Main text: 4874

References: 1944
Endnotes: 1550

The Genre of the Novel: A Theorethical Approach *

Marília P. Futre Pinheiro

(University of Lisbon)

Literature, like all art, is a confession that life is not enough. Whittling a literary work what is not enough is to be
powerless to replace life
Fernando Pessoa, Pages on Litterature and Aesthetics

Abstract
The very first consideration to be taken into account when we look at a set of texts commonly
labelled “ancient novel” is how to define this literary genre. Once the modern tendency in
literature points to a blurring of modal or genre boundaries, what is important to know is whether
there is a corpus of texts that share common features and which can thus be labelled “novel”. The
study we carried out has made it clear that there is, in fact, a series of texts whose thematic and
formal features set them apart from the remaining literature produced in Antiquity and that make it
possible for these texts to be included in a homogeneous category or in a particular literary genre
which is undoubtedly the precursor of the modern novel.

Keywords

Literary genre, literary form, modulation, generic class, canon, narratology, idealized novel,

comic/burlesque novel, Progymnasmata, ancient literary theory.

The very first consideration to be taken into account when we look at a set of texts commonly

labelled “ancient novel”1 is how to define this literary genre. The main question is how far it can

be claimed there is a universal law that applies to literary works and that makes the individual act

of creation, supposedly unique in and of itself, become intrinsic part of a set of recurrent and

iterative features which, when blended together, form a pattern that makes up a particular genre

and which is simultaneously located at the beginning and end of that creative process. At the end,

because no theoretical scheme precedes non-existing literary works, and at the beginning,
2

because a successful work is immediately used as a model and thus contributes to the building-

up of a particular literary type.2

The second issue, which is closely associated with the first, concerns the supposed

legitimacy of pairing and labelling in the same way literary works which appear at the dawn of

two modernities: the Greek-Roman modernity, which is the result of a long and complex cultural

phenomenon, and the European modernity, which claims to be the historical and literary heir to

the former, and within which the novel is justly regarded as one of its richest and most

productive manifestations. However, the relatively recent interest that classicists have evinced

for this tardy and controversial genre in Antiquity, which emerged and flourished in the

Hellenistic and Roman period, and the ignorance of it shown by most theorists or literary critics,

can no longer be used as an argument or paliative to justify its absence in today’s works whose

main purpose is to provide a systematic study of literary language in all its componentes and

modes.3

The issues raised above are linked to the uexata quaestio of the theory of genres and generic

modes.4 The nature of what we call genre has changed throughout the ages, depending on

scholars’ aesthetic and philosophical stances. Hence, the various view points adopted, from the

common practice that, until recently, defined genre in stratified and hierarchical terms, simply

taking it for granted that genres are definable and mutually exclusive, to Croce’s, who

peremptorily denies the existence or validity of genres. The modern genre theory is undoubtedly

descriptive, endowing genre with a non-normative, instrumental and operative nature. In this

hermeneutic context, discussion of literary genres usually implies a compromise between the

theory of absolute categories and post-modern stances that defend the abolition of genres. Fowler

1982, 25 acknowledges the existence of genres as an undeniable truth, but admits that “the
 3

changing and interpenetrating nature of the genres is such as to make their definition

impossible.” It is commonly acknowledged that fictional narrative in Antiquity was not

categorized according to any specific taxonomy 5 due to aesthetic, literary and social motives. 6

Bowersock 1994 regards the birth of Greek prose fiction under emperor Nero as an important

historical event, closely linked to the reaffirmation of cultural differences within a homogeneous

and peaceful administration, as well as to the emergence of an ecumenic Hellenism capable of

assimilating the remains of what was previously regarded as barbarian. In turn, Beltrán Almería

(1998, 296) stresses that, unlike traditional patriarchal societies, which were based on lineage,

the new cultural needs can be accounted for in terms of construction of a new identity, based on

alterity. This new era, marked off by new transforming forces (monetarism, commerce,

internationalization and imperialism), is the result of complex social changes and establishes a

new set of values that culminates in a culture of personal merit. Yet, it is rather curious that, in a

modern hermeneutic context, the philosophical principles of the early eighteenth-century novel

are discussed in terms of the birth of the “individual conscience” which appears when the “idea

of the individual” becomes central/gains importance. Also Martha Nussbaum (1995) considers

that the specific nature of the modern novel and its appearence is intimately connected with the

advent of democracy. In her view, that fact explains the mainly social character of the genre and

its concern with daily life.

Ever since Huet’s pioneering synthesis on the origins of the novel, first published in 1670, 7

not to mention Rohde’s8 outstanding work, and to this day, authors have deliberately used terms

like “romance” (Portuguese), “novela” (Castilian/Spanish), “novel” or “romance” (English),

“roman” (German), “romanzo” (Italian). Nevertheless, the use of this terms to name this type of

ancient prose fiction works apparently involves both a contradiction and a misconception, as
4

stated by Tatum (1994a, 3), who stresses the oxymoronic nature of this belated child of the

ancient literature. The contradiction lies in the fact that a modern term is being used retroactively

to refer to works from Antiquity. The misconception consists in the fact that we are more or less

aware of the ambiguity of this term, of its fluidity and indefinition. In Portugal, for example, in

the sixteenth century, the terms “romance”, “novela” e “conto”, far from having a specific

referential status, are, on the contrary, subjected to a completely subjective and variable

linguistic praxis, according to the contexts and periods under study. The term “romance” has also

got, as it is well known, a derogatory connotation, being used in the Middle Ages to describe

verse narratives, and later also prose narratives, written in vernacular languages, as opposed to

those works written in Latin. This indefinition is apparent not only in the generic formulation of

the concept but also in its many different sub-species or categories: the “picaresque novel”, the

“love and adventure novel”, the “novel of chivalry”, the Bildungsroman, the “impressionist,

realist, naturalist novels”, the “sentimental novel”, the “novel of character”, the nouveau roman.9

Can these three arguments (the absence of a specific name for the new genre, the

anachronistic term, and the conceptual amplitude and theoretical indefinition of the term “novel”

which comprises multiple sub-genres) account for the fact that some contemporary critics seem

unaware of the importance of these texts? Or are there deeper reasons as there is, in fact, no valid

justification for such anachronism given the essential contradiction between the object (ancient

prose fiction) and its term (novel)? As it is common knowledge, Aristotle and Plato do not

mention this specific kind of narrative, which was not part of the traditional canon, thus being

regarded as an outsider. Nevertheless, this status of outsider has been a constant throughout its

long-standing and controversial existence, as postulated by Frye (1976, 23). However, it appears

that this terminological indefinition is no reason to exclude these texts from the history of the
 5

novel, especially if we bear in mind that form proliferates so rapidly in postmodern literature that

some authors are led to defend the suppression of modal or generic boundaries as said above (p.

2). However, as highlighted by Fowler (1982, 32), “it would be wrong to suppose that generic

transformation is peculiarly modern. Or rather, that modernism itself is new. In the dialectical

progressions of literary history, there have been many times when the urge to go beyond existing

genres has recurred.” Nowadays, more than ever, generic categories are merely operational: the

writer explores and transgresses the boundaries of genre, simultaneously innovating (combining

or discarding genres) or activating anew existing categories. Fowler (1982, chap. 11) calls the

phenomenon of generic mixture10 “ modulation”, and he observes that “Modulation is so frequent

that we might expect it progressively to loosen the genres altogether, mingling them into a single

literary amalgam.” (Fowler 1982, 191)

It is self-evident that if we use the term novel as a starting - point to define this particular

genre, we have to accept that the genre started around the middle of the twelfth century with the

so-called courtly novels. Some historians of literature are even more extreme and determine that

the emergence of the new genre took place in the seventeenth century with Cervantes’ Don

Quixote. And Watt (2001) goes even further when he establishes that this genre originated in the

eighteenth century.

By methodological reasons, we will assume that genre is an empirical model which is

defined institutionally by the relationship between the set of works included in a certain class or

type by historical tradition.11 In this way, the different genres are mere abbreviations that list a

set of works which share common features, their referent being the collection of objects selected

and described by means of analysis. In practice, it is possible for a certain work to exist without

there being a generic designation for it.

6

Consequently, as Holzberg (2003, 11) stresses, the real problem that presents itself in any

attempt to develop a theory on the generic nature of ancient narrative prose is not so much one of

terminology—the inexistence of a comprehensive term in Antiquity as well as the similarities

between Greek and Latin texts and the modern ones justify and legitimize the use of an

anachronism. What is difficult is to decide which ancient texts can be labelled “novel”, and if

there is a corpus with a series of common features that can be classed as belonging to one and

the same “genre”. In other words, the very concept of genre will only become legitimate in this

context if a number of set criteria is established which will enable us to assign a collection of

ancient prose (fiction texts) narratives to a homogeneous group. It is therefore necessary to

define the canon12 of the novel, which will forcefully lead to a classification of the nature of the

texts which go by the generic designation of “ancient novels”. As a consequence, our aim is not

so much to prove whether the novel, in its modern meaning, did exist in Antiquity, because, as

Kundera claims, there are only “stories” of the novel, but rather to discover to what extent the

criteria put forward for defining that genre may contribute to a better understanding of our own

generic awareness. These criteria should not only comply with modern principles but also, and

above all, contemplate former aesthetic and literary patterns.

The spectrum of what is commonly labelled “Greek novel” and that merely represents a tiny

section of a vast literary production lost in time, is wide, blurred and, therefore, not in the least

homogeneous. Aside the five idealized narratives (the so-called Liebesromane),13 it is generally

accepted that this genre also includes those fragments or summaries which reveal similar features

to those five idealized novels. This is the case of Iamblichus’ Babyloniaca and Antonius

Diogenes’ The Wonders Beyond Thule, both being known through Photius’ summaries in the

latter half of the ninth century (cod. 94 and cod. 166, respectively). It is nevertheless curious that
 7

Photius, at the beginning of his synopsis of the Babyloniaca only lists, besides Iamblichus,

Achilles Tatius and Heliodorus as making part of those authors “who have adopted the same

subject and have chosen love intrigues as the material for their stories”, leaving out Chariton,

Xenophon of Ephesus and Longus.14 As there is no way of proving whether Photius knew about

the work of these authors, we are inclined to believe that he had had strong enough motives not

to include them in the group defined by him. On what grounds has he taken this decision, we

may wonder? Indeed, even if this decision appears to be acceptable as far as Longus’ work is

concerned, the same cannot be said about Chariton and Xenophon of Ephesus, whose texts

reflect the same paraphernalia of motifs. Still within the Greek tradition, the epitome of a comic

novel, the erotic novella Lucius or The Ass (also known variously as Lucius siue Asinus, Asinus,

or Onos) by the Pseudo-Lucian15 has stood the test of time, and reference should also be made to

another work which, apparently, was the model for the narrative of the Onos as well as for

Apuleius’ version of the Eselsroman: the Metamorphoses authored by a certain Lucius of Patras

(Photius, Bibl. cod. 129). Most scholars acknowledge Perry’s (1967) thesis that Lucian himself

was the author of the now lost and longer text of the Metamorphoses recorded by Photius and

which seem to have been the model for both the epitome ascribed to Lucian and for

Apuleius’Metamorphoses. Yet, there is no overwhelming consensus on this matter due to both

the confusing, contradictory testimonia and the fact that the original Greek text was lost.

Nevertheless, the scholarly opinion nowadays is that both works (the Onos and Apuleius’

Metamorphoses) are independently derived from the Greek Metamorphoses by Lucius from

Patras. However, as Sandy (1994a, 1518) stresses, “The ‘stemma’ of the ‘Eselsroman’ is not yet

a closed book”.16
8

More recently, our inventory of ancient narrative prose fiction has considerably increased by

the inclusion of fragments whose main features have called into question the long-standing

generalized view that split Antiquity’s narrative production into two sub-categories: the serious

and idealized Greek novel and the burlesque and realistic Latin novel. 17 The publication of the

fragments of Lollianus’ Phoenicica by Henrichs18, and of a fragment of a narrative known as

Iolaus (which is most likely part of a probable Greek Schelmenroman) by Parsons19 has

undermined that widely accepted dichotomy, showing that rudeness and obscenity as well as

their humorous and comical treatment were not exclusive of the Latin novel. It was thus proven

that there was a Greek narrative tradition of a parodic and licentious nature, which might even

have influenced Petronius. Therefore, the thesis defended by some scholars20 that the Satyrica is

a parody of the Greek love-novels has been called into question due to some recent papyrological

testimonia.21 Based on Perry (1967, 320-321), Sandy (1994a, 1517) remarks that more often than

not the similarities between Petronius and Apuleius, on the one hand, and between the Satyrica

and the Metamorphoses and the Greek love-romances, on the other hand, are drawn from “the

common stock of classical Greek and Latin literature rather than distinctive features of the prose

fiction of classical antiquity”. 22

The evidence concerning the Greek prose fiction spreads over a period of at least five

centuries, from the Ninus Romance or Ninopedia,23 most likely dated from the first century BC,

to Heliodorus who, according to the latest research, goes back to the fourth century AD. 24 Some

other texts, which may somewhat resemble the above-mentioned, such as The Romance of

Alexander by the Pseudo-Callisthenes, the Vita Apollonii by Philostratus or Xenophon’s of

Athens Cyropaedia25 are as a rule relegated to the “fringe” of the genre”.

 9

If we turn now to the more restricted Latin tradition, this “canon” of love and adventure

stories widens its scope with the inclusion of Petronius’ Satyrica (ante 66 DC),

Apuleius’Metamorphoses (post 158-159 DC), and the anonymous text Historia Apollonii Regis

Tyri.

Petronius’ affiliation with modernity and post-modernity, stressed by Fusillo (2008, 330-

337), and his reading of the Satyrica as a model for the twentieth-century experimental novel and

for open and encyclopaedic forms (Fusillo 2011) are particularly interesting insights. According

to Fusillo, a certain number of Petronius’s innovative features look towards the modern novel

and contemporary experimentation, such as: the absence of teleology (i.e., the labyrinthine and

anarchic course of the narration as well as its paratactic and hectically episodic organization), its

open form, theatricality, and realism. Some othe features of the Satyrica, such as its expressive

polyphony which is is linked with a polyhedric and promiscuous view of sexuality, also recall

crucial contemporary issues, such as the postmodern aesthetics of the “camp”, an outstanding

category in Anglo-Saxon culture, first defined by Susan Sontag in 1967, that “indicates a mixture

of irony, theatricality, aestheticism, and juxtaposition of incongruous elements; a playful re-use

of consumer culture; a refined contamination of kitsch with cultivated, high-brow elements”

(Fusillo 2011, 142).

Helm (1956), Wehrli (1965), and Perry (1967) made invaluable contributions to the setting

up of a typology of ancient fiction prose. The former made a detailed inventory of this

diversified literary production and listed and organized its various types based; the second based

his genre theory on the similarities between Petronius and Apuleius, on the one hand, and

between the Satyrica and the Greek love novels, on the other hand. He undertook a thorough

survey of the motifs common to the comical and idealized traditions of prose fiction, and
10

eventually rejected the thesis that the Satyrica was a parody of the idealized Greek novel based

on the fact that, for example, the theme of pederasty, usually seen as the main component of that

parody, was already present in the idealized Greek novel.

In turn, Perry (1967, 18-27) considers that the nature of the literary form ( ei|doı) has been

misinterpreted, once its genesis and development are not defined and controlled by unchanging

laws of nature, like things in the physical and biological world. He claims that what causes the

the appearance of a new type of writing is the “ever-changing world of thought and feeling

which underlies literature, causes and controls its movement, or evolution, and acts upon it

constantly from without.” (Perry 1967, 25). Therefore, Perry rejects the prescriptive nature of the

Platonic and Aristotelian concept of literary form, or genre ( ei|doı°) fixed by nature as

something eternal and immutable, a universal pattern, shaped and controlled by natural law, in

relation to which any particular work of art must be gauged and thereby approved or rejected.

This false doctrine, as he calls it, predetermines the content of a given work, and distorts the

original, complex, and variable character of the creative impulse, which is purely psychological

and subjective by nature. Perry postulates the existence of an individual force, unique and

unpredictable in itself, which shapes and determines the individual act of creation, ensuring that

no two works of literature are exactly alike, or represent exactly the same idea or aesthetic value.

Accordingly, the word “form” can only be adequately used if it refers to a single composition.

When the term is used abstractly with referenc to a group or class of writings, its precise

meaning is always arbitrary and vague.

This line of reasoning is shared by those authors who claim that literature has got its own

dynamics and that the act of producing a literary text is not dependent upon a merely mechanical

and predetermined process. As Morgan (1994, 3) claims, “Specific fictional forms are generated
 11

in response to changing tastes and needs, which are themselves reflections of of changing social,

economic and historical circumstances.”26 However, ancient fiction is a response, not only to

specific social and political factors, which shape a particular type of narrative prose in antiquity

(the love and adventure tales), but other factors, such as the audience’s response to this kind of

literature, the interaction and, at times, the confrontation with other texts should also be taken

into account. These factors may contribute to explain the creative impulse or need for fiction, or

the existence of another types of narrative prose fiction in classical antiquity. 27 This perspective

widens and enriches the system of canonical genres, as it enables the inclusion of other texts

related to the existing ones.28

Kayser (1956, 360-361) considers there are three types of novel: the adventure novel, the

character novel, and the space novel. According to him, the Greek adventure novel, which was

highly influential worldwide, was, historically, the first to appear. Nevertheless, we owe the most

brilliant reflexion on genre and generic categories to Bakhtine. Bakhtine added the dimensions of

space and time to the idea of genre, which, for him, represents the creative memory within the

processuss of literary creation. His chronotope category is, according to Branham (2002, 166) “a

fundamental working assumption that shapes the genre’s way of seeing reality”, and “an attempt

to delineate time as an organizing principle of a genre, the ground or field against which the

human image is projected” (Branham 2002). Bakhtin (1978, 237), uses the chronotope, i.e., “the

inseparable correlation of spatial-temporal relashionships” to characterize the adventure-time of

the Greek “adventure and ordeal novel” (Prüfungs-roman), which he considers to be the first

form of the ancient novel. Bakhtin claimed that the elaborate technique in handling the time is so

perfect that the development of the posterior adventure novel did not add anything substantial to

it. In light of Bakhtin’s conception of the chronotope, and despite the fact that, as he argues, none
12

of the basic componentes of the plot are actually new, the characteristic elements of the former

genres acquired a new character, meaning and specific fonctions in this new form of Greek

narrative prose. The latin novel, still according to Bakhtine, belongs to the category of the

“adventure and custom novel”, which is characterized by a completely new chronotope, that,

contrarily to that of the Greek novel, leaves “a deep and inerradicable mark” on the hero and on

his entire life. This new type of adventure-time, instead of resulting in a “simple confirmation”

of the hero’s identity, as in Greek novel, it rather leads to constructing “a new image: the image

of an hero purified and regenerated” (ibid. 267). In this chronotope, two spacial components are

interwined: the real itinerary and the metaphor of the “path of life”.

Despite the differences between the earliest Greek fictional narratives (Chariton’s Chaereas

and Callirhoe and Xenophon of Ephesus’ Ephesiaca) and the more sophisticated ones (Longus’

Daphnis and Chloe, Achilles Tatius’ Leucippe and Clitophon, and Heliodorus’ Aethiopica), it is

undoubtedly possible, at a formal level, to recognize a set of invariables or a system of

permanent structural features,: an intricate plot, unfolding through unimaginable adventures

(travels, tempests, shipwrecks, abductions) suicide attempts, apparent deaths and hostile

divinities (among which the omnipotent tuvch stands out) which all eventually contribute to a

happy ending and the reunion of the two lovers. Thus, the narratological analysis29 is naturally

adequate and even indispensable, as has been amply shown. 30 And also, despite the labyrinthic

and even today opened to question connections between the Greek “ideal novels” and their latin

comic-realistic doubles, the notorius differences, and the fact that the limited ocurrence of

supposed parallels do not constitute a compelling reason for supposing a direct link between the

Greek and latin texts, there are also undoubtedly convincing arguments for grouping them

together.
 13

It was thus proven that there exists a class of works displaying a series of recurrent and

iterative thematic and formal features, which set this new form of fiction apart from all other

forms of narrative in antiquity. Nevertheless, genre cannot be fully accounted for in purely

formal literary terms. Bakhtin (1978, 99ff.) defines the novel as pluristylistic, plurilinguitic and

plurivocal. He claims that the novel is a literary system whose basic and distinguishing feature

lies in its dialogic nature, emphasizing the deep interaction (both peaceful and hostile) with other

rhetoric and literary genres, as well as its active and necessary participation in the social and

ideological dialogue.

