliché is Homeric, prevalent in the panegyrics. Here it introduces censure (uituperatio) in a parodic manner.17 Interestingly, we find a number of epic motifs in the other letters. Amongst the most notable are a nine-day voyage at sea before the ‘Odyssean’ Aeschines is cast into a world of folktale (Ep. 1.1), an allusion to a wrathful god (Ep. 1.2, i.e. μῆνις), σῦς substituting for ὗς (Ep. 5.4) and the substantive use of ὁ (Ep. 5.8). These imitative commitments seem to have provided primary source materials for the ‘parodic’ prologue of Letter 10.18 Moreover,

local citizen, for the name is attested in an Augustan 15 For example Ep. 4.2–4; Aeschin. 1.141, 2.144– inscription in Troy: cf. Inschriften von Ilion no. 83 = IMT 145; Dem. 19.243–250; Arist. Rh. 1.15.13–17, 1375b26– Skam/NebTaeler 257 of 11/12 BC, which records a 76a17; Hermog. Id. 2.4, 2.11, 336–38, 402–03 Rabe; homonym as the host of Augustus during his visit to Troy [Hermog.] Meth. 30, 447–48 Rabe; Quint. 1.8.11–12, in 20 BC. See SEG 34.1242; Brückner (1902) 589; 6.3.96–98. Further on this topic, see North (1952); (1907) 113; Schwegler (1913) 19; Martin and de Budé Perlman (1964); Ford (1999). (1927–1928) 2.135; Stöcker (1980) 311; Puiggali (1988) 16 All translations are my own, unless otherwise 40 n. 42; Rose (2014) 226. stated. 14 Harp. s.v. Σίμων; Zen. 5.41; Suda Σ 447. The PAA 17 Cf. Hom. Il. 2.489; Od. 12.78; Dio Chrys. Or. (Traill (1994–2016)) collects nearly 30 attestations. The 32.34; Aristid. Or. 23.1, 274 Jebb; Verg. Aen. 6.625–27; same may be said of Melanippides: Mignogna (2000) 96 G. 2.42–44; Ov. Tr. 1.5.53–56; Pers. 5.1–2. The motif n. 24. Nevertheless, it is possible to mention other also serves here as praeteritio: Weinreich (1909) 200– ‘historical’ Cimons, such as the ambassador to Philip in 01; (1911) 37 n. 1; Puiggali (1988) 38 n. 10; Mignogna 346 BC (Aeschin. 2.21; Dem. 19, hypoth. 2.4; LGPN (2000) 92 n. 4. 2.261, s.v. Κίμων 13; PA 8424; PAA 569695; Davies, APF 18 Giaquinta (2014) 13, 15–17 argues that the letter 309) and Libanius’ son (RE 11.454, s.v. Kimon 8): Reiske is a literary piece of writing characterized by parodic (1771) 930; Stöcker (1980) 310 n. 10; Puiggali (1988) composition. According to Aristotle (Poet. 2, 1448a11– 30, 38 n. 3; Mignogna (1996) 316 n. 3; (2000) 92 n. 1; 13), ‘parody’ (παρῳδία) originally implied a submerged de Dios (2002) 621 n. 38. genre that recast and ridiculed Homer. Letter 10 entails

while in Letter 1 Aeschines escapes from the accursed Delians in the Homeric manner – sailing against unfavourable winds – the forger ends his story with a flight from Troy with a vicious wind as a result of Cimon’s sacrilege (§ 10). In a similar vein, ἀπειροκαλεύεσθαι, an ancient hapax legomenon, stretches back to ἀπειροκαλία denoting the lack of aesthetic judgement in Letter 5:

… καὶ πολλὰ δὲ ἄλλα πρὸς τούτοις, ἃ γράφειν αἰσχύνομαι, ἵνα μή τινα δηλοῦν ἐμὴν μικρολογίαν δόξω. Τὸ μὲν γὰρ τὰ μικρὰ πάνυ ὑπερασπάζεσθαι μικρολογίας τινὸς εἶναί φημι καὶ ἀπειροκαλίας …

… And many other foods in addition to these that I am ashamed to mention in my writing for fear that I will show a certain pettiness on my part. For to cling too tightly to insignificant matters is, in my opinion, a sign of a certain pettiness and lack of taste … (Ep. 5.3)

Such internal echoes among the texts allow us to maintain that the forger associated Letter 10 with the other ‘Aeschinean’ letters, whether he endorsed their authenticity or not; in other words, the letter was in all likelihood written on the basis of a pre-existing edition of the corpus by a good imitator.19 As for the other targeted source, Chariton’s Callirhoe, we can realize immediately the forger’s interest in alluding to the heroine of Chariton’s novel. Cimon devises his scheme (στρατήγημα) on the day when people in Troy are arranging weddings for their daughters, for it was customary for the brides-to-be to practise nuptial bathing in the river Scamander (§§ 2–4). The seduced homonym is as pre-eminent in appearance as Chariton’s heroine, but, unlike her, from a poor family: ἐν δὴ ταῖς ἄλλαις Καλλιρρόη ὄνομα παρθένος μεγάλη, πατρὸς δὲ οὐ τῶν ἐπιφανῶν, ἐπὶ τὸν ποταμὸν ἧκε λουσομένη (‘Among the others was a tall girl named Callirhoe. She was from an undistinguished family and had come to bathe at the river’, § 3).20 She is portrayed as being so slow-witted as to mistake Cimon for the river god until her nurse sees through the trick (§ 6), and it may be for this reason that we are forced to read the adulterous affair as a rather fanciful story.21 Although scholars have noted that the name Callirhoe means literally ‘beautiful flow’ and reminds us of the eponymous daughter of Scamander, the forger may be alluding simultaneously to both figures.22 In using the expression ‘produce the Scamander Tale like a comedy’ (οἷον ἐν κωμῳδίαις περὶ τὸν Σκάμανδρον ἐργάσασθαι, § 9) the forger may be referring not only to the comic elements in the letter (see below), but also to the generic title of the ideal novels, i.e. τὰ περί/κατά plus girl’s

