Achilles Tatius and Parody

Author(s): Kathryn Chew

Source: The Classical Journal, Vol. 96, No. 1 (Oct. - Nov., 2000), pp. 57-70
Published by: The Classical Association of the Middle West and South
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3298034 .
Accessed: 26/11/2013 08:06

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The Classical Association of the Middle West and South is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to The Classical Journal.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 130.194.20.173 on Tue, 26 Nov 2013 08:06:12 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 ACHILLESTATIUSAND PARODY'

Achilles Tatius' Leucippeand Clitophon qualifies as the

most outrageousof the ancient Greek novels. Among other
diversions the heroine and hero plan premarital sex, the
hero lets himself be seduced by the femme fatale after he discovers
that the heroine is still alive, and everyone gets off Scot free in the
end following two dubiouschastity tests, one supervised by Pan (of
all gods!) and the other framed by a piece of tricky rhetoric-the
femme fatale swears that she was not unfaithful while her hus-
band was away, for her adultery occurredafter he returned! Ever
since Rattenbury, scholars agree that Achilles Tatius breaks
boundariesin the novel genre.2 We discern elements of New Com-
edy, a flavor of parody, a delight in the absurd, a shift from ideal-
istic to realistic. In this article I aim to present a more consistent,
synthetic analysis of Achilles Tatius' literary technique and to
suggest that Achilles Tatius has a systematic style rather than
that he plays havoc with the conventionsof the genre. I propose
that Leucippe and Clitophon parodies conventional romancenovel
morality and thus that the novel is not a parody in general but in
this specific sense. The subjectof my inquiry is the romancegenre,
which is a sub-categoryof novel.3 It is clear that Achilles Tatius
has the romanceform in mind for his literary model,4 for despite
all his deviations he holds to the basic romance form:boy gets girl,
boy loses girl, boy gets girl back.
Durham recognizeda parodic aesthetic in Achilles Tatius but
misinterpreted its direction; he argued that Achilles Tatius is
parodying Heliodorus,who we now know postdates him. Cresci too
suggests that Homeric allusions in the novel lends an aspect of par-
ody to Leucippe and Clitophon. Most scholars however are reluc-

'I owe greatthanksto my anonymousreaders,to BryanReardon,who kept me

from many errors,to Brock Pennington, my helpful colleague in English, and to
SanderGoldberg,who long ago encouragedme to pursuethis idea.
2 Rattenbury1933,220. See also Reardon1994and Fusillo1996.
Stephens 1996, 657-680,distinguishesamong several sub-categoriesof novel:
ideal-romantic,nationalistic,criminal-satyric,and that of AntoniusDiogenes.
4 See Reardon1991for the ancientestablishmentof the form of romance.

THE CLASSICALJOURNAL96.1 (2000) 57-70

This content downloaded from 130.194.20.173 on Tue, 26 Nov 2013 08:06:12 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
58 KATHRYNCHEW

tant to call Achilles Tatius' novel a parody because the author does
not make enough fun of the genre's conventions." For instance,
Leucippe and Clitophon ridicules the heroine's Schein-
tod-Leucippe dies three separate times, each death more grue-
some than the last, only to reappearlater healthy and whole--but
one couldwonder why the parodist does not exploit the shipwreck
scene, the tragic tales of homosexual love, the slavery of the hero-
ine or the trusty male companion'srole. Furthermore,since all the
novels have a humorouscapacity, how can we say that Achilles
Tatius' humor is different?
In recentyears novel scholars have begunto appreciate humor
in the Greeknovels as the old distinctions "ideal" (= Greeknovels)
and "comic"(= Latinnovels) have collapsed.6 Andersondirects at-
tention to the influence of New Comedy on the Greeknovels, espe-
cially Chariton's. The domestic focus, situational comedy, stock
characters and melodrama of New Comedy all find happy homes
in the Greek novels. Trenknerthough attributes little influence
from New Comedy directly to novel and instead suggeststhat both
genres arise from storytelling; the apparent class difference be-
tween the two genres (middle class for New Comedy and upper class
for novels) indicates their disparate readerships.7 It is not un-
likely however that novelists did themselves read (or go to per-
formancesof) New Comedies and that their awareness of the genre
reflects itself in their writings.8 By virtue of their plastic form,
novels enlargeupon the scope of action of New Comedy. Of course,
both Longusand Heliodorusmustbe familiar with the motif of the
exposed child surviving to be recognizedby its long-lost family.
What Achilles Tatius does with New Comedy is precisely where
Leucippe and Clitophon differs from other romances. The Greek
romanceowes much to New Comedy; it adopts and adapts many
elements, with a notable exception of New Comedy's situational
morality. In Menander'sworks a couple's eventual marriage justi-

56 Reardon92 and Rattenbury1933,256.

Goldhillmakesa witty examinationof the Greeknovel's place in the historyof
sexuality.
7 Trenkner146.
8 Althoughevidence for literacyand economics supportsan elite readershipfor
primaryaccess to novels (Stephens 1994 and Bowie), Higg 93 suggeststhat the an-
cient convention of reading out loud lends weight to the possibilitythat novels
reached a wider audience. Egger1988 assertsthat the romances'attitude towards
women does not eliminateconsideringwomen as romancereaders. Bryan Reardon
has pointed out to me that the internalsummariesin Chariton'snovel (at 5. 1 and 8.
1) may indicatea design fororal performance.

