SOURCE: Alvares, Jean. “Chariton's Erotic History.” American Journal of Philology 118, no. 4 (winter 1997): 613-29.

[In the following essay, Alvares interprets Chariton's novel as an alternative history which emphasizes romantic values.]

It is clear that numerous personages and events of Chaireas and Callirhoe are either taken directly from history or are in some way based on historiographical materials.¹ The work has been considered a historical romance,² yet its mixture of genuine historical fact, gross inaccuracies, anachronisms of Chariton's period,³ and reflections of drama, oratory, and epic⁴ suggests to some that Chariton merely aims to provide a “general colouring of Greek history, to titillate the readers” (Reardon 1996, 327). I believe Chariton had larger aims. Building upon the insights of Edwards (1987, 29-51) into how Chariton depicts Aphrodite's influence upon politics and society, I consider here how Chariton adapts familiar elements from history in order to provide a contrast to history, as those elements' usual political and social significances are attenuated or ignored and as they in turn become evidence for the operations of Aphrodite. Thus a Greek assembly pleads for the marriage of teenagers, an eros-obsessed satrap contemplates revolt, and the hero, seeking vengeance against his erotic rival, mimics the deeds of Alexander. I use these elements to produce an outline (not a full-fledged narrative) of an “alternative” history of Syracuse, one that suggests a more satisfying history wherein Aphrodisian values are pursued with the same vigor as those of conventional history.⁵ I do not assert that Chariton intended his work to be read as a type of history or even as a historical novel;⁶ I merely wish to reveal the historical narrative that is contained (with much else) within the text and its significance.

To provide context for this reading I begin with Müller's observation that Chariton offers his work as a successor to epic inasmuch as Chaireas and Callirhoe concerns a heroic period of Greek history that had by Chariton's time become legendary.⁷ For such “epic” and “mythologized” history, traditional accounts, such as those of Thucydides, become simply raw material, such as Homer became for later poets, dramatists and rhetoricians—material to be altered according to the author's purposes.⁸ Further, as Bowersock notes, starting at roughly the time of Nero, various literary works appeared that challenged conventional history or myth by presenting an alternative version of famous events: for example, the account of the Trojan War offered under the name of Dictys of Crete.⁹ I suggest that, for Chariton, the glorious period of Syracuse's victory over Athens is sufficiently remote and mythologized to be the legitimate object of a similar rewriting, an “alternative” history which demonstrates that pursuit of the values of Aphrodite and Eros can bring the sort of success achieved by the heroes of conventional histories. The outlines of such an alternative history can be extracted from Chaireas and Callirhoe.

The starting point for Chariton's alternative erotic history is an idealized Syracuse, a state whose unique excellence makes it a fitting birthplace for the exceptional Chaireas and Callirhoe. A long-standing literary tradition idealized Syracuse and Hermocrates for their wealth and unexpected defeat of Athens.¹⁰ The Syracuse of Chaireas and Callirhoe is a city with recognizably Hellenic political and social institutions that work in surprising harmony.¹¹ Hellenistic and Roman historiography often connect the rise and fall of states and individuals to their character and actions; similarly, the social harmony and success of these fictive Syracusans are linked to their willingness to follow the influence of Aphrodite, whose politically beneficent effects are observed early on.

Initially a fierce political rivalry exists between Hermocrates and Ariston (1.1.3-4). Such rivalries were a common historiographical topos as well as a present reality of the Greek East.¹² They often brought civic disaster, but here Eros, “who is a lover of victory and rejoices in paradoxes set straight,” decides that the rivals' two children should be married and arranges their meeting. Chaireas and Callirhoe fall in love, and, forbidden to marry, begin to waste away (1.1.4-10). At the next scheduled assembly the Syracusans, dominated by Eros the demagogue, ignore all other public business and instead beg Hermocrates to marry his daughter to his rival's son, which would be “the first among his [Hermocrates'] trophies” (1.1.11). Hermocrates … relents and allows the marriage. The assembly is abruptly canceled as all prepare for the wedding, which the Syracusans celebrate “with more pleasure than the day of their victory” (1.1.13-4).

This early episode exemplifies Chariton's method of presenting episodes that both recall events and motifs of conventional history and yet signify very different historical forces and values. For example, like Tyche in Hellenistic history, Love in Chaireas and Callirhoe is stronger than human will or custom,¹³ and seems determined to overthrow standard political expectations.¹⁴ Thus, instead of making a political marriage with a leader of a nearby city, Callirhoe marries the son of her father's rival. That the affairs of young lovers become the business of a public assembly … and the celebration of the marriage with more joy than after a famous victory … represent a conscious transformation of the civic values of conventional historiography. This transformation, however, makes perfect sense in the context of this history; for by acknowledging and cooperating with Aphrodite, who is a potent historical force, the Syracusans gain a desideratum of conventional history: the dissolution of a dangerous political rivalry.¹⁵ This will be the first of many benefits arising from devotion to the values of Aphrodite.

