LAIS AND HER MIRROR

LAIS AND HER MIRROR

MARIA YPSILANTI

Several epigrams on Lais, the celebrated Corinthian courtesan renowned for her beauty, survive in the Greek Anthology. Three of them are epitaphs (Antip. Sid. 7.218, Pompeius 7.219, Agathias 7.220), some dedicatory (‘Plato’ 6.1, Julian 6.18-20, Paul Sil. 6.71) and one belongs to the so-called ‘demonstrative’ epigrams (Secundus 9.260). The poems of the two latter categories will be discussed in the present paper. They all depend, to a greater or lesser extent, on the famous 6.1, attributed to Plato, but regarded today as a Hellenistic product, like most of the epigrams attributed to the philosopher in the Anthology: ‘Plato”s epigrams are dated in the third or second century BC.1 The exploitation of the theme of the Hellenistic poem by the later epigrammatists, each one choosing different angles, with variable degrees of originality, will be investigated here. It will, moreover, be argued that these poems, and particularly Secundus 9.260, are better evaluated if seen in the light of fourth-century philosophical discussions involving all sorts of thought-provoking implications of mirror imaging, a topic not only connected to Lais in the epigrams mentioned above.

In 6.1 Lais, now an old woman, dedicates her mirror to Aphrodite, as she loathes looking at herself in it. In a remarkably dense and elegant four-lined poem, built on tastefully placed, explicit and implicit oppositions, the author sketches the glorious past and the sad present of Lais using a swift, vivid, and vigorous diction:

‘H aopapbv ycXdaaoa K a e ’ ‘EMa.Gos, ii TOT’ ipaoTQv

-rfj Tla+iq ~b KC~TOTITPOV. h i T O ~ V p i v bp6oeaL 6opbv hi Trpoe~pois A u k gxouaa viwv,

O ~ K MXo, o‘iq 6’ fiv ~rapos 06 6fivapai.

I, Lais, whose haughty beauty made mock of Greece, I who once had a swarm of young lovers at my doors, dedicate my mirror to Aphrodite, since I wish not to look on myself as I am, and cannot look on myself as I once was. (tr. Paton)

The first half of the epigram is devoted to an exaggerated account of the enormous erotic success of Lais and her celebrity all over Greece. It is noteworthy that the tribute to her beauty is never accomplished through any direct reference to it. Lais’ looks are nowhere described, nor do we hear any of the expected praises for her actual appearance: we are

’ See D. L. Page, Further Greek epigrumv (Cambridge 1981) 125-26 and 167; W. Ludwig, ‘Plato’s love epigrams’, GRBS 4 (1963) 59-82. For a discussion of Antipater’s epitaph on Lais, an imitation of the epitaph of Asclepiades for another courtesan, Archeanassa. see K. Gutzwiller, Poetic gurlunds. Hellenistic epigram in context (Berkley-Los Angeles-London 1998) 255-57.

BICS49 2006 193

194 BICS-49 2006

left to recognize it with the report about the ‘swarm’ of lovers gathered at her door2 and with the highly poetic metaphorical oxymoron fi oopapbv yeXdaaoa KaO ’ ‘EXXdGos, ‘the one who made a haughty mock of Greece’. The reader has the impression that the author finds it unworthy to waste words not only in conventional descriptions of specific features, but even in at least a brief reference to beauty, youth, grace, allure, and the like, as if all these attributes, frequent in poetry and appropriate for other women’s praise but trivial for this one, would spoil his intended portrait, that of an exceptional individual whose beauty is too well known to be reminded and clearly stated. Similarly skilful is the account of her present state, again nowhere described with specific references to old age, white hair, wrinkles, etc.; absent are even more neutral words such as ‘face’, ‘figure’, ‘time’. The author avoids all these commonly used words, strictly limiting his presentation only to what is indispensable for the reader to visualize old age in the shortest possible way, in fact only through the verbal forms’ tenses and the plain - devoid of any sentimentality, but for this reason all the more poignant - temporal adverbs TOT ’

(I. I) and ridpos (I. 4). Furthermore, he concludes the poem achieving an excellent effect of silent - thus all the more dignified - sorrow using a contrivance impressive in its austere simplicity: continuing the opening metaphorical contrast, the second half of the poem is constructed on multiple oppositions which are present through the verses as notions but hardly as words. It is occupied by an ingenious play between the antithetical, mutually exclusive, and still interwoven pairs of past-present and will-power, triggered by one more such pair, that of beauty and its decline, explicit andor fully descriptive reference to which, however, nowhere appears. This play is discernible in multiple levels, the obvious being ‘as I was in the DaSt I cannot (see myself), as I am in the present I wish - not’, which can be analysed in various further ways: 1 ) in the I could (look at my beautiful self), in the present, I cannot; 2) in the = I wished to look at the mirror, in the present I wish not; 3) what I y& is the (beauty) what I can have is the present (decline), and its opposite, 4) what I cannot have is the (beauty), what I wish not is the present (decline); 3) and 4) can form, if coupled chiastically, two alternative pairs: 5 ) what I y& is the a, what I wish not is the present, and 6) what I can have is the resent, what I cannot have is the @.

The above somewhat pedantic insistence on the detailed demonstration of the economical diction of the poem and the underlying levels of meaning in the final couplet is meant to contribute to a better appreciation of the density and dexterity of subject handling in 6.1 which justly opens the dedicatory book of the Anthology, being a miniature masterpiece of structure, rhythm, and power of expression. It is noteworthy that its second half was imitated by Ausonius, epigr. 65 (60 Green):

’ Cf. Athen. 13.588e. 8La[rlkmTTOUkhq 86 TTOTC fi A a l s f l @ p O q ~roXirv i p a o T Q v FUXT~KW i j ~ ~ t h o v oJ GtaKpivowa T T A O W L O ~ 4 r r i q T a . As Phryne, however, was at least one generation younger than Lais, this information probably refers to the Younger Lais, as well as Athenaeus’ account of Apelles being astonished by her beauty when a very young girl (Athen. 13.588~-d). The confusion in the latter statement is clear. as Athenaeus shortly above spoke of the Sicilian origin of Lais, usually regarded as the daughter of Tirnandn. captured, and brought to Corinth during Nicias’ Sicilian expedition; see n. 9, below.

MARIA YPSILANTI: LAIS AND HER MIRROR I95

Lais anus Veneri speculum dico: dignum habeat se

At mihi nullus in hoc usus, quia cernere talem, aeterna aeternum forma ministerium.

qualis sum, nolo, qualis eram, nequeo.

I, Lais, grown old, to Venus dedicate my mirror: let eternal beauty have the external service which befits it. But for me there is no profit in this, for to behold myself such as I am I would not, such as I was I cannot. (tr. White, in the Loeb series)

The motif of Lais’ dislike of her mirror because of old age is taken up also by Claudian, Eutr. 1.94. In Greek poetry it became the object of variation by Julian, a prolilic epigrammatist of the Cycle of Agathias,3 who liked to produce variations on themes of older Anthology authors and wrote three epigrams on Lais’ dedication of her mirror to Aphrodi te:

Aais 6paXGuvecTcra xp6vq1 mpiKaXXia pop$fiv, yqpaXiov O T U ~ ~ E L papTupiqv i)uTi6wv.

U V ~ C T O S ~ a ~ ~ o i q q s napes 6yXaiqs. “AXXa aO poi, Kueipcia , 6Cxov V C ~ T I ~ T O S h-aTpov

m € V TTlKPbV EXEYXOV 6lT€X%lpaOa KaThTpOU,

6 i a K O V . 6TT€i pOp$q Xp6VOV Ofi TPOpiEL.’

Lais, her loveliness laid low by time, hates whatever witnesses to her wrinkled age. Therefore, detesting the cruel evidence of her mirror, she dedicates i t to the queen of her former glory. ‘Receive, Cytherea, the circle, the companion of youth, since thy beauty dreads not time.’ (6.18, tr. Paton)

KdMos pCv, K v e i p a a , XapiCEai. 6XXa papaivcL

Ahpou 6 ’ bpcTipoio n a p a m a p i v o v pc, KvOfipq, b xp6vos &p.rrO[wv f i v , p a a i X a a , xapiv.

6 i x v u o o Kai Shpou, ~ r 6 ~ v i a . papTvpiqv.

Thou grantest beauty, Cytherea, but creeping time withers thy gift, my Queen. Now since thy gift has passed me by and flown away, receive, gracious goddess, this mirror that bore witness to it. (6.19, tr. Paton)

‘EMci6a v i q a a a a v b ~ ~ C p p i o v 6oni6a MfiSwv

po6vy tviKfiOq 6 ’ bnb dpa i , Kai T ~ V .?Xcyxov

4s yap ‘16~^Lv a-ruyiei noXiijs riavaXqeia pop$fiv.

Aals ~ K E V &a K ~ M E L XqiGiqv.

a V & T O OOi, na$iTl, TbV V€blTlTl $iXOV‘

Tf)06€ OUV€X8aip€l Kai UKLb€VTa T l h O V .

Lais took captive by her beauty Greece, which had laid in the dust the proud shield of Persia. Only old age conquered her, and the proof of her fall, the friend of her

’ Julian was probably Praetorian Prefect between spring 530 and February 531 AD; see further K . V. Hartigan. ‘Julian the Egyptian’, Eranos 73 (1975) 43-54, at 44 with nn. 4 and 5 ; A. Cameron, ‘Some Prefects called Julian’, Bymurim 47 (1977) 42-64, at 43ff.; H. Schulte, Julian von Agpfen (Trier 1990) I3ff.

196 BICS49 2006

youth, she dedicates to thee, Cypris. She hates to see even the shadowy image of those grey hairs, whose actual sight she cannot bear. (6.20, tr. Paton)

What Julian in fact does is give a full and straightforward account of what is suggestively sketched in his model. In these poems he uses all the predictable and typical, in such contexts, terms ‘Plato’ carefully avoids: KUUOS, pop@l, ciyXa’ia, ~ U T ~ ~ E S , V E ~ T Q S ,

xp6vos, xap~s, fipas, T T O X L ~ . 6.18 is a conventionally designed development of 6.1, treating analytically the main points of the final couplet of ‘P1ato”s poem, that is the contrasts between present and past and beauty and its fading that make Lais abandon her mirror because of the grief it now brings her. The reader who is aware of ‘Plato”~ epigram easily grasps their difference in quality and style; this one describes extensively, explicitly, and ‘neatly’, through its logical phases, and for this reason rather insipidly, the circumstances and causation of the offering, lacking the intensity and sharpness of his model. The only new element of Julian’s poem is its closing with Lais’ words to Aphrodite, commenting that the mirror befits the goddess because of the eternity of her beauty; this is clearly echoing Ausonius’ aeferna aeternum, so that there can be little doubt that Julian was aware of the Latin epigram. In the following A P poem by Julian, 6.19, the details discussed in 6.18 are not repeated. This one is more original as it continues but also presupposes (since we do not hear the offerer’s name nor the object dedicated) the previous situation, being an apostrophe to Aphrodite with reference to past beauty; the poem displays a certain inventiveness, as there is the novelty of a play with beauty as a gift of Aphrodite to Lais on the one hand, and the mirror, its ‘evidence’, as a gift from Lais to the goddess, on the other: this device of a cycle of reciprocity of favour reflects, through the annihilation time brought upon the former gift, the cycle of life itself. Now in the last of his variations, 6.20, Julian combines constituents from both previous poems, adding one essential element of his model that he had not used in them: the idea of Lais’ ‘mockery’ against Greece, here transformed into her defeating and ‘capturing’ the country, in fact echoing the same statement of an earlier sepulchral epigram on Lais to which ‘Plato”s poem also probably refers through a tasteful variation.‘ This feature further enables Julian to create and exploit an opposition in a practice reminiscent of that of 6.1 and the framework of contrast that runs through it. Using the idea of conquest Julian invents the opposition of the ‘conqueror’ of Greece being ‘conquered’ by old age. The dualism, however, though not in the form of a sharp contrast, but rather as a twofold distinction, is retained through a new detail in the final couplet, with the opposition of reality and mirror image, both of which are hateful to Lais, which will be discussed below. From his own poems he keeps certain features: actual description of the situation as in 6.18; the mirror as ‘proof‘ as in both 6.18 and 6.19; here however, with a fine ‘self- variation’, the mirror is the proof not of beauty, as in 6.19, but of the opposite, its decline,

Athen. 13.589a-b = Page, Further Greek epigrams (n. 1, above) anon. 130: Tiiu66 ncfl ’ fi pcydAauxos ~ V ~ K ~ T & S TE n& dXKjv I ‘EMhs 1GouAd3q KMXEW iuo8iou. I Aai6os. qv ~ T C K V ~ ~ ~ U C V ”Epc~s . BpCJrw 6i K 6 p ~ & o s . I KElTat 6 ’ i v ~ A c t v o i ~ ewTaAtKo?s n€siots, allegedly inscribed on the tomb of Lais in Thessaly (see n. 9. below) and perhaps being genuine, probably coming from the fourth century BC or in any case not later than the third; see Page, Further Greek epigram (n. I . above) 439. For the idea cf. further Plut. hfOr.767fb~E 6jllO&€v d K O 4 hai6a TI)V dO@tpoV &K€iVQV K a i T r o ~ ~ p a T o V . h S <TP!$kyC no& T I ) U

‘EM&&.

MARIA YPSILANTI: LAIS AND HER MIRROR I97

as in 6.18; one can further note that in 6.18 the ‘proof‘ that the mirror is is called both pap-rupiq and EXcyxos, words singly distributed in 6.19 and 6.20 respectively. What is more, with his EXcyxov I ... T ~ V V E ~ T ~ T I +iXov, ‘the proof of her fall, the friend of her youth’, of 6.20, Julian implicitly echoes one of the levels of the multiple contrasts in ‘Plato”s final couplet, that is n. 2 of the analysis proposed above (p. 000), consisting in that which Lais wished to see in the past as opposed to that which she does not wish to see in the present.

One more poem on Lais survives in the collection of dedicatory epigrams in the Anthology, 6.71 by Paulus Silentiarius, also a sixth-century author of the Cycle of Agathias. In this 10-line poem Paulus exploits, with an ingenious twist, the only element of 6.1 Julian has not used in his variations, that of the ‘swarm of lovers’ at Lais’ doors. In the form of a paraclausifhyron, with its central map6 mpoebpois (I . 5) cchoing ‘Plato”s i d -rrpo06pois, Paulus composes an exaggerated mock-dedication from an excfusus amator of sympotic symbols of his desperate love (his wreath’s torn leaves, shattcrcd cups, pieces of his scented hair) to fair and unbending Lais, who is presented as a mighty goddess who accepts ‘spoils’, aKcirXa, from the love-smitten, i-roehPXqTos Anaxagoras (I. 4), being thus the receiver of the dedication and replacing, as i t were, Aphrodite of the previous poems. In this way Paulus moreover recalls the war metaphor with Lais rendering Greece her captive (cf. Julian’s XqiGiqv in 6.20.2). He thus achieves both variation and independence, writing a poem inspired but wholly different in mood and style from ‘P1ato”s original idea, probably being aware, at the same time, of Julian’s versions of it.

Of special interest is a poem on the ageing Lais by Secundus, an author known only from four epigrams, in which, however, he demonstrates a thorough acquaintance with the work of his contemporary and earlier fellow-poets. The epigram is included in the demonstrative section of the Anthology, in an excerpt from Philip’s Garland, 9.260 = Secundus I G-P:j

‘H ~b naXaL Aais T T ~ V T W V PiXos, O ~ K ~ T L Aais

0 6 p6 K ~ I T ~ L V (TI 66 KGmpts ipoi y’ ~ T L , .rrXljv aaov 6 ~ ~ 0 s ; ) &AX’ grtw +avcplj n6aiv iyLj Nipfais.

yvcjpipov 068’ ab6j AaiGi Aais i ~ t .

The Lais of times past, an arrow in every heart, no longer Lais am I, but plain to every eye the Nemesis of the years. By the Cyprian - and what is the Cyprian still to me, except a name to swear by? - not even to Lais is Lais still a thing to rccognize. (tr. Cow-Page)

The author elaborates the main idea, and exploits the contrasts of ‘P la to”~ poem without retaining either its external form of dedication or the involvement of‘a mirror. He focuses

’ For Secundus and his epigrams see A. S. F. Gow and D. L. Page, The Greek Anfholo~y: the Gtrrlrnrf o f f h i l i p and some contemporary epigrum, 2 vols. (Cambridge 1968) vol. 2, 406-09. It should be noted that Planudes attributes the poem to Epigonus, also an author from The Garland of Philip, to whom only one epigram is attributed in the Palatine Codex, while two more are added by Planudes, including the one on Lais (Gow and Page, vol. 2, 277-78). It is interesting that the one poem both codices agree that it belongs to Epigonus, A f 9.261, is about the ageing of a vine.

I98 BICS-49 2006

on the multiple oppositions of 6.1 (past-present, beauty-decline, youth-old age), cleverly transforming them into a new and interesting play formed by a fascinating oxymoron that minimally and imposingly comprises all previous contrasts reaching their very core and essence: that of being and ceased to be, that is being and not being. Secundus opens the poem with the purposively straightforward statement of blatant contradiction that Lais is no longer Lais (a paradox reminiscent of ‘Plato”~ opening paradox ;1 aopapbu yfhcioaaa) and proceeds to the central couplet’s ‘rationalisation’ and justification of this statement, explaining that Lais is now the ‘Nemesis of the years’; he thus avoids the common reference to the passage of time and old age, replacing it with an imaginative periphrasis succinctly encompassing the idea of time and its ‘vengeance’, enough to sketch the portrait of an extinct beauty with no further prolixity. The idea is borrowed from the Meleagrian anon. AP 6.283, where, in contrast to Lais, the old courtesan who has formerly boasted of wealthy lovers never encountered terrible Nemesis, Secundus altering the pattern by identifying the goddess of vengeance with her victim. Furthermore, with his metaphorical description of Lais as T T ~ V T W V PkXos, Secundus briefly recalls the war imagery of the fourth-century alleged epitaph on Lais, implicit in the epigram attributed to Plato, that Julian will also e ~ p l o i t . ~ Secundus continues with an invocation to Aphrodite in the form of an oath enriched with an aside confirming that the goddess can no longer play any role in Lais’ life other than that of a simple name to swear by. The involvement of Aphrodite with another function but in the same spirit as in ‘P1ato”s epigram is a fine element of correspondence but also differentiation between the two poems. Finally, the opening oxymoron that Lais is no longer Lais is echoed ‘corrected’ in the last line in an milder, more ‘reasonable’, so to speak, form, in the statement that Lais no longer recognizes Lais, which thus cyclically encloses the poem in the antithesis between being and not being, presented in its abrupt and integral intensity at the beginning, and in a more down-to-earth way at the end.

Before proceeding to a closer examination of the point of the epigram attributed to Plato and its variation by Secundus and Julian, it is worth making certain observations on the dedication. The aptness of a (formerly) beautiful courtesan’s dedication of a mirror to Aphrodite is perfectly tenable, as mirrors were typically associated with the goddess (who, for instance, repeatedly looks at her mirror before Paris’ judgement in Call. h. 5.21 -22), female coquetry, and erotic activity.’ Now, according to ancient sources, Lais’

’ See above with n. 4. Nemesis as old age which destroys the charms of loveable girls and boys is a common motif, cf. Mel. AP 12.33.4; Automedon 11.326.4; Haccus 12.12.2; Agath. 5.273.7; Paul. Sil. 5.300.8; Strato 12.229.2. Anon. 6.283 is a reversal of the motif of the woman worker becoming a hetaira. as this courtesan in her impoverished old age turns to weaving to e m her living; cf. next note. ’ See A. W. Bulloch. Cullimachus: rhefifrh hymn (Cambridge 1985) 130; W. McCarty, ‘The shape. of the mirror: metaphorical catoptrics in classical literature’, Arerhusu 22 (1989) 161-95, at 167 with n. 1 I , 176-82. Similar to ‘Plato’ AP 6. I is the fifty-year-old courtesan’s dedication of a mirror, among other paraphernalia, to Aphrodite at her retirement in ‘Philitas’ 6.210 (recent scholarship is sceptical as regards the authenticity of the epigrams attributed to Philitas, which may come from a later period; see K. Spanoudakis, Philitus of Cos [Leiden 20021 327-28). It has been suggested that Callicleia, who dedicates her mirror, again among other tokens of her toilette, as the fulfilment of a vow to Aphrodite in Leon. 6.211 is not a hetain: Gow and Page regard the dedication as a thanks-giving for the acquisition of a husband or, less likely, a lover; see A. S. F. Gow and D. L. Page, The Greek Anthology: Hellenistic epigrum, 2 vols. (Cambridge 1965) vol. 2, 310 (on Leon. 2, intr. note). Courtesans’ dedications of various objects to Aphrodite in the Anthology are Diosc. 6.290 = G-P 14;

MARIA YPSILANTI: LAIS AND HER MIRROR 199

connections with the goddess were particularly close oncs. Athenaeus tells us that the Melainis Corinthian Aphrodite used to visit Lais at night and reveal to hcr thc arrival of rich lovers; the death of Lais is moreover associated with the goddess since, according to Plutarch, Photius, and Suda, she followed a lover in Thessaly wherc she was killed by jealous local women, in the temple of Aphrodite, who was hencc called hv6aios or &vSp&$ovos. Pausanias holds that her grave was in Corinth and mentions i t togcther with the temple of Melainis Aphrodite, being aware, however, of the allegation about hcr Thessalian grave.8 At this point the distinction between the (at least) two known Laides should be made. The two are often confused in our sources, as we havc contradictory reports of ‘Lais” chronology, manner of death and location of grave;‘ thc usual distinction is that between the Elder and the Younger Lais. From a chronological point of view it is plausible that if the Elder Lais was the one among whosc lovers was the Socratic philosopher Aristippus from Cyrene, born around 430 BC and known as thc founder of the ‘hedonistic’ school of philosophy, shc can be the same Lais whosc wit is immortalized in Machon’s anecdotological report of her dialogue with Euripidcs with reference to a verse from Medea, only if we assume that the date of thc incidcnt was close to the poet’s death (406 BC; cf. n. 10). It is probably this Lais who is mockcd in Middlc Comedy for her lustful old age, who is said to have died while having sex, and whose tomb was in Corinth, decorated by a lion (cf. n. 9). The Younger has bccn rcgardcd as the daughter of Sicilian Timandra who was involved with Alcibiades (cf. Plut. Alc. 39.l), presumably born in the 430s (usually assumed late 430s), who was sold (togcther with hcr mother?) and settled in Corinth where she became a famous courtesan and at somc point

Nossis 9.332 = G-P 4; Ascl. 5.203 = G-P 6 and 5.202 = G-P 35; Call. 13.24 = G-P 20, sce Gow and Pagc. Hellenis/ic epigrumr, vol. 2, 437 and 245. The courtesan Epou in Call. 13.24 may rctirc either due to old age, like Nicias in ‘Philitas’ 6.210, or due to marriage, like Callicleia in h o d . 6.21 I , according to F. Panonari- Antoniou, KuAAip&xou cmyp&pum (Athens 1997) 273, who takes the Leonidean dedicator to be a hetaira. Cf. the brief discussion of certain of these epigrams, including some of the Lais poems of the Anthology, in Fr. Frontisi-Ducroux and J.-P. Vernant, Duns l’ail du miroir (Paris 1997) 53-54, For the association of women with mirrors in general see ibid. 55-59. It is interesting that in Artemidorus 5.67 the barber’s mirror, for a male dreamer, symbolizes a prostitute, ~ i ) 6 i K ~ T O ~ ~ T P O U ~o i r KOUPC(JS KOLV~)U iailliaLvr T ~ V yui’aka K a i rrauTi rrpcwcftpCqu. It has been observed that AP 6.307 by the Meleagrian author Phanins on a barber abandoning his tools, among them a mirror, with a view to joining Epicurus (notc thc pun with kour-) but returning to them and his profession in order to escape hunger is a parody of courtesans’ dedications at retiring and the comsponding/opposite epigrams on women workers dedicating their tools before becoming hetairai (for instance Nicarchus 6.285; Antip. Sid. 6.47, for which see further S. L. TarPn, The urt of’ vrrriufion in the Hellenistic epigram [Leiden 19791 1 15-3 I ); see Frontisi-Ducroux and Vernant, Duns 1 ‘oeil du niiroir 63-64. ” For Aphrodite’s visits see Athen. 13.588~; for Lais’ grave see Plut. Mor. 768a; Photius Bihl. 53%; Suda S.V.

X F A L ; ) ~ ; Athen. 13.589b (who knows but disagrees with the Corinthian version); Paus. 2.2.4. ’ Place and manner of death: death in Thessaly, according to some; death in Corinth, according to others (see prev. note); killed by Thessalian women, for those who accept her death in Thessaly; dying while having sex, according to the comic poet Philetaerus in his play Cynugis (Athen. 13.587e, fr. 9 K-A; see also n . 13, below for courtesans in comedy). Chronology: Plutarch (Alc. 39.7) mentions Lais as the daughter of the courtesan Timandn, related to Alcibiades. Our sources report that Lais was from Sicily, sold during Nicias’ expedition to a Corinthian (or. according to others, to the dithynmbographer Philoxenus), who took her with him to Corinth where she became a renowned courtesan; see Plut. Alc. 39.8, id. Nic. 15.4; Schol. on Ar. \’/if/, 179. Athcnacus (13.574e) calls the mother of the Younger Lais Damasandra; in 535c he states Timandra as the mother of Lais (with no further adjunct). Another scholium on Ar. Plut. 179 reports that the mother of LAs was called Epimandn or Pemandra. See also next notes.

200 BICS49 2006

followed a lover to Thessaly where she was killed by the local women in the temple of Aphrodite.1” Chronologically, however, the relationship with Aristippus is more suitable to this Lais, the daughter of Timandra, rather than the Elder one, in which case there is no chronological restriction for the Euripides incident, if it is true, involving the Elder one. Alternatively, it could be possible to suggest that the Elder Lais, Aristippus’ lover, was the same person as Timandra’s daughter (the chronological restriction of the Euripides incident is valid in this case and her date of birth should be put in the early or at least mid- 430s), and the Younger Lais was the one involved with Apelles, Demosthenes, and Alexander, whose names are connected with Lais to make things even worse and to oblige us assume the existence of a third Lais, if the First one is not identified with Timandra’s daughter.’l A plausible arrangement between two Laides is the scheme: a) Elder: Timandra’s daughter-Aristippus’ lover, died in old age in Corinth, b) Younger: involved with Demosthenes and Apelles, died quite young in Thessaly. Then Timandra’s daughter should have the Corinthian tomb; aid to this scheme is offered by Pausanias’ account (2.2.4-5) about the Corinthian tomb (presumably the tomb of the Lais who died in old age, ridiculed by Middle Comedy and usually taken as the Elder Lais) belonging to Lais who came from Sicily (hence Timandra’s daughter), as opposed to the sole reference of (the frequently confused and confusing) Athenaeus to Damasandra as mother of the Younger Lais (13.574e). In any case it seems probable that one Lais died at an advanced age and had a tomb in Corinth, and that the other (or one of the others) died in Thessaly, at presumably a younger age, as is evident from the women’s jealousy of her beauty and success with Thessalian men.I2 There is a particular connection of both with Aphrodite: as far as the one is concerned, through the Melainis temple and the alleged visits of the Melainis Corinthian Aphrodite to her and the lion on her Corinthian tomb; as far as the

lo For her relationship with Aristippus, see Hermesianax 95-98; Athen. 12.544b-d, 13.S88e-f; Plut. Mor. (Amar.) 75Od; Diog. Laert. 2.74. The episode with Euripides according to Machon is recorded in Athen. 13.582~-d; see A. S. F. Cow, Machon (Cambridge 1965) fr. 18. Gow (p. 127) observes that the ferminus post yuem for this incident, if it is true of course, and which must have taken place, needless to say, after the production of Medea in 431 BC, is Lais’ birth ‘well inside the fifth century BC’. A birth in the 430s could be suggested, as we have seen, if the incident is dated shortly before the poet’s death. I ’ Then we should have: first Lais: dialogue with Euripides; second: Timandra’s daughter, Aristippus’ lover; third: contemporary with Demosthenes and Apelles. Athenaeus (13.588~ and d) very confusingly speaks of the Sicilian Lais as related to the Socratic philosopher Aristippus (slightly older than Plato) as well as Demosthenes, and also mentions that as a young girl she impressed the painter Apelles. What is more, a scholium on Ar. Plur. 179 reports that she followed Alexander to Persia, leaving Corinth. According to Geyer (RE 12. I . SISf.), the only way out is to accept either that the information about the capture of (the Younger) Lais during Nicias’ expedition is not accurate and to place it some time later, or to accept that there was a third Lais. that of Demosthenes and Apelles. Geyer is inclined to the existence of three Laides with the following distribution: first: lover of Aristippus; second: daughter of Timandra; third: involved with Demosthenes and Apelles. One wonders, however, why Timandra’s daughter cannot be the one involved with Aristippus, a plausible assumption as regards relative dating. For a brief review of the debate on the problem see H. G. Nesselrath. Die affische Mifflere Komiidie (Berlin and New York 1990) 197-98 with n. 44. Nesselrath dates Epicrates’ play ridiculing the ageing Lais (see n. 13, below) in the period 380-370 BC. which is in accordance with her being born sometime in the decade 430-420 BC.

c f . schol. On k. P h f . 179 &? lTOMOL T h J eETTaA&J jpbU&)UaL’. Kai T@ Z p T l Th Tl@Upa abfis oivq Zpparvov. K a i +aoiv. i j ~ t ~ q ~ o T u T r o w a r ai BcTTaAai yuva’ks i @ 5 v t w a v ah-+ EuAivats (45) XcAhvats T h T O W a l (U TQ i E p @ TfjS ’A+pdiT~ls . rraLqybp€ws oiiUllS. 6 V fi 6V8wS ob rrap€yivovro.

MARIA YPSILANTI: LAlS AND HER MIRROR 20 1

other is concerned, through the Thessalian temple where she was killed. Our epigrams are obviously about the one who grew old and whose erotic activity in mature age and death was ridiculed in comedy,I3 the one identified, as I propose, with Timandra’s daughter and lover of Aristippus.

