3. THE RISE OF THE GREEK NOVEL Consuelo Ruiz-Montero I. Introduction The study of the formation and origins of the Greek novel must begin with an attempt to define the genre, which in turn implies an acceptance that that category exists. (The two questions are not, as we shall see, unrelated.) At the same time we need to determine whether the Greek novel comprises a single type or a number of different subtypes and, in the latter case, to specifY which subtype is to be the object of study. Fragments of Greek novels that have come to light in recent years make it impossible to accept the traditional split between "serious or ideal romance" (e.g., Callirhoe by Chariton of Aphrodisias, Ephesiaca by Xenophon of Ephesus, the Pastoral Tales of Longus, the Babyloniaca of Iamblicus, Leucippe and Cleitophon by Achil­ les Tatius) and "comic, or unideal romance" (e.g., the Saryricon by Petronius, the Metamorphoses by Apuleius and the Ass attributed to Lucian). I That comic or parodic novels also existed in Greek is confirmed by the fragments of Iolaus and Lollianus's Phoenicica, while the remaining fragments might als.o include novels that are similar to the ones just mentioned or even different from the forms known today.2 Nor should we forget the layers of parody in the novel by Achilles Tatius or, as we shall see below, the fact that some authors have doubted the seriousness of the Wonders bryond 17zule by Antonius Diogenes. And if we accept as novels mixed texts like the Life if Alexander, Chion if Heraclea or the apocryphal Acts if Paul and 17zekla, the genre would have to be widened considerably.3 * This paper has been possible thanks to a grant from the Alexander von Humbolt Foundation at the University of Munich. I should like to express my gratitude to Prof. E. Vogt, to whom I respectfully and affectionately dedicate this paper. I Perry (1967) 87- 88. 2 Suda mentions a Rhodiacaby Pnilippus of Anphypolis, a highly bawdy work, and describes its author as a historilros, attributing to him also a Coaca, Thasiaca and other works. In this respect Hagg (1994) 53 is right when he states: "our gravest mistake would be to construct a building using only the few scattered remains-and believe the result to be historically true". 3 Pervo (1987) 114 cites more than fifty Graeco-Roman titles and authors. 30 CONSUELO RUIZ-MONTERO The mosaic-like variety of these works of prose fiction has brought thematic classifications such as ReiseromaneJ utopische RomaneJ LiebesromaneJ Christliche RomaneJ BiographienJ RomanparodieJ komisch-satirische Romane, to confine ourselves to the terms used by Helm.4 The group studied here is what, traditionally, has been termed "novels of love and adventure", including the "idealist" works cited above. Though there are differences among them, these novels share a unity of structure, that is, the same structural model. The group, which could be said to comprise fragments such as NinusJ Metiochus and Parthenope and possibly Sesonchosis, is not a homogeneous group, and a traditional distinction between "pre-" or "non-sophistic" and "sophistic" novels has also been made.5 The first group would include the fragments cited above, Chariton and Xenophon. But we need first to define the term "sophistic", to decide whether it applies to the atmosphere or spirit of the work, its narrative technique, its rhetorical expression or its chronology. As far as the latter is concerned, the Second So­ phisttc begins in the second half of the first century A.D.; and so only Ninus could with any certainty be said to predate it,6 since Chariton may well ·· have--written under the reign of Trajan and Hadrian, with Xenophon emerging slightly later.7 As examples of rhetorical works (more rhetorical than Xenophon's) we have Ninus and Callirhoe, as we shall see below.s The narrative technique is far more sophisticated in novels after Chariton and, as far as "spirit" 4 Helm (1956) for this and other classifications see Kuch (1985) 3ff. 5 For example Perry (1967) 108 and Reardon (1971) 339n. for the "pre-sophistic" novels; Hagg (1983) 34 for the "non-sophistic" ones. In his 1994 study Hagg con­ tinues to use the term "non-sophistic" though, despite his awareness of the problems presented by novels such as the Ephesiaca, which belong to the first group by spirit and to the second by chronology, he retains the distinction. 6 This is the oldest work of its kind: it probably dates back to the I st century B.C.-maybe earlier, according to Wilcken (1893)--or to the beginning of the Empire. For a commentary of the fragments see Kussl (1991) 15ff.; Dostruova (1991) 30-35. The papyri of Metiochus and Parthenope belong to the 2nd century A.D. and those of Sesonchosis to the 3rd century A.D., though the fact they deal with historical or leg­ endary characters suggests they might belong to the origins of the genre: see the commentaries by Maehler (1976), Dostruova (1991) 35--41, O'Sullivan (1986). I have not been able to consult the book by Stephens S., Winkler J. Ancient Greek Novels. The Fragments (princeton 1995). 7 The chronology for Chariton is taken from a study of the language and social context of the work: see Ruiz-Montero (1989) (1991) (1994a) for a summary of opinions. Later studies place the work in the period of Hadrian: Baslez (1992a) or in the first half of the 2nd century A.D.: C.P. Jones (1992a). For Xenophon see Ruiz-Montero (1994b). 8 C£ n. 77. .