27.Achilles Tatius’s protagonist is a Greek-speaking Tyrian. From the time of Alexander, the city could not really be described as “barbarian.” Antioch, of course, was a Seleucid foundation, and Xenophon’s description of Manto’s husband as a “Syrian from Antioch” suggests that he is using racial categories loosely.
28.The text is uncertain at this point.
CHAPTER 26
1.Morgan 2004, 1–2.
2.See, e.g., Plepelits 1980.
3.A convenient summary of the evidence in Bowie and Harrison 1993, 160–161
4.For a different view, see Morgan, chapter 25 of this volume.
5.See especially Goldhill 1995.
6.(a) Cleitophon, in love with Leucippe, is betrothed to Calligone, his half-sister. She is mistakenly abducted by Callisthenes, thinking she is Leucippe; (b) Cleitophon, pledged to Leucippe, is “courted” by the Ephesian “widow” Melite in Alexandria and marries her after Leucippe “dies” the second and seemingly final time at sea, but does not initially consummate the union. (c) Thersandros (villain) married to Melite, but presumed dead in a shipwreck, “courts” Leucippe, now a slave on his estate, when both he and she separately reappear alive in Ephesus.
7.Alvares 2006. There are some inevitable overlaps between his essay and mine, but essentially, we go in quite different directions.
8.Morales 2004
9.See Martin 2002, and Zeitlin 1990 and 2012.
10.On the Phaedrus in second-century literature, see Trapp 1990 and more specifically, see Hunter 1997, Martin 2002, and Morgan 2004.
11.The wily slave, Satyros, also gives timely advice to Cleitophon to further his seduction of Leucippe.
12.For Longus, see especially Chalk 1960 on Eros; also Morgan 2004, 8–10 on both divinities. Morgan supports the idea of a higher spiritual level to the story but rightly rejects Merkelbach’s 1988 insistence that D&C “is a cultic text, encoding initiation rituals of the Dionysiac religion.” For Achilles Tatius, see Segal 1984 on the differing roles of Aphrodite and Artemis, and Bouffartigue 2001 on the differences between Aphrodite and Eros in the text; for the parodistic language of the mysteries as a means of seduction, see Zeitlin 2008.
13.The couple fall in love in the spring, learn about Eros from Philetas in the autumn. Winter enforces a long separation, broken by a single reunion, but the next spring brings about Daphnis’ education in sex from the city woman, Lycaenion, followed by a second summer, and, coinciding with the vintage of the second autumn, the novel reaches its climax in the final dénouement.
14.Note that the primary coup de foudre is not shared by both partners. In both works the visual sight of beauty is the initial stimulus to erotic longing, although the genders are reversed. In Longus, it is Chloe who first feels the pangs of desire for Daphnis when she sees him as he bathes; Cleitophon, on the other hand, is the one smitten with an instant passion in Achilles Tatius at his first glimpse of Leucippe, and who then immediately sets out to woo her.
15.See Konstan 1994 on this distinction.
16.Morgan 2004, 3.
17.Rohde 1914, 549; translated from the German.
18.Notably, Euripides’s Iphigenia in Tauris at 8.1–2 and Aristophanes at 8.9.
19.For the numerous other references to narrative as muthos in the last book of Achilles Tatius and their import, see Núñez 2008, 331n41.
20.See e.g., Briand 2006 for further discussion.
21.Brethes 2007.
22.Morgan 1996, 179.
23.Whitmarsh 2011, 97.
24.Whitmarsh 2003, 214.
25.Graphê means both “writing” and “painting.”
26.Zeitlin 1990, 435.
27.Zeitlin 1990, 435–436.
28.Zeitlin 2012, 110.
29.It was their father who demanded this marriage. Cleitophon had already fallen in love with Leucippe and was faced with a bitter choice between his beloved and the demands of filial piety. Half-siblings of a different mother were allowed to wed.
30.Morgan 1996, 186.
31.Whitmarsh 2011, 8.
32.Notably, Foucault 1988 and Konstan 1994.