Secundus’ reading and use of the pseudo-Platonic poem reveal depth of reflection and a penetrating eye. His handling is distinguished from that of Julian and Paulus as he tries to imitate not the external form but the essence of both content and style of his model. It is not a coincidence that he is the only one who avoids, just like ‘Plato’, the conventional terms applicable to Lais’ beauty, and tries to set the scene and create the desirable effect through unexpected metaphors and contrasts, thus referring to his model’s framework of elegant oppositions. For all this meticulous sophistication, however, or rather because of it, he does not manage to get rid of a certain coldness, by contrast to the Hellenistic poem which is not only ‘exceptionally well-phrased; terse, picturesque and pungent’1J but further has the ring of sincerity and conveys a genuine, measured, and at the same time spontaneous, emotion. Still, there is a highly interesting aspect of Secundus’ epigram demonstrating the author’s skill and his scrutinizing exploration of his model’s layers of meaning. By omitting the mirror he sharpens the paradox of someone who is no longer (him)herself, stripping it from its means of ‘translation’, or rather visualization, and leading the reader to face the problem bare and unornamented. It is notable, however, that although there is nowhere any mention of a mirror, the final line stating that ‘Lais no longer recognizes Lais’ implies its usage, as there is no other way by which Lais could or could not be visually (as we understand from the reference to years=age) yutjpipov to herself;’5 and, of course, the omission of the mirror shows that Secundus takes for granted the situation presented in ‘P1ato”s poem, too well known to need any further introduction. Now it is of a particular interest that the idea of the mirror-image as an

l 3 For Philetaerus’ ridiculing see n. 9, above. Lais is also ridiculed by Anaxandrides in his Geroritomuniu (Athen. 570 d-e, fr. 9 K-A) and by the late Old Comedy poet Cephisodorus and the Middle Comedy poet Epicrates in plays of the same title, see below: the first extant comic reference to her is in Ar. Plut. 179. Hetairai were among the popular subjects of Middle Comedy, cf. E. Constantinides, The churucter.s of Greek Middle Comedy (Michigan 1965) 58-63; R. L. Hunter, Eubufus. the frugments (Cambridge 1983) 22 with n. 2; M. M. Henry, Menunder’s courtesans and the Greek comic tradition (Frankfurt am Main et u1. 1988) 33-40, who remarks that ‘historical courtesans themselves represent wealth, greed, or voluptuousness’, giving examples of plays on historical hetairai; see 35 with n. 70. cf. also Constantinides, The characters 77-79. The object of derision in Ar. Plut. 179 is the greediness of Lais, who is described as a Circe of Corinth who bewitches men for money in ihid. 302-15; see also Henry, Menunder’s courtesuns 26-27. For a collection of titles of Middle Comedy plays after well-known hetairai see Nesselrath, Die uttische Mittlere Korniidie (n. I I , above), 3 19 with n. 97, and for a discussion ibid. 318-24: for an investigation of the forerunners of these characters in Old Comedy, see Constantinides, The churucter.s 55-58; Henry, Menunder’s courtesuns 13-3 1 ; J , Henderson. ‘Strumpets on stage: the early comic hetaera”, Dioniso I (2002) 78-87. In the satirical epigram AP I I .67 Myrinus (a poet from the Garland of Phifip [ I “ century BC or AD; see Gow and Page, The Gurlund offhilip (n. 5 . above), vol. 2, 319-221) calls the victim of his attack, an old prostitute who presumably insists on pretending to be young, ~ p ~ # ~ p f i hat K O ~ U E K ~ P T ) , ‘tender Lais, crow-Hecuba’, ‘grandmother of Sisyphus and sister of Deucalion’, in an exaggeratedly mocking description of her old age. The numerous comic accounts of the old age of Lais could in fact have been in Myrinus’ mind when composing the epigram. l4 Page, Funher Greek epigrumy (n. I , above) 167. I ’ Cf. Arist. Mag. Mor. 2.15.7, 6Tau BtXwpru a h & a h D u ~b rrpGawrrou i&Tu. c i s T; K&TOTITPOU

i@&aUT€S E I ~ ~ E U : Sen. Quuesf. Nut. 1.17.4. For the preference of the transmitted yuhptpoi) to the suggested yuhptpw, see Gow and Page, The Garland cffhifip (n. 5 , above) ud loc.

202 BICS49 2006

ambiguous mixture of being and non-being, as something that both exists and does not exist, is in fact Platonic.16 By acutely condensing the ‘Platonic’ epigram’s contrasting of the two ‘different’ Laides with his 4 ~b naXai ha’Cs ... O i r K i T l Adis, Secundus obviously refers to the difference between Lais of the past and Lais of the present, but possibly hints, through the implicit reference to a mirror in the last line, at the ambiguity of the ~’i8oXov (which both is and is not real) as well as various other oppositions involving mirror-imaging, probably the most famous among them being the Platonic one between reality and its image, or reality and illusion.17 So the author uses the duality anyway inherent in mirror imagery as treated in philosophical writings to demonstrate a new antithesis, the one between past and present (and the one between beauty and decline, attached to it), inspired by the epigram attributed to Plato. A play involving the oppositions of mirror imagery, alongside its other multiple contrasts demonstrated above (past-present, beauty-decline, will-ability), cannot be argued for ‘Plato”~ epigram, as there are no indications supporting such a reading. It should not go unremarked, though, that Julian in the sixth century does exactly this: he hints at the very contrast between reality and mirror icodillusion in the final couplet of 6.20, discussed above, giving it the form of an opposition between the navaXqNs pop44 of reality and the U K L ~ E L S T ~ O S

of the mirror, shadow being already connected to reflection by Plato;I8 ‘truthful form’ and ‘obscure image’ are reconciled in Julian, however, as they are both detestable to Lais, therefore distinguished but not fundamentally in contrast to each other. Secundus’ play with the philosophical connotations of the duality of mirror is also indicated by the word yv6pipov; mirror imagery was broadly exploited not only as a symbol of the difference between reality and illusion, in other words between d v a i and 4aiwu0ai, but also as a symbol of the process of self-representation, hence self-knowledge and self-discovery from Socrates onwards.lg Similar hints can be also traced in Julian with the ?X~yxos and

l 6 A passage discussing the problem is Sophisr 239e-240a. where Plato’s point is that the ciGwAov is and is not there, is and is not real. So i t ‘challenges the mentality that thinks in terms of here and there, or self and not- self ; see McCarty, ‘The shape of the mirror’ (n. 7, above) 162.

Passages about the typically Platonic opposition between reality and the illusion humanity lives in are for instance Rep. 3.402b. 6.510a. 10.596e; see further McCarty, ‘The shape of the mirror’ (n. 7, above) I64 with n. 4. The paradoxical expression of Secundus is, furthermore, generally in accordance with the paradox intrinsic in the mirror as object, which anyway combines a number of oppositions: Same and Other, Resembling and Different, Real and False, Positive and Negative, Active and Passive, Surface and Depth, Light and Shadow; see further the analysis of Frontisi-Ducroux and Vernant, Duns l’oeil du miroir (n. 7, above) 155-76. In For the opposition between Light and Shadow, see previous note and Frontisi-Ducroux and Vernant. Duns l’oeil du miroir (n. 7, above) 170-73, citing Julian’s poem, among other passages; cf. also Nonnus D i m . 5.594ff. XaAKbV ? X O w a 8 t a L y i a TtpTIETO KObpll I. ..I @J€iaAiov UKL6+UTL %pas KpiVOUUa K r I T h T p W , ihid. 6.207 Y ~ Y V ~ U K W o K t & v r a T ~ O V 8oAioro KaT6rrTpou. Shadow is associated with but distinguished from reflection in Plato, Rep. 6.5 IOa, Sophist 266c; Aristotle, on the other hand, applies the term ‘shadow’ to reflection, as he regards shadow as a ‘sub-category of reflection’ (Frontisi-Ducroux and Vemant, Dans l’oeil du rnimir 171). De unima 419b. 29-33, obx ~ T U S civaKXGTat (sc. the light) h m p &I$’ 4 XaXKoO 4 K a i TLVW hMou r6v Aciw. ~ T C U K ~ ~ U notciv. fi ~b &k bpi6opcv.

For various examples from Plato, Lucretius, Apuleius, Seneca, Philo. see McCarty, ‘The shape of the mirror’ (n. 7, above) 167-70; see also 1. Lada-Richards, ‘In the mirror of the dance: a Lucianic metaphor in its performative and ethical contexts’, Mnem. 58 (2005) 335-57, at 338 with n. 7, 340-41 (in a discussion of the metaphor of dancing as a mirror-instrument for self-recognition in Lucian’s De Salrarione 81). See further next note.


papTupiq he uses for the mirror in all three epigrams on Lais; Julian seems to be aware of the philosophical implications of the mirror imagery and selectively hints at them. Now by referring to the old age of Lais on a first level, and representing her failure to recognize herself in his imitation of an epigram attributed to Plato, Secundus’ poem can be read as an allusion, on a second level, to the difficulty and rarity of achievement of the Socratic ideal, human beings’ attainment of self-knowledge. The suggested implicit duality between being and non-being of Secundus’ first line, in combination with the usage of mirror as a symbol of self-knowledge, as hinted at in the closing verse, renders the epigram a playful exploration of the multiple functions of and oppositions offered by mirroring: starting from a probable allusion to the cerebral play, the artificial, as it were, problem involving the icon which both is and is not, epitomized in the opening paradox of ‘Lais no longer being Lais’, Secundus concludes the poem reaching one far more essential question signified by the mirror imagery, the philosophical-intellectual as much as practical and ’tangible’ issue of self-discovery, hardly conquerable by humans. But this is not all. It will be next demonstrated that Secundus is overtly at play with the Platonic Alcibiades in particular, exploiting certain points of its ideas, imagery and diction.

It is interesting to note that the sixth-century AD author Olympiodorus refers to the final couplet of AP 6.1 in his commentary on the Platonic Alcibiades (31): thc author mentions the couplet, which he too holds as ‘Platonic’, with regard to the transient physical beauty discussed in the dialogue: 8qXoT yap Gv T O ~ T C ~ (sc. the epigram) pfi 8 ~ T v hs 61~1 povIpy T@ KUXXEL p i y a +pov~Tv. This is an indication that ancient writers tended to read the poem in connection with the Platonic ideas. The importance of the Alcibiudes, however, for the reception of 6.1 in Secundus goes beyond this general attestation of the vanity of beauty. In Alc. 132e-133c Plato, through the mouth of Socrates, presents the soul’s self-knowledge using the metaphor of a human eye reflected, thus seeing itself, in another eye, in a procedure similar to looking in a mirror (1 33a); likewise the soul needs an intellectual mirror so as to be able to know itself (the perfect mirror is the lover’s eye in Phaedrus 255d). This Platonic concept of self-recognition involving a mirror is, as we have seen, implicit in Secundus’ poem. Thc specific connection of Secundus’ epigram with this particular section is further suggested by one more affinity between the two passages: the effect created by the playful repetition of the person’s name as subjecdobject of Y L ~ V C ; I ~ K E L V , recurring in both Secundus’ last line (referring to Lais) and in Afc. 133d (referring to Alcibiades), here in a gradual, sophisticated process of argumentation regarding the implications of self-knowledge and its absence: ci80vaTov yap iowg ooi +aiveTai p i yiyvQaKovTa ’AXKLPLUG~V TU

