Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Callirhoe's choice: Biological vs legal paternity
Schwartz, Saundra
Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies; Spring 1999; 40, 1; ProQuest
pg. 23

Callirhoe's Choice: 
Biological vs Legal Paternity 

Saundra Schwartz 

O
NE OF THE CORNERSTONES of ancient law was the principle 

that the true father of a child was the one who was 
married to the mother. This principle is problematized 

in Chariton's Chaereas and Callirhoe. This novel was written at 
some time between the first century B.C. and the mid-second 
century A.D. by an author who identifies himself as the secretary 
of a rh€tor.l His familiarity with the law and the construction of 
legal dilemma is apparent throughout the plot of his noveL2 This 

1 Char. 1.1.1: Xapi'toov 'Acpp08tcrtl:u~, 'A&T,vayopo\l 'tou P1l'tOpo~ iJ7!OYPU(PEU~, 
1taeO~ EPOO'ttKOV EV cr\lpaKoucrClt~ YEvollEVOV 8t1lY1lcrollut. References are to the 
Greek text in the Loeb Classical Library, ed. G. P. Goold, Chariton: Callirhoe 
(Cambridge [Mass.] 1995). For a summary of views of the novel's date, see B. P. 
Reardon, "Chariton," in G. Schmeling, ed., The Novel in the Ancient World 
(Leiden/New York 1996) 312-319. The later dating of Chariton is beginning to 
gain wider acceptance. E. L. Bowie, "The Readership of Greek Novels in the 
Ancient World,' in J. A. Tatum, ed., The Search for the Ancient Novel (Baltimore 
1994) 435-459, esp. 442, shows signs of revising his previous date of "mid-first 
century B.C./ A.D." in favor of 'a date as late as the reign of Hadrian"; cf, 
Bowie, "The Greek Novel," CHCL I (1985) 683-684. Goold (1-2,207 n. e) ad­
heres cautiously to a date of 25 B.C.-A.D. 50. 

2The text indicates that he was well acquainted with both procedural law 
(the trials in Babylon and Syracuse show this) and substantive law. For 
example, in the episode of the sale of Callirhoe, the pirate who sells her to 
Dionysius' estate manager flees before the sale is properly: registered. The fact 
that Dionysius cannot prove how he came to possess Callirhoe later haunts him 
as he is preparing his case in the court of the Persian king. See F. Zimmermann, 
"Kallirhoes Verkauf durch Theron: eine juristisch-philologische Betrachtung 
zu Chariton," in Aus der byzantinischen Arbeit der Deutschen Demokratischen 
Republik I, Berliner byzantmistische Arbeiten 5-6 (Berlin 1957) 72-81, and E. 
Karabelias, "Le roman de Chariton d' Ayhrodisias et Ie droit: Renversements de 
situation et exploitation des ambigultes juridiques," in G. Nenci and G. Thiir, 
edd., Symposlon 1988 (Cologne 1990) 369-396. The overlap between the 

Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 40 (1999) 23-52 
© 2000 GRBS 

23 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

24 CALLIRHOE'S CHOICE 

is clear in the story of Callirhoe's child, conceived during her 
first marriage and born during her second. It will be argued that 
the heroine's decision to leave the child with her second hus­
band when she returns to her first husband is consistent with 
norms that stressed the primacy of the legally and culturally 
constructed relationship between father and child over simple 
biological paternity. 

The central dilemma that drives the plot of the novel is that 
two different men claim to be the lawful husband of Callirhoe. 
She is, to use Graham Anderson's wonderful oxymoron, a "virtu­
ous bigamist."3 Both Chaereas and Dionysius make socially 
acceptable husbands: they are men of paideia, from the upper­
most stratum of their respective poleis. Indeed, as the first man 
of the city of Miletus and wealthiest of the Ionian Greeks, 
Dionysius is a more politically suitable match for the daughter 
of Hermocrates, the first man of the Syracusans and victorious 
general in the war against Athens, than is Chaereas, the son of 
Hermocrates'riva1.4 

In order to compel his heroine to betray her first husband 
and marry another man and thereby contravene the novel's core 
ideology of s6phrosyne, Chariton invents a very effective and 

far-fetched legal situations envisioned in rhetorical exercises (e.g. Sen. 
Controv.) and ancient fiction has been noted since the time of Petronius (Sat. 
1-2). See E. Rohde, Der griechische Roman und seine Vorliiufer 3 (Leipzig 1914) 
361-388; D. A. Russell, Greek Declamation (Cambridge 1983) 21-39, esp. 38 n. 
100. 

3G. Anderson, Ancient Fictions: The Novel in the Graeco-Roman World (Lon­
don 1984) 108. 

4 For the parallelisms between Chaereas and Dionysius, see R. K. Balot, 
"Foucault, Cnariton, and the Masculine Self," Helios 25 (1998) 139-162. Balot 
reads the novel as a dramatization of "the conflict between self-mastery and 
erotic passion in the souls of all its leading male characters" (139). The plots of 
Chaereas and Dionysius are inverses of one another. Chaereas' immaturity 
causes him to lose Callirhoe; by the end of the novel, he has become a general 
and a more appropriate model of masculinity. Dionysius, on the other hand, is 
first introduced as a man of paideia. Balot agrees that Dionysius in many 
respects seems to be a better husband for Callir1i.oe (158); over the course of the 
narrative, however, Dionysius loses his mastery over his jealousy and so loses 
the heroine. 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

SAUNDRA SCHWARTZ 25 

clever device: that is, her pregnancy.s In brief, the pregnancy 
plot is as follows: Callirhoe and Chaereas meet, fall in love, and 
are married at the opening of the novel. In a fit of jealousy, 
Chaereas accidentally kicks Callirhoe, causing her to appear to 
be dead. She is buried with great ceremony, only to wake up as 
robbers are prying open the doors of her tomb. They take her to 
Ionia, where she is sold to the estate of Dionysius. As soon as 
he encounters Callirhoe in a shrine of Aphrodite, Dionysius (pre­
dictably) falls in love. 

Callirhoe is resigned-even committed-to slavery; however, 
her magnificent beauty broadcasts her essential nature as a 
freeborn member of the urban elite. Despite her insistence upon 
being treated as a slave, all the slaves on the estate treat her as 
their mistress. Plangon, a slave woman who has been charged 
with finding a way to bring the lovely Callirhoe to the master's 
bed, notices in the bath one day that Callirhoe's belly is swollen, 
and informs the innocent heroine that she is pregnant. It seems 
that her wedding night was fruitful. 

5Sophrosyne, very roughly "self-restraint," is often, but not exclusively, 
used in a sexual sense. In Chariton's novel, Callirhoe is the character most 
fre'l.uently associated with this quality (1.14.10, 2.8.4, 2.9.1, 2.10.7, 2.11.5, 
5.6./, 6.4.10, 7.6.12), which usually suggests faithfulness to her husband (as 
oI'posed to her love for her child: 2.9.1, VtKTl<fEt CHO<PPOcrUVllv YUVCHKO<; !1ll'tpo<; 
<ptN)(}'topyiu; cf. 2.10.7, 2.11.5). Of the male characters, Dionysius' sophrosyne is 
the most noteworthy; in his case it refers to his reluctance to force himself upon 
the heroine (2.6.3, EYOO 'tupuvvr,cr(J) crcO!1u'to<; EA.EUOEpOU, KUt 6tovucrto<; 0 E1tt cr(J)­
<ppocruvn 1tEpt~61l'to<; aKououv U~ptiO, llv OUX U~PtcrEv ouoe er,p(J)v b A.ncr'tr,<;; cf. 
2.4.5,2.10.1,5.6.1). Others to whom this quality are attributed are Polycharmus 
(sensitive to his friend's misfortune, 3.6.5; able to withstand hardship, 4.3.3), 
Chaereas (also able to endure hardship, 4.3.3; able to keep calm in the thick of 
battle, 7.4.9), the Persian king (in zeugma with dikaiosyne, 5.4.8), and 
Mithridates (as he himself claims, responsible for serving in the imperial 
administration, 5.7.2). On the role of sophrosyne in the ideology of the genre of 
the Greek ideal novels, see D. Konstan, Sexual Symmetry (princeton 1994) 
14-59, esp. 48-55. For a discussion of the emphasis placed upon "conjugality" 
as an extension of sophrosyne in the ethics of the Greek elite in the Roman 
period, S. Swain, Hellenism and Empire: Language, Classicism, and Power in the 
Greek World, AD 50-250 (Oxford 1996) 118-131, esp. 128. For a more general 
study of the history of this term see H. North, Sophrosyne: Self-Knowledge and 
Self-Restraint in Greek Literature (Ithaca 1966), esp. 243-257. North's mono­
graph omits the Greek novels, but is useful for the broad range of connotations 
of the term. 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

26 CALLlRHOE'S CHOICE 

Callirhoe's apparently unusual position as a pregnant free­
born woman who has been sold into slavery also appears in the 
legal sources. A third-century opinion in the Digest speaks of 
precisely this situation: "If a woman conceives as a free person 
then gives birth as a slave, it has been decided that her child is 
born free."6 As opposed to this, in the novel there is no question 
but that the child of Callirhoe will be born a slave, an unaccept­
able alternative for a woman of such exalted social status as the 
heroine. She contemplates abortion. 

