Becoming Cleitophon:
Mimesis and the Reader in Achilles Tatius

Max L. Goldman (University of Wisconsin, Madison)

Achilles Tatius deploys the literary-philosophical concept of mimesis to play with the audience of his erotic narrative.  The presence of mimesis provokes questions of how best to read this erotic narrative by teasing the audience with the possibility that the best response to this story is to imitate Cleitophon.  The possibility of an imitative response to stories was a source of anxiety to literary critics in antiquity: both Plato and Plutarch express a fear that the young might imitate the divine or heroic models they hear about in poetry (e.g. R. 277e-378b & Moralia 26b).  This fear is realized by Cleitophon in his response to the erotic story (logos erōtikos) of Apollo and Daphne: “even if a man admonishes himself to follow self-control, he is provoked by an example to imitation (mimēsin).  This is especially true when the example is a god.” (1.5.6). Cleitophon’s reaction serves as a model for how the audience could react to Cleitophon’s own erotic story.

The imitation that the audience is encouraged to perform is matched, in the story, by erotic imitation between the characters.  The erōtodidaskalos Kleinias encourages Cleitophon to persuade Leucippe that she is loved, “and quickly she will imitate (mimēsetai) you” (1.9.7).  This advice succeeds in book two, where Leucippe imitates (mimoumenēn 2.9.3) the “kisses” that Cleitophon gives to a cup they are sharing at a symposium.  The relationship of Leucippe and Cleitophon, despite separation, retains this mimetic symmetry (Konstan, D. 1994 Sexual Symmetry. Princeton): Cleitophon writes to assure Leucippe of his fidelity, claiming that he has copied (memimēmenon) her virginity (5.20.5).  The central couple retains a special status because of their erotic imitation of each other.  This erotic imitation gains significance for the reader’s response because of the actions of Thersander.

Helen Morales has shown that Thersander’s sneering responses to Leucippe’s claim of virginity makes him a realistic reader, at odds with the idealism of the novel (2004.  Vision and Narrative in Achilles Tatius’ Leucippe and Clitophon. Cambridge, pp. 83-4).  Thersander is the model of a bad reader, who has not learned to respond appropriately to the erotic world before him.  He is imitating the wrong model as Leucippe’s rebuke makes clear: she complains that he is “imitating (mimē) Sosthenes” and that he will never win her over until he “becomes Cleitophon” (6.18.6).  Thersander shows himself the model of a bad lover and a bad reader in his failure to imitate the proper erotic figure. 

Achilles sets his story in the context of imitative responses to literature, forwards the erotic theme through imitative action, and provides a failed model in the actions of Thersander.  These uses of mimesis thus tease the reader with the possibility that this novel is not just for enjoyment but a didactic text for the reader’s imitation – an invitation to become like Cleitophon.