Earlier versions of this article were delivered as lectures between November 1986 and April 1987 at Brown University, the University of Michigan, at Siena, and at the Università degli Studi di Pisa; I am grateful to my hosts and audiences for their questions and suggestions. Special thanks are due to several friends from discussions with whom I have benefited greatly—Peter Brown, Albrecht Dihle, Tony Grafton, William Harris, Sally Humphreys and Riet van Bremen—and to Ewen Bowie, who provided very helpful criticisms at a later stage. Finally, this published version has been much improved by the patient acumen of the referees for this journal. Of course no one but me should be blamed for the views expressed here. All translations are my own.

¹ Schmalzriedt, E., in Kindlers Literatur Lexikon iv (Zürich 1964) 372Google Scholar s.v. ‘Ta kata Leukippên kai Kleitophônta.’

² So for example Reardon, B. P., Courants littéraires grecs des II^e et III^e siècles après J-C. (Paris 1971) 359–66;Google ScholarHeiserman, A., The novel before the novel (Chicago and London 1977) 118–30;Google ScholarAnderson, G., Eros sophistes: ancient novelists at play (Chico, CA 1982) 23–32;Google ScholarHägg, T., The novel in antiquity (Oxford 1983) 41–54;Google ScholarBowie, E. L., in The Cambridge history of classical-literature. i: Greek literature, ed. Easterling, P. E. and Knox, B. M. W. (Cambridge 1985) 692–4;Google ScholarHolzberg, N., Der antike Roman (Munich and Zürich 1986) 103–9Google Scholar. Among the few earlier examples of relatively positive judgments, cf. Durham, D. B., ‘Parody in Achilles Tatius’, CPh xxxiii (1938) 1–19,Google Scholar and Sedelmeier, D., ‘Studien zu Achilleus Tatios’, WS lxxii (1959) 113–43Google Scholar. The conventional criticisms are memorably expressed in Rohde, E., Der griechische Roman und seine Vorläufer (Leipzig 1876) 470–85Google Scholar.

³ Vilborg, E., Achilles Tatius Leucippe et Clitophon (Stockholm 1955) i 2.1–2;Google Scholar henceforth all citations from this text are from this edition. For an astonishingly close Latin parallel to this scene which proves its conventionality, cf. Petron. Sat. 83.4–8.

⁴ Gaselee, S., Achilles Tatius with an English translation (London–Cambridge, MA 1969) 455 n. 1Google Scholar.

⁵ So too Bowie (n. 2) 694, and similarly Vilborg, E., Achilles Tatius, Leucippe and Clitophon. A commentary (Göteborg 1962) 10Google Scholar.

⁶ Hagg, T., Narrative technique in ancient greek romances: studies of Chariton, Xenophon Ephesius and Achilles Tatius (Stockholm 1971)Google Scholar, notes various minor lapses in Leucippe and Cleitophon at 67 n. 1, 77 n. 4, 203 ff., 282 n. 4. The apparent discrepancy in the romance between vii 14 and ii 14, noted by Gaselee (n. 4) 383 n. 2 and Vilborg (n. 5) 123, is mitigated but not resolved by Hägg 203 f.

⁷ Tsagarakis, O., ‘Pylaimenes' Tod und Auferstehung: ein Widerspruch in der Ilias?’, Hermes civ (1976) 1–12,Google Scholar argues that Pylaimenes has only been wounded, not killed, in the earlier passage: nevertheless the wound is described as being sufficiently grave that, if his interpretation were correct, we should expect a reference in the latter passage to Pylaimenes' either having been cured in the meantime or still being wounded.

⁸ Cf. Hägg (n. 6) 124–36, 318–22 and (n. 2) 42; Plepelits, K., Achilleus Tatios. Leukippe und Kleitophon (Stuttgart 1980) 27 fGoogle Scholar.

⁹ E.g. ἐν τουύτῳ πόρρωθεν ἰδόντες προσιοσῦσαν τὴν θεράπαπαιναν διεύθημεν, ἐγὼ μὲν ἄκων καὶ λυπούμενος, ἡ δὲ οὐκ οἶδ' ὅπως εῖχεν (ii 8); οὕτω μὲν δὴ τῶν δεσμῶν ἀπολύομαι καὶ ἐπὶ τὸ ἱερὸν ταχὺ μάλα ἠπειγόμην· καὶ Σώστρατος κατὰ πόδας, οὐκ οἶδα εἰ τὰ ὄμοια ἐμοὶ χαίρων (vii 16); for other passages cf. O'Sullivan, J. N., A Lexicon to Achilles Tatius (Berlin and New York 1980) 291CrossRefGoogle Scholar f. s.v. ‘οἶδ’ (6). Cf. in general Hägg (n. 6) 130 f.

¹⁰ Cf. Hägg (n. 6) 277–85 with 278 n. 1 ff.

¹¹ Hägg (n. 6) 131 complains rightly of the abrupt break in the earlier passage and wishes the narrator would excuse his apparent omniscience by adding parenthetically words to the effect ‘as I got to know later’; but he misses the really significant point that the later passage is clearly intended to repair just this anomaly.

¹² Significantly, the only obvious parallel comes from the Odyssey, where Odysseus explains to the Phaeacians the apparent lapse into omniscience in his own first-person narrative: ταῦτα δ' ἐγὼν ἤκουσα Καλυψοῦς ἠϋκόμοιο·/ἡ δ' ἔφη Ἑρμείαο διακτόρου αὐτὴ ἀκοῦσαι (xii 389–90). But Achilles Tatius' technique is far more elaborate and sophisticated.

¹³ For the theory of modern first-person narrative, cf. especially Cohn, D., Transparent minds: narrative modes for presenting consciousness in fiction (Princeton 1978) 143–265Google Scholar.

¹⁴ So Jacobs, F., Achillis Tatii Aleandrini de Leucippes et Clitophontis amoribus libri octo (Leipzig 1821) 9991–1,000Google Scholar. The suggestions by Vilborg (n. 5) 140 that ‘the author may have found that it would disturb the narrative to take up the frame story again … the ordinary reader hardly feels that something is amiss here’ and Hägg (n. 6) 125–6 that Achilles Tatius ‘never had a real “frame-story” in mind at all. He has made use of an epic situation only to get the story going … Having served this purpose, it is simply dropped, and it is questionable whether the ordinary reader ever misses its resumption after 175 pages of first-person narrative’ are useless as explanations of this discrepancy, as they do not address the issue of why the novel ends at Tyre and Byzantium, not at Sidon (this difficulty is acknowledged by Vilborg, loc. cit.).

¹⁵ Sinaiticus Gr. 1197 (xvi); cf. Hagedorn, D. and Koenen, L., ‘Eine Handschrift des Achilleus Tatios’, MH 27 (1970) 49–57Google Scholar.

¹⁶ Cf. especially τι πἑπονθας ὑβριστικόν vi 16.2; ὕβρις refers to chains at vi 5.4, to pirates at vi 16.5, and to physical violence at vii 14.3, viii 1.4, 3.2, 5.5 Cf. O'Sullivan (n. 9), s. vv.

¹⁷ This is of course hardly likely: but note that it is not in the least excluded by the language of i 3.2.

¹⁸ Quite a different case is provided by the Homeric epics, in which the proems seem more applicable to the first part of the work than to the work as a whole or to its ending: the opening of the Iliad (i 1–5) announces that Achilles' wrath caused pains for the Greeks and killed many heroes, but does not explicitly assert that that wrath came also to be directed against the Trojans and finally to be laid aside; the opening of the Odyssey (i 1–9) tells us that Odysseus suffered much and failed to save his comrades, but does not let us know that he himself survived and returned to establish himself in triumph. But the heroes of these works, and how their stories ended, were certainly better known to their audiences than Achilles Tatius' were to his; and the exigencies of large-scale organization of epics composed within an oral tradition arc different from those of a carefully planned (cf. Sedelmeier [n. 2]) written work.

¹⁹ There are examples transmitted of other kinds of ancient romances which do not follow these rules, e.g. Pseudo-Lucian's Metamorphosis (on which see the next note and section II below) and Philostratus' Life of Apollonius of Tyana; the sub-genres of such texts can be thereby easily differentiated from the kind of erotic romances to which Leucippe and Cleitophon clearly belongs.