epic motifs, but in this article the concept of parody is 1.9.6, 1.11.3, 1.12.8–9, 1.13.3, 1.14.8–9, 2.1.3–5, 2.2.2– more broadly conceived and can be applied to, for 6, 2.3.10, 2.4.7, 2.5.6, 2.6.1, 3.1.6, 3.2.2, 3.2.15–17, example, the Nestor cup from Ischia (SEG 14.604), the 3.9.4, 4.1.9, 4.6.4, 4.6.7, 4.7.5, 5.1.1, 5.1.7–8, 5.2.6, Lysianic speech of Plato (Phdr. 230e–34c), the True 5.3.1–2, 5.5.3, 5.7.1, 5.8.7, 5.9.9, 6.3.5, 6.5.8, 6.6.2, Stories and the Praise of Demosthenes in Lucian, and 6.7.1, 7.5.3, 7.6.5. This tells against, therefore, the works by the comic poets throughout Graeco-Roman hypothesis of Mignogna (1996) 320, 326 n. 36 that the times. litotic expression echoes thematically the account of the 19 Hodkinson (2013) 333 nn. 23, 25; see also Blass noble birth of a local citizen who (allegedly) received (1887–1898) 3.2.185; Salomone (1985) 233 and passim; Aeschines in Rhodes in Letter 4. Puiggali (1988) 37 n. 1; Holzberg (1994) 20–22, 47–52; 21 Cf. Puiggali (1988) 34; Konstan (1994) 123; Mignogna (1996) 316 n. 5, 325; (2000) 96 n. 28. Conjec- Mignogna (1996) 320 n. 16; (2000) 93 n. 9. tures about the identity of the forger are highly specula- 22 Cf. Chariton 1.1.1, 4.2.11; Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. tive: Johann Reiske refers to Libanius, who was at any 1.62.2; [Apollod.] Bibl. 3.12.2; Schol. Hom. Il. 20.231 rate likely to compose a Cimonian Tale in memory of his with Kerényi (1962) 170 n. 72, 231 n. 1; Stöcker (1980) son, a homonym of unexpected death, and Jeremiah 311; Puiggali (1988) 39 n. 16; Mignogna (1996) 320; Markland ( = Reiske (1771) 679 n. 86) argues the case (2000) 93 n. 8; García Ruiz (2000) 394 n. 29; de Dios for Aristaenetus, the epistolographer of late fifth- or early (2002) 622 n. 41; Meckelnborg and Schäfer (2006) 253 sixth-century date: see Reiske (1771) 930–31; Puiggali n. 5; Tilg (2010) 75–77; Hodkinson (2013) 339–40; (1988) 38 n. 3. Giaquinta (2014) 15. Thucydides (2.15.5) reports that the 20 For the ubiquitous, if not tasteless, accounts of Athenians used the water from a homonymous fountain Callirhoe’s beauty and nobility, see Chariton 1.1.2, 1.1.6, for the nuptial baths: Oakley and Sinos (1993) 15.

(and boy’s) name.23 The erotic encounter at a public festival (§§ 3–4, 6, 10), then, appears to be a parallel with the reciprocal love at first sight in Chariton 1.1.4–5, and the old nurse is in a similar situation to Plangon, who is entrusted with the care of the other Callirhoe when she is sold to Miletus.24 The wanton Cimon is perhaps another fruitful line of enquiry. It looks as if he is a counterpart of Theron, the pirate and tomb-robber who kidnaps Chariton’s Callirhoe. Theron must have gained a fearsome reputation in the first couple of centuries AD, as we read in Apuleius’ Meta- morphoses 7.5.25 Particularly illuminating is the opening remark (ὁ δὴ Κίμων οἷα κατὰ πόλιν ἑκάστην καὶ αἰγιαλὸν ἡμᾶς δέδρακεν, οὐκ ἔθους, οὐ νόμου φειδόμενος οὐδενός, ‘what the fellow Cimon has made us go through in every city and littoral area we visited, reckless of both common decency and law’), for it might recall the introduction of Theron in Chariton 1.7.1 (Θήρων γάρ τις ἦν, πανοῦργος ἄνθρωπος, ἐξ ἀδικίας πλέων τὴν θάλασσαν καὶ λῃστὰς ἔχων ὑφορμοῦντας τοῖς λιμέσιν ὀνόματι πορθμείου, πειρατήριον συγκροτῶν, ‘There was a man called Theron, a scoundrel whose criminal trade it was to sail the seas and have thugs handily stationed with boats in harbours under cover of being ferrymen; from them he made up pirate crews’, tr. Reardon (2008) 29) and indeed conforms to the common habit of associating sordid lust with piratical adventure.26

II. ‘Aeschines’ as a punning name A question then arises. Why did the forger attempt to establish intertextual connections with both texts at once? There is much to be said about the alleged authorship, or first-person narration; that is, ‘Aeschines’ appears with etymological implications and is meant to be reminiscent of Chariton. The forger is justified in relating Αἰσχίνης to αἶσχος and its cognates (αἰσχίων, αἰσχρός, αἰσχύνη, etc.) to hint at many regular pairs of antitheses, notably ‘grace’ versus ‘ugliness’.27 Such a device, if we are right, reflects the way the forger read, and understood, the Callirhoe. Chariton of Aphro- disias has been discovered in a local inscription of ca. late second-century date (IAph. 12.1112 = CIG 2846), but the forger may, for his part, have considered it as a pen name, for two reasons. First, the very name of Chariton may be taken at face value as a sign of stylistic evaluation. The three speeches of Aeschines were known to ancient critics as the Graces because of their number and style.28 A rather early attestation is Pindar, who juxtaposes the Graces with the Muses as goddesses of poetic inspiration.29 Αἰσχρός, on the contrary, refers to ‘low-grade’ works, and the Suda compilers inform us that Philip of Amphipolis’ Rhodiaca is one of the very disgraceful works (ἔστι δὲ τῶν πάνυ αἰσχρῶν).30 It is also relevant that αἰσχρολογία and αἰσχρολογεῖν are employed

23 Cf. Whitmarsh (2005). 27 So de Lamberterie (1990) 831–35 on linguistic 24 As Josephus (AJ 2.45) puts it, a δημοτελὴς ἑορτή grounds, and cf. Chantraine (1968–1980) 40 s.v. αἶσχος; (public festival) enables women to meet up with men: cf. Diccionario Griego-Español online s.v. αἰσχύνη, B.II.1 Men. fr. 337 PCG (= 382 Κörte); Xen. Ephes. 1.2.2, (http://dge.cchs.csic.es/xdge/αἰσχύνη, citing Eur. Andr. 1.3.1; Heliod. Aeth. 3.1.1–3.6.3; Aristaen. Ep. 15; Musae. 244: κἀκεῖ τά γ’ αἰσχρὰ κἀνθάδ’ αἰσχύνην ἔχει). For 42–85; Plaut. Cist. 89–93. See also Mignogna (1996) (perhaps ‘apotropaic’) personal names evoking negative 320–21; (2000) 94 n. 16; Giaquinta (2014) 25; Whit- emotions such as Aeschines, Aesop and Aeschylus, see marsh (2018) 3–4, 28. Masson (1990–2000) 3.317 n. 8; Kanavou (2013) 180. 25 On Theron’s role in the Callirhoe, especially as a 28 Phot. Bibl. 61.20a. It may also be noted that in counterpart to Chariton in directing the story, see Philostr. V S 1.510 Aeschines’ style is described as Kasprzyk (2001) 153–55; Tilg (2010) 162–63. ἐπίχαρις (‘charming’, ‘pleasing’): see Kindstrand (1982) 26 Cf. Hom. Od. 14.222–34, 17.424–33; Aeschin. 55–58. 1.191; Xen. Ephes. 2.1.3, 3.10.2; Ach. Tat. 6.21.3, 8.5.6; 29 Pind. Nem. 4.1–8, 9.54–55 with Race (1990) 124; Long. 1.28.1–2; see also Ormerod (1924) 260–70; MacLachlan (1993) 103. Trenkner (1958) 49, 87–88, 183–85; Hopwood (1998); 30 Suda Φ 351 = Philippos of Amphipolis BNJ 280 de Souza (1999) 214–18. For a recent argument that T1: Stephens and Winkler (1995) 476; Bowie (2013) Theron’s removal of Callirhoe from Syracuse is devel- 251. Cf. also Phot. Bibl. 94.73b: ἧττον δὲ αὐτοῦ ὁ oped to parallel Gaius Verres’ mismanagement of Sicily, Ἰάμβλιχος, αἰσχρῶς δὲ καὶ ἀναιδῶς ὁ Ἀχιλλεὺς especially the removal of Sappho’s statue, see Jolowicz ἀποχρώμενος (‘Iamblichus is inferior to Heliodorus, and (2018) 133–40. Achilles Tatius avails himself of disgraceful and shame- less plots’).

to designate the act of using foul language, especially that in Old Comedy, and the αἰσχρόν is supposed to play a prominent role in making comedy laughable.31 There are several indications that Letter 10 encompasses New Comic motifs, notably rape-marriage plots. In Terence’s Adelphoe (306–08, 695–98), which is basically a Menandrian play, a certain Aeschinus is said to have violated a girl while wanting to marry her.32 As a matter of fact, the erotic adventure in Letter 10 is compared to a specific scene on stage:

‘Καὶ ἄλλως δ’ ἐδόκει μοι,’ ἔφη, ‘ὡς μὴ παντάπασι τὰ ἐν Ἰλίῳ τραγικά τε καὶ φοβερὰ ᾖ, παίζειν δεῖν τι καὶ ἡμᾶς καὶ οἷον ἐν κωμῳδίαις περὶ τὸν Σκάμανδρον ἐργάσασθαι.’

‘Besides’, Cimon said, ‘it seemed to me that, in order that events in Troy might not be wholly tragic and horrible, we should see the funny side and produce the Scamander Tale like a comedy!’ (§ 9)

The dramat(urg)ic antagonist, to some extent, finds an echo in Chariton 1.4.2, where a suitor is described as ‘the director of the drama’ (ὁ δημιουργὸς τοῦ δράματος) for plotting against both Callirhoe and Chaereas.33 The comic (if not parodic) significance is thus twofold: a mock sacrifice to Scamander, on the one hand, and, on the other, an interplay between ‘grace’ and ‘ugliness’. In doing so (Ps.-) Aeschines subverts the Charitonian standards of ‘ideal romance’ and returns them to something more similar to their comic rape-plot origins. Secondly, and consequently, the play on αἰσχρός-words adds colour to the mischievous narratives; as Aristotle puts it, αἰσχύνονται οὐ μόνον ποιοῦντες τὰ αἰσχρά, ἀλλὰ καὶ λέγοντες (‘They feel ashamed not only of doing, but also of saying disgraceful things’).34 The story as recounted by (Ps.-) Aeschines presents a challenge to the ‘rightful love and lawful marriage’ (ἔρωτες δίκαιοι καὶ νόμιμοι γάμοι) in Chariton 8.1.4, which contrasts sharply with Cimon’s immoderate behaviour ‘sparing no custom, no law’ (οὐκ ἔθους, οὐ νόμου φειδόμενος οὐδενός, § 1). In other words, it is plausible to interpret the punning name as an authorial comment on the breach of conventional ethical paradigms and discourse of sexual virtue. In classical antiquity, αἰσχύνη and closely related terms such as αἰδώς often denoted inhibitory emotions, especially a fear of disgrace or dishonour, as well as what we would now call a sense of shame.35 It is also important to note that αἰσχύνη can refer to lustful behaviour in sexual relations, while its verbal form is a euphemism for the act of rape.36 Just so, while Chariton describes the attempted adulterers of Callirhoe in terms such as

31 So Arist. Eth. Nic. 4.8.6, 1128a23–24; Poet. 5, 35 The principal Greek roots of which are αἰσχυν- 1449a32–b2; cf. Xen. Lac. 5.6; Pl. Resp. 395e; Arist. Pol. (often, but wrongly, referred to as retrospective shame 7.15.7, 1336b4; Rh. 3.2.3, 1405b5–9. For investigations alone) and αἰδ- (in its earliest occurrences a form of into ‘aischrology’, see Henderson (1991) 5–6; Halliwell prospective shame that forestalls base actions); see Plato (2004); (2008) 215–63; Worman (2008) 42–43, 62–120; (Chrm. 160e) and Aristotle (Eth. Nic. 4.9.7–8, 1128b32– Janse (2014); Rusten (2014) 37–38. 33; Rh. 2.6.2, 1383b12–14); cf. Barrett (1964) 206–07; 32 Cf. Men. Aspis 286–97; Dys. 289–314; Sam. 47– Dover (1974) 226–29, 236–42; Henderson (1991) 3–4; 50, 590–91; Plaut. Aul. 790–95; and above all, the Epitre- Cairns (1993) 2, 57–60, 138–39, 414–19; Konstan (2006) pontes with Brown (1993) 196–98; Doblhofer (1994) 91–110; Brethes (2007) 246; Williams (2008) 194 n. 9; 59–60; Omitowoju (2002) chapter 5. Tarnopolsky (2010) 11–13. 33 Cf. Chariton 5.8.2; Xen. Ephes. 3.1.4; Ach. Tat. 36 For example Thgn. 1271–74; Pl. Leg. 841a–e; 8.9; Heliod. Aeth. 2.11.2, 7.8.1; Apul. Met. 10. See also Muson. 12 = Stob. 3.6.23. For αἰσχύνειν in reference to Weinreich (1911) 38; Reitzenstein (1912) 68 n. 1; sexual violation, cf. Hes. fr. 176.7 Merkelbach and West; Trenkner (1958) 133–34; Canfora (1987) 6–7; Gallé Aesch. PV 642–45; Eur. Hipp. 408, 1165; Ion 341; Lys. Cejudo (1996) 40 n. 20; Mignogna (1996) 320–22; 1.32; Men. Sam. 47–50, 507; Paus. 1.21.4; Iambl. Bab. (2000) 86–87; Perrone (2011) 139 n. 43; Hodkinson fr. 35.19–21 Habrich; see also Parker (1983) 95 n. 84; (2013) 340–42; Höschele (2014) 747 n.19. Scafuro (1990) 140–49; Doblhofer (1994) 56; Carey 34 Cf. Arist. Rh. 2.6.21, 1384b17–20; Pind. Nem. (1995) 414; Omitowoju (2002) 64–65, 198–200; Harris 5.14–18; Xen. Lac. 5.6; Cyr. 5.4.31; Pl. Resp. 395e; Isoc. (2006) 288. 1.15 with Brethes (2007) 246; Sanders (2012) 166–68.

αἰσχρός, ἀναίσχυντος and ἀκόλαστος, Ps.-Aeschines uses of Cimon words and phrases such as ἀκρασία (§ 1), οὐδὲ ᾐσχύνθη (§ 7), ἀναισχυντία (§ 10), μοιχεία (§ 10) and, ironically, καλὸς κἀγαθός (§ 4).37 Worth mentioning in this context is that Demosthenes frequently employs terms that are phonetically close to ‘Aeschines’ to convey innuendo. A recent count shows that in the Corpus Demosthenicum αἰσχρός-terms occur most frequently in the two speeches against Aeschines.38 This is apparent in his allegation that Aeschines broke his silence in politics (ἡσυχία) only in bad times and that his words brought no benefit, but only shame upon Athens (ὄνησιν μὲν οὐδεμίαν φέροντας οὐδ᾽ ἀγαθοῦ κτῆσιν οὐδενός, συμφορὰν δὲ τῷ τυχόντι τῶν πολιτῶν καὶ κοινὴν αἰσχύνην).39 In the light of these shame-related discourses, we can legitimately maintain that Aeschines was chosen as the ostensible author of a shameful narrative and that Letter 10 was created as a ‘low-grade’ counterpart to Chariton’s novel.40 Incidentally, it should be noted that the story offers a specific focus on Aeschines’ role as both narrator and viewer (§§ 1, 2, 4, 6, 9). At all levels, spectacle and the act of viewing are a common feature in the Callirhoe and other novelistic writings.41 It is also possible to establish a connection between shame and being seen, or what scholars call ‘civic gaze’.42 But that is another story.

III. Conclusion Gorgias refers to the name Helen as ‘a memorial of disasters’ (τῶν συμφορῶν μνήμη), and a telling example of this is Aeschylus’ wordplay that the name betokens ‘hell to ships, hell to men, hell to the city’ (ἑλένας, ἕλανδρος, ἑλέπτολις).43 The same applies to Aeschines in view of his very name and posthumous reputation, especially as in the time of Flavius Philostratus he won acclaim as the originator of the Second Sophistic.44 The forger left the pun(s) on the name as being self- evident, since the point should be clear as soon as the αἰσχρός-riddles and the allusion to Chariton have been recognized. A further possibility is that the repetition of the title, Αἰσχίνου ῥήτορος ἐπιστολαί, as a heading to Letter 10 in Vaticanus 64 (ca. 1269/1270), represents a deliberate redu- plication by the forger in the course of composition.45 In both cases, the letter was intended to amuse, especially those readers who were sophisticated enough to identify Ps.-Aeschines as a sillographer or lampoonist. The closing remark that the letter might evoke laughter (σὺ δὲ ἂν ἱκανῶς οἶμαι γελάσειας) reveals its full meaning only when the punning name is considered; again, as Aristotle puts it:

