Literary character and characterization can be and have been defined in many ways, which is one of the reasons why the applicability of these concepts to ancient literature is sometimes felt to be problematic. Ever since nineteenth-century novelistic literature put character in the foreground as one of its hallmarks by famously and abundantly dissecting the inner life in minute detail, such psychological analysis and introspection have become central notions in the way we approach literary characterization. Indeed, some scholars of the ancient novel have assessed characterization in this genre against such modern standards, often to condemn it for its allegedly limited literary and interpretative value (e.g. Pérez Benito 2005, 141). Others have rightly warned against such blunt comparisons or have been explicit about the pointlessness of judging texts according to anachronistically imposed aesthetic evaluative frameworks (e.g. Fusillo 1989, 11).
What is in line with ancient concerns with character is the repeated emphasis in modern scholarship on character types in both Latin and Greek novels. Not only do many characters respond to generically prescribed roles or functions that imply certain more or less fixed characteristics (e.g. protagonists, rivals, or confidantes; Haynes 2003, 101–155), they also evoke character types from contemporary and earlier literary and rhetorical traditions. For example, rhetorical declamations (such as those of Ps.-Quintilian and Seneca Rhetor; e.g. Decl. 1.6, 7.1, 1.7, 2.5) as well as New Comedy and its Latin successors stage many character types that feature widely in ancient novelistic literature, such as cruel stepmothers, pirate leaders, prostitutes, tyrants, young men, faithful slaves, cunning slaves, parasites, married women, soldiers, pimps, courtesans, and nurses (the literature is vast, Van Mal-Maeder 2001 being only one example).
The general observation by some that the open format of the novel encourages experimentation and development (e.g. Schmeling 1999a, 30) seems to be confirmed by ancient novelistic adaptations of character types. Indeed, the novels tend not merely to adopt traditional character types but also to elaborate, vary, complicate, develop, or creatively enhance them. Three types of such adaptation may be detected. In some instances, various character types are blended together into a single novelistic character. Eumolpus, for example, one of the most colorful characters in Satyrica, incorporates literary traditions of the comic old man, the idealized novelistic old man, and the poet as depicted in biography, comedy, and satire (Boroughs 1993, 19–153). Apuleius’ protagonist Lucius and Chariton’ hero Chaereas also show traces of such blending (see Keulen 2004 and Guez 2009, respectively). In other instances, existing character types are complicated and enriched in function of narrative exigencies. The anonymous author of the Historia Apollonii regis Tyri, for example, rehearses character types from rhetorical and comical traditions (the pimp, the virgin) and at the same time adds Christian layers from the Passions of, for example, St. Stephen and St. Agnes (Panayotakis 2003). A third type of adaptation of existing character types involves the formal level. One of the literary traditions that inform Petronius’ Trimalchio, for example, is Horace’s satiric depiction of Nasidienus (Sat. 2.8), who, like Trimalchio, is a boorish host, simultaneously banal and extravagant and aiming to impress his guests (see Bodel 1999, 39). Petronius’ depiction of Trimalchio does not merely echo the character type instantiated by Nasidienus but also adopts different techniques to construct it. Whereas Horace primarily uses explicit statements to characterize Nasidienus, Petronius depicts Trimalchio through more indirect techniques (see Boroughs 1993, 22; on the distinction between direct and indirect characterization, see “Techniques of Characterization” below).
The fact that character typification is instrumental in the creation of credibility does not mean that character construction is limited to mere typification. The comedies of Menander, for example, which famously share motives and character types with the ancient novel, and are praised by Plutarch for their realistic portrayals of life (Mor. 853a–854d), show a harmonious symbiosis of typification and psychological character individuation (Arnott 1995). As for the novels themselves, scholarly attention has occasionally been drawn to the importance of psychological aspects of conflicting emotions and character individuation (see e.g. Repath 2007; De Temmerman 2009). Here, as is well known, extant Greek novels are very different from their Latin cognates. The Latin novels, which are commonly believed to offer some of the most colorful examples of literary characterization in ancient literature, focus upon debauched, low-life characters portrayed in realistic and sexually explicit ways; Eumolpus, Trimalchio, and the freedmen present at the latter’s dinner party are often cited in this context (on Petronian characterization in general, see George 1966; Abbott 1907; on specific characters, see Boroughs 1993; Boyce 1991, 76–102). Although papyrus fragments such as Iolaus and Lollianus’ Phoenician Story constitute evidence of the existence of such a tradition of comic and sexually explicit low-life fiction in Greek narratives too (see e.g. Barchiesi 2006, 193–209), the extant Greek novels essentially revolve around saved chastity, reunion, and happy ending, even if they do so with too much ambiguity and playfulness to deserve the now common label of “idealistic” novel (Barchiesi 2006, 203–206; Goldhill 1995, 1–45, esp. 44–45; and De Temmerman 2009 point to less-than-ideal elements in these novels). And yet, some strands of characterization are common to both Latin and Greek extant novels. In the limited space available, I explore what I consider to be the most prominent such strands.