33.Whitmarsh 2011, 11, and for a convenient discussion of the diverse opinions, see 6–10, as well as introduction in Swain 1999, 12–35.
34.Perkins 1995, 54.
35.See especially Lalanne 2006 and Bierl 2009.
36.See Pecere and Stramaglia 1996, who argue for a “literature of consumption” produced for people sufficiently literate to enjoy entertainment, as quoted in Johnson and Parker 2009, 355.
37.E.g., Konstan 1994, 226–229.
38.Whitmarsh 2011, 255.
39.See most recently, Zeitlin 2016.
CHAPTER 27
1.I have discussed the problematics of the term “ancient novel” in Selden 1994; see further Goldhill 2008; Whitmarsh 2005a. Here, I use the terms “novel” and “romance” interchangeably in the sense of роман as Mikhail Bakhtin defines it in Bakhtin 1975, 408–446 (“Iz predistorii romannogo slova”).
2.Anderson 1993, 25.
3.See in primis López Martínez 1998.
4.Cf. Anderson 1993, 156–170.
5.See Shklovskii 1983.
6.For a brief overview, see also Whitmarsh 2005b, 86–89.
7.Jouanno 2002; Stoneman 2008; Selden 2010b.
8.On súnkrisis/sunkrίnein, see Focke 1923.
9.Philostratus, VS 486–488.
10.For a general overview, see Jones 1978.
11.See Fein 1994.
12.Cohoon and Lamar 1932–1951, 1:2–4. See Moles 1990.
13.See Blass, Kühner, and Gerth 1890–1904, 2:264–281.
14.See Hall 1989; Vlassopoulos 2013; Woolf 2011.
15.Anderson 1993, 51.
16.Derrida 1967, 1972.
17.Hall 1989, 5. Perhaps an overstatement: consider, in this period alone, Coptic, Hebrew, and Arabic.
18.Bologna 1978, 305.
19.Monier-Williams 2011, s.v.
20.For a comprehensive overview, see Swain 1998. See also Bowie 1970; Romeo 2002; Whitmarsh 2001a.
21.Euripides, IA 1400. See Beekes 2010, 1:408; Chantraine 1968, 1:336–337.
22.Aristotle, Pol. 1252b9.
23.For an overview, see Christidis 2007, 383–518; Colvin 2007; Horrocks 2014, 7–42; Schmitt 1977.
24.See Anson 2009, 10–11.
25.See Hall 2005.
26.Aristid., Or. 1.15 (Lenz-Behr).
27.Aristid., Or. 1.327–328; trans. Anderson 1993, 86, condensed and modified. Cf. Whitmarsh 2004a, 144–146.
28.For details regarding Atticism and its place in Imperial Greek culture, see Kim, chapter 4 in this volume.
29.See IG2 236.
30.Bakhtin 1981, 336, et passim.
31.On the accidence and syntax of Greek dialects, see Bonino 1898.
32.Ach. 100; see Willi 2004.
33.See Ach. 719–954 (Megarian, Boeotian); Lys. 82ff. (Laconian). See Colvin 1995, 1999, 2000.
34.Jakobson 1987, 41: “The dominant may be defined as the focusing component of the work of art: it rules, determines, and transforms the remaining components. It is the dominant which guarantees the integrity of the structure.”
35.Callim. fr. 203.18 (Pfeiffer).
36.See Hawkins 2012.
37.Cf. Acosta-Hughes 2002, 60–103; Hunter 1997; Kerkhecker 1999, 250–270; Selden 1998.
38.See Carney 2013, 100–101. See Gow 1952, 2:290 on πλατειάσδοισαι.
39.On Hellenistic Doric, see Horrocks 2014, 87–89.
40.Bakhtin 1986, 60–102.
41.Carey 1986; Hawkins 2008. Cf. Anth. Pal. 7.351.
42.See Cavarzere, Aloni, and Barchiesi 2001; Hunter 1996a, 1996b, 1997; Rotstein 2010.
43.See West 1967.
44.Cf. Hes., Cat. fr. 4; Hdt. 1.6.
45.Asper 2011.
46.Krevans 2011; cf. Selden 1998.
47.On the invention of “Greece,” see Whitmarsh 2004a, 161–176.
48.Pace Whitmarsh 2004a, 106–158.
49.On metalepsis in cl
assical literature, see Eisen and von Möllendorff 2013.
50.On Dio’s displaced politics, see Salmeri 2000. See also Pernot 1997.
51.Canfora 2013.
52.Freud 1915 and 1919. Cf. Billig 1999; Bloom 1980.
53.So Aelius Aristides Keil 2, 99. At its height, the Haxāmanišiyan Empire covered 3.08 million square miles.
54.See Dignas and Winter 2001; Graham 2013.
55.On the various recensions of the Alexander Romance, see Jouanno 2002; Merkelbach 1977.
56.See Manetho, fr. 74 (Waddell).
57.Cf. Pyramid Texts, Utterance 220: jw=f ḫr=t_ wr.t ḥkȝ.w.
58.See Assmann 2006.
59.See Karenga 2004
60.See Ritner 1997; cf. Meyer and Mirecki 1995, 29–60.
61.Coffin Texts, Spell 261. Abridged.
62.Parker 2005, 122.
63.See Selden 1994. Cf. Stephens 2003. Within Egypt, it is not possible to correlate ethnicity with language use; see Goudriaan 1988. In fact, just as Hellenes accepted as Greek anyone who could speak Greek and adopted Greek customs, so too the Egyptians counted as Egyptian anyone who could speak their language and adopted Egyptian customs.
64.On classical Greek views of Egyptians, see Froidefond 1971; Vasunia 2001.
65.Stoneman 2007, 124–126.
66.See Whitmarsh 2001a; the viewpoint goes back to the early Ptolemaic period—see Thalmann 2011, 53–75.
67.It is possible that the entire passage comes from a demotic Egyptian source; see Jasnow 1997. Cf. Rutherford 1997.
68.See Riggs 2012, 493–596.
69.See, for example, Selden 2014a, 2014b.
70.Gardiner 1938.
71.See Dieleman 2005; Riggs 2012, 493–596.
72.Whitmarsh 2005b, 43.
73.Bubenik 2007, 633.
74.See McGready 1968; Renberg and Naether 2010.
75.Christidis 2007, 618–653. See further Abel 1927; Blass 2001; Colvin 2009; Robertson 1934.
76.Siegel 1985. See also Brixhe 1987 and 2010; Georgakopoulou and Silk 2009; Meshtrie 1994.
77.For example, the Egyptian doctrine of Kȝ-mw.t=f; see Redford 2002, s.v. Kamutef; Brunner 1986.
78.See Hunter 1996a, 167–195.
79.Cf. Selden 2010a.
80.Whitmarsh 2005b, 43.
81.See Johnson 1992.
82.Johnson 2000. Cf. Thissen 1984.
83.For a concise overview, see Torallas Tovar 2010. See also the other papers in Papaconstantinou 2010.
84.Jasnow 1997.
85.Cf. Conybeare and Stock 2001; Fernández Marcos 2009; Jobes and Silva 2000.
86.See Hoffmeier 1999, 199–222.
87.See Bohak 2008.
88.See Layton 1987; Segal 2002.
89.Bakhtin 1986, 60–102.
90.See Stephens 2003, 64–73.
91.On this theme in general, see Doniger 2000. On Indo-European notions of fatherhood vs. paternity, see Benveniste 1969, 1:205.
92.Anderson 1993, 53: “Alexander is a symbolic figure for the Sophistic.”
93.See Bourdieu 1983.
94.Stoneman 2007, 303–307.
95.Aristid. Or. 1.9 (Lenz-Behr).
96.Thiel 1974, 40
97.Plut. Vit. Caes. 61.
98.See Selden 2012, 31–32. Cf. Whitmarsh 2010.
99.See Dem. Olynthiacs 3.24, which characterizes Macedonians as barbaroi.
100.Stoneman 2007, 144–146.
101.Cf. Deleuze 1968.
102.On “representational space,” see Lefebvre 1974.
103.Text: Braccini 2004.