Sicilian history relates numerous conflicts between Syracuse and its neighboring states. Chaireas and Callirhoe transfers this struggle to the realm of the erotic. Callirhoe's suitors are rulers and sons of tyrants from Sicily and the mainland (1.1.2). Informed that Chaireas has wed Callirhoe, the son of the tyrant of Rhegium proposes to murder Chaireas (1.2.2-4), but the tyrant of Acragas points out that open warfare … is impossible and proposes instead to fight Chaireas by guile. He then asks the suitors to elect him “general in the war against Chaireas” (1.2.5). And, after one setback, the suitors win this war,¹⁶ as Chaireas, provoked into a jealous rage, kicks Callirhoe, who falls down as if dead.

Out of respect for Hermocrates Chaireas is quickly tried for murder (1.5.3). This haste suggests that the population wishes to give Hermocrates the opportunity to avenge his daughter's murder as quickly as possible. The whole demos, shouting various opinions, gathers for the trial, while the suitors stir up the crowd (… 1.5.3). Such descriptions of an excited demos and demagogic activity are a common feature of rhetoricians' picture of Greek civic life (Russell 1983, 22). Disaster threatens, since, if convicted, Chaireas will be destroyed and Ariston disgraced. Note that Chaireas, demanding his own execution, declares: “I have taken the crown … from the demos” (1.5.4-5), as if his crime were political, not private (Edwards 1987, 43). But instead Hermocrates, respecting his daughter's wishes, pronounces Chaireas innocent, and the jury concurs. Hermocrates and the Syracusan demos, unified in their desire to honor Callirhoe's love for Chaireas, avoid an error with dangerous political implications.

As often noted, Callirhoe is the palpable manifestation of Aphrodite's power.¹⁷ By joining with Chaireas in marriage, Callirhoe gives the Syracusans hope of further blessings from the divine force she represents. She is rather like Syracuse's living Palladium,¹⁸ the embodiment of divine favor. Accordingly, the announcement of Callirhoe's death (1.5.1) is likened to the fall of a city (Perry 1930, 129), and like a notable political figure, she is given a state funeral attended by all segments of the population (1.6.3-4). After Callirhoe is kidnapped by the grave-robber Theron, her complaint that although Hermocrates had defeated three hundred Athenian warships, he could not keep one small boat from carrying off his daughter (1.11.2) suggests the equal historical importance of the two events, an equivalence which will be proved accurate, for this kidnapping prompts Chaireas to begin his career, whose successes will surpass those of Hermocrates.

Some separation of lovers (however minor) is a common motif in the extant Greek romances. But only in Chaireas and Callirhoe does the entire state strive to reunite the lovers, as if this were a matter of highest political import.¹⁹ This corporate mission to regain Callirhoe recalls the mythical panhellenic effort to recover Helen;²⁰ yet the workings of the Syracusan demos, assembly, and Hermocrates also recall conventional history and thereby allow Chariton's erotic alternative history to demonstrate the superiority of the Syracusans' eros-inspired conduct. Thus Hermocrates finds his countrymen far more willing to recover a lost wife than did Agamemnon, and the Syracusans demonstrate a social harmony born of common devotion to Aphrodisian values. When Callirhoe's tomb is found empty, the citizens mobilize: “triremes were immediately launched, and many took part in the search” (3.3.8). After Theron is found due to the machinations of Tyche (and, one suspects, Aphrodite),²¹ his interrogation takes place in the assembly (3.4.3-3.4.14), where the truth is revealed when the archons give a lowly fisherman the liberty to speak.²² When Hermocrates proposes an embassy to seek Callirhoe in Asia, the whole assembly shouts “Let us all sail,” and most of the Boule volunteers (3.4.17). Hermocrates then picks two men from the assembly (representing the demos) and two men from the Boule (representing the aristocracy) to seek Callirhoe together.

The search for Callirhoe is part of Aphrodite's punishment of Chaireas and initiates his career as future leader. His voyage to recover Callirhoe recalls Menelaus' expedition to Troy as well as historic conflicts between Greek and Persian forces on the Ionian coast. Thus when Phocas, Dionysios' bailiff, learns of Chaireas' objective, he leads out a Persian garrison to burn the ship and capture its crew. We note that Phocas thus acted “to put off something terrible and quench a war that would not be great or widespread, but only concerning Dionysios' household” (3.7.2). Though Chariton is being ironic (this certainly would have been no Trojan War!) nevertheless the aborted military conflict between Dionysios and Chaireas should be seen in the light of Chaireas' future conflict with the Great King and his navy.