A first observation is that the ancient novel has a fascination with ambiguous characters (a similar concern exists for historiography; see Pitcher 2007, 106). Characters are not just good or bad. Ambiguity has been shown to play a crucial role in Lucius’ character in Apuleius’ Metamorphoses (Keulen 2003, 107) and is also readily accepted to be prominent in all of the main characters in Petronius’ Satyrica. Characterization in the Greek novels shows similar concerns, although they are sometimes thought to be much less problematic and to visualize a strict dichotomy between good and evil (see e.g. Létoublon 1993, 104–105). What, for example, about characters such as Xenophon’s Hippothous and Heliodorus’ Thyamis: are they good or bad (Watanabe 2003)? And how should we label Chariton’s Dionysius, who praises Phocas for being responsible for a massacre in the Milesian harbor (3.9.11–12)? Some novels even raise the question of whether their protagonists can simply be referred to as “good” characters. One of the first things we learn about Chaereas, for example, is that an uncontrollable rage makes him kick his wife into a coma. This less-than-ideal strand in his characterization is anticipated as early as his introduction, and it is this “seeding”1 of the hero’s character in the introduction that invites a comparison with Apuleius’ Metamorphoses, where such a seed is also planted in an introductory context. When Lucius is introduced to Byrrhena at the beginning of the second book, her description of his physical appearance (Met. 2.2) is the first such description that the reader encounters. As Mason (1984, 308) points out, Lucius’ features can be taken to exemplify the “golden mean” (he is tall but not disproportionately so, slim but with sap in him, etc.), which in physiognomical treatises is incorporated by the man of good natural talents and abilities (euphuês or ingeniosus; cf. Phys. lib. 92, Polemo SP 1.242–4). Lucius, that is, is systematically depicted by Byrrhena in an idealized way. However, such idealization is immediately made unstable by Lucius’ blue eyes, a color that in physiognomy is traditionally associated not with positive characteristics but with cowardice (Mason 1984, 308–309).
A similar tension between overt idealization and its covert problematization can be detected in the introduction of Chariton’s protagonist Chaereas: “There was a young man called Chaereas, surpassingly handsome, like Achilles and Nireus and Hippolytus and Alcibiades as sculptors and painters portray them” (Chariton 1.1.3; trans. Reardon 2008.) Like the description of Lucius, this description at first sight parades itself as an idealization of the novel hero. Indeed, the tertium comparationis of Chaereas’ assimilation to the four paradigms is explicitly presented by the narrator as physical beauty, which seems to underscore a straightforwardly idealizing reading (for such a reading, see Morales 2004, 66 n. 93). Achilles and Nireus (in this order) were the two most beautiful soldiers before Troy (Hom. Il. 2.673–674). Alcibiades and Hippolytus too were paradigms of male beauty in ancient tradition (Hunter 1994, 1079). On the other hand, I would argue, all four paradigms function not only as mere markers of his physical appearance, but also as implicit seeds of Chaereas’ character.2 As Achilles’ anger is the starting point of the Iliad, Chaereas’ anger will be the starting point of the many adventures making up the love story (see Hirschberger 2001, 169). The figure of Alcibiades may be proleptic of Chaereas’ brilliant military leadership at the end of the novel, but it also evokes impetuosity and recklessness (see e.g. Smith 2007, 199–244). It is not difficult, therefore, to read both paradigms as foreshadowings of Chaereas’ impetuous jealousy that will result in his fatal assault on his wife (1.4.12). Hippolytus too has more in common with Chaereas than mere beauty. Not only is he cast as a symbol of erotic jealousy in Athenian drama (Smith 2007, 99), but Phaedra’s passion for her stepson is also a punishment by Aphrodite for his neglect of her (on Hippolytus as a paradigm of chastity, see Hunter 1994, 1079, and OCD3 s.v. Hippolytus 1). It is significant, therefore, that Chaereas’ misfortunes are clearly presented by the primary narrator as a punishment by Aphrodite for the mistreatment of his wife (8.1.3). Nireus, finally, is notorious for being a weakling in the Iliad, having only a small number of soldiers under his command (Hom. Il. 2.675: alapadnos … pauros … laos; Smith 2007, 100, however, reads Nireus as “unproblematic”). As such, this paradigm may foreshadow Chaereas’ generally helpless attitude in the first six books of the novel. The implicit tertia comparationis addressed by these four paradigms, then, are impetuosity, divine punishment, and weakness, respectively. Although the narrator qualifies the similarity between Chaereas and the four mythological figures by referring to their representation by sculptors and painters, thus explicitly drawing the reader’s attention to the physical similarities between Chaereas and his paradigms, the implicit message conveyed by these paradigms ominously deals with some important inner characteristics. In fact, they touch upon some of the most important strands of Chaereas’ characterization that the novel will develop. Rather than attributing an idealizing function to these paradigms, I would argue that they implicitly highlight important psychologically realistic aspects of his character. Like Byrrhena’s description of Lucius, Chaereas’ introduction rehearses a number of tropes that seem to construct idealization but immediately destabilize any such reading.