This content downloaded from 130.194.20.173 on Tue, 26 Nov 2013 08:06:12 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 ACHILLESTATIUSAND PARODY 59

fies any premaritalsex (be that rape or otherwise). Indeed half of

Menander's plays involve premarital sex or rape leading to a
happy [!] marriage.' In the novels of Chariton, Xenophon and
Longus1o New Comedic aspects are developed within the context of
awopoaovrl (chastity), with the result that deliberately licen-
tious extramaritalsex is not approved or permitted for the heroine
or hero.'1 is a Classical virtuel2 rebornas a late Hel-
Ycoppoorvrl
lenistic ideal, in keeping with the renewed focus on the personal
and individual rather than the political and state in this period.
Sex is thus a serious issue in these novels, something a character
does not consciouslyundertake without the appropriate legal pa-
perwork. Chariton's lovers would not dream of "doing the deed"
before the nuptials are done. Marriageis idealized as well"3in the
romancesalthough characters' extreme and dramatic behavior to
maintain such idealistic standards is a significant sourceof humor.
In Leucippeand Clitophonhowever the ideal of acwppoaovrlis not
upheld. This imparts to the story a realistic feel and makes the
novel much closer in spirit to New Comedy.
Not all membersof the novel genre espouse this moral code.
The picaresque or criminal-satyricnovels, to use Stephens' classifi-
cation,"4(e.g. the Satyricon, Golden Ass, the Phoinikika and Io-
laos' work) have a roguish morality which befits their characters.
Encolpius,Luciusor Gallus(!) do not representideal or even typical
membersof society, and the societies into which they eventually
merit reintegration are far from typical as well. The fragmentary
state of most of the nationalisticnovels, which seem to share much
with the romances,prevents a definitive judgementof their moral
attitudes. The Babyloniakasummary, which Stephens also files in

9 These include Samia,Epitrepontes, Georgos,Hero, Phasmaand Perinthia;ex-

cluded are Perikeiromene, Aspis, Sikyonios,Misumenos,Dis Exapatonand Kolax.This
situationalmoralitypertains,of course, only to "decent" women and not to "true"
prostitutes,who never marrytheirclients in the play.
10 Heliodoruscould certainlybe included here, but I omit his novel since he
postdatesAchillesTatius.Like the novels of Achilles Tatius and Heliodorus,Longus'
DaphnisandChloeis a sophisticatedtwist on the basic novel form, although entirely in
keeping with standardnovel morality.
I
Hamperedby his precociousignorance,Daphnis does not understand the so-
cial dimensionsof his affairwith Lycainionuntil afterward.v. inf. p. 10-11.
12 As North finds, through the Classicalperiod means "self-re-
straint"applicableto any activity. Though her study passesaco•poaovrl
over the Hellenistic and
Imperialperiodsto patristicliterature,during that time acappoavrl comes to mean
specifically"chastity"in the sense of sexual self-restraint.
13 Egger1994examineshow the idealizationof marriageaffects the portrayalof
women in the Greeknovels.
14 v. sup. n. 3.

This content downloaded from 130.194.20.173 on Tue, 26 Nov 2013 08:06:12 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
60 KATHRYNCHEW

the nationalistic category, seems from its summaryto harbor main

characterssimilar to those in the satyric novels. The WondersBe-
yond Thule of AntoniusDiogenes, also extant only in summary,de-
fies evaluation, and though it contains many elements in common
with romances,it does not seem to privilege the central couple's
relationship as the romancesdo. Romancenovels, then, appear to
be in a category of their own with respect to morality.
Konstancalls attention to the unprecedentedreciprocity of ro-
mantic love as the distinguishing characteristic of the Greek nov-
els. For instance, as he points out, in New Comedy the hero's
female love interest is prohibited by the genre's conventions from
voicing her own erotic passions and "is represented simply as the
objectof a youngman's desire"l5;the Greek novel heroines in con-
trast all express their desire for the heroes. Achilles Tatius, how-
ever, returnsto the sensibility of New Comedy when he presents
the entire story from the perspective of the narrating hero.
Leucippe is consequentlycast in a secondaryrole in the novel: Cli-
tophon spends much of his time watching what happens to
Leucippe, and the constraintsof first personnarration prevent the
readerfrom hearing Leucippe'svoice for most of the story. In this
muteness the heroine resembles her New Comedic predecessors.
Konstan, while characterizing Clitophon as a voyeur, argues that
Leucippe'ssubsequentsilence after her declaration of passion "does
not cancel the conventions of reciprocaldesire ... that constitute the
horizon for the story of Clitophon and Leucippe.""6 Leucippe's
participation in the story however is not as extensive as
Callirhoe'sor Anthia's. Her absence from the story may be a condi-
tion first of ego-narrative, but it is a condition which Achilles
Tatius does not mediate, and his novel consequentlycontains New
Comedicechoes. Of course,a nod to New Comedy is certainly not a
principal reason Achilles Tatius employs ego-narrative."7 Achil-
les, like his fellow novelists Longusand Heliodorus, exploits the
murkylinesbetween genresand drawsupon his literary heritage to
further his novel's effect.18
In fact, Achilles Tatius offers a wild parody of reciprocal ro-
mantic love in the figure of Melite, who replaces Leucippe for