The episodes set in Ionia and Asia likewise demonstrate the power of love as a historical force and similarly transform familiar historiographical elements, a process epitomized by Miletus' temple of Homonoia (3.2.16). Traditionally altars, statues, and temples of Homonoia were dedicated to harmony between warring social classes as well as to peace between cities.²³ This cult was familiar to Chariton's readership.²⁴Homonoia was also a popular literary and political topic in the Imperial period.²⁵ Yet Aphrodite herself was sometimes conceived of as a protector of Greek officials (Sokolowski 1964), and Aphrodisias minted coins that depicted Aphrodite with the cult statues of various cities accompanied by the word homonoia.²⁶ Chariton replaces the customary political associations of the cult of Homonoia with purely erotic ones, as this temple becomes the center of a marriage custom, thereby suggesting that Aphrodite best serves the city by creating homonoia between man and wife.²⁷

During her erotic anabasis²⁸ from Miletus to Babylon, Callirhoe becomes the obsession of ever more powerful men: Dionysios, the leading man of Ionia; Mithridates and Pharnaces, the Persian satraps; and finally the Great King, Artaxerxes. The Great King's infatuation with Callirhoe should be viewed in the context of accounts of Persian history as a series of court and harem intrigues that goes back to Ctesias and Duris and can be seen in Plutarch's Life of Artaxerxes.²⁹ Again, Chariton expands upon a preexisting tradition, here to suggest the influence of eros upon Persian political life. Thus in Chaireas and Callirhoe, although Mithridates had quarreled with Pharnaces, the neighboring satrap, Pharnaces' appeal to Artaxerxes is motivated solely by passion for Callirhoe (4.6.2). As in conventional histories, Artaxerxes must protect himself against his satraps and fears that if he does not act, Mithridates will be encouraged to treat him with disrespect (4.6.6-7). Mithridates, when summoned, intends to seize Callirhoe and revolt, and only her unexpected departure prevents him (4.7.1). Thus Chaireas and Callirhoe presents quarrels between satraps, the watchful scrutiny of the Great King, and contemplated rebellion—typical elements of Persian history—as motivated by Aphrodite and Callirhoe.

At Babylon Callirhoe's erotic power exerts an even more baleful effect upon the Persian leaders' ability to rule effectively. The role of the Persian king as the supreme arbiter of justice had figured prominently in Greek literature from Herodotus onward.³⁰ And here, as has been noted, the trial at Babylon combines traditional conceptions of the Great King's judicial role, translations of Roman administrative practice into a Persian context, and details of Greek legal practice³¹—all of which are subverted by eros and Callirhoe. As the trial begins, Mithridates objects to Callirhoe's absence. Dionysios correctly answers that she has no role in the case, but to no avail: … (5.4.11). Royal justice is undercut by passion, and the peers must find an excuse for the Great King to demand Callirhoe's presence. Later, after Chaireas has reappeared and Mithridates has been acquitted, the Great King sets a date to decide who is Callirhoe's true husband. But on the night before the judgment is due, the King, unable to face giving up Callirhoe, decides to feign a dream from the royal gods demanding a month of sacrifice (6.1.6-12, 6.2.2-4). Thus the Great King, through the influence of eros, not only fails in his role as supreme arbiter of justice but undermines Persian religion as well.³²

Another activity particularly associated in history with Persian nobles and the Great King was hunting, both as recreation and as training for war.³³ In Chaireas and Callirhoe eros likewise subverts the royal hunt. Earlier the head eunuch, Artaxates, had suggested a hunt to take the infatuated king's mind off Callirhoe. The lavish tableau of the Great King riding out (6.4.1-3) recalls the royal hunt's usual literary/cultural significances. But here his riding gear is like the extravagant plumage birds flaunt to attract a mate,³⁴ and, overcome by eros, the Great King indulges in voyeuristic fantasies of Callirhoe (6.4.5-7). It is apparently now that Artaxates convinces the King that he can possess Callirhoe without violating his own laws on adultery (6.4.7).³⁵ Thus not only does Eros cause the King to transgress his own laws on proper erotic behavior, but Eros' trivialization of the royal hunt, granted its traditional symbolic value, can be linked to the historical question of the decline of Persian military excellence and foreshadows the later incompetence of the Persians in the Egyptian rebellion.

Factional conflicts were a notable feature of Greek cities in the Classical period and during the Roman Empire. In Chaireas and Callirhoe such divisions are inspired by erotic concerns. As Callirhoe approaches Babylon, the Persian noblewomen fear that her loveliness will undermine their own reputations for beauty (5.3.1)—which in Chaireas and Callirhoe equals political status. They approach Queen Statira and, at her urging, hold a virtual assembly³⁶ with debates and voting in order to pick a challenger to Callirhoe's beauty (5.3.3-5). Afterwards Babylon is divided over the coming trial: the aristocrats support Mithridates, while the ordinary people sympathize with Dionysios (5.4.1), and all Babylon prepares for the trial … (5.4.1).

And just as war and its causes figure prominently in conventional historiography, so here the events of the Egyptian rebellion fully reveal the influence of Aphrodite. Indeed nearly all the central participants are motivated by erotic concerns, and a close correlation exists between devotion to erotic values and military success. To start from the lowest degree of erotic devotion, the nameless Egyptian king has strictly conventional goals: political freedom for Egypt, and territorial conquest. His greatest success, the conquest of Tyre, is achieved only by the efforts of the erotic hero, Chaireas. He is finally defeated and forced to commit suicide by Dionysios, whose heroics are largely motivated by hope the Great King will reward him with Callirhoe. Yet simple devotion to love is not quite enough for Dionysios; the rule of the romances seems to be “one mate for life.” Dionysios' first wife is dead, but his relationship with Callirhoe betrays that earlier love.³⁷ Thus while Dionysios survives, his only consolation is to raise the child of another man, which Callirhoe has made him believe his own. The Great King, in turn, is on the point of forcing Callirhoe when the Egyptian rebellion intervenes. While the Great King must concentrate on defense of his empire, he nevertheless sees to it that Callirhoe is brought along (6.9.7-8). When Tyre is lost, Artaxerxes seems to abandon the erotic as he leaves the excess baggage, including Callirhoe and his wife Statira, on Arados (7.4.11-13). The Great King then finally wins and regains his territories, but loses his wife to Chaireas. The king's willingness to reward Dionysios with Callirhoe (7.5.15) and his eager, almost frantic, behavior when Statira returns (8.5.5), indicate that he has not abandoned the erotic; rather, in his new appreciation of his wife, he has the erotic values appropriate to his role.³⁸ Indeed, while he still feels strongly about Callirhoe, Artaxerxes is glad that Chaireas has taken her off his hands (8.5.8).

