This edited volume represents the 30th addition to the supplements to Ancient Narrative, a familiar resource among scholars investigating ancient narrative fictions. The editors indicate in the introduction that the present volume aspires to ‘explore significant issues, which are linked to the narrative structure of the ancient novel and to the tradition of rhetorical training’ (p. xii) because ‘classical literature [has only sporadically] been studied and analysed according to these exegetical trends’ (p. xi).
Neither the introduction nor the foreword offer full details about the context for the production of the papers in the volume. The mention of conferences organised by the University of Turku and taking place on the Finnish island of Seili appears to be a programmatic statement about the methodological approach of the volume, namely to ‘[open] up to different areas and interdisciplinary approaches’ (p. ix) in a ‘mix of recreational and academic purposes’ (p. x). In addition, the year in which this conference might have taken place remains unspecified. Yet, these two pieces of information could help to explain two distinctive features of some (but by no means all) the contributions. First, several papers appear to preserve traces of an oral context of performance, such as concise contributions written in a casual style and accompanied by a limited bibliographical apparatus. The more demanding readers will be surprised by the inconsistencies in the citation system. Second, the contributions exhibit great disparity in the extent to which they engage with current scholarship, with modern literary theory and with ancient rhetoric and criticism. In the introduction references to recent significant contributions to the two investigated fields, modern literary theory and ancient rhetorical theory and practice, are absent. As a result, the gaps in scholarship are not sufficiently identified, and the originality of some of the studies and of their findings is not adequately highlighted. Nevertheless, the volume successfully executes its methodological agenda by serving as a hub for intercultural and methodological dialogue: it encompasses papers employing a diverse array of critical methodologies drawn from various disciplines such as psychology, anthropology, (structuralist) narratology and more. The contributions are authored by both experts and non-specialists in ancient novels, hailing from no fewer than nine different countries.
The thirteen chapters are unevenly distributed into three sections: ‘Modern Critical Theory’ (or ‘literary theory’ in the introductory partitio, p. xii, three papers), ‘Poetics’ (three papers) and ‘Rhetoric’ (seven papers). The structure adopted by the editors remains, however, unjustified and does not systematically reflect the content of the individual papers included.
Opening the first section, M. Fucecchi argues convincingly that the courtroom scenes in Apuleius’ Metamorphoses aim to generate a surprising and at times comical outcome; the invitation to share different perspectives serves the metaliterary function of enticing readers to read the story again and view the events in a different way. Fucecchi's view that the trial scenes in Apuleius thematise the act of reading (again) should be read alongside the conclusions of J.J. Winkler's study (Auctor and Actor. A Narratological Reading of Apuleius's Golden Ass [1985]) of interpretation in Apuleius’ Metamorphoses. Further, Fucecchi contends that the trial scenes in Apuleius’ Metamorphoses manipulate readers’ expectations about the narrative function of trial scenes in ancient Greek love novels. Attention to recent studies of the possibility, nature and extent of Apuleius’ engagement with Greek novels in the Metamorphoses could refine Fucecchi's argument. In the second chapter B.D. MacQueen explores the application of the concept of neoteny in Longus’ Daphnis and Chloe. The argument does not engage with scholarship on ancient (Greek love) novels and on Longus post-1995. Yet, the work of, for example, S. Lalanne (Une éducation grecque. Rites de passage et construction des genres dans le roman grec [2006]) and K. De Temmerman (Crafting Characters. Heroes and Heroines in the Ancient Greek Novel [2014]) have significantly improved our understanding of character development and emotions in ancient novels, not to mention the two complementary and extensive commentaries of J. Morgan (Longus: Daphnis and Chloe [2004]) and E. Bowie (Longus: Daphnis and Chloe [2019]). The paper of J.-P. Guez – a significant contribution to the study of Philostratus’ Apollonius of Tyana – is an abridged version of a 2012 publication in French (‘Magie et sophistique dans la Vie D'Apollonios de Tyane’, in: S. Dubel, S. Gotteland and E. Oudot [edd.], Éclats de littérature grecque d'Homère à Pascal Quignard [2012]). It explores the representation of magic in the novel under a stylistic lens: Philostratus reflects on the magical abilities of language and its perceived value. In the conclusion Guez suggests that Apollonius is ‘the living embodiment of Gorgianic speech’ (p. 48).
The second section is dedicated to exploring the poetics of the novel. However, the demarcation between this section and the others is not immediately evident. M. Reig Calpe argues that Heliodorus engages critically with the concept of homoiotes found in Plato and Aristotle. A presentation and discussion of the relevant passages in Plato and Aristotle would have helped to highlight the importance of the concept for Heliodorus’ novel. S. Tilg outlines, based on an examination of passages from novels in which the name Homer is cited, that the construction of Homer in Greek love and Latin novels is reflexive: allusions to the founding father of Greek literature are an occasion for generic reflection and for highlighting a specific novelist's unique conceptualisation of the genre in relation to those who came before them. I. Protopopova argues that repetitions of different colours in descriptions in Achilles Tatius’ novel are not a sign of the ‘author's clumsiness’, but should be interpreted as intentional and therefore meaningful. However, her analysis fails to consider the intricate narrative structure of the novel: the protagonist Clitophon is an internal first-person narrator, while his narration is framed by a primary narrator recounting how he met Clitophon. This structure raises the question of the narrative instance to which the responsibility of the pattern is attributed.
In three of the seven papers in the section dedicated to rhetoric, whose definition is confined to ‘rhetorical training’ in the introduction (p. xii), rhetorical theory, training and oratory play only an incidental role. On the basis of a detailed and close reading of the text L. Miguélez-Cavero argues that Heliodorus’ Aethiopica uses animals as a metaphorical means of characterising the protagonists: they represent the evolution of their character through the novel and thematise issues of control and domination. She further contends that the characterisation of secondary characters and ethnic groups is equally constructed through animals. In the second paper Z. Pavlovskis-Petit, using concepts and tools from, for example, Vladimir Propp's analysis of folktales and psychoanalysis, interprets the riddles as rites of initiation, which thematise the identity of the characters asking and answering them, and explores their erotic and incestuous undertones. M. Marinčič's contribution consists in a detailed and dense examination of the textual correspondences between the painting of Europa in the initial frame and two scenes in the novels, Clitophon's seduction of Leucippe and his seduction by Melite. It generates several important interpretations, chiefly that Melite's and Clitophon's love affair in the fifth book is a ‘rival novel’ (p. 181). Consideration of a similar argument by N. Schmid-Dümmler (Achilleus Tatios, Leukippe und Kleitophon. Rhetorik im Dienst der Verführung [2018]) would be helpful here.
The contributions on rhetoric in the final section focus on rhetorical training and theory, but only incidentally on rhetorical practice and sophistic oratory. Furthermore, the contributions rely on a restricted range of primary sources for their analyses, specifically progymnasmata and rhetorical and critical texts from the classical Greek and Latin period. However, they do not consider other sources, such as the commentaries, treatises on style and on issue theory etc. contained in C. Walz's Rhetores Graeci, a nine-volume edition of rhetorical texts. Of the four remaining papers, three deal with the relevance of progymnasmata, exercises in composition taught at elementary level in the rhetorical curriculum, for ancient and Byzantine novels. J.A. Fernández Delgado provides a detailed stylistic analysis and catalogue of rhetorical devices contained in the seasonal ekphrases of the novel, which he compares to the behaviour and psychology of the protagonists. However, the ways in which seasonal ekphrases develop the ‘education of the sensibility of the author and … readers’ (p. 101) is not clearly stated. Furthermore, the paper does not problematise reader responses to the descriptions. In the conclusion he argues that the novel's ‘degree of refinement … has managed to persuade not a few scholars of [their] apparent realism and naturalness’ (p. 113). What about readers who could find that the conspicuous embellishments create a sense of distance – and/or responses lying between these two extremes? R. González Equihua's paper aims to underscore the role of progymnasmata in mediating the reception of Homer in Heliodorus’ Aethiopika. This is primarily achieved by an examination of two eidolopoieai (‘attribution[s] of speeches to the dead’ p. 146) situated in the fifth and sixth books of the novel, which allude to the nekuia in Odyssey 11. However, the paper lacks a delineation of interpretative strategies regarding the Odyssean passage specifically developed within the context of progymnasmata. This omission may be explained by the observation made by González Equihua: our existing corpus of progymnasmata does not preserve examples of eidolopoiea based on this specific episode of the Odyssey; it is only (implicitly) referenced in other exercises (pp. 146–7). Finally, J. Ureña Bracero lists episodes in the Byzantine novel Hysmine and Hysminias that could rework exercises from progymnasmata treatises. He seems to suggest (p. 199) that the presence of certain types of progymnasmata acts as metonymical means of characterisation: they are associated with a specific character, the author, in order to underscore his social position. Finally, G. Jensson argues that descriptions of bodily reactions and of delivery tones surrounding the characters’ (in)direct speech give indication about the performance of the internal, first-person narrator Encolpius impersonating these characters in Petronius. Despite stimulating insights and analyses of passages, the paper lacks evidence to support certain assertions. For instance, the claim that ‘the voice of Encolpius is not introduced by an external speaker, who then impersonates him’ (p. 156) is problematic in view of the fragmentary nature of the Satyricon, of which the initial frame has not come down to us. In addition, this statement raises questions about the identity of the narratee(s) of Encolpius, important information for the types of analyses that Jensson generates.
The volume addresses themes that have received insufficient attention or inadequate exploration within current scholarship. Its structure and limited engagement with current scholarly literature and methodological frameworks do not allow it to fulfil the objectives that it has set. Yet, it contains several contributions with stimulating thematic explorations and discussions of (passages of) ancient Greek and Latin novels, which will be useful to researchers of ancient novels, rhetorical theory and ancient narratives.