’AXKLPLU~OU yiyvCjoKEiv ~ T L ’AXKLPIU~OU i ~ ~ i v , ‘perhaps it seems impossible to you that someone who does not know Alcibiades knows that the things of Alcibiades belong to Alcibiades’. The recurrence of the philosophical connotations of the mirror, therefore, together with the verbal play of Alcibiades’/Lais’ knowingbeing known or not, is a strong indication that Secundus had in mind the Platonic Alcibiades when composing an epigram inspired by another ‘Platonic’ work, AP 6.1, all the more sincc the situation of Alcibiades as described by Socrates in the dialogue is in fact comparable to the situation of Lais. In Alc. 130e-132c Socrates argues that Alcibiades’ body is not Alcibiades, but something belonging to him, his property, which should not be then identified with his real self; in 131c Socrates accordingly holds that Alcibiades’ lovers loved his body and

204 BICS49 2006

not Alcibiades, with a repetitive expression analogous to the play between ‘Alcibiades’ and ‘knowledge’ just mentioned: ~i &pa TLS y6yowv &paanis TOD ’AXKLPL~SOU acjpaTos, O ~ K ’AXKLPL~SOU dpa fipbotlq ciU6 TLVOS TL;V ’AXKLPLUSOU. The philosophical inferences that could be drawn from a hypothetical study of the life of Lais would probably be, needless to say, very similar. Moreover one should not forget that there was indeed a kind of historical connection between these two philosophically ‘corresponding’ personalities, Alcibiades and Lais, through Timandra, lover of one, mother of the other. It would not be implausible to suggest therefore that Secundus composed his poem with an intended allusion to certain questions discussed in Alcibiudes together with the relevant metaphors and expressive ways used in the Platonic work, particularly apt for the potential of the topic he chose, that is the implications of the old courtesan’s mirror and the latent issue of self-awareness.20 It should be here noted that philosophical issues are not unfamiliar in Hellenistic (and later) epigram, probably the best-known example being Callimachus’ AP 7.47 1, on the suicide of Cleombrotus after reading the Platonic Phaedo, an epigram remarkably popular in antiquity, referred to and commented upon by many authors, including the sixth-century epigrammatist Agathias in his AP 1 1.354, and repeatedly discussed by modern scholars in regard to the Callimachean position towards Plato in it.2’ A poetical treatment of an issue related to Platonic philosophy seems thus a particularly interesting challenge and mental/artistic exercise for Hellenistic and later authors, suitable to the form of a sharp poem like the epigram.

In addition to the above, a further suggestion might be put forward. The implication of self-knowledge, among the other connotations of mirror imagery, through the scene of an

2o For the mirror metaphor and its philosophical implications mainly related to self-awareness (as vision is the sen.se ‘most akin to knowledge’, cf. Arist. Ptp fr. 7 Ross) in the Platonic Akibiades and elsewhere, see N. Denyer, Pluto, Alcibiudes (Cambridge 2001) 229-31, 236-37. In addition to the pas.sages cited by Denyer, it is worth mentioning the mirror metaphor in Theaet. 193~. where mirrors, through their quality of reversing the image, are used to demonstiate the falseness of our senses regarding true knowledge; in ibid. 206d. again in a context of investigation of the progress towards knowledge, a mirror metaphor occurs to visualize the marking of our thought in the ‘flow’ speech, ‘as in a mirror, or in water’. In Tim. 46a-e the nature and function of mirror imaging is examined in a context of a general discussion of vision among other creations of God in the human body, judged as ministers of God, ‘secondary causes’, imitations of the principal perfect i8Ca. ?’ See S. A. White, ‘Callimachus on Plato and Cleombrotus’, TAPA 124 (1994) 135-61; G. D. Williams, ‘Cleombrotus of Ambracia: interpretations of a suicide from Callimachus to Agathias’, CQ 45 (1995) 154-69; Gutzwiller, Poetic garlands (n. I , above) 205-06; P. Kotzia, ‘Tc) rrcpi &ux& y&p ’ cfmktapfm-, Buas

yia T ~ V KaOqyqn) Aqpjrpg AmoupAfj (Thessaloniki 2004) 185-216. For the popularity of the poem in antiquity see White, ‘Callimachus’ 136-42; Williams, ‘Cleombrotus’ passim; Kotzia, ‘ Tc) m p i &uxfi$- ydpp ’ c f ~ d c t d p c ~ ~ ‘ 185-86 with nn. 3-5. For the acquaintance of Callimachus with the work of Plato and other philosophers and allusions to other Platonic dialogues, apart from Phuedo, but also of other philosophers’ ideas in his poetry, see White, ‘Callimachus’ 143-48; Williams, ‘Cleombrotus’ 161 with n. 36; Kotzia, ‘73 m p i &urn-? ydpp ’ &wAc&cm’ 202-03 with nn. 57-64. Kotzia (passim) argues that in the celebrated epigram under discussion (AP 7.471) Cdlimachus is referring to the criticism of written speech in Phuedrus. There are also several other references to philosophers and their ideas in authors of the Greek Anthology (alongside other Hellenistic poets), for instance to Zeno and Cleanthes in Pos. 5.134, to the Cynics in Leon. 6.293.6.298: cf. the epitaphs for various philosophers; see further White, ‘Callimachus’ 146, who notes (pp. 14647) that the interest of poets in philosophy is plausibly justified, as poets and philosophers moved in the same circles, a further factor being, at least in the case of Callimachus and the other Alexandrian poet-scholars, the organisation of the whole corpus of extant literature. See also n. 33, below.

blTCllUly& 0 T l ) U nklTWVLKS) KPLTLKS) TO6 y p a l T T 0 6 AbyOU’, in A q p g ~ p i ‘ ( ~ ET&&V@?. fipqT1Kd.T T(YIK


aged Lais looking at a mirror, may be allusively and playfully associated with the Euripidean simile of rime holding the mirror to a young girl in a metaphorical account of the process of self-apprehension and wisdom.22 Whether any connection with the Euripidean image was intended by the author of the epigram attributed to Plato, the first of the Lais-dedication series, is not easy to argue. However, the idea that Secundus (and perhaps Julian as well through the philosophical connotations of his i k y x o s and papTuplq), who treated a scene corresponding to but ‘opposite’ to the Euripidean one, read the ‘Platonic’ poem in the light of the Euripidean passage cannot be excluded: using a young girl for his metaphor Euripides shows that time, limpid like a mirror, can and should lead humans to clairvoyance and knowledge. The old Lais, on the contrary, though looking at the mirror does not recognize, does not ~ ~ ~ u C ; ) ( S K E L . Is there an implicit and learned warning for a waste of life humans usually realize too late?

Further support for the suggested literary-philosophical implications noticeable above all in Secundus’ poem can be offered by the attested intellectuality of Lais herself. Hetairai of the highest standards were of course expected to entertain their ‘friends’ on a mental level too. Particular elegance and sophistication is attested for Lais: in Machon’s account reported by Athenaeus (13.582~-d) she is involved in a witty exchange of comments on morality with Euripides, silencing the poet with learned responses based on his own verses. Her relationship with the philosopher Aristippus is of a further relevance. What is more important, Aristippus is said to have written a treatise bearing the strange title npbs Aa’iSa nepi fis (?) KaT6rrTpou (Diogenes Laert. 2.84).23 The pseudo-Platonic epigram and its later variations therefore probably convey an allusion to an incident, a situation or a discussion known in antiquity and involving Lais and a mirror, which our lack of further evidence prevents us from understanding and accordingly disables the surviving epigrams from being fully appreciated. Perhaps too bold, but a fascinating possibility which eases the difficulty of the problematic feminine article, would be the suggestion of an emendation of the title of Aristippus’ work to npbs Aa’i8a nepi fis KaTbnTpou cduaeiaeos> and the consequent assumption of a philosophical treatise inspired by a real dedication of Lais of her mirror to Aphrodite which then, with the fame it acquired through the philosopher’s work, initiated the series of anathematic epigrams in the Anthology;” or one could also suggest the more general rrepi fis KaT6nTpou

’’ Eur. Hipp. 428-30, K a K o k 66 0VIlTihJ 6&@l‘)V’ 6TaV T6Xlj. I Tlp&€iS K ~ T O T T T ~ J 6UT€ Tiap%Vc!, V k a I xp6vos; see W. S. Barrett, Euripides: Hippolytos (Oxford 1984) ud loc. 23 According to the edition of H. S. Long, Diogeni.7 Laertii vitae philosophorum, 2 vols (Oxford 1964, repr. 1966); all other editors print rrc$t TOD KaTbaTpou. For the catalogue of Aristippus’ works Diogenes Lacrtius attests, see G . Giannantoni, Socruticorum reliquiue (Naples 1983-85), vol. I (IV A 144) 238-39. 24 H. G. Huebner, Diogenis Laertii de uitis. dogmutis ef upophthegmutis clurorum philosophorum libri X (Leipzig 1828-33). had already remarked on the relevance of the title of Aristippus’ work to the subject of our epigrams, a relevance further attesting the celebrity of the dedication of Lais; Huebner cited indicatively in his commentary AP 6.1, 6.20 and Ausonius’ epigram, and observed eu de re fortusse Aristippus eo in libm disserebat (vol 3, p. 409). See also Giannantoni, Socruficorum reliquiue (n. 23. above) vol. 3, p. 149. It is here worth mentioning C. J . Castner’s discussion (‘Epicurean hetairai as dedicants?’, GRBS 23 (19821 5 1-57) of certain dedications to healing gods made by hetairai known to belong to the school of Epicurus who did not, however, accept the involvement of gods in human affairs. For all the difference of circumstances, in regard to the situation discussed in the present paper, this investigation is telling as regards the existence of highly

206 BICS49 2006

< x p f p ~ w s > . If m p t TOG ~aT6lTTpou is the correct reading, the reference to a mirror still points to a philosophical discussion somehow triggered by the mirror of Lais and the implications it involves (for speculation on this topic see below). An opposite movement one could perhaps suspect, that is the title To h i s about the mirror in Diogenes not corresponding to any real Aristippean work but being the pseudepigraphic result of the celebrity of the Lais-mirror epigrammatic motif, seems unlikely. The participation of Lais in philosophical discussions with her lover is also suggested by the attestation of one more non-extant treatise of the philosopher, listed among his works by Diogenes Laertius (2.84), this time entitled simply npbs Aai6a.

Granted all the above, and especially the Platonic ideas regarding the instability of the attractions of beauty already noted by Olympiodorus in regard to AP 6.1, one more tempting hypothesis is possible: it would be worth putting into question the thesis that 6.1 is positively pseudo-Platonic and allowing the possibility that Plato perhaps did compose an epigram on a theme that interested and was probably discussed by his slightly elder contemporary Socratic philosopher. Although almost all epigrams attributed to Plato in the Anthology are today regarded as products of the Hellenistic era (see above, with n. I ) , there is at least one which certain scholars did in fact accept as Plato’s own composition, the poem on the death (353 BC) of Dion, tyrant of Syracuse and friend of the philosopher, transmitted in AP (7.99) and also in Diog. Laert. 3.30.25 So the assumption that the philosopher has written one or more (though in any case not many) epigrams could be regarded as at least arguable. Plato knew Aristippus and the relationship between Aristippus and Lais was, needless to say, well known to everyone. It would be interesting to investigate, to the extent that this is possible, the relationship between Plato and Aristippus. Several ancient passages report Plato’s disapproval of Aristippus’ behaviour, but no safe conclusions can be drawn as regards the placing of the two men’s relation between the two extremes of some level of amicability (in which case the comments should not be taken as revealing any whole-hearted maliciousness) and overt hostility; setting their relation is all the more difficult in view of the gossipy and exaggerating spirit of Diogenes Laertius and other anecdotological sources of antiquity.26 A certain

educated hetairai dynamically involved in philosophical practice, and probably deviating from the teacher’s doctrines in a spirit of self-determination and intellectual independence. *’ C. M. Bowra, ‘Plato’s epigram on Dion’s death’, AJP 59 (1938) 394-404; H. Herter, ‘Platons Dionepigramm’. RhM 92 (1944) 289-302; and more recently Ludwig, ‘Plato’s love epigrams’ (n. I , above, who has demonstrated the falseness of ascription of the erotic epigrams attributed to Plato) 59, 63. 81, accept the authorship of Plato for the Dion epigram on grounds of its similarity of spirit to the ideas expressed by Plato in his Sevenrh episfle and in various other works including Phaedrus and the Symposium. Totally rejecting the Platonic authorship of the epigram on Dion, Page, Further Greek epigrams (n. I , above) 169, argues that the association of the ideas of the epigram with the Platonic philosophy is not of such importance as would allow the acceptance of Platonic authorship, and that it would not be difficult for someone who knew the plain historical facts or Plato’s Sevenfh epistle to write it. 26 Plato accuses Aristippus in Phaedo 59c that when Socrates was dying he was in Aegina; for the same accusation cf. Demetr. De doc. 288 and Diog. Laert. 3.36, Diogenes characteristically describing an enmity between them, stemming from Plato, dxe 61 + t M X B p w 6 ~[MTWU KU\ IT& ‘A~~UTLTITOV. Moreover Athenaeus tells us that Plato ridiculed (ZUKWTIMV) Aristippus for his attachment to wealthy rulers resulting in his frequent trips to Dionysius of Sicily (1 1.507b) and also that Plato used to mock Aristippus for his &*$a (8.343d). The dialogue between the two in Athen. 8.343d (taken from the report of Hegesander), if real, could be perhaps seen as revealing a mood of pleasantry rather than serious attack, ‘A~~UTLTTOS ~ [ X ~ T W V O S


familiarity between the two philosophers with the controversies and disputations not being of a severity prohibitive of social contact might be perhaps suggested. But even in the case of a lack of relations due (probably) to Plato’s aloofness, inspiration from an incident involving Lais, her mirror, and a discussion of a subject related to them by Aristippus, presumably known at least to a circle of intellectuals, is not only possible but also likely, especially as biographical anecdotes about the two men’s hostility are regarded as arising from their doctrinal opposition. The content of Aristippus’ discussion in his treatise npbs Aa’CSa ~ E $ L fls- (?) KaT6nTpou is of course open to bold speculation. Could it perhaps be of any relevance to implications of old age and decline of beauty, or to the question of the futility of beauty, or to that of self-knowledge involving mirror imagery as seen for instance in the passage of Alcibiades discussed above? Aristippus’ ‘hedonistic’ attitude towards life, different from that of Plato who is generally regarded as a pure moralist, is at first sight not encouraging to such a hypothesis, but comprehensive conclusions about all the parameters of Aristippus’ philosophy are difficult to be reached granted the scarcity of information (sometimes of questionable trustworthiness) we possess, and a correspondence with Platonic subjects could not be excluded. Needless to say, one should not rush to easy conclusions about the origins of the connectiodopposition between the two philosophers; Aristippus is indeed recorded by Aristotle as having accused Plato of deviating from Socrates’ path (see n. 26). A competitive dispute between Plato and Aristippus on philosophical grounds is again likely,*’ so that one could suppose that Aristippus in his work To h i s about the mirror

trrrTtp4oavToS a h @ S L ~ T L rroMobs ix& +ybpaue. 6u&v $oAo?v ?+qucv twvijo8at. TOCJ b.? T l X d ~ w v o ~ C~TK’WTIX 8 t h ~ ~ K a i ah&,- 8v 4ybpaaa TWOOTOU, %pps otv.” Eirrw. T I A ~ T W V . GTL O~)K

iyh b@$4yoq, dMh aL + t A d p y ~ p ~ ~ ” (Giannantoni, Socruticurum reliquiue [n. 23, above] vol. I [= IV A 171 pp. 191-92); the controversy of the two men for reasons of different views on rroXuTikta is common in our sources, see Giannantoni, Socruticorum reliquiue (n. 23, above) ibid. and vol. 3 , p. 137. The ancient tradition about the hostility between the two men begins with Aristotle, Rhet. 1398b 29-31, where a small dialogue between them is reported, in which Aristippus reproaches Plato for holding views different from those of Socrates: dMh pfiv 6 y ’ haipos fipOiv oWkv TOLOCJTOV. A collection of passages referring to the traditional hostility between the two men is given by A. S. Riginos, Plutunicu: the unecdutes concerning /he life and writings of Pluto (Leiden 1976) 101-08; Riginos (pp. 107-08) accepts only Aristotle’s testimony as a truthful report. See also next note. ?’ Aristippus’ mentality and ideological orientation (which defined the ‘Cyrenaic’ school after him) is generally seen as a philosophical justification of luxury and ample enjoyment of the pleasures of life (which he actually applies to his own life-style, in a way analogous and exactly opposite of course to the Cynic Diogenes’ application of his creed to his own life; Aristippus did not show any disdain, for instance, for money and other comforts), in a way that differentiates him from his teacher Socrates and the other Socratics who were mainly interested in the question of ‘being’, as Rankin puts it; see H. D. Rankin, Sophists, Sucratic.r and Cynic.r (Kent 1983) 198-202; W. R. Mann, ‘The life of Aristippus’, AGPh 78 (1996) 97-119. To such a frame of mind the reflection on the vanity and futility of the material aspect of human life does not seem particularly suitable, but could not be again regarded as opposite or interdictory. It has been argued that the hostility between Plato and Aristippus reflects the antithesis of principal notions of their philosophy, that is +pi)quts and fi6ovfl; see Riginos, Plutonicu (n. 26, above) 102; Kotzia. ‘Td mpi &xQq ypdpp ’ uvaAd‘dpwa-’ (n. 21, above) 188. n. 12. Plato’s envy of the other Socratics (cf. Athen. 11.507a-508d; see in general Riginos, Plutunicu [n. 26. above] 96-1 10) was a commonplace; Plato is also said to have ‘stolen’ ideas from Aristippus, among others, according to the (of a doubtful reliability but still worth mentioning) testimony of Theopompus from Chios (Athen. 11.508~-d, Jacoby FGrHist F2b.l 15F, fr. 259, whereupon Jacoby comments that the attack need not be taken at face value). The importance of this statement, for all its exaggeration and probable untrustworthiness, lies in the fact that it suggests that i t is mistaken to speak of an unbridgeable gap between Plato’s and

208 BICS-49 2006

might have treated the subject of mirroring in a manner and spirit different (but still Socratic?) from that of the ‘Platonic’ epigram, if indeed composed by Plato, or, if not, from any other treatment of the topic by Plato, now lost, or even from Plato’s exposition of his views on the subject, which had circulated in scholarly circles, inspiring the Hellenistic author of A P 6.1 and being the reason for the attribution of the epigram to Plato. Of course, we cannot know the circumstances that produced the stimulus for the composition of Aristippus’ treatise, and there is always the possibility that these were dissimilar to the situation described in our epigrams, that is old age and decline of beauty. At any rate we do possess evidence which justifies Aristippus’ philosophical handling of mirroring and Plato’s probable criticism of it (or vice versa): several ancient sources report Socrates encouraging his students to use a mirror, in order, if they are handsome, to retain a morality corresponding to their looks, and, if they are not, to reduce their ugliness with their moral merits. The truthfulness of these sources and the assumption that the Socratic recommendation they transmit is not a biographic anecdote is supported by the actual recurrent imagery of mirroring in Plato, in the same spirit of self-contemplation.28 It is possible that the Socratic Cyrenean made use of the teacher’s recommendation in his work addressed to Lais with unknown conclusions: A P 6.1, if written by Plato, or in any case if triggered by the Socratic advice and the possible Platonic reaction to Aristippus’ work, might be read as an assertion of Lais’ and, through her, also Aristippus’ failure to accomplish the teacher’s ideal, since Lais’ looking into the mirror depends on her beauty, being discordant with Socrates’ exhortation. AP 6.1, then, can be seen as being or reflecting, if not written by Plato, an attack against Aristippus, his ideas and life-style; this of course does not happen at the cost of poetic elegance and intensity. Platonic criticism of Aristippean views, also involving the theme of an ‘image’, might be traced in the passage of the Republic (586b-c) where the pleasures of our world are regarded only

Aristippus’ ideas: it has been in fact argued that the Cyrenaic concept of G o d is not independent of the notion of G o d in the Platonic dialogues (cf. A. Mauersberger, ‘Plato und Aristipp’, Hermes 61 [I9261 208-30. 304-28); see further Riginos, Plafrinica (n. 26, above) 102, with n. 40. In their discussion of Aristippus’ and Plato’s (among others’) views on pleasure, J. C. B. Gosling and C. C. W. Taylor, The Greeks on pleasure (Oxford 1982) 40-42.44-68, and passim, reach the conclusion that ‘Plato’s first position on pleasure was that of an enlightened hedonism’ which was gradually developed to differentiated later views (p. 65). A certain ‘overlap’ of thoughts concerning pleasure, albeit diverse in their essence and, mainly, in their development, could be therefore suggested for Plato and Aristippus. In any case, an exchange of ideas between the, so to speak, two different but of a common intellectual origin philosophers seems not only possible but also perhaps inevitable in the Socratic circle. If this is true, a probable (partial?) affinity of subject or, even more plausibly, a vigorous dialogue between Aristippus’ lost works and the works of Plato could be put forward as an indeed likely hypothesis. *” The Socratic exhortation appears in Plut. Mor. 141d; Stob. Anthol. 2.31.98: Apul. Apol . 15.2; cf. Lada- Richards, ‘In the mirror of the dance’ (n. 19, above) 340 with n. 8. For the Socratic advice in Apuleius as not just stemming from biographical tradition, thus probably being anecdotological, but as justified by the Platonic image of Socrates, cf. U. Schindel, ‘Apuleius-Africanus Socrates?’, Hermes 128 (2000) 443-56. at 449, who compares Plat. Apol. 38aS. b 88 dur~iTaoTcs p k x ob p t u ~ k dv8phrrq. The acquaintance with the work of Plato, a particularly important figure for the Second Sophistic, of Apuleius, author of the work De deo Socrafis and, probably, of De Plafone, inter alia. can hardly be denied, though its extent and its sources are debatable, usually regarded as derivative, coming from adaptations of earlier Greek works (which does not negate his competence in Platonism, however); see S. J. Hanison, Apuleius, a Lotin sophist (Oxford 2000) 71, 87 with n. 118, 148, 151, 159-60, 163 with n. 102, 252-58 and passim: G. Sandy, The Greek world ofApitleiits (Leiden 1997) 23-21, 191,253-54 and passim.

