Avviamento Alla Papirologia Pdf Download Free

The volume that is now being published assembles great part of the papers presented during the Eighth International Conference of the International Plutarch Society – IPS, held at Coimbra from 23 to 27 September 2008. The contributions deal with symposion, philanthropia, and related subjects in six major sections: after an overview on Plutarch's place in the genre of symposion, the first two sections focus on the philosophical, literary and socio-political functions of Plutarchan banquets. This is followed by a number of papers on violence and conflict in disruptive symposia and by studies of the key concepts of philanthropia, philia and eros. Finally, separate sections are devoted to two specific works, viz. the Quaestiones convivales and the Convivium septem sapientium.

Discover the world's research

20+ million members
135+ million publications
700k+ research projects

Join for free

Symposion and

Philanthropia in Plutarch

José Ribeiro Ferreira, Delm Leão, Manuel Tröster

& Paula Barata Dias (eds)

Coimbra - Classica Digitalia / CECH - 2009

POCI/2010

E

José Ribeiro Ferreira, Delm Leão, Manuel Tröster & Paula Barata Dias

T

Symposion and Philanthropia in Plutarch

P

Centro de Estudos Clássicos e Humanísticos da Universidade de Coimbra (2009)

A C-   E P

Maria do Céu Fialho

E B

José Ribeiro Ferreira, Maria de Fátima Silva, Francisco de Oliveira & Nair de Castro Soares

T D   C

Delm F. Leão

R A

Ália Rodrigues & Rodolfo Lopes

D

Rodolfo Lopes

P

Simões & Linhares, Lda.

Av. Fernando Namora, nº 83 - Loja 4

3000 Coimbra

ISBN: 978-989-8281-17-3

L D: 302102/09

P   P POCI 2010 - F   C  T.

P   P "P      E "

or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, photocopying, or otherwise, without the

written permission of the publisher.

POCI/2010

Co n t e n t s

P

Editors

I

Christopher PELLING (Christ Church, Oxford)

op e n i n g se s s i o n

T   P      Sy m p o S i u m

Sven-Tage TEODORSSON (Göteborg University)

se C t i o n 1: p h i l o s o p h i C a l a n d l i t e r a r y C o n t e x t s o f t h e Sy m p o S i o n

Tr a b a j o S y Dí a S        P

José Antonio FERNÁNDEZ DELGADO (Universidad de Salamanca)

M     So b r e l a v i D a y p o e S í a D e Ho m e r o

 P-P

Josefa FERNÁNDEZ ZAMBUDIO (Universidad de Murcia)

P' Sy m p o S i u m  P' alc i b i a D e S

Timothy E. DUFF (University of Reading)

"I  ". P'  

    

Frederick E. BRENK (Pontical Biblical Institute of Rome)

P' T e c H n e r H e T o r i k e     Qu a e S T i o n e S co n v i v a l e S :

       

Lluís GONZÀLEZ JULIÀ (University of Barcelona)

I   p r o g y m n a S m a T a      S y m p o S i a

 P:    el b a n Q u e T e D e l o S S i e T e S a b i o S

Ana VICENTE SÁNCHEZ (Universidad de Zaragoza)

S  :    "D "

Franco FERRARI (Università di Salerno)

R  . T r i v i a l a i n i g m a T a v S . p H i l o S o p H i c a l p r o b l e m a T a

Simone BETA (University of Siena)

T      G-R 

   C 

Valeriy ALIKIN (University of Leiden)

P     

Gennaro D'IPPOLITO (Università di Palermo)

iii

103

113

se C t i o n 2: t h e Sy m p o S i o n a s a s p a C e f o r s o C i a l a n d p ol i t i C a l g a t h e r i n g s

L  ,   :    p o l i T i k o S

Philip A. STADTER (University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill)

A "" S y m p o S i u m     p H i l a n T H r o p i a (ar T a x e r x e S 15)

Eran ALMAGOR (e Hebrew University of Jerusalem)

ce n a a p u D ca T o n e S :    

Mark BECK (University of South Carolina, Columbia)

B     li v e S o f fl a m i n i n u S  ae m i l i u S pa u l l u S

Manuel TRÖSTER (University of Coimbra)

C    P' li f e o f cr a S S u S

James T. CHLUP (University of Manitoba, Winnipeg)

se C t i o n 3: d i s r u p t i v e Sy m p o S i a

D        P' al e x a n D e r

Jerey BENEKER (University of Wisconsin, Madison)

P      

    P

Antonio Ignacio MOLINA MARÍN (Universidad de Murcia)

T   A

Pilar GÓMEZ & Francesca MESTRE (University of Barcelona)

C  :      

    P' oT H o

Lukas DE BLOIS (Radboud University of Nijmegen)

F  :       P

Nuno Simões RODRIGUES (Universidade de Lisboa)

E     vi D a S  P

Israel MUÑOZ GALLARTE (Universidad de Groningen)

V :    

   

Dámaris ROMERO GONZÁLEZ (Universidad de Birmingham)

se C t i o n 4: ph i l a n t h r o p i a , ph i l i a a n d Er o S

L   p H i l a n T H r o p i a  P:

    

Francesco BECCHI (Université de Florence)

pH i l a n T H r o p i a    P'  

Anastasios G. NIKOLAIDIS (University of Crete, Rethymno)

È    S 

Paola VOLPE CACCIATORE (Università di Salerno)

123

131

147

165

181

193

201

211

223

231

245

255

263

275

289

H    : pH i l i a , e r o S  a r e T e  P

Toni BADNALL (University of Nottingham)

E  P      

Maria Leonor Santa BÁRBARA (Universidade Nova de Lisboa)

kr a S i S o i n o u D i k e n . A     

'am a T o r i u S  P

Rosario SCANNAPIECO (Università di Salerno)

T  p H i l a n T H r o p i a   li v e S o f De m o S T H e n e S a n D ci c e r o

Marta VÁRZEAS (University of Oporto)

A,   e r o S   pa i D e i a :  vi D a D e ca T ó n e l vi e j o

Vicente M. RAMÓN PALERM (Universidad de Zaragoza)

F   vi D a D e ca T ó n e l vi e j o

José M. CANDAU MORÓN (Universidad de Sevilla)

O   p H i l a n T H r o p i a    C,

C  C  Ú

Joaquim J. S. PINHEIRO (Universidade da Madeira)

se C t i o n 5: Qu a E S t i o n E S Co n v i v a l E S

E   ...   P, C T,

 F   

Geert ROSKAM (Catholic University of Leuven)

"V " . T   P' T a b l e T a l k

VII, 9 – VIII, P (714A – 717A)  M  T' or a T i o n XXII

Jeroen LAUWERS (Research Foundation – Flanders; Catholic University of Leuven)

T     P' Qu a e S T i o n e S co n v i v a l e S

Frances B. TITCHENER (Utah State University, Logan)

D  P. D     P' Ta b l e T a l k

Carlos A. Martins de JESUS (University of Coimbra)

T     P' Qu a e S T i o n e S co n v i v a l e S

Rodolfo LOPES (University of Coimbra)

"A      " E 

   P' Qu a e S T i o n e S co n v i v a l e S

Ália Rosa C. RODRIGUES (University of Coimbra)

T   (P., Qu a e S T . c o n v . 4.2, 12)

Aldo SETAIOLI (University of Perugia)

A   

  Qu a e S T i o n e S co n v i v a l e S  P

Aurelio PÉREZ JIMÉNEZ (Universidad de Málaga)

297

307

313

333

341

351

359

369

385

395

403

415

425

439

447

se C t i o n 6: Co n v i v i u m SE p t E m Sa p i E n t i u m

E ba n Q u e T e D e l o S Si e T e Sa b i o S  P   

  

José VELA TEJADA (Universidad de Zaragoza)

E ba n Q u e T e D e l o S Si e T e Sa b i o S  T o u r D e f o r c e 

Rodolfo GONZÁLEZ EQUIHUA (Universidad de Salamanca)

H , ,  P' ba n Q u e T o f T H e Se v e n Sa g e S

Lawrence KIM (University of Texas, Austin)

A p H i l a n T H r o p i a   co n v i v i u m Se p T e m Sa p i e n T i u m

Stephen T. NEWMYER (Duquesne University, Pittsburgh)

M    P' co n v i v i u m Se p T e m Sap i e n T i u m :

  

Roosevelt Araújo da ROCHA JÚNIOR (Federal University of Paraná)

T T y r a n n o S   S o p H o S   Se p T e m Sap i e n T i u m co n v i v i u m

Delm F. LEÃO (University of Coimbra)

in D e x r e r u m 523

in D e x l o c o r u m 533

L  C 567

459

471

481

497

505

511

Preface

e volume that is now being published assembles great part of the papers

presented during the Eighth International Conference of the International

Plutarch Society – IPS, held at Coimbra from 23 to 27 September 2008. e

contributions deal with symposion , philanthropia, and related subjects in six

major sections: after an overview on Plutarch's place in the genre of symposion,

the rst two sections focus on the philosophical, literary and socio-political

functions of Plutarchan banquets. is is followed by a number of papers on

violence and conict in disruptive symposia and by studies of the key concepts

of philanthropia , philia and eros. Finally, separate sections are devoted to

two specic works, viz. the Quaestiones convivales and the Convivium septem

sapientium.

e intended audience of this book extends well beyond the growing

community of Plutarchists and includes anybody who makes regular or

occasional use of the Lives or of the Moralia. Considering the scope and nature

of Plutarch's multi-faceted work, the studies presented will be of interest to

scholars and students from a whole range of disciplines, such as history, politics,

philosophy, literature, education and arts.

e book may be used as a guide to study the symposion as a literary

genre, thus helping to analyse, from a structural and compositional point of

view, works that have the banquet as a scenario. At the same time, it shows

the broad range of functions and connotations associated with the symposion

as a space for philosophical, political and social gatherings. Beyond this, the

volume is designed to deepen the understanding of artistic expressions, such

as poetry, music and dance, by reading the symposion as a performative space

and as a place that encourages the participants to develop aective ties among

themselves.

e organization of the conference and the publication of this volume

would not have been possible without the support of the International Plutarch

Society, the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology - FCT

(through the project "Plutarch and the Founding of a European Identity"), the

Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation, the SP (Portuguese branch of the

IPS), and the Centre of Classical and Humanistic Studies at the University of

Coimbra. e editors should also like to express their gratitude to the editorial

board of Classica Digitalia for having so readily accepted to include this volume

in the Humanitas Supplementum series.

Special thanks are owed to Christopher Pelling, president of the IPS, for

all his support and for having agreed to write the introduction to the volume,

tying together the many strands covered both by the individual contributors

and by Plutarch himself. e editors are equally grateful to the international

board of independent referees for their willingness to collaborate and for

their helpful criticism. Finally, thanks should be given to Ália Rodrigues and

Rodolfo Lopes, who spent many hours editing the individual contributions

and preparing the Index Locorum and Index Rerum to the volume.

C, N 

T ,

J. R F, D. L, M. T  P. B D

Introduction

Christopher Pelling

Christ Church, University of Oxford

Symposion and philanthropia, civilised drinking and friendship towards

one's fellow-humans: the two things have always gone closely together, and

were appropriately linked as the subject of the eighth International Conference

of the International Plutarch Society.

In his smug Roman way, Cicero claimed that the Latin notion of

convivium was somehow superior to the Greek symposion, because the Greek

word focused just on communal drinking while the Latin extended to the

whole notion of a shared life (ad Fam. 9.24.3, de Senectute 45). But Greeks, and

Plutarch in particular, knew that there was a lot more to the symposion than

simply drinking. Indeed, one could reply to Cicero that the symposion, when it

went well, did not embrace every aspect of shared human life, but rather some

of its highest elements – as Plutarch might put it himself (see Lopes' paper in

this volume), goodwill (eunoia), fellowship (koinonia), friendship (philia), and

of course philanthropia, that warm aection for one's fellow human beings.

ose qualities gave participants much to talk about at the conference, which

was held at Coimbra in Portugal on 23–27 September 2008.

Any reader of this volume will be struck by the range of topics that are

covered. As Teodorsson brings out in his introductory essay, symposia were

important features both of real Greek life and of the Greek literary landscape;

and inevitably the literary and the social aspects interact in multiple ways,

as the literary descriptions both reected and provided a model for real-life

behaviour: that suggests a rather rened sense of 'realism' in the portrayal, a

topic discussed by Titchener. at 'modelling', educational aspect is indeed

important, for just as real-life symposia provided an opportunity for the

younger participants to learn from the elder, so Plutarch's own representations

of ctional symposia provide a picture of how such occasions ought to proceed:

one can learn manners, certainly, and also a vast range of other things, as the

more experienced and better-informed give a practical illustration of the

ways to carry, and convey, one's learning lightly (Roskam). One catches the

personal note here of Plutarch himself: contrast Maximus of Tyre, with his

view of symposia as a threat to proper education, and his advice to the aspiring

philosopher to stay away if he is wise (Lauwers).

In real life, symposia can go wrong; in Plutarch's historical writings, we

see examples of that in plenty, and it is normally because those ideal qualities

are travestied or reversed, with hatred and hostility replacing friendship and

goodwill, and wine producing violence rather than good fellowship. at is

especially clear in a barbarian symposion such as that of Artaxerxes: Almagor

traces the way in which features of an idealised Greek symposion are there subtly

travestied and juggled to produce o-key, sometimes inverted, versions of what

it ought to be: the host's character indeed emerges, just as it should, but here in

a chilling way. is notion of a bloody feast builds on a long literary tradition

(Rodrigues), but on real life as well. In Greek as in Persian and Roman culture,

feasts were one of the few opportunities when the powerful mingled with an

extended company and – precisely because of all those relaxed and friendly

features of the ideal symposia – might be o their guard (Muñoz Gallarte);

poisoning was always a possibility too (Romero González). A banquet was

indeed a disturbingly dangerous place to be.

Macedonian symposia might be a special case, more drunken than the

Greek, with arms readily available, so that the potential for violence was even

more acute (Molina Marín). e banqueting of Alexander therefore provided a

specially rich theme, and one can see the skill with which Plutarch integrated

the theme within the texture of a particularly complex Life. Beneker brings out

the comparison with Alexander's father Philip, whose wedding with Cleopatra

provided so clear a warning of how a feast can go violently wrong: Alexander,

so highly educated in Greek culture, has every opportunity to do better than

his father – but, in a pattern that is distinctively Plutarchan, ends by falling

back into tellingly similar behaviour, with the murder of Cleitus evoking

memories of that disastrous early wedding-scene. Gómez and Mestre relate the

development to the evolving character of Alexander, and particularly the eect

of his interaction with eastern culture and the diculties he nds in integrating

the two worlds: that makes it an especially challenging test-case for how an

ideal ruler should behave, and how far Alexander falls short of that ideal.

In Plutarch's own day there were new rulers: the men of Rome, men with

dierent values and a dierent mode of dining, one with greater excess and

– generally – rather less culture. Not that all Roman habits were bad ones;

there are times when one can sense the inuence of Roman ideas of humanitas

(Molina Marín); Roman banquets were certainly more civilised than their

Parthian equivalents (Chlup); and Plutarch, with his typically advanced views

about women, would at least be torn on the Roman practice of a female

presence at the banquet, even if in his own constructed symposia the female

dimension is found rather in the nature of the topics discussed than in the

presence of women to discuss them (Rodrigues). e character of a person's

symposia certainly provided a useful register for gauging a Roman's Hellenism,

and in particular that crucial characteristic of philanthropia (Pinheiro, Tröster,

Chlup). And Romans could often outdo Greeks in their organisational skill

in putting together banquets and other spectacles if they so chose – but there

remained an uncomfortable taste of the military about it all (Tröster); there

was often some trumpeting of social standing (de Blois), something that

a tactful host would try to sidestep in a Greek symposion; and an imperial

banquet could go very badly wrong indeed, again owing to an uncomfortable

intrusion of the military and a reversal of the proprieties of imperial authority

(de Blois again).

If Alexander's banquets were the great test-case in the Greek Lives, the

Catos' symposia, and especially the elder Cato's, were an equivalent among

the Romans. As so often – more on this below – Plato's Socrates is in the

background as a permanent benchmark of comparison, one that is especially

clear in the Younger Cato; the Roman dinners there come out less well (Beck).

As for the elder Cato, philanthropia is once again the key quality for evaluation

throughout the Life (Ramón Palerm, Candau Morón, Beck again), and Cato

is several times found wanting, at the dinner-table as with his slaves and his

wives: it is paradoxical, perhaps, that he falls down most in his marital behaviour

towards the end of his life, at the time when he was nally more receptive to

Greek culture. It is striking too that philanthropia so often becomes a crucial

who are weaker, as it is in Cato's treatment of his slaves; that is also clear in

Demosthenes–Cicero, a most carefully worked pair, and Várzeas there argues

for the importance of Sophocles' Antigone, especially his Creon, as giving an

intertextual register for this exploration of humane generosity in power.

So even within these historical descriptions in the Lives, we nd

thought-provoking exploration of moral questions, and especially questions

that concern the nature of power and the behaviour of the powerful. at is

also true as we turn to the ctional symposia in the Moralia. Two works are

particularly relevant here, the Septem Sapientium Convivium and the Quaestiones

Convivales. e Septem Sapientium Convivium is often viewed as a fairly early

work (and González Equihua agrees); if so, it is particularly interesting to see

how features of Plutarch's later thinking and artistic technique are already

developing – the suggestive use of animal imagery (Newmyer), the preference

for practical wisdom, the synkritic technique, the deft characterisation, and

particularly the deft use of pointed anecdotes and sayings, chreiai (González

Equihua again). at last feature in particular was one whose incorporation

sometimes stretched Plutarch's historical and literary imagination (Kim). en

the Quaestiones Convivales, clearly a work of Plutarch's maturity, are dedicated

to Q. Sosius Senecio, twice Roman consul, accomplished military man and

civilised Hellenophile – an instance in his own person of the humane mix

of cultures that the Quaestiones optimistically represent. Senecio is also the

dedicatee of the Parallel Lives, and it may well be that Plutarch regarded the

Lives and the Quaestiones Convivales as his major works: they are certainly

the longest and arguably the most ambitious. So the symposion is indeed a

setting where wisdom can speak to power, whether in the remote and

semi-legendary setting of the Septem Sapientium Convivium or in the more

Roman and contemporary world of the Quaestiones Convivales. In the Septem

Sapientium Convivium this has the interesting consequences traced by Leão,

with Periander, the most uncompromising of the men of power, increasingly

backstaged as the work goes on.

If such conversation is to work well, it must be properly managed, and one

of the educative functions of the Quaestiones Convivales is to give a picture of

proper party manners. Older and younger participants both have distinctive

roles to play, and the younger people in Quaestiones Convivales do not always

get their lines quite right (Roskam). A particularly important organisational

role falls to the symposiarch (Gonzàlez Julià), whose tactful party-management

provides a broader model for local political leadership as well (Stadter) –

another example to show that it was not just Cicero who saw a convivium as

a slice of life in general, reecting themes that go beyond the drinking. Room

can be found for various activities to make the party go with a swing, though

they tend to the cerebral rather than the riotous. Texts may be read after dinner,

in a way that has interesting analogies in early Christian communities (Alikin),

but it is important to have the right sort of text, Homer or Plato or Menander

(d'Ippolito). Perhaps riddles are appropriate, more so in Septem Sapientium

Convivium than in Quaestiones Convivales, provided they have some content of

philosophical substance (Beta). As for music ( Júnior) and dance ( Jesus), those

staples of real-life sympotic entertainment need not be banished completely, but

they gure as topics for reective discussion rather than for practical activity, a

think-up rather than a knees-up.

But discussion, especially philosophical discussion, is the key. Finding the

right level is important, so that the topics can draw in the less expert rather

than exclude them (Lopes, Gonzàlez Julià): practical philosophy is especially

appropriate (Vela Tejada), partly because it is more accessible and partly also

because it suits Plutarch's own characteristic insistence that the philosopher

needed to play a part in public life. But there is a lot more too that can count

as philosophy, including matters that we might today call scientic ('natural

philosophy', as it used to be called): 'why trues seem to be born through

the agency of thunder', for instance (Setaioli), or matters of astrometeorology

(Pérez Jiménez), and even the Seven Wise Men can be brought to consider

matters of household management and lifestyle as well as statecraft (Vela

Tejada). Manner is as important as theme. One always needs to bear in mind

who is present, and tailor the presentation accordingly (Gonzàlez Julià). at

of course is part of rhetorical good practice as well as of philosophy, and

rhetorical theorists from Plato and Aristotle onwards had insisted on the need

to gauge one's audience if one wished to be persuasive: no surprise, then, that

in this world where paideia (education) is so important, signs of rhetorical

education are particularly prominent (Gonzàlez Julià again, Vicente Sánchez).

e careful presentation of one's own character was a basic aspect of rhetorical

technique, and in the symposium it presented a particular problem, as a

speaker whose learning and insight outclasses the other diners can dampen

conversation rather than making it ow. Plutarch's own self-presentation as

a speaking character in Quaestiones Convivales is one interesting issue here

(Brenk); another is the way in which the discussions themselves so often

demonstrate an ideally civilised way and spirit in which dierent speakers can

disagree. One example is the discussion of the meaning of Plato's remark that

'God is always doing geometry', a suitable theme treated by the speakers in

a suitable matter (Ferrari). And one can also take the whole presentational

manner of Quaestiones Convivales as conveying a similar educational lesson:

the authorial voice is there so often elusive, an ideal way of airing 'provocative

and problematic views' on each side without pushing any of them too pushily

on to a reader (Brenk again).

So the content and the manner of the discussions come together closely

to present a strong view of philanthropia. Yet there is a danger here of

seeming, or making Plutarch seem, over-bland. Could anyone after all nd

philanthropia problematic? No-one, after all, was going to leap to his or her

feet and challenge Plutarch by delivering a paean on misanthropy, claiming

that the real model for human wisdom was Timon rather than Socrates. Still,

it may also be true that Plutarch could see the quality under threat in his

contemporary Roman world (Becchi) – at least in some moods, though we

should also remember that humanitas was a prized quality in the ideology of

Trajan's world (Candau Morón, Molina Marín): if there was a tension there

between noble ideal and more grubby reality, that was hardly unprecedented

in the ancient world or unparalleled in the modern. ere were other ways

too in which philanthropia, even if in itself an unambiguously positive quality,

could raise problems in practical reality. e demands of political life could

sometimes be hard to reconcile with genial sociability (Nikolaidis); Pericles

had his reasons for shunning social engagements. And the quality could raise

philosophical issues too. If Volpe Cacciatore is right, philanthropia could not

coherently be attributed to the Stoic Zeus, but could to the Zeus in which the

Platonist Plutarch could believe. If philanthropia was 'the very kernel of his

moral outlook' (Nikolaidis), it provided Plutarch with a perspective that did

not shirk the genuine moral and practical issues which real life could present.

'e Platonist Plutarch …': and of course Plato's Symposium is a constant

intertextual presence in all this. It is not the only one: Hesiod's Works and

Days mattered too (Fernández Delgado), not surprisingly given Plutarch's

interest in both theology and practical wisdom; and of course Homer is a

constant referent, not least because of all the banqueting in the Iliad and

Odyssey (cf. Fernández Zambudio on the ps.-Plutarchan On the Life and Work

of Homer). Menippean satire may well also be relevant, and so of course is

the Symposium of Xenophon (Teodorsson). But it is Plato who keeps coming

back: in the Quaestiones Convivales, where he is such a constant presence (it

is there that Plutarch tells us that he and his circle still celebrated Plato's and

Socrates' birthdays, separated as they were by only one day, Q.C. 717b); in the

Alcibiades, where the Platonic echoes go beyond sympotic behaviour and are

thought-provoking on themes such as education, love, and ambition (Du );

in Septem Sapientium Convivium, where the unexpected arrival of Periander's

brother Gorgos echoes the arrival of Alcibiades in Plato (Kim), even as he goes

on to add an echo of Herodotus too with his skilful retelling of the story of

Arion and the dolphin (Newmyer).

Where Plato's Symposium is felt, love, especially philosophically informed

and educative love, will be felt too: not all philanthropia is erotically charged,

of course, but some will always be. Badnall explains how Plutarch adapts and

remoulds elements from Plato's work to underpin and immortalise the praise

of conjugal love, mixing elements of the epithalamial – a rather dierent sort

of banquet is in point there – and the philosophically charged symposion. is

adaptation of Platonic thinking to emphasise the heterosexual, stressed also by

Bárbara, is vital to Plutarch, and seen also in the Amatorius; it brings out how

dynamic and malleable his Platonism can be, a repertoire of adaptable models

for exploring every aspect of human endeavour rather than an ideological

straitjacket. Scannapieco brings out how even the imagery for heterosexual

love is sympotic, with the 'mix' of wine in the symposion guring also the mix

of human elements in a good marriage to generate a new and stable unity.

Philanthropia, philia, eunoia, koinonia, all tempered by civilised manners

and learning borne lightly: no wonder Plutarch's portrayal of the symposion

can continue to be a model for us all. And it certainly proved a model at

Coimbra, not merely for the papers and the formal discussion but also for the

good fellowship that followed, including a nal symposion where Portuguese

hospitality owed freely and in style – with music playing a larger role than

Plutarch might have recommended, but in a way that he would fully have

appreciated (and probably added a further Quaestio on why Portuguese toasting

has such a musical dimension and has so much lip-smacking). anks of all

participants are again due to Delm Leão for his role as symposiarch, just as

readers will be grateful to him for collecting and editing these papers with

such exemplary despatch.

C P

P, I P S

 A, 

e place of Plutarch in the literary genre of Symposium

Th e p l a c e o f p l u T a r c h i n T h e l i T e r a r y g e n r e o f Sy m p o S i u m

S-T T

Göteborg University

Abstract

Plato´s idea to have a dialogue on serious philosophy taking place at a drinking-party is actually

astonishing, considering the traditionally rather "unphilosophic" entourage of these feasts. His

Symposion covers a vast scope extending from the most subtle philosophic reasoning of Socrates

to the nal deranged, unrestrained drinking-bout. In spite of this vulgar ending, however, the

work is basically a philosophic dialogue. at this work happened to form the starting-point

of a new literary genre, the symposion, may have been largely due to Xenophon. Many more

contemporary and somewhat later writers produced works of the kind, but all are lost. Since

the third century B.C. the Cynic Menippean sympotic genre became prevalent instead of the

philosophic Socratic one, which, as far as we know, is totally absent until Plutarch revived it with

his Sept. sap. conv. In addition he created a new subgenre of sympotic writing, the Quaestiones

convivales. He probably wrote his convivial works in opposition to the Menippean kind. His

evident ethical and educational purpose is singular in the genre of symposion; he received no

followers.

e banquet, constituted of the two sections, δεῖπνον and συμπόσιον/

πότος, was an essential part of ancient Greek culture. It can be traced back

as far as Homer1 , and during the Archaic period the sympotic customs were

established in a regular, almost ritualized form, the aristocratic συμπόσιον .

is was an institution for the upper classes, and it had its place in the courts

of kings and tyrants and in the ἀνδρῶνες of citizens in prominent position.

e symposion was an integrated part of life of the political and military clubs,

the aristocratic ἑταιρεῖαι. ese circles of educated and well-to-do people was

a natural environment for song, music, dance and recitation, which inspired

poets to the lavish productions of the archaic lyric and choral poetry, not least

the so-called scolia, and painters got abundant motives for vase paintings.

Artists of dierent profession, such as musicians, dancers, actors, acrobats

and merry-makers, were often engaged by the host, but the guests themselves

also took on large parts of the entertainment. e well-known competitive

spirit of the Greek society found a natural arena in the symposion. ere were

competitions in song and music, or in solving riddles and other problems.

A demand was laid on the symposiasts that each in turn should sing a song

accompanying himself with the lyre. For such performances a formal musical

education was presupposed. In the Archaic age all participants at symposia had

acquired the necessary competence. But towards the end of the sixth century

the great changes in the political state of things in Athens also brought about

changes in the character of the symposion. e conventional educational

system was modied, new groups of citizens advanced to power, and after

the Persian wars the living standards of the population rose. e institution

of the symposion received a more luxurious, and also more private and varied

1 Il. 1. 595-604; 9.197-224.

character, dierent from the conventionally regulated, aristocratic archaic

symposion. Plutarch tells of an incident that gives a notion of the easy manners

in the symposion of the Classical time. In the Life of Cimon he reports that

emistocles once frankly declared that he had not learnt to sing, nor to play

the lyre, but that he knew how to make the city great and rich2 . In the course

of time the ability to play the lyre declined, and recital gradually replaced

singing3 . As a consequence, less exacting activities lled larger parts of the

sympotic program, such as competitions of easy, banal kind, informal singing

and dancing4 , merry-making and, above all, heavy drinking, either freely or as

a contest performed serially around the company. e κῶμος became more

important as an ostentatious display of drunkenness5 . e change from the

symposion of the Archaic age into that of the period of democracy can be

studied in the motives of vase paintings of the time6 .

e symposion was in itself always aimed at pleasure. It oered the

opportunity of relaxation and permitted, or occasionally rather imposed

upon, the revellers to drink abundant quantities of wine, and thus to indulge

in misbehaviour and quite unbridled licence of erotic or violent kind. e

vase paintings oer abundant evidence, and indications can also be found in

literature7 . It was therefore entirely to be expected that Plato should adopt a

negative attitude towards symposia. In the dialogues Socrates never fails to

repudiate the heavy drinking that ran rampant at the contemporary symposia,

together with everything else that occupied it8 . He disdains listening to

the equivocal witticisms of the jesters and he scorns the customary riddles

and puzzles that occupy ordinary people's minds at the drinking-parties; he

compares them with children's riddles9 . It is Plato's conviction that philosophers

can have nothing in common with ordinary men. Enjoying drinking-parties

is not part of a philosopher's παιδεία. In the eaetetus Plato's Socrates draws

a very clear line of demarcation between the philosophers and the people of

the city who are busy with their politics and their symposia. Both should be

strictly avoided. Socrates says: "ese meetings and banquets and revellings

with chorus girls, it never occurs to the philosophers even in their dreams to

indulge in such things."10 .

2 Ion ap. Plu., Cim. 9.1; cf. em. 2.3-4.

3 Cf. S.-T. T, 1989, pp. 59-63.

4 At X., Smp. 7.1-2 Socrates improvises a song.

5 is behaviour was prevalent both in the upper classes and among common people, cf. the

known revel and κῶμος of Alcibiades and his group, and see the descriptions of the vulgar πότος

in Ar., V. 1208-1537. See also F. F, 2000.

6 See J. N. B, 1990, pp. 144-5, with a vast bibliography on the subject.

7 See, e.g., F. L, 1982, and cf. Ath. 13.577 E-F. 579 A, D, 607 CD.

8 Pl., R. 389 d-e σωφροσύνης ἆρα οὐ δεήσει ἡμῖν τοῖς νεανίαις; Πῶς δ᾽οὔ; Σωφροσύνης δὲ

ὡς πλήθει οὐ τὰ τοιάδε μέγιστα, ἀρχόντων μὲν ὑπηκόους εἶναι, αὐτοὺς δὲ ἄρχοντας τῶν περὶ

πότους καὶ ἀφροδίσια καὶ περὶ ἐδωδὰς ἡδονῶν, id. 395 e-396 a, et al. See M. T, 1990,

pp. 238-43.

9 R. 479 b-c. For the nature of the riddles and puzzles see S.-T. T, 1990, pp.

143-4.

10 t. 173 d σπουδαὶ δὲ ἑταιριῶν ἐπ᾽ ἀρχὰς καὶ σύνοδοι καὶ δεῖπνα καὶ σὺν αὐλητρίσι

e place of Plutarch in the literary genre of Symposium

Plato held these views nearly all his life. However, in his old age he

changed his mind. He abandoned his negative, reluctant attitude and

advocated a moderated and controlled use of wine as an integrated part of

the παιδεία. As is well known he devoted the rst two books of the Laws

to a lengthy discussion on symposia, wine and drunkenness. He denounces

practically all the symposia of his time as totally deranged and presents a

reform program. He argues that symposia, wine and intoxication can and

should be used as a means of education. For example, intoxication can be

used for testing the ἀρετή 11 . is awareness of the revealing eect of the

wine was not new; for example, it can be found in Alcaeus, Aeschylus and

Ion of Chios12 .

Plato's Symposium

Now, I would like to suggest that this was exactly what Plato had in mind

when he decided to locate his important dialogue on Eros in the sympotic

entourage. He wanted to demonstrate the ideal ἀρετή of Socrates, both his

sublime σωφροσύνη and self-control concerning carnal love-passion, and his

ability to withstand the negative eects of intoxication.

It is noticeable that in reporting the course of events of his Symposium

Plato describes everything as decent and orderly. is was probably how the

gatherings in the Academy were carried out under his guidance, in a decorous

way and characterized by intellectual conversations, though not entirely sober.

is kind of drinking-party Plato wanted to present to his readers when he

wrote his Symposium, and it was of course the condition necessary for a proper

philosophical dialogue, as is announced at the beginning, when the ute-girls

are dismissed, and drinking is inhibited.

After Socrates has nished his sublime speech, the spell is suddenly broken

when Alcibiades and his band rush in and bring about an abrupt change in the

lofty philosophic atmosphere. e time has now come for the test of Socrates'

virtue. Alcibiades' detailed report of Socrates power of resistance to his eorts

of seduction is substituted for a scene of that sort in real time at the party, and

then the nal drinking-bout displays Socrates as the victor in this test also.

Plato's Symposium is obviously far from being a representation of a real

banquet. His aim was entirely philosophic, to bring out the philosophic

Eros in full relief, incarnated in the person of Socrates, as contrasted with

κῶμοι, οὐδὲ ὄναρ πράττειν προσίσταται αὐτοῖς (sc. τοῖς κορυφαίοις).

11 Lg. 649 d-e τούτων δ᾽ εὐτελῆ τε καὶ ἀσινεστέραν πρώτον μὲν πρὸς τὸ λαμβάνειν

πεῖραν, εἶτα εἰς τὸ μελετᾷν, πλὴν τῆς ἐν οἴνῳ βασάνου καὶ παιδιᾶς τίνα ἔχομεν μηχανὴν

εἰπεῖν ἔμμετρον μᾶλλον, ἂν καὶ ὁπωστιοῦν μεθ᾽ εὐλαβείας γίγνηται; … (650 a) ἦθος ψυχῆς

θεάσασθαι; (648 b) … μετ᾽ ἀσφαλείας καὶ ἄνευ κινδύνων.

12 Alcaeus frg. 95 Rein. (=frg. 366 V.) οἶνος, ὦ φίλε παῖ, καὶ ἀλάθεα, frg. 73 Rein. (=frg.

333 V.) οἶνος γὰρ ἀνθρώπω δίοπτρον; A. frg. 393 R. κάτοπτρον εἴδους χαλκός ἐστ᾽, οἶνος δὲ

νοῦ; cf. eoc. 29.1-3 ῾Οἶνος᾽, ὦ φίλε παῖ, λέγεται ῾καὶ ἀλάθεα᾽.| κἄμμε χρῆ μεθύοντας ἀλαθέας

ἔμμεναι. | κἠγὼ μὲν ἐρέω τὰ φρένων κέατ᾽ ἐν μύχῳ; Io Chius frg. 26.12 West (= frg. 89 Leur.)

οἶνος ἔδειξε φύσιν; See W. R, 1995, pp. 106-12.

the inferior one of Alcibiades. Although Plato delusively makes eorts to

depict the scenery in realistic terms, the work comes out as a product of Plato's

imagination in order to present his philosophic message.13

Xenophon's Symposium

With his Symposium Plato founded a literary genre that was to live on

throughout antiquity and even further. It was no doubt thanks to the gure

of Socrates that there was a sequel at all. It was the gure of Socrates that

inspired Xenophon with the idea to write a similar work. But of course he had

no intention to emulate Plato. He had no motive for treating any philosophical

problem; his intention was simply to tell his readers what it was like to spend

a night at a drinking-party in company with Socrates. He wanted to represent

his friend in the role of a symposiast taking part in the conversation and the

entertainments of a conventional banquet. He declares his purpose directly in

the rst sentence, where he states that according to his opinion it is worth while

to report the deeds of Socrates even in times of relaxation. In fact, Xenophon's

Symposium might be regarded as a separate addition to the Memorabilia14 ,

written in order to complete the picture of the gure of Socrates. Just as in

that work he most probably had the ambition to represent him in a realistic

and thrustworthy way.

I called Xenophon's Symposium a conventional one. at is true as

regards the unconstrained variation of ingredients. e alternation between

entertainment and more of less serious conversation gives a seemingly realistic

picture of a normal banquetal scene. However, if Plato's sweeping description

of the drinking-parties of the time as totally deranged was true to reality, it

would mean that the party reported by Xenophon was also exceptional, just

as that of Plato. ere are no erotic indecencies, and when Philippus the

jester, exhausted after having performed a tiring dance, asks for a big cup

of wine, and Callias the host gladly agrees and says that all are thirsty from

laughing at him, Socrates intervenes. He calls for caution and gives a short

lecture on the proper use of wine, in the shape of a simile. Just as plants are

thrown to the ground and cannot produce fruit, when Zeus pours too much

rain on them, so it is with us: if we drink a lot of wine at once, both body

and soul will stagger, and we will be unable to say anything of value. And

Socrates proposes that the attending boys should besprinkle the company

with small drops only. Everyone agrees to the proposal, although Philippus

the jester wants the boys to ll up the cups faster15 . After that, nothing is

said about wine16 , and there is no nal drinking-bout. is agreement, a

result of the intervention of Socrates, announces the mode of behaviour that

13 See D. B, 1980.

14 is was the opinion of J. M, 1931, pp. 177-8 (following Ullrich).

15 See Ch. 2. 23-27.

16 At Ch. 6. 2 Hermogenes answers Socrates' question, what unconvivial behaviour

(παροινία ) is: "To give pain to one's companions under the inuence of wine".

e place of Plutarch in the literary genre of Symposium

is to characterize the party, namely a decorous social intercourse under his

unobtrusive guidance.

As in Plato's Symposium, Socrates had hesitated to accept the invitation to

the banquet. e rich Callias, who is paying large sums of money to Protagoras

for wisdom, seemed to him not to be the host to his taste. Xenophon describes

the feeling during dinner as quite depressed, with the guests feasting in deep

silence as though ordered to do so by some authority (I.11). Not even Philippus

the jester was able to cheer up the company.

After dinner, however, the atmosphere changes as Socrates gradually takes

the lead. He politely praises Callias for the perfect dinner and the performance

of the young artists, but when the host also oers perfume, he declines and

takes the chance of making some philosophic reections on fragrances. In

his view, there is no need of perfumes at all. Young men who excercise in the

gymnasium should smell of olive oil, and women smell of perfume themselves.

Elderly men, however, should smell of καλοκἀγαθία.

When Socrates had thus broken the ice and a lively discussion had arisen,

we would expect that he should go on philosophizing. He does not; instead he

himself proposes to postpone conversation until a second performance has been

given by the young dancers and acrobats. After this he makes some remarks on

their achievements and observes that women can very well be educated and

even learn courage. By such little sophisticated comments Socrates determines

the intellectual level of the conversation.e result is an exchange of views and

opinions of rather poor substance.

Now Socrates proposes that the symposiasts should themselves try to

benet and delight each other, and it is decided that each person should speak

about what he considers himself good at and is pride of. What follows is a

multifarious conversation more or less guided by Socrates. It is notable that

during these discussions he often exposes himself to irony and teasing, while

he is also ironic himself. Nevertheless the atmosphere is almost unchangingly

pleasant and friendly.

Of course we cannot judge whether Xenophon describes Socrates truly or

not, but in fact he makes us believe that he was really such a highly amiable,

humorous and concilatory man. In any case, Xenophon represents him as

extraordinary able to bring about an orderly and friendly symposion. As to the

intellectual standards of the subjects he initiates, however, we may doubt whether

Xenophon does him justice. Most of the talk on the various subjects during

the conversation that extends over four chapters (3-6) is rather nugatory. Only

the speech of Antisthenes on his poverty, which he calls wealth, is of a certain

philosophic value. But Xenophon is apparently satised with the conversation

and remarks (IV 29): "In this way they mixed playful and serious."

After this mixed, partly trivial conversation Xenophon makes Socrates

nish o the discussion with a long speech, very clearly following the lead of

Plato's Symposium. It would seem that Xenophon felt obliged somehow to make

Socrates appear in his role as "thinker", though at a not to sophisticated level.

e theme is arguably Eros, but since he was probably not able to represent

him as speaking of his sublime vision of αὐτὸ τὸ καλὸν, he chooses to make

him speak on the basis of the speech of Pausanias in Plato's work.

Socrates describes the nature of Eros as not only dual but downright

antagonistic in nature, the one variant contending with the other, and he declares

that he will speak frankly against the Eros that is the opponent of the one that

is dwelling in himself17 . His speech then develops into a rather magisterial

lecture about the two conicting Erotes. Socrates argues in favour of friendly

love, whose object is the good soul, and he underlines that this chaste love is no

less graced by Aphrodite than the love of the body18 , and that actually no loving

relation worthy of mention can exist in the absence of friendship19 .

e serious tone adopted by Socrates in his speech contrasts in a striking

way to the easy-going, humorous conversation otherwise prevailing in the

symposion. And after his speech he apologizes for having spoken more seriously

than is appropriate at a drinking-party. It is also noticeable that Socrates directs

his outspokenly didactic and rather moralizing speech to Callias, his host, but

he does not take oence. Instead he expresses his appreciation, and Lycon,

the father of Callias' beloved Autolycus, praises Socrates as a good and noble

man20 .

Plato's picture of Socrates as able to resist even an Alcibiades' eorts of

seduction seems thus to be substantiated by the representation of him by

Xenophon. His speech appears to be critical only to pederasty21 , and this

is also incidentally suggested by contrast in the end of the work, when the

married guests hurry home to their wives, inspired by the scenic display of

the marriage of Dionysus and Ariadne by the young actors. e chaste kind

of Eros that Socrates praises as providing the love of souls and which he

arms is the one dwelling in him, this Eros seems in reality to be φιλία ,

friendly love, to judge from how he describes it. As a matter of fact there is

no properly erotic atmosphere in Xenophon's Symposium, except precisely

in the nal theatrical performance, although Xenophon tries to keep up a

semblance of a feeling such as in Plato's Symposium. Instead, it is the friendly,

good-humoured spirit of φιλία that prevails throughout, and which Socrates

conrms in his speech.

e followers

e ethos of friendliness, good temper and sense of humour which

characterizes Xenophon's Symposium was to determine the nature of the

Socratic kind of symposium for the future, as we can observe in Plutarch's

convivial works. With his Symposium Xenophon broadened the scope of the

17 Ch. 8. 24 ὁ ἀεὶ σύνοικος ἐμοὶ ἔρως κεντρίζει εἰς τὸν ἀντίπαλον ἔρωτα αὐτῷ

παρρησιάζεσθαι.

18 Ch. 8. 15 ἡ δὲ τῆς ψυχῆς φιλία διὰ τὸ ἁγνὴ εἶναι … οὐ … διὰ τοῦτο καὶ

ἀνεπαφροδιτοτέρα.

19 Ch. 8. 13 ὅτι μὲν γὰρ δὴ ἄνευ φιλίας συνουσία οὐδεμία ἀξιόλογος πάντες ἐπιστάμεθα.

20 Ch. 8. 1 Νὴ τῆν ῞Ηραν, ὦ Σώκρατες, καλός γε κἀγαθὸς δοκεῖς μοι ἄνθρωπος εἶναι.

21 Ch. 8. 32-40.

e place of Plutarch in the literary genre of Symposium

newly founded genre. With the good spirits and the easy-going conversation

Xenophon added substantially to the foundation of the genre laid by Plato. e

greater comprehensibility of the content and the less sophisticated linguistic

form may have been what inspired the numerous writers at the time who

followed his lead and composed sympotic works. We may suppose that these

diered considerably among themselves according to the authors᾽ dierent

interests and preferences. But unfortunately, all of these writings are lost.

Aristotle is known to have written some kind of sympotic work22 ,

but our sources provide very scarce information on it; perhaps it bore a

resemblance to the scholarly Deipnosophistae of Athenaeus23 . According to

Plutarch, eophrastus and Aristoxenus also wrote Symposia. He mentions

that both treated questions of music in these writings24 . Epicurus' Symposium

is the only work of this genre at that time, on which we have a more detailed

information25 . Plutarch blames him for excluding questions about music

and similar inquiries from the drinking-parties and for enjoying instead

in vulgar buooneries26 . Athenaeus informs us that in the Symposium of

Epicurus the guests formed a company of atterers who praised one another,

and he contrasts this with the character of Plato's and Xenophon's works.

He censures the absence of an introduction and a specication of place and

time in Epicurus' Symposium, and he criticizes that the subjects discussed are

mainly sympotic and he also nds fault with his clumsy literary style27 . It

appears, then, that Epicurus Symposium may have been enacted in his Garden,

that his guests all belonged to his circle, and that the conversation was in the

main conned to the sympotic sphere.

It is worth noticing that only two Academics, Speusippus and Dion of

Alexandria, are given as writers of Symposia, but only by Plutarch who only

mentions their names28 . e absence of any positive information on these

texts, and considering that there are contrary indications as to their character,

makes it seem questionable whether they really were Symposia at all29 . Even if

the scarcity of information makes our judgement uncertain, then, we may raise

the question why there was little or practically no continuation of the true

Socratic symposium among Platonists. One would think that it should have

been natural for members of the Academy to follow the lead of the founders

and add works of their own to the new genre.

22 D. L. 5. 22 (5. 1.12). Only one fragment is preserved: Athen. 15.674 F-675 A; cf. Schol. in

eocr. 3. 21 p. 122.16 Wendel.

23 See R. H I, 1895, pp. 284-5, 346 n. 1; J. M, 1931, pp. 204-5.

24 Non posse 1095 E ἐν δὲ συμποσίῳ Θεοφράστου περὶ συμφωνιῶν διαλεγομέμου καὶ

᾽Αριστοξένου περὶ μεταβολῶν. Athen. 14.632 A-B quotes a work by Aristoxenus entitled

Σύμμικτα συμποτικά.

25 Phld., Rh. 90.27, 96.22, 97.22 Sudhaus.

26 Non posse 1095 C-D.

27 Ath. 5.182 A, 186 E, 187 C.

28 Quaest. conv. 612 DE.

29 See J. M, 1931, pp. 162-3, 196-7; S.- T. T, 1989, pp. 35-6.

Non-Socratic sympotic writings

1. P

Now, a new sort of sympotic writings originated, apparently initiated

by Persaeus, the pupil of Zenon of Cition. In his work, entitled Συμποτικοὶ

διάλογοι, or Συμποτικὰ ὑπομνήματα, he seems to have limited himself to

sympotic subjects in a strict sense, and with a strong emphasis on sexual

matters at that30 .

2. M Sy m p o S i a

Not much later, in the third century, Menippus the Cynic appeared

as the founder of a new genre, the Cynic satire. Among his works there

was also a Symposium. We know of it only thanks to a short mention by

Athenaeus in a passage on dierent kinds of dance31 . However, although we

know so little about Menippus' own sympotic writings, we may infer upon

their character from the Symposia and similar texts written by his numerous

imitators, Meleager, Lucilius, Varro, Horatius, Petronius, Lucian and Julian

the Emperor. is new kind of convivial literature, the so-called Menippean

Cynic symposium, diered very much from the classical Socratic one, to say

the least. Conversation on philosophic or other serious subjects is absent;

instead there are ironic allusions, wrangle and overt verbal attacks, and in the

end it may even come to blows. e happenings in Lucian's Symposium are

most illustrative of the intentions of the writers of this kind of literature. eir

aim is to make fun of and mock at prominent people, not least philosophers,

setting out their imperfections and oddities in such a way as to make them

appear as caricatures.

e considerable number of writers of this kind of works suggests that

this genre was rather popular. Shall we perhaps suppose that the Socratic kind

of symposium was not able to keep up with the competition? At any rate,

the contrast between the considerable frequency of that genre and the virtual

absence of Socratic symposia during about four hundred years, from the late

Classical time till Plutarch, calls for an explanation.

P

We can take for granted that Plutarch knew the Menippean kind of

symposium fairly well. We should of course not think that he had actually

read Petronius' Cena Trimalchonis, but it is reasonable to suppose that he had

knowledge of its content. Judging from what we know of his personality and

30 Ath. 13.607 B Περσαίου τοῦ Κιτιέως ἐν τοῖς Συμποτικοῖς ὑπομνήμασιν βοῶντος καὶ

λέγοντος περὶ ἀφροδισίων ἁρμοστὸν εἶναι ἐν τῷ οἴνῳ μνείαν ποιεῖσθαι, id. 4. 162 B-C

Περσαίου τε τοῦ καλοῦ φιλοσόφου Συμποτικοὺς διαλόγους συντεθέντας …, ἐν οἷς ζητεῖ, ὅπως

ἂν μὴ κατακοιμηθῶσιν οἱ συμπόται, καὶ πῶς ταῖς ἐπιχύσεσι χρηστέον πηνίκα τε εἰσακτέον

τοὺς ὡραίους καὶ τὰς ὡραίας εἰς τὸ συμπόσιον καὶ πότε αὐτοὺς προσδεκτέον ὡραϊζομένους

κτλ. …. (Περσαῖος), ὃς περὶ ταῦτα τὴν διάνοιαν ἀεὶ στρέφων.

31 Ath. 14. 629 EF καλεῖται δέ τις καὶ ἄλλη ὄρχησις κόσμου ἐκπύρωσις, ἧς μνημονεύει

Μένιππος ὁ κυνικὸς ἐν τῷ Συμποσίῳ.

e place of Plutarch in the literary genre of Symposium

ethical outlook, we may safely assume that he looked with disgust at that sort

of feasts and that kind of literature. It therefore appears as probable that his

loathing for such depravation was actually his main motive for composing

a quite dierent sort of symposium. It was certainly natural for him to

decide upon writing a symposium with participants interested in philosophic

questions, and diering among themselves in character and outlook, so as to

bring about a varied, interesting conversation. In short, Plutarch wanted to

write a Socratic symposium32 . For his Symposium of the Seven Wise Men he no

doubt used Xenophon's Symposium as a model. Plato's extraordinary work did

not match his purpose. His choice of the Seven Wise Men as participants at

the banquet shows his intention, to compose a symposium that would contain

a large range of topics and variegated discussions. e result was a work of

very mixed content, and with a distinct aim and direction. Plutarch makes

this quite clear from the beginning. He assigns the rst two chapters to the

declaration of his intention.

e story is well-known: Periander, the tyrant of Corinth, has invited

the Seven and many more to a banquet. ree of these, ales, Neiloxenus of

Naucratis and Diocles the narrator, are on their way to the place on foot, since

ales has dismissed the fashionable carriage placed at their disposition by the

host. e walk thus aords them the opportunity of free and undisturbed talk.

e main topic turns out to be about the despotic rule of kings and tyrants, a

rather surprising one for invited guests on their way to a host who is a ruling

tyrant. ales is very outspoken and says that he regards Solon as very wise in

refusing to be a tyrant. And he adds that Periander, who is aicted with the

disease of despotism, is actually making fair progress towards recovery now

that he is bringing about gatherings with men of sense.

But then it occurs to ales that it is not appropriate to talk only about

what can be demanded of the host. ere should also be some preparations

on the part of the guests. He then delivers a very Plutarchan speech on how a

guest should put his character in order and be prepared to take part in serious

or humorous conversations, and to listen and to talk on any topic that happens

to be suggested.

With these straightforward preliminaries Plutarch sets the tone for the

symposion. ales, the only one of the Seven who is a philosopher, is the natural

mouthpiece of Plutarch. He is to play a prominent part in the conversation,

always expressing wise and sensible thoughts, for example when he reproves

the young Alexidemus, who angrily complains of having been assigned an

ignominious place at table. ales censures this behaviour, telling him that his

complaint means objecting to his neighbour rather than the host. But Plutarch

is ironic at his own expense when he makes the young man retort:

"But I observe that you wise men are also eager for being honoured!".

32 Plu., Quaest. conv. 686 C-D explicitly uses this term to denote a symposion where

conversation on topics of philosophic inquiry is essential.

Plutarch frequently makes use of his sense of humour in the work, thus

avoiding the imminent risk of appearing too didactic. Taken as a whole, his

Symposium is a well composed mixture of seriousness and pleasantry, perhaps

even more well-balanced than that of Xenophon. e merry-maker Aesop

tells his fables, but the jesting replies and repartees of the guests contribute

more to the humorous and friendly convivial atmosphere. As in Xenophon,

seriousness receives a greater weight toward the end, but it is not concentrated

to one long speech like that of Socrates in that work33 . e content of the work

as a whole is more varied than in Xenophon.

is is owing to the dierent number of topics in the two Symposia. ere

is virtually only one in that of Xenophon, the question of what each is good at

and is proud of, whereas in Plutarch we distinguish as many as eight, namely

1. the question of what an absolute ruler should be like,

2. the list of questions of the Ethiopian king, which are seriously answered

by ales,

3. the topic on democratic government,

4. the question of management of a home,

5. the question of the adequate acquisition of property,

6. the discussion on food, drink and diet,

7. the topic of drinking caused by Periander's toast to Chilon, and

8. the telling of wonderful stories about dolphins on the occasion of the

rescue of Arion.

Most of these topics give rise to serious utterances and speeches as well as

pleasantries. Consequently, the conversation as a whole is more substantial and

rich in view-points in Plutarch's Symposium than in that of Xenophon.