Extant Greek and Latin novels also show notable overlaps in their common fascination with the establishment of various types of social control. The first type, which has received ample attention, especially in scholarship on the Greek novels, is self-control (or the lack thereof). This issue is thematized primarily in the realm of the characterization of protagonists, whose state of mind is often constructed as opposite to the contemporary ideal of self-control or “maîtrise de soi” (Jouanno 2000, 79). On the other hand, several episodes thematize precisely the protagonists’ ability to control themselves. Heroines such as Callirhoe and Chariclea repeatedly and consciously try to keep their emotions hidden from public perception (e.g. Chariton 1.1.14; 1.3.6; 1.11.2; 2.5.7; and Heliodorus 4.6.1; 6.9.4), and Chaereas’ gradually developing ability to learn how to control and express his anger appropriately represents the young man’s personal growth towards a “full adult-male status” (Scourfield 2003).
This thematic strand of self-control in the protagonists is often complemented by an equally important strand of control over other people. A recurrent characteristic of ancient novel protagonists is that they are controlled by divinities who have a grudge against them.3 In these and other cases, control may take different forms (sexual, psychological, rhetorical, etc.) and in this case more ink has flowed over their presences in Latin novels than in their Greek cognates. In Petronius, for example, Trimalchio’s attempts to impress have been closely connected with his desire to establish psychological control over his environment (Rosati 1999, 90, 96). Moreover, one of the most prominent dynamics between Encolpius and other characters is that these are often potent figures that present themselves as guides to him and control him through manipulation. Eumolpus, for example, is depicted as a leader who subtly controls the faces he wears, whereas Encolpius is cast as his follower. Eumolpus’ ability to control Encolpius aligns him with Giton, who repeatedly assesses situations much more realistically than Encolpius does (e.g. Sat. 94, 98) and does not hesitate to manipulate him (e.g. Sat. 79.11) (Sham 1994, 130–132, 142–143, 169–199, esp. 173, 180, 231).
In Apuleius too, the issue of control over others takes center stage. In fact, this thematic area provides one of Apuleius’ major thematic inversions of his Greek model, Ps.-Lucian’s Lucius or the Ass, which stages the protagonist as a clever observer, manipulating those around him to get what he wants. In the Metamorphoses, on the other hand, it is Lucius who is repeatedly controlled and victimized by others (Smith 1994, 1588–1593). As in Petronius, such control is often thematized in the realm of sex (Schlam 1978). Moreover, as scholars have observed, concerns with vision are intrinsically related to issues of power and control in Apuleius’ Metamorphoses and Achilles Tatius’ Leucippe and Clitophon (Slater 1998, 18; Morales 2004, 156–220). The same dynamic can equally well be illustrated by a passage from Chariton, where it is the cunning slave Plangon (and not the heroine herself) who sees that Callirhoe is pregnant and uses this information to force her into a marriage with her master Dionysius (2.8.4–11.6). And finally, an even more prevalent tool for establishing control is rhetoric; the ability, that is, to influence the behavior of other characters through speech. Heliodorus’ heroine Chariclea, for example, successfully employs defensive rhetoric in order to remain a virgin and safeguard her chastity (Brethes 2007, 226–227; on rhetoric as a means to control social environment in Chariton, see De Temmerman 2009).
Scholars long believed that ancient literature had no concept of character evolution or change, but this thesis has been in the process of gradual revision in recent decades (see e.g. Gill 1983 and Pitcher 2007, who also give references to scholarship arguing for the absence of the concept of character change in ancient literature). In ancient novelistic literature in particular, character development has long been thought to be simply nonexistent (see e.g. Cicu 1992, 197–199, on the Satyrica). Especially in the Greek novels, protagonists are widely accepted to be static, even if a number of analyses have now given us firm grounds to question that view. Most notably, Lalanne (2006) reads the Greek novels as stories of paideia that are informed by a model of rites of passage and organize the teaching of political, moral, and social values around an evolution of status (e.g. from parthenos to gunê). In her view, the protagonists’ adventures function as different stages on this path of initiation.4
One area where the possibilities of character development have been intensively explored is homodiegetic narration. Ancient fiction, both Greek and Latin, stages a number of colorful ego-narrators as protagonists (Petronius’ Encolpius, Apuleius’ Lucius, and Achilles Tatius’ Clitophon). For each of them, the precise role of character development in their portrayals has been debated in terms of the tension between the I-narrator and his former self, the I-character. According to some, the character of the I-narrator is meant to be read as the result of evolution in comparison to that of the I-character (see Barrett 1994 on Lucius, and Beck 1975 on Encolpius). Others have argued that “hidden authors” thematize precisely the tantalizing absence of any such character development in their homodiegetic narrators (see Finkelpearl 1991 on Lucius, Conte 1996 on Encolpius, and Morgan 1996, 179–186; 2007 on Clitophon); if they thematize the possibilities of character development in homodiegetic narrators, they do so ex negativo by subtly but systematically highlighting the inability of their protagonists to bring to fruition the opportunities that are offered to them by the narrative.
Let me now turn from the question of “what” to the question of “how.” Which techniques do the novelists use to construct characters? One widely used technique is name-giving. Names generate meaning in many ways: they can be etymologically significant (e.g. Anthia, “flowery,” Encolpius, “in the crotch,” Giton, “neighbor”), and can associate characters with mythological, historical, or literary paradigms (either specific characters or character types; e.g. Gnathon, a traditional name for parasites in New Comedy) or with other comparantia (objects, animals, etc.) with which they have an important characteristic in common (e.g. Conops, “Gnat”). (Keulen 2000 is just one example of work on name-giving in an ancient novel.)
Next to name-giving, one of the most prominent techniques of characterization is an explicit or overt assessment of character (direct characterization), either by the primary narrator or by a character narrator within the story. In Apuleius, for example, curiosity (curiositas), one of the main themes of the novel and incorporated by several characters, is not only demonstrated by the actions of these characters, for example Lucius’ insistence vis-à-vis Photis to be introduced to the secrets of Pamphile’s magic (Met. 3.19), but also explicitly commented upon, for example either by Lucius himself as a narrator (Met. 1.2, 3.14) or by other characters in the story (Met. 1.12).
As we have observed in the case of Lucius’ and Chaereas’ introductions, such direct characterization is easily destabilized or complicated. Such complication often occurs as a result of indirect characterization. In the ancient novels, whereas direct characterization is often limited to a number of set characteristics (in the Greek novels, the protagonists’ sôphrosunê is a recurrent example), indirect characterization either addresses other characteristics or corroborates, supports, problematizes, elaborates, or nuances directly attributed ones. For example, Clitophon explicitly foregrounds his own sôphrosunê when discussing his love for Leucippe (sôphroneis, 1.5.7) and his relationship with Melite (sôphrosunên, 8.5.2). However, this self-presentation may be brought into question by two observations. First, it is significant that Clitophon is characterized as sôphrôn only by himself: no other character ever labels him thus. Second, four of the paradigms with which he is associated during the novel—Odysseus (2.23.2), Heracles (2.6.3), Achilles (6.1.3), and Poseidon (5.16.5)—all appear in overtly sexual contexts, thus evoking the traditional ambiguity surrounding the sôphrosunê of these figures. Like Clitophon, Odysseus temporarily stays with another woman (Calypso) before being reunited with his beloved, and Heracles and Achilles are both renowned mythological seducers of women. Clitophon’s association with Poseidon also documents the complication of his self-proclaimed sôphrosunê. The timing of this last association is particularly relevant: Melite aligns him with this god during their journey from Alexandria to Ephesus when she tries to persuade him to make love. When Clitophon objects that the sea is not a suitable place for sex, she points to Poseidon’s lovemaking at sea with his wife Amphitrite (5.16.5). This alignment, again, infuses Clitophon’s sôphrosunê with ambiguity. On the one hand, the paradigm surfaces exactly when Clitophon refuses to have sex with Melite, which, of course, underlines his sôphrosunê. On the other hand, Clitophon is aligned with one of the most renowned womanizers in the Greek pantheon. Poseidon’s many mistresses and his numerous children from various relationships had been legendary since time immemorial (see e.g. LSJ s.v. Poseidon; for a full discussion, see De Temmerman and Demoen 2011, 5–9).
Indirect characterization takes on different forms. Typically, it replaces a characteristic by an attribute relating to it either by contiguity (metonymical characterization) or similarity (metaphorical characterization) (for this distinction in modern literary theory, see Koch 1991, 128–135). Examples of techniques that operate metonymically are emotions, actions, speech, appearance, and setting. In other words, characters in narrative are characterized not only by overt narratorial statements, but also by what they feel, do, or say; by how they look like; or by the environment(s) in which they operate (see Gill 1990, 7, and Halliwell 1990, 44, on some of these character-markers, actions/speech, and appearance, respectively, in ancient Greek literature). Characterization through speech, for example, conceptualized in ancient rhetoric as ethopoeia, is omnipresent in Latin and Greek novels alike. In some cases, characters are characterized not only by what they say, but also by how they say it. In this respect, Petronius’ novel is set apart quite clearly from the others (except, perhaps, from Iolaus; Bodel 1984, 12) in that it is the only novel where characters adopt different styles according to the environment in which they find themselves or their social position (although stylistic differentiation seems to be exploited in at least one episode in Chariton too; cf. Doulamis 2011b on speeches in Chariton’s famous courtroom scene in 5.6–7). Not only does the language of Encolpius-narrator often contrast with that of Trimalchio and his freedman guests, but there is also a surprising amount of variation in the speech, register, and tone of each of the “low-class” speakers, enough to clearly single out each of them as an individual (Petersmann 1985; Boyce 1991).
Another metonymical technique that broadly sets apart Latin novels from their Greek cognates is characterization through appearance, which draws upon the assumption, widely thematized in ancient physiognomical treatises, that character can be inferred from physical features. Whereas in Latin novels physiognomy is clearly adopted as a hermeneutic tool in a number of instances (e.g. Lucius’ description in Met. 2.2; see also Keulen 2006; Mason 1984), its role in the Greek novels is more marginal; in fact, permanent physical characteristics are conspicuously absent in the portrayal of most Greek novel characters (see e.g. Dubel 2001 on “le refus du portrait” in these narratives). A neighboring area where Latin and Greek novelists frequently explore characterization, on the other hand, is the domain of variable physical features and body language (see De Temmerman 2007).
