Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T19:28:36.460Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

ἡ τοῦ κάλλος ἀπορροή: A Note on Achilles Tatius 1.9.4–5, 5.13.4*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

Oleg Bychkov
Oleg Bychkov
Affiliation:
University of Toronto, [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The phrase combining the terms κάλλ0ς and ἀπoρρoή to my knowledge does not occur anywhere else in the Greek Corpus in the context of contemplating a beautiful beloved. Achilles Tatius (second century a.d.) therefore must be making an allusion to Plato. This can hardly come as a surprise considering that Phaedr. 251, which describes the influence of the appearance of beauty on the soul of the lover, is one of the most famous and widely known Platonic passages. However, the context within which these two allusions to Plato are introduced deserves attention. Adding a certain learned touch to the description of erotic episodes in his novel, Achilles Tatius presents a ‘scientific’ explanation of the mechanism of visual perception. The consistency of both accounts suggests that he draws on some scholarly theory of vision which was part of his general educational background. But, unlike the above mentioned allusions, this theory is hardly Platonic.

Type
Shorter Notes
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 49 , Issue 1 , May 1999 , pp. 339 - 341
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1999

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Texts are quoted from the edition of E. Vilborg (Stockholm. 1995). The following editions will also be used: Empedocles, Leucippus, Democritus: Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, 6th edn, ed. H. Diels and W. Kranz, vols 1–2 (Berlin, 1951–2); Epicurus: Epicurus. The Extant Remains, ed. C. Bailey (Oxford, 1926), cited as Bailey (1926); Epicurea, ed H. Usener (Leipzig, 1887); Epicuro, Opere, ed. G. Arrighetti (Torino, 1973); Diogenes of Oinoanda: Diogenes of Oinoanda, The Epicurean Inscription, ed. M. F. Smith (Naples, 1993). In addition, the following studies have been consulted: J. I. Beare, Greek Theories of Elementary Cognition (Oxford, 1906); C. Bailey, The Greek Atomists and Epicurus (Oxford, 1928), cited as Bailey (1928).

References

1 This conclusion is supported by other textual parallelisms, e.g. the pharase διà τŵν ⋯μμάτων. Also cf. Phaedr. 255C:…oὕτω τɂ τoû κάλλoϒς ῥεûμα πάλιν ες τɂν καλɂν διà τŵν ⋯μμάτων ἱóν…

2 About the influence of the Phaedrus in the second century a.d. see: Trapp, M. B., ‘Plato's Phaedrus in second-century Greek literature’, in Russell, D. A. (ed.), Antonine Literature (Oxford, 1990), pp. 141–73Google Scholar; cf. p. 155 where the allusions to Plato in Achilles Tatius 1.4.4, 1.9.4, and 5.13.4 are briefly mentioned.

3 Cf. also 1.4.4 (Vilborg, 6: κάλλoς …διà τŵν ⋯øθαλμŵν εỉς τήν ΨϒΧήν καταρρεî…) and 6.6.4 (Vilborg, 115: τí δÉ σoϒ τɂ κάλλoς τŵν ⋯øθαλμŵν εỉς γῆν καταρρεî; ༐πì τoὑς ⋯øθαλμoɉς μâλλoν ῥεÉτω τoɉς ༐μoúς).

4 According to Empedocles, vision is accomplished by means of material effluences entering the eyes which have pores just like all other bodies. Empedocles also speaks of a ray coming out of the eye, but, unlike Democritus, introduces no theory of pupillar image (ᾤμøασις) in front of the eye (DK 31 B 84, 341–2; cf. Meno 76C–D); the latter theory is also rejected by Plato.

5 Plato also has a simplified theory of vision in the Phaedrus which is close to the atomist. Thus in Phaedr. 251C the perception of beauty is decribed in the following way: ὅταν μέν oὖν βλÉπoϒσα πρɂς τɂ τoû: παιδɂς κάλλoς, ༐κεîθεν μÉρη ༐πιóτα καì έoντ’… δεΧoμένη… (cf. similar phrasing in 251B and 255C; also cf. Plato's account in Tim. 67C–68A where only the effluence of ‘parts’ is mentioned; but also cf. Diogenes of Oenoanda: ή ΨϒΧή …τô δέ ⋯αϒτῆ πρoσιóντα εἴδωλα ༐γδεΧoμένη… [Smith, Fr. 9.IV.12, v.3–5]). This suggests that Achilles Tatius could have had in mind also the simplified version of Plato's theory of vision form the Phaedrus (cf. another textual parallel with Phaedr. 255D where the beloved sees himself in the lover ὥσπερ δέ έν κατóπτρω). Also cf. the similarity between the above passages from Plato and Diogenes and a passage from another novelist—and a contemporary of Achilles—Xenophon of Ephesus (1.3.2):…’Aνθdzα …τoîς ⋯øθαλμoîς τɂ ’Aβρoκóμoϒ κάλλoς εἱσρÉoν δεΧoμÉνη… (quoted from the edition of A.D. Papanikolaou [Leipzig, 1973]).

6 One may remember that Achilles’ claimed place of origin was Alexandria, as was reportedly that of Thrasyllus (died 36 a.d., who is known for organizing works of Democritus as well as those of Plato.

7 In addition to Diogenes of Oenoanda, the importance of these issues in the early third century a.d. is witnessed by the discussion in Alexander of Aphrodisias. See Avotins, I., ‘Alexander of Aphrodisias on vision in the atomists’, CQ 30 (1980), 429–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar