Part 7

Many episodes too are taken from Homer. The games in Delphi in honor of Apollo are indebted to those given by Achilles in honor of Patroclus. The τειχοσκοπία where Arsace on the wall of Memphis watches the combat in the plain recalls Helen on the walls of Troy. The duel there between Thyamis and Theagenes is like one of the Homeric single combats. In it Theagenes’ pursuit of Thyamis around the walls owes something to the pursuit of Hector by the swift-footed Achilles. The scar of Theagenes which is to be a sign of recognition was surely suggested by Odysseus’. The scene where the old woman evokes her dead son on the field of battle imitates the Homeric Νέκυια.[114]

Even more prominent than his debt to epic poetry is Heliodorus’ use of dramatic structure. All the usual devices of Greek tragedy appear. Indeed the plot centers on the recognition of the young Greek heroine as the white Ethiopian princess by the tokens exposed with her in babyhood: her jewels, her mystic ring, her lettered fillet. This dramatic device of an agnorisis or recognition is multiplied by Heliodorus for repeated situations: the recognition of Chariclea in beggar’s rags by Theagenes through her watchword, the identification of Charicles as her foster-father and of Sisimithres as the noble Greek who found and saved the exposed child.

No less important is the usual Greek peripeteia, or reversal of fortune, for hero and heroine are repeatedly reunited only to be separated anew; together or separately they are rescued from one catastrophe only to be plunged into a worse danger. Calasiris’ long narrative resembles not only the minstrel’s songs at the court of Alcinous of old far-off divine events, but also the messenger’s speeches in tragedy wherein events too horrible or too complicated to be presented on the stage are told with a realism which starts the imagination. The mechanism of a parallel subplot is employed in Cnemon’s life-story. The letter in Thisbe’s dead hand is indebted to Phaedra’s in Euripides’ _Hippolytus_. Cybele, Arsace’s maid, owes much in her character of confidant to Phaedra’s nurse though she is more cynical and familiar. The crowd takes the place of the chorus, now demanding human sacrifice in the name of tradition, now releasing Chariclea from it through pity, now approving of the appeal of the noble Gymnosophists in the name of the gods to abolish the immolation of human victims. The _deus ex machina_ is supplied by these very gods of the Gymnosophists, Helios, the Sun, and Selene, the Moon, celestial symbols of pure deities of space and time conceived in the philosophical mind.

Against this structure of drama the characters move as though on a stage and even through the stylized formulae of dramatic conventions usually attain individuality and vitality. Maillon seems to me undiscriminating when he speaks of them all as general types, not individuals, as marionettes who can talk, lament and complain, but are without life.[115] Even characters that fall into general groups may as in real life have distinguishing traits and in the list of characters certain are unforgettable personalities.

The hero Theagenes is of course supremely handsome and physically strong. He is also as Wolff says spectacularly courageous but easily discouraged.[116] He has to be kept from suicide by Cnemon. He has to be cheered by Chariclea. And his Lady Fair is the resourceful partner in emergencies who whispers to him “Call me your Sister” or invents means of recognition in case of separation or makes a plot to share with him his fate be it life or death. She demands too when they start off on travels together that her lover swear a sacred oath to respect her virginity. Indeed her leadership deserves the tribute given Dido, _dux femina facti_. As Calderini notes, cleverness and deception were valued traits in those times and both she displayed.[117] But she guarded her chastity even from her dearest and her courage never failed. On the battle field she can shoot her arrows. She is surrounded by a divine aura of radiant beauty that illuminates her holy garb.

The real hero of the romance is her father, the Ethiopian King Hydaspes, whose qualities she seemed to have inherited. He is the type of the good king, but beyond that he is very human. He has his humor so that when his nephew presents him with a gigantic athletic champion he smilingly gives him in exchange an elephant. He is generous to a defeated foe, freeing Oroondates and restoring him to his office so that the viceroy makes obeisance to him and calls him the most just of mortals. He follows tradition in preparing to offer to the gods foreign captives as human victims, but when convinced by the Gymnosophists of the inappropriateness of such sacrifice he leads his people to the right decision about abolishing it and happily crowns his daughter and her lover as new priests of a purified worship.

Persinna his queen is a type of frustrated motherhood, timid enough to expose at birth her beautiful white baby for fear of the charge of adultery, but when her daughter is restored to her she glows with ardent parentalism and interprets Chariclea’s wishes to her husband.

The characters in the sub-plot (Cnemon’s story) are less clearly delineated than those in the main narrative. The story serves however not merely to introduce Thisbe, who is useful for the main plot, but anticipates and prepares for certain main characters. Aristippus the betrayed husband, Demaeneta the wanton wife, Thisbe the corrupt maid and Cnemon the coveted youth parallel Oroondates, Arsace, Cybele and Theagenes himself.

The far east opens up before us under the shadow of the Great King of the Persians. He never appears, but his viceroys, their lieutenants, their eunuchs work his will with the complete subservience which their act of obeisance symbolizes. Oroondates is a good fighter, but he is ready to desert secretly the city of Syene, which he has been defending, before terms of surrender had been concluded, to start another war in the name of the Great King. His will conveyed by letters must be law to his eunuch or his wife. This arbitrariness when imitated by his eunuch Euphrates becomes sadistic tyranny over prisoners given to his care.

Arsace his wife finds her escape in intrigue and amours.[118] Highly over-sexed she stops at nothing to satisfy her passion as her wanton fancies shift from one desired lover to another. She has no mercy for Theagenes when he is obdurate or for Chariclea when she finds she is the object of Theagenes’ affections.

Cybele her maid abets her machinations and her lust. Though her position as confidante recalls Phaedra’s nurse in the _Hippolytus_, her character reproduces all the venality, cunning and complaisance of the maids in new Attic comedy. Torture and murder are natural tools for success in her eyes and when she is hoist with her own petard, she dies asserting that she has been poisoned by the innocent girl whom she had hoped to make her victim. Arsace with her Cybele is a complete foil for the purity and loyalty of Chariclea.

The most interesting among the upright characters in the play are the priests: Calasiris, high-priest of Isis in Egypt, Charicles, priest of Apollo at Delphi, Sisimithres, the Greek Gymnosophist. They are consecrated to service, devoted to worship. They are men of the world extending their knowledge by travel and talk. Calasiris on his visit to Delphi spent his days in philosophical discussion of religious rites and the meaning of the gods of Greece and of Egypt. Charicles is a humanitarian who educates the little waif Chariclea as his own daughter. Sisimithres dares withdraw from the human sacrifices proposed by a great king and people and by his personal authority converts them from such abominable customs to a purer conception of deity and of worship. Calasiris in his role of interpreting the events of the story and solving its problems, in his clear philosophical interests probably represents Heliodorus himself.[119]

To return to the structure of the romance, the plot with such borrowings from epic and dramatic poetry, with such characters, some types, some highly individualized, moves forward in a manner that resembles the modern cinema. There is no carefully interwoven plot such as tragedy presents, for example in _Oedipus Rex_. Rather there is a progression of episodes, each a clear picture in itself, all after many involutions and evolutions falling into an orderly narrative. Rattenbury thinks that after Heliodorus’ original beginning which secures the interest and sympathy of the reader through his curiosity he fails to maintain the interest throughout. The long retrospective narrative of Calasiris becomes monotonous. The reader is irritated by the postponement of the denouement after he as well as the hero and heroine knows the secret of Chariclea’s parentage. Maillon, however, finds in Heliodorus a great talent for narration. After the impressive opening scene, he says, from narrative to narrative, from description to description, one is led slowly but without ennui to the grandeur of the final chapters. The variety of the episodes does not detract from the unity of the narrative because we keep returning to Theagenes and Chariclea in whom we have been interested from the first.[120]