As Goldhill (2008, 186) also emphasizes, “there is a socio-politics of genre”, which means

that, underlying the concept of genre as an organising category, “there is always a frame of

expectation that stemms from a cultural knowledge of a society’s practices of writing”.

Consequently, envisaging this particular kind of prose fiction we are dealing with as novel as

well as the novel as a genre requires a re-evaluation of some basic principles of rhetoric and

ancient literary theory.

In antiquity, the “narrative” (dihvghsiı) was a rhetorical component of the discourse as well

as a literary and compositional technique. The treatises of exercises in composition and

argument for students of rhetoric in late antiquity and in the Byzantine period (Progymnasmata)

comprised a repertoire of composition devices which the literary praxis makes use of, especially

in the ancient and modern narratives. Some of these devices betrays evidence of the

overpowering shadow of Aristotle and the Peripatetics, 31 of Plato and Quintilian, and were later

taken up once again and revisited in the light of modern trends in literary theory. The

rhetoricians of the Second Sophistic made up a theory of narrative and the notion of

verisimilitude is closely connected with it. Theon affirms that the desirable qualities of
14

dihvghsiı are: clarity (safhvneia), conciseness (suntomiva) and credibility (piqanovthı).32

Quintilian agrees entirely that narratio should be lucida, breuis, uerisimilis.33 Concerning the last

of these qualities, Theon claims that:

Ὑpevr ge mh;n tou~ piqanh;n ei\nai dihvghsin paralhptevon levxeiº me;n

prosfueiº~ toi~º te προσώpοις καὶ τοῖς πράγμασι καὶ τοῖς τόποις καὶ τοῖς καιροῖς∙
πράγματα δὲ ὅσα εἰκότα ἐστὶ καὶ ἀλλήλοις ἀκόλουθα. Δεῖ δὲ καὶ τὰς αἰτίας βραχέως προστιθέναι
τῇ διηγήσει, καὶ τὸ ἀπιστούμενον πιστῶς λέγειν. Καὶ ἁπλῶς στοχάζεσται προσήκει τοῦ πρέποντος

1
End Notes

*This paper is a refunded and elaborated version of Pulquério Futre Pinheiro, M. (2005). “Origens gregas do género”. In O
Romance Antigo. Origens de um Género Literário, edited by Francisco de Oliveira, Paolo Fedeli, and Delfim Leão, 9-32.
Coimbra: Universidade de Coimbra and Università degli Studi di Bari.
?
The term novel was definitively consacrated (accepted) as an official designation since the first International Conference on the
Ancient Novel (ICAN I) that was sponsered by Reardon in 1976 to celebrate the 100th anniversary of Rohde’s Der
Griechische Roman. The three sequels to such Conference (in Dartmouth, 1989, in Groningen in 2000, and in Lisbon in 2008)
adopted the same terminology.
2
See Grimal (1992), 13.
3
There are, for instance, a few honourable exceptions, such as Scholes and Kellog (2006), Bakhtine (1978), or Frye (1976).
4
For a “mise au point” of the genesis, nature and historical development of genre theories, see inter alios Strelka (1978),
Hernadi (1972), Todorov (1978), Genette (1979), Fowler (1982), Scholes (1986), Garrido Gallardo (1988), Schaeffer (1989),
García Berrio/Huerta Calvo (19952), Spang (1993), and Bessière and Philippe (1999).
5
The authors of Antiquity classified these works according to the categories of the preexisting genres (mythos, diegema,
historia, drama, komodia, syntagma, plasma, pathos, and, on the latin side, fabulae, argumentum, narratio). This means that
they did not acknowledge the existence of a specific new genre, but rather widened the scope of existing genres to
accommodate this new narrative production.
6
On this subject, see inter alios Perry (1967), Reardon (1969 and 1976), Cataudella (1973 2), García Gual (19882), Heiserman
(1977), Hägg (1983), Anderson (1984), Bowie (1985), Roueché (1988), Kuch (1989), Holzberg (1995 2), Morgan (1994 e
1995), MacAlister (1991), Selden (1994) 39-40, Swain (1999) and Ruiz-Montero (2003) 80-85.
7
Gégou (1971).
8
Rohde (1914).
9
For a typological analysis of the novel, see García Berrio/Huerta Calvo (19952) 182-198.
10
Genre mixture (poikiliva) was a phenomenon widely known in Antiquity. Plato (Republic 397 d4) defends the unmixed type
of diction, imitator of the good, and is adamant when it comes to the mixture of genres which, in his view, is highly responsible
for political degeneration. (Laws 700a-701c).
11
For a discussion of the concept of “generic classes” see Schaeffer (1989), 64-78. In turn, Fowler (1982) 37 ff. prefers the term
“types” rather than “classes” because, in his view, the former excludes the taxonomic rigidity that is associated with the notion
of “class”. The notion of “type” is therefore introduced to make it clearer that the genre theory deals with principles of
reconstruction, interpretation and, in a way, evaluation of meaning rather than with classification. In the wake of Plato’s and
Aristotle’s distinctions, Genette (1979) states that genres are literary categories while modes, deriving from a particular kind of
enunciation, are linguistic categories. The former are subject to historical circumstances while the latter, on the contrary, are
universal and a-historical.
12
On the concept of literary canon Fowler (1979) 97 states that: “The literature we criticize and theorize about is never the
whole. Atmost we talk about sizable subsets of the writers and works of the past.This limited field is the current literary
canon.” Fowler further stresses that the literary canon varies from age to age and reader to reader according to literary fashion
and tastes. Furthermore, “the idea of canon certainly implies a collection of works enjoying an exclusive completeness (at least
for a time).” (ibid. 98).
13
I. e., Chariton’s Chaereas and Callirhoe (mid-first century BC/AD?), Xenophon of Ephesus’s The Ephesian Tale of Anthia
and Habrocomes (mid-second century AD?), Achilles Tatius’ Leucippe and Clitophon (late second century AD), Longus’
Daphnis and Chloe (late second century/early third century AD), and Heliodorus’ Aehiopica - Theagenes and Charicleia
 15

τῷ τε προσώπῳ καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις στοιχείοις τῆς διηγήσεως κατά τε τὰ πράγματα καὶ κατὰ τὴν λέξιν.
(Theon 5, 84)

In order for the narrative to be credible one should employ styles that are natural
for the speakers and suitable for the subjects and the places and the occasions: in
the case of the subjects, those that are probable and follow from each other. One
should briefly add the causes of things to the narration and say what is incredible
in a believable way, and, simply put, it is suitable to aim at what is appropriate to
the speaker and to the other elements of the narration in content and in style.34

(early/mid- third century AD or late fourth century AD).

14
oiJ ga;r trei==º ou|toi scedovn ti to;n aujto;n skopo;n proqevmenoi ejrwtikw=n dramavtwn
uJpoqevseiº uJpekrivqhsan..., Bibl. cod. 94.
15
Translations of the Greek corpus are available in Reardon (20082).
16
For a full range of scholarly discussion on the various existing theories and views, see, inter alios, Lesky (1941), van Thiel
(1971), Schlam (1971), Anderson (1976), Holzberg (1984), Kussl (1990), Mason (1978, 1994 and 1999a), Sandy (1994a),
Schlam/Finkelpearl (2000), 36-41, Harrison (2003), 500-502, and Frangoulidis (2008), 13-14. On the other hand, the recurrent
use of certain motifs and the literary structure of the Onos, which in many aspects reminds one of the conventional structure of
the Greek love-and-adventure narrativess, has led some authors to conclude that the Onos was a parody of that type of works.
See e. g. van Thiel (1971) and Holzberg (19952). Sandy (1994a) and Fusillo (1994) put forward an opposite view.
17
See Rohde (1914), 583-591, Perry (1967) and Helm (1948, 1956 2), who agree with the division between the serious, idealized
novel and the comic, burlesque novel, and Wehrli (1965) and Anderson (1982) who disagree with such a division. We can also
find a dychotomy between the ideal Greek novel and the Roman comic novel in Hägg (1983). Bakhtine (1978) also points out
that the two main trends of the European novel (the love-and-adventure novel, which is static and monologic, and the
Menippean and “carnivalesque” trend, which is dialogic and farcical), are the natural successors to the two types of the ancient
novel: the erotic Greek novel, and the Roman novel, whose archetypes are Petronius and Apuleius.
18
On Lollianus, see Henrichs (1969 and 1972); edition and English translation in Stephens/Winkler (1994).
19
Concerning the interpretation of Iolaus fragment as “a Greek Satyricon”, see Parsons (1971); see also Sandy (1994b), 139-140
and Merkelbach (1973); edition and English translation in Parsons (1974) and Stephens/Winkler (1995).
20
Heinze (1899) was the first author to claim that the Satyrica is a parody of the Greek love novel. This thesis was also later
resumed by Reitzenstein (1974), by Paratore (1942 2), Courtney (1962), Scobie (1969) and, more recently, by Walsh (1970) 8
and 78-79.
21
See inter alios Mendell (1917), Todd (1940) 75-76,Wehrli (1965), Sandy (1969 and 1994a), Gagliardi (1993) 26-29 and
Schmeling (2003) 481-82.
22
Also Keulen (2006), 159, presents a similar view. A survey of the scholarly research on the subject is made by Barchiesi
(2006). See also Laird (2007).
23
For a general study of the fragments of lost novels, see Kussl (1991 3), Sandy (1994b), Stephens/Winkler (1995), Morgan
(1998), López Martínez (1998) and Stephens (2003).
24
On the chronology of the Greek prose fiction texts see, inter alios, Weinreich (19622), Perry (1967), Reardon (1971), Lesky
(19993), Sandy (1994a) 1514 n.4, Bowie (1999) 39-41, Ruiz-Montero (2003) 30-31.
25
For a study of the fictional nature of the Cyropaedia see Stadter (1991), Tatum (1994b) and Holzberg (2003) 20-21.
26
See also Morgan (1995).
27
Morgan (1994) 1-5, Reardon (1991) 3-11, Müller (1981).
28
Morgan (1994) 6-9, Holzberg (1995 and 2003), Bowie (1999), García Gual (19882).
29
According to Prince’ 1982, 4-5, “Narratology is the study of the form and functioning of narrative... Narratology examines
what all narratives have in common – narratively speaking – and what allows them to be narratively different.... As for its
primary task, it is the elaboration of instruments leading to the explicit description of narratives and the comprehension of their
functioning.”
30
See Hefti (1950), Hägg (1971), Futre Pinheiro (1987 and 1997), Ruiz-Montero (1988), Fusillo (1991) and Chew (1993-94 ).
31
See Butts (1987) 6.
16

The sophists’ theories about the power of the logos reinforced the idea that, to persuade an

audience, a speech should preferably, not to say solely, base itself upon what seems to be true,

that is, upon what is plausible (or verisimilar), which is more convincing than reality itself.

According to Gorgias, the delight and persuasive effect of a speech do not depend on the
35
truthfulness of its arguments, but on the skill with which it is devised and written. This skill or

mastery Gorgias refers to is obviously linked to the ability to produce, by using the adequate

rhetorical devices, “belief” (πιθανόν), upon which relies the persuasive effect of the speech.

Plato was one of the first authors in Antiquity to establish some of the principles of the “rhetoric

of verisimilitude”. In Timaeus 48d he claims that the dihvghsiº (in philosophical matters)

should not be a[topoº (absurd) or ἀήθηº (incoherent), but rather that it should lead to probable

opinions, and in Phaedrus 260a, the criteria of verisimilitude are said to fall within the sphere of

appearance and probability. Persuasion, says Phaedrus, “comes from what seems to be true, not

from the truth”, and he also says that “an orator does not need to know what is good or just, but

what would seem good or just to the multitude who are to pass judgment […]”. 36

If we apply the above mentioned principles concepts notions features to the various types of

fictional ou prose writing that proliferated in the burgeoning and complex Greek-Roman world

in the first centuries A.D., there would be no problem in styling the Historia Apollonii regis Tyri,
32
Theon 5, 79. See Kennedy (2003) 29 [Patillon 2002, 40]. For Theon, I have followed Patillon 2002; Theon’ translations are
from Kennedy 2003. Phaedrus’ translation is taken from Fowler (1971). The text of Gorgias’ Encomium of Helen is from Diels
and Kranz (19526). The English version is from Kennedy 2001. For the text of The Poetics, I have followed Fyfe’s edition and
translation (1973).
33
See Quint. Inst. IV, 2, 31-32.
34
See Kennedy, 2003, 33 [Patillon 2002, 46-47]. See also Theon 3, 105 and 4, 76-77, and Butts, 1987, 249, n. 34.
“Verisimilitude” (“plausibility“, credibility”, or “believability” ˗ piqanovthº) is a major concern in rhetoric, as stated by
Cicero (Inv. Rhet. I, 21, 29) and Quintilian Inst. Orat. IV, 2, 52). For an overview of the concept of diegesis (narratio) in
ancient rhetoric and literary theory see Futre Pinheiro (forthcoming).
35
Cf. Gorgias, Hel. 13: … δεύτερον δὲ τοὺς ἀναγκαίους διὰ λόγων ἀγῶνας, ἐν οἷς εἷς λόγος πολὺν ὄχλον
ἔτερψε καὶ ἔπεισι τέχνηι γραφείς, οὐκ ἀληθείαι λεχθείς (… second, logically necessary debates in which a
single speech, written with art but not spoken with truth, bends a great crowd and persuades;).
36
See also Arist. Po. 1460a 26 [Προαιρεῖσθαί τε δεῖ ἀδύνατα εἰκότα μᾶλλον ἢ δυνατὰ ἀπίθανα. (What is
convincing though impossible should always be preferred to what is possible and unconvincing.)] and 1461b 9: πρός τε γὰρ
τὴν ποίησιν αἱρετώτερον πιθανὸν ἀδύνατον ἢ ἀπίθανον καὶ δυνατόν (For poetic effect a convincing
impossibility is preferable to that which is unconvincing though possible.). See also Rh. Al. 30 1438 b, 1-4.
 17

Euhemerus’ and Iambulus’ utopias and fantastic travel, and Lucian’s Verae Historiae as “novel”

or “romance”. And why not include in the series of “ancient novels” the Pseudo-Clement’s

Recognitiones, that Szepessy includes in what he calls “the ancient family novel”, 37 along with

Philostratus’ Life of Apollonius of Tyana and other hagiographic narratives, the Pseudepigraphic

Letters, The Romance of Alexander by the Pseudo-Callisthenes, the so-called “Trojan Novels”

(Dictys Cretensis’ Ephemeris belli Troiani and Dares Phrygius’ Acta diurna belli Troiani) or still

The Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles? Is there not, one wonders, any other criterium to limit the

bounds of genre? The answer to this question is to be found in a letter written by the Roman

emperor Julian in the year 363 AD (89 B Bidez-Cumont, 301b) in which he advises his priests

against the reading of all made-up stories (plavsmata) in historical guise (ejn iJstorivaº

ei[dei), the ejrwtika;º uJpoqevseiº, love stories that arouse passions. And here lies, perchance,

the key or the element that enables us to come full circle concerning the matter under study. The

erotic element is also a distinctive feature of the “ancient novel”38

In short, the genre of the novel can be defined according to three fundamental factors: a

narrative structure, the verisimilitude of the story and the erotic motif. To what extent, then, do

the above mentioned texts fit into this pattern? Assuming that any study of genre should be

confined to complete works, and that some types of prose writing we are dealing with appear in a

fragmentary or summarized form, it seems quite evident that they cannot be labelled “novels”.

Some others, still, lack one or another of those three componentes, such as The Life of Alexander

by the Pseudo Calistenes, The Life of Apollonius of Tyana by Philostratus and The Apocryphal

Acts of the Apostles, that should be included in the category of “fictionalized biographies”. In

37
Szepessy (1985-88).
38
The authors themselves stress this erotic component: Chariton declares, in the beginning of the novel, that he intends to tell a
love story (pavqoº ejrwtikovn, 1.1.1) and, in the proem of Daphnis and Chloe, Longus describes the story he is about to
tell as a love story (iJstorivan e]rwtoº, 1.1.1).
18

turn, The True Story by Lucian belongs to the sub-genre of the fantastic novel. Thus, the criteria

above mentioned substantially reduce the scope of texts that can be included in the genre of the

novel.There is indeed a set of works sharing such clear similarities that set them apart from the

remaining literary production in Antiquity, and that legitimize their inclusion in a polyphonic,

dialogic and plurigeneric kind of prose narrative. Even without there being a proper name for it

for centuries, the way of “telling” a story has lasted to this day, giving rise to one of the most

fecund, trans-national39 and ever lasting literary genres.40 And this genre is undoubtely the genre

of the novel.

Bibliography

Anderson, Graham. 1976. Studies in Lucian’s Comic Fiction. Leiden: Brill.

Anderson, Graham. 1982. Eros Sophistes: Ancient Novelists at Play. Chico: Scholars Press.

Anderson, Graham. 1984. Ancient Fiction. The Novel in the Graeco-Roman World. London:
Croom Helm.

Beltrán Almería, José A. 1998. “El debate sobre el Género en la Novela Antigua.” In Didaskalos,
259-78. Zaragoza: Monografías de Filología Griega – 9.

Bakhtine, Mikhaïl. 1978. Esthétique et théorie du roman. Paris: Éditions Gallimard.

Barchiesi, Alessandro. 2006. “Romanzo greco, romanzo latino: problemi e prospecttive della
ricerca attuale.” In Il Romanzo Antico. Forme, testi, problemi, edited by Luca Graverini,
Wytse Keulen, Alessandro Barchiesi, 193-218. Roma: Carocci Editore.

Bessière, Jean and Philippe, Gilles, ed. 1999. Problématique des genres, problèmes du roman.
Paris: Honoré Champion Editeur.

Bowersock, Glen W. 1994. Fiction as History: Nero to Julian. Berkeley, Los Angeles and
London: University of California Press.

39
I owe Prof. Sandra Guardini T. Vasconcelos the designation of the novel as a trans-nacional genre. I’m also grateful to her for
providing me the text of her forthcoming paper on “The novel as an inter-nacional genre”.
40
For a study of the reception of the ancient novel and of its literary and cultural heritage, see Futre Pinheiro and Harrison 2011.
 19

Bowie, Ewen L. 1985. “The Greek Novel.” In The Cambridge History of Classical Literature I.
Greek Literature, edited by P. E. Easterling and B. M. W. Knox, 683-99. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.

Bowie, Ewen L. 1999. “The Greek Novel.” In Oxford Readings in The Greek Novel, edited by
Simon Swain, 39-59. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Cataudella, Quintino, ed. 1958. Il Romanzo Classico. Roma: Casini. Reprinted as Il Romanzo
Antico Greco. Florence: Casini, 1973.

Chew, Kathryn. 1993-4. Novel Techniques; Modes of Motivation in the Aethiopica of

Heliodorus. PhD diss. UCLA.

Courtney, Edward. 1962. "Parody and Literary Allusion in Menippean Satire", Philologus 106,
86-100.

Fowler, Alastair. 1979. “Genre and the Literary Canon”, New Literary History 11,1, 97-119.

Fowler, Alastair. 1982. Kinds of Literature: An Introduction to the Theory of Genres and Modes.
Oxford: Oxford University Press. Reprint Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985.

Frangoulidis, Stravos. 2008. Witches, Isis and Narrative, Trends in Classics Supplementary.
Volumes 2. Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter.

Frye, Northrop. 1976. The Secular Scripture: A Study of the Structure of Romance. Cambridge
MA and London: Harvard University Press.

Fusillo, Massimo. 1994. “Letteratura di Consumo e Romanzesca.” In Lo Spazio letterario di

Roma antica. I: La produzionee la circolazione del testo, edited by Giuseppe Cambiano,
Luciano Canfora and Diego Lanza, volume 1.3., 323-73. Roma: Salerno Editori.

Fusillo, Massimo.1991. Naissance du Roman. Paris : Éditions du Seuil. [Il Romanzo Greco.
Polifonia ed Eros. Venezia: Marsilio Editori, 1989].
Fusillo, Massimo. 2011. “Petronius and the Contemporary

Futre Pinheiro, Marília. 1987. Estruturas Técnico-Narrativas nas Etiópicas de Heliodoro. PhD
dissertation. Universidade de Lisboa.

Futre Pinheiro, Marília. 1997. "Time and Narrative Technique in Heliodorus' Aethiopica." In
Ausfstieg und Niedergang der Römischen Welt (ANRW), Part 11, vol. 34, 4. Berlin and New
York: Walter de Gruyter, 3148-3173.

Futre Pinheiro, Marília and Harrison, Stephen, eds. 2011. Fictional Traces. Receptions of the
Ancient Novel, ANS 14.1 and 14.2. Groningen: Barkhuis.
20

García Berrio, Antonio and Huerta, Calvo, Javier. 2nd ed. 1995. Los Géneros Literarios: Sistema
e Historia. Madrid: Ediciones Cátedra S.A.

García Gual, Carlos. 2nd ed. 1988. Los Orígenes de la Novela. Madrid: Ediciones Istmo.

Gagliardi, Donato. 1993. Petronio e il romanzo moderno. La fortuna del ‘Satyricon’ attraverso i
secoli. Firenze: La Nuova Italia.

Gégou, Fabienne, ed. 1971. Lettre-Traité de Pierre-Daniel Huet sur l’origine des Romans.
Paris : Éditions A.-G. Nizet.

Genette, Gérard. 1979. Introduction à l’architexte. Paris: Seuil.

Garrido Gallardo, Miguel A., ed. 1988. Teoría de Los Géneros Literarios. Madrid: Arco/Livros,
S.A.

Graverini, Luca, Keulen, Wytse and Barchiesi, Alessandro. 2006. Il Romanzo Antico. Forme,
testi, problemi. Roma: Carocci Editore.

Grimal, Pierre. 1992. “Essai sur la formation du genre romanesque dans l’Antiquité.” In Le
Monde du Roman Grec, edited by M-F Baslez, P. Hoffmann, M. Trédé, 13-18. Paris :
Presses de L’École Normale Supérieure.
Hägg, Tomas. 1971. Narrative Technique in Ancient Greek Romances. Studies of Chariton,
Xenophon Ephesius, and Achilles Atticus. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksells Boktryckeri
Aktiebolag.
Hägg, Tomas. 1983. The Novel in Antiquity. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California
Press.
Harrison, Stephen J. 2003. “Apuleius’ Metamorphoses.” In The Novel in the Ancient World
edited by Gareth Schmeling, (revised ed.), 491-516. Boston and Leiden: Brill Academic
Publishers, Inc.

Hefti, Victor. 1950. Zur Erzählungstechnik in Heliodors Aethiopica. Wien: Adolph Holzhausens.

Heinze, Richard. 1899. “Petron und der griechische Roman”, Hermes 34, 494-519.

Heiserman, Arthur. 1977. The Novel before the Novel. Essays and Discussions about the
Beginnings of Prose Fiction in the West. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago
Press.

Helm, Rodolf. 2nd ed. 1956 (1st ed. 1948). Der antike Roman. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und
Ruprecht.

Henrichs, Albert. 1969. “Lollianos, Phoinikika”, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 4,
205-15.
 21

Henrichs, Albert. 1972. Die ‘Phoinikika’ des Lollianos. Fragmente eines neuen grieschichen
Roman. Bonn : R. Habelt.

Hernadi, Paul. 1972. Beyond Genre: New Directions in Literary Classification. Ithaca and
London: Cornell University Press.

Holzberg, Niklas. 1984. “Apuleius und der Verfasser des griechischen Eselsromans”, WJA, 10,
161-77.

Holzberg, Niklas, 2nd ed. 1995. The Ancient Novel: An Introduction. London and New York:
Routledge.

Holzberg, Niklas. 2003. “The Genre: Novels Proper and the Fringe.” In The Novel in the Ancient
World, edited by Gareth Schmeling (revised ed.), 11-28. Boston and Leiden: Brill Academic
Publishers, Inc.

Kayser, Wolfgang. 4th ed. 1956 (1st ed. 1948). Das sprachliche Kunstwerk. Ein Einführung in
die Literaturwissenschaft. Bern: Francke Verlag.

Keulen, Wytse. 2006. “Il romanzo latino.” In Il Romanzo Antico. Forme, testi, problemi, edited
by L. Graverini, W. Keulen, A. Barchiesi, 131-177. Roma: Carocci Editore.

Kuch, Heinrich. 1989. “Die Herausbildung des antiken Romans als Literaturgattung:
Theoretische Positionen, historische Voraussetzungen und literarische Prozesse.” In Der
Antike Roman: Untersuchungen zur literarischen Kommunikation und Gattungsgeschichte,
edited by Heinrich Kuch, 11-51. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.

Kussl, Rolf. 1990. “Die Metamorphosen des ‘Lukios von Patrai’: Untersuchungen zu Phot. Bibl.
129”, RhM 133, 379-88.

Kussl, Rolf, 3rd ed. 1991. Papyrusfragmente griechischer Romane. Ausgewähte

Untersuchungen. Tübingen: Classica Monacensia 2.

Laird, Andrew. 2007. ”The True Nature of the Satyricon?.” In ANS 8, edited by Michel
Paschalis, Stravos Frangoulidis, Stephen Harrison and Maaike Zimmerman, 151-167.
Groningen: Barkhuis and Groningen University Library.

Lesky, Albin. 1941. “Apuleius von Madaura und Lukios von Patrai”, Hermes 76, 43-74.

Lesky, Albin, 3rd ed. 1999. Geschichte der griechischen Literatur. München: V. G. Saur Verlag.

López Martínez, María Paz. 1998. Fragmentos Papiráceos de Novela Griega. Alicante:
Universidad de Alicante.

MacAlister, Suzanne. 1991. “The Ancient Greek Novel in its Social and Cultural Context”,
Classicum 17, 37-43.
22

Mason, Hugh J. 1994. “Greek and Latin Versions of the Ass-Story.” In ANRW II, 43. 2 edited by
Wolfgang Haase, 1665-707. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter.

Mason, Hugh J. 1999a. “The Metamorphoses of Apuleius and its Greek Sources.” In Latin
Fiction. The Latin Novel in Context, edited by Heinz Hofmann. London and New York:
Routledge, 103-12.

Mason, Hugh J.. 1978. “Fabula graecanica: Apuleius and his Greek Sources.” In Aspects of
Apuleius’ Golden Ass, edited by Benjamin L. Hijmans Jr. and Rudi Th. Van der Paardt.
Groningen: Bouma’s Boekhuis, 1-15.

Mendell, Clarence W. 1917. “Petronius and the Greek Romance”, CPh 12, 158-72.

Merkelbach, R. 1973. “Fragment eines satirischen Romans: Aufforderung Zur Beichte”,

Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 11, 81-100.

Morgan, John R. 1994. “Introduction.” In Greek Fiction, edited by John R. Morgan and Richard
Stoneman. London and New York: Routledge, 1-12.

Morgan, John R. 1995. “The Greek Novel: Towards a Sociology of Production and Reception.”
In Greek Fiction, edited by Anton Powell. London: Routledge, 130-152.

Morgan, John R.. 1998. “On the Fringes of the Canone: Work on the Fragments of Ancient
Greek Fiction 1936-94”, ANRW II 34.4, 3292-390.

Müller, Carl W. 1981. “Der griechische Roman.” In Neues Handbuch der Literaturwissenschaft,
II, Griechische Literatur edited by Ernst Vogt. Wiesbaden: Akademisch Verlagsgesellschaft
Athenaion, 377-412.

Paratore, Ettore, 2nd ed. 1942. La Novela in Apuleio. Palermo and Rome: Tipografia Fratelli
Vena & C.

