PROCESAMIENTO Y ANÁLISIS DE ENTREVISTAS APLICADAS

When dealing with the use of rhetoric in the novels we need to distinguish whose rhetoric we are talking about. Does rhetoric belong to the character making the speech, so that it can be seen as a means of characterisation, or does it belong to the author, in which case it would mean that the novel contains rhetorical pockets directly coming from the authorial voice?

Rhetorical speeches of the novels can be produced by the speakers themselves, the narrator-participant in the story, or the author. The question that arises then is: how does the rhetoric employed by a character in a novel suit his/her characterisation or status? Why do we often find people of a different status such as women, servants, robbers, etc. having rhetorical abilities? What makes them have these abilities?

In Achilleus Tatios, for example, rhetorical techniques used in speeches sometimes appear to be unlikely for their speakers; rhetoric seems to be imposed on them for the sake of epideixis. This may be because the novel is a first person narrative by the main hero, Kleitophon. The narrator-protagonist takes over and presents show-pieces for the sophisticated reader. In these instances rhetorical principles are taken very seriously indeed, leading to a richness of rhetorical techniques and motifs.

The novel of Achilleus Tatios is the first Greek ego-narrative novel. The novel, however, is the story of Kleitophon narrated to the authorial voice which is clearly heard i n i , 1 - 1 , 2 in first person; “the reader experiences events through the eyes of the narrator-hero and can more easily identify with him and the other characters.”^^^

The first narrator - the authorial voice - and Kleitophon - the narrator- protagonist of the story - appears to have similar interests and tendencies. The first narrator is attracted by a certain picture which he describes in great detail, presenting thus an excellent ekphrasis (1, 1, 2 - 1, 1, 13). Earlier (1, 1, 1) his description of the Sidonian port has similar qualities, and also later (1, 2) the first narrator appears irresistibly attracted to Kleitophon's story whom he

encounters near the place where the picture was. Kleitophon is going to offer his story as evidence of how true the first narrator’s explanation of the picture is: “oiov cigxei Ppecpoç oupavou xai yfig xai SaXdooTiç” (1, 2, 1). In their short discussion the first narrator appears eager to listen to Kleitophon’s story even if it might look like a fiction: “M ti xaroxvi]oj]ç, œ péXriore” eqpr|v, “jtpoç t o u Aïoç

xai TOU ''E q c o t o ç aÛ T O ü, t o u t t i |AdX.X,ov fjoeiv, el xdi ^luSoiç êoixe” (1, 2, 2 -3 ).

Soon we realise that both the authorial voice and the narrator-protagonist tend to be attracted to stories. All the information we get from the beginning of the novel about the first narrator point in this direction. In the rest of the novel the second narrator behaves in a similar way.^^^

The novel is thus presented as the result of the accidental meeting and conversation of two people: two characters (the first narrator is also a character no matter how small his participation in the initial chapters is) who could be easily identified as two scholastici or two pepaideumenoi}^^ educated people of the time, who share similar in te r e s ts .T h e ir initial exchanges are also the author’s introduction to his readers. First, it is made clear that Kleitophon is narrating his own story in which he is the main hero. Second, this initial dialogue and the rhetorically charged ekphrasis serve to attract people who are equally interested in such stories and rhetoric. The rhetoric used by the speakers serves as a preparation for the abundance of the rhetorical material contained in the novel, and perhaps is indicative of the intended readership of this novel.

Holzberg (1995), p. 90; see also the discussion in Hâgg (1971) p. 124ff. and Yatromanolakis (1990) Achilleus Tatios^. 92ff.; for the “narrative complexity which the presence and variation of a narrative voice can offer” in the Greek “sophistic” novels see Harrison (2000) pp. 234-235.

For an enlightening comparison between the narrator-protagonist and the initial narrator - the authorial voice or “the ideal listener” (as called by Yatromanolakis), see Yatromanolakis (1990) Achilleus Taf/ospp. 94-95.

The term is found in Chariton 5, 4, 1 where the narrator characterises Dionysios as such. It has been widely used by Anderson for the intellectual educated people of the sophistic schools in the age of the second sophistic; see esp. in his (1989) p. 79ff. and (1993) p. 171 and passim, for

scholasticus, see Bonner (1977) p. 309f.; also Conte (1996) passim.

Conte (1996) identifies the main hero (and others) in the novel of Petronius as scholastici.

There, Conte claims, the scholastici are “made objects of derision by the ironic strategy by the “hidden author.” In this way the author invites “his reader to chuckle at the mania for grandeur of declamatory, scholastic culture. The aim of striking at the vanity of his culture explains why the author hid himself, preferring to hand over his stage to degraded characters nourished on great literary models” (p. vii); see also ib id chapter 1, pp. 1-36; also pp. 37-38 and elsewhere. This reference along with the initial question of this chapter (p. 29) and encouragement to view Achilleus Tatios’ novel in the light of Conte’s interpretation of Petronius was given to me by Dr. J. Morgan for which I am grateful to him.

As Harrison has rightly noted, because of the set-up of the prologue there is “a clear distancing of the plot of the novel from the voice of the author” and, at the same time, “failure to return to this frame at the end, surely deliberately, adds to the impression of complexity in the matter of narrative voice.”

In Achilleus Tatios’ novel rhetoric is a pre-eminent characteristic of the main hero, the narrator-protagonist, who has the tendency to be drawn into situations which are given rhetorical treatment and, thus, he produces rhetorical showpieces, such as ekphraseis, various descriptions, rhetorical speeches, etc. This is apparent from the very beginning and it gives a clue for the way we should read this novel. It is not confined to his own speeches but seems to appear in the speeches of other characters, betraying the narrator-protagonist’s inclination to reproduce rhetorical s p e e c h e s .T h e result is an abundance of showpiece rhetoric in the novel. This, we assume, was destined to be appreciated by its readers who would get enjoyment by recognising what they knew from schools; it is also instructive principally for the characterisation of the protagonist. The educated person at the peak of the second sophistic, the product of the schools, had similar tendencies to the ones that the narrator- protagonist shows. The pepaideumenos-scholasticus does not miss any occasion to show it. The speeches are rhetorically charged because the narrator is ironically presented as a typical product of the schools of oratory of the second sophistic. If this is true, then we see an ironical detachment of the author from his main character to the point that he can be considered as making fun of his hero’s misadventures and his response to them. The narrator-protagonist is presented as favouring rhetorical speeches because of his inclination to produce rhetorical showpieces and live through them the excitement that they offer. In this way the rhetorically aware and trained reader may have identified and, ultimately, sympathised with the main hero and narrator.

Harrison (2000) p. 234.

See also Anderson (1993) p. 163: “We are dealing . . . with a lover straight out of a Tyrian declamation school. Clitophon is physically as well as intellectually experienced; there has been sexual experience for a start, and a distinctly academic approach to sexuality . . . ”

Furthermore, see the ingenious comparison of the “pathetic power” of Encolpius’ rhetorical questions with the On the Sublime by Conte (1996), which leads to the conclusion (among others) that such rhetorical devices bring the “narrative alive with pathetic colors” and thus the effects produced have an impact upon the reader (Conte (1996) p. 9ff.).

This may be the main reason why we experience the all-pervasiveness of rhetoric in the novel of Achilleus Tatios. In this novel all characters show some kind of rhetorical ability. We seem to be visiting a world full of well-trained speakers like the protagonist himself. Perhaps this is an indication that the intended readership of this novel was likewise aware, interested, and appreciative of rhetoric.

As we saw earlier (pp. 29-30), right from the beginning of the Leukippe and Kleitophon we see the two voices - the authorial voice and that of the narrator- protagonist - in strong agreement on one theme: the omnipotence-supremacy of Love. This is what the initial picture illustrates, for which the author shows great admiration and respect. The narrator-protagonist not only accepts the authorial interpretation of the picture, but also agrees with its basic idea and

sets out to prove the point with another story - his personal experience which contains many examples of what adventures/suffering Love can cause ("Tooavtaç ü p Q E i ç e q o d t o ç Jta0c5v" 1, 2, 1).

Despite his education which shines through on every occasion, ranging from various samples of oratory to a great mythological knowledge, the character Kleitophon shows a number of signs which are not compatible with his educational experiences. A fine example of this contrast can be found at the end of book 2, while on board on a ship Kleitophon meets Menelaos, who explains the reason for his immigration as the result of his love of a nice young boy (2, 34, 4); to that Kleinias responds with his own bad experience with love. After that Kleitophon, wanting to cheer his co-travellers up, as he admits in his narration, introduces for discussion a question on homosexual and heterosexual love. In response to Menelaos’ argument favouring homosexual love, Kleitophon (who does not share Menelaos’ view) employs a formidable rhetorical presentation of his view which is highly indicative of his education:

“ II c ü ç Ô Q i|iu t e Q o v , ” EcpTiv, “ o T i jta Q a x u tl^ Q V |a 6 v o v o i X E x a i x a i o u x a j t o X a u o a i ô C ô c o o i TCP cp iA .o u v T i, o X k EO ixE Tcp T o u T a v x d X o u j t c n p a t i ; jio X ,A .d x iç y d p £ v (p

n:CvETai jtÉcpEuyE, x a i à jtîiA .0 E v 6 è p a o t r i ç o ù x E u p c b v j t i E î v t o ô e e t i j t i v o p E v o v d p T t d ^ E x a i J t p l v 6 jtC vcov x o p E O 0 f |. x a i o u x e o x i v d j i b J i a i ô b ç d jtE X 0 E îv è p a o x ^ v d X u T to v E x o v x a x ^ v f i b o v q v x a x a X E iJ tE i y d p e x i ô i i l i c o v x a ” ( 2 , 3 5 , 4 - 5 ) .

This initial response is only a sample of the quality of rhetoric that Kleitophon employs and constitutes only the beginning of a speech which is coming soon as a response to Menelaos’ arguments, which again are of a high rhetorical value (2, 37, 1-10). In this second speech Kleitophon excels himself by showing not only rhetorical mastery but also formidable knowledge of mythology on which he bases many of his arguments. The strength of his speech is acknowledged indirectly even by Menelaos at the beginning of his last speech (2, 38, 1). By contrast Kleitophon, the master of speaking, is still the character we saw only days earlier asking his cousin, Kleinias, for advice on how to woo Leukippe: “tC

Xéycû; tC jtoiw; jcœç ctv Tuxoifxi tî|Ç èQcoiiévqç; oùx oiôa yaQ tyoi tà ç ôôoùg” (1, 9, 7).

This obvious contradiction between theoretical expertise and practical naivety follows the narrator-protagonist in his adventures. In his speech to Menelaos he claims inexperience with women, although he makes a meticulously detailed and mythologically supported case. His picture from his speeches at the end of book 2 comes in contrast with the word-bound boy (in book 1) who seeks help from somebody else more experienced in 1, 9 where he confesses his love for Leukippe to Satyros, and again in 2, 4 where he admits cowardice in love-matters ("ôeôoixa ôè (iq aToXpioç xol ôeiXôç epcoToç 2, 4, 4-5). All this indicates a considerable discrepancy between Kleitophon’s eloquence due to his education and his ineffectiveness in action. His thorough education does nothing to help him in facing his personal “reality.” Elsewhere, he appears credulous: he falls an easy victim to Thersandros’ trap and takes as true without questioning any claims his deceitful co-prisoner makes in 7, 3-4. His response to Kleinias, who tries to make his friend wait until he is certain about Leukippe’s death, is that he is absolutely convinced: “ t o u t o u àocpaX-éoTepov jtcDç ôtv (idOoiç;” (7, 6, 2).

Earlier in book 5 after a long persistent persecution, Kleitophon succumbs to Melite’s wishes without being able to help himself escape from her amorous attention (5, 25-26) with the assistance of his education. In book 3, captured by the Egyptian robbers (3, 9ff.) Leukippe, according to his account, is apparently killed and her entrails eaten in front of him (3, 15, 3). At that moment, while everybody averts from looking at the disgusting spectacle, he is looking (3, 15,

5). His strange inclination to look at the spectacle makes him identify with Niobe instead of helping him appreciate what is really going on (xai Td%a 6 tt|ç Ni6pT]ç pî)6oç onx fjv il^enôfjç. . . 3, 15, 6).

Again later in 5, 7, 4ff. Leukippe falls victim to robbers. After a swift persecution they apparently decapitate her and this happens in front of Kleitophon’s eyes who watches from a distance. When finding the headless body, Kleitophon, quick to accept that the body in front of him belongs to his fiancée, verbalises his pain in a lament (5, 7, 8-9).

All these examples show that, although well educated, Kleitophon fails to cope with life and appears as an easy victim who suffers at the hands of the god of love. Is this not what the authorial voice and the protagonist have agreed right from the beginning? Is this not the occasion for the whole account of Kleitophon? Is this not what the reader has been clearly warned that he is going to hear? “Oiov ap%6i Ppeqpoç oûpavou xai yfiG %al Sakdooqç”^^^ is not only the author’s and the narrator’s theme but would also be the reader’s conclusion after Kleitophon’s account of his suffering. Love’s omnipotence finds no match in the protagonist’s education.^^"^ The fact that his schooling in rhetoric and mythology does not help him to overcome adversity portrays Kleitophon as a pathetic figure; Achilleus appears to have treated him with ironic detachment.

Further on this, as Reardon has noted, the various divergences in the treatment of conventional motifs (love, rivals and fidelity, reunion, etc.^^^) in Achilleus Tatios can be explained as a result of sophistication and, ultimately, creativity

A.T. 1, 2, 1.

See also Harrison (2000) pp. 215-220. Harrison compares Lucius (from Apuleius’ novel) “the narrator of the novel” and Apuleius “its author” and finds that there is much resemblance between them (pp. 218-219). Lucius “shares the social origins of almost all the major Greek sophists of the first and second centuries AD,” (p. 216) and “though Lucius has many traits of the elite intellectual in the Metamorphoses, his education does not prevent him from making many foolish decisions and choices” (p. 218). Although he appears to be “credulous,” “foolish,” “too easily swayed by momentary sensual pleasure,” etc. (p. 219), he is capable of producing “a persuasive and highly invective forensic oration of Ciceronian character when required to at a mock trial in Book 3 (3.43-7.3)” (p. 219).

Courtney (2001) in comparing the novels of Petronius and Achilleus Tatios claims that a main difference in the protagonists of those novels lies in “the interval between the events and their recounting” which is not substantial in the case of Kleitophon; in Petronius, however, “it occasionally becomes clear that Encolpius is looking back at the events with a certain detachment and even amusement, though at the time he presents himself as thinking of them in a semi-tragic light.” In this way “the irony of the narrator, who as such is sophisticated and competent, converges with that of the author” (p. 37).

of the author rather than as a means to create a parody of the genre. Reardon is against viewing Achilleus Tatios’ novel either as a parody or as a comic novel altogether, but rather he sees it as “an amused comment on its own genre”^^^ and as “a genuine if offbeat specimen of its genre.”^^* He therefore considers that the “isolated and special episodes” of Leukippe’s sacrifice in 3, 15 with the corresponding soliloquy of Kleitophon in 3, 16 along with Leukippe’s decapitation and Kleitophon’s short corresponding speech in 5, 7 are deliberately created and expect the audience “to enjoy the kitsch, to relish the

frisson such an incident would induce”; a l s o he supports the idea that Kleitophon’s ill-conceived rhetorical outbursts are evidence of deliberate and “highly sophisticated sensationalism” which should not be taken at their face v a l u e . T h i s view is further corroborated by the acute observation that in these episodes “the author has chosen to revert to an uncomfortably severe form of ego-narrative that he has in principle abandoned.”

In the other two novels, those of Chariton and Heliodoros, rhetoric is employed by the authors mainly to characterise their heroes. This should be interpreted with caution. First, rhetoric by definition is bound to distort pictures; it has cleverly been defined as “the science of occasion,” namely “how to say just the right thing at just the right moment.”^^^ Not every single element of the speech should be taken as a means of characterisation, but we should take into account the “rhetoric of the situation”^^"^ and the function of each employment of