1s Konstan 10.
16 ibid. 73.
17 Reardon1994suggests that ego-narrativeenablesand contributesto the "dis-
tortions"of genericconventionswhich set AchillesTatius'novel apartfrom its set.
18 Herodotus likewise draws upon tragedy to lend dramatic aspects to his ac-
counts, e.g. the story of Croesus,Atys and Adrastus(1. 34-35).

This content downloaded from 130.194.20.173 on Tue, 26 Nov 2013 08:06:12 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 ACHILLESTATIUSAND PARODY 61

nearly half the novel. Melite has no difficulty in expressing her

overwhelming passion for Clitophon (5.15-16, 25-27). This shock-
ing reversal is characteristic of parody, which subverts the
reader's expectations. But is there enough time for the innovation
of reciprocalromanticlove to become a recognizableconvention,and
thus prone to parody? Certainly-in terms of literary parody, the
Margitesattributedto Homer in antiquity is knownto his near con-
temporary Archilochus. If Chariton dates conservatively to the
first centuryCE (or even as Goold and Papanikolaou suggest, to the
first century BCE),19then the genre would seem to possess sufficient
time to become established by the end of the second century CE
when Achilles Tatius putatively composes. Also, much of the ef-
fect of parody depends upon the reader's recognition of the work
parodied; thus there is something to be said for writers of parody
targeting the new and fashionable. For instance, Aristophanes
even parodies Euripides'works during the latter's lifetime.
Achilles Tatius treats acoapoo[ivrl in a consistently mocking
manner, and in his hands we see the genre's conventional sexual
idealism crumbleinto realism.20 Romantic love becomesnot some
idealized, sophisticated notion but something casual and comic.
The introductionof erotic love into the novel in the story of Europa
and Zeus, and then a recapitulation later in the myth of Daphne
and Apollo, conformsto the traditional framework of aggressive
masculine desire and feminine silent compliance, as Konstan ac-
knowledges.21The Europamyth appears in an ecphrasis, a high
literary figure which hearkens back to Homer. The ecphrasis' ele-
vated tone is reducedto a giggle when we read the description of
Eroswhich caps the myth: ETr'OTpaT-rTO BE c ~S irr TOv Ai(a Kai
alrTOU KaTayEX•OV, OTI 8l' auTOV yEyovE
TrrEJIEIBI'a, OCYT'Ep 300iS
("and so he had turned a smile toward Zeus, as if laughing at him
mockingly, because on account of him he had become a bull," 1. 1.
13). Depicting the king of the gods as a prime example of love's
fool is programmatic for Achilles Tatius' parodic treatment of his
novelistic and Classical tradition. If the gods turn into helpless
idiots under the power of erotic attraction, what can mere mortals

19 Goold 1-2. Reardon1991,5, puts Charitonin the mid firstcenturyBCE.

20
Rattenbury1926,70-71,judges that Achilles Tatius'novel is a backlashagainst
the unreasonableand excessivelystrict moralityof his predecessors.Rattenburyhere
takesa very straightreadingof the novel and finds something apologeticin the way
the novel breaksboundaries-it was only "natural"and "just"that Clitophon sleep
with Melite--to expect otherwiseis "unfair."
21 Konstan 65-66. Konstan argues that at this point Clitophon does not know

Leucippe'sfeelings, hence the one-sided perspective.

This content downloaded from 130.194.20.173 on Tue, 26 Nov 2013 08:06:12 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
62 KATHRYNCHEW

do but imitate their betters? Voicing this very question,Clitophon

even chides himself for failing to follow Apollo's lead and pursue
Leucippe boldly (1.5.7): "&KaipoSaoqppovEIS"("you practice an
untimely chastity"). Eros' displeasure at his victims' resistance to
passion is a commonplacein the romances.22 Clitophon's own "in-
ner-Eros"speaks to him along such lines (2.5.2). But for all Clito-
phon's disparagement of his own chastity, he actually explores
farther into his heroine's charms before marriage than any of the
other romanceheroes.
Deities are far from the only targets of Achilles Tatius' wicked
humor. Clitophon's friend Cleinias embarksupona tirade against
women in the vein of Semonides and calls women a
&TXrlXpa, a "mitigateddisaster" (1. 8. 8). Such an outburst~irptov
is more
appropriate for the satyric novels than for a reference, however
true, to every hero's unspoken aspiration, the pure hand of the
heroine in marriage. This reversal in romance'sconventional atti-
tude toward women also foreshadows the troubles in which
Leucippe and Melite will entangle Clitophon.
The helpful friend is another stock role in romances,and the
hero's loyal companion tends to act like an understudyfor his role:
Hippothoos assists Habrocomesin behaving like a worthy hero, as
does Knemon for Charikleiaand Theagenes. Not so in Leucippeand
Clitophon. Cleinias more closely resemblesthe tricky slave char-
acter from New Comedy, who helps his master get the girl by hook
or by crook. Cleinias' advice an seductionis worthy of Ovid (1. 9-
10), whereas Polycharmus would surely die before suggesting to
Chaireas that he fornicate with Callirhoe.
Appropriately enough, there are no references to copqpoaoCvrl
after 2.5.2, mentioned above, in the novel until the very last book.
This is a remarkable departure from the works of Chariton, Xeno-
phon and Heliodorus, which have a fairly even distribution of the
word.23Its absencesuggestsits lack of practice, and this is indeed
the case. At the novel's end Clitophon plays love's sophist and
modifies his report to Leucippe's father to emphasize his own
acoppoaovrl without really lying (8.5.2): rrpbS Trv acoppoayrvrlv
Kai o086EvEyEU8I6p1V. The hero also draws a dichot-
IETa-rro1COV
omy between Melite's passion and his own restraint (8.5.2): T6v
22
For instance, Callirhoe2.4 and 6.2 and Ephesiaka1.2.
23 There is only one occurrence of ocoppooivrl in Longus' novel; it is the name
of the slave who exposes Daphnis. Longus' play on his country dwelling characters'
countrified naivete requires that as they are ignorant of the "name" and "deed" of
love, so are they unaware of erotic restraint.

This content downloaded from 130.194.20.173 on Tue, 26 Nov 2013 08:06:12 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 ACHILLESTATIUSAND PARODY 63

MEX(TiA S Epcora KiKaTriv oa~poGouvrlv r ElvCliv. In the books that

intervene between Clitophon's infatuation and his self-defense he
and Leucippe display conductthat would make Charikleia blush
for shame.
Clitophon has prior sexual experience-with prostitutes of
course (2.37.5), but this preempts the immaculate image of a
Chaereas or Habrocomes. The convention of mutual love at first
sight in Chariton's and Xenophon'snovels has no harbor in the
heroine Leucippe, whom Clitophon must win over to passion with
some hot talk about sex in the animal kingdom (1.4-1.19). Humor-
ous and witty though this exposition is, Achilles Tatius therein
constructslove not as some transcendentexperiencebut as something,
well, animal and vulgar-another parodic subversionof romance
standards. Leucippe's above-mentioned willingness to cohabit
with Clitophon before the topic of marriage has even been
broached (2. 19) is contrastedwith the demeanor of Callirhoe, who
cannot bring herself to speak of her desire for Chaereasbefore their
wedding is publicly announced. Both Clitophon and Leucippe have
dreams in which gods instruct them to be chaste (4.1). That is,
their sexual restraintcomes not from a personal belief in the princi-
ple of chastity but is imposed upon them from the outside24;that
chastity does not come naturally to them is unique among novels.
Other heroines and heroes continually proclaim their acoppooavrl
to all interested ears,25but neither Clitophon nor Leucippe make a
practice of advertizing their chastity, and prudently so. Clito-
phon's romantic interlude with Melite after he learns of Leucippe's
survival (5.27), his rhetorical defense (5.27-6.1) and final happy
reunionwith Leucippe underminethe other romances'assumption
that a relationship is only as valid as the virtue of its partners.
Clitophon's clever explanation to Leucippe's father about "male
virginity"-which is how he characterizeshis sexual relationship
with Leucippe (8.5.7)-again redirects the reader's attention to
sexual morality. The chastity tests accentuate what Achilles Ta-
tius is really playing at (8.14); this is the earliest extant novel to
incorporate such a device, and the irony of the situation in which

24 Of course Longus'novel
plays with the conceit that the characters do not
know what either love or chastity means. As soon as Daphnis learns these things,
however, he follows conventionalbehaviorin his restrainttowardChloe.
25Chariton:1.14.10,2.6.3,2.10.1,2.10.8,2.11.6,5.4.8,5.6.1, 5.6.7. Xenophon:2.1.4,
2.10.3,3.5.6,3.12.4,5.5.5,5.14.2. Heliodorus:1.3.1,1.8.3,2.4.2, 5.22.3,8.9.22, 10.9.5. For
Longus'use of acoppoaovrlsee n. 23.