Metaphorical characterization draws upon the similarity (or contrast) between a certain character (comparandum) and someone or something else (comparans). Like metonymical characterization, it can take many forms. The association of Greek novel protagonists with gods is a well-known example. In most cases, the tertium comparationis of such comparisons is (divine) beauty, but, as we have observed in Chaereas’ introduction, sometimes resemblances go further than that.
One of the most omnipresent types of metaphorical characterization in the ancient novels draws upon intertextual resonances. As is well known, Greek and Latin novelists paint on a very broad intertextual canvas, and they often do so in order to associate characters with or dissociate them from intertextual paradigms. Such instances of metaphorical characterization, ranging from epic over lyric and drama to philosophy and historiography, are too numerous to even begin to list here (Doulamis 2011a is a recent starting point), and a brief exemplification will have to suffice. Sometimes, paradigms are evoked explicitly (e.g. the paradigms undermining Clitophon’s sôphrosunê), but sometimes the evocation is merely implicit. Chariton’s heroine Callirhoe, for example, is aligned not only with Helen, but on an implicit level also with Penelope (through many of the Homeric quotations with which Chariton’s primary narrator sprinkles his narrative), which complicates the question of how to assess her responsibility for marrying Dionysius while Chaereas, her first husband, is still alive and well in Syracuse (Manuwald 2000, 112–113). Another extremely popular comparans in the ancient novels is Odysseus. His victorious confrontation with the Cyclops, for example, is deviously evoked in widely different contexts by Petronius (101.5–7) and Achilles Tatius (2.23.2) to characterize Lichas as a Polyphemus and Clitophon as a non-Odysseus, respectively (see Morgan 2009, 37, on Lichas, and De Temmerman and Demoen 2011, 7–9 on Clitophon).
A last type of metaphorical characterization functions intratextually. Here, characters are associated with or dissociated from other characters within the same work. In Historia Apollonii regis Tyri, for example, characters are often pinpointed through a network of such associations. Apollonius’ daughter Tarsia and her mother are aligned in a number of ways, and together exemplify a number of central female virtues (Panayotakis 2001, 104–105). Antiochus and Archistrates, on the other hand, are characterized as good father and bad father, respectively, through mutual juxtaposition (Schmeling 1999b, 141–143, 147).
Characterization has received more scholarly attention in the Latin novels and in Petronius in particular than in their Greek cognates.5 Particularly in the latter, then, most of the aspects of characterization discussed in this chapter offer ample scope for further research. One possible line of investigation is to examine to what extent and in what ways character typification and individuation complement each other in the ancient novels. Indeed, the three broad realms of thematic overlap between Latin and Greek novels touched upon in this chapter—ambiguity, social control, and development—may be areas where character individuation is particularly prominent. Moreover, a close look into the Greek novels’ concern with ambiguity and social control, which involve, as we have seen, psychologically realistic behavioral patterns, may yield arguments to further challenge the appropriateness of the label of “idealistic novel” commonly attributed to these narratives. And systematic attention to the questions of how and to what extent characters develop may question the traditional and widely held assumption that ancient novelistic characters are static. Finally, study of the formal side of characterization (which techniques are used, and to what effect?) may prove instrumental in approaching characterization not only in the novels proper but also in the vast corpus of pagan and early Christian novelistic biographies that famously share important motifs and topoi with the narratives discussed in this chapter.
1 A seed is an insertion of a piece of information, the relevance or significance of which becomes clear only later. See de Jong and Nünlist 2007, xiii.
2 Brethes 2009, 72, briefly acknowledges the simultaneous presence of aesthetic and ethical qualities in this passage.
3 Chaereas’ misadventures are the result of Aphrodite’s anger (8.1.3), and in Xenophon’s novel Habrocomes’ love for Anthia is brought about by Eros, who is infuriated by Habrocomes’ dismissive attitude towards him (1.2.1). In Petronius’ Satyrica, Encolpius has a similarly problematic relationship with Priapus. Divine anger is an old motif reaching back ultimately to Poseidon’s unceasing anger with Odysseus and is often rehearsed in tragedy (e.g. Aphrodite’s anger with Hippolytus). On divine control in Chariton, see Helms 1966, 118–126.
4 A few other examples of studies entertaining notions of character development: Morgan 1996 on an “educative process”; Konstan 1994, 55–59, on the development of the protagonists’ love; and De Temmerman 2007 on character evolution in Chariton’s Callirhoe.
5 Boyce 1991, Cicu 1992, Boroughs 1993, and Sham 1994 are book-length studies on this topic in Petronius, whereas Helms 1966 is one of the very few such books on any other ancient novel. On Apuleius, see now Harrison (forthcoming).
Abbott, F.F. 1907. “The use of language as a means of characterisation in Petronius.” Classical Philology, 2: 43–50.
Arnott, G.W. 1995. “Menander’s manipulation of language for the individualisation of character.” In Lo spettacolo delle voci, edited by F. de Martino and A.H. Sommerstein. Bari: Levante, pp. 147–164.
Barchiesi, A. 2006. “Romanzo greco, romanzo latino: problemi e prospettive della ricerca attuale.” In Il romanzo antico: forme, testi, problemi, edited by L. Graverini, W. Keulen, and A. Barchiesi. Rome: Carocci editore, pp. 193–218.
Barrett, C. 1994. “The marriages of Charite and Psyche in the context of Apuleius’ Metamorphoses.” Classical Bulletin, 70: 73–88.
Beck, R. 1975. “Encolpius at the ‘Cena’.” Phoenix, 29: 271–283.
Bodel, J.P. 1984. “Freedmen in the Satyricon of Petronius.” Diss. University of Michigan.
Bodel, J.P. 1999. “The Cena Trimalchionis.” In Latin Fiction: The Latin Novel in Context, edited by H. Hofmann. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 38–51.
Boroughs, R.J.C. 1993. “Eumolpus: Literary and Historical Approaches to Characterization in Petronius.” Diss. University of Cambridge.
Boyce, B. 1991. The Language of Freedmen in Petronius’ Cena Trimalchionis. Leiden: Brill.
Brethes, R. 2007. “Poiein aischra kai legein aischra, est-ce vraiment la même chose? Ou la bouche souillée de Chariclée.” In Seeing Tongues, Hearing Scripts: Orality and Representation in the Ancient Novel, edited by V. Rimell. Ancient Narrative Supplementum 7. Groningen: Barkhuis Publishing and Groningen University Library, pp. 223–256.
Brethes, R. 2009. “Rien de trop: la recherche d’un juste milieu chez Aristote, Ménandre et Chariton.” In Passions, vertus et vices dans l’ancien roman, edited by B. Pouderon and C. Bost-Pouderon. Lyon: Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée, pp. 71–83.
Cicu, L. 1992. Donne petroniane: Personaggi femminili e techniche di racconto del Satyricon di Petronio. Sassari: Carlo Delfino Editore.
Conte, G.B. 1996. The Hidden Author: An Interpretation of Petronius’ Satyricon. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
de Jong, I.J.F. and R. Nünlist. 2007. “Glossary.” In Time in Ancient Greek Literature. Studies in Ancient Greek Narrative, vol. 2. Mnemosyne Suppl. 291. Leiden: Brill, pp. xi–xiii.
De Temmerman, K. 2007. “Blushing beauty: Characterizing blushes in Chariton’s Callirhoe.” Mnemosyne, 60.2: 235–252.
De Temmerman, K. 2009. “Chaereas revisited: Rhetorical control in Chariton’s ‘ideal’ novel Callirhoe.” Classical Quarterly, 59.1: 247–262.
De Temmerman, K. and K. Demoen. 2011. “Less than ideal paradigms in the ancient Greek novel.” In Echoing Narratives: Studies of Intertextuality in Greek and Roman Prose Fiction, edited by K. Doulamis. Ancient Narrative Supplementum 13. Groningen: Barkhuis Publishing and Groningen University Library, pp. 1–20.
Doulamis, K., ed. 2011a. Echoing Narratives: Studies of Intertextuality in Greek and Roman Prose Fiction. Ancient Narrative Supplementum 13. Groningen: Barkhuis Publishing and Groningen University Library.
Doulamis, K. 2011b. “Forensic oratory and rhetorical theory in Chariton Book 5.” In Echoing Narratives: Studies of Intertextuality in Greek and Roman Prose Fiction, edited by K. Doulamis. Ancient Narrative Supplementum 13. Groningen: Barkhuis Publishing and Groningen University Library, pp. 21–48.
Dubel, S. 2001. “La beauté romanesque ou le refus du portrait dans le roman grec d’époque impériale.” In Les personnages du roman grec. Actes du colloque de Tours, 18–20 novembre 1999, edited by B. Pouderon. Lyon: Maison de l’Orient Méditerranéen, pp. 29–58.
Finkelpearl, E. 1991. “The judgment of Lucius: Apuleius, Metamorphoses 10.29–34.” Classical Antiquity, 10: 221–236.
Fusillo, M. 1989. Il romanzo greco: polifonia ed Eros. Venezia: Marsilio Editori.
George, P. 1966. “Style and character in the Satyricon.” Arion, 5: 336–358.
Gill, C. 1983. “The question of character-development: Plutarch and Tacitus.” Classical Quarterly, 33.2: 469–487.
Gill, C. 1990. “The character-personality distinction.” In Characterization and Individuality in Greek Literature, edited by C. Pelling. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 1–31.
Goldhill, S. 1995. Foucault’s Virginity: Ancient Erotic Fiction and the History of Sexuality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Guez, J.-P. 2009. “Homme tyrannique, homme royal dans le roman de Chariton.” In Passions, vertus et vices dans l’ancien roman, edited by B. Pouderon and C. Bost-Pouderon. Lyon: Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée, pp. 23–38.
Halliwell, S. 1990. “Traditional Greek conceptions of character.” In Characterization and Individuality in Greek Literature, edited by C. Pelling. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 32–59.
Harrison, S.J., ed. forthcoming. Characterisation in Apuleius’ Metamorphoses: Nine Studies. Cambridge: Scholars Publishing.
Haynes, K. 2003. Fashioning the Feminine in the Greek Novel. London: Routledge.