Chaireas demonstrates the most absolute devotion to the values of Aphrodite and receives its ultimate rewards, presenting provocative contrasts between conventional history and Chaireas and Callirhoe's erotic alternative. Critics decry Chaireas' lack of public engagement, his hysterical emotionalism, attempts at suicide, and occasional paralysis,³⁹ but these weaknesses prove his utter devotion to Love and to Callirhoe. His excellence, given the proper erotic motivation, will show itself. Thus when Chaireas finally joins the Egyptian rebellion in order to punish his erotic rival (7.1.11), he rises rapidly in the ranks (7.2.5-6) and soon shows the greater resourcefulness and bravery inherent in Greeks.

Chaireas' successes, by mimicking famous events, demonstrate how devotees of romantic love can prove equal or superior to the great figures of conventional history. Like Leonidas at Thermopylae, Chaireas has three hundred picked companions, as he himself notes (7.3.9). Like Alexander (but with less effort), he captures Tyre (7.4.1-10). Like the Athenians (whose victory at Salamis is mentioned several times),⁴⁰ Chaireas defeats the Persians at sea (7.6.1). Again like Alexander, Chaireas captures the Persian queen and treats her humanely. While Chaireas' successes recall the achievements of famous Greek military leaders, Chaireas' letter reminds us that this war has been above all an erotic contest with Artaxerxes (8.4.2). And Chaireas has won, a triumph symbolized by the fact that he celebrates his first night with Callirhoe in the Great King's bed in his domicile on Arados (8.1.13-14).

Like Xenophon in the Anabasis, Chaireas must get his men home after their king has been killed (8.2.1-3). But, unlike Xenophon, Chaireas does not have to deal with constant dissension among his officers and men; quite the reverse. As Chaireas goes from Phoenicia to Arados to Paphos, and then prepares to return to Syracuse, all wish to return with him (8.3.11), and he takes with him twenty ships filled with Greeks and a select portion of non-Greeks. While the Persians must keep a multinational empire together by force, a microcosm of such an empire spontaneously organizes itself around Chaireas. When Chaireas returns to Syracuse, the spoils of his conquests indicate the scale of his achievement. After listing some of these treasures, Chariton concludes, “the whole city was filled, not, as formerly, with the poverty of Attica from the Sicilian war, but, a thing most novel, with spoils of the Medes in peacetime!” (8.6.12). Athenian riches are the results of an earlier Persian victory, yet even the fruits of Hermocrates' victory over the Athenians do not match those of Chaireas' new conquest. Further, Chaireas' three hundred Greeks become citizens of Syracuse, and farm land (although not citizenship) is given to the Egyptians (8.8.13-14). Chaireas has gained political power equal to Hermocrates'. And whereas Hermocrates' victories had not ended hostilities with Athens,⁴¹ Chaireas can declare that he has made the Great King a friend of the Syracusans through the return of Queen Statira (8.8.10). As their uneventful return over the open sea indicates, Chaireas and Callirhoe remain at peace with the gods.⁴² And it is clear that this new order, superior to the famous achievements of old, was the result of devotion to erotic values, as demonstrated by the deeds of the Syracusans and, above all, of Chaireas.

And other benefits are still to come from the productions of Love—most notably Callirhoe's son. As she debates the fate of her unborn child, Callirhoe declares that she is sure that the child will sail one day to Sicily (2.9.5). Later she begs Dionysios in her letter to send their child back to Hermocrates (8.4.6), and the victorious Chaireas declares to the Syracusans, “There is one being raised as a citizen for you, O men of Syracuse, one [raised] as wealthy, by a distinguished man” (8.7.12). While Naber's conjecture that the child is to be thought of as the future Dionysios I of Syracuse is speculative,⁴³ this child is obviously pictured as a future leader and bringer of blessings to Syracuse.