The serva callida manipulates Callirhoe's maternal instincts 
and convinces her that the only way to save Chaereas' baby is 
to sleep with Dionysius and pass it off as his child. Callirhoe, 
fearing that her child might be considered less than fully legiti­
mate, insists that Dionysius marry her "according to the Greek 
laws" (3.2.2). Callirhoe is married to Dionysius in a wedding as 
glamorous as her first. Seven months later, the women's plan 
works and Dionysius believes that Callirhoe has given birth to 
his son. 

A literary depiction of a woman weighing her options in a 
matter that was considered a private decision in antiquity is 
unusual (indeed unique), though the availability of abortion is 
nothing shocking. In antiquity, midwives, doctors, and ordinary 
women had knowledge of a variety of techniques to avoid 
unwanted pregnancies. 7 But what has especially perplexed 
modern readers is what happens afterwards. Chaereas travels 
to Ionia to find his wife, who he discovers is now the wife of 

6Dig. 1.5.5.2 (Marcian Inst. bk. 1); transl. A. Watson (The Digest of Jus­
tinian lPhiladelphia 1985]). The later date of the legal opinion, at least a 
century (or more) after Chariton's novel, precludes argument that Chariton was 
influenced by the law or that it indicates his fidelity to external legal realia. 

7The technicalities of abortion are extensively discussed by J. M. Riddle, 
Contraception and Abortion from the Ancient World to the Renaissance 
(Cambridge [Mass.} 1992). The ancient evidence, however, limits discussion of 
women's subjective experiences of abortion. Renate Johne calls attention to the 
uniqueness of Callirhoe's internal dialogue about the fate of her child: "Women 
in the Ancient Novel," in Schmeling, ed. (supra n.1: hereafter JOHNE) 151-207, 
at 180. 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

SAUNDRA SCHWARTZ 27 

another man. The news that she is also now a mother causes 
him to despair of ever reclaiming her. Ultimately, the two men 
find themselves locked in an irresolvable dilemma over the claim 
to be the legitimate husband of Callirhoe. Their contest extends 
from the court of the Persian king to the battlefield. Chaereas 
regains his beloved wife by the fortuitous capture of the royal 
harem, within which Callirhoe was being kept by the king. In the 
end, she returns to Syracuse with Chaereas, the biological father 
of her child, but leaves their son with Dionysius, her second 
husband. 

Stories of abandoned children were familiar to readers of the 
ancient novels;8 nevertheless, Callirhoe's abandonment of her 
child to Dionysius has shocked modern scholars. Bryan 
Reardon has called her action "facile," "cold-hearted," and 
even "ignoble"/ Renate Johne has gone so far as to call Callirhoe 
a "defective human being" (180). How could Callirhoe, whose 
maternal instinct was taken for granted when she was pregnant, 
so easily give up the child whom she loved so much that she 
was willing to compromise her fidelity to her husband? 

It is here that the danger for projecting modern values onto 
the affective relationships of antiquity arises. lO An under-

8 See F. Kudlien, "Kindesaussetzung im antiken Roman: ein Thema zwischen 
FiktionalitiH und Lebenswirklichkeit," Groningen Colloquia on the Novel 2 
(1989) 25-44. Among the main protagonists of the five extant Greek novels, 
Daphnis and Chloe in Longus Daphnis and Chloe, Charic1eia in Heliod. 
Aethiop. were exposed as infants. These two novels are later than Chariton's; 
however, it is dear that the novelists were borrowing a theme which was 
already well-established in other genres. References to exposed or abandoned 
children in Greek and Roman literature are too numerous to catalogue here; for 
examples from Near Eastern and Greek myth, see D. B. Redford, "The Literary 
Motif of the Exposed Child," Numen 14 (1967) 209-228. The Greek and Roman 
literary evidence for exposure is also discussed by W. V. Harris, "Child­
Exposure in the Roman Empire," IRS 84 (1994) 1-22. 

9B. P. Reardon, "Theme, Structure and Narrative in Chariton," in J. J. 
Winkler and G. Williams, edd., Later Greek Literature (Cambridge 1982) 1-27, 
at 22-23 ("facile" and "cold-hearted"); Reardon (supra n.1) 330 ("ignoble"). 

lOThe differences between modem and ancient notions of parental affection 
is a topic of much discussion. See for example K. R. Bradley, Discovering the 
Roman Family (Oxford 1991) 125-155; D. B. Martin, "The Construction of the 
Ancient Family: Methodological Considerations," IRS 86 (1996) 40-60. 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

28 CALLIRHOE'S CHOICE 

standing of the normative assumptions of Greek and especially 
Roman laws provides a corrective to modern prejudices, and 
clarifies the function of the child in the plot of Chariton's novel. 
The argument of this article is that Callirhoe does not" aban­
don" her child so much as gracefully and willingly conform to 
the patriarchal structures of her society. Simply put, she is 
legally powerless to do anything else. Under Roman law, legiti­
mate sons who would inherit their father's property-filii-did 
not belong to their mothers but to their fathers. The child does 
not belong to her: it belongs to Dionysius. According to all 
criteria, Dionysius is the father-that is, all criteria, except bio­
logical; but in ancient society the biological relationship was less 
important than the culturally constructed relationship between 
father and son. The image of family relationships presented in 
this novel indirectly reflects not only Roman law, but also the 
marriage strategies of the Roman elite during the Principate, as 
most clearly represented in the Julio-Claudian dynasty. 

Before demonstrating this, it is helpful to review the other 
solutions that have been offered to explain Callirhoe's ap­
parently cold-hearted decision. Each has its merits, but none 
offers a wholly satisfactory explanation of the problem. There 
are four basic solutions: these may be called the "Lost Source 
Thesis," the "Poetic Justice Thesis," the "Narrative Device 
Thesis," and the "Gender-Specific Thesis." In response to these, 
I propose a solution informed by an analysis of the legal and 
social context of the novels, the "Legal Thesis." 

Lost Source Thesis 
A century ago S. A. Naber posited that the historical figure 

Dionysius I, tyrant of Syracuse, lay behind Chariton's choice of 
names for the putative father of Callirhoe's child. The child 
would have been named Dionysius; Callirhoe's visions of her 
son's triumphant entrance to Syracuse led Naber to guess that 
Chariton was confusing the fictional Hermocrates' grandson 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

SAUNDRA SCHWARTZ 29 

with the historical Dionysius, who was the son-in-law of the 
historical Hermocrates.ll 

The idea that a mother could give her infant to another man 
when it was simpler for her to take him home with his father 
struck Naber as one of many "obscure and perplexing" details 
in Chariton's novelY Thirty years later, Ben Edwin Perry 
viewed this incident as "so contrary to Chariton's tender ideal­
ism, so unlike Kallirhoe, and so purposeless as far as the story 
is concerned, that we cannot regard it as pure invention."13 
Particularly struck by "the conduct of the lovers-especially of 
Chaereas, who is not even consulted about the sending away of 
his child," Perry confidently asserted in his seminal 1967 study 
of the novels that Chariton was using" a pre-existing popular or 
historiographical tradition which is not elsewhere attested."14 
Perry deemed this "peculiar or unnatural" episode uncharacter­
istic of the sober, non-sophistic Chariton. IS The hypothetical 
source is too convenient a solution: since the source is lost, it is 
possible to claim that it contained whatever one might imagine. 
Although Chariton clearly borrowed details from history, recent 
studies have shed light on the sophistication of Chariton's 
historiographical pose.16 Perry's claim that "by being closer to 

115. A. Naber, "Ad Charitonem," Mnemosyne 29 (1901) 92-99. 
12Naber (supra n.ll) 99: "Atque hoc quidem Charitoni, qui tam multa 

improbabilia fingit, fingere licuit, nam in Hermocratis historia multa obscura 
sunt et perplexa ... " 

13B. E. Perry, "Chariton and his Romance from a Literary-Historical Point 
of View," AlP 51 (1930) 93-134, at 101-102 n.ll. 

14 The Ancient Romances (Berkeley fLos Angeles 1967) 138. 
15In his earlier article Perry (supra n.13: 101) contrasted Chariton with 

later, sophistic novelists who, as he puts it, take "irresponsible plasmatic 
license." This remained an important theme in his later study; cf Perry (supra 
n.14) 108-148, esp. 113, on the discussion of "literary propriety' which 
constrained writers in the classical tradition. 

160n Chariton's use of historiographical details to provide a plausible 
backdrop for the action of his novel, see T. Hagg, "Callirhoe and Parthenope: 
The Beginnings of the Historical Novel," ClAnt 6 (1987) 184-204; C. Ruiz 
Montero, "Carit6n de Afrodisias y el mundo real," in P. Liviabella Furiani and 
A. M. Scarcella, edd., Piccolo mondo antico: Le donne, gli amari, i costumi, il 
mondo rea Ie nel romanzo antico (Naples 1989) 109-149; A. Billault, "De 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

30 CALLIRHOE'S CHOICE 

legend Chariton is closer to nature and reality"17 seems now too 
deterministic to post-modem sensibilities. 