This content downloaded from 130.194.20.173 on Tue, 26 Nov 2013 08:06:12 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
64 KATHRYNCHEW

they are employed echoes the novel's ambivalent attitude toward

oco~ppooyvql.
There are few Classical predecessors for the chastity test. Rat-
tenburyoffers accountsfrom Pausanias (7.25.13) and Strabo (12.2.7)
of magical virginity tests for priestesses, Herodotus'tale (2.111) of
the salutary power of a chaste woman's urine and Ovid's story
(Fast. 4.305-344) of Quinta Claudia's superhumanperformancefol-
lowing upon her proclamationof chastity.26Given the legal impor-
tance of female virginity in Greco-Romansociety-a woman's
virginity at marriage and chastity thereafter guaranteed the le-
gitimacy of her husband'schildren and her children's right to the
family inheritance, the lack of literary evidence for chastity tests
suggests that female virginity is an important but tacit and unques-
tionable value. Indeed, sensitive issues such as this are usually
avoided by more circumspectauthors,but Achilles Tatius obviously
enjoys shocking his reader-for instance,when the priest taunts the
villain Thersander with his youthful past as an over-eager
ipcoI'Evo (8.9). Achilles Tatius' invention of chastity tests points
out his awareness of the conventions of the genre, for chastity is the
heroine's only ticketback to a reunionwith her hero. Thus his use
of chastity tests is a self-consciousallusion to his parody of romance
morality-for when the tests are announcedthe reader's first con-
cernis that Leucippeand Melite should fail! Such a brilliant in-
vention appeals even to the premier wit of Heliodorus, who makes
both his heroine and his hero meet the challenge of the gridiron.
The other novels exhibit a curiouscombinationof archaizing
and contemporarystandards. One such ideal finds its roots in
Homer'sworks and in the Homeric notion that external character-
istics are indicatorsof internalvirtues. For instance, all the heroes
of the Iliad (except the unfortunate Thersites) possess godlike
beauty, compelling eloquenceand steely courage. This motif is ex-
emplified by novel heroines and heroes-their consummatephysi-
cal beauties are matched by equally noble characters. Thus we
could not imagine the immaculate Anthia or highbred Habrocomes
either contemplatingor (Artemishelp us!) undertakinganything as
dastardlyor vile as casual sex. Good behavior is de rigueurfor the
well-born lovers, and included in this category is adherence to the
ideal of ocoppoo6vrl. Achilles Tatius questions this absolutist atti-
tude by creating characters who are technically honorable though
morally imperfect. That is, Leucippe and Clitophon set up an "il-
26 Rattenbury 1926, 64-66.

This content downloaded from 130.194.20.173 on Tue, 26 Nov 2013 08:06:12 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 ACHILLESTATIUSAND PARODY 65

licit" erotic rendezvous, but they are prevented from carrying it

through; though Clitophon boasts that he is a virgin with respect
to Leucippeand he is vicariously acquitted of adultery by Melite's
clever oath, Achilles Tatius flaunts his fling with Melite in the
reader's face.
So the Greeknovel's treatmentof acopoo0vrl is what Achilles
Tatius ridicules, and his is a thematic rather than a philological
parody. There are however other parodic or comedic effects in the
novel which must be considered. All of these, it seems, have to do
with sexuality-namely, the heroine's three Scheintode and the
mocking treatment the villain Thersander receives at the trial.
Leucippe's three deaths which the author certainly intends his
reader to take humorously--as evidenced by Clitophon's ridiculous
lament (7.5.2-3, "alas, Leucippe, how often have I seen you
die?")-can be understood as violence representing a displaced
sexuality. For instance, the heroine's initial disembowelment
(3.15) is a metaphoricalrape:men use [phallic] swords to penetrate
a virgin's abdomen and render her lifeless. This echoes her
mother's dream that a man with a knife slits Leucippe from
genitals to abdomen (2.23) and Clitophon's aborted attempt at a
tryst with her (2.23). Then Leucippe's beheading (5.7) by the
mercenary is a metaphorical castration, an act which renders
Clitophon impotent to help her and foreshadows the powerless
situation into which Leucippe soon finds herself cast. Leucippe's
final murderby stabbing at Melite's order (7.3) expresses Melite's
jealous wish for the heroine's sexual violation, which would spoil
Leucippe'schancesof ever marrying Clitophon. The priest berates
Thersander's character in the trial at the end and makes him a
laughing stock by charging that Thersander enjoyed his youthful
homosexual relationships as an EpchPEVO(8.9). Thersander's
defense advocate Sopatros rebutts that his client behaved chastely
and discreetly in his youth (8.10.7):TOvy8 EEoCavpou (3iovToactv
1TaVTESKai EK TpchTTIS
fl lKitaS lETa oCMpoo0VTSflK6aClItOV.The
emphasis on acoqppoo6vrlrefocuses the reader's attention on
Achilles Tatius' parodic manipulation of romanceconvention. The
wonderful irony that Thersander is the only main character who
does not "get any" in the story yet receives punishmentmakes the
parody more effective and foreshadows Melite's and Leucippe's
chastity trials.
The "infidelities" of Callirhoe and Daphnis are not in the
same league as Clitophon's. Both Callirhoe and Daphnis have
unselfish motives and act on behalf of loved ones in an established

