It's interesting that "Gwendolen Harleth" (like "Anna Livia Plurabelle") has been published separately under that title, and yet we'd still always say "in the story of Gwendolen Harleth," never simply "in Gwendolen Harleth."
My provisional suspicion is that modern English tolerates "in X" where X has gained widespread currency for some reason (e.g. because it was already a section-name in another language, like "Nekuia," or because the author himself used it as a section-name, as Joyce did when excerpting ALP as a widely circulated teaser for his forthcoming book), but doesn't tolerate "in X" where X has never gained widespread currency (as with the sections from Daniel Deronda & The Moonstone).
Stephen Carlson wrote:It is unclear whether "Elijah" named a writing. Danker's reformulation with "in the passage of" suggests that it did not. Another indication that Ἠλίᾳ does not name a writing is that the word provides a personal subject for ὡς ἐντυγχάνει τῷ θεῷ κατὰ τοῦ Ἰσραήλ in Rom 11:2 and a personal antecedent for αὐτῷ in v.4 ἀλλὰ τί λέγει αὐτῷ ὁ χρηματισμός;
I too am doubtful whether "Elijah" ever named a writing. I suspect from the Rabbinic instances, though, that it may at least have been a recognized designation for a block of material (at any rate within some Jewish communities).
Stephen Carlson wrote:Another indication that Ἠλίᾳ does not name a writing is that the word provides a personal subject for ὡς ἐντυγχάνει τῷ θεῷ κατὰ τοῦ Ἰσραήλ in Rom 11:2 and a personal antecedent for αὐτῷ in v.4 ἀλλὰ τί λέγει αὐτῷ ὁ χρηματισμός;
I haven't looked in detail, but I suspect we'd find lots of instances in ancient Gk where a name (e.g. "in David," "in Moses") functions in one and the same context both to designate a writing and also as a personal subject/antecedent etc. I suspect that ancient writers may not have compartmentalized those matters as tightly as we do.
On the whole the function of writing-designations in ancient literature seems to me a very complex subject indeed. Perhaps we shouldn't be trying to find too neat or too unitary a way of summarizing it. (This is just a general reflection, not a response to your comments, Stephen--which certainly don't fall into that trap!)