The use of the terms "unnatural" and "nature" should be a 
red flag. Underlying Naber's and Perry's puzzlement is an 
assumption that mothers always accompany their children, that 
mother and ?aby form a natural dyad; therefore, they erroni­
ously presumed that Callirhoe had the child in her possession 
when she was reunited with Chaereas, and then sent him back 
to be with Dionysius-a much more extreme gesture than merely 
sending a letter, and absolutely contrary to modem senti­
mentality.18 A close look at the text shows that this is not the 
case: Chariton made a special point of noting that the child 
remained with Dionysius in Babylon while Callirhoe was 
sequestered in the royal palace.19 While it is unquestionable that 
Chariton used historical figures to give his narrative the ap­
propriate ambience, the reliance upon a hypothetical source to 

l'histoire au roman: Hermocrate de Syracuse," REG 102 (1989) 540-548; C. P. 
Jones, "Hellenistic History in Chariton of Aphrodisias," Chiron 22 (1992) 
91-102; R. L. Hunter, "History and Historicity in the Romance of Chariton," 
ANRW 11.34.2 (1994) 1055-1086. 

17Perry (supra n.13) 101. 
18Naber (supra n.ll) 98: "Cur autem Chariton Chaereae et Callirhoes 

filiolum Mileti reli'l.uit? Mater eum secum duxerat Babylonem et Statira regina 
infantem libenter v1debat... Rex autem secum traxit ad bellum Kat yuvalKa<; 
Kat tEKVa ... Itaque urbe Arado capta statim cum matre patri reddi potuerat, 
sed Chariton maluit puerum Dionysio Milesio tradere educandum." Cf Perry 
(supra n.14) 138: "But it is strange that this child should have been sent to 
Miletus to be brought up by Dionysius (VIII 4), when his parents, after the 
capture of Arados, could Just as well have taken him with them to Syracuse." 

19 Later, when Dionysius receives Callirhoe's good-bye letter, he is with the 
king in Tyre and still has the child with him; cf 8.5.3 (the king in Tyre), 
8.5.9-10 (the king summons Dionysius, who comes immediately), and 8.5.15 
(Dionysius gazes at the child). This error was pointed out by K. Plepelits, 
Chariton von Aphrodisias: Kallirhoe (Stuttgart 1976) 30-32; nevertheless, con­
fusion persists in the scholarship. Reardon (supra n.1: 330) joins Naber and 
Perry in presuming that it would have been easier for Callirhoe and Chaereas 
to take the child back with them to Syracuse. Johne (180) suggests that 
Callirhoe "left the child behind in Miletus to go back to her native country 
with her first husband." This paraphrase is misleading because it elides the 
chain of events between the physical separation of the mother and child, and 
the decision to return to Syracuse without the child---events which the narra­
tive itself treats as distinct and important. 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

SAUNDRA SCHWARTZ 31 

explain a perceived anomaly tells us more about the modern in­
terpreters' assumptions concerning the "nature" of motherhood 
than about the text itself. 

Poetic Justice Thesis 
Some critics read the custody of Callirhoe's child as a 

consolation prize to the kind and noble Dionysius. Callirhoe's 
bestowal of the child on Dionysius is couched in a letter she 
writes independently of Chaereas out a sense of justice and 
gratitude (8.4.4, £oo~£ O£ Kat KaAAtpOn OiKatOV dvat Kat £uxa­
ptcrwv ~tOvucriq> ypa\jlat). She opens by addressing Dionysius 
as her benefactor and begs him not to be angry. She assures him 
that she is still with him "in spirit" through the son they share 
(8.4.5, dill yo.p 'tTl \jIuxn Il£'to. (mu Oto. 'tOY KOtVOV uiov). The 
poetic justice thesis is most succinctly expressed by Johne (181): 

"Kallirhoe is willing to leave the child with the lonely Dionysios 
out of gratitude and loyalty." 

Yet, Callirhoe's use of her son as a token of her appreciation 
still leaves some readers cold. Psychological motivations, such 
as "second thoughts,"20 "pangs of guilt,"21 and "heartbreaking 
agony,"22 have been read into the text. Reardon sees the episode 
as indicative of an last-minute attempt by Chariton to resolve 
the awkwardness of the character of Dionysius: 

Chariton is embarrassed by his treatment of Dionysius; he has 
represented him throughout as a noble soul, and as sym-

20G. Schmeling, Chariton (New York 1974) 128: "Callirhoe also had second 
thoughts about her earlier actions and felt now a certain responsibility toward 
Dionysius whom she had abhorred previously." 

21Reardon (supra n.1) 330: "Readers have been worried by this apparent 
cold-heartedness on her part-and, it must be said, on the part of Chaereas too, 
since he seems singularly undisturbed at losing a son he has never seen; it is the 
more puzzling in tnat Chariton could easily have had Callirhoe bring the child 
back to Syracuse, and does not attribute to Callirhoe any reason for her action 
(he might, for instance, have adduced pangs of guilt on her part for the way she 
treateaDionysius)." 

22M. Kaimio, "How to Manage in the Male World: The Strategies of the 
Heroine in Chariton's Novel," AAntHung 36 (1995) 119-132, at 132. 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

32 CALLIRHOE'S CHOICE 

pathique, and cannot bear to leave him out in the cold 
altogether. Sophocles could have borne it. But in this story, 
everyone must have a prize (except Theron). Dionysius gets a 
whole clutch of consolation prizes: military glory, a pre­
eminent position in the King's entourage-and a son. 'And they 
all go down to the beach and have a lovely time.' It doesn't 
seem very cathartic to US.23 . 

In other words, relinquishing her child is the price Callirhoe pays 
for her earlier resistance to the gentle and benevolent Dionysius. 
This act facilitates the "happily ever after" conclusion of the 
novel, an ending which strikes modern readers as, in Reardon's 
words, "discordant" (supra n.l: 330). 

This view that the child is some sort of compensation for 
Dionysius is not completely without merit; however, the letter 
serves a more important purpose than alleviating Callirhoe's 
putative guilt. This becomes clear when it is considered in its 
entirety (8.4.5-6): 

KaUtpoll h.1OvuO'iql EUEpye'tn XaiPEtv' O'U yap d 0 Kat AnO''tEia~ 
Kat OouAEia~ IlE C£1taUU~a~. oeollai O'ou, 1l1l0EV 6pyt0'8Tl~' dllt 
yap 'tTl 'l'UXTl IlE'ta O'ou Ota 'tOY KOtVOV uiov, OV 1tapaKa'ta'ti81lIlt 
O'Ot h'tpeq>EtV 'tE Kat 1tatOEUEtV a~iw~ TlIl&V. Il~ AU~n OE 1tElpav 
1l1l'tputa~' EXEt~ OU 1l0VOV ui.ov, aAAa Kat 8uya'tepa' apKEl O'Ot OUO 
'tEKVa. 6>V YUllov ~EU~OV, o'tav av~p YEVll'tat, Kat 1tEIl'l'OV au'tov 
d~ LupaKouO'a~, tva Kat 'tOY 1tU1t1tOV 8EuO'l1'tat. aO'1tu~ollai O'E, 
ITAayyrov. 'tau'tu O'Ot YEypaq>a 'tTl £IlTl XEtpi. EPPWO'O, aya8E .1.10-
VUO'tE, Kat KaAAtpoll~ IlVllll0VEUE 'tij~ O'ij~. 
Callirhoe greets Dionysius her benefactor-for you are the one 
who released me from piracy and slavery. I beg you, do not be 
angry, for I am with you in spirit through our common son, 
whom I entrust to you to raise and educate in a manner worthy 
of us. Do not let him experience a stepmother: you have not 
only a son, but also a daughter. Two children suffice for you. 
Join them in marriage when he becomes a man and send him to 
Syracuse, so that he may also see his grandfather. My greet­
ings to you, Plangon. This I have written in my own hand. Fare­
well, good Dionysius, and remember your Callirhoe. 

23 Reardon (supra n.9) 23. 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

SAUNDRA SCHWARTZ 33 

In the letter, her formal transferal of custody is marked by the 
verb 1t<XP<XK<X't(X'[iSTHlt, which echoes the words Chaereas ut­
tered to her in a dream when she first discovered she was 
pregnant (2.9.6, "1t<XP<X'tt8€~<xi (jOt" <i>ll(jiv, "(b YUVat, 'tOY uiov"). 

The middle 1t<XP<X'tt8€~at means "set before oneself, or have set 
before one"; or in the case of items of value, "deposit" or "com­
mit into another's hands" (LSJ S.v. B.1-2). In effect Chaereas 
authorizes Callirhoe to care for the child, and she in turn 
authorizes Dionysius to care for the child. The transfer however 
is not absolute. She attaches three conditions: that Dionysius 
provide sustenance (trophe) and a worthy education for the 
child; that he not remarry and so cause the child to experience a 
stepmother;24 and that he marry his two children to one 
another.25 

The oikos of Dionysius is doubly preserved, first by Cal­
lirhoe's choice to leave her son in the custody of Dionysius, and 
second by her request for the marriage of the two half siblings to 
one another. It is indeed a satisfying ending (pace Reardon) 
because Dionysius' oikos is renewed: this is where poetic justice 
is enacted. 

Narrative Device Thesis 
Another explanation considers the pregnancy as nothing 

more than a narrative device-and a very economical one, at 

24Cf. Eur. Ale. 304-319. Callirhoe's wish reflects the conventional an­
tipathy towards stepmothers in Greek and Roman literature; see P. A. Watson, 
Ancient Stepmothers: Myth, Misogyny and Reality (New York 1995). Note too 
that Callirhoe's request is consistent with PI. Leg. 930B, where a widower with 
both male and female children is encouraged not to remarry but to raise the 
children he already has. 