²⁰ Vilborg (n. 5) 10. Pseudo-Lucian's Metamorphosis is narrated in the first person: but it is not an erotic romance in the sense meant here.

²¹ The sole exception, Xen. Eph. v 1.2-3, is discussed below.

²² Longus ii 3.1 ff., in which Philetas addresses Daphnis and Chloe, is only apparently an exception: he already knows who they are, for Eros has told him of his care for them (ii 6.4).

²³ ‘ταύτῃ οὗν’ ἔφη 'ὦ τἑκνον 'Αβροκόμη, ἀεί τε ὡς Зώσῃ λάλω καὶ συγκατάκειμκα καὶ συνευωχοῦμαι· κἂν ἔλθω ποτὲ ἐκ τῆς ἁλιείας κεκμηκώς, αὕτη με παραμυθεῖ ται βλεπομένη· οὐ γάρ οἵα νῦν ὁρᾶται σοι τοιαύτη φαίνεταί μοι· ἀλλὰ ἐννοῶ, τέκνον, οἵα μὲν ἦν ἐν Λακεδαἰ μονι, οἵα δὲ ἐν τῇ φυγῇ· τὰς παννυχίδας ἐννοῶ, τὰς συνθήκας ἐννoῶ’ (v 1.11).

²⁴ These are the terms in which Habrocomes praises it: Αἰγιαλεῖ μὲν γὰρ τοῦ βίου μεγάλη παραμυθία τὸ σῶμα τό Θελξινόης, καὶ νῦν ἀληθῶς μεμάθηκα ὅτι ἔρως ἀληθινὸς ὅρον ἡλικίας οὐκ ἔχει (v 1.12). Even allowing for his youthfulness and despair, there is no evidence Xenophon intends us to judge differently.

²⁵ Obviously, this issue involves far more complications than can be addressed, or are relevant, here. For some of them cf. Schadewaldt, W., Monolog und Selbstgespräch (Berlin 1926)Google Scholar. The oddity of this stage technique in the eyes of at least some fifth-century Athenians is suggested by the famous exchange between the tutor and the nurse at Eur. Med. 49–58.

²⁶ Apollo complains of having been compelled to work as a slave in a mortal's house (Alc. 1–2: ἔτλην i), of Zeus' having killed his son (3–4), of Zeus' punishing him for killing the Cyclops (6–7), and of Alcestis' unavoidable death as substitute for the pious Admetus (10–21); he is preparing to forsake this μίασμα (22–3). The farmer complains of the calamities of the house of Agamemnon (El. 8–35), of his own poverty despite his noble birth (37–8), of the fate of Orestes (στένω 47); he speaks of his wretched marriage (49) with a woman he has still not touched (43–6).

²⁷ Poet. 13.1452 b30 ff.

²⁸ So begin for example Shakespeare's Julius Caesar and Coriotanus (and, with variations, Romeo and Juliet and King Lear), and the first play of Schiller's Wallenstein trilogy, Wallensteins Lager.

²⁹ The Dyscolus begins with a simple expository monologue by Pan; but its first soliloquy by a character who believes he is alone on stage is Cnemon's bitter lament about the crowded world in which he lives (153 ff.)

³⁰ The train of thought is clarified by J. D. Denniston's discussion of this group of particles, which is used ‘when a speaker hypothetically grants a supposition which he denies, doubts, or reprobates’ (Greek particles ² [Oxford 1953] 465)Google Scholar.

³¹ Yet even here the chorus complain about the capriciousness of the Athenian audience, whose failure consistently to show favor to aging comedians poses dangers to any aspiring writer and led Aristophanes to hesitate before presenting comedies in his own name (518–44).

³² If I tell a stranger on a train what has happened to me today, that is autobiography; if I tell my wife, it is not, but is instead a first-person narrative which fits into the much larger discursive context of our marriage. The fact that an autobiography must bear the burden of presenting its subject to audiences who thereby learn of him for the first time is the reason why an attempt is often made to cover his life from birth to the time of narration: but the emphasis is almost always upon adult actions and experiences, and the earlier material, whose purpose can sometimes be simply to establish his identity, is often reduced to the minimum (e.g., father's name, family background, city: so Odysseus' tales). On the other hand, some autobiographical texts are officially addressed to non-strangers, e.g. the author's children (so Montaigne): but then the author's focus upon events or thoughts these could not possibly have experienced directly turns them into a figure for the unknown readers to whom, through the children, the text is ultimately directed.

³³ So especially Misch, G., Geschichte der Autobiographie i³ (Frankfurt a.M. 1949)Google Scholar. Cf. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U.'s review of Misch: Internationale Wochenschrift für Wissenschaft, Kunst und Technik i (1907) 1105–14Google Scholar = Kleine Schriften vi (Berlin and Amsterdam 1972) 120–7;Google Scholar and more recently, Detienne, M., ‘Ébauche de la personne dans la Grèce archaïque’, in Meyerson, I., ed., Problèmes de la personne (Paris and The Hague 1973) 45–52Google Scholar (here 47); Weintraub, K. J., The value of the individual: self and circumstance in autobiography (Chicago and London 1978) 1Google Scholar ff., 13; Momigliano, A., ‘Marcel Mauss and the quest for the person in Greek biography and autobiography’, in Carrithers, M., Collins, S., Lukes, S., ed., The category of the person: anthropology, philosophy, history (Cambridge 1985) 83–92Google Scholar.

³⁴ Noted by Momigliano, A., The development of Greek biography (Cambridge, MA 1971), 14Google Scholar. The earliest source listed in the Oxford English dictionary i (Oxford 1933) s.v. ‘autobiography’ 573 is 1809 (Southey, T. in Q. Rev. i 283)Google Scholar.

³⁵ Misch (n. 33) 66–7.

³⁶ Misch (n. 33) 80 ff.; Weintraub (n. 33) 14; cf. also e.g. Niedermeyer, L., Untersuchungen über die antike poetische Autobiographie (Munich 1918–1919)Google Scholar; Snell, B., ‘Das Erwachen der Persönlichkeit in der frühgriechischen Lyrik’, in Die Entdeckung des Geistes ⁴ (Göttingen 1975) 56–81;Google ScholarFraenkel, H., Dichtung und Philosophie des frühen Griechentums ³ (Munich 1969) 168Google Scholar f.; Gigon, O., Lexikon der Alten Welt (Zürich-Stuttgart 1965)Google Scholar s.v. ‘Autobiographie A: Griechische A.’ 414.

³⁷ On the melic poets, cf. my ‘Greek lyric poets,’ in Luce, T.J., ed., Ancient writers: Greece and Rome i (New York 1982) 75–98Google Scholar and e.g. W. Rösler, Dichter und Gruppe. Eine Untersuchung zu den Bedingungen und zur historischen Funktion früher griechischer Lyrik am Beispiel Alkaios (Munich 1980). On the elegiac poets, cf. now especially Bowie, E. L., ‘Early Greek elegy, symposium, and public festival’, JHS cvi (1986) 13–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³⁸ Interestingly, he uses the first person in methodological sections (i 1.2, 20–2, v 26.5) and when discussing the plague (ii 48: this too is methodological, for his explanation is designed to show why he knows what he is talking about); but when he refers to his activities as a general, he uses the third person (iv 104 ff., v 26).

³⁹ On the links between these two works, cf. Dover, K. J., ‘Ion of Chios: his place in the history of Greek literature’, in Boardman, J. and Vaphopoulou-Richardson, C. E., ed., Chios: a conference at the Homereion in Chios 1984 (Oxford 1986) 32–35Google Scholar.

⁴⁰ Xen. Hell. iii 1.2; Plut. De glor. Ath. 345E.

⁴¹ FGrHist II C Jacoby.

⁴² It is perhaps significant that the only extant Athenian general's letter, Nicias' in Thucydides vii 8, 11–15, is a lamentation.

⁴³ For examples of the praise of private virtues (good mother, housewife, wife; mutual affection between parents and children; moderation, gentleness, generosity) in public monuments in Asia Minor, cf. Robert, L., Hellenica xiii (1965) 34–42, 217–28;Google Scholar our knowledge of the cultural context will be increased greatly by the publication of Riet van Bremen's forthcoming study of such inscriptions. The differences with respect to an archaic honorific monument, such as Damonon's fifth-century Spartan athletic victory inscription (Schwyzer, E., Dialectorum Graecorum exempla epigraphica potiora [Leipzig 1923 = Hildesheim 1960] 4–5)Google Scholar, could not be more striking: the contents of the latter are exclusively his publicly witnessed accomplishments, its form is third-person.

⁴⁴ Cf. Brown, P., The making of late antiquity (Cambridge, MA 1978) 31Google Scholar ff.

⁴⁵ Noted by Momigliano (n. 34) 57ff. and (n. 33) 90. For an analysis of the ways in which one modern autobiography, Rousseau's Confessions, is constituted by the mode of excuse and for important remarks on the relationship between autobiography and excuse in general, cf. de Man, P., Allegories of Reading: Figural Language in Rousseau, Nietzsche, Rilke, and Proust (New Haven and London 1979) 278–301Google Scholar.

⁴⁶ Whether or not the text transmitted as Plato's Seventh Letter is genuine, its self-defensive character (cf. especially 352a) fits the general claims made here.

⁴⁷ Misch (n. 33) 22; Wilamowitz (n. 33) 1106, 1109=121, 123 f. discusses the possible evidence for Carthaginian autobiographies.

⁴⁸ Cf. Misch (n. 33) 50.

⁴⁹ Thyamis' story (Heliodorus i 19.4), for example, is remarkably similar.

⁵⁰ Cf. in general Bowersock, G. W., Greek sophists in the Roman Empire (Oxford 1969)Google Scholar. Of these three writers, Josephus was probably the least imbued with Roman culture, despite his Roman citizenship, close collaboration with Roman emperors, decades of life in Rome, and honors there after his death (Euseb. Hist. eccl. iii 9.2); it may be significant that, of these three, apparently only his Vita was written in self-defence, against the accusations levelled against him by the historian Justus of Tiberias (336 ff.). It may also be significant that all three of these authors came from Asia Minor or the Middle East.

⁵¹ Λούκιος ἢ ὄνος· 56. Cf. Anderson, G., Studies in Lucian's comic fiction (Leiden 1976) 34–67Google Scholar.

⁵² Apul. Met. xi. Whether Apuleius himself is being somewhat ironic at Lucius' expense and implying a degree of skepticism about Lucius' salvation, as Winkler, J. J., Auctor and actor (Berkeley, CA 1986)Google Scholar argues, is irrelevant to the present argument.

⁵³ So Gigon (n. 36) 414–15.

⁵⁴ Cf. especially Dihle, A., Studien zur griechischen Biographie ² (Göttingen 1970)Google Scholar and Momigliano (n. 34).

⁵⁵ So especially Misch (n. 33); cf. also Pöschl, V., Lexikon der Alten Welt (Zürich-Stuttgart 1965)Google Scholar s.v. ‘Autobiographie B: Römische A.’ 417.

⁵⁶ Heraclitus 22 B 101 D-K; Xen. Mem. iii 7.9, iv 2.24 ff.

⁵⁷ Weintraub (n. 33) 2 ff.

⁵⁸ Wilamowitz (n. 33) 1107=122; Weintraub, loc. cit.

⁵⁹ 'Αδολεσχία· διἡγησις λόγων μακρῶν καὶ ἀπρο-βουλεύων· ὁ δὲ ἀδολέσχης τοιοῦτός τις, οἶος, ὅν μὴ γιγνώσκει, τούτῳ παρακαθεόμενος πλησίον πρῶτον μὲν τῆς αὑτοῡ γυναικὸς εἰπεῖν ἐγκώμιον (Theophr. Char. 3). For Aristotle, the μεγαλοψύχος man talks neither about himself nor about others (EN iv 8.II25a 5–6).

⁶⁰ Sophoclean tragedy, in which the individual's refusal to abandon the integrity of his self leads to his death, presents the converse of this lesson, but restricts its scope to the heroic figure for whom there is no place in the polis: the chorus urges moderation, flexibility, and survival.

⁶¹ E.g., Wilpert, P., RAC i (Stuttgart 1950)Google Scholar s.v. ‘Autarkie’ 1039–50; Festugière, A.-J., Liberié et civilisation chez les Grecs (Paris 1947) 109–26;Google ScholarSchwartz, E., Ethik der Griechen, ed. Richter, W. (Stuttgart 1951) 140Google Scholar ff; Veyne, P., ‘Mythe et réalité de l'autarcie à Rome’, RÉA lxxxi (1979) 261–80,Google Scholar here 268 f.

⁶² Aymard, A., ‘Hiérarchie du travail et autarcie individuelle dans la Grèce archaique’, Revue d'Histoire de la Philosophie et d'Histoire Générale de la Civilisation xi (1943) 124–46;Google ScholarLacey, W. K., The family in classical Greece (London 1968) 15–24;Google ScholarHumphreys, S. C., Anthropology and the Greeks (London 1978) 143Google Scholar f., 162, and ‘Oikos and polis’, in The family, women and death: comparative studies (London 1983) 1–21,Google Scholar here 10 ff.

⁶³ Finley, M. I., The world of Odysseus ² (New York 1965) 57Google Scholar ff; Redfield, J. M., ‘The economic man’, in Rubino, C. A. and Shelmerdine, C. W., ed., Approaches to Homer (Austin, TX 1983) 218–47,Google Scholar here 230 ff.

⁶⁴ W&D 361–9.

⁶⁵ Xen. Poroi 1.1.

⁶⁶ Pol. i i.12 52b27–9.

⁶⁷ Pol. vii 4.1326b23–4. In this connection, Aristotle calls τὴν αὐταρκεστάτην country the one which is παντοφόρον: τὸ γὰρ πάντα ὑπάρχειν καὶ δεῖσθαι μηθενὸς αὔταρκες (vii 5.13 26b26–30).

⁶⁸ Pol. i 2.125 3a26–9.

⁶⁹ So too, in Aristotle's biology, the next higher level of organization, in this case the species, compensates by its eternity for the mortality of the individual: GA ii 1.

⁷⁰ Plato Euthyphro 14e f., Rep. ii 380e ff., Tim. 68e; Epicurus 5.1, 134.15 f. Arrighetti; SVF ii 186.4 f.

⁷¹ Cf. Gomperz, H., Die Lebensauffassung der griechischen Philosophen und das Ideal der inneren Freiheit ³ (Jena 1927)Google Scholar and Gigon, O., ‘Der Autarkiebegriff in der griechischen Philosophie’, Ajatus xxviii (1966) 39–59Google Scholar.

⁷² Xen. Mem. i 2.1, 4, 3.5 ff., 5.1 ff., etc.

⁷³ So already Antisthenes in Xen. Symp. 4.37 ff. Cf. in general Dudley, D. R., A history of Cynicism from Diogenes to the 6th century A.D. (London 1937)Google Scholar.

⁷⁴ Epicurus 2.82, 4.128 Arrighetti; SVF iii 150.1 ff.

⁷⁵ On the relationship between εὐδαιμονία and αὐτάρκεια, cf. EN i 5.1097b6–21; at EN x 7.1177327–bI, one of the reasons Aristotle offers for the superiority of the type of happiness provided by the philosophical life is its higher degree of self-sufficiency.

⁷⁶ At EN i 9.1099a 31–b8 Aristotle discusses the extent to which happiness as he defines it depends upon external goods such as friends (he may be criticizing the Platonic view that the virtuous man least needs external things to achieve happiness, cf. Rep. iii 387d). Thereby a puzzle is created that Aristotle himself addresses at EN ix 9 f. and that recently has provoked a number of discussions, including Annas, J., ‘Plato and Aristotle on friendship and altruism’, Mind lxxxvi (1977) 532–54;CrossRefGoogle ScholarCooper, J. M., ‘Friendship and the good in Aristotle’, PhR lxxxvi (1977) 290–315Google Scholar and ‘Aristotle on the forms of friendship’, R Meta xxx (1977) 619–48;Google Scholar and Nussbaum, M. C., The fragility of goodness (Cambridge 1986)Google Scholar esp. 318–73.

⁷⁷ E.g., Zeitlin, F. I., ‘The dynamics of misogyny: myth and mythmaking in the Oresteia’, Arethusa xi (1978) 149–84;Google Scholar Humphreys, ‘Women in antiquity’ in The family, women and death (n. 55) 33–51; Padel, R., ‘Women, model for possession by Greek daemons’, in Cameron, A. and Kuhrt, A., ed., Images of women in antiquity (London 1983) 3–19;Google ScholarWalcot, P., ‘Greek attitudes towards women. The mythological evidence’, G&R xxxi (1984) 37–47;Google Scholar and the essays collected in Halperin, D., Winkler, J., and Zeitlin, F. I., ed., Before sexuality: the construction of erotic experience in the ancient Greek world (Princeton forthcoming)Google Scholar.

⁷⁸ Foucault, M., Histoire de la sexualité. ii: L'usage des plaisirs. iii: Le souci de soi (Paris 1984)Google Scholar.

⁷⁹ E.g., Hesiod, Theog. 590–612, W&D 57–8, 373–5; Eur. Med. 573–5, Hipp. 617 ff.

⁸⁰ Cf. Hanson, A. E., ‘Hippocrates: Diseases of women i’, Signs i (1975) 567–84;CrossRefGoogle Scholar H. King, ‘Bound to bleed: Artemis and Greek women’, in Cameron and Kuhrt (n. 77) 109–27; Lloyd, G. E. R., Science, folklore and ideology (Cambridge 1983) 58–111, 168–82Google Scholar.

⁸¹ Fränkel, H., ‘ΕΦΗΜΕΡΟΣ als Kennwort für die menschliche Natur’, in Wege und Formen frühgriechischen Denkens ², ed. Tietze, F. (Munich 1960) 23–39Google Scholar.

⁸² This notion is most familiar from Aeschylus and Herodotus; but it recurs throughout an author as evidently opposed to superstition as Thucydides. At i 132, Pausanias' boastful inscription directly causes his fall; Pericles' boastful funeral oration (ii 35–46) is followed immediately by the plague (47–54), in which the hollowness of many of his claims for the virtues of Athenian society is revealed; the magnificence of the departure of the Athenian expeditionary force for Sicily (vi 30–2) is matched by the fullness of the disaster they suffer there (vii 87.5–6). Cf. Macleod, C., ‘Thucydides and tragedy’, in Collected essays, ed. Taplin, O. (Oxford 1983) 140–58Google Scholar.

⁸³ The relation between the two authors may well be even closer. Augustine refers to Apuleius' romance explicitly at de civ. dei xviii 18.1 and to Apuleius himselt at e.g. epist. 102.32, 137.13, 138.18f. On their similarities, cf. Courcelle, P., Les Confessions de Saint Augustin dans la tradition littéraire. Antécédents et posterité (Paris 1963) 101–9,Google ScholarHagendahl, H., Augustine and the Latin classics ii (Göteborg 1967) 680 ffGoogle Scholar.

⁸⁴ Burckhardt, J., Griechische Kutturgeschichte, ed. Oeri, J., ii (Berlin-Stuttgart 1898–1902) 365Google Scholar f.; Eitrem, S., ‘The Pindaric phthonos’, in Mylonas, G. E. and Raymond, D., ed., Studies presented to D. M. Robinson (St Louis 1951) ii 531–6;Google ScholarMilobenski, E., Der Neid in der griechischen Philosophie (Wiesbaden 1964);Google ScholarWalcot, P., Greek peasants, ancient and modern: a comparison of social and moral values (Manchester 1970) 77–93,Google Scholar and Envy and the Greeks: a study of human behaviour (Warminster 1978)Google Scholar.

⁸⁵ Burckhardt (n. 84) 354 ff.

⁸⁶ Most (n. 37).