As a matter of fact, there is a lot of ingrediences in Plutarch's Symposium

that have no correspondence in that of Xenophon or in any other known

earlier sympotic work. ey are:

1. e long preliminaries with a varied conversation before the banquet.

2. e narrator who remains unknown until the end of the third chapter.

3. e incident with the "monster", the infant centaur.

4. e incident with the guest who leaves in anger.

5. e numerous (Plutarchan) apophthegmata interspersed in the talk.

6. Political questions are discussed over the cups.

7. Women are present during the drinking-party.

8. e extraordinary story of Arion is reported to the company.

On the other hand, we observe that some elements are absent. It is

noticeable that entertainment is absent; only a ute-girl plays in connection

with the libation. And there is no erotic mood in the company, either a

genuinely erotic atmosphere as in Plato's Symposium, or a more or less articial

one as in Xenophon's work. And there is no heavy drinking. When Periander

drinks to Chilon in a big cup, this does not lead up to a drinking-bout, but

instead to a discussion on questions related to the wine, e.g., Pittacus' law

33 Admittedly, there is also the short radical speech of Antisthenes in Ch. 4.

e place of Plutarch in the literary genre of Symposium

that prescribed a double penalty for a man who commits an oence when

drunk than for a sober man, and it is emphasized that the task of Dionysus

is not intoxication and gulping down wine but rather the friendly feeling,

the longing and the association one with another. us the good-humoured

atmosphere is preserved throughout the party, even when delicate political

topics are discussed. Periander puts up rather well with listening to critical

remarks on despotic rule. Only once (152 B) he sets a hard face. Seeing that,

Aesop demonstrates sympathy with him and wisely reproves the critics, and

after there has been some talk on other things, the tyrant reenters into the

conversation (153 E), showing no resentment any more.

By these means of composition Plutarch succeeds on the one hand to

show the natural reaction of the tyrant to the criticism, and then to suggest how

irritation can, and should, be toned down. Plutarch simply does not accept bad

feelings at a symposion. He gives an expressive proof of his attitude when he

tells of how ales blames the guest who takes oence at the placing at table

and leaves before the beginning of the banquet. Plutarch certainly wanted to

demonstrate his principle directly at the beginning that uncivil persons have

no place at a symposion. It is noticeable that nobody asks the young man to

stay. Indeed, Plutarch does not conceal that he was writing his Symposium with

an ethical intent. We may assume that he wanted to lodge a protest against

the contemporary deranged convivial behaviour, and presumably his attack

was not least directed against Roman drinking-parties. A depressing survey

of the hard drinking in the Roman upper classes has been presented by Philip

Stadter34 .

Moreover, looked upon as a literary work it seems likely that Plutarch

intended his Symposium to be a counterbalance to the contemporary satirical

descriptions of chaotic symposia. It appears that it was the predominating

trend at the time to represent exactly these worst drinking-parties in sympotic

works. Instead, Plutarch wanted to describe a symposion conducted in good

order as an attempt at a revival of the Socratic kind of symposium. His decision

to write it may well have been precisely a reaction to Petronius' work, published

not much earlier. Plutarch's Symposium cannot be dated with any certainty, but

it was most probably written in the 80ies or 90ies. In any case, it was written

before the Quaestiones convivales 35 .

is work is singular in all respects. Since it is the only one of its kind

that is extant, we do not know if Plutarch had any model for it. We know

that Didymus Chalcenterus wrote a work that carried the title Συμποσιακά

or Σύμμικτα 36 , but we have no reliable knowledge of its shape. However, to

judge from what we know about the content and general nature of this writer's

34 P. A. S, 1999, pp. 488-9.

35 See C. P. J, 1966, pp. 72-3.

36 D. L. 5. 76 (V 5.6); Clem. Al. Strom. 4. 19. 618 P.; EM. 718.35; St. Byz. 305.1, 314.6,

452.8; Herenn. Philo Ammon. De di. p. 35 Valck; Et. Gud. 124.2; Eust. 1788.53-54; and see J.

M, 1931, pp. 172-3.

overwhelming authorship, of which we have rather scarce fragments, we may

suppose that this work was of a scholarly type similar to that of Athenaeus. e

fact that Plutarch considered it appropriate to elucidate the dierence between

the terms συμποτικά and συμποσιακά indicates that the latter term had not

been used before in the sense he uses it. We are thus entitled to assume that

with his Συμποσιακά he actually founded a new kind of convivial literature.

He presents his program for this kind in the very rst talk of the work where

he expressly refers to Plato's and Xenophon's Symposia. He declares that in

a company of educated men serious philosophic and scientic topics should

be allowed to dominate to a large extent. It would seem that such a claim

should have been unnecessary, especially for a philosopher, and a Platonist at

that. Does it really mean that substantial discussions over the cups were rather

uncommon at the drinking-parties of his time?

Plutarch declares that in a company of ordinary, less educated men

dierent kinds of entertainment may be allowed to predominate. But in

a mixed company the uneducated persons should keep quiet like mute

consonants between sonant vowels. Drinking should be controlled, as it

is in the Quaestiones convivales. And there entertainment occurs only as an

exception37 , but it is frequently made the object of discussion, in which certain

kinds of music and dancing are expressly condemned38 . More than anything

else Plutarch makes the pantomime the target of his scorn, as in the outburst

at the very end of the work.

Strong commitment to the amelioration of the symposion was then

obviously a main incentive for Plutarch to write his Symposium of the Seven Wise

Men and thus to revive the Socratic symposium. But this ethic incentive is no

less obvious in the Quaestiones convivales. is being the case, it seems to me that

the cause of origin of this work must be reconsidered. I will certainly not call in

question that Plutarch actually composed it on the request of Sosius Senecio,

but I think we should pose this question: Is it actually reasonable to think that it

was only because of Sosius' desire that Plutarch decided to compose and publish

his recollections of drinking-parties, either preserved in his own memory or in

some kind of notes? I feel doubts about that. It is obvious that large parts of the

Quaestiones convivales are based on Plutarch's own memories. Now, if he had

actually made some notes of the main features of his symposia, as to place, time,

occasion, participants, subjects discussed etc., should we imagine that he made

these notes only for his private use, as a kind of diary, with no intention to use

the material for publication? I venture to say that this is highly improbable. I

dare to suggest that Plutarch was actually prepared to publish at least part of

the material, and that he communicated his plans to his old companion at many

symposia, Sosius Senecio. It will have been quite natural for Plutarch to do that,

and for Sosius gladly to commend the publication.

What I argue, then, is that it was Plutarch himself who got the idea

of writing a series of short symposiac texts based in part on his own

37 As in Quaest. conv. VII 5.

38 E.g., Quaest. conv. VII 8.

e place of Plutarch in the literary genre of Symposium

remembrances and notes and in addition on collections of Problemata and

Zetemata and a great number of other sources. e result was a pioneer work

of a new kind within the genre of symposium. Presumably, Plutarch got a

vision of this new kind of convivial writing from his own experiences of

symposia characterized by conversation on subjects of value over the cups in

a friendly environment.

It appears as probable, then, that Plutarch produced his convivial writings in

two separate steps. First he decided to write a truly Socratic symposium with the

aim to revive this kind. e result was the Septem Sapientium convivium. en, in

the course of time, he got the idea of a new kind of sympotic writing, inspired

by his own experiences, and with the aim to propagate these to wider circles of

educated people. e result was the Συμποσιακά . With this innovative work he

actually laid the basis for the possible development of a new branch within the

genre of symposium. But unfortunately, his work was not followed by others of

similar kind. e writings of Athenaeus, Macrobius, Apuleius or Gellius have a

quite dierent character and are not properly symposiac writings.

And in addition the satiric Menippean tradition was not broken, as

Plutarch might have hoped, but instead was continued not much later by

Lucian, and then by Julian the Emperor.

e place of Plutarch in the history of the genre of symposium therefore stands

out as virtually exceptional. His convivial works are singular for three reasons:

1. e revival of the Socratic symposium,

2. e founding of the new genre of Συμποσιακά aiming at a close

combination of education and amusement, and

3. e ethical purpose displayed in both of these convivial writings.

W o r k s c i T e d

B, D. "Painture et dépassement de la réalité dans le Banquet de Platon",

REA 82, 1980, 5-29.

B, J. N., "Adolescents, symposion, and pederasty", in O. M, 1990,

pp. 135-48.

F, F. "Aimer, boire et chanter chez les Grecs: La littérature au banquet

d´Homère à Athénée", in Bacchanales, Cahiers du Gita, 13, 2000, 65-

105.

H, R., Der Dialog I-II, Leipzig, 1895.

J, C.P., "Towards a chronology of Plutarch's works", JRS, 56 (1966)

70-4.

L, F., Un ot d´images. Une esthetique du banquet grec, Paris, 1987.

(English translation: e Aesthetics of the Greek Banquet: Images of Wine

and Ritual, Princeton 1990.)

Sven-Tage Teodorsson

M, J., Symposion. Die Geschichte einer literarischen Form, Paderborn,

1931.

M C, J. G.  . (eds.), Plutarco, Dioniso y el vino. Actas del VI

Simposio Español sobre Plutarco (Cádiz, 14-16 de Mayo, 1998),

Madrid, 1999.

M, O., Sympotica. A Symposium on the Symposion, Oxford, 1990.

M. O. & T, M. (eds.), In Vino Veritas, London, 1995.

R, W., "Wine and truth in the Greek Symposion" in O. M & M.

T (eds.), 1995, pp. 106-12.

S, P . A., "Drinking, Table Talk, and Plutarch's contemporaries", in J. G.

M C  . (eds.), 1999, pp. 481-99.

T, M., "Logos sympotikos" in O. M, 1990, pp. 238-60.

T, S.-T., A Commentary on Plutarch's Table Talks I, Göteborg, 1989.

_____ A Commentary on Plutarch's Table Talks II, Göteborg, 1990.

S 1

Philosophical and Literary Contexts of the Symposion

Trabajos y Días como hipotexto de las obras simposíacas de Plutarco

Tr a b a j o S y Dí a S c o m o h i p o T e x T o d e l a s o b r a s s i m p o s í a c a s

d e p l u T a r c o

J A F D

Universidad de Salamanca

Abstract

After analyzing the inuence of the Hesiodic eogony on all of Plutarch's work in a former

paper ( J. A. Fernández Delgado, 2007), the study of the quotations of Works and Days just

in the sympotic works by Plutarch is justied because, rstly, the number of these quotations

throughout the whole Plutarchan corpus is so high that a complete approach to them would

vastly exceed the limits of a paper; secondly, the number of these quotations in the sympotic

works by Plutarch is not only relatively abundant, but it sometimes aects the treatment of

organizational aspects of the symposium or illustrates a question as inherent to it as wine is;

nally, such an important "question" as the rst of the ninth and last book of the "convivial"

ones deals with "On verse quotations made opportunely or inopportunely", as if it were indeed

a programme of our research, and two quotations from Works and Days respectively open and

close the chapter. ose aspects of the quotations are dealt with in this paper as well as their

dierent uses in each of the two sympotic Plutarchan works, their functional classication, and

their greater or lesser degree of intertextual "tension", in the sense of their relative distance from

the Hesiodic statement.

1. Si en un trabajo anterior de extensión similar al presente he podido

abordar el estudio de la relación intertextual entre la Teogonía hesiódica y el

conjunto de la obra plutarquea1 , el análisis de la presencia de Trabajos y Días

solamente, en el marco de las piezas simposíacas de Plutarco, condicionado por

la temática del presente congreso, se justica en primer lugar por el elevado

número de citas de este poema hesiódico en la obra del Queronense en general,

proporcionalmente mayor incluso que el de las citas homéricas, que son con

mucho las más numerosas2 . De hecho el número de pasajes de Teogonía citados

a lo largo de la obra de Plutarco – en realidad a lo largo de Moralia, pues en

Vitae no se registra ninguna – es de 18 ó 19 según los cálculos de Helmbold &

O'Neil3 , aunque tres de ellos son evocados dos o tres veces; el número de citas

de Trabajos y Días en sus obras simposíacas solamente, asciende a 24. De ellas

curiosamente corresponden la mitad al Banquete de los Siete Sabios y la mitad

a Cuestiones Simposíacas, si bien es cierto que dos de estas últimas (Mor. 692B:

VI 7 y Mor. 701D: VII 3) podrían referirse al mismo pasaje hediódico (Op.

368 s.) y la extensión de las obras es de 105 (Mor. 146B-164D) y 812 (Mor.

612C-748D) parágrafos de la paginación de Estéfano respectivamente, con lo

que el índice de frecuencia de las citas es aproximadamente de 8:1 a favor de

Banquete.

1 J. A. F D, 2007.

2 Cf. W. C. H  E. ON 1959, s. v. Hay que tener en cuenta, no obstante, que la

mayoría de las citas de Trabajos y Días provienen del Comentario que Plutarco le ha dedicado. Cf.

también la selección de citas hesiódicas de Plutarco analizadas por A. P J, 2004.

3 Idem.

José Antonio Fernández Delgado

2. El carácter de las citas, por el contrario, es muy distinto en una y otra

obra, y no sólo por el hecho de que las de la primera se muestran acordes con el

contenido, más discursivo y menos simposial, de la obra, mientras que las de la

segunda tienen mucho más que ver con su ambiente propiamente simposíaco

y los elementos característicos de este, su organización, la comida y la bebida,

y otros temas típicos de conversación del banquete.

2. 1. Las primeras se concentran todas al nal del cap. 13 (Mor. 156E:

Op. 744) y al nal del cap. 14 (las once restantes), de los 21 de que consta

el opúsculo; las segundas, en proporción mucho menor (y todavía más si

se comparan con las citas homéricas, las de la tragedia o las de Platón), se

distribuyen, no obstante, aquí y allá, más o menos regular y parsimoniosamente

a lo largo de sus IX "libros" con sus diez o más cuestiones cada uno (el IX

contiene quince cuestiones), aun cuando las cuatro últimas cuestiones del libro

IV no se nos hayan conservado, siendo las únicas excepciones dignas de nota

la concentración de cuatro citas en el libro VII (cuestiones 2, 3, 4 y 6) y de tres

en el libro IX (cuestiones 1 y 2), a las cuales hay que sumar, cosa que no sucede

en Banquete (donde no hay ninguna otra cita hesiódica segura4 ), la presencia

de tres citas de Teogonía en la cuestión 14, otra en la cuestión 15, más otra del

fr. 9 M.-W. (Eeas) en esta misma cuestión5 .

2. 2. De las citas de Trabajos en Banquete, a excepción de la primera (Mor.

156E: Op. 744), que se aplica a una acción tan típicamente simposíaca cual es la

prohibición hesiódica de poner la enocoe sobre la cratera de vino, y de la última

(Mor. 158B), que sirve para dar un quiebro al tema tratado calicando al contertulio

Esopo de discípulo de Hesíodo con mayor derecho que Epiménides de Creta, al

hacerle heredar de la fábula hesiódica del halcón y el ruiseñor (Op. 203-212) toda

su sabiduría fabulística, las diez restantes se aplican al tema de la dieta, ya sea en la

forma de alimentación dietética practicada por Epiménides (Mor. 157E: Op. 41), ya

sea como frugalidad alimenticia (Mor. 157E: Op. 45 y Op. 46) o directamente como

medicina (Mor. 158B: las siete citas restantes, todas comprendidas entre Op. 559 sqq.

y Op. 750). De ellas solo las cuatro primeras reproducen más o menos literalmente

el verso (Mor. 157E: Op. 41 y Mor. 157F: Op. 46) o al menos la expresión clave

(Mor. 156E: Op. 744 y Mor. 157F: Op. 45) del correspondiente pasaje de Trabajos

y Días, las ocho restantes son solamente alusiones6 , de localización a menudo no

unívoca, referidas a la dieta médica, con excepción de la última7 .

4 El par de hexámetros atribuidos a Hesíodo en Sept. sap. conv. 10 (Mor. 154A) y no

localizados en la obra hesiódica conservada, levemente modicados son puestos en boca de

Homero en el Certamen Homeri et Hesiodi 100, que, en términos no concordantes con los de

Plutarco, se reere como aquel a la participación de Hesíodo en los juegos fúnebres en honor de

Andamante, episodio recordado nuevamente en Quaest. conv. V 2 (Mor. 675A), según luego

veremos.

5 Sobre la distribución de las citas y su naturaleza en la obra de Plutarco cf. E. B,

2008.

6 De acuerdo con la clasicación formal de la cita establecida por J. M. D L, 1994

a partir de otras clasicaciones anteriores ( J. A, 1948; J. B, 1958, 382-404; S.

M, 1970; A. C, 1979; G. D' I, 1985).

7 Dice Plutarco por boca de Cleodoro (Mor. 158B): "Hesíodo tenía conocimientos de

Trabajos y Días como hipotexto de las obras simposíacas de Plutarco

Las citas de Trabajos en Cuestiones Convivales, en cambio, proceden de un

espectro de pasajes del poema mucho más amplio y de ellas la mitad se aplican a

aspectos organizativos del simposio (I 2, Mor. 618F: Op. 26; VII 4, Mor. 703D:

Op. 748; VII 6, Mor. 707C: Op. 342) o a un elemento tan inherente al mismo

como es el vino (III 9, Mor. 657D: Op. 464; VI 7, Mor. 692B: Op. 368; VII 3,

Mor. 701D: Op. 368), y la otra mitad se aplica a temas de discusión propios del

banquete (VII 2, Mor. 701B "De quién es el lanzacuernos en Platón": Op. 471;

VIII 5, Mor. 725D "De por qué los navegantes se proveen de agua del Nilo":

Op. 595) y más particularmente a cuestiones escolástico-literarias (V 2, Mor.

675A: "De que era antiguo el certamen de poesía": Op. 654 sqq.; IX 1, Mor.

736E y 737C "Sobre las citas de versos hechas oportuna o inoportunamente":

Op. 11 y 763, la única "cuestión convival" que se sirve de dos citas de Trabajos

y Dias; IX 2, Mor. 738A "De cuál es la causa por la que la alfa es la primera de

las letras": Op. 405).

Frente al tipo de cita alusiva predominante en Banquete, aquí prevalece la

cita literal, ya sea de versos enteros o casi enteros (Mor. 725D: Op. 595, Mor.

736E: Op. 11) o de amplias partes de versos (Mor. 703D: Op. 748, Mor. 707C:

Op. 342, Mor. 737C: Op. 763), o bien la leve paráfrasis, de todo o casi todo

un verso (Mor. 618F: Op. 26, Mor. 657D: Op. 464, Mor. 701D: Op. 368) o de

partes de verso (Mor. 701B: Op. 471), mientras que la cita compendiaria (Mor.

692B: Op. 368, Mor. 738A: Op. 405) o la alusión (Mor. 675A: ¿Op. 654 sqq.?)

son menos frecuentes.

2. 3. Por lo que respecta a un aspecto de la cita no menos importante que

el de su morfología, que es el de la función que esta desempeña en el texto

receptor, las diferencias entre Banquete y Cuestiones Convivales en relación

con las citas de Trabajos también son notables. En la primera de las obras, a

pesar de la importante diferencia morfológica entre las cuatro primeras citas

y las ocho alusiones restantes, según hemos dicho, todas ellas desempeñan

una función esencialmente erudita, según la cual la opinión de Hesíodo es

mencionada como punto de referencia para la propia argumentación8 . Es

más, el afán de remitir a Hesíodo los principios de argumentación fuerza a

Plutarco, por un lado, a establecer a veces en la citación a modo de retruécanos

que aparentan contradecir la opinión hesiódica, como en Mor. 156E, donde

al tipo habitual de banquete, en el que Trabajos 744 exhorta a "no posar la

enocoe sobre la cratera", contrapone el banquete de los Sabios en los siguientes

términos: "las Musas, poniendo en medio de vosotros la palabra cual cratera

de sobrio contenido,...suscitan, fomentan y reparten amabilidad, dejando que

la jarra permanezca quieta la mayor parte del tiempo "sobre la cratera", algo

que Hesíodo prohibió en reuniones de hombres más capaces de beber que de

dialogar"9 ; o en Mor. 157F, donde la cita de parte del v. 45 y todo el v. 46 de

medicina, pues es evidente que no habla a la ligera y sin experiencia sobre la dieta, de la mezcla

del vino, del valor del agua, del baño de las mujeres, del momento adecuado para las relaciones

sexuales y de cómo se ha de sentar a los recién nacidos".

8 Cf. J. M. D L, 1994, p. 694.

9 αἱ Μοῦσαι καθάπερ κρατῆρα νηφάλιον ἐν μέσῳ προθέμεναι τὸν λόγον, ᾧ πλεῖστον

José Antonio Fernández Delgado

Trabajos, que Hesíodo remite a la Edad de Oro, en que no había necesidad de

trabajar, es contrapuesta a la renada elaboración de los digamos complejos

vitamínicos mediante el siguiente juego de palabras, fuente de dicultades

todavía hoy no resueltas en la transmisión del texto: "¿Cómo entonces en

Hesíodo no estará puesto "el timón al humo" y "se acabarían los trabajos de

los bueyes y los sufridos mulos", si ha de ser necesaria tanta preparación?"10 .

Por otro lado, la cita del v. 41 de Trabajos "cuán gran provecho hay en malva

y asfódelo"11 es sucesivamente sometida a una triple interpretación – y con

ello puesta implícitamente de maniesto la riqueza y complejidad del texto

hesiódico – por parte de los sabios simposiastas Solón, Periandro y Anacarsis,

de los cuales para el primero es el germen de la particular dieta alimenticia

seguida por Epiménides de Creta, para el segundo recomendación de

sobriedad y frugalidad en la alimentación y para el tercero alabanza de sus

propiedades salutíferas (tesis apoyada a continuación por Cleodoro mediante

la cita de la serie de alusiones de Trabajos en relación con los conocimientos

médicos de Hesíodo). En tercer lugar, una vez sobrepasado el umbral de la

primera cita del poema (cap. 13, Mor. 156E: Op. 744), aplicada al carácter

especial del presente simposio, todas las demás (cap. 14, Mor. 157E-158B) se

ensartan en un anillo composicional que comienza haciendo a Epiménides

discípulo de Hesíodo y, tras el despliegue de referencias de su poema al tema

objeto de discusión, a través de la última cita acaba concediéndole ese honor

en mayor medida a Esopo por su deuda para con este en una faceta distinta

y no menos brillante de su saber, la fábula (τῆς καλῆς ταύτης καὶ ποικιλίης

καὶ πολυγλώσσου σοφίας, como la calica Cleodoro).

La función de las citas de Trabajos en Cuestiones Convivales es mucho más

variada que en la otra obra, hasta el punto de que su casuística comprende las

tres clases a las que básicamente puede reducirse la tipología funcional de la

cita12 y de las cuales en Banquete no se constata más que el tipo erudito; a saber,

y aun con la dicultad que supone encasillar un tipo de intertexto en el que

generalmente más de una función se halla presente al mismo tiempo13 , citas

ornamentales (dos: Mor. 657D, 701B) y, dentro de las citas del tipo llamado

lógico por su implicación en el discurso del texto receptor, citas de autoridad

(seis: Mor. 618F, 692B, 703D, 707C, 725D, 737C) y citas eruditas (cuatro: Mor.

675A, 701D, 736E, 738A). Tal diversicación con respecto a Banquete alcanza

ἡδονῆς ἅμα καὶ παιδιᾶς καὶ σπουδῆς ἔνεστιν, ἐγείρουσι τούτῳ καὶ κατάρδουσι καὶ διαχέουσι

τὴν φιλοφροσύνην, ἐῶσαι τὰ πολλὰ τὴν 'οἰνοχόην' ἀτρέμα κεῖσθαι 'κρητῆρος ὕπερθεν,' ὅπερ

ἀπηγόρευσεν Ἡσίοδος ἐν τοῖς πίνειν μᾶλλον ἢ διαλέγεσθαι δυναμένοις.

10 Manteniendo el texto transmitido por la mayoría de los mss. se puede entender que el

dicho hesiódico de la malva y el asfódelo es equiparado, como sinónimo de sobriedad, al tiempo

de la Edad de Oro, en el que se colgaba el timón del carro por no haber necesidad de trabajar,

contraponiendo hiperbólicamente esa situación a la laboriosidad requerida por la fabricación de

los fármacos dietéticos.

11 ῞Οσον ἐν μαλάχῃ τε καὶ ἀσφοδέλῳ μέγ' ὄνειαρ. El verso ha sido privado por Plutarco de

su negación inicial para adaptarlo al contexto.

12 Cf. J. M. D L, 1994, pp. 693 sqq.

13 Ibidem, p. 691.

Trabajos y Días como hipotexto de las obras simposíacas de Plutarco

también a las citas de versos enteros o secciones importantes de versos, que, para

empezar, aquí son la mayoría y no solo las dos de la otra obra, y de ellas:

Mor. 618F: Op. 26 πτωχὸς γὰρ πτωχῷ <φθονέει> καὶ ἀοιδὸς ἀοιδῷ "el

mendigo envidia al mendigo y el aedo al aedo"

desempeña principalmente una función de autoridad (aparte de ornamental

y erudita), como justicación de la actitud del simposiarco (Lamprias, el

hermano de Plutarco), quien se propone colocar a los comensales por rasgos

complementarios de su carácter o condición e impidiendo reclinarse juntos a

los de una misma profesión (maliciosamente ejemplicada con "al sosta...con

un sosta y al poeta con un poeta") para evitar fricciones.

Mor. 657D: Op. 464 ἀλεξιάρην παίδων εὐκηλήτειραν "ahuyentadora de

males y contentadora de niños"

cita esencialmente ornamental (además de erudita) trasladada de su

aplicación hesiódica al rastrojo, a la mezcla de dos partes de agua con tres de

vino "la más musical,...adormecedora y quitapenas".

Mor. 701B: Op. 471 εὐθημοσύνην ἀρίστην "(no encuentran) la mejor

disposición"

cita entre ornamental y de autoridad de la segunda mitad pospentemímera

del verso, declinada, que Plutarco aplica a las semillas que al arrojarlas chocan

con los cuernos de los bueyes y no se entierran, y Hesíodo predica en positivo

del ocultamiento de la semilla para que no la coman los pájaros, dato del texto

hesiódico que Plutarco deja inferir a sus cultos lectores.

Mor. 701D: Op. 368 s. ἀρχομένου πίθου καὶ λήγοντος ἐμφορεῖσθαι,

μεσσόθι δὲ φείδεσθαι, "hartarse cuando se empieza y termina la tinaja, y

economizar a la mitad"

desempeña una función básicamente erudita (además de ornamental)

frente a la cual se establece una aparente polémica (que en el fondo no es

tal, puesto que se trata de aspectos distintos del mismo asunto) por boca del

suegro de Plutarco, Alexión, el cual sostiene sobre la calidad del vino la opinión

contraria, es decir, que el vino mejor es el del medio de la barrica.

Mor. 703D: Op. 748 ἀπὸ χυτροπόδων ἀνεπιρρέκτων "de marmitas sin

consagrar"14

cita entre erudita y de autoridad de cierta prohibición hesiódica para

explicar cómo las relaciones de agradecimiento y comunicación deben tenerse

no solo entre los humanos sino también con los seres inanimados.

Mor. 707C: Op. 342 Τὸν φιλέοντ' ἐπὶ δαῖτα καλεῖν "invita al banquete al

que te quiere"

cita de autoridad aplicada a la desaprobación de la costumbre de que los

invitados llamados sombras acudan acompañando a otros invitados.

Mor. 725D: Op. 595 κρήνης δ' ἀενάου καὶ ἀπορρύτου ἥ τ' ἀθόλωτος "de

una fuente sempiterna y continua que esté limpia"

cita de autoridad y erudita aplicada a la explicación de cómo el agua quieta

es más fácilmente corruptible, por la tierra que acumula, que el agua corriente.

14 Amplia porción del verso, no intercesural.

José Antonio Fernández Delgado

Mor. 736E: Op. 11 Οὐκ ἄρα μοῦνον ἔην Ἐρίδων γένος "Sin duda no fue

uno solo el linaje de las Disputas"

cita fundamentalmente erudita, cantada intencionadamente para abrir la

tertulia simposíaca subsiguiente al banquete con el que Amonio, el maestro de

Plutarco, agasajó a los efebos y profesores de cierta escuela ateniense, los cuales

se picaron entre sí.

Mor. 737C: Op. 763 φήμη δ'οὔ τις πάμπαν ἀπόλλυται "Ningún rumor

muere totalmente"

cita de autoridad en la cual cierto senador poco sensible basa su exhortación

a Casio Longino, a quien le había llegado el rumor de que había muerto su

hijo, a no desdeñar el chisme.

La diversicación alcanza también a los pocos casos de fuerte paráfrasis

y de alusiones, muchas menos que en Banquete : Mor. 675A (Op. 654 sqq.),

alusión a los juegos de Andamante como mero testimonio erudito; Mor. 692B

(Op . 368), alusión con función de autoridad en pro de la tesis de que no hay

que ltrar el vino, sino beberlo directamente de la tinaja; Mor. 738A ( Op. 405),

paráfrasis con función erudita del verso 405 de Trabajos Οἶκον μὲν πρώτιστα

γυναῖκά τε βοῦν τ' ἀροτῆρα, al cual, como en algún otro caso mencionado,

aparentemente contradice por mor de la explicación de que la alfa es la primera

de las letras porque así lo dispuso su inventor, el fenicio Cadmo, dado que los

fenicios llamaban así al buey, "al que consideraban no la segunda ni la tercera

de las cosas necesarias, como Hesíodo, sino la primera".

3. Ahora bien, independientemente de las importantes diferencias

observadas entre Banquete y Cuestiones Convivales en el grado de apropiación de

Trabajos como hipotexto, si no más numerosa sí más regular en su distribución,

así como más extensa y detallada, a la par que mucho más diversicada, tanto

en su morfología como en su función, en la segunda de las piezas simposíacas

con respecto a la primera, hay algunos aspectos del uso de las citas en los que

ambas obras muestran una cierta coincidencia.

3. 1. El primero se reere al ya apuntado gusto por el juego de palabras

aparentemente polémico que se observa en la introducción de algunas de las

citas hesiódicas de Banquete mencionadas (Mor. 156E: Op. 744, Mor. 157F:

Op. 45 s.) y que, lejos de cualquier intento de desmarcamiento de la doctrina

hesiódica, lo que hacen es conrmar su homenaje a esta mediante una vuelta

de tuerca del ejercicio evocador; algo así encontramos en la citación de Op.

368 s. ("Hartarse cuando se empieza y se termina la tinaja...") en Cuestiones

Convivales, Mor. 701D, la cual es recusada con el argumento de que lo mejor

del vino es lo del medio: pero la recusación es puesta en boca del suegro de

Plutarco (mencionado solo aquí por el autor), del cual dice este que se mofaba

de Hesíodo por ello, sin darse cuenta, podemos añadir nosotros, de algo de lo

que sin duda Plutarco sí se daba cuenta y es que el dicho hesiódico no se reere

a la calidad del vino, sino que funciona como metáfora del ahorro15 ; parece ser,

15 Como bien ha explicado Plutarco en su Comentario a Trabajos y Días, ad loc. y pace

Teodorsson y los comentaristas antiguos Geop. VII 6, 8 y Macrob. Sat. VII 12, 13, que no lo han

Trabajos y Días como hipotexto de las obras simposíacas de Plutarco

pues, una refutación sarcástica y de ahí que el autor termine diciendo "dejemos

en paz a Hesíodo"; o en la citación de Op. 405 en Mor. 738A, donde, para

enfatizar que los fenicios consideraban al buey la primera de las cosas necesarias,

hace una recusatio sesgada ("no la segunda ni la tercera de las cosas necesarias,

como Hesíodo") y en todo caso deudora de la rotunda y no incompatible

declaración hesiódica "la primera cosa, casa, mujer y buey de arada".

3. 2. Un segundo punto de coincidencia en el manejo de las citas entre

las dos obras simposíacas en estrecha relación con este es el procedimiento

de citación en general, el cual constituye uno de los rasgos denitorios en la

caracterización de las citas como hecho de intertextualidad16 . A diferencia de

lo que ocurre, sin ir más lejos, con las citas plutarqueas de un autor nada dudoso

de la estima del Queronense como es Homero, a juzgar por el ejemplo de De

audiendis poetis, donde de unos 136 casos solamente 12 se hacen acompañar

por el nombre del poeta o por una perífrasis del mismo (en dos casos)17 , las citas

de Trabajos en Banquete son todas introducidas bajo la mención del nombre

de Hesíodo, ya se trate de las cuatro citas literales o ligeramente parafrásticas

(Mor. 156E-157F), o bien del bloque de alusiones subsiguiente (Mor. 158B),

de modo que el número no elevado de citas se ve de alguna forma compensado

por la memoria expresa (probablemente más necesaria en este caso que en el

de Homero) que Plutarco hace de las enseñanzas del poema.

De las doce citas de Trabajos diseminadas a lo largo de Cuestiones

Convivales, solamente tres son inidenticadas, y para eso la segunda de ellas

(Mor . 675E), una alusión erudita a los juegos de Andamante que se supone

es cita-testimonio de Op. 654 sqq., no menciona a Hesíodo pero añade que

este y Homero, según una fuente no hesiódica18 , tomaron parte en aquellos;

la primera (Mor. 618F) y la tercera (Mor. 737C) son sendos hexámetros (el

segundo no completo) de las secciones inicial y nal del poema de "Trabajos"

propiamente dicho, sumamente sonoros y lo sucientemente bien conocidos

probablemente para poder halagar los conocimientos del lector plutarqueo sin

necesidad de proporcionarle más datos; eso mismo se deduce de los términos

en que es introducido el segundo hexámetro por el senador que lo pronuncia

("como si no supieses y hubieses leído eso de que..."), términos que también

indican que la fuente es escrituraria (y no de tradición oral, en el caso de una

supuesta proverbialización del verso). Otras cuatro citaciones (Mor. 657D,

701B, 701D y 738A) mencionan el nombre de Hesíodo (o el adjetivo derivado,

en Mor. 657D) en términos algo más que neutros, si bien su triple mención en

Mor. 701D y su mención en Mor. 738E son aparentemente polémicas, como

hemos dicho. De las cinco citaciones restantes dos se confían abiertamente a

la autoridad hesiódica (Mor. 692B "como recomendaba Hesíodo" y Mor.707C

"obedeciendo principalmente a Hesíodo"), las otras tres además la ensalzan

entendido así, cf. S.-T. T, 1996, comm. ad loc.

16 Cf. J. M. D L, 1994, pp. 684 sqq. Sobre las citas como elemento intertextual cf.

N. P-G, 1996, pp. 45 sqq., 95 sqq. y bibliografía citada supra en n. 6.

17 Cf. J. M. D L, 1994, p. 684.

18 Certamen Homeri et Hesiodi 60 sqq.

José Antonio Fernández Delgado

en términos que conocemos por su empleo con estructuras retórico-literarias

anes a la cita, como la chreía, la sentencia o la propia fábula19 , elogiando la

última citación, en lugar de al autor, el comienzo propiamente dicho del poema

(Mor. 703D "con razón Hesíodo no permite", Mor. 725D "hermosamente

Hesíodo alabó", Mor. 736E "el principio de los Trabajos...lo alabó como muy

adecuado al momento").

3. 3. Precisamente esta última cita se halla íntimamente ligada al tercer

punto de anidad, de orden composicional y semántico, que puede observarse

entre las dos obras plutarqueas al respecto, por encima de sus diferencias. Ya

hemos dicho cómo la primera cita de Trabajos en Banquete se reere al tipo de

simposio, en este caso el de los Sabios, y la última ensalza el valor educativo-

literario del poema hesiódico a través de la fábula, aun cuando la ubicación de

las citas en la pieza plutarquea no coincide con su comienzo y nal, sino que

se agolpan en dos capítulos centrales de esta. De un modo paralelo, aunque en

este caso dispersas a lo largo de los Libros I al IX y último de las Cuestiones

Convivales, la primera cita de Trabajos en esta obra se reere a la colocación

de los simposiastas en el banquete y las tres últimas, correspondientes a las

Cuestiones 1 y 2 del Libro IX y último, pueden calicarse, como su homóloga

de Banquete, de educativo-literarias. Con lo cual la aplicación de dichas citas

tanto en una como en la otra obra parece seguir una trayectoria que comienza

evocando el simposio de eruditos, recorre los diversos temas o "cuestiones"

tratados y termina con una alusión más o menos explícita al importante papel

que las citas de Trabajos desempeñan no solo en estas obras de Plutarco sino en

algo para nosotros y para él mismo mucho más trascendente, que es el sistema

educativo y sociocultural en el que su producción literaria, y la propia técnica

de la cita, en gran medida se inserta.

Las tres últimas citas de Trabajos en Cuestiones Convivales, en efecto, tienen

lugar dos en la Cuestión primera y una en la Cuestión segunda de las quince

de que, en lugar de las diez habituales, originariamente constaba, en razón de

la importancia de su temática, el Libro IX, consagrado a las Musas, con cuyo

número coincide y es eco de las conversaciones mantenidas en su esta ateniense;

ya hemos dicho cómo, además de estas, la Cuestión decimocuarta del Libro,

que es la propiamente dedicada al número de las Musas, contiene tres citas de

Teogonía y la Cuestión decimoquinta una de Teogonía y otra de Eeas20 . La cita

de la Cuestión segunda es aplicada, según dijimos, a la explicación cadmea de

por qué la alfa es la primera de las letras, cuestión lológica, como un buen

número de las del libro, suscitada en la esta de las Musas entre geómetras,

gramáticos, rétores y músicos (Mor. 737D-E), es decir, entre los representantes

de los cuatro pilares en los que se asentaba la educación intelectual griega21 .

Las dos citas de la Cuestión primera son la primera y la penúltima de una serie

19 Cf. J. A. F D, 2007, p. 745 y n. 30.

20 La nómina de las citas hesiódicas en esta obra se cierra con otra cita de Teogonía en

la Cuestión quinta (Mor. 678F) más una cita de Teogonía y otra de la Boda de Céix (fr. 267

M.-W.).

21 Cf. H. I. M, 1970, pp. 195-214; R. C, 2001, 185-230.

Trabajos y Días como hipotexto de las obras simposíacas de Plutarco

de nueve22 de las cuales la primera "Sin duda no fue uno solo el linaje de las

disputas" (comienzo del poema de Trabajos propiamente dicho) constituye el

tema del canto con que el músico Eratón da comienzo al simposio ofrecido por

Amonio, el maestro de Plutarco, siendo estratego en Atenas, a los alumnos y

profesores de las disciplinas indicadas, tras una prueba escolar exitosa, cuando

la rivalidad entre los maestros se había puesto ya de maniesto.

Alabado el verso por Amonio como muy adecuado al momento, a

continuación este hizo recaer la conversación nada menos que "Sobre las

citas de versos hechas oportuna o inoportunamente", consciente de que estas,

nos informa el autor, tienen "no solo encanto (χάρις) sino utilidad (χρεία) a

veces grande", es decir, adelantando en muchos siglos la actual clasicación

funcional de la cita en sus dos tipos fundamentales (de ornato y lógica)23 . El

resto de las ocho citas aparte la segunda de Trabajos ya indicada ("Ningún

rumor muere totalmente", última gnome de la parte del poema que precede a

los Días y tándem simétrico por tanto de la otra cita hesiódica de la Cuestión

IX 1 en cuanto a su ubicación no solo en esta sino también en el poema)

ilustra la oportunidad o inoportunidad de las mismas poniéndolas en boca de

dos rapsodos, del lósofo Anaxarco compañero de Alejandro Magno, de un

niño de Corinto a quien el cónsul romano que destruyó la ciudad le mandó

escribir un verso para averiguar qué niños libres sabían escribir, de la esposa de

un actor dirigiéndose a este, de la hija de Pompeyo Magno leyéndosela a este

por indicación de su profesor al regreso de aquel de la guerra, y de un asistente

a una exhibición de un gramático en un teatro en Rodas respondiendo a su

demanda de un verso. No solo los dos de Trabajos sino todos los ejemplos son

a cual más ingeniosos, a la vez que una demostración brillante y compacta

de la pericia con que Plutarco domina el arte de la cita, así como del grado

de incidencia que esta presenta en la educación y en la vida escolar y social

grecorromana al mismo tiempo.

4. Esta insistencia por parte de Plutarco en conectar las citas, y las citas

de Trabajos en particular, con la escuela y las clases intelectuales, así como el

amplio y rico despliegue no desde el punto de vista numérico sino de destrezas y

estrategias en el manejo de las mismas en sus obras simposíacas, se entiende muy

bien en un contexto educativo como aquel en el que se formó tanto Plutarco

como sus lectores y oyentes, y del que, si no exactamente una teoría de la cita, sí

conocemos la teoría de ejercicios prerretóricos, o progymnásmata, más o menos

anes, como la chreía, la sentencia o la fábula24 . En el otro cabo de la etapa escolar

del grammatikós, es decir, al comienzo de la equivalente a lo que es nuestra segunda

enseñanza, estaba la lectura y asimilación de los grandes prosistas y poetas de la

22 Cuatro de Homero, una de una tragedia desconocida, otra del Orestes de Eurípides y otra

de la Electra de Sófocles.

23 Cf. J. M. D L 1994, pp. 690 s.; J. B, 1958, pp. 382-404: "Les

citations".

24 Cf. eón 62, 65, 70: L. S (ed.), 1854, pp. 57-130; M. P & G. B,

1997, L-LX.

José Antonio Fernández Delgado

historia de la literatura griega, entre los cuales Hesíodo era un puntal seguro en

todas las listas canónicas25 , como atestigua asimismo el importante número de

papiros, no solamente de Trabajos, conservados, algunos de ellos escolares26 . A

ello hay que añadir el particular feeling que sin duda suscitó en el moralista de

Queronea el poema gnómico de su paisano beocio, como demuestra el hecho de

que Plutarco le haya dedicado un amplio comentario en cuatro libros27 , en cierta

medida conservado por Proclo, Tzetzes y Moscópoulos.

bi b l i o g r a f í a c i T a d a

A, J., "Procédés de citation et de raccord", REL , 26 (1948) 268-93.

B, G.  C, A. (eds.), Esiodo: cent'anni di papiri. Atti del

convegno internazionale di studi. (Firenze, 7-8 Giugno, 2007). Studi e

Testi di Papirologia, N.S.10, Firenze, 2008.

B, J., Lucien écrivain. Imitation et création, Paris, 1958.

B, E., "Plutarch's Habits of Citation. Aspects of Dierence", in A. G.

N (ed.), e Unity of Plutarch's Work. Acta 7th International

Plutarch Society Congress (Rethymno, 2005), Berlin, 2008, pp. 143-

57.

C, A., La seconde main ou le travail de la citation, Paris, 1979.

C, R., Gymnastics of the Mind. Greek Education in Hellenistic and Roman

Egypt, Princeton/Oxford, 2001.

D L, J. M., "Tipología y función de las citas homéricas en el De

audiendis poetis de Plutarco", in M. G V (ed.), Estudios

sobre Plutarco: ideas religiosas. Actas del III Simposio Internacional de

la Sociedad Española de Plutarquistas (Universidad de Oviedo, 1992),

Madrid, 1994, pp. 680-96.

D'I, G., L'approccio intertestuale alla poesia. Sondaggi da Vergilio e dalla

poesia cristiana greca di Gregorio e di Sinesio, Palermo, 1985.

F D, J. A., "Genealogía como pretexto, Teogonía como

hipotexto y escuela como contexto en Plutarco", in J. M. N I

& R. L L (eds.), El amor en Plutarco. IV Simposio Internacional

de la Sociedad Española de Plutarquistas, (Universidad de León, 2006),

León, 2007, pp. 735-46.

25 Cf. R. C 2001, 197 s. Según Libanio, Ep. 1036, 4 "Homero, Hesíodo y los otros

poetas" eran de lectura obligatoria para las personas educadas.

26 Ibidem y cf. G. B  A. C, 2008, p. 8.

27 Gell. XX 8. El comentario plutarqueo de Trabajos y Días, cuya referencia aquí intenta

servir solamente como ulterior argumento in cauda en pro del enorme interés de Plutarco en la

obra del moralista paisano, es actualmente objeto de investigación especíca por nuestra parte.

Trabajos y Días como hipotexto de las obras simposíacas de Plutarco

H, W. C.  ON, E., Plutarch's Quotations. e American

Philological Association, 1959.

M, H.-I., Historia de la educación en la antigüedad. Madrid, 1970. (trad.

de la 3ª ed. francesa, Paris, 1955: 1ª ed. 1948).

M, S., "e basic function of quotation", in A. J. G (ed.), Sign,

Language, Culture, e Hague-Paris, 1970, pp. 690-705.

P, M.  B, G. (eds.), Aelius éon. Progymnasmata, Paris,

1997.

P J, A., "El Hesíodo de Plutarco", in I. G (ed.), La biblioteca

di Plutarco (Atti del IX Convegno plutarcheo, Pavia, 13-15 giugno

2002), Napoli, 2004, pp. 37-46.

P-G, N., Introduction à l'Intertextualité, Paris, 1996.

S, L. (ed.), Rhetores Graeci, II, Leipzig, 1854.

T, S.-T., A Commentary on Plutarch's Table Talks, I-III, Uppsala,

1996.

Moderación en el simposio en Sobre la vida y poesía de Homero de Pseudo-Plutarco

mo d e r a c i ó n e n e l s i m p o s i o e n

So b r e l a v i D a y p o e S í a D e Ho m e r o d e ps e u d o -pl u T a r c o

J F Z

Universidad de Murcia

Abstract

is study analyses the defense of moderation in eating and drinking in the Essay on the Life

and Poetry of Homer ascribed to Plutarch, looking at the author's use of quotations from the Iliad

and the Odyssey. Food and wine are considered necessary and benecial but, when consumed to

excess, can have adverse eects on human health. e text forms part of a well-known tradition,

as is evidenced by parallels with ancient medicine and Plutarch himself.

Este estudio pretende analizar la defensa de la necesidad de moderación

en la comida y bebida en Sobre la vida y poesía de Homero (Περὶ τοῦ βίου καὶ

τῆς ποιήσεως τοῦ Ὁμήρου), atribuida a Plutarco. Para ello, se parte del uso de

las citas de la Ilíada y la Odisea del autor del tratado, que demuestra que los

excesos tienen efectos adversos en la salud humana. Ilustramos la tradición en

la que se encuadra esta idea a partir de los paralelismos con la medicina antigua

y el propio Plutarco.

El interés del propio Plutarco por los estudios homéricos se demuestra en

una obra de la cual desgraciadamente sólo conservamos algunos fragmentos,

y que aparece en el catálogo de Lamprias como Ὁμηρικῶν μελετῶν βιβλία δ',

los cuatro libros de las Cuestiones Homéricas. A pesar del atractivo que revisten

estos fragmentos, no se corresponden con Sobre la vida y poesía de Homero, que

no ha podido ser relacionada con ningún otro título plutarqueo y que, además,

según demuestran estudios de lengua y estilo, se data a nales del siglo II d.C.

y no fue escrita por el de Queronea1 . Eso no impide que el anónimo autor

parezca conocer las ideas de Plutarco, y que se hayan señalado paralelismos que

pueden deberse a préstamos tomados directamente de él2 . El autor de Sobre la

vida y poesía de Homero es un grammaticus, un profesor, ya que el objetivo de

la obra es demostrar la armación de que "todo está en Homero", que en los

versos de la Ilíada y Odisea ya encontramos todos los saberes.

En este interés tan propio del mundo antiguo por descubrir el "primero",

el descubridor, el εὑρετής de cada aspecto de su cultura, Homero es el

"inventor" por excelencia. Por ejemplo, aunque sea simplemente en germen,

en él encontramos todos los géneros literarios griegos. Cualquier aspecto de

la vida cotidiana se rastrea en el épico griego y, además, se llega más allá y,

según una concepción trascendental, los versos homéricos esconden bajo su

supercie enigmas. Esta idea aparece en la Cueva de las ninfas de Porrio3 ,

1 Cf. B. W, 1994.

2 Coincidencias ya señaladas en G. N. B, 1896. Sobre las Cuestiones Homéricas y

la Vita Homeri, cf. H. S, 1899.

3 Edición de A. N , Porphyrii philosophi Platonici opuscula selecta, iterum recogn. Augutus

Nauck, Leipzig, 18722 (1860). Cf. A. B, 1968.

Josefa Fernández Zambudio

donde encontramos una doctrina metafísica y cósmica escondida tras los nueve

elementos de la descripción de la cueva en el libro XIII de la Odisea 4 .

En el tratado Sobre la vida y poesía de Homero se estudia, en primer lugar,

brevemente las tradiciones sobre la biografía del épico, para pasar a un análisis

de su obra desde diferentes puntos de vista. Así, se observan las guras retóricas,

las particularidades de la lengua homérica, las diversas clases de discursos, y

otras cuestiones que podemos denominar varia. En este apartado aparece la

medicina, que es el tema que nos ocupa, y que se trata en los capítulos 200 y

siguientes.

Homero no se ha limitado a un interés teórico, sino que también en su

obra se encuentran referencias a la práctica médica, τὸ δὲ πρακτικὸν μέρος τῆς

ἰατρικῆς5 . En este ámbito, además de cómo ha de ser el ejercicio saludable6 ,

Homero ha tratado la dietética, es decir, cómo y, sobre todo, cuánto, se ha de

comer y beber.

El autor de Sobre la vida y poesía de Homero utiliza citas de la Ilíada o de la

Odisea7 para ilustrar los temas de los que se ocupa Homero en sus poemas. En

los capítulos objeto de nuestro análisis (205 y 206), comienza Pseudo-Plutarco

reriéndose a la δίαιτα, que sólo será saludable (ὑγιεινή) cuando sea λιτή. Los

héroes homéricos no se interesan por la comida, se alimentan de carne cocida

y no les gustan los grandes banquetes, pues son conscientes de la necesidad de

moderación. Sin embargo, la excesiva frugalidad no es tampoco buena, pues sólo

los dioses pueden comer sólo ambrosía. Los héroes, en cuanto mortales, necesitan

la energía proporcionada por los alimentos: ἡ γαστὴρ ἀεὶ δεῖται προληρώσεως.

Esta necesidad de llenar el estómago se concreta a través de algunos

términos que encontramos en los ejemplos homéricos de textos de la Odisea:

κελεύω, ἀνάγκη, πίμπλημι. Las dos citas para este pasaje pertenecen al libro

VII, donde Ulises pide que le dejen cenar tranquilo antes de preguntarle quién

es, según las leyes de la hospitalidad8 :

ἀλλ' ἐμὲ μὲν δορπῆσαι ἐάσατε κηδόμενόν περ·

οὐ γάρ τι στυγερῇ ἐπὶ γαστέρι κύντερον ἄλλο

ἔπλετο, ἥ τ' ἐκέλευσεν ἕο μνήσασθαι ἀνάγκῃ

(Od. 7.215-217)

ὡς καὶ ἐγὼ πένθος μὲν ἔχω φρεσίν, ἡ δὲ μάλ' αἰεὶ

ἐσθέμεναι κέλεται καὶ πινέμεν, ἐκ δέ με πάντων

ληθάνει, ὅσσ' ἔπαθον, καὶ ἐνιπλησθῆναι ἀνώγει.

(Od. 7.219-221)

4 En ella introduce Atenea a Ulises para transformarlo en pordiosero y tramar así la venganza

contra los pretendientes.

5 Vit. Hom. 204.

6 En Vit. Hom. 207.

7 Sobre las citas de Homero en la Segunda Sofística, cf. J. F. K, 1973; en Plutarco,

cf. J. M. D L, 2001.

8 Cf. A. M P, 2002.

Moderación en el simposio en Sobre la vida y poesía de Homero de Pseudo-Plutarco

Encontramos también en estos versos una referencia a πίνω, que Pseudo-

Plutarco aprovecha para pasar a hablar de la bebida y de cómo precisa igualmente

de moderación: se tiene que beber vino con mesura, pues el vino μέτριος es

ὡφέλιμος, benecioso, pero si se bebe πολύς, será βλαβερός, peligroso.

En los poemas homéricos se describen varios benecios proporcionados

por el vino:

- Proporciona fuerza a los héroes. Esta armación se concreta en el tratado

con la expresión δυνάμεως ποιητικός, apoyada por algunos términos de las

citas homéricas: μένος, ἀέξει, θαρσαλέον:

ἀνδρὶ δὲ κεκμηῶτι μένος μέγα οἶνος ἀέξει

(Il. 6. 261 9)

ὃς δέ κ' ἀνὴρ οἴνοιο κορεσσάμενος καὶ ἐδωδῆς

ἀνδράσι δυσμενέεσσι πανημέριος πολεμίζῃ,

θαρσαλέον νύ οἱ ἦτορ ἐνὶ φρεσίν, οὐδέ τι γυῖα

(Il. 19. 167-170 10)

- Ayuda a la φιλοφροσύνη, pero sólo cuando es ἡδύς. Pseudo-Plutarco

recoge el verso que introduce las dos ocasiones en que Pontónoo prepara la

mezcla del vino a instancias de Alcínoo.

ὣς φάτο, Ποντόνοος δὲ μελίφρονα οἶνον ἐκίρνα

(Od. 7. 182; 13. 53)

- Hasta puede curar, convertirse en una medicina. Así ocurre con el vino

de Pramno, el que Macaón herido bebe en la tienda de Néstor11 .

Sin embargo, estos benecios sólo se producen si está presente la

moderación. Por ello, cuando el vino es fuerte y deja de ser ἡδύς y στυφώς, si

es un vino σφοδρός y καρωτικός, se convierte en perjudicial. Este es el vino

que Ulises da a Polifemo, y que le permite engañar y cegar al cíclope12 .