2SThis was not considered incest because they had different mothers; see A. 
R. W. Harrison, The Law of Classical Athens (Oxford 1968-71: hereafter 
HARRISON) I 22-23. On endogamy as a stratesy of preventing the extinction of 
families in Greece, see S. B. Pomeroy, Families In Classical and Hellenistic 
Greece: Representations and Realities (Oxford 1997) 121-123. Roman endogamy 
is discussed by S. Treggiari, Roman Marriage: lusti Coniuges from the Time of 
Cicero to the Time of Ulpian (Oxford 1991) 107-119, esp. 112 n.170, where a 
remark in Plut. Mar. 289D-E is adduced as evidence that marriage between half 
siblings was more common in Greece than in Rome. 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

34 CALLIRHOE'S CHOICE 

that-whose chief function is to force the paradox of the 
faithful wife who is also a bigamist. Later references to the child 
are just exploitations of an available motif when the scene calls 
for heightened pathos. The virtue of this explanation is that it 
recognizes that, despite its illusion of reality, Chaereas and Cal­
lirhoe is first and foremost a work of fiction. Indeed, the child is 
not really a character in this fiction. Chariton never mentions the 
child's name, nor his age.26 There is no concern to explain who 
cared for the child in the mother's absence.27 Consistent with 
the general representation of children in ancient sources, Cal­
lirhoe's child simply blends into the background.28 

Chariton exploits the detail of the child only when it suits 
the dramatic situation. He makes great use of the ambiguity 
inherent in the fact that Greek does not normally require a pos­
sessive pronoun or adjective to modify nouns expressing close 
relations.29 When the child is referred to as ut6~, it may be con-

260ther vocabulary for the child (frequency is in I?arentheses) includes: 
t£KVOV (20), ltatOtOV (7), ~p£<po~ (S), to Kuta y&<JtpO~ or tT\v ya.crt£pU (5). On the 
legal fiction of treating the womb as a person in Roman law, see Y. Thomas, "Le 
'Ventre': Corps matemel, droit patemel," Le genre humain 14 (1986) 211-236. 

27This omission is easily explained by the prevalent use of wet nurses 
among the upper classes. The practice was so much taken for granted that the 
author did not think it worthy of comment. Dionysius' reference to the child's 
pedagogue (S.10.S, tt AEyEt~, ltUtOUYCOYE;) might suggest that Chariton imagines 
an older child rather than an infant; however, it is unclear how literally we 
are to take this reference. The context is a scenario, imagined by Dionysius, in 
which the child goes to the Persian king's palace as an ambassador (1tP€<J­
~€Ut"v) of his father to his mother. Even if Chariton meant to represent the child 
as being cared for by a pedagogue, it cannot necessarily be taKen as an indict­
ment of the author's consistency. Bradley (supra n.10: 37-7S), in an epigraphic 
study of Roman tombstones, has identified a category of male chila minders, 
interchangeably called nutritores and paedagogl. Bradley argues that the 
nutritor assisted the nutrix in the care of nurslings. Male child minders are 
associated with the imperial family (Nero, Lucius Verus, Julia Livilla, and 
Drusus Caesar) and other upper-class families (Bradley 38-42), but are not 
limited to the upper classes. 

28 5. Dixon, The Roman Mother (Norman 1988), particularly 104ff. 
29Even when possession is indicated, ambiguit,r, remains. For example, 

Dionysius tells his child to 170 to Callirhoe and say, 'Mother, my father loves 
you" (S.10.5, MT\t€p, 0 ltUtT\P ~ou <ptA€t o€)-which could equally apply to 
Chaereas as well as to Dionysius. Similarly, the ,Pro-Dionysius faction among 
t~~ wO,men ur~es Capirh0E!: t~ respect her child s father: 6.1.S, ~" Itpooi!>~ tOY 
Utov· tt~T\<JOV tOY Itut€PU tOU t€KVOU. 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

SAUNDRA SCHWARTZ 35 

strued as the son of Chaereas, Dionysius, or both. 30 If the oc­
casion calls for particularly heightened pathos, Chariton does 
not hesitate to have his heroine call her child an orphan, a 
designation which always comes at the climax of a lament over 
Chaereas' supposed death (2.8.7, 3.8.9, 3.10.5). Its status as 
orphan is determined by the absence of Chaereas, and so it 
underscores the separation of the lovers. 

The child is a living reminder of an absent lover. When Cal­
lirhoe decides to continue the pregnancy, she does so in the 
hope of giving birth to a likeness of the child's father (2.11.2). 
After the child is born, she offers a private prayer of thanks to 
Aphrodite for giving her an image of her beloved husband 
(3.8.7). The child is called an ciKWV, equivalent to the portrait 
ring of Chaereas that she had clutched to her belly in her 
moment of deliberation (2.11.1, cf. 3.8.7). But the child also 
serves as a reminder of Callirhoe to Dionysius: after he is left by 
Callirhoe, Dionysius clings to the child and is comforted by the 
thought of the artistic images (dK6v€~) of Callirhoe in Miletus.31 

First and foremost, the child is an heir. In fact, it is as a son 
that the child is most significant: the possibility that the fetus 
might be a son causes Callirhoe to second-guess her initial 
decision to abort it (2.9.4). Plangon appeals to Callirhoe not to 
abort her fetus but "to give birth to the inheritance (KAllPO­
V0l-lov) of the most brilliant aikas" (2.10.4). Dionysius uses 
terms appropriate to his characterization as a propertied aristo­
crat of Ionia, the type of person who would have been most 
concerned with ensuring that his estate be duly bequeathed to a 

30Chaereas, 2.9.4, 2.9.6, 2.11.3, 3.2.13, 3.8.8, 3.10.5; Dionysius, 3.2.2, 3.8.4, 
5.10.2,5.10.5,6.1.5,8.4.5 (twice). Both men: 3.7.7, UtOV E'tEKE 'tip Jl£V OOKElV EK 
~tOvu(Jiou. XatPEOU O£ 'tUl<; UA110dat<;. 

31 Note that the memory of Callirhoe is intertwined with Dionysius' newly 
gained political power: 8.5.15, JlEya vOJlil;OlV ltapaJluOwv ltOAAl,V ooov KatltOA­
Amv ltOAEOlV i,YEJloviav Kat 'ta<; EV M1ATt«p KaA.A.lpol1<; £lKOVU<;. On Chariton's 
use of visual images, see F. Zeitlin, "Living Portraits and SCUlpted Bodies in 
Chariton's Theater of Romance," in M. Zimmerman, S. Panayotakis, and W. 
Keulen, edd., The Ancient Novel in Context (Groningen 2000) 119-120. 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

36 CALLIRHOE'S CHOICE 

legitimate heir. He calls the child "the inheritance (KAllPO­
VOlltUV) of your mother and a monument (U1t0IlVllIlU) to an ill­
fated love" (5.10.2). The child thus is envisioned as a part of 
the cityscape. He is not a person but a monument in Miletus, a 
city whose fictional topography is marked by personal land­
marks.32 

But the child is also a part of the Syracusan landscape. 
Callirhoe calls him a "monument" (U1tOIlVllllu) of her marriage 
to Chaereas (2.9.4). The child is an heir, of Dionysius-and of 
Hermocrates through Callirhoe. The child is referred to as "the 
descendant of Hermocrates," "tov 'EplloKpa"tOu~ EKYOVOV, and 
his successor, <haooxov-but never the EKYOVO~ XatpEOU.33 At 
the novel's denouement, Chaereas tells the assembled Syra­
cusans about the pregnancy (in order to absolve Callirhoe) and 
announces, "There is a Syracusan in Miletus being brought up by 
a wealthy and renowned man; let's not begrudge him his great 
inheritance" (8.7.12). The inheritance to which Chaereas refers 
can only refer to the one to which the child is entitled through 
his mother, since Chaereas' lineage is consistently eclipsed 
throughout the novel by Callirhoe's. In effect, Callirhoe is an 
epikleros: as the only daughter of the city's strategos, her marital 
status concerns the entire city.34 Indeed, Hermocrates 
overshadows Dionysius as well: upon marrying Callirhoe, 
Dionysius joyfully looks forward to the birth of a child who has 
a grandfather greater than his father (3.2.2). In sum, the child is 

320n the prominence of personal landmarks in the topography of Chariton's 
Miletus, see 5. SaId, "The City in the Greek Novel," in Tatum (supra n.1) 216-
236, esp. 225-226. 

33'tov 'EpIlO1CPU'tOU<; £1C"(ovov: sfoken by Callirhoe, 2.9.2, 2.11.2, 3.8.8; by 
Dionysius, 3.2.2; by Chaereas, 8.8. 1; c'huooxov: by Callirhoe, 3.1.6, 3.8.8. 

340n the city's interest in Callirhoe's marriage, see 1.1.11-13. Technically, 
she is a potential epikleros, as this status is effectuated upon the father's death. 
Hermocrates is not yet dead, nor is there any expectation that Callirhoe marry 
a kinsman of Hermocrates. The customs surrounding epikleria in Chariton's 
fictional Syracuse seem more relaxed than the institution as it is understood 
through fourth-century Athenian sources. On epikleria see Harrison I 132-138 
and D. M. Schaps, Economic Rights of Women in Ancient Greece (Edinburgh 
1979) 25-47. 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

SAUNDRA SCHWARTZ 37 

a cipher for the joint glory of the Greek cities of Syracuse and 
Miletus in the future.35 

Gender-Specific Thesis 
A fourth approach seeks to explain Callirhoe's actions in the 

context of a patriarchal system where legitimate children 
"belong" to their father's oikos, and the mother is seen as a 
temporary nurturer of the father's progeny. This gives rise to a 
chronic male fear that women might introduce supposititious 
children into legitimate bloodlines. This anxiety fueled plots of 
New Comedy36 and underlay many of the stipulations in 
Roman law concerning the details surrounding childbirth.37 

From this perspective, Callirhoe's decision to pretend that 
Dionysius is her baby's biological father represents something 
beyond the law's purview, the kind of thing men feared women 
might do when left unsupervised. Operative here is some 
uniquely feminine rationale which, depending upon the critic's 
perspective, may be either inscrutable or subversive. Thus, S. 
Wiersma sees Dionysius' obtuseness about the facts of 
reproduction as an example of Chariton's "subtle sense of 
humor," and Callirhoe's decision as a sign of her "frivolity." 
Karabelias dismisses the entire question of the real paternity of 

35Cj Eur. Ion, where the circumstances of Ion's birth and adoption unify the 
oikoi of three men: the adoptive father (Xuthus), the maternal grandfather 
(Erechtheus), and the biological father (Apollo). Euripides' play' culminates 
with the prophecy (157lff) that Ion's adoJ'tion and recognition wlll herald the 
continuation of the maternal &randfather s line, the royal house of Athens. For 
other references to men creatmg bonds with other men by sharing wives, see 
Xen. Lac. 1.7-9; Pluto Cat.Min. 25, Lyc. 15.6. The Roman practices are discussed 
by M. Corbier "Constructing Kinship in Rome: Marriage and Divorce, Filiation 
and Adoption," in D. I. Kertzer and R. P. Saller, edd., The Family in Italy from 
Antiquity to the Present (New Haven 1991) 127-144. 

36D. Konstan, "Premarital Sex, Illegitimacy, and Male Anxiety in Menander 
and Athens," in A. Boegehold and A. Scafuro, edd., Athenian Identity and Civic 
Ideology (Baltimore 1994) 217-235. 

37 Dig. 25.4.1.10; discussed by B. Rawson, "Adult-Child Relationships in 
Roman Society," in B. Rawson, ed., Marriage, Divorce, and Children in Ancient 
Rome (Oxforcf 1991) 11-l2. 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

38 CALLIRHOE'S CHOICE 

Callirhoe's child as "une affaire des femmes," and does not 
pursue further analysis of her decision.38 

This explanation emphasizes the deceptive quality of Cal­
lirhoe's actions, both in the initial decision to pass off the child 
as Dionysius' and in her complacency in continuing to let 
Dionysius think he is the father. Callirhoe's private prayer to 
Aphrodite (3.2.12-13), en route to the wedding festivities in the 
city, can be read as the perfect articulation of what male 
citizens concerned with the production of an heir most feared. 
She begs Aphrodite to conceal her technc, and to let the child be 
supposed the child of Dionysius (3.2.13, ltOlT)aov !lOU Aa8clv 

'tilv 'tExvllv. Eltd 'tOY aA1181l 't01),.0 lta'tEpa OUK £X£l, oosa'tw 
~tovuO'iou ltatoiov, 'tpaq>£v yap KaKElvov EUplJO'Et). Note that 
Callirhoe's decision is portrayed sympathetically: it is not a 
dalas, a trick, but a technc, an artifice. The necessity of prevent­
ing the birth of Chaereas' son into slavery forces her to marry 
and to pass off the child as someone else's. She subverts the 
integrity of one man's line to preserve that of another's, while 
leaving open the possibility that the truth will come out after the 
supposed father has invested in his upbringing, his traphc.39 

Callirhoe's technc has also been seen in a more positive light, 
as an example of a woman who takes the initiative within the 
narrow scope for action allowed in a patriarchal society which 
otherwise expects women to be passive. Patrizia Liviabella 
Furiani sees this as a sign of "the coming of a new paternity­
freer, gentler, and nonconformist," where the woman is in 

38S. Wiersma, "The Ancient Greek Novel and its Heroines: A Female Para­
dox." Mnemosyne 43 (1990) 109-123, at 117; Karabelias (supra n.2) 380. 

39While it is true that Callirhoe never tells Dionysius the truth about the 
circumstances of her pregnancy, Karabelias assumes that Chaereas is also left 
in the dark, suggesting that Callirhoe's ruse is com£lete. This is not true: after 
their reunion, Callirhoe tells him about the child (8.1.15). That he knows the 
whole truth is apparent in the final episode of the novel, where Chaereas 
relates the story of their adventures, including Callirhoe's pregnancy by him, to 
the Syracusans (8.7.11). The very nature of this announcement places it firmly 
in the limelight of public discourse, far from the shady dealings among women 
behind closed doors. 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

SAUNDRA SCHWARTZ 39 

contro1.40 As part of her argument for a female readership of the 
Greek novels, Brigitte Egger reads Callirhoe's inability to choose 
between Chaereas and Dionysius in the Babylonian trial as 
proof that she wants to control both men. Callirhoe's request 
that Dionysius not remarry thus represents a victory for the 
heroine, who not only regains her first husband, but keeps her 
second in limbo. Maarit Kaimio, suggests that the ambiguity of 
Callirhoe's action would have conveyed meanings which would 
have resonated with both male and female readers. It is, as 
Egger puts it, a "literary escape route from patriarchy for 
Callirhoe and her readers." It is not as "purposeless" as Perry 
had supposed.41 

Legal Thesis 
While the preceding views offer partial explanations of 

Callirhoe's choice to give up her child, a look at the legal sources 
will show that Callirhoe's action is not subversive, but precisely 
the opposite: it is profoundly conservative. When considered in 
light of the parameters for possible action under Roman law, it 
becomes clear that Callirhoe's "choice" is hardly a choice at all. 
She gives up the child because it belongs to Dionysius-and 
neither to Chaereas nor indeed to her. 

4OP. Liviabella Furiani, "Di donna in donna: Elementi 'femministi' nel 
romanzo greco d'amore," in Liviabella Furiani and Scarcella (supra n.16) 45-
106, at 53. 

41 B. M. Egger, "Looking at Chariton's Callirhoe," in J. R. Morgan and R. 
Stoneman, edd., Greek Fiction: The Greek Novel in Context (London 1994) 41-
42; Kaimio (supra n.22) 132. I leave aside the question of the gender of Greek 
novels' audience. The current consensus is that the intended audience was the 
Greek urban elite, or at least an audience which identified with the values of 
the elite. See S. Said, "Rural Society in the Greek Novel, or The Country Seen 
from the Town," in S. Swain, ed., Oxford Readings in the Greek Novel (Oxford 
1999) 83-107. The collection of essays edited by Tatum (supra n.1) contains a 
number of essays on readership: see Egger, "Women and Marriage in the Greek 
Novels: The Boundaries of Romance," 260-280; S. Stephens, "Who Read 
Ancient Novels?" 405-418; Bowie (supra n.1). Konstan (supra n.5: 218-231) 
suggests the possibility that the copies of novels were bought by the head of the 
household to be read m a "family setting" and enjoyed by his wife and children 
as well (220). 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

40 CALLIRHOE'S CHOICE 

There are two separate but related strands to consider: Cal­
lirhoe's power to "possess" the child and Chaereas' power. The 
first is more easily dealt with. Legitimacy and parentage were 
intertwined with marriage and property relations. In Athenian 
and Roman law, women generally were required to have legal 
guardians. Even when a woman was accorded "honorary male 
status" in Roman law (sui iuris), she was excluded from having 
patestas, i.e., the "control over other free persons."42 Ideally-for 
the sources are written from a gendered perspective that tends 
to obscure what happened in reality-only the pater familias had 
authority over the children.43 This is most clearly illustrated in 
cases of divorce: in both Athenian and Roman law, the children 
remained with the father.44 Clearly Callirhoe has no autono­
mous claim to the child; therefore, an argument that the child 
"should" be with his biological parents must rest upon the 
strengths of Chaereas' claims to paternity. This is the more 
vexed of the two strands of this problem. 

The close biological connection between mother and child 
makes that relationship inherently easier to define than the 
relationship between father and child. In pre-modern societies, 
where there were no genetic tests to establish biological rela­
tionship, the relationship between father and child had to be 
defined culturally. And according to all the chief cultural indi­
cators of paternity, Dionysius is the father of Callirhoe's child. 

The Roman jurist Paul succinctly articulates the principle 
that fatherhood is defined culturally rather than biologically: 
pater vera is est quem nuptiae demanstrant, "The father indeed is 

42J. F. Gardner, "Gender-Role Assumptions in Roman Law," EchCl 39 N.S. 
14 (1995) 377-400, at 377. 

43R. P. Saller, "Pater Familias, Mater Familias, and the Gendered Semantics 
of the Roman Household," CP 94 (1999) 182-197. 

44For a discussion of the Athenian laws pertaining to parental authority 
and a comparison of Kupia with the Roman patria potestas see Harrison I 
7Q-81; for the Roman laws of divorce, Treggiari (supra n.25) 467-470. 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

SAUNDRA SCHWARTZ 41 

declared by the marriage."45 According to this criterion, 
Dionysius is the father: he celebrates his marriage to Callirhoe 
with public festivities and promises to make Callirhoe his wife 
"according to the Greek laws."46 However, this alone is not 
sufficient, because Chaereas also married Callirhoe in a public 
ceremony. What makes Dionysius' claim stronger is the fact that 
he was married to Callirhoe when she gave birth. 

Another opinion of Paul sheds further light on the question 
of the paternity of the child. Since it was difficult to establish 
paternity, female chastity both before and after marriage was 
critical. The Greek novels extol precisely this virtue. However, 
given the messiness of real life, the law had to be prepared to 
address the question of what happened when a child was born 
less than nine months after marriage, as in the case of Callirhoe. 
The jurist's opinion (which dates to the first half of the third 
century at the latest, not too much after the latest date for 
Chariton) refers to precisely such a situation: 

Septimo mense nasci perfeetum partum iam receptum est 
propter auctoritatem doctissimi uiri Hippocratis: et ideo 
credendum est eum, qui ex iustis nuptiis septima mense natus 
est, ius tum filium esse. 
That a child can be born fully formed in the seventh month is 
now a received view due to the authority of that most learned 
man Hippocrates. Accordingly, it is credible that a child born 

45 Dig. 2.4.5 (Paul Edicts bk. 4); transl. Watson (supra n.6). There is good 
reason to believe that this was also the case in the laws of the Greek cities. In 
Attic orations of the fourth century, a common way to undermine an heir's 
claim to his father's estate was to allege that his parents had never been 
properly-that is, publicly-married. For example, Dem. 57.40-43, Isae. 6.64; 
aiscussed in Hamson I 62-65. D. Ogden, Greek Bastardy in the Classical and 
Hellenistic Periods (Oxford 1996) 84-85, notes that in forensic speeches, the 
public nature of the wedding ceremony is not invoked as proof of legitimacy, 
although it seems the wedding ceremony was intended to serve such a function. 
Ogden offers no explanation for this "curious fact." 

46 3.2.2: (JU yap ipti(J'tll(Ju~ on £~w (J£ yUjl£tl,V 1tuiowv E1t' aponp KU'ta 
VOjlOU~ ·EAAllVtlCOU~. ei yap Ill, ~pwv, OUlC /Xv llU~allllv tOtOUtOU yallou tUXftV. 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

42 CALLIRHOE'S CHOICE 

in the seventh month of a lawful marriage is a lawful son of 
the marriage.47 

Drawing upon the Hippocratic observation that a fetus could be 
born after seven months of gestation, the jurist declared such a 
child legitimate. This is exactly the situation envisioned by 
Chariton. He is careful to specify that Callirhoe was precisely 
two months pregnant at the time she married Dionysius. When 
Callirhoe tells Plangon, the slave woman who is her confidante, 
that she is two months pregnant, the slave woman says, "Time 
is on our side; it is possible to appear to have given birth to a 
seven-month child by Dionysius."48 This detail finally clinches 
Plangon's argument that Callirhoe should marry Dionysius. If 
the seven-month rule did not apply, there would be no reason 
for the virtuous Callirhoe to sacrifice her fidelity to Chaereas. 
The precise interval between marriage and birth is reiterated 
later in the narrative (3.7.7, £~06I-l<p yap Il11V1 I-l£'ta 'tau.; ya­

Ilou,;) . 
Seven months was a canonical figure in the ancient under­

standing of gestation.49 It was particularly important in Roman 
culture, where it became enshrined in law. This can be seen by 
comparing two comedies, one Athenian and one Roman, whose 
plots revolve around the type of situation which Callirhoe risks 
facing: the birth of a seemingly illegitimate child less than nine 

47Dig. 1.5.12 (Paul Resp. bk. 19); transl. D. M. MacCormick (supra n.6). 
48 2.10.5: llPE'to youv it nI"uyywv "1t6a!?v bOKEl<; xp6vov EXEtV 111<; auAI..11-

'VE<O<;;" i] bE. "buo 1!11vu<;" El1tEV. "0 Xp6vo<; OUV lWlv !30T\I:JEl' bUvucrat yap bOKElV 
E1t'tUI!T]V1UlOV EK LhovUcrlOU 'tE1:OKEVUl." 

49The precise duration of the pregnancy is at issue in Herodotus' account of 
the disputed paternity of the Spartan king Demaratus, born seven months after 
his parents' marriage. Deposed by his political enemy as not being of royal 
blood, Demaratus appeals to his mother to clarify. She tells of being seduced by 
a phantom of her husband, and then defends his legitimacy by explaining that 
"women give birth during the ninth month or the seventh month, and not all 
complete the ten month" (Hdt. 6.69, 'tlK'tOU(Jl yap YUVUlKE<; KUt EVVEal!T]vu KUt 
E1t"CUI!T]vu, KUt ou 1tacrat bEKU 1!11vu<; EK"CEAEcrucr9at). This, she says, was a 
fact commonly known among women; her husband was ignorant of it, and so 
swore it was not his own child. My thanks to the anonymous referee for point­
ing out this important passage. 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

SAUNDRA SCHWARTZ 43 

months after a marriage. In Terence's Hecyra the number seven is 
significant: the young wife, Philumena, gives birth seven months 
after marrying Pamphilus.so Philumena's father wonders why 
his wife is so anxious to hide their daughter's delivery; he 
remarks that the childbirth was at the "right time."s1 This 
suggests that a Roman audience, together with a respectable 
gentleman such as Philumena's father, might have accepted the 
birth of a child seven months after the wedding as nothing 
especially alarming. 

It is significant that the number seven does not appear to 
have been specified in the Greek version of this story. The 
surviving bits of the Greek original upon which Terence's play is 
based, Apollodorus of Carystus' Hecyra, do not specify the 
interval between wedding and childbirth; however, in the frag­
mentary Epitrepontes of Menander, the play to which the Hecyra 
is often compared, the critical number is five, not seven. The 
child is born only five months after the wedding of the young 
couple Charisios and Pamphile.52 It is critical to the plot of 
Epitrepontes that the fetus be born so prematurely that it could 
be credibly passed off as a miscarriage, as a five-month-old 
fetus would have unquestionably been. Indeed, when the 
servant Onesimos informs the girl's father that the child was 
conceived before the wedding, he likens it to a 't£pa~, which 
Arnott translates "freak." The child, in reality a full-term infant, 
had been secreted out of the house and exposed, only to be 
found by a shepherd, adopted by a slave, and passed off by 

SOTer. Hec. 392-394: partuire earn nec gravidam esse ex te salus conscius; 
nam aiunt tecum post duobus concubuisse mensibus; tum, postquam ad te venit, 
mensis agitur hic iam septimus. For discussion of the time scale of Philumena's 
pregnancy see S. Ireland, Terence: The Mother in Law (Warminster 1990) 162-
165. 

51 Ter. Hec. 531, praesertim quam et recte et tempore suo peperit. 
52 Men. Epit. 1115-1117: 'tolyapouv 'tEpa<nv ollola rtEv'tallllva rtalOla EK­

'tPE!poll£V. See W. G. Arnott, Menander I Aspis to Epitrepontes (Cambridge 
[Mass.] 1979) 517; A. W. Gomme and F. H. Sandbach, Menander: A Commentary 
(Oxford 1973) 308. 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

44 CALLIRHOE'S CHOICE 

Charisios' girlfriend, the hetaira Habrotonon, as her own. The 
dramatic tension revolves around the birth tokens, especially a 
ring lost by the rapist on the night of the rape. Ultimately the 
characters discover that Habrotonon's baby is actually Pam­
phile's baby, and the ring actually Charisios' ring. The conflict is 
resolved when it becomes clear that the unknown man who 
raped Pamphile four months before her marriage was in fact 
Charisios, leaving no doubt that the child is, after all, entirely 
legitimate. 

In Terence's version, a slight shift of the time frame creates a 
different sort of dramatic tension. In Hecyra the child is born 
seven months after the marriage, within the gray area between 
legitimacy and illegitimacy. A child born after seven months' 
gestation was premature, yet according to Roman law, within 
the window of acceptability. In the drama, the period between 
birth and marriage was not enough in itself to indict the child's 
legitimacy. Terence added the twist that the marriage was not 
consummated until two months after the wedding-a fact to 
which only Pamphilus' slave Parmeno is privy (that is, besides 
the spouses themselves). Several critics have attempted to re­
construct the time scheme of the dramatic events, working back 
from the birth. In summarizing these attempts, S. Ireland 
explains that the plot "requires the marriage to have taken place 
no less than seven months previously in order to ensure the ap­
pearance of minimum viability for any foetus."53 By eliminating 
the issue of an indisputably and unrealistically premature birth, 
Terence is able focus more subtly on the question of legitimacy; 
that is, he "thickens up" the plot.54 The child is no freak; to the 

53 Ireland (supra n.50) 165. 
54 On Terence's style of adaRtation see J. C. B. Lowe, "Terentian Originality 

in the 'Phormio' and 'Hecyra, 1/ Hermes 111 (1983) 431-452, esp. 438-442. Af­
though he does not dwell upon the duration of the pregnancy, he identifies a 
number of original deviations from Terence's GreeK models, such as enlarge­
ment of the comic role of Parmeno, as examples of the playwright's "thickening 
up process" (431). 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

SAUNDRA SCHWARTZ 45 

entire world, except for the couple and the husband's slave, the 
child is manifestly legitimate. When the birth becomes known to 
the couple's fathers and then to Pamphilus, the fathers do not 
understand why Pamphilus continues to reject his wife; Pam­
philus' father even offers to take the child and raise it himself 
(Hec. 699-726). 

Well before the third century, when the jurist Paul formally 
recognized the legal status of a filius born seven months after the 
consummation of the marriage, ancient medical writings 
recognized seven months as a significant milestone in gestation, 
the earliest date at which a fetus could be born and survive. Not 
only that-it was also the latest a fetus could be born and still 
be considered pre-term: ancient medical authorities adhered to 
the paradoxical notion that eight months was a particularly 
dangerous time, when childbirth always resulted in death for 
the fetus. 55 As Anne Ellis Hanson has shown, this supposition 
was based upon a numerology which privileged the number 
seven and its multiples as auspicious; the number eight, 
however, did not fit into this scheme.56 The canonical quality of 
the number seven in reference to months of pregnancy thus 
precludes the necessity of reconciling Chariton's figures with the 
lunar or Julian calendar, or with inclusive versus exclusive 

55For seven months as the minimum date of viability, Hippoc. Septim. 1-2. 
The assumption that infants born after eight months' gestatIon never survive 
childbirth IS expressed most clearly in Hippoc. Oct. 10: ltEpt Of OK'tUIll]VOU 
YEvEcrtO<; qnlllt Otcrcra<; €qJE~i1<; KUKOltu9du<; YEvoIlEVO:<; aouvu'tou<; dvo:t 7tOlEEtV 
<pEPEtv 'ta ltateto:, Ko:t Ota 'tou'tO ou ltEptY1VEcr9o:t 'ta OK'tUIlTlVO:' crUYKUPEt yap 
O:U'tEOt<; €<PE~i1<; KO:KOlto:9ElV 'tl]v 'tE EV 'ttl 1ll]'tPll YEVOIlEVTlV KO:KOltu9EiTlv Ko:t 
'tl]V o'tuv <> 't6KO<; YEVTI'tO:l, Ko:t Ola 'tOU'tO 'troY 6K'to:Ill]V(J}V OUOEV ltEptyivE'to:l. 
For a survey of other passages in ancient scientific texts in which this belief 
appears, see A. E. Hanson, "The Eight Months' Child and the Etiquette of Birth: 
Obsit Omen!" BHM 61 (1987) 589-602. 

56Hanson (supra n.55) 592-595. According to Hanson, this long-lived "fan­
tasy" served as an acceptable excuse to exonerate the birth attendants of blame 
for the deaths of newborns or mothers in childbirth (598--599). This dogma was 
held so deeply that instances that did not conform to the model would be con­
sidered grounds to impugn the mother's credibility in calculating the date of con­
ception. L. A. Dean-Jones, Women's Bodies in Classical Greek Science (Oxford 
1994) 210, indicates this misunderstanding as "an extreme example of folk­
belief influencing science in defiance of the observed phenomena." 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

46 CALLIRHOE'S CHOICE 

methods of reckoning time.57 If the opinion preserved in the 
Digest formalizes a practice that had been generally regarded as 
legally acceptable for some time, we might expect that the 
secretary of a rhetor would have been aware of it. 

The events of the narrative bear out the theory that Dio­
nysius' paternity, although constructed, nevertheless is to be 
understood as perfectly legitimate. After the baby is born, 
Dionysius defers to Callirhoe as his wife in all matters and 
makes her mistress of his house (3.7.7, KUK£tVO<; U1tO 't11<; xapa<; 
mlV'tO)v 1tap£xmp1l0"£ 'tTl YUVa.lKl Kat ()£(J1t01VaV alnllv u1t£()n~£ 
't11<; OiKta<;). His trust in Callirhoe is a sign that the birth was 
considered perfectly proper. Dionysius is like Euphiletus, the 
narrator of Lysias' oration On the Murder of Eratosthenes, who 
explains that it was not until after his new wife gave birth that 
he relaxed his guard and began to trust her with all his personal 
affairs. This he judges to be reasonable behavior for a newly 
wed husband (Lys. 1.6). Similarly, Dionysius, an educated, 
upper-class gentleman, remains in control despite his intense 
love for Callirhoe, and waits until after she gives birth to make 
her the mistress proper of the household. When he intercepts a 
letter from Chaereas to Callirhoe, he laments to Aphrodite, 
"Why dd you make a father one who was not even a 
husband?" (5.10.1, 'tt ()£ 1ta't£pa E1tOtn<; 'tOY OU()£ uv()pa ov'ta;), 
and presumes that the very fact that he and Callirhoe have a 
child togEther is proof enough that their marriage is valid. The 
irony is p.llpable. 

The m Jment of public recognition of a child, and not the 
moment I)f conception, formally established paternity. After 
that, biological paternity was a moot point. In Greek and 
Roman law, the father did not signify his paternity until after 
the baby was born. He was free to reject or accept children born 
into his household, regardless of whether or not he had sired 

57Cf. Karabelias (supra n.2) 379-380. 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

SAUNDRA SCHWARTZ 47 

them. Not only could he reject his own offspring, but through a 
formal recognition, marked by a ceremony or by official adop­
tion (in the case of older children), he could make a biological 
stranger his heir, in theory legally indistinguishable from his 
biological children. 58 

Because he has publicly married Callirhoe, and, furthermore, 
publicly acknowledged the child, Dionysius' custodial rights as 
presumed father outweigh both hers and the biological father's. 
Dionysius' legal paternity is clearly established. Moreover, 
Chariton never suggests that Dionysius' sentimental relationship 
to the child is hampered by the fact that he is not biologically 
related. He is loving and supportive; he is physically demon­
strative of his affection and dreads the day when he will have 
to send his son to visit his mother in Syracuse. If Callirhoe is the 
paragon of wifely virtue, Dionysius is the paragon of paternal 
virtue. It is precisely the overdetermined quality of Dionysius' 
affection for the child that points to the artificiality of the 
relation. Yet, in this case, artificiality does not necessarily imply 
inferiority. 59 He is the father of Callirhoe's child in all the 
relevant respects. 

A paternity suit in which a man claims rights to a child 
solely on the basis of his biological relationship would have 

580n the recognition of infants, see J. Rudhardt, "La reconnaissance de la 
paternite: sa nature et sa portee dans la societe athenienne," MusHelv 19 
(1962) 39-64; Harrison I 70-73; M. Golden, Children and Childhood in 
Classical Athens (Baltimore 1990) 23-24, 142; J. F. Gardner, Women in Roman 
Law and Society (Bloomington 1986) 137-161. The father's power to accept or 
reject children is most often discussed in relation to the subject of infanticide: 
e.g., S. Pomeroy, Goddesses, Whores, Wives, and Slaves (New York 1975) 69-70; 
W. V. Harris, "The Roman Father's Power of Life and Death," in R. S. Bagnall 
and W. V. Harris, edd., Studies in Roman Law in Memory of A. Arthur Schiller 
(Leiden 1986) 93-95. On the Roman law of adoption see Dig. 1.7; J. A. Crook, 
Law and Life of Rome (Ithaca 1967) 111-113. In Athenian law, adopted sons 
were on a par only with any biological sons born after the adoption; see Har­
rison I 130-131. 

59The question of the primacy of biological over cultural paternity was not 
new to Chariton's era; it was also an important question in Greek tragedy as 
well as other genres. See D. Konstan, "Oedipus and His Parents: The Biological 
Family from Sophocles to Dryden," Scholia 3 (1994) 3-23. 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

48 CALLIRHOE'S CHOICE 

been meaningless to the ancients. Paternity could be challenged: 
but it required the supposed father to initiate legal action. In 
such a case, the man would argue that he was not the biological 
father. It would have been most unusual for a man to claim that 
he was the biological father of a child who is assumed to be the 
child of another man. To do so would be to incriminate oneself 
as an adulterer. The more honorable thing would be to forget 
about that child and focus one's energies on siring another heir. 

The issue of biological paternity is practically irrelevant to 
the narrative, even after Chaereas is told of his paternity. Never 
is there any thought that the biological parents are more fit to 
raise their child, and never does Callirhoe suggest in her letter to 
Dionysius that the child is not really his. After their reunion at 
the end of the novel, Chaereas becomes jealous when Callirhoe 
tells him about what happened while she was in Miletus, but is 
calmed when she tells him about the child.60 Despite Chaereas' 
relief at learning of his son, the two biological parents and their 
child never become an affective unit.61 Chaereas' apparent in­
difference to the baby at the end of the novel accords with the 
general priorities of Greek men, concerns ultimately based upon 
ideas of legitimacy and succession. The insights formulated by 
Nancy Demand in her study of motherhood in classical Greece 
help to explain Chaereas' apparent indifference: 

male doctors treating or supervising the treatment of pregnant 
women were in a position to counter women's imagined or real 
propensity to resort to abortion or the introduction of sup­
posititious children. In contrast, men apparently felt no need to 
increase control over their prepubescent children. This does not 
imply that they did not care about them, but that they felt 

60 8.1.15: XCtlPEW; o£ 't11'7 EIlQnJ't01l 1;1lA.D't\)ltiCt~ uVfllvr,0"811. ltCtP1lYoPllO"f o£ 
Ct1J'tov 'to ltfPl 1:01> 'tEKVO\) OtllYTlIlCt. 