MARIA YPSILANTI: LAlS AND HER MIRROR 209

as E’iGoXa of the true pleasure, in a comparison of these E’iSoXa with the ~’i80Xov of Helen, a beautiful woman (like Lais, one can observe) which, according to Stesichorus, caused huge distress albeit unreal.

At any rate, the observations concerning Secundus’ play with the Platonic connotations of the doubleness of being and the self-awareness suggested by the mirror imagery, and his particular exploitation of Alc. 130e- 133c, discussed above, are independent of the authenticity of A P 6.1. Now Secundus’ use of Platonic imagery in combination with his, so to speak, ‘philosophically pessimistic’ conclusions, could indicate that in the probable debate of the topic of mirroring between Plato and Aristippus he sets himself on Plato’s side. Secundus’ knowledge of the content of Aristippus’ work is the object of speculation and can by no means bc asserted. It could be suspected, however, especially if Secundus’ epigram is seen as further referring to the title of two comedies on Lais. First of all the ambiguous doubleness of Lais in Secundus’ poem is perfectly compatible with the actual doubleness of the hetairai of the same name to which the poet might playfully allude. But this is not all. Athenaeus transmits to us fragments of a play by the Middle Comedy poet Epicrates entitled Antilais (1 3.570b-d and 13.605e, frs. 2-3 K-A). In the extended fragment of 13.570 we have a maliciously exaggerated, comedy-befitting account of the degradation of the now old Lais whose youthful arrogance, selectivity, and superciliousness towards the pleading lovers is replaced by the repulsive rapaciousness of an old woman not only easily available to anyone but also possessing an extreme greediness for sex.*!‘ The basic idea of this extract, deprived of course of its humiliating connotations, is compatible with Lais’ image in ‘Plato”s epigram and its imitations, and further demonstrates the popularity of the theme of the ‘old Lais’ in antiquity; a play of the same title, Antilais, for which we have no information whatsoever, was also written by the fifth/fourth-century poet Cephisodorus ( 2 K-A), but we cannot know if this comic attack was related to her old age as happens in Epicrates’ play. Secundus’ literary exploitation of the contrast between Lais (of the past) and non- Lais (of the present) can, moreover, be seen as a playful allusion to the very title of the two known comedies, Antilais. This strange title, analogous to Dioxippus’ ’ A V T L T T O ~ V O ~ O U K ~ S (fr. I K-A), has been explained as a reference to another courtesan comparable to or contesting with Lais.’” So the doubleness of Laides in the comedies complies with the actual doubleness of the courtesans of the same name which Secundus seems to have in mind, implying, at the same time, the difference between young and old

Hamel compares the condition of Lais in Epicntes, ‘a formerly elegant prostitute who. as she ages, becomes less attractive, less expensive, and less particular’ with the predicted similar condition of Ncaira of the pseudo- Demosthenic speech, which might cause trouble to her former lovers in the future, as an explanation of Timanoridas’ and Eucntes’ effort to send Neain away from Corinth when she is still young; see D. Hamel, Trying Neuiru (New Haven and London 2003) 36f. We have the title of a speech of Lysias KaTa Aai8oq (Athen. 13.592e). the circumstances and reasons for the composition of which are totally unknown.

See Kassel-Austin on Cephisodorus 2, vol. IV. p. 64; cf. Henderson, ‘Strumpets on stage’ (n . 13, above) 81, who supposes that in Cephisodorus’ play ‘the actual hetaera was somehow confronted by her fictional counterpart’; cf. also T. B. L. Webster, Studies in Iuter Greek cornedv (Manchester 1953) 23. The opening of Epicntes’ fr. 3 K-A from Antiluis, a;ni (or a6-q) 86 Auks d p y k ~ U T L K a i TT~TLS, a line slightly differently quoted also by Eustathius in his commentary on Od. 1403.55 (4 Auk cipybs, etc.), points to the distinction between the two courtesans, referring to the historical one. A possible suggestion could be that this offensive description of Lais is made by her ‘rival’ or by someone who compared the two.

?I

30

210 BICS49 2006

Lais. The content of the fragment of Epicrates’ play, the degradation of Lais, is also in accordance with this epigrammatist’s treatment of the antithesis between the ‘two’ Laides. And the preposition d l v ~ i recalls catoptric vocabulary: ( i vdmpa , (ivTavaKA6, ~ L V T L X ~ ~ T T W , C ~ V T L C J T ~ X ~ W , drv-rt+aivw, ~ L V T ~ T U T T O S , dLvTkipai , ~ L v T ~ ~ o ~ + o s , civ-rairycia, a further element of correspondence between the epigrammatic tradition as used in Secundus’ epigram and the title Antilais. Now it is of special interest to the present discussion that one of the objects of attack of Middle Comedy, competent in ridiculing philosophy and philosophers in general (among which a prominent position was occupied by Plato), was also Cyrenaic hedonism; Alexis, for instance, ridicules Aristippus in his Galateia (fr. 37 K-A), and Epicrates’ Antilais, a mockery of the famous courtesan and lover of Aristippus, might have a similar ~rientation;~’ the long fragment we posses (3 K-A) starts with an attestation of her love of drinking and eating. So if Secundus has in mind the title of Epicrates’ play (which, it is interesting to observe, seems to have been quite famous),32 he is surely aware of its content and, accordingly, of the debate concerning Cyrenaic hedonism, which is an indirect indication, though far from proof of course, that he might also know Aristippus’ treatise about the mirror of Lais and the whole tradition involving this object as a topic of philosophical dialogue between Plato and Aristippus.33 Could one suggest that in Epicrates’ play there was perhaps a reference to the topic of mirroring and its implications for Lais, ridiculing the views of Aristippus?

” See White, ‘Callimachus’ (n. 21, above) 152. For Plato and the Academy as being among the favourite targets of Middle Comedy, cf. Nesselrath, Die aitische Mitilere Komiidie (n. I I , above) 294 with n. 24. A quite long untitled fragment of Epicrates survives (10 K-A) with a mockery of the practices in the Academy; Nesselrath (p. 198) dates the play in the period 360-350 BC and also suggests (p. 277) that it may come from Epicrates’ ”Epnopw or ’AVTLXU~S. For hetairai as a favourite subject of Middle Comedy, see n. 13, above.

Suda S.V. ’ E I T L K ~ & ~ S selectively mentions only two of his plays: KW~LKC‘K, TOV 6 p a p h w v ahoO “Eprropos K U ~ ’AVTLXU~S. For the epigrammatists’ acquaintance with and interest in the theatre, cf. Dioscorides’ epigrams on Thespis, Aeschylus, Sophocles, Sositheus, Machon, and their discussion by T. B. L. Webster, ‘Alexandrian epigrams and the theatre’ in Miscellanea di Studi Alessundrini in memoria di Augusto Rostqni (Torino 1963)

’j It is of a particular interest and can be mentioned here, though not directly connectable with the problem of Secundus’ poem, that Cleombrotus who killed himself after reading the Platonic Phaedo in the Callimachean epigram of philosophical overtones mentioned above (AP 7.471) bears the same name as the other (otherwise unknown) student of Socrates who was accused of (‘hedonistic’?) indifference together with Aristippus. probably a companion of his, in Phaedo 59c. as they were both in Aegina (having a good time) when the teacher was dying. The reference to the Socratic Cleombrotus and the exploitation of his name for (the Cyrenean) Callimachus’ poeticaUphilosophica1 purposes is usually affirmed by scholarship; the incident is connected (by Cicero, Tusc. 1.38.84; there was perhaps an association already in his sources) with the view of the Hellenistic and probably contemporary with Callimachus philosopher Hegesias, a propagandist of suicide as a deliverance from the evils of life, also belonging to the Cyrenaic school, whose founder was Aristippus. Is i t a coincidence that in another Callimachean epigram, AP 7.517, the maiden Basilo who committed suicide because of tremendous grief for her brother’s death (in contrast to Cleombrotus who did nor meet uny misfortune, 7.47 1.3) is presented as daughter of a Cyrenean Aristippus? White, ‘Callimachus’ (n. 21, above) 144-4.5, has suggested that this Aristippus might be the grandson of Aristippus the founder of the Cyrenaic school. son of his daughter ’ A p l j ~ q , known as the M ~ T ~ O ~ L ~ U O K T O S , and that ‘the epigram gains point if it describes the daughter of a Cyrenaic taking to heart what her father was presumed to preach’. As far as the explanation of Hegesias’ views is concerned, it has been argued that his philosophical position was rather characterised by an indifference based on the notion that both life and death should be chosen by man, in pursuit of happiness (Diog. Laert. 2.94, Tilu TC (W?V K U ~ T ~ V O&vaTou U ‘ L ~ C T ~ V ) ; see A. Laks, ‘AnnicCris et les plaisirs psychiques’, in J. Brunschwig and M. C. Nussbaum (eds), Passions and perceptions (Cambridge 1993) 18-49. at 35. In any case i t is difficult to