We may summarize the historical narrative within Chaireas and Callirhoe as follows. Syracuse's phenomenal defeat of Athens indicates the excellence of its citizens, which make them a fitting people to produce a Callirhoe, who incarnates the power and favor of Aphrodite and draws Syracuse towards a greater appreciation of love and sentimental values. As a result, Chaireas and Callirhoe are married and a dangerous political rivalry dissolved. There follows the successful attack of various Sicilian and Italian potentates upon the marriage, and thus upon the state, but the workings of Aphrodite turn Chaireas' mistaken jealousy and its unhappy aftermath into a felix culpa. Callirhoe infatuates the leading men of Asia and demonstrates Aphrodite's power over the polities of Ionia and the Persian Empire. The excellent Chaireas, inspired by his love for Callirhoe, trained by Aphrodite's punishment, and finally moved by the desire for vengeance against his erotic rivals, becomes a military leader more successful than Hermocrates. He captures Tyre, defeats the Persian navy, and returns to Syracuse with vast spoils and numerous followers as the future ruler of a new Syracuse. Further, through Callirhoe's actions, there is the promise that one day still another outstanding leader, Callirhoe's child, will come from Asia.

Thus Chariton offers material that both recalls conventional Greek historiography and yet has been transformed to make the reader aware that this material belongs to the history of a different sort of world, one that revolves around Aphrodite and Eros and the appreciation of romantic values, all fully integrated into the historical process. Chaireas and Callirhoe contains a partial historical narrative of this different world, one that describes the rise of Syracuse to new heights of unity and success through its devotion to Aphrodite, and through its new leaders, Chaireas and Callirhoe. The pleasures of Chariton's implicit alternative history are those which critics as diverse as Frye and Jameson⁴⁴ have seen as a property of romance: an escape from history as ongoing tragedy into a more utopian world, which has not only its own protective gods, but its own history.

Notes

1. For example, Hermocrates, Ariston, Statira, and Artaxerxes are historical figures. Mithridates may recall a Mithridates that, according to Ktesias, Statira helped become satrap. The Egyptian rebellion probably recalls the revolt of 404 b.c. and Chaireas the Athenian Chabrias who fought for King Tachos around 360 b.c. Chaireas' victories recall Alexander's conquest of Tyre and the Athenian defeat of the Persian navy. See Bartsch 1934, 1-34; Schmeling 1974, 51-56, 76-80; Zimmerman 1961; Plepelits 1976, 16-17; Perry 1967, 77-78; Hunter 1994, 1055-61; Salmon 1961.

2. On Chaireas and Callirhoe as a historical novel see Hägg 1987; also Ruiz-Montero 1996, 47.

3. I find convincing a date in the early Empire, but before the blossoming of Atticism and the Second Sophistic, most probably mid- to late first century a.d. See Perry 1967, 108-9; Plepelits 1976, 8; Ruiz-Montero 1980, 64-67; Reardon 1996, 319-25.

4. Mithridates' trial before the Great King best demonstrates this mixture. For example, the court's eagerness to see Callirhoe recalls the appearance of Penelope before the suitors in Odyssey 18 and the Teichoskopia of Iliad 3. The trial itself combines traditional conceptions of the Great King as judge, translations of Roman administrative practice (such as the imperial conventus) into a Persian setting, and details of generic Greek legal practice, such as the paragraphē (5.7.3). Chariton stresses the superiority of the Greek ethos to that of the barbarians as he shows the proceedings corrupted by the lusts of the Persians. Yet at the same time, the role of the Great King, as understood by himself and his underlings, also reflects Stoic-Cynic notions of the ideal ruler. See Bartsch 1934, 5-7; Bowersock 1994, 41-42; Karabélias 1990, 393-95 and n. 109; Ruiz-Montero 1989, 138-41; Zimmerman 1961, 331-32, 339, 341; Schmeling 1974, 117-18.

5. By “conventional history” I denote historical narratives like those of Herodotus or Thucydides.

6. I consider Greek novels as light entertainment for the educated, and Chaireas and Callirhoe directed to those who, like Chariton, had a “decent secondary education” but were by no means “very well read” as might by contrast be said of Longus or Heliodorus. See Reardon 1996, 323; also Bowie 1985, 688; Wesseling 1988, 77.

7. Müller 1976, 131-34. See also Scholes and Kellogg 1966, 57-81.

8. Ruiz-Montero (1996, 42-48) gives a good account (with bibliography) of the relationships between dramatic or tragic history, Hellenistic biography, and the Greek novel. The conventions of these genres would encourage some readers to respond to Chaireas and Callirhoe as a type of history or biography. I must also at least mention the vexed question of the extent to which Greek and Roman historians and their readers felt that “fictional” elements—whether made-up persons, events, or sequences of events—could be incorporated into historical writing. My own position is that ancient historians were more concerned with history's ability to reveal general truths than its import as a collection of specific facts. Thus even a Thucydides will invent or alter historical details so what they signify becomes clearer. Lesser historians invented even more freely, although all respected a certain “core” set of facts that could not be radically altered. This wide variety of treatment of historical facts could lead to a confusion, even among supposedly educated people, between fact and fiction. Thus Diodorus incorporates the utopian romance of Iambulus (2.55-60) and Euhemerus (5.41.4) into his world history. For an introduction, with some bibliography, to these questions see Wiseman 1993; Morgan 1993; Feeney 1993; Woodman 1988, 197-212. Finally, Chariton's own text indicates a concept of history that includes properly mythological events. Dionysios, amazed at Callirhoe's supernatural beauty, questions his bailiff about the circumstances surrounding her arrival, suspecting that Callirhoe is a divine being: … (2.4.8-9). Such divine liaisons are thought appropriate material for sυγγεαΦεις as well as poets. For other examples of the confusion between mythology and history see Bowersock 1994, 8-13.