61 For a discussion of the question of parents', especially fathers', affection 
for children in antiquity, see Golden (supra n.S8) 80-114 and T. Wiedemann, 
Adults and Children m the Roman Empire (New Haven 1989) 25-32. 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

SAUNDRA SCHWARTZ 

comfortably in charge of them, as they did not in the case of 
their wives.62 

49 

The story of Callirhoe's choice dramatizes this male discomfort 
with women's power in the reproductive matters. Her decision 
to leave the child with Dionysius represents the corollary to this 
anxiety: that is, once the father acknowledges the child the 
question of biological paternity is off-limits. Callirhoe's choice 
reinforces the primacy of culturally determined paternity, as 
signified by the father's formal acceptance of the child, over 
simple biological relation. 

Accordingly, biological paternity never becomes an im­
portant issue at the end of Chariton's novel. Callirhoe gives up 
the child because she cannot do anything else. Callirhoe behaves 
precisely as expected of a good mother by leaving the child with 
the man who has acknowledged him as his son. Her actions 
conform to the overall depiction of mothers in all the Greek 
novels, where "separation, not affection" is the norm.63 Dio­
nysius' custodial rights as presumed father outweigh both the 
mother's and the biological father's. Chaereas, on the other 
hand, is not troubled by the fact that his offspring "belongs" to 
another man. Once reunited with Callirhoe, he willingly 
acquiesces to having another man raise his son as his own, a fair 
price for winning custody of his wife. His jealousy applies only 
to his desire to exclusively possess Callirhoe, not her child. He 
does not suffer any loss when Dionysius is allowed to keep his 
biological son because the true source of his social power lies in 
his possession of Callirhoe.64 Chaereas does not express regret 

62N. Demand, Birth, Death, and Motherhood in Classical Greece (Baltimore 
1994) 146-147. Although Demand's study focuses on the Greek polis in the 
classical period, her theory explains the ideology of the family to which Greeks 
in the imperial period were appealing in their essentially conservative project 
of restoring the culture of a past age. 

63B. Egger, "Woman as Heroine and Reader," in Swain (supra n.41) 108-
136, esp. 120. 

64 H. Elsom reads Callirhoe as a symbol of male power: "Callirhoe: Display­
ing the Phallic Woman," in A. Richlm, ed., Pornography and Representation in 
Greece and Rome (Oxford 1992) 212-230. 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

50 CALLIRHOE'S CHOICE 

over the loss of his son; in fact, he envisions the child as a future 
source of civic pride when he will return to Syracuse. 

Chaereas' hope echoes the earlier wish of Callirhoe, ex­
pressed during her interior monologue about whether to have an 
abortion. Her first instinct, upon discovering that she is preg­
nant, is to destroy the child: giving birth to a slave is abhorrent 
to her (2.8.6, 2.9.2). She then changes her mind and takes 
inspiration from heroes of myth and legend who had been born 
in slavery only to reclaim their rightful inheritance (2.9.5). This 
option, however, is ruled out by Plangon, who points out that 
the master's jealousy will prevent her from raising another 
man's child in his house. She lays out the choice starkly: the 
child is to die before it is born, or to be born as the heir of 
Dionysius (2.10.1-4). 

Yet, even so, Callirhoe cannot make the choice autono­
mously. Chariton depicts the critical moment as a three-way 
conference imagined by Callirhoe among herself, the child, and 
Chaereas (2.11.1, ~ouAEuaffillE8a 1tEpt 'tou KOtvD aUIHpEpOV'tO':;). 

For her part, she prefers death before everything else, especially 
before betraying her beloved first husband. She then considers 
the fact that the child will have two fathers, and may sail home 
to Syracuse already able to be a general. As Callirhoe imagines 
it, the child "votes" to live (2.11.3, Evav'tiav 1l0t <pEpn.:;, 'tEKVOV, 
'Vll<POV Kat OUK E1tl'tpE1tn.:; ~1l1V u1t08av£lv). The tie, as it were, is 
broken by Chaereas who, as Callirhoe remembers from a dream 
in which he appeared, entrusted the child to her. Because of the 
responsibility which Chaereas has given her, Callirhoe says, "I 
call upon you as witness, Chaereas, that you escort me in my 
wedding to Dionysius" (2.11.3, llap'tUPOllat aE, XatpEa, au 11£ 
fltOvuaicr vUIl<payroy£l,:;). In short, Callirhoe's decision to pass off 
the child as Dionysius' does not serve her own interests, as 
expressed in her wish to die, but the interests of the aikas of 
Hermocrates and by extension the city of Syracuse. 

The concern with the perpetuation of the maternal grand-



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

SAUNDRA SCHWARTZ 51 

father's oikos through marriage alliance with other members of 
the Greek elite of Chariton's novel bears a broad similarity to 
the marriage patterns of first generations of the Julio-Claudian 
dynasty. Like Hermocrates, Augustus did not have a son or a 
brother, but he did have a daughter, Julia. As Mireille Corbier 
has shown, Augustus used his daughter as a vital link in estab­
lishing a dynasty where the rule would be passed in a more 
orderly patrilineal fashion in the following generation (i.e., in his 
grandsons' generation).65 Because so much political power was 
staked upon the domus Augusta, the pool of the eligible marriage 
partners became highly exclusive. Women were married to a 
series of different husbands; marriages were terminated in order 
to form more advantageous alliances. For the purposes of the 
present argument, Livia illustrates this most clearly. She was 
pregnant with her second child when she divorced Ti. Claudius 
Nero in order to marry Octavian. Through adoption, Augustus 
naturalized his paternal authority over Tiberius, Livia's son and 
not biologically related to Augustus. Additional adoptions and 
marriage alliances fused together the Julian and Claudian clans 
in the service of creating a sufficient set of potential successors. 
As Corbier notes, such maneuvering was unnecessary for the 
Flavians because the family already had a sufficient number of 
males.66 

Family structures during the early empire, particularly among 
the elite, were more fluid than the modem conception of the 
nuclear family as the triad of mother-father-child.67 The curious 

65M. Corbier, "Male Power and Legitimacy through Women: The domus 
Augusta under the Julio-Claudians," in R. Hawley and B. Levick, edd., Women 
in Antiquity: New Assessments (London 1995) 178-193. For a broader study of 
the phenomenon of "filiafocality"-that is, the high valuation placed upon 
daughters as links between men in patriarchal society-in monarchic and 
republican Rome, see J. P. Hallett, Fathers and Daughters in Roman Society: 
Women in the Elite Family (Princeton 1984), esp. 76££ and 211ff. 

66Corbier (supra n.65) 191. 
67M. Corbier, "Divorce and Adoption as Roman Familial Strategies," in 

Rawson (supra n.37) 47-78. The effects of divorce, remarriage, and adoption on 
the composition of the Roman family are also discussed by Bradley (supra n.10) 
125-139. 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

52 CALLIRHOE'S CHOICE 

role of the child in the plot of Chariton's novel is best under­
stood in light of the interests of the oikoi of the leaders of the 
Greek cities. In an elite family, Callirhoe's son's double paternity 
would have been considered an asset in the political stratagems 
of the elite, rather than a flaw in the familial structure or as a 
failure of Callirhoe's maternal instincts.68 In winning Callirhoe 
Chaereas also gains the means for producing more heirs, but the 
ending of the novel does not point to future children.69 This is 
because the primary oikos in this story is not that of Chaereas, 
but that of Hermocrates. Chaereas' successes in battle enable 
his reintegration into the family of Hermocrates. Just as Dio­
nysius' oikos will be reinforced by the inclusion of Callirhoe's 
child, so too the novel closes with the expectation that Cal­
lirhoe's son will bring future glory to the oikos of Hermocrates 
and by extension to the entire city of Syracuse?O 

October, 2000 History and Humanities 
Hawaii Pacific University 
1188 Fort Street 
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 
sschwart@hpu.edu 

680ther protagonists in the Greek novels are empowered by double 
paternity. In Longus Daphnis and Chloe, Daphnis is recognized as the son of the 
estate owner Dionysophanes yet keeps his connection with his foster parents. 
In Heliod. Aethiop., the heroine has two or arguably more fathers; see Egger 
(supra n.63) 121 nAl. See my discussion supra n.35. 

690f the five extant Greek novels, only Longus 4.39 specifically mentions 
the children of the couple. The other novels end with a statement that the couple 
married (Ach. Tat. 8.19.2-3, Heliod. 10.29.3) or, if already married, they spent 
the rest of their lives in celebration (Xen. Eph. 5.15.3). 

70This article is an extended version of a 'paper presented at the Annual 
Meeting of the American Philological Association in 1997. I am grateful to the 
Trustees' Scholarly Endeavors Program at Hawaii Pacific University for a 
grant which enabled me to write this article; to Suzanne SaId for comments on 
an earlier version of this paper; and to the anonymous reader for very helpful 
suggestions.