72

53 1-43,

MARIA YPSILANTI: LAIS AND HER MIRROR 21 1

Now whether A P 6.1 is or is not a composition of Plato, there is another point concerning the transmission of many of the epigrams attributed to the philosopher (including the Dion epigram) that seems interesting in the present discussion. Diogenes Laertius in 3.29-33 cites a number of epigrams (surviving in the Anthology as well) he presents as composed by Plato, according to a source named TE$L q s rraXaL6s TPU@~S

written by a certain Aristippus; to the same work various scandalous stories concerning the lives of famous personalities of the past, including philosophers and poets (Periander, Aristoteles, Socrates, Xenophon, et al.), are attributed (Diog. Laert. 1.96, 5.3, 2.23, 2.49, 3.29, 4.19, 5.39; Giannantoni, Socraticorum reliquiae [n. 231 vol. 1 , IV A fr. 151-57). The work is usually regarded as written between the second half of the third and the first century BC, by an ‘Aristippus’ obviously different from the philosopher from Cyrene.34 One cannot help wondering whether it is a coincidence that the author of the source the gossipy compiler Diogenes Laertius mentions has the name of the Socratic philosopher. The assumption that the synonymity is due to a confusion between the philosopher Aristippus, a well-known hedonist, and the writer of a collection of spicy anecdotes suitably entitled m p i m=js naXai6s TPU@=~S is reasonable. Did the compiler ‘Aristippus’ use on purpose the name of Aristippus, a famous philosopher known to Plato, so as to render his book, which included scandalous material for Plato inter alios, more catchy? Or did Diogenes fuse author with (probable) protagonist in the name ‘Aristippus’? It is not the first time that we are in doubt whether a famous philosopher presented as author of a collection in Diogenes Laertius is really the author or just the main character in the anecdotes gathered in it.35 Aristippus’ own life of course provided a plethora of episodes, including his relationship to Lais (on which he had famously remarked ixo AdCGa, dXX ’ O ~ K Exopal, to stress his mental detachment and mastery over pleasure, attested by Diog. Laert. 2.75 and numerous other sources, Giannantoni, Socraticorum reliquiae [ n. 231 vol. 1, IV A fr. 95-96, pp. 224-26), perfectly appropriate for a muckraking collection.3~

Before closing this discussion it would be apposite to mention the use of the motif of old age as witnessed by a mirror in Anacr. 7, where women bid Anacreon look into the

draw safe conclusions about Callimachus’ intentions in these epigrams; see further the discussions of White, ‘Callimachus’ (n. 21, above) 155-59; Gutzwiller, Poetic garlands (n. 21, above) 206; Kotzia, ‘Ti, mpl &uxQi?; ypdpp ’ dmAc&pw& (n. 21, above) 209-12. It is, however, plausible to suggest a disapproving and ironic attitude of Callimachus towards Cyrenaic philosophers and the suicidal attitude adopted by a famous representative of the school in his time. The relevance of this issue to the present discussion lies in the demonstration of the underlying investigation of/outlook for philosophical questions and debates in the epigrammatists’ work, all the more interestingly. in the case of Callimachus at least, associated with Socratics among whom a prominent position is occupied by Aristippus and his school.

See RE 2.1.904, S.V. Aristippos 8; U. von Wilamowitz, Anrigonos von Karysfos (Berlin and Zurich 1965) 48- 53; Ludwig, ‘Plato’s love epigrams’ (n. I , above) 62 with n. 4 and 74; Page, Further Greek epigrums (n. I, above) 127; Giannantoni, Socraticorum reliquiae (n. 23, above) vol. 3, p. 150-51. See also next note. ’’ The same question is raised for the ‘memoirs’ of Ariston of Chios. Diogenes the Cynic, Demetrius of Phalerum, among others; see J. F. Kindstrand, ‘Diogenes Laertius and the “Chreia” tradition’, Elenchos 7 (1986) 227-28. White accepts that the Aristippus who quoted the epigrams attributed to Plato in the work ncpt f l s naXar&s TPW$~JS might be the grandson of the Cyrenaic philosopher, the one known as the MT)Tpc&8UKT~

(see n. 33. above), ‘one of the most scurrilous scandal-mongers’ (‘Callimachus’ [n. 21. above] 151). 36 Cf. Rankin, Sophists. Socratics and Cynics (n. 27, above) 199-200; Mann, ‘The life of Aristippus’ (n. 27, above) 105- 10 and passim.

Y

212 BICS49 2006

mirror and see his boldness and wrinkles, and its imitation by Palladas AP I I .54; in both poems the old poet (Anacreon in the first, Palladas in the second), in contrast to Lais, shows a lightsome indifference to his appearance and impending death. Furthermore, it is particularly remarkable that ‘P1ato”s and Secundus’ poems specifically have inspired two of the satirical epigrams of Lucillius who lived in Rome in the first century AD. The woman’s reluctance to look at herself in the mirror in “Plato’s” epigram is taken up and exploited in AP 1 1.266, ridiculing an ugly woman:

a e v ~ i s F U O ~ T ~ O V E X E L aqpooecvis. E L yap dxqeis E P x E ~ ~ , o t K 2iv axos qeExEv atTb p~inELv.

Demosthenis has a lying mirror, for if she saw the truth she would not want to look into it at all. (tr. Paton)

Now in AP 11.77 the target of mockery is a boxer whose face is so deformed after the contest that he could not recognize himseg if looking into a mirror, recalling the inability of Lais to recognize herself in Secundus. While in 11.266 the unwillingness of the viewer is the sole point, the poem thus wholly depending on and echoing the ‘Platonic’ epigram, here the failure of recognition is enriched with a new feature, a contrasting comparison with Odysseus’ recognition by his dog, rendering 11.77 a freer variation of Secundus’ epigram, the reference to which is mainly restricted to the last couplet, which is, however, the core and apex of the poem:

E~KOU~TOUS aweivros ‘0Gvaoios ELS ra naTp@a

ciMh at m m 6 a a s , CrpaTo@Qv, iti Tiaaapas Spas

“Hv ie&iqs ~b ~ p 6 a o n o v &̂ Lv i s Eaonrpov iavroD,

Eyvw TT\)v pop@fiv ”Apyos i8&v 6 K ~ W V .

o t K U ~ V ~ ~ V U U T O S , rij Gk I T ~ X E L yiyovas.

‘OCK EL$ CTpaTO@&V’, abTbs tp€^L l̂s bp6UaS.

When Ulysses after twenty years came safe to his home, Argos the dog recognized his appearance when he saw him, but you, Stratophon, after boxing for four hours, have become not only unrecognizable to dogs but to the city. If you will trouble to look at your face in a glass, you will say on your oath ‘I am not Stratophon’. (tr. Paton)

Stratophon’s negation of his identity with the statement ‘I am not Stratophon’ evokes the paradox of ‘Lais not being Lais’ in the opening of Secundus’ poem. Moreover, the preceding statement that the boxer is an ~ ~ V ~ U T O S to the city is an adaptation of Secundus’ assertion that Lais is yvhp~pov ot6 ’ to herself. And the oath the boxer will take in his denial of seeing himself in the mirror recalls Cypris being only ‘an oath’ to Lais in Secundus’ poem.37 Lucillius thus produces two imitations with variation of

’’ L. Robert, ‘Les epigrammes satiriques de Lucillius’, in L’ipigrarnme Grecque, Fondation Hardt, Entretiens 14 (Geneva 1968) 203-04, argued that ~ ~ V M J T W is designed to evoke the usual praising adjectives for athletes with alpha privative, such as ~ITTUTW, &LITTW, & ~ C U O X & P ~ T W , etc. The allusion to Secundus’ y u ~ A p t p ~ in an analogous-opposite context, however, seems a stronger candidacy as regards Lucillius’ intentions. The reference


‘Plato’s’ and Secundus’ epigrams adjusting them to his satirical purposes; in 11.266 he stays close to the subject (albeit not of course to the spirit or the specific situation) of his model, that is a woman’s natural aversion to looking at herself if she is not pretty, while in 11.77 he achieves a particularly comical effect not only with his exaggerated representation of the athlete’s disfigurement but also with an inversion of the pattern of his model: it is a man that will now look into the mirror and not recognize himself, and, specifically, a man of an excessive masculinity, diametrically opposite to the utmost femininity of Lais, the usage of a mirror by whom is all the more hilarious, granted the connotations of femininity or effeminacy looking into a mirror involves.3~

The epigrams of the Greek Anthology about Lais’ dedication of her mirror to Aphrodite, and especially the epigram by Secundus, are of a particular interest as they provided the ancient lector doctus the ability to discover multiple layers of meaning and probable literary and philosophical hints (part of) which can be still revealed to the modern reader. But even if seen per se, the model of all, the Hellenistic (?) epigram opening the dedicatory book of the Anthology, is endowed with a rare grace, power, and poetic strain justifying its wide fame, recognition and quality as a permanent stimulus of inspiration throughout antiquity.

University of Cyprus, Leukosia

to the oath is taken by Robert (p. 203) as a touch creating a juridical atmosphere. Now the mirror motif of AP I I .77 is connected to the preceding epigram of the Anthology, I I .76, also by Lucillius, when: an Olympicus is warned not to go near a source because he will die like Narcissus when looking at himself, but for the opposite reason, that is from excessive repulsion by his image (cf. Robert p. 202 with n. 2). Thc preceding epigram, 1 I .75, is on the same Olympicus, a boxer, who is so deformed that he now does not resemble a former portrait of himself. So this trio of consecutive epigrams of Lucillius in the Anthology is a carefully designed group of variations of the same subject, a playful exploitation of the boxer’s disfigurement in rcgard to his previous appearance and his owdother people’s reactions to it, through the agency of a mirroring surface or a portrait.

For the association of the mirror with women, Eros and Aphrodite see n. 7, above. In several passages effeminacy is connected with looking into a mirror; cf. the comic scene in Ar. Thesni. where, during the men’s disguising as women, Euripides’ qhoTi ls is offered a mirror and exclaims that what he sees is the notorious degenerate Cleisthenes (234-35); cf. the presentation of Agathon, whose ambiguous sexual status is the object of a good deal of derision in comedy, a mirror being among the utensils of his toilette in T/iesni. 140. Also cf. the account of the effeminate Trojans, ‘experts in mirrors and odours’, in Eur. Or. I I 12; see further McCarty, ‘The shape of the mirror’ (n. 7, above) 177, 181; Frontisi-Ducroux and Vernant, Duns l’oeil du miroir (n. 7, above) 59-65. An interesting play between femininity and masculinity is offered by the Byzantine Maccdonius Consul in his AP 5.238, where the lover looks at himself in his sword which replaces the mirror in a symbolic subordination of Ares to Aphrodite, since the martial weapon takes up a function befitting an implement of Aphrodite, but will also return to its original role if, forsaken, the lover is obliged to use it to cscapc life. The same juxtaposition of mirror and sword is used to underline Agathon’s bisexual status in Ar. T/ie .w. 140.

3W

LAIS AND HER MIRROR

Documents

Transcript of LAIS AND HER MIRROR