37 Cf. Chariton 2.4.2, 5.6.11, 5.7.2–3, 6.4.7, 7.1.7, and passim; for general treatments, see McCartney 8.8.5–7; see, too, Mignogna (1996) 324 n. 29: ‘Al rifiuto (1919); Fordyce (1932–1933); O’Hara (2017) 1–56. For di παθεῖν che caratterizza la scelta di vita di Cimone si instances of the use of puns in other Attic orators, see contrappone il παθὼν “eschineo”.’ Aeschin. 1.158; Andoc. 1.130; Dem. 18.130; Lys. 13.19; 38 Kremmydas (2012) 196–97; Canevaro (2016) for those in the other ‘Aeschinean’ letters, see Epp. 1.4 201. (Ἀθρώνη), 6.1 (Ἀρίστων), 8.1 (Νικίας … καὶ 39 Dem. 18.308; cf. Dem. 18.85 (αἰσχύνη), 19.72 Ἀνδρωνίδας). (ἀναισχυντία), 19.233 (ἐπ’ αἰσχύνῃ), 336 (αἰσχρός) with 40 Cf. Plut. Crass. 32.3–6; [Luc.] Am. 1 with Bowie Pearson (1976) 163; Wankel (1976) 472–73, 1302–03; (2013) 243–45, 248–49, 256; Whitmarsh (2018) 6. Too (1995) 91; O’Connell (2017) 131–32; Serafim 41 For example Chariton 1.1.14, 3.2.16–17, 3.8.3, (2017) 133. Compare, too, Dem. 19.287, in which 4.1.12, 5.3.6, 5.5.8, 6.2.1, 8.1.11, 8.6.5; Ach. Tat. 8.13.1, Aeschines’ in-law is referred to as ‘Nicias the loathsome’ 8.14.3; for further references, see Puiggali (1988) 34; (Νικίου τε τοῦ βδελυροῦ): Schäfer (1885–1887) 1.231– Mignogna (1996) 323–26; (2000) 93 n. 10; Hodkinson 32; Wankel (1976) 1320; Harris (1986). The pun on the (2013) 342. notion of ‘political quietness’ seems immaterial to this 42 O’Connell (2017) 9–12. article: see Carter (1986) 26–51 and passim for further 43 Gorg. Hel. 2; Aesch. Ag. 686–89; see Kennedy discussion. The puns, according to Aristotle’s definition, (2007) 252; see also McCartney (1919) 350; O’Hara are ‘jests involving a change of letter’ (τὰ παρὰ γράμμα (2017) 13. σκώμματα: Rh. 3.11.6, 1412a29). On using punning 44 Cf. Philostr. V S 1.481 with Kindstrand (1982) 90– names in comedy, see, for example, Ar. Vesp. 240–44 95; Côté (2005). (‘Grabber’/Λάβης on Laches) with Kanavou (2011) 90 45 So Radermacher (1904) 1432.

Ἔστι δὲ καὶ τὰ ἀστεῖα τὰ πλεῖστα διὰ μεταφορᾶς καὶ ἐκ τοῦ προσεξαπατᾶν· μᾶλλον γὰρ γίγνεται δῆλον ὅτι ἔμαθε παρὰ τὸ ἐναντίως ἔχειν, καὶ ἔοικε λέγειν ἡ ψυχὴ ‘ὡς ἀληθῶς, ἐγὼ δ᾿ ἥμαρτον.’

Most smart sayings are derived from metaphor, and also from an added deception; it becomes more evident to the hearer that he has learnt something, when the conclusion turns out contrary to what he believed, and his mind seems to say, ‘How true it is! but I missed it.’ (Arist. Rh. 3.11.6, 1412a19–22)46

I conclude with two Philostratean testimonies that show a significant overlap between the read- ership of Chariton and that of the ‘Aeschinean’ letters. One is an imaginary letter addressed to Chariton, which our essayist constructed as a veiled attack by stating that an author is devoid of posthumous reputation if he was nobody when he existed.47 The other is the earliest reference to the ‘Aeschinean’ letters, in the Lives of the Sophists. The work was dedicated to one Gordian, either Gordian I, proconsul of Africa in AD 237/8, or Gordian III, who died before AD 244, and so it dates roughly between the 230s and 240s.48

Ἔστι δὲ καὶ τέταρτον αὐτοῦ φρόντισμα, ἐπιστολαί, οὐ πολλαὶ μέν, εὐπαιδευσίας δὲ μεσταὶ καὶ ἤθους …

And there is his fourth work, the Letters. Though not many, they are full of forethought and character … (Philostr. V S 1.510)

Unsurprisingly, therefore, scholars of later generations were prone to characterizing the lowbrow content in Letter 10 as irrelevant to Philostratus’ assessment: the extant corpus, we are led to believe, was composed by multiple hands at different times.49 Be that as it may, if we adopt the conjecture that Letter 10 was forged in the Roman Imperial period, it can serve as a supplement to the Philostratean testimonies to indicate that both the Callirhoe and the ‘Aeschinean’ letters were widely circulating already in the mid-third century.50 This period, overlapping with what we now call the ‘Second Sophistic’, saw the rise of men of letters whose work was characterized by a fondness for playing with the literary past, notably Homer and the Attic orators, and therefore may have offered fertile ground for the production of Letter 10.51