9. See Bowersock 1994, 1-28; also Merkle 1994. I would argue, however, that Xenophon's Cyropaideia, which rewrites the history of Cyrus and Persia to illustrate Xenophon's conception of ideal kingship, represents the earliest such “alternative” history. See Tatum 1989, Stadter 1991.

10. See Bompaire 1977; Billault, 1989; Pernot 1981.

11. See Alvares 1993, 153-67; Ruiz-Montero 1989, 113-18.

12. C. P. Jones 1971, 112. For a fine example of such rivalry see C. P. Jones 1978, 101-4.

13. Konstan 1994, 32-33; Fusillo 1989, 208.

14. Chaireas and Callirhoe purposely contrasts the power of Tyche to that of Love. The account of Theron's discovery demonstrates the widespread Hellenistic belief in the power of Fortune: “And Fortune brought to light the truth, without whom nothing is accomplished” (3.3.8). Yet later Aphrodite overrules Tyche's plan to have Chaireas leave Callirhoe behind on Arados (8.1.2-3). Both Eros and Tyche can be seen as servants of Aphrodite. See Reardon 1982. …

15. In an interesting sidelight, Beck (1996, 138) notes an inscription which describes how Sarapis orders his cult to be introduced at Opus and in the process reconciles two political enemies. See IG X.2 1.255 = Totti no. 14 (1st cent. a.d.).

16. Laplace (1980, 88-89) points out how this episode also recalls the activities of the suitors of Helen of Troy. Many of Chariton's scenes recall the myths of Helen, as seen in Homer and the Cyclic poets or in drama, especially Euripides' Helen.

17. Many scenes present Callirhoe as an apotheosis of the goddess herself. Crowds become awestruck by her beauty as if by a divine epiphany and Callirhoe is sometimes mistaken for a goddess. See 1.1.1-2, 1.1.16, 2.3.6-7, 3.2.17, 4.1.19, 4.7.5-7, 8.6.11. For further discussion see Muchow 1988, 75-87; Helms 1966, 42-45; Ruiz-Montero 1989, 126; Laplace 1980, 121-22; Scott 1938, 385-86; Edwards 1987, 29-51. However, Reardon (1996, 328-29), while acknowledging the importance of Aphrodite, sees her influence as “less than systematic.”

18. Callirhoe is called an αγαλμα (1.1.1), and in Ionia her statue is beside Aphrodite's (3.6.3).

19. The closest parallel is found in Heliodorus' Eithiopica, where the citizens of Meroë intercede on behalf of Characleia and Theagenes (10.15-40). There too the father finally gives in and, by altering the age-old custom of human sacrifice, allows the marraige with consequent benefit for the state.

20. See Laplace 1980, 84-85. Unlike Helen, Callirhoe represents more than a captivating, destructive menace. Despite the irregularity of her bigamous (but forced) marriage to Dionysios, Callirhoe seeks to uphold high standards of female probity. The passivity, obedience, and suffering of the young lovers in romance balance the self-assertion implicit in their marrying partners of their own choosing, and thus they confirm the patterns of familial control and social order. See Muchow 1988, 75, 93-98, 135-36; Heiserman 1975, 283.

21. Chariton states that it was Tyche who allowed Theron to be discovered while becalmed at sea. However, the link between Aphrodite and the sea is well known, and it is quite possible that Chariton intends his reader to imagine Aphrodite the cause of Theron's fate. Edwards (1987, 44 n. 66) refers to the cult of Aphrodite Euploia who enjoyed a vigorous cult in Asia Minor and the nearby islands. See also Mellink 1978; Farnell 1897, 636-38; Solmsen 1979, 56-57.

22. Such supervision by the archons probably reflects the practice of the Hellenistic and later periods, when the public's right to address the assembly was curtailed; see A. H. M. Jones 1940, 164. But the influence of Aphrodite here breaks down such social barriers.

23. See Plepelits 1976, 174 n. 81; Ruiz-Montero 1989, 114. Edwards (1987, 29-30 n. 20) further points out that coins from Aphrodisias feature a statue of Aphrodisian Aphrodite in a conversation with the statues of other cities, under which grouping is written homonoia. Such a temple at the romance's dramatic date, however, is anachronistic, since these temples belonged to the Hellenistic and Imperial eras.

24. At Aphrodisias a dedication was made to Homonoia and Roma in the second century b.c. See Reynolds 1982, document 1, 6-11.

25. Dio of Prusa wrote discourses on homonoia, as did Aelius Aristides. The political rhetoric of Vespasian, Trajan, and Hadrian likewise frequently mention homonoia. See Ruiz-Montero 1989, 114-15.

26. See Edwards 1987, 30-31 n. 20; Vermule 1968, 160-61. And see note 24 above.

27. Chariton's era shows an increased appreciation of marriage. Coins and funeral epitaphs stress sō phrosynē and philandria as well as homonoia, and such marital concord is stressed, for example, by Plutarch in his Advice to the Bride and Groom as well as by Musonius Rufus. See Ruiz-Montero 1989, 131-33.