⁸⁷ Plut. Mor. 539e, Alexander iii 4.9–14 Spengel; the term seems to derive from Demosth. De corona 4, 321. The topic is frequently discussed by ancient rhetoricians; cf. e.g. Quintilian xi 1.15–26, Hermogenes περὶ μεθόδου δενότητος 25 (441.15–442.21 Rabe).

⁸⁸ Cf. Radermacher, L., ‘Studien zur Geschichte der griechischen Rhetorik. II: Plutarchs Schrift de se ipso citra invidiam laudando’, RhM lii (1897) 419–24Google Scholar.

⁸⁹ On the relation between ἐλεεῖν and νεμεσᾱν, cf. Arist. Rhet. ii 9.1386b8 ff.

⁹⁰ Poet. 25.1461bn–12.

⁹¹ Tragedy: Xen. Eph. iii 1.4; Hel. i 8.42. Achilles Tatius' σμῆνος λόγων (i 2.2) and Heliodorus' σμῆνος κακῶν (ii 21.23) refer back to Plato's ἑσμὸν λόγων (Rep. v 450b). ‘Weeping for Patroclus’ (Ach. Tat. ii 34.7; Hel. i 18.5) alludes to Il.. xix 302.

⁹² Cf. Bluemlein, G., Die Trugreden des Odysseus (Diss. Frankfurt a.M. 1971);Google ScholarTrahman, C. R., ‘Odysseus' Lies (Odyssey, Books 13–19)’, Phoenix vi (1952) 31–43,CrossRefGoogle Scholar here 34–42; Walcot, P., ‘Odysseus and the art of lying’, Ancient Society viii (1977) 1–19Google Scholar. On the stories Odysseus tells in Books ix–xii, cf. my, ‘The structure and function of Odysseus’ apotogoi', TAPhA forthcoming.

⁹³ Even here, Odysseus complains about bad winds (307). The speech is analysed by Fenik, B., Studies in the Odyssey (Wiebaden 1974) 47–53Google Scholar and Heubeck, A., ‘Zwei homerische πεῖραι’, Ziva Antika xxxi (1981) 73–83,Google Scholar here 74–9.

⁹⁴ The speech is analysed by Erbse, H., Beiträge zum Verständnis der Odyssee (Berlin 1972) 154–5Google Scholar and Maronitis, D. M., ‘Die erste Trugrede des Odysseus in der Odyssee: Vorbild und Variationen’, in Kurz, G., Müller, D., and Nicolai, W., ed., Gnomosyne. Festschrift für W. Marg (Munich 1981) 117–34Google Scholar.

⁹⁵ Erbse (n. 94) 155. According to Aristotle, δεδίδαχεν δὲ μάλιστα Ὄμηρος καὶ τοὺς ἄλλους ψευδῆ λέγειν ὡς δεῖ (Poet. 24.1460a18–19).

⁹⁶ The only listener who refuses Odysseus' request is the suitor Antinous (xvii 445 ff.), and he condemns only himself by doing so: Antinous will be the very first suitor Odysseus kills (xxii 8 ff.).

⁹⁷ E.g., Od. iii 67–71. So too, at Ach. Tat. viii 4.2, it is only at dinner, and after a considerable amount of wine has been drunk, that the bishop can ask Sostratus to tell him the story of his life. The reversal of this rule in Iliad xxiv, where Priam and Achilles first speak and eat only afterwards, is striking precisely against this background: the violation is motivated by the urgency and the anomaly of Priam's appeal, signalled by the extraordinary simile at 480 ff.

⁹⁸ Gould, J. P., ‘Hiketeia’, JHS xciii (1973) 74–103;CrossRefGoogle ScholarPedrick, V., ‘Supplication in the Iliad and the Odyssey’, TAPhA cxii (1982) 125–40Google Scholar.

⁹⁹ It is interesting to note that the Greek romances, which arise in the Hellenistic age and flourish under the Empire, continue to retain these Archaic and Classical limitations on autobiographical discourse at a time when they seem somewhat less coercive in reality. This is evidently a generic, and presumably an archaizing, feature of these romances.

¹⁰⁰ Examples in Plut. de garrulitate 22.513d ff.