46 Τr. Freese (1926) 409, adapted. (1996) 316; García Ruiz (2000) 379. Nevertheless, it is 47 Philostr. Ep. 66; cf. Pers. 1.134 with Bücheler possible that Philostratus read Letter 10 but chose not to (1879) 346; Kerényi (1962) 231 n. 6; Bowie (2002) 54; underestimate the collection en masse because of one Meckelnborg and Schäfer (2006) xvii; Tilg (2010) 75, letter: Drerup (1914) 1282. The Erotic Letters under his 80. Noticeably, papyrus discoveries such as P.Michael. 1 name, addressed to anonymous boys and women, indi- and P.Oxy. 41.2948 help us to locate the Callirhoe in the cate that he would not have held this letter in contempt: mid-second century: Wilcken (1893); Rohde (1960) 520– see also Glaser (2009) 64–65. 22, 610; Lesky (1966) 857, 861–63; Papanikolaou 50 On an Imperial date for Letter 10, see Trenkner (1973); Swain (1996) 423–25; Bowie (2002); Reardon (1958) 134; Puiggali (1988) 30; cf. Reiske (1771) 654– (2008) 5, 13, 17–21, 803–04; Tilg (2010) 36–79, 109– 55, 933; Blass (1887–1898) 3.2.186; Schwegler (1913) 26; Henrichs (2011). 77–79; Drerup (1904) 51; (1923) 159–60; Martin and de 48 Philostr. V S Pref. 480; and see Bowie (2009) 29; Budé (1927–1928) 2.122; Goldstein (1968) 7; Salomone Kemezis (2014) 294–97. (1985) 231; Stirewalt (1993) 25; Holzberg (1994) 17; 49 Schwegler (1913) 8–9, 16–19, 34–35, 76, 80–81, Mignogna (2000) 85; Bowie (2008) 29; Hodkinson among others, upholds this thesis on stylistic grounds. (2013) 323 n. 1; Giaquinta (2014) 9 n. 3, 20. One instance: γράφειν (§ 10) is used to refer to the act of 51 For recent studies on this literary phenomenon as letter-writing, as distinguished from ἐπιστέλλειν in Epp. reflected, for example, in Lucian, see Pernot (2006) 88– 1.5, 2.1, 5.1, 8.1, 11.1, 7, 12.14; see also Radermacher 89; Maciver (2017). Further on the ‘Second Sophistic’, (1904) 1432; Weinreich (1911) 36–37; Martin and de see, among others, Rohde (1960) 311–13; Bowie (1974) Budé (1927–1928) 2.122; Goldstein (1968) 7 n. 5; Puig- 168–74; Swain (1996) 98–99; Whitmarsh (2013) 1–4. gali (1988) 37 n. 1; Gallé Cejudo (1996) 36; Mignogna

Bibliography Abbott, F.F. (1911) ‘Origin of the realistic romance among the Romans’, CPh 6, 257–70 Aragosti, A. (2000) I frammenti dai Milesiarum Libri di L.C. Sisenna (Bologna) Barrett, W.S. (1964) Euripides: Hippolytus (Oxford) Benz, L. (2001) ‘Die Fabula Milesia und die griechisch-römische Literatur’, in L. Benz (ed.), ScriptOralia Romana: die römische Literatur zwischen Mündlichkeit und Schriftlichkeit (Tübingen) 43–137 Blamire, A. (1989) Plutarch: Life of Kimon (London) Blass, F.W. (1887–1898) Die attische Beredsamkeit (2nd edition) (3 vols) (Leipzig) Bowie, E.L. (1974) ‘Greeks and their past in the Second Sophistic’, in M.I. Finley (ed.), Studies in Ancient Society (London) 166–209 –– (2002) ‘The chronology of the earlier Greek novels since B.E. Perry: revisions and precisions’, AncNarr 2, 47–63 –– (2008) ‘Literary milieux’, in T.J.G. Whitmarsh (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to the Greek and Roman Novel (Cambridge) 17–38 –– (2009) ‘Philostratus: the life of a sophist’, in E.L. Bowie and J. Elsner (eds), Philostratus (Cambridge) 19–31 –– (2013) ‘“Milesian tales”’, in T.J.G. Whitmarsh and S.R. Thomson (eds), The Romance between Greece and the East (Cambridge) 243–57 Brethes, R. (2007) ‘Poiein aischra kai legein aischra, est-ce vraiment la memê chose? Ou la bouche souillée de Chariclée’, in V. Rimell (ed.), Seeing Tongues, Hearing Scripts: Orality and Representation in the Ancient Novel (Groningen) 223–56 Brown, P.G.McC. (1993) ‘Love and marriage in Greek New Comedy’, CQ 43, 189–205 Brückner, A. (1902) ‘Geschichte von Troja und Ilion’, in W. Dörpfeld (ed.), Troja und Ilion (Athens) 549– 93 –– (1907) ‘Athenische Hochzeitsgeschenke (Tafel V–IX)’, MDAI(A) 32, 79–122 Bücheler, F. (1879) ‘Coniectanea’, RhM 34, 341–56 Cairns, D.L. (1993) Aidōs: The Psychology and Ethics of Honour and Shame in Ancient Greek Literature (Oxford) Canevaro, M. (2016) Demostene, Contro Leptine: introduzione, traduzione e commento storico (Berlin and Boston) Canfora, L. (1987) Storie d’amore antiche: Leucippe e Clitofonte, Dafni e Cloe, Anzia e Abrocome (Bari) Carey, C. (1995) ‘Rape and adultery in Athenian law’, CQ 45, 407–17 Carter, L.B. (1986) The Quiet Athenian (Oxford) Cataudella, Q. (1957) La novella greca (Naples) Chantraine, P. (1968–1980) Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque (Paris) Côté, D. (2005) ‘La figure d’Eschine dans les Vies des Sophistes de Philostrate’, CEA 42, 389–420 de Dios, J.M.L. (2002) Esquines: discursos, testimonios y cartas (Madrid) de Lamberterie, C. (1990) Les adjectifs grecs en -υς: sémantique et comparaison (Louvain-la-Neuve) de Souza, P. (1999) Piracy in the Graeco-Roman World (Cambridge) Dilthey, K. (1863) De Callimachi Cydippa (Leipzig) Doblhofer, G. (1994) Vergewaltigung in der Antike (Stuttgart and Leipzig) Dobree, P.P. (ed. J. Scholefield) (1831) Adversaria 1 (Cambridge) Dover, K.J. (1974) Greek Popular Morality in the Time of Plato and Aristotle (Oxford) Drerup, E. (1904) Aeschinis quae feruntur epistulae (Leipzig) –– (1914) Review of Schwegler (1913), Deutsche Literaturzeitung 36, 1280–84 — (1923) Demosthenes im Urteile des Altertums (von Theopomp bis Tzetzes: Geschichte, Roman, Legende) (Würzburg) Ferrari, P. and Zanetto, G. (1994) Le storie de Mileto (Milan) Ford, A. (1999) ‘Reading Homer from the rostrum: poems and laws in Aeschines’ Against Timarchus’, in S. Goldhill and R.G. Osborne (eds), Performance Culture and Athenian Democracy (Cambridge) 231– 56 Fordyce, C.J. (1932–1933) ‘Puns on names in Greek’, CJ 28, 44–46 Freese, J.H. (1926) Aristotle: Art of Rhetoric (Cambridge MA) Gallé Cejudo, R.J. (1996) ‘Esquines Ep. 10 y el relato milesio’, ExcPhilol 6, 35–44