Helms, J. 1966. Character Portrayal in the Romance of Chariton. The Hague and Paris: Mouton.
Hirschberger, M. 2001. “Epos und Tragödie in Charitons Kallirhoe: ein Beitrag zur Intertextualität des griechischen Romans.” Würzburger Jahrbücher für die Altertumswissenschaft, 25: 157–186.
Hunter, R. 1994. “History and historicity in the romance of Chariton.” Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt, II.34.2: 1055–1086.
Jouanno, C. 2000. “Chariton et le langage du corps.” In OPÔRA: La belle saison de l’Hellénisme. Études de littérature antique offertes au Recteur Jacques Bompaire, edited by A. Billault. Paris: Presses de l’Université de Paris-Sorbonne, pp. 73–84.
Keulen, W. 2000. “Significant names in Apuleius: A ‘good contriver’ and his rival in the cheese trade (Met. 1,5) (Apuleiana Groningana X).” Mnemosyne, 53.3: 310–321.
Keulen, W. 2003. “Comic invention and superstitious frenzy in Apuleius’ Metamorphoses: The figure of Socrates as an icon of satirical self-exposure.” American Journal of Philology, 124: 107–135.
Keulen, W. 2004. “Lucius’ kinship diplomacy: Plutarchan reflections in an Apuleian Character.” In The Statesman in Plutarch’s Works. Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference of the International Plutarch Society, Nijmegen–Castle Hernen, May 1–5, 2002, vol. 2, edited by L. de Blois, J. Bons, and T. Kessels. Leiden: Brill, pp. 261–273.
Keulen, W. 2006. “Ad amussim congruentia: Measuring the intellectual in Apuleius.” In Lectiones Scrupulosae: Essays on the Text and Interpretation of Apuleius’ Metamorphoses in honour of Maaike Zimmerman, edited by W. Keulen, R. Nauta, and S. Panayotakis. Ancient Narrative Supplementum 6. Groningen: Barkhuis Publishing and Groningen University Library, pp. 168–202.
Koch, T. 1991. Literarische Menschendarstellung: Studien zu ihrer Theorie und Praxis. Tübingen: Stauffenberg Verlag.
Konstan, D. 1994. Sexual Symmetry: Love in the Ancient Novel and Related Genres. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Lalanne, S. 2006. Une éducation grecque: rites de passage et construction des genres dans le roman grec ancien. Paris: Éditions La Découverte.
Létoublon, F. 1993. Les lieux communs du roman: Stéréotypes grecs d’aventure et d’amour. Leiden, New York, and Cologne: Brill.
Manuwald, G. 2000. “Zitate als Mittel des Erzählens: zur Darstellungstechnik Charitons in seinem Roman Kallirhoe.” Würzburger Jahrbücher für die Altertumswissenschaft, 24: 97–122.
Mason, H.J. 1984. “Physiognomy in Apuleius’ Metamorphoses 2.2.” Classical Philology, 79: 307–309.
Morales, H. 2004. Vision and Narrative in Achilles Tatius’ Leucippe and Clitophon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Morgan, J.R. 1996. “Erotika Mathemata: Greek romance as sentimental education.” In Education in Greek Fiction, edited by A.H. Sommerstein and C. Atherton. Bari: Levante, pp. 163–189.
Morgan, J.R. 2007. “Kleitophon and Encolpius: Achilleus Tatius as hidden author.” In The Greek and the Roman Novel: Parallel Readings, edited by M. Paschalis, S. Frangoulidis, S.J. Harrison, and M. Zimmerman. Ancient Narrative Supplementum 8. Groningen: Barkhuis Publishing and Groningen University Library, pp. 105–120.
Morgan, J.R. 2009. “Petronius and Greek literature.” In Petronius: A Handbook, edited by J. Prag and I. Repath. Malden, MA: Oxford, and Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell Ltd, pp. 32–47.
Panayotakis, S. 2001. “The temple and the brothel: Mothers and daughters in Apollonius of Tyre.” In Space in the Ancient Novel, edited by M. Paschalis and S. Frangoulidis. Ancient Narrative Supplementum 1. Groningen: Barkhuis Publishing and Groningen University Library, pp. 98–117.
Panayotakis, S. 2003. “Three death scenes in Apollonius of Tyre.” In The Ancient Novel and Beyond, edited by S. Panayotakis, M. Zimmerman, and W. Keulen. Leiden and Boston: Brill, pp. 143–157.
Pérez Benito, E. 2005. “Personajes femeninos en la novela griega: las ‘Efesíacas’ de Jenofonte de Éfeso.” In Las hijas de Pandora: Historia, tradición y simbología, edited by C. Secall and A. Bech. Málaga: Universidad de Málaga, pp. 135–153.
Petersmann, H. 1985. “Umwelt, Sprachsituation und Stilschichten in Petrons Satyrica.” Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt, II.32.3: 1687–1705.
Pitcher, L.V. 2007. “Characterization in ancient historiography.” In A Companion to Greek and Roman Historiography, edited by J. Marincola. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, pp. 102–117.
Reardon, B.P. 2008. “Chariton: Chaereas and Callirhoe.” In Collected Ancient Greek Novels, edited by B.P. Reardon. Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London: University of California Press, pp. 17–124.
