Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T08:56:42.582Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Heliodoros: serious intentions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

Ken Dowden
Ken Dowden
Affiliation:
The University of Birmingham
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

What merit should we find in Heliodoros' novel? Towards its end Hydaspes, agonizing over whether to save Charikleia from human sacrifice, sees before him an internal audience stirred by π⋯θη (emotions, feelings) equal to his and ‘weeping through pleasure and pity at Fortune's stage-management’ (10.16.3). This is a popular audience, a demos, evincing a popular reaction, but one which Heliodoros anticipated and doubtless welcomed. Their reaction is characterized by simple, direct emotions and some limited awareness of the larger processes that have been going on in this novel. For them this is a world of τ⋯χη (Fortune) and amazement. Does the novel invite any deeper critical reaction than this?

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 46 , Issue 1 , May 1996 , pp. 267 - 285
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 On the association of the reader's response with that of this crowd, see Morgan 1991, pp. 90–5. The following works are cited more than once in the course of the text or notes: Bartsch, S., Decoding the Ancient Novel: The reader and the role of description in Heliodorus and Achilles Tatius (Princeton, 1989).CrossRefGoogle ScholarBowie, E.L., ‘The Greek Novel’, in P.E., Easterling and B.M.W., Knox(edd.), The Cambridge History ofClassical Literature, Vol. 1, ‘Greek Literature’ (Cambridge, 1985), pp. 683–98.Google ScholarConca, F., De Carii, E., Zanetto, G., Lessico dei Romanzieri Gred, vol. 2 Δ-I (Hildesheim, 1989).Google ScholarHolzberg, N.,The Ancient Novel: an introduction, tr. Jackson-Holzberg, C. (London, 1995) [Der Antike Roman (München/Zürich, 1986)].Google ScholarMerkelbach, R., Roman und Mysterium in der Antike (Munchen, 1962).Google ScholarMorgan, J.R., ‘History, Romance and Realism in the Aithiopika of Heliodoros’, Classical Antiquity 12 (1982), 221–65.CrossRefGoogle ScholarMorgan, J.R., ‘The Story of Knemon in Heliodoros' Aithiopika’, JHS 109 (1989), 99–113.CrossRefGoogle ScholarMorgan, J.R., ‘Reader and Audiences in the Aithiopika of Heliodoros’, in H., Hofmann(ed.), Groningen Colloquia on the Novel, vol. 4 (Groningen, 1991), pp. 99–113.Google ScholarRohde, E., Der griechische Roman und seine Vorläufer (Leipzig, 3 1914).Google ScholarSandy, G.N., ‘Characterization and Philosophical Decor in Heliodoros' Aethiopica’, TAPA 112 (1982), 141–67.Google ScholarSzepessy, T., ‘Die Aithiopika des Heliodoros und der griechische sophistische Liebesroman’, Acta Antiqua Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 5 (1957), 241–59.Google ScholarWinkler, J.J., ‘The Mendacity of Kalasiris and the narrative strategy of Heliodoros' Aithiopika’, YCS 27 (1982), 93–158.Google Scholar

2 Morgan 1989, pp. 99–113.

3 Holzberg, p. 99 (German original: p. 116)

4 Heiserman, A.R., The Novel before the Novel: Essays and Discussions about the Beginnings of Prose Fiction in the West (Chicago and London, 1977), p. 195, cited with minor modification by Bartsch, p. 142. Bartsch and Morgan set aside Heiserman's appreciation of the divine and especially destiny in Heliodoros (cf. Heiserman, p. 201). Heiserman is arguing, I think, that the metaphor of drama mediates between (fictional) plot and (actual) destiny (p. 202).Google Scholar

5 Morgan, J.R., introduction to his translation, in B.P., Reardon (ed.), Collected Ancient Greek Novels (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1989), pp. 350–1, close to Winkler, p. 119 on higher divinities and plot, and p. 122 on whether the ideology of the novel is ‘philosophically or religiously meant’ (Winkler's italics), cf. p. 126Google Scholar

6 Cf. Winkler, p. 125, n. 38; and Morgan 1982, p. 230

7 For bibliography on the dating of Heliodoros, see Sandy, G.N., ‘Recent Scholarship on the Prose Fiction of Classical Antiquity’, CIV 67 (1974), 321–59, at pp. 345f; andGoogle ScholarBowie, E.L. and Harrison, S.J., ‘The Romance of the Novel’, JRS 83 (1993), 159–78, at p. 160.Google Scholar

8 See Rohde, pp. 462–5, and Conca-De Carli-Zanetto. A CD-ROM search shows that he does not use (unlike, say, Ps.-Kallisthenes) for the divine force despite its providential nature in his novel. On Motpa and its special association with Kalasiris see below, p. 276 and n. 21. has a variety of meanings from ‘personal wealth/status’ to the personified goddess ‘Fortune’ and it is often hard to say whether any independent superior force is envisaged; Rohde, p. 464, n. 2, attributes 16 (of the in fact 68) instances to a personal

9 The Homeric-allegoric method is applied to another fiction by Philo in his interpretation of the Old Testament. I doubt, however, whether Heliodoros read Philo—the similarities between Life of Moses 2.195 and Heliodoros 9.9.3 (Morgan 1982, p. 245) result from a common source, cf. 9.22.3, another instance of Nile lore, this time close to Strabo 17.1.48.

10 In A., Colonna (ed.), Heliodori Aethiopica (Roma, 1938), pp. 368–9.Google ScholarColonna argues that the work is by Theophanes Kerameus. On the number 7, see also Plut. Is. et Os. 354f., Lucian, Philopseudes §12. Griffiths, J.G., The Isis Book (Leiden, 1975), p. 113, citesGoogle ScholarRoscher, W., ‘Die Sieben- und Neunzahl im Kultus und Mythus der Griechen’, Abh. Sdchsische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phil.-hist. Klasse 24/1 (Leipzig, 1904).Google Scholar

11 Translated by John Morgan (n. 5 above); I have started from this translation elsewhere too though generally presenting more literal English. The numerology evokes antipathy in modern times—cf. Rattenbury's otiose comment (in the Bude edition) ‘Curieuse rencontre et rien de plus.’

12 Epidrome 27. Winkler, p. 114, n. 25, characteristically prefers an interpretation in terms of ambivalence relative to truth. For further possible deeper meanings, note (i) Winkler, pp. 151 f.; (ii) Theagenes bull-tamer as Mithras tauroctonus (Merkelbach, p. 290), though Theagenes does not represent the Sun (pace Merkelbach) but his servant, who can (p. 292) travel in the Sun's quadriga; (in) the naming of Arsake's servant as Kybele (cf. p. 272, n. 2); (iv) just possibly, as ‘Philip the Philosopher’ alleges (line 119, Colonna), the name Arsake reflects (‘of the flesh’).

13 JRS 83 (1993), p. 148.

14 Different levels of naming of the divine are categorized by Proclus, Theol. Plat. 1.29. Julian, Ep. 89 (Bidez) 293a-d, states that the gods must appear in corporeal forms to match our nature: the first level of images is the heavenly bodies, but our nature demands something closer, namely anthropomorphic statues.

15 Rohde, pp. 463f. Plato, Republic 379b

16 Something similar happens at 7.6.4 where events we know have been predetermined are viewed speculatively as theatrical action by because Heliodoros' narrator has adopted the viewpoint of the crowd who perceive the events as spectacle and in effect

17 Also Plotinos, Ennead4.83, where the embodied soul is a ‘a victim to troubles and desires and fears and all forms of evil, the body its prison or its tomb, the Cosmos its cave or cavern’ (tr. Mackenna).

18 drive Thisbe according to Knemon's friend Charias (1.1.46) and Theagenes blames an for the death, as he supposes, of Charikleia in a passage characterized as by the narrator (2.4.1). These are the only other references to in the text.

19 Merkelbach, p. 278.

20 Casual introduction: Winkler, p. 102, n. 15.

21 Arguably personified Moipcu or Molpa appear as follows: (A) directly associated with Kalasiris (8 instances): (i) in Kalasiris' narration: 2.24.6, 2.25.4, 2.26.5 (verse oracle), 3.11.5 (instructions from gods in a dream), 3.16.5, and more trivially 2.25.1; (ii) 7.7.2 (climactic address to his sons); 7.8.1 (of Kalasiris and his sons). (B) loosely associated with Kalasiris (3 instances): 2.20.2 (death of Thermouthis—just before Kalasiris appears); 6.15.1 (the corpse speaks, in the presence of Kalasiris); 8.11.2 (action of the pantarbe, in oracle spoken by Kalasiris). (C) other (2 instances): 10.9.3 (Charikleia speaks, depicted hieratically, before chastity test); 10.20.2 (Charikleia to father Hydaspes for the life of Theagenes).

22 See Morgan 1982, p. 227 on ‘authorial uncertainty’ as part of the historiographical pose; cf. Winkler, p. 133, and p. 134 for the ‘literary construct’, reaching a very different conclusion.

23 See Conca-De Carli-Zanetto, p. 288: Achilles 1 instance, Chariton 4, Longus 4, Xenophon 9, Heliodoros 33. Adopting the pages in Reardon's Collected Ancient Greek Novels as a rough measure, we can derive a frequency per 100 pages of: Achilles 0.9, Chariton 3.3, Longus 6.6, Xenophon 22.0, Heliodoros 14.0. The figure for Xenophon clearly requires explanation.

24 Morgan 1982, p. 229 on ‘Alternative Explanations’: ‘Usually, one of these explanations involves divine agency.’ Other instances include that at 10.28.4, where Theagenes may have decided to catch the bull because of a divine impulse; cf. 8.9.2,10.22.4 and Winkler, pp. 122f. for other examples.

25 Compare Virgil, Aeneid 1.650, where Aeneas gives Dido clothing which Helen had brought to Troy. There is also mention of Sidonian products at Iliad 23.743, perhaps also evoked and, if so, contrasting prizes for energetic competition (in Iliad 23) with the luxurious arrangements for roistering (in Heliodoros 5.29).

26 It is applied to Achilles as he looms up to slaughter Hektor at Iliad 21.527, 22.92. There are 14 other occurrences in the Iliad, five in the Odyssey, 13 in Apollonios' Argonautika, 18 in Quintus' Posthomerica, but, e.g., none in the whole corpus of Aelius Aristides.

27 I do not regard it as inconsistent to view Trachinos as painted with colours derived from the situations of both Paris and Agamemnon. There is no theoretical reason why only one intertext should be alive at a time.

28 LSJ s.v. II, esp. II.2 (Stoic).

29 This posture of ‘knowing about barbarians’ has a close parallel in Herodian (see Winkler, p. 135, n. 48).

30 Cinematographical analogy: Bühler, W., ‘Das Element des Visuellen in der Eingangsszene von Heliodors Aithiopika’, WS nf 10 (1976), 177–85;Google ScholarHägg, T., The Novel in Antiquity (Oxford, 1983), 55; Holzberg, p. 100 [German original, pp. 116–17].Google Scholar

31 Bartsch has shown very clearly that ekphraseis can hold more significance than appears at first. Winkler's denial (p. 101) of the term ekphrasis for the opening scene depends on a use of the term which excludes deeper meanings.

32 E.g. Merkelbach, p. 251.

33 The scene is commonly recognized as requiring explanation but only in the plot sense: Winkler, pp. 97, 103. Bartsch, p. 47 speaks simply of ‘hermeneutic activity’, citing an arid passage of Schor focusing on a sub-Peirceian act of interpretation: ‘via the interpretant the author is trying to tell the interpreter something about interpretation and the interpreter would do well to listen and take note’ (Schor, N., ‘Fiction as Interpretation/Interpretation as Fiction’, in: Suleiman, S.R. and I., Crosman (edd.), The Reader in the Text: Essays on Audience and Interpretation (Princeton, 1980), p. 170).Google Scholar

34 Bartsch, p. 46.

35 See also 3.5 for their love and the soul's divinity, where ‘the hint of Platonic anamnesis is muted but unmistakable’, as Winkler (p. 125) observes, immediately defusing this observation after making it. Merkelbach (p. 252) calls attention to religious reflections of this ‘Pieta’ (Kerenyi's term)—Isis and the dead Osiris, and (more impressively, maybe) Aphrodite and Adonis. For a detailed attempt to work out the Platonism of Apuleius' Cupid and Psyche episode, see Dowden, K., ‘Psyche on the Rock’, Latomus 41 (1982), 336–52, where I identify Cupid as the soul's personal Google Scholar

36 The Apuleian comparanda are (a) the death of Psyche's sisters, who have no Cupid but aspire to one (Met. 5.27); (b) the assimilation of Thelyphron to the corpse (Met. 2.25).

37 This tripartition is underlined by Szepessy, pp. 252–4.

38 Merkelbach, p. 268.

39 A point stressed by Szepessy, p. 254

40 Esp. 1.6.8–9 and cf. Merkelbach, p. 247.

41 In Pausanias' account of Delphi, Artemis only occurs as follows: the Aitolians send a pair of statues, of Apollo and Artemis, to the shrine (10.16.6); a pediment of the Temple of Apollo depicts Artemis, Leto, Apollo, Muses, the setting Sun, Dionysos and the Thyiades (10.19.4). The only temples are of course those of Athene and Apollo himself. K. Wernicke in RE 2 (1896), 1403 cites as evidence for Artemis at Delphi only Heliodoros, a false reference to Pausanias (10.12.2), and the oath of the Amphiktiones by Apollo Pythios, Lato and Artemis (CIG 1.1688).

42 Merkelbach, p. 254: ‘as though the pure Ethiopians would accept such a girl’.

43 Merkelbach, pp. 253f., takes a similar view of Knemon and Nausikles, except that he adds religious colouring to make them the ‘uninitiated’. Better, p. 269 (‘kehrt er in die irdische Heimat zuriick’) and p. 292.

44 Observed by Sandy, p. 146.

45 Homer, Egypt and allegory: Sandy, pp. 155–6. Winkler too (pp. 102f.) felt that this required some explanation, if a different one.

46 Of course this worship of Sun and Moon by the Ethiopians was not invented by Heliodoros (see Diodoros 3.8; Rohde, p. 466), but used by him.

47 In connection with the Iseion: 1.30.4,3.11.2,1.18.4,2.25.2,2.31.5,2.32.1,7.2.2., 7.8.5,7.8.6 (Iseion), 7.11.1 (Iseion). Otherwise only 1.2.6 (is Charikleia Artemis or the native Isis?), 3.11.1 (Kalasiris swears by Isis–to lead into the statement of his status as prophet to her), 9.9.4 (Isis the land of Egypt).

48 Szepessy, p. 252. Bowie, p. 695, also observes ‘a series of priests of an ascending order of sanctity’.

49 Herodotos 2.81, misread by Sandy, p. 166—the Pythagoreans are not connected, except indirectly, with the kalasiris.

50 This leads Bartsch, p. 155, close to self-contradiction: the reader is envisaged as finding the Evil Eye discussion as being ‘of genuine educational worth’, but the author has already signalled it as pseudo-science. Yet Heliodoros does have his cake and eat it: the reader is invited to take an interest in a panoply of ekphrastic and digressive material in the novel, whilst at the same time being required to maintain a sense of purpose and direction. All the same, Kalasiris' provocation of demands for digression does not intellectually excuse Knemon's penchant for them at this point in the novel, as I think Morgan (1991, pp. 97–8) implies.

51 Cf. Winkler, pp. 140–4.

52 Synesios exhibits a striking parallel in his own conduct: after taking holy orders he intends to communicate such legends as the resurrection to the common people who need them, whilst himself standing by a deep philosophical and allegorical view: Ep. 105 with Sandy, p. 148.

53 The priority of Sisimithres: Szepessy, p. 253.

54 Rohde, pp. 466–71. Geffcken, J., Der Ausgang des griechisch-römischen Heidentums (Heidelberg, 1920), p. 88:Google Scholar‘die Erzahlung ist eine neuplatonische Tendenzdichtung’; cf. Nilsson, M.P., Geschichte der ghechischen Religion (München, 3 1974), vol. 2, p. 565.Google Scholar

55 P.367.37 Colonna (see n. 10 above).

56 This article began life as a paper delivered to a seminar on the Ancient Novel organized by Dr David Vessey at the Institute of Classical Studies in London. It has benefited very much from the alert critical observations of Dr S. J. Heyworth and the anonymous referee.