104.The translation of the choliambs, much condensed, follows Stoneman 1991, 81–82.
105.For the rationale of saving Pindar, see Dio 2.33.
106.Cf. Od. book 9.
107.See McDonald and Walton 2007.
108.Zeitlin 1992, 144–145.
109.Cf. Freud 1914.
110.See Demand 1983.
111.See Cavarzere, Aloni, and Barchiesi 2001; Rotstein 2010.
112.See, for example, Philostr. VS 488 on Dio of Prusa.
113.E.g., eklόkheuma, apokuéō, neognόs, tephrόō.
114.Anderson 1993, 55–68.
115.See Bakhtin 1975, 447–483 (“Ĕpos i roman”).
116.Bakhtin 1975, 408–446 (“Iz predistorii romannogo slova”).
117.Cf. Rochette 1997.
118.See Hansen 1998; Strobel 2009.
119.See Bakhtin 1975, 72–233 (“Slovo v romane”).
120.Bakhtin 1981, 270–272.
121.See Swain 1998.
122.Perry 1964, 70.
123.Austin 1975.
124.Valesio 1980, 59–60.
125.Demetr. Eloc. 103, 264; Plut. Quaest. Plat. 1009e; Hermog. Id. 2.7; Lausberg 1998, §887–889.
126.See Gleason 1995.
127.On Hadrian’s relationship to the Second Sophistic, see Whitmarsh 2004b.
128.See Men. Rhet. §368–377.30 (ed. Russell and Wilson); Lib., Oratio 59.
129.See, for example, Cass. Dio, Roman History 68.4
130.Cf. Proverbs 27:1: Μὴ καυχῶ τὰ εἰςαὔριον, οὐ γὰργινώσκειςτί τέξεται ἡ ἐπιοῦσα.
131.Perry 1964, 108–160; Cf. Heide 2014.
132.Cf. Qoheleth 3:1–9: Letter of Aristeas 187ff. Lambert 1960; Simpson 2003, 125–243.
133.See Papademetriou 1978.
134.See Gains 1974; Mason 1994.
135.Text: Burchard 2003.
136.Philonenko 1968, 1–52; for dating, see Kraemer 1998.
137.Selden 2010b; Selden 2014b.
138.See Kraemer 2008.
139.Ward 1982, no. 850.
140.The elder son died earlier in the course of trying to rape Aseneth.
141.Iser 1976. Genesis 41:45: καὶ ἐκάλεσενΦαραωτὸ ὄνομαΙωσηφΨονθομφανηχ· καὶ ἔδωκεναὐτῷ τὴνΑσεννεθθυγατέραΠετεφρη ἱερέως Ἡλίουπόλεωςαὐτῷ γυναῖκα.
142.Fried 2011.
143.Weber 1956, 2/2: 300.
144.Nickelsburg 1981.
145.Bourdieu 1993; Cassirer 1910.
146.Cavafy 1990, 35; translation: Dalven 1959, 19.
147.Hall 2002; Lévi-Strauss 1962.
148.See Selden 1998.
149.Wyrick 2005.
CHAPTER 28
1.It might go back to the sophist Hippias, who wrote a work entitled Συναγωγή (DK 86B6), probably a kind of miscellany or anthology (also characterized as an “encyclopaedia”: see K. A. Morgan 2004, 95–96.
2.Frs. 32–93 Barigazzi.
3.Philostr. VS 1.489–492 (Favorinus); 2.624–625 (Aelian).
4.Harrison 2000; Oikonomopoulou 2013a.
5.Fr. 179 Sandbach. The work is considered spurious.
6.NA pref. 6–10. See Holford-Strevens 2003, 30–47; Vardi 2004, 159–165.
7.Vardi 2004, 179–186.
8.Jacob 2001 and 2013, 31–39, 95–107; Lukinovich and Morand 2004, xxi–xxv; Wilkins 2000.
9.Mittell 2001, 7.
10.On the reading culture of the high Roman Empire, see Johnson 2010.
11.Goldhill 2009.
12.Gellius’s Attic Nights is the only miscellany that includes a table of contents (see pref. 25). Cf. Doody 2010, 1–10, 92–131, on Pliny the Elder.