Parsons, Peter. A. 1971. “A Greek Satyricon?”, BICS 18, 53-68.

Parsons, Peter A. 1974. “Narrative about Iolaus”, POxy. 42, 34-41.

Paschalis, Michael, Frangoulidis, Stravos, Harrison, Stephen and Zimmerman, Maaike, eds.
2007. The Greek and the Roman Novel. Parallel Readings, ANS 8. Groningen: Barkhuis and
Groningen University Library.

Perry, Ben Edwin. 1967. The Ancient Romances. A Literary-historical Account of their Origins.
Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Reardon, Bryan P. 1969. “The Greek Novel”, Phoenix 23, 291-309.

 23

Reardon, Bryan P. 1971. Courants Littéraires Grecs des IIe et IIIe siècles après J.-C. Paris: Les
Belles Lettres.

Reardon, Bryan P. 1976. “Aspects of the Greek Novel”, Greece and Rome 23, 118-131.

Reardon, Bryan P. 1991. The Form of Greek Romance. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.

Reardon, B., ed. 2008 (1st ed. 1989). Collected Ancient Greek Novels. Berkeley, Los Angeles
and London: University of California Press.

Reitzenstein, R. 1974 (1st ed. 1906). Hellenistische Wundererzählungen. Darmstadt: WBG.

Rohde, Erwin. 3rd ed. 1914 (1st ed. 1876). Der griechische Roman und seine Vorläufer. Leipzig:
Breitkopf und Härtel.

Ruiz Montero, Consuelo. 1988. La Estructura de la Novela Griega. Análisis Funcional,

Salamanca: Ediciones Universidad de Salamanca.

Ruiz Montero, Consuelo. 2003. “The rise of the Greek Novel.” In The Novel in the Ancient
World, edited by Gareth Schmeling. Boston and Leiden: Brill Academic Publishers, Inc., 29-
85.

Sandy, Gerald N. 1969. “Satire in the ‘Satyricon’”, AJP 90, 293-303.

Sandy, Gerald N. 1994a. “Apuleius’‘Methamorphoses’ and the Ancient Novel”, ANRW II 34.2,
1511-1574.

Sandy, Gerald N. 1994b. “New Pages of Greek Fiction.” In Greek Fiction edited by John R.
Morgan and Richard Stoneman. London and New York: Routledge, 130-46.

Schaeffer, Jean-Marie. 1989. Qu’est ce qu’un genre littéraire?. Paris: Éditions du Seuil.

Schlam, Carl C. 1971. "The Scholarship on Apuleius since 1938", CW 64, 285-308.

Schlam, Carl C. and Finkelpearl, Ellen. 2000. “A Review of Scholarship on Apuleius Met. 1970-
1998”, Lustrum 42, 7-230.

Schmeling, Gareth. 2nd 2003 (1st ed. 1996). “The Satyrica of Petronius.” In The Novel in the
Ancient World, edited by Gareth Schmeling. Boston and Leiden: Brill Academic Publishers,
Inc, 457-90.

Scholes, Robert E. 1986. “Les Modes de la Fiction.” In Théorie des Genres. Paris : Points-Seuils.

Scholes, Robert E. and Kellog, Robert. 2006 (1st ed. 1968). The Nature of Narrative. New York:
Oxford University Press.
24

Scobie, Alexander. 1969. Aspects of the Ancient Romance and its Heritage. Essays on Apuleius,
Petronius, and the Greek Romances. Hain: Meisenheim am Glan.

Selden, Daniel L. 1994. “Genre of Genre.” In The Search for the Ancient Novel, edited by James
Tatum. Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 39-64.

Spang, Kurt. 1993. Géneros Literarios. Madrid: Editorial Sintesis, S.A.

Stadter, Philip. 1991. “Fictional Narrative in the Cyropaedia”, AJPh 112, 461-91.

Stephens, Susan A. and Winkler, John J., eds. 1995. Ancient Greek Novels. The Fragments.
Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.

Stephens, Susan A. 2003. “Fragments of Lost Novels.” In The Novel in the Ancient World edited
by Gareth Schmeling. Boston and Leiden: Brill Academic Publishers, Inc., 655-83.

Strelka, Joseph P., ed. 1978. Theories of Literary Genre. Pennsylvania and London:
Peensylvania State University Press.

Swain, Simon. 1999. “A Century and More of the Greek Novel.” In Oxford Readings in The
Greek Novel, edited by Simon Swain. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 3-35.

Szepessy, Thadeus. 1985-88. “The Ancient Family Novel”, AAntHung 31 3-4, 357-65.

Tatum, James. 1994a. “Introduction: The Search for the Ancient Novel.” In The Search for the
Ancient Novel, edited by James Tatum. Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins
University Press, 1-19.

Tatum, James. 1994b. “The Education of Cyrus.” In Greek Fiction, edited by John R. Morgan
and Richard Stoneman. London and New York: Routledge, 5-28.

Thiel, Helmut van. 1971-72. Der Eselsroman, 2 vols. München: Beck.

Todd, Frederick A. 1940. Some Ancient Novels. Leucippe and Clitophon, Daphnis and Chloe,
The Satiricon, The Golden Ass. London: Oxford University Press.

Todorov, Tzvetan. 1978. “L’origine des genres.” In Les genres du discours. Paris: Seuil.

Walsh, Peter G. 1970. The Roman Novel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Watt, Ian. 2001 (1st ed. 1957). The Rise of the Novel. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of
California Press.

Wehrli, Von Fritz. 1965. “Einheit und Vorgeschichte der griechisch-römischen Roman-literatur”,
MH 22, 133-54.
 25

Weinreich, Otto. 2nd ed. 1962 (1st ed. 1950). Der griechische Liebesroman. Zürich: Artemis.

Further Reading

Schaeffer, Jean-Marie. 1989. Qu’est ce qu’un genre littéraire ?.Paris: Éditions du Seuil;
Bessière; Jean and Philippe, Gilles, ed. 1999. Problématique des genres, problèmes du
roman. Paris: Honoré Champion Editeur, and García Berrio, Antonio and Huerta Calvo,
Javier. 1995. Los Géneros Literarios: Sistema e Historia. Madrid: Ediciones Cátedra, offer a
valuable insight into the theory of literary genres.
Whitmarsh, Tim. 2005."The Greek novel: titles and genre". AJPh, 126: 587-611. Dicusses the
generic unity of the novels based on titles' conventional formula.
Whitmarsh, Tim., ed. 2008. The Greek and Roman Novel. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press. Addresses all the central issues of current scholarship on the novel, including class
and genre.
Doody, M. 1996. The True Story of the Novel. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.
Provides a very useful analysis of the survival of the ancient novel from the Middle Ages
untill the modern era.

Biographical Note

Marília P. Futre Pinheiro is Professor of Classics at the University of Lisbon. She organized the
Fourth International Conference on the Ancient Novel (ICAN IV) in July 2008. Recent
publication: Mitos e Lendas da Grécia Antiga, 2011. She edited Fictional Traces. Receptions of
the Ancient Novel, 2011, ANS 14.1 and 14.2, with Stephen Harrison.