This content downloaded from 130.194.20.173 on Tue, 26 Nov 2013 08:06:12 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
66 KATHRYNCHEW

long-term relationship. Theirmotives requireno apology, and none

is offered in either case. In fact, Chaereas does not question his
wife's decision to marry Dionysios, for he understands the con-
straints under which she made her choice-at the time she be-
lieved him to be dead and she desired their child to be born free.
Daphnis in fact does not realize that the act which he commits
with Lycainion has any social dimensions. He genuinely believes
that his "lesson"has been ordered by the gods to help himself and
Chloe discover what "love" makes one do. Even his subsequentre-
straint toward Chloe grows out of his fear of causing her to bleed
rather than any social conscience. Longusof coursesolves this plot
complication by dovetailing sexuality into the issue of Chloe's
marriage. Albeit naive, Callirhoe's and Daphnis' actions are con-
sistent with their characters. Clitophon on the other hand has no
committed relationship with Melite. In fact he has every reason
not to sleep with her-both of their beloveds, long assumed de-
ceased, have shown up alive and well. Yet he does bed her and de-
scribes the experience with a self-satisfied air. That he feels
compelled to justify his motivation to his interlocutor(healing Me-
lite, iaaodarlv,out of pity 6. 1. 1 and fear of Eros 5.27.2) points up
how uncharacteristicand unexpected his action is, especially as he
has not before feared Eros' wrath at his chastity with Leucippe.
Moreover he admits to pleasure and characterizes the affair as
casual sex (T6 aTrEpiEpyov tiilov 5.27.4), as Rattenbury comments,
"an admission which no torture would have wrungfrom Theage-
nes."27 Callirhoe's sexual relationship with Dionysios is only im-
plied but never explored, and although LongusdescribesDaphnis's
technical sexual proficiency, he does not focus on Daphnis' own
pleasure in his act with Lycainion, nor does Daphnis reflect an the
love lesson as a cause for shame. Clitophon's mellifluous rhetoric
cannot mask the self-interest involved in his action, nor can he
claim an idealistic naivety.
Can we then call Achilles Tatius' treatment of the Greek
novel's use of ocoq~pooavrl a parody? Fusillo argues that Leucippe
and Clitophon is not a parody but a pastiche, a rewriting of the
novelistic genre accepting all its conventionsand ironical at their
expense.28Finkelpearl and Connorsexamine the Latin picaresque
novels of Apuleius and Petroniusrespectively as parodies of epic,
that is, the parody of a higher genre by a lower genre. The dispar-

27 Rattenbury 1933, 256.

28 Fusillo 28-29.

This content downloaded from 130.194.20.173 on Tue, 26 Nov 2013 08:06:12 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 ACHILLESTATIUSAND PARODY 67

ity in literaryculture between the two genres generates the humor-

ous effect. Parody however does not necessarily need to be of
different genres-e.g. the Batrachomyomachia is an epic poem like
its models. The Batrachomyomachia achieves its parody by ex-
ploiting the disparity in subjectmatter between its battle of wood-
land creaturesand the heroes of the Trojanwar. Achilles Tatius
plays a similar game in his novel by constructinga disparity be-
tween the morality of his characters and that of characters in
other romances. I have pointed out above that the romancesseem to
be in an elevated moral category of their own. Stacked up next to
Chaireas or Habrokomes,Clitophon seems more like a character
from Petronius'or Apuleius' works,or perhapseven fromNew Com-
edy, let loose in a romance to create a little havoc. The best parody
should also be recognizable. Unfortunately there are no extant an-
cient responsesto Achilles Tatius' novel. Although it is tricky to
attempt to gauge ancient reaction based upon modem impressions,
there are enough internal clues in Leucippeand Clitophon to indi-
cate that Achilles Tatius expects his reader to catch on to his liter-
ary game.
Genre theory is a minefield. Its scholars agree that boundaries
between genres and classifications collapse under rigid structural
analysis.29 That said, there are distinctions that can be made.30
Modem parody theorists define parody as the manipulation of a
standard model so that humor (shock etc.) occurswhere expecta-
tions are subverted.31Genette characterizesparody as "transforma-
tive" rather than "imitative" like pastiche; pastiche moreover
lacks a comic effect.32 Hutcheon points out that pastiche stresses
the similarity between the new text and its model.33 Accordingto
Rose, quoting Albertsen,pastiche reproducesboth the form and con-
tent of its model but does not polemically reformthis model.34 The
two main characteristics of parody, then, are its effect (not only
humorbut also shock and surprise) and its agonistic relationship
with its model. Achilles Tatius'novel is much more than imitative

29 Fowler40-41;Martin179-181;Finkelpearl41.
30 Finkelpearl36-38distinguishesbetween ancientand modem parody. Ancient
parody is looserthan modern parody--it can range from imitation or quotation to
mock epic to subtly altered quotation. As ancient parody encompassesmodem par-
ody, AchillesTatius'parodyof romancemoralityis a parodyby both ancientand mod-
ern standards.
31 Rose 1979 and
1993,Genetteand Hutcheon.
32 Genette 24-25.
33Hutcheon 33.
34Rose 1993,73.