13.Phot. Bibl. Cod. 175, 119b, ll. 31–33.
14.Smith 2014, 47–66.
15.Lennox 2010; Louis 1964, xx–xxxiii.
16.On Pliny’s structure, see Murphy 2004, 29–48. On the not so clear-cut boundaries between miscellanies and encyclopedias, see König and Woolf 2013, 52–58.
17.VS 1.496, 528; 2.573, 590.
18.Fairweather 1981, 125–126.
19.1. pref. 1.
20.All translations from ancient texts in this chapter are my own, but the Loeb translations were consulted throughout. On Gellius’s preface, see Holford-Strevens 2003, 30–36; Vardi 2004, 165–179.
21.On the different roles assumed by “Plutarch” (the narrator) within the Quaest. conv., s
ee König 2011.
22.Heusch 2011, 49–301; Jacob 2000 and 2013, 75–83; Johnson 2010, 118–120; König 2012, 30–120; Oikonomopoulou 2011; Too 2000.
23.See Deip. 10.411b and 10.459c, with the notes in Olson (2006–2012), respectively.
24.Lukinovich 1990. On the (tense) relationship between food and conversation within the work, see Romeri 2000 and 2002, 253–290.
25.Maisonneuve 2007, 402–403.
26.On the work’s narrative structure, see Jacob 2013, 9–12, 27–30; Rodríguez-Noriega Guillén 2000.
27.Jacob 2000 and 2013, 55–69; Too 2000.
28.Romeri 2000 and 2002, 253–290.
29.Jacob 2000 and 2013, 71–83; Thompson 2000.
30.Cf. Quaest. conv. 5.7, 680C–D.
31.See Quaest. conv. 8.10, 734C–E, and Oikonomopoulou 2011, 108–112.
32.Cf. Quaest. conv. 5.3, 676C–F. See Eshleman 2013; Frazier 2000; Horster 2008.
33.Vardi 2001.
34.NA pref. 11. See also 9.4, 14.6.
35.Beall 2004, 214–215; Heusch 2011, 372–373; Keulen 2004, 236–239.
36.Beall 2004, 206–215.
37.Holford-Strevens 2003, 36–47.
38.Smith 2014, 11–13.
39.Smith 2014, 13–16.
40.3.83b (Juba); 7.324b (Archestratus of Gela); 3.126b (Nicander of Colophon); 13.565a (Chrysippus); 9.398e, 11.505c, 15.692b, 15.696a (Aristotle).
41.See, e.g., Gellius, 11.17, and also Johnson 2009 and 2010, 120–130, on social occasions where the reading of texts takes place in Gellius.
42.Smith 2014. Cf. Murphy 2004, 6–11.
43.On Roman imperial cosmopolitanism, see Edwards and Woolf 2003; Richter 2011, 7–9, 135–206.
44.König 2012, 26–27.
45.See König 2012, 103–119, and also 52–59 (on the Bakhtinian concept of polyphony, and its applicability to the texts of Plutarch and, especially, Athenaeus). See also Oikonomopoulou 2013b.
46.Smith 2014, 67–99.
47.See note 2 above. Also, Holford-Strevens 2003, 98–130 (on the role of Favorinus in the Attic Nights).
48.Cf. Meier 2004.
CHAPTER 29
1.Cameron 2004, 27–32 contains a relatively full list of systematic mythographical works from the early imperial period.
2.For the text see the recent editions of Cuartero I Iborra 2010–2012 and Papathomopoulos 2010 (the latter not, however, rendering Wagner 1926 obsolete).
3.The closest example is Hyginus, whose first-century CEFabulae as we currently possess them are a rather degraded and incomplete reworking of an original collection called the Genealogiae made at least two centuries later. There is no indication, however, despite his title, that Hyginus produced as complete or as coherently connected a mythical narrative as that which we find in the Bibliotheca. Though a Latin work, the Fabulae will occasionally be adduced in the following discussion as an example of “typical” mythography.
The Oxford Handbook of the Second Sophistic Page 114