28. The party of Mithridates, as it heads toward Babylon, is called … a term that often denotes a military expedition. The party of Callirhoe and Dionysios is likewise denoted (4.7.5). See Laplace 1980, 96.

29. Bartsch 1934, 5; Zimmerman 1961, 339.

30. Notice, for example, in Herodotus' description of the Median monarchy, that Deioces becomes absolute ruler through his efforts as judge (1.96-97).

31. Karabélias 1990, 393-95; Zimmerman 1961, 341.

32. Artaxerxes' religious role is evident; he is considered a god among his people … (3.7.12), and his quasi-divinity is linked to the worship of the βαsίλειοι θεοί invoked by Mithridates (5.7.10) and later by Artaxerxes (6.2.2).

33. Cook 1983, 142; J. K. Anderson 1961, 57-76. See, esp. in reference to the depiction of the importance of hunting as training, Tatum 1989, 110-11.

34. As is made clear by the text … (6.4.3).

35. The text is somewhat defective at this point. See Reardon 1989, 94 n. 97.

36. Note that now, as in a Hellenic assembly, differing views are put forth about possible challengers, after which “there was voting by hands as if in a theater” … (5.3.4). Such voting seems strange in autocratic Persia, but here again, as during the investigation of Theron, Chariton wishes us to see the democratizing effects of the erotic.

37. As Dionysios himself seems to realize; see 2.1.1-2, 2.4.4-5.

38. Konstan (1994, 1-59) points out how the Greek novels emphasize the equality of age and experience of the central lovers. Thus, despite their obvious advantages as mates, the greater age and experience of Dionysios and Artaxerxes prevent them from challenging Chaireas as a match for Callirhoe.

39. See Egger 1990, 175-76; Bowie 1985, 689; Helms 1966, 28; G. Anderson 1984, 64.

40. See, e.g., 1.11.2, 6.7.10, 7.2.4, 7.5.8.

41. When Chaireas' fleet appears, the Syracusans immediately worry that they may be hostile Athenians (8.6.2-3).

42. Like Menelaus, Chaireas has regained his wife from an Asian prince, but without incurring divine anger. See Laplace 1980, 119-20.

43. See Naber 1901, 98. In contrast, Laplace (1980, 121) sees an allusion to Aeneas and a return to his ancestral home.

44. See Jameson 1981, esp. 103-50; Frye 1976. For understanding Jameson I am deeply indebted to the discussions found in White 1987, 142-84.

Bibliography

Alvares, J. 1993. The Journey of Observation in Chariton's Chaireas and Callirhoe. Diss. University of Texas.

Anderson, G. 1984. Ancient Fiction: The Novel in the Greco-Roman World. London: Croom Helm.

Anderson, J. K. 1961. Hunting in the Ancient World. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Bartsch, W. 1934. Der Chariton Roman und die Historiographie. Diss. Leipzig.

Beck, R. 1996. “Mystery Religions, Aretalogy and the Ancient Novel.” In The Novel in the Ancient World, edited by G. L. Schmeling, 132-50. Leiden: Brill.

Billault, A. 1989. “De L'histoire au roman: Hermocrate de Syracuse.” REG 102:540-48.

Bompaire, J. 1977. “Le décor Sicilien dans le roman grec et dans la littérature contemporaine.” REG 90:55-68.

Bowersock, G. W. 1994. Fiction as History: Nero to Julian. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Bowie, E. L. 1985. “The Greek Novel.” In The Cambridge History of Classical Literature, vol. I, edited by R. D. Easterling and B. M. Knox, 683-99. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cook, J. M. 1983. The Persian Empire. London: J. M. Dent & Sons.

Edwards, D. G. 1987. The Acts of the Apostles and Chariton's Chaereas and Callirhoe: A Literary and Sociohistorical Study. Diss. Boston University.

Egger, B. M. 1990. Women in the Greek Novel: Constructing the Feminine. Diss. University of California, Irvine.

Farnell, L. R. 1897. Cults of the Greek States. Vol. II. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Feeney, D. C. 1993. “Towards an Account of the Ancient World's Concepts of Fictive Belief.” In Lies and Fiction in the Ancient World, edited by C. Gill and T. P. Wiseman, 230-44. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Frye, N. 1976. The Secular Scripture: A Study of the Structure of Romance. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Fusillo, M. 1989. Il romanzo greco; Polifonia ed eros. Venice: Marsilio.

Grimal, P. 1958. Romans Grecs et Latins. Paris: Gallimard.

Hägg, T. 1987. “Callirhoe and Parthenope: The Beginnings of the Historical Novel.” CA 6.2:184-204.

Heiserman, A. 1975. “Aphrodisian Chastity.” Critical Inquiry 2:281-96.

Helms, J. 1966. Character Portrayal in the Romance of Chariton. The Hague: Mouton.

Hunter, R. 1994. “History and Historicity in the Romance of Chariton.” In ANRW II.34.2 1055-86. Berlin: de Gruyter.

Jameson, F. 1981. The Political Unconscious: Narrative as a Socially Symbolic Act. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Jones, A. H. M. 1940. The Greek City. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Jones, C. P. 1971. Plutarch and Rome. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

———. 1978. The Roman World of Dio Chrysostom. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Karabélias, E. 1990. “Le roman de Cariton d'Aphrodisias et le droit: renversements de situation et exploitation des ambiguïtés juridiques.” In Symposion (1988), edited by G. Nenci and G. Thür, 369-96. Köln and Vienna: Böhlau.

Konstan, D. 1994. Sexual Symmetry: Love in the Ancient Novel and Related Genres. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Laplace, M. J. 1980. “Les légendes troyennes dans le ‘roman’ de Chariton Chareas et Callirhoé.” REG 93:83-125.

Mellink, M. J. 1978. “Archaeology in Asia Minor.” AJA 82:324-25.

Merkle, S. 1994. “Telling the True Story of the Trojan War: The Eyewitness Account of Dictys of Crete.” In The Search for the Ancient Novel, edited by J. Tatum, 183-96. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Morgan, J. R. 1993. “Make-Believe and Make Believe: The Fictionality of the Greek Novels.” In Lies and Fiction in the Ancient World, edited by C. Gill and T. P. Wiseman, 175-229. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Muchow, M. D. 1988. Passionate Love and Respectable Society in Three Greek Novels. Diss. The Johns Hopkins University.

Müller, C.-W. 1976. “Chariton von Aphrodisias und die Theorie des Romans in der Antike.” Antike und Abendland 22:115-36.

Naber, S. A. 1901. “Ad Charitonem.” Mnemosyne, n.s. 29:92-99, 141-44.

Pernot, L. 1981. Les Discours siciliens d'Alius Aristides: étude littéraire et paléographique, édition et traduction. New York: Arno Press.

Perry, B. E. 1930. “Chariton and His Romance from a Literary-Historical Point of View.” AJP 51:93-134.

———. 1967. The Ancient Romances: A Literary-Historical Account of Their Origins. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Plepelits, K. 1976. Chariton von Aphrodisias: Kallirhoe. Stuttgart: Hiersemann.

Reardon, B. P. 1982. “Theme, Structure and Narrative in Chariton.” YCS 27:22-24.

———. 1989. Collected Ancient Greek Novels. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.

———. 1996. “Chariton.” In The Novel in the Ancient World, edited by G. L. Schmeling, 309-35. Leiden: Brill.

Reynolds, J. 1982. Aphrodisias and Rome. London: Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies.

Robert, L. 1965. Hellenica XIII. Paris: L. Robert.

Ruiz-Montero, C. 1980. “Una observación para la cronología de Caritón de Afrodisias.” Estudios Clásicos 24:63-69.

———. 1989. “Caritón de Afrodisias y el Mundo Real.” In Piccolo Mondo Antico, edited by P. L. Furiani and A. M. Scarcella, 107-49. Perugia: Università degli Studi de Perugia.

———. 1996. “The Rise of the Greek Novel.” In The Novel in the Ancient World, edited by G. L. Schmeling, 29-85. Leiden: Brill.

Russell, D. A. 1983. Greek Declamation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Salmon, P. 1961. “Chariton d'Aphrodisias et la révolte égyptienne de 360 avant J.-C.” Chronique d'Egypt 36:365-76.

Schmeling, G. L. 1974. Chariton. New York: Twayne.

Scholes, R., and R. Kellogg. 1966. The Nature of Narrative. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Scott, K. 1938. “Ruler Cult and Related Problems in the Greek Romances.” CP 33:380-89.

Skard, E. 1931. Zwei religiös-politische Begriffe: Euergetes-Concordia. Avhandlinger Oslo, Hist.-filos. Kl. 1931 no. 2.

Sokolowski, F. 1964. “Aphrodite as Guardian of Greek Magistrates.” HTR 57.1:1-8.

Solmsen, F. 1979. Isis among the Greeks and Romans. Cambridge: for Oberlin College by Harvard University Press.

Stadter, P. 1991. “Fictional Narrative in the Cyropaideia.” AJP 112:461-91.

Tatum, J. 1989. Xenophon's Imperial Fiction: On the Education of Cyrus. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Totti, M. 1985. Ausgewählte Texte der Isis- und Sarapis Religion. Studia Epigraphica 12. Hildesheim: Olms.

Vermeule, C. C. 1968. Roman Imperial Art in Greece and Asia Minor. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Wesseling, B. 1988. “The Audience of the Ancient Novel.” Groningen Colloquia on the Novel 1:67-79.

White, H. 1987. The Content of the Form. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Wiseman, T. P. 1993. “Lying Historians: Seven Types of Mendacity.” In Lies and Fiction in the Ancient World, edited by C. Gill and T. P. Wiseman, 122-46. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Woodman, A. J. 1988. Rhetoric in Classical Historiography: Four Studies. Portland: Areopagitica.

Zimmerman, F. 1961. “Chariton und die Geschichte.” In Sozialökonomische Verhältnisse im alten Orient und im klassischen Altertum, edited by H.-J. Diesner et al., 329-45. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.