This content downloaded from 130.194.20.173 on Tue, 26 Nov 2013 08:06:12 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
68 KATHRYNCHEW

of romance. Leucippe and Clitophon produces the appropriate

characteristic effects of parody an its reader. We expect Leucippe
and Clitophon to be typically virtuous lovers; thus we are amused
and appalled by Leucippe'spromiscuousbehavior with Clitophon
and by Clitophon's tryst with Melite. We expect ourheroine to die
once, but after the third Scheintod we have to roll oureyes. These
and the other above mentioned episodes satirizing conventional
acOppoaovrvprovoke laughter, or at least a raised eyebrow, by
their inversion of our expectations.
There remains to consider parody's other characteristic, its
criticalengagement with its model. Both Rose and Hutcheon adopt
the term "refunction"coined by Brecht to describe this relation-
ship.35 Refunctioningis the adaptation of the elements of a liter-
ary genre into a new context and thus a new function. Accordingto
Rose this new function for parody is usually criticism of the
model.36 Hutcheon concludes that parody paradoxically is an
"authorized transgression"in that a parody adopts its structure
from the work parodied and criticizes it, but at the same time the
parody validates its model through its imitation." The objectof
Achilles Tatius' criticism is the ideal of aoqpocavrT in the other
novels. I have already pointed out Leucippeand Clitophon's debt
to New Comedy, which depicts a life and morality that is much
closer to "real" than the extreme, idealistic morality of the other
Greek novels. Achilles Tatius questionsthe ridiculously overblown
moral scrupulosity in his predecessors' novels by inverting the
moral impulses of his own characters. Yet when he retains the ge-
neric conventionof chastely marryingoff his lovers at the end, he
makes the interpretationof his critique incumbentuponhis reader.
In this way Leucippeand Clitophon is every bit the "authorized
transgression"which Hutcheon describes, which plays with its
reader and pushes the limits with its perversity. As a parody of
novel morality then Leucippe and Clitophon follows the conven-
tions of its generic models as far as storyline, complications and
resolutions,but its executionof these elements is guided by its aban-
donment of the fundamentalconventionof accppoairvrl.

to the product of its social context; "re-func-

35 Brechtunderstoodliterature be
tion"describeshow older formsof literaturecan be reused and given new functions
in theirnew contexts. Rose and Hutcheonsee parodyas providinga new context for
an older genre.
36 Rose 1979, 21.
37Hutcheon, 26.

This content downloaded from 130.194.20.173 on Tue, 26 Nov 2013 08:06:12 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 ACHILLES TATIUS AND PARODY 69

Rattenbury suggested that, like Euripides for tragedy, Achilles

Tatius hails the collapse of the novel genre by destroying its
boundaries.38 Now although we have no solid date for Leucippe
and Clitophon, we at least know that likely more than a century
separates Achilles Tatius from his successor Heliodorus. As far as
breaking boundaries and challenging convention, we see these traits
appear even in Homer's works. His Odysseus and Achilles are by
no means formulaic heroes. Homer makes their personalities com-
pelling and their stories poignant and real by problematizing the
figure of the hero. One of the best things we can hope for from good
literature is a challenge to rethink values. This is perhaps exactly
what Achilles Tatius provokes his readership to do, by designing a
distinct disparity between the moral code which his characters
indirectly affirm through their marriage and the morality they
actually practice. Of course, Heliodorus picks up where Achilles
Tatius leaves off, takes the novel in an entirely different direction
and stretches conventions to such a degree that Hunter proposes
that no new novels appear after Heliodorus because he left the
genre nowhere to go.39 But that is another story.

