Rhetorical Design of the Protagonists in Greek Novels

Building upon the observations of David Konstan,^[87] Cooper understands Greek novels to be “a rhetorical echo chamber for the dynastic fears and hopes” of urban elite.^[88] The plot of Greek novels rises and falls in correla­tion to whether or not the noble protagonists join in marriage, and in fic­tional form, Greek novels play with the anxieties of urban elite that stem from the social significance of marriage in their lives.^[89] As Cooper dis­plays well, the marital union of the protagonists fulfills and/or contributes to civic and public duties within a city-state culture,^[90] but this fictional confirmation coincides with the actual decline of the polis during the rise of the Roman Empire.^[91] These novels, then, may attempt to persuade the elite audience to maintain the social structures of the polis.

For Cooper, Greek novels present the female protagonist as “a point of identification” that refers to the specific concerns of a male urban audi­ence. In particular, the Greek novel “establishes a bond of complicity be­tween the (presumably male) author and the intended reader (also presum­ably male)” through which the reader “identifies” with “the hero’s desire for the heroine.”^[94] By means of this bond, the novel “enlist[s] the male reader in the renewal of the social order both symbolically, through ideol­ogy of marriage as a ‘rampart for the city, ’ and practically, by encouraging the generation of legitimate offspring.”^[95] I will return to Cooper’s argu­ment about the supposedly male audience later in this essay; for now, I wish to emphasize where she assigns the location of persuasion in the Greek novel.

Although she does not discuss her interpretation in this way, Cooper’s reading of the Greek novel reflects Aristotelian notions about how the plot of tragedy and epic poetry works. According to Aristotle, characters are portrayed outwardly in ways that give rise to the plot; we are not meant to focus on their inner, psychological states of being so to identify personally with them (as is common in reading fiction today).^[96] Rather, the audience is meant to identify with the choices that the protagonists make; the pro­tagonists act in ways that the audience deems to be “necessary or proba­ble” given the constraints set by the story, and the choices that the protag­onists consider are socially conditioned in ways that are quite realistic for the audience.^[97] For example, in Chariton’s Chaereas and Callirhoe, Callirhoe’s dilemma of deciding between marrying Dionysius or raising by herself the child that she had conceived with Chaereas is convincing as a serious predicament precisely because the consequences of her decision are believable to the audience.^[98] Given the internal logic of the narrative (i.e., the likelihood in Callirhoe’s mind that she would never be reacquainted with Chaereas and the unbefitting notion that a son of nobility may be re­garded as illegitimate and poor), the audience would see Callirhoe’s deci­sion as “necessary or probable” given the social conditions that the audi­ence shared with the world of Chariton’s novel. But, as with characters of tragedy and epic, the hero and the heroine of Greek novels are not de­signed to be models for the audience in the sense that one should aspire to “be just like them” or even in the sense that the protagonists personify the ideal that one should try to achieve. How the protagonists respond to their situations is the point of contact for ancient audiences who were likely also of noble rank but who saw the protagonists to be far greater than they.^[99]

Aristotle’s description of characters in tragedies and epics, however, does not fully align with the characterization of the protagonists in Greek novels.

Konstan is not alone in his reading of the seemingly passive hero,^[105] but in very important ways, the heroes of Greek novels are quite similar to those of classical literature who exhibit much emotion as well as intelli­gence. In the Iliad, for example, Achilles’s inability to control his rage (χόλο?) and the ways that it consumes him are essential features that shape the plot.^[106] For the modern reader (but not to this one), it may appear that Achilles’s emotional response to Agamemnon’s actions is more jus­tified than Chaereas’s suicidal attempts in Chariton’s novel, but for the an­cient audience, the function of these characters’ emotions in their re­spective stories is no different.

The male protagonist in Greek novels is not reduced to a more passive state, but he is significantly different than one who demonstrates εγκράτεια.^[109] In fact, male characters in Greek novels often fail to control their passions. In Chariton’s novel, Dionysius is portrayed as the “wealth­iest, noblest, and most cultured man of Ionia,”^[110] but he repeatedly falls vic­tim to his passions when dealing with Callirhoe.^[111] The difference between Dionysius and Chaereas is not in terms of who masters his passions better but in terms of who directs his passions in the most appropriate way (i.e., the young Chaereas, and not the older Dionysius, is meant to be with Callirhoe). To reiterate Cooper’s observation, Greek novels promote a dif­ferent understanding of sexual passion, one that is located in noble mar­riage: the protagonists demonstrate their fidelity to each other by concen­trating (not suppressing) their sexual urges only for each other. The hero, then, is not designed to be less than someone like Cyrus in Xenophon’s Cyropaedia; rather, the hero is designed in the image of Homer’s Achilles in the way that the presentation of his emotions and intellect points to fun­damental social structures that the Greek novel promotes.

The symmetrical presentation of the female protagonist, then, is not in proportion to a “weakened” male who fails to live up to the Greek ideal of self-mastery. The heroine is constructed in the paradigm of classical he­roes, and for this reason, she is as emotional and discerning as the male protagonist. Certainly the heroine does not respond to her situations exact­ly as the hero responds to his; she does not engage in military combat, and more often than the hero, she must respond to situations acted upon her, whereas the hero initiates more of the action in the plot.^[112] There is also an emphasis on “the male gaze” upon the beauty of the heroine,^[113] but this does not necessarily mean that Greek novels were primarily meant for a male audience. Although less emphasized, the heroine gazes on the beauty of the hero, and as Brigitte Egger has demonstrated with Chariton’s novel, “the text encompasses indeterminacies which leave room for subversive female thoughts.”^[114] These novels present a more dynamic picture of the male in public spaces, but the portrait of the female that emerges is a hero­ine who actively responds to the challenges that she faces. The protago­nists do not just display mutual sexual passion, but they also demonstrate equivalent levels of knowledge. So, at times the heroines are masterful rhe­toricians; at other times, they are effective diplomats; and oftentimes, they respond courageously to the situations that they encounter.^[115]

The Greek novel, then, does not just “enlist the male reader” as Cooper argues. It “enlists” male and female nobility to uphold the institution of marriage and all the social implications that come with this agreement. Greek novels not only depict marriage as sexually desirable but also envis­age ways that the female participates in this union. Of course, these novels in no way propose an egalitarian understanding of wife and husband in ways that would satisfy modern sensibilities,^[116] but these novels advocate for the female’s involvement. How the Greek novel enlists women may be the perception of a male writer, but it could also have appealed to urban elite women who shared a common worldview with that of the author. It is possible that for these women, the heroine was perceived as active and, at times, more powerful than men.

B.