sacrifice which threatens Theagenes and Charikleia when they reach Ethiopia. To conclude: it is characteristic of Heliodoros at every level of narration to withhold information, not simply to produce effects of shock and surprise, but to enlist the reader into an actively interpretative role. If this essay has dwelt on specific examples from the second half of the work, that is because there has been a tendency in scholarly work on the novel to dwell on its overall structure and particularly the figure of Kalasiris and to regard the sections narrated by Heliodoros himself as technically simpler and less interesting. This is untrue; the technique is all-pervasive. The plot itself contains frequent examples of characters compelled to speculate interpretatively, notably in response to dreams, not sur­ prisingly since the narrator so conspicuously fails to provide an authoritative centre of final meaning. Heliodoros was clearly very interested in these issues of cognition and comprehension, but I do not think his interest was a post-modernist one in hermeneutic theory, nor that these recurrent situations are intended to focus the reader’s attention on the reading process per se.x5 For all the self-conscious artificiality of individual examples, I would prefer to see the enigmatic narrative mode of the Aithiopika as an attempt to move fiction closer to life. Real life, after all, tends to be confused and senseless. We are not always immediately aware of the causes or meanings of what we see and suffer. These things more often become clear only in retrospect, as we learn more or impose patterns on raw experience. Whereas other Greek novelists, in predigesting the story for us, reduce us to the role of audience, Heliodoros has contrived to make his reader an imaginative participant in the story of Thea­ genes and Charikleia.16 NOTES

DOI link for sacrifice which threatens Theagenes and Charikleia when they reach Ethiopia. To conclude: it is characteristic of Heliodoros at every level of narration to withhold information, not simply to produce effects of shock and surprise, but to enlist the reader into an actively interpretative role. If this essay has dwelt on specific examples from the second half of the work, that is because there has been a tendency in scholarly work on the novel to dwell on its overall structure and particularly the figure of Kalasiris and to regard the sections narrated by Heliodoros himself as technically simpler and less interesting. This is untrue; the technique is all-pervasive. The plot itself contains frequent examples of characters compelled to speculate interpretatively, notably in response to dreams, not sur­ prisingly since the narrator so conspicuously fails to provide an authoritative centre of final meaning. Heliodoros was clearly very interested in these issues of cognition and comprehension, but I do not think his interest was a post-modernist one in hermeneutic theory, nor that these recurrent situations are intended to focus the reader’s attention on the reading process per se.x5 For all the self-conscious artificiality of individual examples, I would prefer to see the enigmatic narrative mode of the Aithiopika as an attempt to move fiction closer to life. Real life, after all, tends to be confused and senseless. We are not always immediately aware of the causes or meanings of what we see and suffer. These things more often become clear only in retrospect, as we learn more or impose patterns on raw experience. Whereas other Greek novelists, in predigesting the story for us, reduce us to the role of audience, Heliodoros has contrived to make his reader an imaginative participant in the story of Thea­ genes and Charikleia.16 NOTES

sacrifice which threatens Theagenes and Charikleia when they reach Ethiopia. To conclude: it is characteristic of Heliodoros at every level of narration to withhold information, not simply to produce effects of shock and surprise, but to enlist the reader into an actively interpretative role. If this essay has dwelt on specific examples from the second half of the work, that is because there has been a tendency in scholarly work on the novel to dwell on its overall structure and particularly the figure of Kalasiris and to regard the sections narrated by Heliodoros himself as technically simpler and less interesting. This is untrue; the technique is all-pervasive. The plot itself contains frequent examples of characters compelled to speculate interpretatively, notably in response to dreams, not sur­ prisingly since the narrator so conspicuously fails to provide an authoritative centre of final meaning. Heliodoros was clearly very interested in these issues of cognition and comprehension, but I do not think his interest was a post-modernist one in hermeneutic theory, nor that these recurrent situations are intended to focus the reader’s attention on the reading process per se.x5 For all the self-conscious artificiality of individual examples, I would prefer to see the enigmatic narrative mode of the Aithiopika as an attempt to move fiction closer to life. Real life, after all, tends to be confused and senseless. We are not always immediately aware of the causes or meanings of what we see and suffer. These things more often become clear only in retrospect, as we learn more or impose patterns on raw experience. Whereas other Greek novelists, in predigesting the story for us, reduce us to the role of audience, Heliodoros has contrived to make his reader an imaginative participant in the story of Thea­ genes and Charikleia.16 NOTES