{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.021822849807445442, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0025673940949935813, 'mean_word_length': 4.587813620071684, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Xenophon of Ephesus

In many important respects Xenophon’s handling of time is like Chariton’s (→). For the most part this is a straightforward narrative in chronological order, but the author’s ambition to cram as much sensational incident into as short a compass as possible has led to some difficulties and oddities. It must remain an open question to what extent if any this is due to the status of the text that we have. Arguments that our version of the Ephesiaca is an epitome have been vigorously rebutted, but the sense remains for many readers that something fuller and more satisfactory lurks behind the extant text.1 The narration is subsequent, but further precision is impossible. Whereas Chariton (→) locates his story at a fairly precise date in the past and links it to historical figures, Xenophon’s is in temporal free-fall. There is no attempt to set a dramatic date: some institutions appear to belong to the imperial period, but probably represent no more than a default-setting reflecting the world familiar to author and his readers.2 Rome is conspicuous by her absence, even when the action briefly moves to Italy. There is no reference to any historical figure or event. The narrator never speaks of his own time as distinct from that of the story. The total time span covered by the story is similarly vague. Hägg has counted sixty days identifiable by temporal markers.3 In a few cases the days are clearly marked as consecutive,4 but most of the action takes place on single-day units separated by unspecified periods of time. In