Repath, I. 2007. “Emotional conflict and platonic psychology in the Greek novel.” In Philosophical Presences in the Ancient Novel, edited by J.R. Morgan and M. Jones. Ancient Narrative Supplementum 10. Groningen: Barkhuis Publishing and Groningen University Library, pp. 53–84.
Rosati, G. 1999. “Trimalchio on stage.” In Oxford Readings on the Roman Novel, edited by S.J. Harrison. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 85–104.
Schlam, C.C. 1978. “Sex and sanctity: The relationship of male and female in the Metamorphoses.” In Aspects of Apuleius’ Golden Ass, edited by B. Hijmans and R. van der Paardt. Groningen: Boema’s Boekhuis, pp. 95–105.
Schmeling, G. 1999a. “Petronius and the Satyrica.” In Latin Fiction: The Latin Novel in Context, edited by H. Hofmann. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 23–37.
Schmeling, G. 1999b. “The history of Apollonius king of Tyre.” In Latin Fiction: The Latin Novel in Context, edited by H. Hofmann. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 141–152.
Scourfield, D. 2003. “Anger and gender in Chariton’s Chaereas and Callirhoe.” In Ancient Anger: Perspectives from Homer to Galen, edited by S.M. Braund and G.W. Most. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 163–184.
Sham, M.N. 1994. “Characterization in Petronius’ Satyricon.” Diss. State University of NY at Buffalo.
Slater, N. 1998. “Passion and petrifaction: The gaze in Apuleius.” Classical Philology, 93: 18–48.
Smith, W.S. 1994. “Style and character in The Golden Ass: ‘Suddenly an opposite appearance’.” Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt, 43.2: 1575–1599.
Smith, S.D. 2007. Greek Identity and the Athenian Past in Chariton: The Romance of Empire. Ancient Narrative Supplementum 9. Groningen: Barkhuis Publishing and Groningen University Library.
Van Mal-Maeder, D. 2001. “Déclamations et romans: La double vie des personnages romanesques: le père, le fils et la marâtre assassine.” In Les personnages du roman grec. Actes du colloque de Tours, 18–20 novembre 1999, edited by B. Pouderon. Lyon: Maison de l’Orient Méditerranéen, pp. 59–72.
Watanabe, A. 2003. “The masculinity of Hippothoos.” Ancient Narrative, 3: 1–42.
Amato, E. and J. Schamp, eds. 2005. Ethopoiia. La représentation de caractères entre fiction scolaire et réalité vivante à l’époque impériale et tardive. Cardo 3. Études et Textes pour l’Identité Culturelle de l’Antiquité Tardive. Salerno: Helios Editrice. A collection of essays focusing on the adoption of one technique of characterization in particular in different literary genres in late Antiquity.
Billault, A. 20032. “Characterization in the ancient novel.” In The Novel in the Ancient World, edited by G. Schmeling. Leiden: Brill, pp. 115–129. One of the few articles that provides a broad overview of the topic. Fairly descriptive, with more attention being paid to character typification than to individuation.
De Temmerman, K. 2010. “Ancient rhetoric as a hermeneutical tool for the analysis of characterization in narrative literature.” Rhetorica: A Journal of the History of Rhetoric, 28.1: 23–51. Explores various metonymical and metaphorical techniques of characterization that are discussed in ancient rhetorical theory and adopted in ancient literature.
Eder, J., F. Jannidis, and R. Schneider, eds. 2010. Characters in Fictional Worlds: Understanding Imaginary Beings in Literature, Film, and Other Media. Berlin: de Gruyter. A collection of 23 contributions offering discussions of character in literature and other media. Like Jannidis 2004, a highly theoretical volume.
Edwards, M. and S. Simon, eds. 1997. Portraits. Biographical Representation in the Greek and Latin Literature of the Roman Empire. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Offers essays that are directly relevant to characterization and covers literary genres that are later than most of those covered by Pelling 1990.
Jannidis, F. 2004. Figur und Person. Beitrag zu einer historischen Narratologie. Berlin: de Gruyter. A recent monograph on various theoretical aspects of the multifaceted, elusive and polysemous concepts of character and characterization in literature, with ample discussion of different scholarly approaches to these concepts.
Pelling, C., ed. 1990. Characterization and Individuality in Greek Literature. Oxford: Oxford University Press. A classic collection of insightful discussions of characterization in a number of ancient Greek literary genres (epic, tragedy, comedy, Platonic dialogue, oratory, rhetoric, and biography).
Pernot, L. 1992. “Chariclée la sirène.” In Le monde du roman grec. Actes du colloque international tenu à l’ École normale supérieure (Paris, 17–19 décembre 1987). Études de Littérature Ancienne 4, edited by M.-F. Baslez, P. Hoffmann, and M. Trédé. Paris: Presses de l’École normale supérieure, pp. 43–51. A good example of interesting analysis of a particular character strand in one character in an ancient Greek novel.
Whitmarsh, T. 2011. Narrative and Identity in the Ancient Greek Novel: Returning Romance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Like Lalanne 2006, a rich discussion of the extant Greek novels that often spills into the area of characterization.