García Ruiz, J.M. (2000) Esquines: discursos, cartas (Madrid) Giaquinta, I. (2014) ‘Forme e funzioni retoriche di un’epistola di età imperiale (Ps.-Aesch. Ep. X)’, in A. Manganaro (ed.), Le forme e la storia 7.2 (Soveria Mannelli) 9–26 Glaser, T. (2009) Paulus als Briefroman erzählt: Studien zum antiken Briefroman und seiner christlichen Rezeption in den Pastoralbriefen (Göttingen) Goldstein, J.A. (1968) The Letters of Demosthenes (New York) Guo, Z. (2018) Commentary on the Pseudonymous Letters of Aeschines (Excluding Letter 10) (Ph.D. Diss. Edinburgh) Halliwell, S. (2004) ‘Aischrology, shame, and comedy’, in I. Sluiter and R.M. Rosen (eds), Free Speech in Classical Antiquity (Leiden) 115–44 –– (2008) Greek Laughter: A Study of Cultural Psychology from Homer to Early Christianity (Cambridge) Harris, E.M. (1986) ‘The names of Aeschines’ brothers-in-law’, AJPh 107, 99–102 –– (2006) Law and Society in Ancient Athens: Essays on Law, Society, and Politics (Cambridge) Harrison, S.J. (2013) Framing the Ass: Literary Texture in Apuleius’ Metamorphoses (Oxford) Henderson, J. (1991) The Maculate Muse: Obscene Language in Attic Comedy (2nd edition) (Oxford) Henrichs, A.M. (2011) ‘Missing pages: papyrology, genre, and the Greek novel’, in D.D. Obbink and R.B. Rutherford (eds), Culture in Pieces: Essays on Ancient Texts in Honour of Peter Parsons (Oxford and New York) 302–22 Hodkinson, O. (2013) ‘Epistolarity and narrative in Ps.-Aeschines Epistle 10’, in O. Hodkinson, P.A. Rosen- meyer and E. Bracke (eds), Epistolary Narratives in Ancient Greek Literature (Leiden and Boston) 323– 45 Holzberg, N. (1994) ‘Der griechische Briefroman: Versuch einer Gattungstypologie’, in N. Holzberg (ed.), Der griechische Briefroman: Gattungstypologie und Textanalyse (Tübingen) 1–52 Hopwood, K. (1998) ‘All that may become a man: the bandit in the ancient novel’, in L. Foxhall and J.B. Salmon (eds), When Men were Men: Masculinity, Power and Identity in Classical Antiquity (London and New York) 195–204 Höschele, R. (2014) ‘Greek comedy, the novel, and epistolography’, in M. Fontaine and A.C. Scafuro (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Greek and Roman Comedy (Oxford) 735–52 Janse, M. (2014) ‘Aischrology’, in G.K Giannakis (ed.), Encyclopedia of Ancient Greek Language and Linguistics 1 (Leiden and Boston) 76–86 Jensson, G. (2004) The Recollections of Encolpius: The Satyrica of Petronius as Milesian Fiction (Groningen) Jolowicz, D. (2018) ‘Sicily and Roman Republican history in Chariton’s Chaereas and Callirhoe’, JHS 138, 127–49 Kanavou, N. (2011) Aristophanes’ Comedy of Names: A Study of Speaking Names in Aristophanes (Berlin and New York) –– (2013) ‘Negative emotions and Greek names’, in A. Chaniotis and P. Ducrey (eds), Unveiling Emotions 2: Emotions in Greece and Rome: Texts, Images, Material Culture (Stuttgart) 167–89 Kasprzyk, D. (2001) ‘Théron, pirate, conteur et narrateur dans le roman de Chariton, Chairéas et Callirhoé’, in B. Pouderon, C. Hunzinger and D. Kasprzyk (eds), Les personnages du roman grec (Lyon) 149–64 Kemezis, A.M. (2014) Greek Narratives of the Roman Empire under the Severans: Cassius Dio, Philostratus and Herodian (Cambridge) Kennedy, G.A. (2007) Aristotle, On Rhetoric: A Theory of Civic Discourse (2nd edition) (New York and Oxford) Kerényi, K. (1962) Die griechisch-orientalische Romanliteratur in religionsgeschichtlicher Beleuchtung (2nd edition) (Darmstadt) Kindstrand, J.F. (1982) The Stylistic Evaluation of Aeschines in Antiquity (Stockholm) Konstan, D. (1994) Sexual Symmetry: Love in the Ancient Novel and Related Genres (Princeton) –– (2006) The Emotions of the Ancient Greeks: Studies in Aristotle and Classical Literature (Toronto) Kremmydas, C. (2012) Commentary on Demosthenes Against Leptines (Oxford) Lefèvre, E. (1997) Studien zur Struktur der ‘Milesischen’ Novelle bei Petron und Apuleius (Stuttgart) Lesky, A. (1966) A History of Greek Literature (New York) Maciver, C.A. (2017) ‘Parody, symbol and the literary past in Lucian’, in M. Alexiou and D.L. Cairns (eds), Greek Laughter and Tears: Antiquity and After (Edinburgh) 54–72

MacLachlan, B. (1993) The Age of Grace: Charis in Early Greek Poetry (Princeton) Martin, V. and de Budé, G. (1927–1928) Eschine: discours (2 vols) (Paris) Masson, O. (1990–2000) Onomastica Graeca Selecta (3 vols) (Paris) May, R. (2010) ‘An ass from Oxyrhynchus: P.Oxy. LXX.4762, Loukios of Patrae and the Milesian Tales’, AncNarr 8, 59–83 McCartney, E.S. (1919) ‘Puns and plays on proper names’, CJ 14, 343–58 Meckelnborg, C. and Schäfer, K.-H. (2006) Chariton: Kallirhoe (Darmstadt) Mignogna, E. (1996) ‘Cimone e Calliroe: un “romanzo” nel romanzo: intertestualità e valenza strutturale di ps.-Eschine Epist. 10’, Maia 48, 315–26 –– (2000) ‘Calliroe e lo Scamandro: Ps.-Eschine (Epist. 10)’, in A. Stramaglia (ed.), Ἔρως: antiche trame greche d’amore (Bari) 85–96 North, H.F. (1952) ‘The use of poetry in the training of the ancient orator’, Traditio 8, 1–33 O’Connell, P.A. (2017) The Rhetoric of Seeing in Attic Forensic Oratory (Austin) O’Hara, J.J. (2017) True Names: Vergil and the Alexandrian Tradition of Etymological Wordplay (2nd edition) (Ann Arbor) Oakley, J.H. and Sinos, R.H. (1993) The Wedding in Ancient Athens (Madison) Omitowoju, R. (2002) Rape and the Politics of Consent in Classical Athens (Cambridge) Ormerod, H.A. (1924) Piracy in the Ancient World (Liverpool and London) Papanikolau, A. (1973) Chariton-Studien: Untersuchungen zur Sprache und Chronologie der griechischen Romane (Göttingen) Parker, R.C.T. (1983) Miasma: Pollution and Purification in Early Greek Religion (Oxford) Pearson, L. (1976) The Art of Demosthenes (Meisenheim am Glan) Perlman, S. (1964) ‘Quotations from poetry in Attic orators of the fourth century BC’, AJPh 85, 155–72 Pernot, L. (2006) L’ombre du tigre: recherches sur la réception de Démosthène (Naples) Perrone, S. (2011) ‘Back to the backstage: the papyrus P.Berol. 13927’, Trends in Classics 3, 126–53 Puiggali, J. (1988) ‘La Lettre X du Pseudo-Eschine’, Prudentia 20, 28–42 (reprinted (2003) RPh 77, 97– 109) Race, W.H. (1990) Style and Rhetoric in Pindar’s Odes (Atlanta) Radermacher, L. (1904) Review of Drerup (1904), Literarisches Zentralblatt für Deutschland 55, 1432–33 Reardon, B.P. (2008) Collected Ancient Greek Novels (Berkeley and Los Angeles) Reiske, J.J. (1771) Oratorum Graecorum 3–4 (Leipzig) Reitzenstein, R. (1912) Das Märchen von Amor und Psyche bei Apuleius (Leipzig and Berlin) Rohde, E. (1960) Der griechische Roman und seine Vorläufer (4th edition) (Hildesheim) Rose, C.B. (2014) The Archaeology of Greek and Roman Troy (Cambridge) Rusten, J.S. (2014) ‘In search of the essence of Old Comedy: from Aristotle’s Poetics to Zieliński, Cornford, and beyond’, in M. Fontaine and A.C. Scafuro (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Greek and Roman Comedy (Oxford) 33–49 Salomone, S. (1985) ‘Sull’epistolario dello Ps. Eschine’, Maia 37, 231–36 Sanders, E. (2012) ‘Beyond the usual suspects: literary sources and the historian of emotions’, in A. Chaniotis (ed.), Unveiling Emotions: Sources and Methods for the Study of Emotions in the Greek World (Stuttgart) 151–73 Scafuro, A.C. (1990) ‘Discourses of sexual violation in mythic accounts and dramatic versions of “the girl’s tragedy”’, Differences 2, 126–59 Schäfer, A.D. (1885–1887) Demosthenes und seine Zeit (2nd edition) (3 vols) (Leipzig) Schwegler, K. (1913) De Aeschinis quae feruntur epistolis (Ph.D. Diss. Giessen) Serafim, A. (2017) Attic Oratory and Performance (London) Stephens, S.A. and Winkler, J.J. (1995) Ancient Greek Novels: The Fragments (Princeton) Stirewalt, M.L. (1993) Studies in Ancient Greek Epistolography (Atlanta) Stöcker, C. (1980) ‘Der 10. Aischines-Brief: eine Kimon-Novelle’, Mnemosyne 33, 307–12 Swain, S.C.R. (1996) Hellenism and Empire: Language, Classicism, and Power in the Greek World, AD 20–250 (Oxford) Tarnopolsky, C.H. (2010) Prudes, Perverts, and Tyrants: Plato’s Gorgias and the Politics of Shame (Princeton) Tilg, S. (2010) Chariton of Aphrodisias and the Invention of the Greek Love Novel (Oxford and New York)

Too, Y.L. (1995) The Rhetoric of Identity in Isocrates: Text, Power, Pedagogy (Cambridge) Traill, J.S. (1994–2016) Persons of Ancient Athens (Toronto) Trenkner, S. (1958) The Greek Novella in the Classical Period (Cambridge) Wankel, H. (1976) Demosthenes: Rede für Ktesiphon über den Kranz (Heidelberg) Weinreich, O. (1909) Antike Heilungswunder: Untersuchungen zum Wunderglauben der Griechen und Römer (Giessen) –– (1911) Der Trug des Nektanebos: Wandlungen eines Novellenstoffs (Leipzig and Berlin) Whitmarsh, T.J.G. (2005) ‘The Greek novel: titles and genres’, AJPh 126, 587–611 –– (2013) Beyond the Second Sophistic: Adventures in Greek Postclassicism (Berkeley) –– (2018) Dirty Love: The Genealogy of the Ancient Greek Novel (Oxford and New York) Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U. von (1905) ‘Lesefrüchte’, Hermes 40, 116–53 Wilcken, U. (1893) ‘Ein neuer griechischer Roman’, Hermes 28, 161–93 Williams, B.A.O. (2008) Shame and Necessity (2nd edition) (Berkeley and Los Angeles) Worman, N. (2008) Abusive Mouths in Classical Athens (Cambridge) Zaccarini, M. (2017) The Lame Hegemony: Cimon of Athens and the Failure of Panhellenism, ca. 478–450 BC (Bologna)