To me personally the defects in the romance lie not in the long narrative of Calasiris or in the early revelation of Chariclea’s identity, but in the excessive use of descriptive passages. Planned though they undoubtedly are to satisfy the craving of the age for a knowledge of the novel and the strange, or to give local color, they retard the development of the story. Often they are prolix and difficult because of an unfamiliar vocabulary and a complicated sentence structure. There are many such passages: descriptions of natural phenomena (the island city in the delta of the Nile, the straits at Calydon); of curious animals (crocodile and giraffe); of operations of war (a naval battle, the siege of Syene, the duel of Thyamis and Petosiris); the religious ceremonies at Delphi. These vary greatly in clarity and effectiveness, but in general they tend to be verbose and to retard the narrative. Such descriptions are however one of the conventional features of the Greek romance. And with all Heliodorus’ originality in plot, in his tripartite structure of epic, dramatic and cinematic features, he employs all the usual devices of Greek romance. These are oracle and oath, résumés, conversation and rhetorical speeches, letters and soliloquies, meditated suicide and apparent death, dreams and epiphanies. But Heliodorus makes these conventional devices integral parts of his plot.

The oracle given by the Pythian priestess at Delphi early in the story motivates the plot until the very end when its meaning is explained and its prophecy fulfilled. The oath which Chariclea requires of her lover early in her travels protects her chastity through all the intimacies of palace apartment and prison dungeons. Résumés of events given several times by Cnemon, by Calasiris in his long narrative, by Charicles, clarify and facilitate the plot.[121] Conversation is used constantly on the battle field or in the boudoir, in palaces, in dungeons. Turn over the pages of Heliodorus’ Greek as you would a modern novel and test how often the pages are broken and enlivened by talk. Rhetoric colors some of the longer speeches, but in the court-room scene (the trial of Chariclea for poisoning Cybele) the procedure is described but the speeches are not quoted.

Letters are as important as oracles for the development of the plot. The letter of Persinna inscribed on the fillet exposed with her child furnishes the indisputable evidence for the recognition of Chariclea. The letter in Thisbe’s dead hand is of prime importance in the sub-plot in announcing to Cnemon the death of his wicked step-mother. Business letters of Mithranes to Oroondates, of Oroondates to Arsace and to the eunuch Euphrates, of Hydaspes to the Supreme Council of Ethiopia and to his queen Persinna furnish documentation for the march of events. The letter of Oroondates to Hydaspes in the last book prepares the way for Charicles’ final explanation of his relation to his foster-daughter and his own recognition of Chariclea.

Soliloquies reveal emotional states and meditated suicide. At Chemmis one night Chariclea left alone yields to despair and vows that if she learns Theagenes is dead, she will join him in the shades. An apparent death nearly precipitates tragedy when in the dark of the cave the body of Thisbe is mistaken for that of Chariclea. Theagenes bursts into despairing lamentation and proposes suicide. But Cnemon foreseeing this has filched his sword and presently the light of Cnemon’s torch reveals the truth and there ensues a happy reversal of fortune.

Among all these usual features of the plot a new importance is given to dreams and epiphanies. They are peculiarly significant because of their bearing on Heliodorus’ philosophical and religious interests. Some motivate minor events or simply create atmosphere. Thyamis in the night before the battle with another band of brigands had a vision of Isis who gave Chariclea to him with the mystic words: “Having her, you will not have her, but you will be unjust and will kill the stranger. And she will not be killed.” At first Thyamis, interpreting the dream in accordance with his own wishes, thought it meant that he would murder her virginity, but she would live. Then when the battle went against him, he changed his interpretation and to save Chariclea from his foes, killed her (as he thought) in the cave. So Thisbe’s death is explained. Another dream of little importance is Chariclea’s in which a wild looking man appeared and pierced her right eye with his sword. Opposing interpretations are given by Theagenes and Cnemon. The epiphanies, however, which are vitally significant for the plot all foretell the final fortunes of the hero and the heroine. To Calasiris Apollo and Diana appeared, the god leading Theagenes, the goddess Chariclea, and intrusted them to him. Diana too bade him consider the pair as his children and take them to Egypt when and how the gods should decree. Charicles too dreamed that an eagle flew from the hand of Apollo, seized Chariclea and bore her away from Delphi to a land of dark forms. Calasiris again had a vision, this time of Odysseus, the great traveller, who demanded sacrifices and presented Penelope’s blessing on Chariclea. Calasiris after his death himself appeared simultaneously to Chariclea and Theagenes, telling the heroine that the Pantarbè jewel would protect her, and telling the hero that he would be freed from Arsace and take his Lady to Ethiopia. Hydaspes, when the prisoner Chariclea is brought before him, recalled a dream that a full-grown daughter was born to him and the face of this dream-girl was Chariclea’s. This prepared him for the real recognition of her identity. Now the validity of these apparitions is sometimes questioned: are they dreams or visions? The author comments that desire often prompts favorable interpretation. He has Hydaspes’ officers tell him that the mind creates for itself fantasies which seem to foretell future events. He has the optimistic Chariclea encourage Theagenes to trust in the gods and interpret Calasiris’ prophecies as beneficent. But all the same Heliodorus motivates his plot by this popular belief in dreams and epiphanies.

This structural element fits in with the religious-philosophical coloring of the whole background. Dreams and epiphanies, miracles and necromancy are partial manifestations of a deep-seated interest in cults and philosophies that is a phenomenon of the times. There is a long description of the festival of Neoptolemus at Delphi with its pageantry, sacrifices, hymn, dance, libations and the lighting of the pyre. It is here that Theagenes and Chariclea meet and at first sight fall in love. Nausicles the merchant must sacrifice to Hermes, god of trade. The festival of the overflowing of the Nile is celebrated in Egypt. And among the Ethiopians the first fruits of victory in war are offered in the form of sacrifice of human captives to their gods. The most prominent cults are those of Apollo-Helios of Delphi, Egypt and Ethiopia and of the Egyptian Isis. These are savior gods to whom mortals offer petitions for salvation.

Opinions differ as to whether the representation of the cult of Helios is the usual conventional religious background of a Greek romance or whether it is the author’s glorification of the cult of his native city with which he and his family had some official connection. At the antipodes in criticism are Rattenbury who perceives only the usual religious conventions and Calderini who thinks the unique feature of the _Aethiopica_ is its rich philosophical coloring.[122] All would agree on marked influence in Heliodorus of Neo-Pythagoreanism and the teachings of Apollonius of Tyana as recorded by Philostratus.[123] Maillon in his preface gives this discriminating summary of his own position towards Heliodorus’ philosophical interests. He says that the Pantheon of Heliodorus does not contain many deities. He refers to the gods under the Neo-Pythagorean name of οἱ κρείττονες. Calasiris whose role is most important may well represent the author’s state of mind. This priest of Isis practices a large eclecticism. He goes to Delphi and divides his time between the service of the temple and theological discussion. He worships especially one god, Apollo of Delphi, Helios of Emesa. Apollo directs the drama of his story, Helios crowns it in Ethiopia. One sees in Heliodorus the intention of simplifying and unifying mythology and of bringing back religion to its eastern and Egyptian origins. Instead of wishing to discredit pagan stories, he treats them philosophically to make them acceptable to an age which was becoming emancipated and more severe and to a new faith which wished to reconcile the philosophical tradition and the sense of the divine and the mysterious.

Neo-Pythagoreanism was a curious attempt to found a religion which would satisfy both the critical spirit and the people. At the beginning of the third century appeared _The Life of Apollonius of Tyana_, a magician and a disciple of Pythagoras. Philostratus takes his hero to the Orient, Ethiopia, Greece, Rome. He writes a real romance. And that of Heliodorus recalls it often. Both authors show the same admiration for the Gymnosophists, the same distinction between magic and theurgy. Both Apollonius and Calasiris are opposed to impure sacrifices. The story of the magical Pantarbè jewel appears in both Philostratus and Heliodorus. Calasiris like Apollonius is a model of Pythagorean asceticism. Apollonius defends himself about working miracles and lets a doubt appear about his theurgic powers. Calasiris shows in daily life a common wisdom and reserves for exceptional cases an appeal to great demons.

In the _Aethiopica_ dreams play a more important role than the demons. Communications with the invisible world are constant, but only exceptional human beings who have had long experience in divine matters and a life mortified and purified by expiation know the mysteries of the invisible world.

This paraphrase of Maillon’s paragraphs shows how completely logical is the conclusion of the romance where the noble Gymnosophist Sisimithres persuades the king of the Ethiopians and his people to renounce human sacrifice and accept the divine blessing on the loves of Theagenes and Chariclea.

“At length Hydaspes said to Sisimithres, ‘O sage! What are we to do? To defraud the gods of their victims is not pious; to sacrifice those who appear to be preserved and restored by their providence is impious. It needs that some expedient be found out.’

Sisimithres, speaking, not in the Grecian, but in the Ethiopian tongue, so as to be heard by the greatest part of the assembly, replied: ‘O king! The wisest among men, as it appears, often have the understanding clouded through excess of joy, else, before this time, you would have discovered that the gods regard not with favour the sacrifice which you have been preparing for them. First they, from the very altar, declared the all-blessed Chariclea to be your daughter; next they brought her foster-father most wonderfully from the midst of Greece to this spot; they struck panic and terror into the horses and oxen which were being prepared for sacrifice, indicating, perhaps, by that event, that those whom custom considered as the more perfect and fitting victims were to be rejected. Now, as the consummation of all good, as the perfection of the piece, they show this Grecian youth to be the betrothed husband of the maiden. Let us give credence to these proofs of the divine and wonder-working will; let us be fellow workers with this will; let us have recourse to holier offerings; let us abolish, for ever, these detested human sacrifices.’”[124]

A few words must be said on the style of Heliodorus. It is predominantly literary, but extremely varied. He uses Homer almost as much as Chariton does. His adaptation of Homeric episodes has already been described.[125] A discussion of Homer and his parentage between Calasiris and Cnemon is introduced in the style of the rhetorical schools.[126] Descriptions as well as episodes owe much to Homeric coloring, witness the epiphany of Odysseus.[127] But above all the language itself is almost as rich in quotations from Homer as is Chariton’s.

Often reminiscent phraseology betrays quotations in solution. Frequently too very famous phrases are quoted directly. Calasiris greets Nausicles with that best of all wishes: “May the gods give you your heart’s desire!” Nausicles reminds Calasiris that the gifts of the gods are not to be despised. The maid Cybele assures Arsace that soon Theagenes will desert Chariclea for her, exchanging bronze for gold.[128] Emotional crises are described or expressed in Homer’s words. Arsace’s sleeplessness has the same manifestations as Achilles. Cnemon upbraids Chariclea for her pessimism about Theagenes’ fate in the words of Agamemnon to Chalchas. And Chariclea when she is questioned by physicians as to the cause of her illness only keeps repeating: “Achilles, Peleus’ son, noblest of Greeks!” as though only the apostrophe uttered by Patroclus could describe her dear Theagenes.[129] These are but a few illustrations of Heliodorus’ constant use of Homeric diction.

No less did he use the language of the theater.[130] We have already seen how much his plot owes to the structure of Greek tragedy. From drama he took also a vocabulary of pungent metaphors to describe the progress of events in his story. Repeatedly the action is referred to as a tragedy.[131] And certain scenes by their wording imply a recognition, a _deus ex machina_, a prologue and a change from tragedy to comedy. These may, as Calderini suggests, be reminiscences of contemporary plays now lost, which readers of the time would recognize.[132] Certainly structure and language of the romance attest Heliodorus’ deep interest in the theater.

The third striking element in the diction of Heliodorus is the rhetorical. He often uses all the artifices taught in the schools: alliterations, antitheses, set phrases. He loves the grand style. A speech, even one uttered by his charming heroine, is an opportunity for pomposity. He uses in excess that fine writing for descriptive passages which the schools taught and he scatters throughout his narrative pithy truisms or _sententiae_ which were part of the capital of the rhetorician.