KATHRYNCHEW
Vassar College

Bibliography
Albertsen,L. L. 1971. "DerBegriffdes Pastiche," OrbisLitterarum 26: 1-8.
Anderson,Graham. 1982. Eros Sophistes. Ancient Novelists at Play. Chi-
cago.
Bowie, Ewen. 1994. "The Readership of Greek Novels in the Ancient
World." In J. Tatum,ed., The Searchfor the Ancient Novel. Johns Hop-
kins. 435-59.
Connors, Catherine. 1998. Petroniusthe Poet. Verseand LiteraryTraditionin
theSatyricon.Cambridge.
Cresci,L. R. 1976. "Citazioniomerichein Achille Tazio," Sileno2: 121-6.
Durham,D. B. 1938. "Parodyin Achilles Tatius," CP 33:1-19.
Egger,Brigitte. 1994. "Womenand Marriage in the Greek Novels: The
Boundariesof Romance." In J. Tatum,ed., The Searchfor the Ancient
Novel. JohnsHopkins. 260-80.
-----. 1988. "Zu den Frauenrollenim griechischenRoman Die Frau als
Heldin und Leserin." GroningenColloquiaon theNovel1: 33-66.
Finkelpearl,Ellen D. 1998. Metamorphosis of Languagein Apuleius. A Study
of Allusionin theNovel. Michigan.
Fowler, Alastair. 1982. Kindof Literature.An Introductionto the Theoryof
Genresand Modes. Harvard.

38Rattenbury 1926, 70-71 and 1933, 256-257.

39 Hunter 48.

This content downloaded from 130.194.20.173 on Tue, 26 Nov 2013 08:06:12 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
70 KATHRYNCHEW

Frye, Northrop. 1957. Anatomy of Criticism. Four Essays. Princeton.

Fusillo, Massimo. 1988. "Textual Patterns and Narrative Situations in the
Greek Novel." GroningenColloquiaon theNovel1: 17-32.
-------1996. "Modern Critical Theories and the Ancient Novel." In G.
Schmeling, ed., The Novel in the Ancient World. Brill. 277-305.
Genette,Gerard. 1997. Palimpsests:Literaturein the SecondDegree. Ne-
braska. (tr. Gerald Prince).
Goldhill, Simon. 1995. Foucault'sVirginity:Ancient EroticFiction and the
Historyof Sexuality.Cambridge.
Goold, G.P. 1995. Chariton. Callzrhoe.Harvard.
Higg, Tomas. 1983. The Novel in Antiquity. California.
Hutcheon, Linda. 1985. A Theoryof Parody. The Teachingsof the 20th Cen-
turyArtForms. Methuen.
Hunter, Richard. 1998. "The Aithiopika of Heliodorus: Beyond Interpreta-
tion?" In R. Hunter, ed., Studies in Heliodorus. Cambridge Philological
Society, supp. vol. 21.
Konstan,David. 1994. Sexual Symmetry.Lovein the Ancient Novel and Re-
lated Genres. Princeton.
Martin, Wallace. 1986. Recent Theoriesof Narrative. Cornell.
North, Helen. 1966. SOPHROSYNE.Self-Knowledgeand Self-Restraintin
GreekLiterature.Cornell.
Papanikolaou,A. 1975. Chariton-Studien.Untersuchungenzur Spracheund
Chronologieder griechischenRomane. Hypomnemata, Heft 37. Gottingen.
Plepelits, Karl. 1996. "Achilles Tatius." In G. Schmeling, ed., The Novel in
the Ancient World. Brill. 387-416.
Rattenbury, R. M. 1926. "Chastity and Chastity Ordeals in Ancient Greek
Romances." Proc. of the Leeds Phil. and Lit. Soc., Lit. Hist. Section 1:
59-71.
----------. 1933. "Romance: Traces of Lost Greek Novels." In J. U. Powell, ed.,
New Chaptersin the Historyof GreekLiterature. 211-257.
Reardon, B. P. 1994. "Achilles Tatius and Ego-Narrative." In J. Morgan and
R. Stoneman, edd., GreekFiction:The GreekNovel in Context. Routledge.
80-96.
-------1991. The Form of GreekRomance. Princeton.
-------. 1989. ed., CollectedAncient GreekNovels. California.
Rose, MargaretA. 1979. Parody//Meta-Fiction: An Analysis of Parodyas a
CriticalMirrorto the WritingandReceptionof Fiction. CroomHelm.
-------. 1993. Parody:Ancient, Modern,and Post-modern. Cambridge.
Stephens, Susan. 1996. "Fragments of Lost Novels." In G. Schmeling, ed., The
Novel in the AncientWorld. Brill. 655-683.
---------. 1994. "Who Read Ancient Novels?" In J. Tatum, ed., The Search for
the Ancient Novel. Johns Hopkins. 405-418.
Trenkner,Sophie. 1958. The GreekNovella in the Classical Period. Cam-
bridge.
Winkler, John J. 1989. Introduction to his translation of Leukippe and Kleito-
phon. In B. P. Reardon, ed., Collected Ancient Greek Novels. California.
170-175.
Zeitlin, Froma. 1990. "The Poetics of Er6s: Nature, Art, and Imitation in
Longus' Daphnis and Chloe." In D. M. Halperin, J. J. Winkler and F. I.
Zeitlin, edd., BeforeSexuality.The Constructionof EroticExperiencein
the Ancient Greek World. Princeton. 417-464.

This content downloaded from 130.194.20.173 on Tue, 26 Nov 2013 08:06:12 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions