PROCESAMIENTO Y ANÁLISIS DE LAS ENCUESTAS APLICADAS

courtroom scene.

There are a number of courtroom speeches in Chariton’s novel which are extremely interesting for their use of highly technical rhetorical strategies. What follows is an attempt to present some evidence which shows that Chariton, although widely regarded as a novelist of the “pre-sophistic era,” uses rhetorical techniques which are normally expected and, in fact, are extensively used in the novels of later authors like Achilleus Tatios or Longos.

Book 1: The first trial-scene.

In book 1 the trial scene is created after Chaireas seemingly kills Kallirhoe in an incident which took place after he had thought that she had betrayed him. This trial scene presents striking similarities with the one presented in Achilleus Tatios’ novel.

The process towards the trial is typical; one day after the crime the magistrates assemble a jury to try the murderer. After his violent aggression against Kallirhoe in 1, 4, Chaireas proceeds to an investigation of the facts. He spends all night interrogating Kallirhoe’s servants until he leams the truth. Interrogation by torture is also what is suggested by Thersandros in the trial of Melite. He proposes to the judges that they find out the truth from the slaves who will have to give evidence under torture; if they do not confirm the adultery then Melite will go free (A.T. 8, 8, 13; see also 7, 11, 5-6). The victim is the fiancée of the hero and the trial is set to judge the hero’s actions.

“to te eXeoç aÙTov eioîiX.0£ tîiÇ àjtoOavouoqç xdi à^oxteîvai ^lèv éautov èjceOuirei, HoX-uxap^oç ôè èxcoXue, (piX,og èÇaCQEtoç” (1, 5, 2).

The same reaction is observed also in Achilleus Tatios’ hero, Kleitophon, who wishes to die when he leams that Leukippe is dead. There is again a special friend, Sopatros, who discourages Kleitophon from making a false confession that he entirely accepts the accusation and, therefore, he should receive capital punishment. In both cases the friends encourage the desperate lovers to opt for

life for the sake of their beloved; Polycharmos after the trial argues that Chaireas should stay alive to observe the burial procedures of Kallirhoe (1, 6). Kleinias on the other side discourages Kleitophon from his self-destructive decision by saying the he should not die with the shame that he was the one who killed Leukippe.

The accused is the first one who is quick to accuse himself and to request capital punishment.^ Here things are reversed compared with the normal legal procedure. Chaireas is the first hero in the history of the novel who makes such a kind of self-accusation, proposing for himself the death penalty. Hermokrates, on the other side, who, as the father of the victim, should be in the prosecutor’s position, is actually helping Chaireas to escape punishment. His speech (1, 5, 6- 7) has rather the form of a formal statement than that of a forensic speech. The speaker gives reasons why the jurors should not try the case and suggests what they should do.

Chaireas’ speech is simpler than that of Kleitophon. It has a very basic structure and certainly does not follow the formal plan of a complete speech; it contains a logical sequence and it has merely a persuasive purpose. The speaker avoids the “introduction” and the “statement of facts”^ and goes straight to his proposition which is “ÔTifiooiçi \iz xataXEuoaTe” (1, 5, 4).^ He uses reasoning, although his thinking is quite exaggerated in places because of his emotional state.

Hermokrates’ speech, which follows immediately, has a similar structure. He also goes straight to his point, avoiding the “introduction” and “statement of facts.” His central point is “eJtiOTatiai to oupiPav axouoiov” (1, 5, 6). He does not accept intentional responsibility on behalf of Chaireas, he recognises that he has been tricked, and he proposes that this trial should be aborted. Therefore, it is obvious that Hermokrates’ speech is not a direct response to Chaireas’ speech since it ignores all his arguments; rather it is a response to the whole situation.

’ Chariton 1, 5, 4: “cruvePT) xaivov xai èv ôixaaTT]Qiq) HT|Ô83ioTe ngaydev.” ^ For the division of a speech and its parts, see p. 5Of.

^ Schwartz (1998) p. 36, note 22, based on Seneca’s Controversiaepoints out that a “good defence” would have been one using the “quality of the action” (p. 36f.) and this may be reflected in the narrator’s comment preceding the speech: “otiôèv eincbv tû)V jiq o ç tt^v hndkoyiav

ÔLxaioûV, ofi TT]v ôiaPoXriv, où ttiv ^T]XoTUJiiav, où t o àxoùaïov” (1, 5, 4). Of course, this may be regarded as coincidental, based on an actual summary of the events, but it is where an orator perhaps would have resorted in such a case.

Schwartz suggests that “since this speech is embedded in a larger narrative, the reader is permitted to draw conclusions from material which, strictly speaking, is presented outside of the speech.”"^ This shows how flexible Chariton can be with his speeches, while in other cases, such as in the later courtroom scene, both Dionysios’ and Mithridates’ speeches are very formal (5, 6 and 5, 1)?

The second trial-scene

The second trial-scene takes place in book 3. After Theron is found by Chaireas, he is interrogated; he has to explain about Kallirhoe’s personal belongings which were found with him. His explanation is in the form of a deceptive speech (3, 3, 17-18). He presents a plausible and cunning scenario in a remarkably compact style. His speech is succinct but at the same time the hearer is bombarded with a highly informative narration.

This second trial is much more formal. Chariton describes in detail the crowd, the assembly, and each speaker’s appearance and speech (3, 4). Chaireas makes the first speech (3, 4, 5-6). His emotions are obvious to the audience as with Kleinias in Achilleus Tatios (7, 7, 6). The speech has two parts: an emotional “introduction” (3, 4, 5) and an informative “statement of facts” (3, 4, 6).

Theron’s speech (3, 4, 8-10) contains an utterly plausible story persuasive enough to convince anybody because it fits to every detail of what happened His speech consists of a “statement of facts” and a “conclusion” in a form of dissuasion. However, very soon he is accidentally recognised by some people in the crowd His second speech (3, 4, 13-14) is much more straightforward and sincere.

It is worth taking into consideration that all the speeches reported are included in the body of a story and, therefore, should follow its rules and conform to its purposes. For this reason the speeches are very often extremely compressed

Schwartz (1998) p. 42. ^ See p. 51ff.

Books 5 and 6: the third trial-scene.

The last and most important courtroom scene is found in book 5. This trial is extensively reported We have four independent speeches in this trial, the last two of which are quite important examples of forensic art.

The trial continues in book 6 after a delay similar to the one that takes place in Achilleus Tatios (from book 7 to book 8). The reasons for such a delay correspond to those in the trial presented in Achilleus Tatios, namely the sexual interest of the judge of the court towards the heroine of the novel. Furthermore, the second part of this trial shifts its focus to a slightly similar dispute but with rather different sides involved, giving the feeling of a reversal. While in the first part we have Dionysios against Mithridates, in the second part we have Chaireas against Dionysios. The same happens in the second part of the trial in Achilleus Tatios; in its first part we have Thersandros against Kleitophon and Melite, while in the second part the case is reversed and we have Kleitophon and the priest against Thersandros.

There are a number of other similarities in events and in language which should be pointed out: for example, the King is the judge in Chariton and a person from the royal house in Achilleus Tatios, although in the latter “the president of the judges” consults with a group of “assessors chosen from the elders of the town;”^ also in the process of the trial we have a figure who intervenes in the trial out of turn; in Chariton’s trial it is Mithridates (5, 4, 9) and in Achilleus Tatios’ it is Sopatros (8, 10, 11). Furthermore, from the aspect of similarities in language we can observe the following striking examples:

Chariton: Achilleus Tatios:

1. è jt e 'i Ô8 f)%8v f| xupCa twv 1. Tlxouoqg ô è trjç xupiaç ô

f)|X8pa)v (5, 4, 5). 08poavôpoç (8, 8, 1).

2. napaox8UT] o u v è v T 8 'ü 0 8 v 2. Ilapaax8UTi ô è jtoXkq f|v t o u 8YIV8TO è m TT]v ô iX T ]v J t a p ’ 0 8 p o d v ô p o u xax’ è |x o u xdl jiXîjOoç 8xaT8po)V (5, 4, 1). p q x o p w v (7, 7, 1).

^ Translation by Gaselee (1917) Achilleus Tatios p. 379; the president of the court is “xoD PaoiXixov yévouç” (Achilleus Tatios 7,12, 1).

The degree of correspondence between Chariton’s and Achilleus Tatios’ trial scenes makes one feel that there is some kind of influence from the first author on the second. Although Achilleus Tatios applies more sophisticated and elaborate techniques in his speeches (discussed in p. 66ff.), there is good evidence that Chariton has been one of his models in creating these episodes. Furthermore, Chariton’s third trial scene contains speeches which can compete with the later author’s forensic speeches of the “sophistic era.” The parallelism is so close that sometimes we have to do with “mirroring scenes.” The question that arises here is what does an ambitious author, such as Achilleus Tatios, find in an “unsophisticated” and seemingly unambitious novelist, as Chariton has often been described^? Are there any aspects in Chariton’s novel that Achilleus Tatios found enticing but which we - the modem readers - have failed to notice? What are the qualities that Achilleus Tatios finds in Chaireas a n d Kallirhoéî

2. Chariton’s courtroom scenes and their relationship to the oratorical