En resumen, el tema de este texto es la necesidad de moderación tanto

en la dieta como al tomar vino: una dieta ligera es sana, pero comer no deja

de ser una necesidad para el hombre, incluso si es un héroe homérico. Sólo los

dioses se han librado de la esclavitud del estómago13 . Por otra parte, el vino es

9 Hécuba ofrece vino a su hijo Héctor para aumentar su ardor, pero él lo rechaza, temiendo

que tenga el efecto contrario, y le quite el que ya tiene. Pseudo-Plutarco sólo utiliza el consejo

de Hécuba, "olvidando" citar también los temores del héroe troyano.

10 Ulises convence a Aquiles de la conveniencia de preocuparse de comer y beber antes de

aprestarse al combate, pues el ayuno puede quitar vigor al guerrero. También en esta ocasión el

autor obvia los reparos que expresa Aquiles.

11 En Ilíada 9. 639. Néstor saca de la batalla a Macaón y lo agasaja en su tienda. La esclava

en realidad prepara un brebaje, añadiendo al vino de Pramno queso de oveja rallado y harina. El

vino de Pramno también lo utiliza Circe en el libro X de la Odisea para que los compañeros de

Ulises se olviden de su patria.

12 En el libro IX de la Odisea.

13 Cf. el célebre verso de la Teogonía de Hesíodo, "ποιμένες ἄγραυλοι, κάκ' ἐλέγχεα, γαστέρες

Josefa Fernández Zambudio

perjudicial si se bebe de más, o si es un vino fuerte, pero siempre y cuando sea

dulce y suave proporciona energía y valor, ayuda a la φιλοφροσύνη, e incluso

puede curar a los enfermos.

La idea de la moderación, de la necesidad de un comportamiento

μετριότης en todos los ámbitos de la vida se resume en la consigna "nada en

demasía", μηδὲν ἄγαν. Esta idea se aplica a la dieta, a los hábitos de comida y

bebida, tanto en los textos médicos conservados como en el propio Plutarco.

Se trata de una concepción que cuenta con una tradición bien conocida y por

ello me limitaré a exponer algunas ideas generales y textos signicativos, donde

además de las correspondencias de contenido encontramos también un léxico

similar al que aparece en Sobre la vida y poesía de Homero.

La medicina antigua se basa en la búsqueda del equilibrio en el cuerpo

humano: las enfermedades se deben a excesos y la salud es el equilibrio entre

todos los componentes14 . En los textos cientícos se estudia la dieta que cada

enfermo debe seguir para recuperar la salud, y cuándo el vino es perjudicial, pero

también encontramos remedios en los que el vino es uno de los ingredientes15 .

En el Corpus Hippocraticum ya tenemos un tratado que ha sido titulado Περὶ

διαιτῆς ὑγιείνης y proporciona normas para la δίαιτα según el momento del

año y el carácter de cada persona.

Se trata de la misma idea de la necesidad de una dieta sana y la moderación,

que aparece en este texto del Protréptico de Galeno:

ὡς Κόροιβ<ος> ἀνοήτως κατεγνωκότες. ὃ μὲν γὰρ ὑγιεινὴν δίαιταν

ὑποτιθέμενος ἔλεγε πόνοι σιτία ποτὰ ὕπνοι ἀφροδίσια, πάντα μέτρια (17)

El de Queronea también participa de una tradición que era bien conocida

en los círculos cultos de su época. Recordemos que en las Vidas la ación por la

borrachera se tolera sólo cuando sus consecuencias se producen en la intimidad,

pero es inadmisible en la vida pública. Así, Alejandro es ποτικός (4.7), aunque

se le deende de su fama de bebedor porque no descuida los asuntos públicos16 .

Además, Plutarco se recrea en mostrar los efectos de los excesos del vino a

través de anécdotas, y también trata el tema de la moderación teóricamente,

como en este conocido texto del De tuenda sanitate praecepta 17 . Después de

hablar someramente de la dieta, el de Queronea dirige su mirada a los líquidos,

y más concretamente al vino:

πρὸς δὲ τὸν οἶνον ἅπερ Εὐριπίδης πρὸς τὴν Ἀφροδίτην διαλεκτέον

εἴης μοι, μέτριος δέ πως

εἴης, μηδ' ἀπολείποις

οἶνον" (26).

14 Cf. W. D. Smith, 1979.

15 Cf. J. J, 1996.

16 C. A M, 1999.

17 Sobre la comida y la bebida en Plutarco cf. J. F. M M, 1999.

Moderación en el simposio en Sobre la vida y poesía de Homero de Pseudo-Plutarco

καὶ γὰρ ποτῶν ὠφελιμώτατόν ἐστι καὶ φαρμάκων ἥδιστον καὶ ὄψων

ἀσικχότατον, ἂν τύχῃ τῆς πρὸς τὸν καιρὸν εὐκρασίας μᾶλλον ἢ τῆς πρὸς τὸ

ὕδωρ. (Mor. 132B)

El tema de la necesidad de moderación reaparece en las Quaestiones

convivales o Charlas de sobremesa a propósito de los usos convenientes en el

banquete. Además, en el libro V la cuestión cuarta discute precisamente un

verso homérico, relativo al vino que Aquiles ofrece a sus amigos en el libro

IX. A pesar del desprecio por la comida y la bebida del que se hace eco Sobre

la vida y poesía de Homero, como hemos visto, el héroe ofrece a sus mejores

amigos un vino ζωρότερον κέραιε, un vino con una mezcla más fuerte. Aquiles

tenía conocimientos de medicina y como tal sabía cuál era la importancia de la

moderación en la dieta en ocasiones, como con los caballos enfermos, pero para

recuperar el vigor tras pasar el día luchando, preere ofrecer un vino fuerte18 :

Ἀχιλλεὺς τῶν θ' ἵππων πρὸς τὸν καιρὸν οἰκείως ἐπεμελεῖτο καὶ τῷ σώματι

τὴν ἐλαφροτάτην δίαιταν, ὡς ὑγιεινοτάτην ἐν τῷ σχολάζειν, παρεσκεύαζεν·

ἄνδρας δ' ἐν μάχῃ καὶ ἀγῶνι δι' ἡμέρας γεγενημένους οὐχ ὁμοίως ἀξιῶν

διαιτᾶν τοῖς ἀργοῦσιν ἐπιτεῖναι τὴν κρᾶσιν ἐκέλευσε.

(Mor. 678A 7-B 1)

La idea subyacente en Sobre la vida y poesía de Homero del vino como

φάρμακον aparece desarrollada en la medicina y en Plutarco: el vino puede ser

tanto un veneno como un remedio19 . La diferencia estriba precisamente en cuál es

la justa medida, en beber (y comer) con moderación. Del mismo modo que en Sobre

la vida... se decía que el vino μέτριος es ὠφέλιμος, Galeno arma que un modo de

vida sano (ὑγιεινή δὶαιτα) incluye la moderación en todos los aspectos, incluidos la

comida y la bebida (σιτία, ποτά). En las Quaestiones Aquiles cura a los caballos, así

como Macaón se reconstituía con vino en la Ilíada según Pseudo-Plutarco.

En conclusión, el texto que hemos presentado pertenece a una tradición

que también encontramos en Plutarco y la medicina griega, y que en último

lugar se relaciona con la famosa sentencia "nada en demasía". Comer y beber

es necesario, incluso tiene efectos beneciosos, pero una cantidad excesiva es

siempre perjudicial.

bi b l i o g r a f í a c i T a d a

A M, C., "Usos indebidos del vino en las obras de Plutarco", in

J. G. M C  . (eds.), Plutarco, Dioniso y el vino. Actas del

VI Simposio Español sobre Plutarco (Cádiz, 14-16 de Mayo, 1998),

Madrid, 1999, pp. 83-92.

18 S.-T. T, 1989-1996.

19 Cf. E. C D, 1999.

Josefa Fernández Zambudio

B, A., "Porrio: La gruta de las ninfas. Introducción, traducción y

comentario", Percit, 1/18-19 (1968) 403-31.

B, G. N., Plutarchi Chaeronensis Moralia, Leipzig, 1896.

C D, E., "El vino, la medicina y los remedia ebrietatis en los

Moralia de Plutarco", in J. G. M C  . (eds.), Plutarco,

Dioniso y el vino. Actas del VI Simposio Español sobre Plutarco (Cádiz,

14-16 de Mayo, 1998), Madrid, 1999, pp. 119-28.

D L, J. M., Las citas de Homero en Plutarco, Cáceres, 2001.

J, J., "Le vin et la médecine dans la Grèce ancienne", REG, 109 (1996)

410-34.

K, J. J. & L, R., Essay on the Life and Poetry of Homer, Atlanta,

1996.

K, J. F., Homer in der Zweiten Sophistik, Uppsala, 1973.

_____ De Homero, Leipzig, 1990.

M P, A., La hospitalidad en la poesía griega arcaica: análisis y valoración

del concepto xénos en Homero, Hesíodo y Píndaro, Murcia, 2002.

M M, J. F., El tema del placer en la obra de Plutarco, Zaragoza,

1999, pp. 109-18.

S, H., De Plutarchi Chaeronensis OMHRIKAIS MELETAIS et de

eiusdem qui fertur Vita Homeri, Gotha, 1899.

S, W.D., e Hippocratic Tradition, Itaca & London, 1979.

T, S.-T., A commentary on Plutarch's Table Talks, I-III, Göteborg,

1989-1996.

W, B., La lingua di Plutarco di Cheronea e gli scritti pseudoplutarchei,

Napoli, 1994.

Plato's Symposium and Plutarch's Alcibiades

pl a T o ' s Sy m p o S i u m a n d p l u T a r c h 's al c i b i a D e S

T E. D

University of Reading

Abstract

is paper examines Plutarch's exploitation of Plato's Symposium in chs. 4-7 of the Life of

Alcibiades. It aims to demonstrate that the Symposium is much more than a "source" for the

Alcibiades. Rather the Alcibiades invites an intertextual reading with the Symposium, and

becomes more meaningful when read with the Symposium in mind. In particular, knowledge of

the Symposium reveals how Plutarch has constructed Socrates' attitude to and relationship with

Alcibiades as that of the ideal lover with his beloved.

Plato's Symposium oers perhaps the most vivid, and certainly the most

inuential, picture of Alcibiades to survive from classical antiquity. It is no

surprise, then, that Plutarch should in his Life of Alcibiades draw heavily on

it, as well as on other Platonic texts such as the First Alcibiades and Republic

Book 61 . A full analysis would attempt to trace Plutarch's use in this Life

of all the Platonic texts; indeed it is the way the Alcibiades uses allusions to

multiple Platonic texts, together with material drawn from non-Platonic

sources, especially ucydides and the rhetorical tradition, that makes it so

rewarding and so complex. But the aims of this paper are more limited. I

shall focus solely on the Symposium and shall attempt to show not only the

depth of Plutarch's engagement with that text, especially in chs. 4-7, but also

how the Alcibiades becomes richer and more meaningful if it is read with the

Symposium in mind2 .

e importance of Alcibiades' relationship with Socrates and of the

Platonic texts is made clear right at the start of the Life, where, after dealing

briey with Alcibiades' family, Plutarch makes the surprising claim that

Alcibiades' fame was owed "in no small part" to Socrates' kindness to him; a

little later he cites Plato as a source for the name of Alcibiades' tutor (1.3)3 .

In ch. 3 Plutarch mentions a scandalous story of Alcibiades' running away

from Pericles' house to one of his lovers (3.1); the kind of precocious sexual

behaviour exhibited there might suggest to readers the story of Alcibiades'

failed seduction of Socrates in Smp. 218b-219d4 . At any rate it provides a nice

1 ere are allusions to numerous other Platonic texts in the Alcibiades, including the

Phaedrus, Gorgias, and Apology. Important discussions are in D. A. R, 1966, pp. 39-41

(= repr. 1995, pp. 195-8); C. B. R. P, 1996, pp. xlvii-xlix; 2005, pp. 116-25; D. G,

1999, pp. 270-6; T. E. Du, 1999, pp. 224-7; and, on the use made of both Plato and other

Socratic writers, F. A, 2005.

2 Cf. C. B. R. P, 2005, p. 125: "In Alcibiades, then, pervasive intertextuality with Plato

lends depth and resonance to the sort of associations which we saw in Plutarch's other works,

and draws the reader into tracing how rich is the possibility of learning from Socrates' example

– and also how dicult it can be". Cf. also C. B. R. P, 2008, p. 548.

3 e reference is to Alc. 1, 122b.

4 Alcibiades' reference to Marsyas, the inventor of the ute, in 2.6 may recall his comparison

link to the theme of the rivalry between Socrates and Alcibiades' other lovers,

who compete for inuence over him, which lls chs. 4-7 of the Life.

Plutarch begins by noting the strong contrast between the motivations of

the two groups: they are "awestruck" (ἐκπεπληγμένοι) at his beauty5 , whereas

Socrates does not stop merely at such external attributes; indeed Socrates' love

is evidence of Alcibiades' "potential for virtue" (τῆς πρὸς ἀρετὴν εὐφυΐας ),

which he could see "hinted at in his appearance and shining through". is

contrast, between those interested in a beautiful boy for his looks alone and

those interested in fostering his moral development, is central in Platonic and

post-Platonic discussions of love, and exemplied in Socrates' behaviour to

Alcibiades in the First Alcibiades, which is clearly in mind here6 .

Plutarch now describes, in a passage heavily inuenced by Republic 6, how

Socrates tried to protect Alcibiades from the corrupting atteries of his other

lovers (4.1)7 . Plutarch continues, giving Socrates motivation: "For" [sc. Socrates

thought] fortune never so surrounded or fenced anyone o with so-called good

things8 that he becomes invulnerable to philosophy and unreachable by words

which have boldness and bite" (ὥστ' ἄτρωτον ὑπὸ φιλοσοφίας γενέσθαι καὶ

λόγοις ἀπρόσιτον παρρησίαν καὶ δηγμὸν ἔχουσιν)9 . e metaphor of biting

to describe the eect of outspoken criticism, is known from elsewhere in

Plutarch10 . Its use here might make one think of the story of Alcibiades' literal

biting of his opponent in a wrestling match in 2.2-3; this time it is he that is

bitten, by philosophy. But it also draws on Alcibiades' claim in Smp. 217e-218a,

of Socrates to Marsyas in Smp. 215a-216c. e story of Alcibiades' killing one of his attendants

(ἀκολουθούντων mss) or servants ( ἀκολούθων Cobet) at a wrestling ground (3.1) might also

bring to mind Alcibiades' wrestling with Socrates before his attempted seduction, as well as the

attendant who used to accompany him on his meetings with Socrates (217a) and the ἀκόλουθοι

mentioned at his entrance to the party (212c-d); cf. also the ἀκόλουθοι in . 6.28 who inform

on Alcibiades' profanation of the Mysteries.

5 is recalls Alcibiades' words in Smp. 215d, where he declares that he and everyone else

are awestruck (ἐκπεπληγμένοι) by Socrates' words; the interests of Alcibiades' lovers are in a

less high-minded direction. ere may also here be an allusion to the reaction of Charmides'

admirers to his physical beauty (Charm. 154c), suggesting a parallel between Alcibiades and

Charmides.

6 For Socrates as interested in improving Alcibiades' soul rather than merely possessing his

body, see e.g. Alc. 1 131e; Aeschines, Alc. fr. VI A 53.26-27 Giannantoni = 11 Ditmar; cf. Plato,

Prt. 309c. Xenophon states this as a general principle of Socrates in Xen., Mem. 4.1.2 and has

Socrates himself argue that love of the soul is more noble than love of the body in Xen., Smp .

8.1-41.

7 See Rep. 491d-492a and 493e-5b: see below, nn. 9, 30, 35, 44, and C. B. R. P, 1996,

p. xlviii; 2005, pp. 120-1; T. E. D, 1999, pp. 224-7; D. G, 1999, pp. 219-20, 272-3.

8 Τοῖς λεγομένοις ἀγαθοῖς: an allusion to Rep. 6: the philosophical nature is corrupted and

diverted from philosophy by τὰ λεγόμεθα ἀγαθά, dened rst as "beauty, wealth, strength of

body, inuential family connections in the city and all such things" (491c) and later as "wealth

and all such paraphernalia" (495a).

9 Possibly also an allusion to Smp. 219e, where Alcibiades notes that Socrates was

invulnerable (ἄτρωτος) to money; Socrates knows that no-one is invulnerable to the superior

power of philosophy.

10 "Biting" παρρησία : De aud . 47a; De adul. 55c-d; 59d; 68f-69a; Phoc. 2.3; Per . 15.1 (with P.

A. S, 1989, ad loc.); Praec. ger. 810c; fr. 203 Sandbach.

Plato's Symposium and Plutarch's Alcibiades

that the eect of Socrates' words on him was worse than a snake-bite: only one

who has been bitten by a snake can imagine the pain. "I have been bitten by

a more painful creature and in the most painful way one could be bitten - in

my heart or soul or whatever one should call it, wounded and bitten by the

words of philosophy" (πληγείς τε καὶ δηχθεὶς ὑπὸ τῶν ἐν φιλοσοφίᾳ λόγων ).

Such words, he declares, "adhere more ercely than a viper, whenever they grip

the soul of a young and not untalented (μὴ ἀφυοῦς) man". Plato's Alcibiades

goes on to appeal to his fellow-symposiasts, naming six of them, who had

all experienced what he calls "philosophic madness and frenzy". Memory of

that passage underlines how painful Alcibiades' experience of being exposed

to Socrates' philosophic probing was. It also explains and lends more force to

Plutarch's Socrates' belief that no-one is invulnerable to philosophy.

Plutarch now talks, in a passage enriched by further allusions to the

Republic, of the eorts of Alcibiades' atterers to prevent him from listening

to Socrates, though in fact, despite this, Alcibiades did let Socrates approach

him (4.2). Alcibiades, Plutarch continues, "listened to the words of a lover

who was not hunting unmanly pleasure (ἡδονὴν ἄνανδρον) nor begging for

kisses and touches . . ." (4.3). e insistence that Socrates was not interested

in Alcibiades' body is probably meant to bring to mind Socrates' rebung of

Alcibiades' sexual advances in the Symposium. e phrase "unmanly pleasure"

recalls Alcibiades' wonder, after his rejection, at Socrates' "nature, self-control

and manliness (ἀνδρείαν)" (Smp. 219d). It invokes a set of ideas, common in

ancient thought, which associated love of pleasure with the feminine. Plutarch's

words are perhaps not to be taken as implying a criticism of pederasty per se;

rather the point here is about the goal for which a relationship with a boy is

pursued: the courting of a free-born boy for sexual gratication alone, without

any educational or moral intent, was in the Classical period, as in Plutarch's

own, seen as unacceptable and had in fact been condemned in no uncertain

terms by Pausanias in his speech in the Symposium (183d-185b). Socrates,

then, was not interested in Alcibiades merely for physical pleasure; instead he

wanted to improve Alcibiades morally. e claim that Socrates was not seeking

"unmanly pleasure" is also a point about the eects of Socrates' love on Alcibiades.

Socrates' love was not one that "unmanned" him, through encouraging soft-

living, love of pleasure and luxury – the kind of things that his other lovers

oered (cf. 6.1, πολλὰς ἡδονὰς ὑποβάλλουσιν). Rather, it toughened and

hardened him. Plutarch will return to the hardening eect of Socrates' love in

ch. 6, where he compares Socrates' treatment of Alcibiades, when he returns

from his other lovers, to thrusting iron which has been softened by heat into

cold water. He will also demonstrate in ch. 7, when he deals with Socrates

and Alcibiades' service together on campaign, that Socrates' love really did

encourage Alcibiades to be a man, to ght bravely in the battle-line and not

shirk from danger11 .

11 e notion that a lover might want to keep his beloved from being a man — a reversal

of the usual justications of pederasty for its educational benets — is set out in Socrates' one-

sided attack on love in his speech in Phaedrus 238e-241d: a lover will want to make his beloved

Plutarch is here, then, making explicit what emerges implicitly from

Alcibiades' narrative in the Symposium: that Socrates' love, unlike that of his

other suitors, neither sought pleasure as its goal nor unmanned its object.

Instead, Plutarch continues, Socrates was a lover, " . . . who tried to expose the

cracked elements of Alcibiades' soul and squeeze his empty and foolish pride"

(ἐλέγχοντος τὰ σαθρὰ τῆς ψυχῆς αὐτοῦ καὶ πιεζοῦντος τὸν κενὸν καὶ ἀνόητον

τῦφον). is is loosely based on Smp. 215c-216a, where Alcibiades speaks of the

powerful eects of Socrates' λόγοι on him, which made him cry and reduced

him to a feeling of inadequacy and shame, and implanted desires both to listen

and to run away. e word ἐλέγχοντος is particularly appropriate for Socrates

and suggests his question-and-answer method of teaching, which often resulted

in the ignorance of his interlocutor being exposed, as it does to Alcibiades in the

Platonic First Alcibiades 12 . e wrestling metaphor implied in πιεζοῦντος (cf.

2.2) is also particularly appropriate; it brings to mind the wrestling of Socrates

and Alcibiades in the Symposium, which Alcibiades hoped would lead to his

seduction; instead of sex he gets a psychological going-over at Socrates' hands13 .

Despite this rough treatment, Plutarch goes on, "Alcibiades thought that

Socrates' business (πρᾶγμα) was in reality a service of the gods directed towards

the care and salvation of the young" (4.4). e phrasing brings to mind, and

implicitly refutes, the charges on which Socrates was tried and condemned,

that he corrupted the young and denied the existence of the gods14 ; it also

recalls Socrates' own claim in the Apology, "I think that there has never been

a greater good in the city than my own service to the god" (Ap. 30a). But

the word πρᾶγμα alludes to the lead-up to the failed seduction scene in the

Symposium, where Alcibiades says that he invited Socrates to dinner to nd

out "what his business (πρᾶγμα) was" (Smp. 217c)15 . In the rest of Alcibiades'

speech in the Symposium we have a picture of a man profoundly aected by

Socrates, though it is not quite clear how deep this goes; Plutarch is here

a little more clear and explicit. Alcibiades himself now recognises the divine

nature of Socrates' mission, and this not only shows the profound spiritual and

intellectual eect that Socrates had on the young man, but also conrms, as

Plutarch puts it, Alcibiades' own "potential for virtue" (4.1, 4.2).

weaker, poorer and more isolated, so he can master him more fully. Cf. esp. 239c-d: "We should

now see how he who has been forced to pursue pleasure rather than good will care for the

body of whomever he masters. He will plainly pursue someone soft (μαλθακόν) and weak, not

brought up in the clear sunshine but under a mingled shade, accustomed not to manly toils and

healthy sweat but a soft and unmanly way of living (ἁπαλῆς καὶ ἀνάνδρου διαίτης) . . . In war

and in other important crises such a body makes the enemy take heart but makes friends and

even lovers afraid." Cf. Amat. 749f.-750a.

12 C. B. R. P, 2005, p. 118.

13 T. E. D, 1999, pp. 217-8; C. B. R. P, 2005, p. 118. e language of wrestling

can also be used metaphorically for sex and that may add to the resonance here: e.g. Ar., Peace

896-898; Eccl. 964-5; ps.-Luc., Golden Ass 7-11; AP 12.206, 222.

14 Plato, Ap. 23c-d; 24b-26b; 30b; 33c-34b. Cf. Xen., Mem. 1.1.1; 1.2.1, 8; Ap. 10.

15 It also recalls the question asked by the young Alcibiades in the Platonic First Alcibiades

(104d) about why Socrates kept bothering him, "For I really do wonder what your business is"

(ὅ τι ποτ᾽ ἐστὶ τὸ σὸν πρᾶγμα ). For Socrates' πρᾶγμα, cf. also cf. Ap. 20c; Crito 53c-d.

Plato's Symposium and Plutarch's Alcibiades

at we are meant to be thinking here of the Symposium, and of the failed

seduction scene, is conrmed by Plutarch's description immediately afterwards

of how Alcibiades "despised himself, but admired him, loved his friendliness

but was ashamed in the face of his virtue" (καταφρονῶν δ' αὐτὸς ἑαυτοῦ,

θαυμάζων δ' ἐκεῖνον, ἀγαπῶν δὲ τὴν φιλοφροσύνην, αἰσχυνόμενος δὲ τὴν

ἀρετήν). is is based on the emotions that Alcibiades confesses to feeling

in the Symposium after his failure (219d-e): he thought himself "insulted, and

yet was amazed at this man's nature, chastity and manliness" (ἡγούμενον μὲν

ἠτιμάσθαι, ἀγάμενον δὲ τὴν τούτου φύσιν τε καὶ σωφροσύνην καὶ ἀνδρείαν).

But Plutarch has made explicit what is implicit in Alcibiades' words in the

Symposium, that is, his self-loathing, and has also drawn the notion of Alcibiades'

shame before Socrates from earlier in his speech (216a-b). Indeed, in the

Symposium Alcibiades had described how Socrates "despised", i.e. counted as

unimportant, his beauty (216e; 219c). Here Alcibiades extends that to a more

thorough-going self-despising.

e Symposium, as we have noticed, leaves it unclear to what extent

Alcibiades' feelings went beyond passionate obsession, curiosity and mortication

at having his beauty held at nought, though his speech in praise of Socrates does

suggest that he had some appreciation for Socrates' uniqueness and wisdom.

Plutarch is much more denite in his assertion that Alcibiades really did love

Socrates back, claiming (4.4) in a quotation from the Phaedrus (255d), that

Alcibiades acquired "an image of love . . . in return for love". Socrates' love, then,

was a true, moral and educative one, and Alcibiades, to his credit, returned that

love16 . "e result", Plutarch continues, "was that everyone was amazed when

they saw him dining with Socrates, and wrestling with him and camping with

him (συνδειπνοῦντα καὶ συμπαλαίοντα καὶ συσκηνοῦντα), while to all his

other lovers he was harsh and hard to get to grips with . . ." In the Symposium

Alcibiades had talked of his wrestling and eating with Socrates as part of his

strategy of seducing him (συνεγινόμην. . συνημερεύσας . . . συγγυμνάζεσθαι

. . . συνδειπνεῖν: 217b-d)17 . Here Plutarch uses this shared life as evidence of

Alcibiades' love for Socrates, which causes the amazement of everyone else18 .

Plutarch thus transforms what in Alcibiades' mouth had been a tale of sexual

desire and failed seduction into evidence of a life lived together.

Plutarch goes on to contrast Alcibiades' love for Socrates, and his humility

in his presence, with his arrogant behaviour to other lovers, citing two examples

of such arrogant behaviour (4.4-5.5)19 . One of the examples which Plutarch

16 e Symposium makes clear Alcibiades' love for Socrates (cf. 222c). But there it is a

passionate, obsessive and shocking love, in which Alcibiades takes the role of the erastes, though

much younger than Socrates. Here the suggestion is of a more calm and chaste love. Cf. C. B.

R. P, 2005, p. 119.

17 e notion that Socrates did not regard himself as above his pupils but lived alongside them

seems to have been an important one: cf. An seni. 796d, συμπίνων καὶ συστρατευόμενος ἐνίοις

καὶ συναγοράζων.

18 Note the sequence: they were rst awe-struck at Alcibiades' beauty (4.1); now they are

amazed that he hangs around with Socrates (4.4).

19 e thought is familiar from the First Alcibiades, where, as here, there is a contrast between

mentions, the incident of Alcibiades' outrageous treatment of Anytus (4.5-6),

may have been partly inspired by the description of Alcibiades' entry in the

Symposium. e setting is the same: a symposium, to which Alcibiades arrives late

and drunk, "stands at the door" (ταῖς θύραις ἐπιστάς; cf. Smp. 212d, ἐπιστῆναι

ἐπὶ τὰς θύρας), and interrupts proceedings by his outrageous behaviour (cf.

esp. Smp. 212d-e)20 . But whereas his entry in the Symposium was greeted with

indulgence, the consequences here are much more serious: the other guests talk

of Alcibiades' hubris and arrogance (ὑβριστικῶς καὶ ὑπερηφάνως) – the rst

appearance of accusations which will later in the Life become more frequent;

and Anytus, though he indulges Alcibiades now, will later (as the readers are

presumably meant to know) be one of Socrates' accusers. One can certainly

see how Alcibiades' behaviour here might have lent weight to accusations that

Socrates corrupted the young men under his tutelage. And that the mention

of Anytus might bring these associations to mind is suggested by the fact

that, when Plutarch tells the same story in his Dialogue on love, direct allusion

is made to Anytus' later role as Socrates' prosecutor (Amat. 762c-d)21 . is

anecdote, then, like the next one in which Alcibiades forces a lover to bid for

an expensive tax-farming contract (5.1-5), shows, as Plutarch makes clear in

ch. 6, that Socrates' inuence on Alcibiades was limited and did not aect

a complete transformation; indeed, Alcibiades' arrogant behaviour may have

contributed to his teacher's prosecution and death.

In 6.1 we return to Socrates' love for Alcibiades. Here, as in 4.1-2,

Alcibiades wavers between devotion to Socrates and the attractions of his other

lovers, who oer him pleasure and play on his ambition. Plutarch is once again

drawing heavily on the Republic and First Alcibiades, but the clearest allusion

is to Alcibiades' speech in the Symposium on the eect which Socrates had

on him (esp. 215d-216c). Despite his many rivals for Alcibiades' aections,

Plutarch begins, "Socrates' love would sometimes master (ἐκράτει) him, when

because of his good nature (δι' εὐφυΐαν) Socrates' words would touch him

and twist his heart and force out tears" (ἁπτομένων τῶν λόγων αὐτοῦ καὶ

τὴν καρδίαν στρεφόντων καὶ δάκρυα ἐκχεόντων). is is an adaptation of

Alcibiades' attitude to Socrates and to his "other lovers": Alc. 1 103a-104c; cf. Plu., Alc. 4.1; 4.4;

5.1; 6.1.

20 e theme of Alcibiades' drunken processions was a familiar one in declamation,

inuenced ultimately, one assumes, by the Symposium, and by the accusations that he was

involved in the mutilation of the herms and profanation of the mysteries (. 6.28, which

mentions drinking). Libanius, Decl. 12.20 has him arrive drunk to see Timon (πρὸς ἑσπέραν

ἐπέστη μεθύων Ἀλκιβιάδης), and going on a komos with "torches from the mysteries" (Decl. fr.

50, title). Several speeches imagine him being prosecuted for hubris after going on a komos to

where the Spartan prisoners from Sphacteria are held (Apsines, RG 1.348.4-7 [= 242 6 Spengel

and Hammer]; Syrian, Scholia ad Hermogenis librum Περὶ στάσεων 4.601.15-17 Walz). Cf. R.

K, 1915, pp. 35-6.

21 Cf. C. B. R. P, 1996, p. xlviii; 2005, pp. 123-4; R. L. H, 2004, pp. 103-4. As

Pelling notes, the reminiscence of Ap. 30a (Socrates' speech at his trial) in 4.4 ensures that the

trial is in our minds. Both Socrates' detractors and defenders claimed that Socrates was executed

for the behaviour of his pupils, especially Alcibiades and Critias, as much as for anything he

himself said or did (e.g. Xen., Mem. 1.2.12-48).

Plato's Symposium and Plutarch's Alcibiades

Alcibiades' words at Smp. 215e, "For my heart leaps, and tears pour out under

the inuence of his words" (ἥ τε καρδία πηδᾷ καὶ δάκρυα ἐκχεῖται ὑπὸ τῶν

λόγων τῶν τούτου)22 , but Plutarch has added στρεφόντων ("twisting"), which

gains particular force because of the wrestling metaphor which follows in 6.2

(cf. also πιεζοῦντος in 4.3); it also looks back to the earlier story of Alcibiades'

wrestling in 2.2-3: though in real wrestling Alcibiades could beat his opponent

through a trick, emotionally and intellectually Socrates outwrestled him23 .

Plutarch has also added from the Republic the notion of Alcibiades' εὐφυΐα,

prominent already in ch. 4 (cf. Smp. 218a, μὴ ἀφυοῦς). Here, as in ch. 4, it

provides an explanation for why Socrates took such an interest in Alcibiades;

it also explains why Socrates' words had such an eect on Alcibiades: it was to

his credit that he allowed Socrates to master him.

In ch. 4, when discussing the tough treatment Alcibiades received at

Socrates' hands, Plutarch had quoted a line of a lost play, probably by the

tragedian Phrynichos, "a cock, he crouched down like a slave, lowering his

wing"24 . e image is of a defeated bird in a cock-ght, which seems to have

been called a δοῦλος (4.4)25 . Now Plutarch presses the metaphor of slavery

further: "ere were times", he continues (6.1), "when Alcibiades surrendered

himself to his atterers too, who oered many pleasures, and he would slip

away from Socrates and like a runaway slave (δραπετεύων) would be quite

simply hunted down, only towards Socrates having the experience of shame

and fear" (πρὸς μόνον ἐκεῖνον ἔχων τὸ αἰδεῖσθαι καὶ τὸ φοβεῖσθαι) (6.1). e

notion of Alcibiades as a runaway slave draws on his speech in the Symposium,

where he describes himself as "in a state of slavery" to Socrates (215e: ὡς

ἀνδραποδωδῶς διακειμένου), and as trying to avoid listening to him but

to ee instead. When he is in Socrates' presence, he admits his deciencies

and feels ashamed: "I experienced only with this man, what no-one would

have thought me capable of – shame before anyone. Only before him am

I ashamed"26 . But when he leaves Socrates' presence he is "defeated by the

honour which comes from the multitude". "So I run away from him and ee

(δραπετεύω οὖν αὐτὸν καὶ φεύγω ), and when I see him I am ashamed as I

think of my former admissions" (216b-c)27 . But whereas Plato left it vague

22 Noted by D. A. R, 1966, p. 40 (= repr. 1995, 196). Plutarch also paraphrases this

passage in Prof. in Virt. 84d, Quomodo adulat. 69f, and Cat. Ma. 7.1

23 Στρέφω can be used of inicting pain in general (e.g. Plato, Rep. 330e), but also of twisting

an adversary in wrestling: e.g. Pollux 3.155; M. B. P, 1982, pp. 140-1. ἀπωλίσθανε in

6.1 ("used to slip away") may suggest slipping out of an opponent's grip in wrestling. e word

is frequent in Plutarch though otherwise always used literally, but cf. Epict. 3.25.1 (ἀνάλαβε

κἀκεῖνα ὧν ἀπώλισθες).

24 Or, "he crouched down like a slave-cock . . .": ἔπτηξ' ἀλέκτωρ δοῦλος ὣς κλίνας πτερόν.

25 Cf. Ar., Birds 71-72, ὄρνις ἔγωγε δοῦλος, with N. D, 1995, p. 158. Its application

to the young Alcibiades suggests both his strutting and preening (cf. 1.8; 16.1) and the totality

of his humiliation at Socrates' hands. For cocks seen as symbolising strutting condence, cf.

Dem. 54.9.

26 πέπονθα δὲ πρὸς τοῦτον μόνον ἀνθρώπων, ὃ οὐκ ἄν τις οἴοιτο ἐν ἐμοὶ ἐνεῖναι, τὸ

αἰσχύνεσθαι ὁντινοῦν· ἐγὼ δὲ τοῦτον μόνον αἰσχύνομαι.

27 D. A. R, 1966, p. 40 (= repr. 1995, p. 196) notes the parallels with 216b.

where Alcibiades runs o to (though the mention of the honour which comes

from the multitude is suggestive), Plutarch is specic: to his other lovers, "who

suggest many pleasures" (6.1).

But was pleasure all they oered? Plutarch has already hinted that it

was not merely pleasure when he calls them "atterers" (κόλαξι). He now

explores this, and the contrast with what Socrates oers, further. First he

quotes a saying of the Stoic philosopher Cleanthes, that he used words to

attract his beloved, whereas his rivals could use the physical pleasures of the

body. As before, knowledge of Alcibiades' speech in the Symposium deepens

the implications of this passage: Cleanthes, Plutarch says, claimed that

"someone loved by him [i.e. Cleanthes] had to be mastered by the ears, but

provided many holds to his rivals in love which were out of bounds to him

. . ." (6.2). e image is once again of wrestling28 . But Cleanthes' saying also

recalls Alcibiades' words in Smp. 216a: if he were willing to "lend Socrates

his ears" (παρέχειν τὰ ὦτα) he would not be able to resist his arguments, and

would have to admit that "I neglect myself while attending to the aairs of the

Athenians". "erefore", Alcibiades said, "I withhold my ears (ἐπισχόμενος

τὰ ὦτα) as from the Sirens and make o, in order not to grow old, sitting

here beside him". We have already heard of the attempts of Socrates' rivals

to prevent Alcibiades from listening to Socrates (4.2)29 . Memory of the

Symposium passage conrms that Alcibiades was not an altogether willing

or cooperative beloved. It also suggests the emotional turmoil in which

Alcibiades found himself: he is deeply aected by philosophical talk and

deeply attracted to Socrates; he wants to listen but, like Odysseus before

the Sirens, he knows how dangerous listening to Socrates is30 . Furthermore,

memory of the Symposium passage also makes clear that it was Alcibiades'

political ambitions which pulled him away from Socrates; thus although

Plutarch has talked of the "pleasures" his other lovers oered (6.1), and the

saying of Cleanthes was about the pleasures of the esh providing rival

attractions to the words of the philosopher, we know that the stronger pull

was Alcibiades' political ambition, which he feared Socrates would make him

want to give up. Indeed Plutarch now makes this point explicitly: "Alcibiades

was of course susceptible to pleasures too" (ἦν μὲν ἀμέλει καὶ πρὸς ἡδονὰς

ἀγώγιμος); however (οὐ μὴν ἀλλά) it was rather through taking hold of his

love of honour and glory that those who were trying to corrupt him began

28 An anecdote about Zeno uses the same metaphor: "the right hold to use on a philosopher

is by the ears (ἐκ τῶν ὤτων). So persuade me and drag me o by them" (Diog. Laert. 7.24 =

SVF 1.278). ere is perhaps here a punning reference to a type of kiss, associated particularly

with parents and children, which involved holding by the ears: De aud. 38c; Pollux 10.100; Tib.

2.5.92; Aristaenetus, Ep. 1.24; Clem. Alex., Strom. 5.1.13.1.

29. . . ἀποκλειόμενος ὑπὸ τῶν πρὸς χάριν ἐξομιλούντων εἰσακοῦσαι τοῦ νουθετοῦντος καὶ

παιδεύοντος, which alludes to Rep. 494d and 559d-560a.

30 Plutarch himself hints that Alcibiades might be seen as Odysseus by applying the

word πολύτροπος to his fortunes (2.1) and his cleverness (24.5). Like Odysseus Alcibiades

will wander in exile and desire to return home (cf. 32.1). Coriolanus was compared directly to

Odysseus (Cor. 22.4). Cf. D. G, 1999, pp. 26-7; 269-70.

Plato's Symposium and Plutarch's Alcibiades

thrusting him prematurely into grandiose thinking, convincing him that, as

soon as he entered upon public life . . ." (6.3)31 .

e result of such attery was that Alcibiades was made conceited, and

Socrates was forced to do some tough-talking and to humble and crush him

(6.5). As we have already noted, the metaphor which Plutarch uses here, of iron

which has been softened in the re and is then condensed and hardened in cold

water, suggests very well both the painfulness of Socrates' shock-treatment of

Alcibiades, but also that his love had the eect of toughening Alcibiades and

making a man of him (cf. 4.3). Socrates, Plutarch continues, made Alcibiades

understand "how much he lacked and how incomplete he was in virtue"

(ἡλίκων ἐνδεής ἐστι καὶ ἀτελὴς πρὸς ἀρετήν ). e reference to Alcibiades'

incompleteness in virtue recalls 4.1 where Socrates had recognised Alcibiades'

"potential for virtue" (εὐφυΐα πρὸς ἀρετήν). e return to this notion here not

only provides a sense of closure to the section before we move on to a cluster

of anecdotes, but also expresses neatly the Socratic method; the rst and most

important step for the gifted pupil was for him to acknowledge how truly

ignorant he really was32 . e wording also recalls Alcibiades' speech in the

Symposium, where he had declared, "He forces me to admit that, although I am

sorely in need (πολλοῦ ἐνδεής 33 ), yet I neglect myself . . ." (216a)34.

Several anecdotes follow, which seem to show Alcibiades' desire for

learning, but also his arrogance and ambition (7.1-3). We then hear two stories

about Socrates and Alcibiades at Potidaea and Delium, the source for which is

once again Alcibiades' speech in the Symposium (7.3-6 ~ 220d-221c). e two

campaigns were actually separated by some eight years, and Delium (424 BC)

postdates Alcibiades' marriage, which is discussed in the next chapter (ch. 8)35 .

But in the Symposium Alcibiades talks about Delium directly after Potidaea, and

Plutarch follows that order. He has, however, made some signicant changes36 .

31 Plutarch cites in evidence ucydides' famous words about the "παρανομία of Alcibiades'

lifestyle as regards his body" (6.3 ~ . 6.15.4). For Plutarch's use of this quotation, see C. B. R .

P, 1992, pp. 18-9; 1996, pp. xlix-li.

32 Contrast Coriolanus at Cor. 18.2-3, 21.1, who refuses to be humble when some humility

would help.

33 ἐνδεής can also mean "inferior" (LSJ b.3): the atterers persuade Alcibiades that he will

"put in the shade" other generals and orators, and "surpass" even Pericles (6.4) but Socrates

shatters his illusions.

34 It also recalls the start of the First Alcibiades, where Socrates tells a younger Alcibiades

"you say that you are not in need of anyone for anything" (οὐδενὸς φῂς ἀνθρώπων ἐνδεὴς εἶναι

εἰς οὐδέν; 104a). Both parallels are noted by D. A. R, 1966, p. 40 (= repr. 1995, p. 196).

ere is also allusion to Rep. 491d: if a plant lacks the proper food and environment, the stronger

it is the more it falls short of perfection (ἐνδεῖ τῶν πρεπόντων); so with talented men deprived

of philosophical education. Cf. Cor. 1.3, alluding to the Rep. passage: a good nature which is

lacking in education (παιδείας ἐνδεής) is unstable.

35 e battle associated with the Potidaea campaign is probably the one fought in 432 before

the siege of Potidaea began, in which the Athenians lost their general and 150 hoplites, not

counting allies (. 1.62-63). See K. J. D, 1980, p. 165.

36 He has also introduced some parallels with the Coriolanus. e mention that Socrates

and A. "distinguished themselves" (ἠρίστευσαν) and the discussion of the prize (ἀριστεῖον)

recall the description of the young and ambitious Coriolanus, who is said to have "joined

He describes Socrates as Alcibiades' tent-mate and comrade in the battle-line

(σύσκηνον...καὶ παραστάτην ) (7.3; cf. 4.4, συσκηνοῦντα). is is Plutarch's

embellishment; in Symp 219e Alcibiades says merely that they ate together;

indeed, they were from dierent tribes, so may have had to camp separately

and were almost certainly brigaded in dierent hoplite units37 . But having

them ght together perhaps draws on another part of the Symposium, before

Alcibiades' entry: Phaedrus' speech in Smp. 178e-179b. ere, in arguing for

the blessings that pederastic love brings, Phaedrus imagines pairs of erastai and

paidika ghting side by side, defending each other on the battleeld. Plutarch

thus assimilates Alcibiades and Socrates to this kind of idealised pederastic

couple38 .

Plutarch's description of Socrates' saving Alcibiades at Potidaea, and of

the award of the prize for valour to Alcibiades (7.4-5), is close to Alcibiades'

words in the Symposium (220d-221c)39 . But Plutarch's version is more vivid,

as he creates a picture of Socrates standing guard (προέστη καὶ ἤμυνε) over

a fallen Alcibiades. Furthermore, the term ἤμυνε recalls 4.1, where Socrates

wanted to protect Alcibiades and not allow him to be corrupted (ἀμύνειν καὶ

μὴ περιορᾶν . . .). Here Socrates' protective role, exercised in the physical rather

than spiritual dimension, is made concrete40 . Plutarch's version of the award

of the prize is also more vivid and dramatic than the Platonic original41 ; the

exploits to exploits (ἀριστείαις ἀριστείας) and added spoils to spoils" (4.3). e eagerness of A.'s

commanders to give him the crown and suit of armour and Socrates' testimony on his behalf

recalls Coriolanus' commanders, who were "always striving with their predessors to honour

him and to surpass in their testimonials (marturiva")". "From none of the numerous conicts

in which Rome was involved did Coriolanus return uncrowned or without a prize". Alcibiades,

then, under Socrates' inuence, is as brave on the battleeld and as decorated as the soldierly

Coriolanus. For other parallels, see nn. 32, 34, 40 and 46.

37 Cf. P. K, 2007, p. 164.

38 Plutarch is here of course making more explicit what was implicit already in Plato:

Alcibiades' description of Socrates saving him in Smp. 220d-e would itself have brought

Phaedrus' speech to mind. e notion of pairs of lovers ghting side by side became reality

in the early fourth century (i.e. around the time when Plato was writing the Symposium) in

ebes' so-called Sacred Band; Xen., Smp. 8.32 mentions the Sacred Band in his discussion

of pederasty; Plutarch in his discussion of the Sacred Band in Pel. 18-19 refers to Phaedrus'

speech (Smp. 179a), as well as to the Phaedrus itself (255b) (18.6); in Pel. 17.13 he quotes from

Phaedrus' speech (Symp. 178d): after Leuctra the other Greeks realised that it was not Sparta

which produced good ghters, but wherever young men αἰσχύνεσθαι τοῖς αἰσχροῖς καὶ τολμᾶν

ἐπὶ τοῖς καλοῖς. Cf. Amat. 761b.

39 In particular, Plutarch's τοῦ δ' Ἀλκιβιάδου τραύματι περιπεσόντος ὁ Σωκράτης προέστη

καὶ ἤμυνε, καὶ μάλιστα δὴ προδήλως ἔσωσεν αὐτὸν μετὰ τῶν ὅπλων is closely based on Smp.

220d-e: οὐδεὶς ἄλλος ἐμὲ ἔσωσεν ἀνθρώπων ἢ οὗτος, τετρωμένον οὐκ ἐθέλων ἀπολιπεῖν,

ἀλλὰ συνδιέσωσε καὶ τὰ ὅπλα καὶ αὐτὸν ἐμέ.

40 Contrast Coriolanus' lonely death without any one to protect him: προσήμυνεν οὐδεὶς

τῶν παρόντων ( Cor. 39.8). For other parallels between Alc. 7 and the Coriolanus, see T. E. D,

1999, pp. 217-8.

41 Plu., Alc. 7.5: ἐπεὶ δ' οἱ στρατηγοὶ διὰ τὸ ἀξίωμα τῷ Ἀλκιβιάδῃ σπουδάζοντες ἐφαίνοντο

περιθεῖναι τὴν δόξαν, ὁ Σωκράτης βουλόμενος αὔξεσθαι τὸ φιλότιμον ἐν τοῖς καλοῖς αὐτοῦ,

πρῶτος ἐμαρτύρει καὶ παρεκάλει στεφανοῦν ἐκεῖνον καὶ διδόναι τὴν πανοπλίαν. Plato, Smp.

220e: καὶ ἐγὼ μέν, ὦ Σώκρατες, καὶ τότε ἐκέλευον σοὶ διδόναι τἀριστεῖα τοὺς στρατηγούς ...

Plato's Symposium and Plutarch's Alcibiades

imperfects ἐμαρτύρει καὶ παρεκάλει draw the reader into the scene, as though

we were watching it happen – a device typical of Plutarchan narrative42 . e

idea that the generals were inuenced by Alcibiades' "rank in society" (ἀξίωμα)

is in Plato, but in Plutarch it gains extra point as it, like ἤμυνε, recalls 4.1,

where Socrates' desire to protect Alcibiades comes from his fear of the eect of

Alcibiades' "wealth and rank" (ἀξίωμα), and of those who, as Plutarch puts it,

"rushed to lay hold of him with atteries and favours"43 . us for Plutarch the

generals' desire to curry favour with Alcibiades becomes part of this process

of attery.

Plutarch has introduced two other changes44 . First, he omits Alcibiades'

claim that he himself had urged the generals to award Socrates the crown. is

may be because Plutarch simply judged Alcibiades' claim unreliable (he would

say that, wouldn't he?). At any rate, in Plutarch's telling, the sequence and its

implications are simpler: Socrates deserved the prize but urged the generals

to give it to Alcibiades; Socrates is the protector, educator and champion,

Alcibiades the recipient of Socrates' kindness (cf. 1.3) and protection45 . Secondly

Plutarch inserts a motive for Socrates' championing of Alcibiades' cause: he

"wanted his [Alcibiades'] ambition in ne things (τὸ φιλότιμον ἐν τοῖς καλοῖς

αὐτοῦ) to increase". at is, he wanted to direct in a worthy direction the

ambition which has been such a feature of the early chapters of the Life (esp.

2.1) and which his atterers played on (6.4)46 . e phrase thus presupposes

that Alcibiades' ambition might well be aimed at an unworthy goal, and

ἀλλὰ γὰρ τῶν στρατηγῶν πρὸς τὸ ἐμὸν ἀξίωμα ἀποβλεπόντων καὶ βουλομένων ἐμοὶ διδόναι

τἀριστεῖα, αὐτὸς προθυμότερος ἐγένου τῶν στρατηγῶν ἐμὲ λαβεῖν ἢ σαυτόν.

42 E.g. Alc. 5.5; 14.12; 20.1; 25.2; 32.3; Pyrrh. 28.1-3, 5-7; 29.5-6. Smyth §1898 labels this

the "imperfect of description': "e imperfect often has a dramatic or panoramic force; it enables

the reader to follow the course of events as they occurred, as if he were a spectator of the scene

depicted". On Plutarch's tendency to use imperfects in narrative, see T. E. D, forthcoming.

43 φοβούμενος δὲ τὸν πλοῦτον καὶ τὸ ἀξίωμα καὶ τὸν προκαταλαμβάνοντα κολακείαις καὶ

χάρισιν ἀστῶν καὶ ξένων καὶ συμμάχων ὄχλον (4.2), itself an allusion to Rep. 494c, προκαταλαμ-

βάνοντες καὶ προκολακεύοντες τὴν μέλλουσαν αὐτοῦ δύναμιν. Alcibiades' αξίωμα ("rank in

society": LSJ 3), was owed in large part to his noble birth (. 5.43.2, ἀξιώματι προγόνων

τιμώμενος; 6.15.3). Later in Plutarch's Life his noble birth and wealth will "open great doors"

(μεγάλας κλισιάδας ) to his political career (10.3.)

44 He has also specied that the award consisted of a crown and suit of armour, a detail

which he probably took from Isoc. 16.29. Crowns were regularly awarded for valour (e.g. Hdt.

8.124; Aesch. 2.169; Plato, Rep. 468b: W. K. P, 1974, ii, pp. 276-90); it is not clear

whether at this period they might be of gold or of e.g. laurel. ere is no other evidence for the

award of armour, though the use of the article suggests that Plutarch might have thought it well

known: ibidem, pp. 289-90.

45 Cf. C. B. R. P, 2005, pp. 122-3 n. 41: keeping attention focused on Socrates' action

rather than Alcibiades ts the larger theme of the struggle of Socrates and the atterers for

inuence over Alcibiades.

46 is seems to nd a parallel in the discussion of the eect of honour gained in war

upon the young Coriolanus in Cor. 4.1-4 (see above, n. 36). Honour gained too early in life,

Plutarch argues, may extinguish the desire for honour in "lightly ambitious souls". But in the

case of "weighty and rm spirits" (i.e. like Coriolanus) the honours impel them to "the apparent

good" (πρὸς τὸ φαινόμενον καλόν). e contrast between "the apparent good" and Alcibiades'

"ambition ἐν τοῖς καλοῖς" is suggestive.

shows Socrates combating the malign inuence of Alcibiades' atterers. It also

shows Socrates not only playing a pedagogical role but playing this role in the

practical context of the battleeld; his love was not enervating or corrupting,

as was theirs (cf. 4.3), nor was his instruction merely theoretical47 .

But the phrase "ambition in ne things" also alludes specically to Phaedrus'

speech in the Symposium (178c-179b). Phaedrus speaks of love bringing the

greatest blessing a man can have. What love brings, Phaedrus claims, cannot

be obtained by "kinship, honours or wealth" (all advantages that Alcibiades

had)48 ; it provides a moral principle for life, that is, feeling "shame at shameful

things, and ambition for ne things" (τὴν ἐπὶ μὲν τοῖς αἰσχροῖς αἰσχύνην,

ἐπὶ δὲ τοῖς καλοῖς φιλοτιμίαν) (178d); thus, Phaedrus argues, lovers defend

and never desert each other on the battleeld. By alluding to this passage,

Plutarch makes more explicit what is implicit in Alcibiades' description of the

Potidaea campaign in the Symposium, namely, that Socrates and Alcibiades on

campaign are to be seen as an ideal pederastic couple, with the older exercising

an educational and protective role over the younger, and inspiring him towards

ne conduct49 .

e success of Socrates' tutelage is revealed in the next incident, the

story of how Alcibiades, in the aftermath of the Athenian defeat at Delium,

despite being on horseback, refused to leave Socrates and make his own

escape (7.6). is is closely based on Smp. 220e-221a, though Plutarch focuses

attention more squarely on Alcibiades' actions in defending Socrates rather

than on Socrates' calmness under attack. But this incident gains extra point

in Plutarch from its placing immediately after Socrates' attempt to nurture

Alcibiades' "ambition in ne things" (τὸ φιλότιμον ἐν τοῖς καλοῖς αὐτοῦ); in

Plutarch's account Alcibiades' defence of his teacher seems to show Socrates'

success in stirring Alcibiades to noble action, and thus conrms Alcibiades'

good nature and that he really did love Socrates50 . Phaedrus in the Symposium

imagined that no lover would desert his beloved, and at Potidaea Socrates

had defended Alcibiades. Now Alcibiades, the beloved, defends Socrates,

suggesting a mutuality in their love, a mutuality which Plutarch himself had

emphasised in ch. 4, with a quotation from the Phaedrus itself (Alcibiades

acquired "an image of love . . . in return for love"). Indeed Plutarch's

παρέπεμψε καὶ περιήμυνεν ("escorted and protected him")51 recalls Socrates'

47 Cf. D. A. R, 1966, p. 41 (= repr. 1995, p. 197); C. B. R. P, 1996, p. xlvii; D.

G, 1999, pp. 273-6.

48 See 4.1-2; 10.3; Plato, Rep. 494c; Alc. 1.104a-b. Cf. Lys. 14, 18, 38; Dem. 21.143; Diod.

12.84.1.

49 Plutarch is possibly inuenced by Lys. 14.42, where Alcibiades' son accuses his opponents

of ἐπὶ μὲν τοῖς καλοῖς αἰσχύνεσθαι, ἐπὶ δὲ τοῖς κακοῖς φιλοτιμεῖσθαι.

50 Antisthenes had Socrates deserving a prize for bravery here too but giving it to Alcibiades

(Antisthenes fr. V A 200 Giannantoni=FGrH 1004 F 4).

51 But περιήμυνεν, the reading of Υ, is doubtful; περιαμύνω is attested only here in Greek

literature. Ziegler's apparatus suggests προσήμυνεν ("came to the aid of "), which may be right

(cf. Fab. 16.5, ἀπολιπὼν τὸν ἵππον πεζὸς τῷ ὑπάτῳ προσήμυνε, and Holden on em. 9.3). N.'s

περιέμεινεν ("waited for") seems bland, but may also be right.

Plato's Symposium and Plutarch's Alcibiades

protection both moral (4.1: ἀμύνειν) and physical (7.4: προέστη καὶ ἤμυνε).

Here Alcibiades is able to return Socrates' protection52 .

To conclude, my point in this paper has been a simple one. at is, that

the Alcibiades draws heavily on Plato's Symposium, and that knowledge of the

Symposium enriches the experience of reading the Alcibiades; the chapters that

we have examined (4-7), in which Plutarch frequently uses phraseology drawn

from the Symposium, and frequently makes explicit what had been implicit

there, become more meaningful when approached with the Symposium in

mind. is is dierent from saying merely that the Symposium was used as

a "source" for the Alcibiades; rather these chapters of the Alcibiades invite an

intertextual reading with the Symposium, and for their full eect presuppose

a reader who is familiar with it53 . is has important implications for the way

we might approach Plutarch's use of other texts and other authors, both in the

Alcibiades and elsewhere, where we might look not for a one-sided exploitation

of source texts but for a creative dialogue with them.

W o r k s c i T e d

A, F., "Fonti socratiche e stoiche nella Vita Alcibiadis", in L. D B

 . (eds.), e Statesman in Plutarch's works, vol. II: e statesman in

Plutarch's Greek and Roman Lives, Leiden, 2005, pp. 187-97.

D, K. J., Plato: Symposium, Cambridge, 1980.

D, T. E., Plutarch's Lives : exploring virtue and vice, Oxford, 1999.

_____ "e language of narrative in Plutarch", forthcoming in Quaderni di

Acme.

D, N., Aristophanes' Birds, Oxford, 1995.

G, G., Socratis et Socraticorum Reliquiae, iv, Naples, 1990.

G, D., Alcibiades and Athens: a study in literary presentation, Oxford, 1999.

H, H. A., Plutarch's Life of emistocles with introduction, critical and

explanatory notes, indices and map, Cambridge, 18923 .

H, R. L., Plato's Symposium, Oxford, 2004.

K, R., De scholasticarum declamationum argumentis ex historia petitis ,

Paderborn, 1915.

52 C. B. R. P, 2005, p. 123.

53 Cf. the similar remarks made by C. B. R. P, 2007 about the emistocles – Camillus,

a text which presupposes a reader familiar with Herodotus, esp. p. 155: "By now Herodotus

should seem much more than a simple "source" for Plutarch's Life: he oers a repertoire of

possibilities, one which Plutarch knew extraordinarily well, and assumed his audience knew well

too; and an author whose themes and subtleties he thoroughly understood".

Timothy E. Du

K, P., "War", in P. S  . (eds.), e Cambridge history of Greek and

Roman warfare, vol. I, Cambridge, 2007, pp. 147-85

P, C. B. R., "Plutarch and ucydides", in P. A. S (ed.), Plutarch

and the historical tradition, London and New York, 1992, pp. 10-40.

Reprinted with revisions in C. B. R. P, Plutarch and history:

eighteen studies, London, 2002, pp. 117-41.

_____"Prefazione", in F. A (ed.), Plutarco. Vita di Coriolano. Vita di

Alcibiade, xx-lviii, Milan, 1996.

_____ "Plutarch's Socrates", Hermathena, 179 (2005) 105-39.

_____ "De Malignitate Plutarchi. Plutarch, Herodotus and the Persian Wars",

in E. E. B  . (eds.), Cultural responses to the Persian Wars:

antiquity to the third millennium, Oxford, 2007, pp. 145-64.

_____ "Parallel Narratives: the liberation of ebes in De Genio Socratis and

in Pelopidas", in A. G. N (ed.), e unity of Plutarch's Work:

Moralia themes in the Lives, features of the Lives in the Moralia, Berlin,

2008, pp. 539-56.

P, M. B., Studies in the Terminology of Greek Combat Sports, Königstein,

1982.

P, W. K., e Greek State at War (ve volumes), Berkeley, 1974-

1991.

R, D. A., "Plutarch, 'Alcibiades' 1-16", PCPhS, 192 (1966) 37-47.

Reprinted in B. S (ed.), Essays on Plutarch's Lives, Oxford,

1995, pp. 191-207.

S, H. W., Greek Grammar (revised by G. M. M), Cambridge,

Mass., 1956.

S, P. A. (ed.), A Commentary on Plutarch's Pericles, Chapel Hill, NC,

and London, 1989.

"In Learned Conversation". Plutarch's Symposiac Literature and the Elusive Authorial Voice

"I  ". P' 

     

F E. B

Pontical Biblical Institute of Rome

Abstract

e Symposiacs oer a good entry point for understanding Plutarch's dialogues. Plato's, such

as the Symposion, are often used as a model to interpret Plutarch's without consideration of

the changed circumstances in the Imperial period. Also, toward the end of Plato's life, his

dialogues became treatises in which the interlocutors are hardly important. Plutarch used no

single character throughout his dialogues. Like Cicero he wanted to present the opinions of the

philosophical schools, and often his own position is dicult to discern. e role and importance

of various persons in the spirited intellectual discussions of the Symposiacs oer a clue to his

intentions in the dialogues. At the same time, unlike his dialogues, his own persona appears

frequently and with a surprising assertiveness. In some Symposiacs, especially the Ninth Book, as

in e E at Delphoi and the Erotikos, he appears as fairly young, possibly a distancing technique.

e Symposiacs in any case oered an opportunity to present his views in various shapes and

sizes.

Μισέω μνάμονα συμπόταν

I hate a fellow drinker with a good memory.

(opening of the Symposiacs ) 1

is citation from an unknown poet, used to open the Symposiacs ,

pretty well destroys our approach to the theme of the symposion if not of

philanthropia. Perhaps we should not try to remember what occurs in a

drinking party2 . However, with a good memory for Plutarch's Symposiacs

(Quaestiones convivales ), one can possibly come closer into the circle of his

friends and get a better understanding of the authorial voice not only in the

Symposiacs but also in his major dialogues3 . Perhaps none of the personae

who appear in Plutarch's dialogues, not even the persona Plutarch, completely

represents his thought. For example, in the Erotikos , by presenting himself as

a newlywed, many years before, he is able to convey to his readers a certain

distance between himself and the persona 4 . roughout his writings Plutarch

indicates that he is searching for the true voice of Plato among his dierent

speakers and dialogues. Undoubtedly Plutarch's readers, too, were searching

1 Symposiacs 612C; D. A. C, 1993, p. 405, Anonymous, no. 1002. He lists three

other authors who cite it, including Lucian, Symposion 3, and notes an allusion to the saying

in Martial, 1.27.7. See the indispensable commentary of S.-T. T, 1989-1996, I., pp.

31-2.

2 Actually at 6.1 (686D) Plutarch gives just the opposite advice, the necessity of remembering

the discussions, something which justies his own writing of the Symposiacs.

3 On Plutarch's friends, see F. F, 1966, pp. 65-7; B. P, 1992; S.-T. T,

1989-1996; and E. N. O'N, 2004.

4 Here the views of S. Goldhill, 1995, and J. M. Rist, 2001, represent rather opposite ends of

the spectrum of interpretation.

for guidance, and the present tendency in Plutarchan scholarship, as in the

recent work of Jan Opsomer, is to try to identify his own position. Plato's

dialogues, such as his Symposion, are often used as the model with which to

interpret Plutarch's, but Plutarch's often require a dierent methodology5 .

Oddly enough, Plato composed even one of his latest works, the Timaios , a

long treatise which turns into a monologue and in which Socrates has only

a minor part, as a symposion 6 . In general, at least during his early and middle

periods, Plato's Socrates remained his principal spokesman. Moreover, the

speeches of the minor characters seem to work together with his to form an

artistic whole7 . Toward the end of Plato's life, his dialogues became treatises

in which the interlocutors change and lose importance. On the other hand,

Plutarch used no single character as his spokesman, so that his own position

is dicult to discern. Where he wrote treatises without the pretense of a

dialogue, his position is clear. However, the dialogues remain very problematic.

His Symposiacs are a good example of lively discussions of dierent opinions

among many speakers, often without necessarily indicating his own belief.

As so often in studying authors of the Imperial period, we have in our minds

the literature of the fth or fourth centuries B.C., without always taking

into account the great changes that took place by the Imperial period. Not

only did Plutarch not use a single main speaker like Socrates through several

dialogues, but those who do appear often make no second appearance. On

one rare occasion when he appears himself as a persona and as the principal

speaker in a dialogue, in the Erotikos ( Dialogue on Love , Amatorius), even the

views of his own persona are very problematic8 . In contrast to the dialogues,

though, in the Symposiacs Plutarch often appears as a nal or principal speaker.

In fact, his own role is astoundingly forceful. His voice seems particularly

strong in the opening of the books of the Symposiacs, where, after the preface

to the dedicatee, Sosius Senecio, we nd rather long "questions", really small

treatises. However, apart from the opening questions there are other quite

extensive ones, perhaps for variety, or perhaps because they needed more

development. At any rate an advantage of the genre is the possibility to craft

a particular question as brief or long as desired, and to inject or omit the

author's persona at any point.

Cicero's philosophical dialogues bear a striking lack of resemblance to

Plato's and in many respects are much closer to some of Plutarch's. is may

be partially due to the philosophical allegiance of both to "the Academy". In

5 For Plato, see, e.g., R. B. R, 1995, pp. 180-205, 305-6; C. G, 2002, esp. pp.

147-9 and 161-4; R. H, 2004; and C. J. R , 2007. For Xenophon, see D. L. G ,

1993, pp. 132-54. An excellent discussion of Plutarch's relationship to Plato and the use of

characters to develop his own views can be found in J. M. R, 2001, esp. 558-61.

6 See the excellent contribution of M. T, 1990, esp. p. 243. She discusses Plato's

changing attitude toward the value of the symposion (esp. pp. 244, 246, 255-60).

7 D . B, 1992 repr. in D. B, 1994, pp. 457-501. F. F, 2006, has criticized the

approach of F. I for an interesting twist in interpreting Plato, see F. C. W, 2008,

who holds that Alkibiades' speech is more important than that of Diotima.

8 So S. G, 1995, pp. 159-60.

"In Learned Conversation". Plutarch's Symposiac Literature and the Elusive Authorial Voice

Cicero the principal thrust seems to be presenting the opinions of the major

philosophical schools, favoring and criticizing certain views on the way, but

in general allowing the representatives of the schools to speak their minds9 .

Langlands, who attributes it to the rhetorical tradition, has noted how fond

Romans were of being subjected to contradictory opinions before choosing the

best or coming to their own solution10 . We must imagine that the dedicatee of

the Symposiacs, who also participates as a persona in them, Sosius Senecio, was

one of these Romans. is practice contrasts at times with Plutarch's voice in

the Symposiacs where his own persona often goes on at length or decides the

question, and is similar to his tractates, such as On the Generation of the Soul in

the Timaios ( De animae procreatione in Timaeo), where his position is crystal

clear. We have something similar to the Symposiacs in Aulus Gellius, Athenaios,

and in the parody of the genre in Lucian's Symposion (or Dinner of the Lapiths) 11.

Evidently one of the major purposes of the philosophical symposion was to

introduce the reader to the most prominent philosophical views of the time and

discuss them, often in a critical fashion. In more philosophical dialogues such

as Cicero's the reader would then be given guidance on how to evaluate the

opinions. ough Lucian's Symposion is a rather sadistic farce, reading between

the lines one can imagine a serious philosophical symposion of the time12 .

Where we have something like Cicero's extended philosophical dialogues

is in individual tractates, where Plutarch writes in his own person. In this case

he clearly states his views (and often, naturally, misrepresents those of the

adversary). Often more polemical than Cicero, he usually defends the Platonic

position and attacks Stoic or Epicurean ones. He belongs in these cases to his

time, reecting the debates between the well-established schools. On the Face

in the Moon (De facie in orbe lunae) begins very much in dialogue form, with

the presentation of various opinions. But then it branches out into a treatise,

with one speaker developing the central view or thesis and accompanying it

with an eschatological myth. In this case, which resembles Plato's Timaios in

its format, the main speaker is Plutarch's brother Lamprias. We are thus left

wondering again about what might have been Lamprias' contribution13 .

9 See e.g., P. G. W, 2000, esp. p. xvi, who speaks of Cicero's "intensive reection" on

the central concerns of the Hellenistic schools as viewed by their spokesmen. e Tusculan

Disputations, something like Plutarch's Symposiacs, supposedly took place each on a dierent day.

For the complexities of his presentation of the Hellenistic schools, see C. L, 2008, pp. 1-5,

and in the same volume, pp. 5-20.

10 R. L, 2009, esp. pp. 160-3.

11 Gellius claimed that his discussions were a shortcut to a general education for those too

busy for much study, Preface, 11-12. On Aulus Gellius, see L. H-S, 1988, esp.

27-32 (27) (rev. ed., 2003); W. H. K, 2009, pp. 2-14, 240, 253, 279, 282, 288-92, 300,

stressing the dierence between the Roman and Greek intellectual worlds at the time. She

rejects (p. 8) what she sees in S. S, 2004, pp. 17, 20, 35 as a "deating picture of Latin

intellectuals".

12 On the contrast between this and Plutarch's Symposiacs, see J. H, 1981, esp. pp. 204-5;

C. P. J, 1986, pp. 28-41; R. B B, 1989, pp. 108-10; I. M, 2000. F.

F, 1994, pp. 125-30, takes a much harsher view of Lucian than Bracht Branham.

13 On Lamprias, see D. A. R, 1973, pp. 4, 69, 71-3; and C. P. J, 1971, pp. 9-10.

In the very rst book of the Symposiacs, Plutarch remarks that if only

philosophically inclined persons are present, philosophy would be a suitable

topic, but if not, many would be excluded. For this reason, the topics must be

familiar, simple, and easy (614D)14 . Petronius' "Dinner of Trimalchio" in his

Satyrica ( Satyricon) can give valuable insights, in spite of it being satirical. e

work was written earlier than Plutarch's Symposiacs but within his lifetime,

satirizing the attempt of nouveau-riches, who ape intellectual discussions and

presumably in the attempt to carry on a kind of symposion. Several of the

themes satirized are similar to those we nd in the Symposiacs, ranging over

natural phenomenon, religion, what we might call pseudo-science, popular

philosophy, and the like15 . In any case, Plutarch's Symposiacs do not descend

to the level of a "commonplace book" such as typies much of Aulus Gellius

and Athenaios, nor are they anything like the sadistic farce of Lucian's

Symposion. Examination of the dialogues of Aulus Gellius, Athenaios, and

Lucian quickly reveals how distant they are not only from Plato, but even

from Plutarch16 . At the same time these works give us good insights into the

genre Plutarch used.

e novel creation of the persona, the newly married Plutarch as recounted

by his son, in the Erotikos, allowed him more freedom to present provocative

and problematic views. ese contrast with his own traditional views of love

and marriage elsewhere and permitted him, intentionally or not, to gain an

enviable place in "the history of sexuality". But even in this dialogue, where

the nal views are presumably those of the author, other speakers initially

have their say. eir speeches on heterosexual or homosexual love are quite

aggressive, but one could perhaps point to their "propedeutic" function rather

than their "tonality"17 . As in the Symposiacs, such a strong projection of opposing

views seems to have satised a desire in the readers to participate vicariously

in spirited, contemporary intellectual discussion. e views presented here

raise serious problems, enough so as to wonder whether Plutarch is not just

being ironic, or problematic, or over-inuenced by other genres, such as that

of comedy18 .

14 O . M, 1990, p. v, citing Moralia 629D, notes the dierence between sympotika (talk

about the symposion) and symposiaka (talk suitable for the symposion).

15 See, e.g., F. D, 2002, pp. 61-114, popular, but covering the major works.

16 Gellius had read Plutarch and mentions him at the beginning of his work 1.1.1. On

Gellius, see L. H–S  A. V (eds.), 2004, esp. pp. 10-4; and in the same

volume A. V, esp. pp. 183-6. On Athenaios see A. L, 1990, esp. pp. 265-7; D.

B & J. W (eds.), 2000, esp. J. W, pp. 23-40; L. R, pp. 256-71; and

G. A, pp. 316-27; also S.-T. T, 1989-1996, I, p. 12, who nds the closest

parallels to be Athenaios, Deipnosophists and Macrobius Saturnalia, the latter of which he takes

to be an imitation of Plutarch.

17 See, e.g., J. M. Rist, 2001, esp. pp. 560-61.

18 J. M. R, 2001, esp., p. 558, sees Plutarch building up, through the speeches, a very

complicated and sophisticated conception of love. is in Rist's view represents a kind of

"commentary" on Plato's theories, which he sees primarily as those of the Phaidros. I am grateful

to Ann Chapman for having seen her forthcoming dissertation. She treats Plutarch's views as

not very favorable toward women. See also F. E. B, 2007.

"In Learned Conversation". Plutarch's Symposiac Literature and the Elusive Authorial Voice

For this reason, a good place to start is Plutarch's Symposiacs (or Table Talk,

Quaestiones convivales), where we also have the dominant persona of Plutarch,

including that of his youth. With the exception of his Symposiacs few of his

works have a symposiac setting in the strict sense. e notable exception is

the Symposium (or Dinner of the Seven Sages ( Septem sapientium convivium ) 19 .

However, the themes treated are not normal, at least for the extant Classical

or Imperial symposia, and may be too traditional in scope to say much about

Plutarch's originality or emphasis. Nonetheless, Mossman nds a number of

original elements, such as the selection of Sages, the introduction of Aesop and

the women (the clever Kleoboulina and Melissa), and probably the story of

Arion and the dolphin, not to speak of the deliberate omission of homosexual

themes and substitution of heterosexuality20 . To Mossman's list one could add

the emphasis on divine providence at the end of the work. She points out

that the Dinner of the Seven Sages and e Daimonion of Socrates ( De genio

Socratis) are the only works which Plutarch set in the distant past. e Erotikos,

a very late dialogue of Plutarch, might qualify as a Platonic symposion if we

consider its theme. But the mise-en-scène is not a symposion , daimones do not

appear, there is only a hint of love being directed to the intelligible world, the

denouement involves heterosexual love, and a very unusual marriage is played

out before one's eyes. In e Daimonion of Socrates, the principals are in an

indoor setting and daimones, so prominent in Plato's Symposion, play a major

role, but the occasion is never called a symposion, or even a dinner, and the

participants' major purpose for being there is their involvement in a bloody

revolt against the Spartan overlords at ebes21 .

Perhaps we can look at some particulars at the end of the Symposiacs, the

Ninth Book from Plutarch's student days. ese are the last Symposiacs he wrote,

though the recollections, whether ctional or real, chronologically would come

rst. ey may recall real discussions held at the time, possibly in the Academy,

but some topics seem suspiciously generic. e speakers appear to be real persons

and possibly at least some of the speeches may represent what they actually said22 .

As in other Symposiacs, though, it is impossible to determine, especially if the

topic is a common theme, whether any speech is an invention or real23 . In some

other Symposiacs Plutarch is presented as quite young, appearing in what should

be the commanding company of Ammonios, his philosophy professor, with his

father, or even his grandfather. Most of the Symposiacs are not very philosophical

by our standards, often resolving folkloric questions about natural phenomena

19 On this see the excellent study by J. M. M, 1997; also D. E. A, 1972; S.

J, 1997, review, F. E. B  F. L C, 2000; A. B, 2002; and D. L.

L, 2005.

20 J. M. M, 1997, esp. pp. 124-6, 133-4.

21 Perhaps to contrast with the dinner (deipnon) in which Archias, the commander, is

assassinated (588B). Phyllidas uses wine and food as part of his trap for Archias (596C), "at the

hour when most people are at dinner".

22 See S.-T. T, 1989-1996, III, pp. 299-300, on the unusual qualities of this book

of the Symposiacs compared to his others.

23 S.-T. T, 1989-1996, I, pp. 12-5, stresses the element of authenticity.

or presumed natural phenomena, with, to us, pseudo-scientic guesswork24 .

Eleni Kechagia has suggested that through them Plutarch was instructing the

reader to think like a philosopher. Certainly there is a methodology at stake:

verication of the data, exploration of various possibilities, citation of the experts

(like Aristotle), testing and debating of the data and opinions, subjection of the

result to common sense, and attestation of parallel phenomena. Sometimes the

result seems ridiculous, but some of the Symposiacs, for example, on whether sh

or meat is better for one's health could stand up well today.

e Symposiacs oer information on the speakers and their importance,

and, thus, on the possible authorial voice of Plutarch in his other dialogues.

Most surprising is his own commanding role. Of a total of 72 Symposiacs

useful for this purpose, Plutarch astoundingly, is the principal speaker in 33,

or almost half, at least in the sense of having the nal word. In 39 cases either

he is absent or yields the ground to another speaker who has the principal or

nal word. In a couple of them Plutarch has a rather extensive speech, as in

2.1, which goes on for 15 (Loeb) pages25 . However, in the later books the rst

question becomes much shorter. Sometimes he defers to important personages

such as Sosius Senecio, to whom these books and the Lives were dedicated,

or to his former teacher Ammonios26 . ough invited to do so by Ammonios,

he has no complexes about developing a long and rather convincing counter-

argument to his teacher's proposition about ivy being hot (3.2). He also has no

qualms about taking on a respected physician on a medical matter (7.1). Nor

does he go completely unopposed. In Symposiac 1.9, his friend eon comes

close to calling him "full of baloney". us, half the time, we search for the

authorial voice, looking for Plutarch in disguise. But would his own persona

utter opinions he never subscribed to, even the brilliant nonsense of his youth

in e E at Delphoi ( De E apud Delphos)? At times he seems sympathetic to a

principal speaker's views. Sometimes his persona even says so. In most cases,

though, his mind remains a little inscrutable.

Several of the speakers who appear in later dialogues make possibly their

rst appearance in the Symposiacs. Among these are his brother Lamprias and

two friends named eon, one of whom is called his "companion". en there is

Ammonios, and naturally, Plutarch himself. In the dialogues, Plutarch appears as

a young student in e E at Delphoi, as a philosophy professor in at Epicurus

Actually Makes Life Impossible, and as a young married man in the Dialogue on

Love. e eon who is a grammarian from Egypt appears in e Face on the

Moon. e other, the "companion" — and according to Puech, Plutarch's most

constant friend in the Moralia — is a participant in both e E at Delphoi and e

24 S.-T. T, 1989-1996, III, pp. 299-300, notes that the 9th book is an exception in

treating only musical, literary and philological question, and that all the discussions take place

during the festival of the Muses in Athens.

25 Perhaps he thought Senecio might read the rst question but not the others.

26 On Sosius Senecio, spelled Sossius by Plutarch, see B. P, 1992, pp. 4883-5; on

Ammonios, 4835-6; and C. P. J, 1966, pp. 205-11.

"In Learned Conversation". Plutarch's Symposiac Literature and the Elusive Authorial Voice

Oracles at Delphoi (De Pythiae oraculis)27 . In the latter he is the principal speaker,

whose speech takes up 20 pages of the dialogue. He appears as well in A Pleasant

Life is Impossible (Non posse suaviter vivere secundum Epicurum). Plutarch's brother

Lamprias has a minor role in e E at Delphoi. It is easy to forget that here,

though the young Plutarch is reprimanded for a little wisdom being a dangerous

thing, he has a longer speech than the sublime one of his teacher Ammonios,

which concludes the dialogue. In e Obsolescence of Oracles (De defectu oraculorum)

Ammonios plays quite a prominent role. He guides the conversation and prefers

the theory that daimones are souls. Nonetheless, Lamprias is the principal speaker

and oers the nal solution to the cause of the prophecy. is involves, strangely,

a physical emanation coming from the ground at Delphoi. He also appears in e

E at Delphoi ( De E apud Delphos) and is, amazingly, the narrator and principal

speaker in e Face on the Moon. us, the cast of characters of the dialogues bears

a strong resemblance to some of the Symposiacs. Lamprias has the last word in

three of them (1.2, 2.5, 4.5, and 8.6) is the main speaker in three or four (2.9, 5.9,

and 7.5, and possibly in 7.10). Most remarkably, Ammonios is a relatively minor

character in the Symposiacs, considering his intellectual and political stature in

real life and his enormous theological role in e E at Delphoi. He is the principal

speaker in only two Symposiacs (9.1 and 9.14) and is only one among others in

another two (9.2 and 9.5).

Plutarch's readers, like all Greeks and Romans, as we are often told, had

better memories than we, whose computers do our remembering for us. us,

judging by the Symposiacs alone, Lamprias lacks prestige and is sometimes on

the wrong side. He might have been the author of the materialistic solution

to the functioning of prophecy in e Obsolescence of Oracles, but how could

he be responsible for the great scientic exposition in e Face on the Moon?

Certainly Plutarch's friends would have immediately recognized him behind

the mask of Lamprias. More problematic is how to interpret Ammonios,

the great Alexandrian theologian who pronounces such sublime doctrine at

the end of e E at Delphoi, identifying God with Being and the Good28 .

He is not such a commanding gure in the Symposiacs, but his philosophical

stature would permit him to have a commanding voice. In this case there

might have been something of a compromise. Reading his speech in the E at

Delphoi, Plutarch's friends would certainly expect to nd some resemblance to

Ammonios' real teaching. ey might have wondered, too, why Plutarch left

him on the sidelines so long. One suspects an attempt to keep some distance

between his philosophy and Ammonios'29 .

27 See B. P, 1992, p. 4886. Others are less certain about their roles; see P. A. C,

1969, pp. 48-9, note b.

28 J. O, 2007, sees the topics of the Platonic Questions being picked up and developed

in the dialogues, e.g. e E at Delphoi, including the deliberate introduction of errors to be

corrected. In this case, Ammonios carries on the role that Plutarch had in the Platonic Question

(5). In the end useful or worthy aspects of the false views will be incorporated into the nal,

superior solution, at times one original with Plutarch (esp. ms. pp. 17-20). For the position of

the Symposiacs in this, see ms. p. 17.

29 See my forthcoming article, "Proceeding to Loftier Heights': Plutarch the eologian and

e role of eon, the Egyptian grammatikos, who appears in only two

Symposiacs (1.9 and 8.8), might barely allow him to be a speaker in e Face on

the Moon. e other eon, the "companion" of Plutarch, whom we nd in only

three Symposiacs (1.4, 4.3, 8.6), surprisingly appears in the E at Delphoi , e

Oracles at Delphoi, and at Epicurus Makes a Pleasant Life Impossible. at he

should be such an authoritative gure in e Oracles at Delphoi, with the nal and

denitive speech of 18 pages, comes as a great surprise. Certainly the suspicions

of Plutarch's readers and friends would also be aroused by Kleombrotos, the

Spartan friend, who describes the daimones in such horrendous terms in e

Obsolescence of the Oracles, and receives 17 pages30 . He appears in no other work,

including the Symposiacs, but his Frankensteinian exposition has captivated

the imagination of great religious scholars (410C-F, 414F-418D). e Stoic

Sophist, Philippos of Prousias on the Hypios in Bithynia is responsible for the

story of the death of the Great Pan o the Island of Paxos (near the present

Corfu) in the Ionian Sea (419B-E)31 . He is the only speaker in 7.7 and has a

few words in 7.8, but appears nowhere else in Plutarch's works32 . What goes for

Kleombrotos applies as well for Demetrios of Tarsos, a grammarian friend of

Plutarch's, responsible for the story of the "Great Souls" dying o the coast of

the British Isles (6 pages) (419E-420A). He, too, is absent from the Symposiacs

and appears nowhere else in the Moralia 33 .

In conclusion a bad memory may be a plus for drinking partners, who

usually have bad memories anyway and sometimes even complete amnesia.

But let us opt for Plutarch in Symposiac 6.1, where he champions the necessity

to remember the philosophical discussions which occur in symposions and even

to record them. us justifying the reason for their existence, he has passed on

the Symposiacs to posterity, including us, even if leaving the vague impression

that all was not, strictly speaking, "recorded".

W o r k s c i T e d

A, G., "e Banquet of Belles-Lettres: Athenaeus and the Comic

Symposium", in D. B & J. W (eds.), 2000, pp. 316-27.

A, D. E., "Septem Sapientium Convivium", in H. D. B (ed.), Plutarch's

eological Writings and Early Christians Literature, Leiden, 1972, pp.

51-105.

the Philosophy of His Time", in E. K (ed.), Plutarch and Philosophy. Scholarship and/or

Dilettantism?, forthcoming.

30 B . P, 1992, p. 4843, presumes he was a companion, in the ephebeia, of the Philippos

who was ephor of Sparta in 87/89 A.D.

31 Prousias, not Prousa. O'Neil's index for the Moralia still gets it wrong.

32 Evidently the same person, though in 418A described only as an historian (συγγραφεύς).

See B. P, 1992, pp. 4869-70, but her remark (p. 4870) about him mentioning Bithynia in

On the Oracles at Delphoi seems to be mistaken.

33 B. P, 1992, pp. 4844-5, has a long entry on Demetrios.

"In Learned Conversation". Plutarch's Symposiac Literature and the Elusive Authorial Voice

B, D., "La composition des Dialogues de Plutarque et le problème de leur

unité", JS 27 (1992) 187-234.

_____ Parerga. Choix d'articles de Daniel Babut (1974-1994), Lyon, 1994.

B B, R., Unruly Eloquence. Lucian and the Comedy of Traditions,

Cambridge, Mass., 1989.

B, D. & W, J. (eds.), Athenaeus and His World. Reading Greek

Culture in the Roman Empire, Exeter, 2000.

B, F. E. & L C, F., Review of S. J, Il convitato sullo

sgabello. Plutarco, Esopo ed i Sette Savi, Pisa/Rome, 1997 in CR, 50

(2000) 286-87.

B, F. E., "'Uttering Unperfumed Words, Yet Reaches to a ousand Years

with Her Voice.' Plutarch and His Age", in idem (ed.), With Unperfumed

Voice. Studies in Plutarch, in Greek Literature, Religion and Philosophy, and

in the New Testament Background, Stuttgart, 2007, pp. 17-51. (Italian

version: "'Parlando senza profumi raggiunge con la voce mille anni.'

Plutarco e la sua età", in P. V C  F. F (eds.),

Plutarco e la cultura della sua età, Naples, 2007, pp. 11-38.)

B, A., Les Sept Sages de la Grèce Antique. Transmission et utilisation d'un

patrimoine légendaire d'Hérodote à Plutarque, Paris, 2002.

C, D. A., Greek Lyric Poetry V. e New School of Poetry and Anonymous

Songs and Hymns, Cambridge, Mass., 1993.

C, P. A., Plutarch's Moralia VIII, Cambridge, Mass., 1969.

D, F., Le plaisir et la loi. Du Banquet de Platon au Satiricon, Paris, 2002.

F, F., "Deux images des Banquets de Lettrés: les Propos de Table de

Plutarque et le Banquet de Lucien", in A. B (ed.), Lucien de

Samosate, Lyon, 1994, pp. 125-30.

_____ Review of F. I, Dialogues pythiques. L'E de Delphes, Pourquoi la

Pythie ne rend plus ses oracles en vers, La disparition des oracles, Paris, 2006,

in Ploutarchos, 5 (2007-2008) 114-21.

F, F., "Les amis romains de Plutarque d'après les Propos de table",

REL, 44 (1966) 65-67.

G, D. L ., Xenophon's Cyropaedia. Style, Genre, and Literary Technique,

Oxford, 1993.

G, C., "Dialectic and the Dialogue Form", in J. A & C. R (eds.),

New Perspectives on Plato, Modern and Ancient, Cambridge, Mass., 2002,

pp. 145-72 .

G, S., Foucault's Virginity. Ancient Erotic Fiction and the History of

Sexuality, Cambridge, 1995.

H, J., Lucian's Satire, New York, 1981.

H-S, L., Aulus Gelius, Chapel Hill, 1988.

_____ Aulus Gellius. An Antonine Scholar and his Achievement, Oxford, 2003

(rev. ed.).

_____& V (eds.), A., e Worlds of Aulus Gellius, Oxford, 2004

H, R., Plato's Symposium, Oxford, 2004.

J, S., Il convitato sullo sgabello. Plutarco, Esopo ed i Sette Savi, Pisa

and Rome, 1997.

J, C. P., "e Teacher of Plutarch", HSCP, 71 (1966) 205-11.

________ Plutarch and Rome, Oxford, 1971.

_____ Culture and Society in Lucian, Harvard, 1986.

K, W. H., Gellius the Satirist. Roman Cultural Authority in Attic Nights,

Leiden, 2009.

L, R., "'Reading for the Moral' in Valerius Maximus: e Case for

Severitas", CCJ, 54 (2009) 160-87.

L, D. F., "Plutarco e a tradição dos Sete Sábios", in M. J  .

(eds.), Plutarc a la seva època: Paideia i societat. Actas del VIII Simposio

español sobre Plutarco (Barcelona, 6-8 de Noviembre, 2003), Barcelona,

2005, pp. 235-42.

L, C., "Présentation", in C. L (ed.), Cicéron, Paris, 2008 (=Revue de

Métaphysique et de Morale 1 [2008]), pp. 1-5.

_____"Cicéron, le moyen platonisme et la philosophie romaine: à propos de la

naissance du concept latin de qualitas", in C. L (ed.), Cicéron, Paris,

2008, pp. 5-20.

L, A., "e Play of Reection between Literary Form and the

Sympotic eme in the Deipnosophistae", in O. M (ed.), 1990, pp.

263-71.

M, I., "What Can Go Wrong at a Dinner Party: the Unmasking

of False Philosophers in Lucian's Symposium or the Lapiths", in K.

P (ed.), Double Standards in the Ancient and Medieval World,

Göttingen, 2000, pp. 247-59.

M, J. M., "Plutarch's Dinner of the Seven Wise Men", in J. M.

M (ed.), Plutarch and His Intellectual World, London, 1997,

pp. 119-40.

M, O. (ed.), Sympotica. A Symposium on the Symposion, Oxford, 1990.

O'N, E. N., Plutarch, Moralia XVI. Index, Cambridge, Mass., 2004.

"In Learned Conversation". Plutarch's Symposiac Literature and the Elusive Authorial Voice

O, J., "Plutarch on the One and the Dyad", in R. S & R. W.

S (eds.), Greek and Roman Philosophy 100 BC—200 AD,

London, 2007, pp. 379-95.

_____ "Sur les arguments non rectilignes et la pensée par cercles. Forme et

argumentation dans les Quaestiones Platonicae", in X. Brouillette and A.

Giavatto (eds.), Les dialogues platoniciens chez Plutarque. Stratégies et

méthodes exégétiques, Leuven, University Press (Ancient and Medieval

Philosophy. Series 1) forthcoming.

P, B., "Prosopographie des amis de Plutarque", ANRW II.33.6 (1992)

4831-93.

R, L., "e Λογόδειπνον: Athenaeus between Banquet and Anti-

Banquet", in D. B & J. W (eds.), 2000, pp. 256-71.

R, J. M., "Plutarch's Amatorius: A Commentary on Plato's eories of

Love?", CQ 51 (2001) 557-75.

R , C. J., Plato and the Art of Philosophical Writing, Cambridge, 2007.

R, D. A., Plutarch, New York, 1973.

R, R. B., e Art of Plato, London, 1995.

S, S., "Bilingualism and Biculturalism in Antonine Rome: Apuleius,

Fronto, and Gellius", in L. H-S  A. V (eds.),

2004, pp. 3-40.

T , M., "Logos Sympotikos: Patterns of the Irrational in Philosophical

Drinking: Plato Outside the Symposium", in O. M , Sympotica. A

Symposium On e Symposion, Oxford, 1990, pp. 238-60.

T, S.-T., A Commentary on Plutarch's Table Talks I-III, Göteborg,

1989-1996.

V, A., "Genre, Conventions, and Cultural Programme in Gellius' Noctes

Atticae", in L. H-S & A. V (eds.), 2004, pp.159-

86.

W, P. G., Cicero. On Obligations (De Ociis), Oxford, 2000.

W, F. C., "Beauty of Soul and Speech in Plato's Symposium", CQ, 58

(2008) 69-82.

W, J., "Dialogue and Comedy: e Structure of the Deipnosophistae", in

D. B & J. W (eds.), 2000, pp. 23-40.

Plutarch's Techne Rhetorike for the symposium in Quaestiones Convivales

pl u T a r c h ' s T e c H n e r H e T o r i k e f o r T h e s y m p o s i u m i n

Qu a e S T i o n e S co n v i v a l e S : T h e i m p o r T a n c e o f s p e a k i n g W e l l

T o c u l T i v a T e f r i e n d s h i p

L G J

University of Barcelona

Abstract

is paper discusses the advice on rhetorical matters that Plutarch gives in the Quaestiones

Convivales to stress the importance of good conversational skills in establishing fruitful

relationships with other people during after-dinner table talk. Reecting the association

between education and the symposiac context under the Roman Empire, Plutarch suggests

procedures for choosing and discussing the best themes for conversation, and for interacting

in an appropriate manner with the other guests. Rhetoric thus takes up a central position in

situations in which friendships may be made or strengthened.

e banquet in Ancient Greece was one of the favourite occasions for

the transmission of values and knowledge. e conversations held after the

meal, accompanied by wine – the nal part of the gathering, known as the

symposion – ranged over the most topical themes of the moment and helped

their participants to build up links of friendship based on common interests

and beliefs. Praise for bravery and youth centred the conversation in the circles

of Callinus and Tyrtaeus, while slightly later, Alcaeus and eognis celebrated

the membership of a political faction which trained the young in the traditional

values that they will need to perpetuate their status. Plato described another

kind of banquet that emerged during the Classical Era, a banquet where the

philosophical conversation of the most distinguished citizens helped the guests

to understand the world around them. In the Empire, the banquet was retained

as a space for encouraging fellowship and the exchange of ideas. However, as

betted the times of the Second Sophistic, the subjects addressed were more

trivial: the pepaideumenoi, cultivated men educated in the system of the egkyklios

paideia, showed o their knowledge in erudite debates in which every participant

could learn something new regarding the theme under discussions1 .

Rhetoric was also a fundamental ability for those cultivated men seeking

to hold interesting table talks with their friends. After several centuries in

which the dedication to laudatory and deliberative rhetoric predominated,

in the Empire the importance of forensic rhetoric gradually increased2 . A

rhetor of the Second Sophistic would not only have trained pupils for careers

in political councils or the courts where they would make declamations or

representations in front of auditoria, but would also have had pupils who did

1 F. P P, 1999 stresses the literary character of the banquets of the Empire,

and E. S   T, 2005, pp. 472-9 places Plutarch's symposia inside the environment

of academic and cultural circles.

2 Plutarch (QC IX 14.3, 744d) considers this form of rhetoric to be the rst to have

developed.

not wish to devote themselves professionally to sophistry but were interested

in learning the ways of good speaking for its own sake3 . At school, then, pupils

studied everyday situations in which an educated man could gain distinction

by demonstrating his oratory skills. Weddings, births, anniversaries, farewells

or funerals were occasions for showing one's knowledge of oratory and

rhetoric. In the classroom, teachers used small manuals which described the

most appropriate themes for each occasion and how they should be presented.

In the Techne rhetorike (attributed to Dionysius of Halicarnassus, but thought

to date from the third century AD4 ) are seven examples of these manuals,

known as μέθοδοι; they advise that speeches to celebrate births should begin

by mentioning the day the subject was born, the time of year, and the place, and

then should speak of the qualities of the newborn and prophesize a promising

future (D. H., Rh. III)5 . Likewise, even if not in a systematic way, but rather by

means of interspersed comments often found in the prefaces, or in the form

of personal observations during the discussions between the guests, Plutarch

establishes in Quaestiones Convivales ( QC hereafter) a theory of rhetoric for

speeches and conversations at banquets, which would not have been out of

place in any rhetorical handbook of his time.

Rhetoric was the third and last stage in the Graeco-Roman educational

system and completed the acquisition of knowledge of cultivated people. In

parallel to its technical specicity, the learned men belonging to educated circles

such as Plutarch's, found in the teachings of rhetors the essential elements of their

culture6 . "Matière de base de la paideia , la rhétorique ne cessait de fournir des

cadres de pensée aux pepaideumenoi "7 , and, therefore, rhetoric was not excluded

from their table talks, as well as they discussed many other subjects from the other

two previous educational levels. Certainly, Plutarch's QC contains many passages

that deal with the subjects of the rst stages of the education given to the young

of the Empire8 . For instance, some questions discuss the nature of the letters of

the alphabet: one discussion enquires about the numerical proportion between

the quantity of vowels and semivowels (QC IX 3, 738c-739a), and another why

the alpha is placed rst among the letters (QC IX 2, 737c-738c). Plutarch claries

3 T. W, 2001, p. 5 describes a society that marked its prestige in terms of its

knowledge and immersion in the Greek paideia, not only among those who devoted themselves

actively to literature but also in society in general.

4 Cf. G. K, 1972, p. 320 and A. M, 2005, p. 18 for the attribution and the date

of composition of the work.

5 In spite of this ancient interest in speeches delivered in private occasions, there is not any

extant treatise on the rhetoric of conversations; cf. L. P, 1993b for a reection about the

lack of a conversational theory in rhetorical texts,

6 e theory and practice of rhetoric in other treatises by Plutarch have been studied in

depth in the collective volume of L. V  S, 2000 and in H. M. M J., 2001.

Specic studies of the theme in the QC are G. M, 1991 and S.-T. T, 1996.

7 F. F, 2000b, pp.188-89.

8 H. I. M, 1948, pp. 389-421 and R. C, 2001, pp. 160-245 describe a three-

stage educational process in which the young learnt to read and write with the grammatistes ,

studied and discussed literary authors with the grammatikos, and practised techniques of

composition with the rhetor.

Plutarch's Techne Rhetorike for the symposium in Quaestiones Convivales

that the answer proposed by Hermeias was the stock reason given in the

schools (QC IX 2.2, 737e). Words, and especially their use and their etymology,

constitute an object of discussion in their own right. Among the numerous

examples we nd throughout the nine books, two cases apply directly to the

context of the symposium. First, Lamprias defends the etymology of the term

used in Latin to designate the "supper" (coena-κῆνα) as the meal that is taken

along with friends, thus deriving from the word κοινωνία ("fellowship") (QC

VIII 6.5, 726e)9 . e second example is a question that debates the meaning

of the expression Achilles uses to ask Patroclus for more wine: "ζωρότερον

δὲ κέραιε" ( QC V 4, 677c-678b). Among the replies, Niceratus rejects the

traditional interpretation of "unmixed" for the term ζωρός and proposes the

meaning of "hot" for the word ζωρότερον, suggested by words such as ζωτικοῦ

("life-giving") or ζέσεως ("boiling"); but the poet Sosicles argues that the term

means "well-mixed", given the relation between the expression and a sentence

in Empedocles.

In the schools of the grammarians, the verses of the poets were discussed

and interpreted exhaustively in order to teach the pupils their meaning and

the methods of expression they used. Indeed, the commentary of literary

passages (especially texts by Homer) was an endless source of themes for

after-dinner table-talk. e QC presents many examples in which the

diners debate matters such as why the poet used a particular epithet for

each particular liquid, but called oil only liquid (QC VI 9, 695e-696d), or

which of Aphrodite's hands Diomedes wounded (QC IX 4, 739a-d). Literary

quotations10 are found throughout the discussions, and are mostly from

authors who made up the core of the school syllabus11 . On one occasion

Plutarch himself states that some of the issues that come up in the discussions

of the literary passages, such as the question of the antinomy of the third

book of the Iliad, should be studied by rhetoricians, who are well skilled in

this eld (QC IX 13.1 742a-b). So rhetoric was of considerable importance

in the banquet context; it served not only to resolve doubts presented in

trivial questions, but had a key role in ensuring that diners could enjoy the

company and the conversation to the full. Ammonius12 claims that everybody

needs culture and speeches (QC IX 14.2, 743e-f ), just after Herodes the

9 Cf. M. C, 1986 and B. R, 1997, pp. 239-41 for an outline of Plutarch's

use of Greek and Latin. B. R, 1997, p. 261 specically studies the discussion of the

etymology of κῆνα .

10 e use of literary quotations in speeches was a demonstration of the speaker's learning

and erudition, but they were also an important rhetorical device that could enhance the speech's

elegance and charm: ἔπειτα περὶ στίχων εὐκαιρίας ἐνέβαλεν λόγον, ὡς μὴ μόνον χάριν ἀλλὰ

καὶ χρείαν ἔστιν ὅτε μεγάλην ἐχούσης. 736e IX 1, 2; cf. Demetr., Eloc. III 150 and Quint., Inst. I

6.39. For a discussion of the use of quotations from Homer in Plutarch, see J. M. D L,

1994 and I. S, 2004-2005.

11 T. M, 1998 analyses the content, number, and importance of the literary texts used

in the schools of the Empire.

12 Ammonius had organized a banquet for some teachers to celebrate the end of the exams

at the Diogeneion; there they talked about the appropriate occasion to quote ancient books (QC

IX 1.1, 736d), which shows a close relation between education and some banquets.

rhetor has praised the function of rhetoric in conversation, attributing to

rhetoric the same importance in conversation as it has in front of the jury or

in deliberations (IX 14.1, 743d).

For Herodes, the ideal diner was a good ὁμιλητικός, a person able to

speak well when attending an "entretien " 13. roughout the QC, the success of

a banquet depends not so much on the food served but on the conversation

and the company. Plutarch tells Sosius Senecio of a comment once made by

an amiable man:

Χαρίεντος ἀνδρός, ὦ Σόσσιε Σενεκίων, καὶ φιλανθρώπου λόγον ἔχουσι

Ῥωμαῖοι διὰ στόματος, ὅστις ἦν ὁ εἰπών, ἐπεὶ μόνος ἐδείπνησεν, 'βεβρωκέναι,

μὴ δεδειπνηκέναι σήμερον', ὡς τοῦ δείπνου κοινωνίαν καὶ φιλοφροσύνην

ἐφηδύνουσαν ἀεὶ ποθοῦντος. (QC VII Praef. 1, 697c).

e Romans, Sossius Senecio, are fond of quoting a witty and sociable person

who said, after a solitary meal, 'I have eaten, but not dined to-day,' implying

that a 'dinner' always requires friendly sociability for seasoning.14

For this man, the banquet context always represented tolerance and

cordiality. Plutarch also explains that the most important aspect of the banquet

is the presence of a friend, family member or acquaintance – not to eat and

drink with us, but to take part in the give-and-take of conversation (QC VII,

Praef., 1, 697d)15 . In fact, the rst of the questions posed in the second book tries

to establish whether it is better for the food at a banquet to be served to each

guest or on common trays from which each guest should serve himself (QC

II 10, 642e-644e). Hagias favours the use of common trays, since, in his view,

the banquet is an occasion that invites the company to general fellowship (QC

II 10.1, 642f-643a), manifested not only in sharing a common meal but also

in singing, entertainments and conversation (QC II 10.1, 643b). Conversation

is the sustenance that feeds the soul once the body has had its ll of food and

drink (QC V Praef., 1, 673a); men of wit and taste devote themselves to it and

feed the soul once they have eaten, in order to enjoy the pleasure that derives

from talk (QC V Praef., 1, 672e).

So it is not only the body that should be satised at the banquet. Guests

come to share not only meat, wine and dessert, but also entertainments such as

conversation and the amiability that leads to friendship (QC IV Praef., 660b).

For Dicaearchus, it is important to obtain the empathy of all, especially that

of well-bred people; the banquet is a better setting than the market place – a

place where people go to discuss their business – since people normally attend

parties in order to make new friends or to give a good time to the old (QC IV

Praef., 659e-660a). Dicaearchus is not alone; signicantly, in the preface to the

13 Cf. L. P, 1993b, pp. 428-29.

14 Translation taken from E. L. M  ., 1961, p. 5.

15 P. A. S, 1999 stresses the importance of conversation in the banquet, which

Plutarch compares with the enjoyment of ne food (see also L. R, 2002, pp. 183-9).

Plutarch's Techne Rhetorike for the symposium in Quaestiones Convivales

rst book Plutarch repeats the common belief that eating together encourages

friendship (QC I Praef. , 612d)16 . Later, one of the norms established for the

celebration of the banquet is the prohibition of doing or saying anything

that may impede its principal function: that is, to heighten fellowship, or to

engender it through pleasure (QC I 4.3, 621c). At a banquet it is better to run

out of wine than to take away the pleasure of conversation (QC V 5.2, 679a),

because this would imply the division of the party into separate groups and

would destroy the idea of community (QC V 5.2, 679b). Alexander the Great,

whose deeds and sayings acquired the category of chreiai 17 in the Empire, is

also praised in the QC as a model of a wise man who spent a great deal of time

in banquets, but drank little, preferring to spend his time conversing talking

with friends (QC I 6.1, 623d)18 .

But, how should these conversations technically be according to Plutarch?

e rst question of the rst book seems to be a declaration of intentions, as

Plutarch sets out the types of theme that are suitable for table talk (QC I 1.4,

614a-b). He also summarizes them in the preface to the fth book (QC V

Praef. 1, 673a). In general, they are themes taken from history or from everyday

life, which allow reections on life itself, history, or unusual subjects. Among

the questions discussed in the QC are the appropriateness of talking about

politics (QC VII 9, 714a-d and QC VII 10, 714d-716c) or about philosophy

(QC I 1, 612e-615c). Politics and philosophy, it is concluded, have their place

at the banquet, providing they do not interfere with the main object of the

occasion19 . Philosophical themes should be sought that do not cause angry

confrontations or are so dicult or technical that non-specialists are unable

to take part in the conversation20 and begin singing or telling foolish stories

(QC I 1.5, 614f-615a). Plutarch concludes that pedantry has no place at the

banquet (QC I 1.5, 615b). All the diners must be included and, whether or not

they speak, must feel that they are participants in the conversation (QC VI

Praef. 1, 686c). is is the basic norm for the choice of a theme at a banquet

(QC VII Praef. , 697e).

"What, according to Xenophon, are the most agreeable questions and

jokes to make at table?" (QC II 1, 629d-634f) is the rst question of the second

book: the answer is not very dierent to the one Plutarch gives for philosophy:

16 Plutarch represents friendship as one of the most important elements of society. e

multiple ways of representing and denoting it, both in the Lives and in the Moralia, have been

discussed by M. C, 1997, pp. 110-22; R. G A, 2000; M. L. D,

2001; R. M. A, 2002 and S.-T. T, 2007.

17 A chreia was an example of the words or deeds of a famous person which generally

contained a pedagogical or moral element. cf. R . C, 2001, pp. 223-5 and R. W, 2001,

pp. 294-6 on their rhetorical use as progymnasmata at school.

18 Cf. the contribution of P. G  M. M in this volume and T. W, 2002,

pp. 182-3, on the use of the gure of Alexander in the banquet.

19 For an analysis of the themes addressed in the QC see E. S   T, 2005, pp.

476-9 and F. M G, 1987, p. 26. S.-T. T, 1995 specically analyses the

inclusion of politics in the QC .

20 For this precise reason, Plutarch cannot include any systematical treatment of the

rhetorical theory in QC, and has to spread his opinions in several passages.

the most agreeable questions are the ones that are accessible to the greatest

number of the guests (QC I 1.5, 614e). ey should be simple, easy to answer,

and must deal with singular themes:

εἰ δὲ δοκεῖ καὶ ἡμᾶς ἐπιθέσθαι τῷ λόγῳ, πρῶτον ἡδέως ἐρωτᾶσθαί μοι δοκοῦσιν

ἃ ῥᾳδίως ἀποκρίνασθαι δύνανται· ταῦτα δ' ἐστὶν ὧν ἐμπειρίαν ἔχουσιν. ἃ

γὰρ ἀγνοοῦσιν, ἢ μὴ λέγοντες ἄχθονται καθάπερ αἰτηθέντες ὃ δοῦναι μὴ

δύνανται, ἢ λέγοντες ἀπὸ δόξης καὶ εἰκασίας οὐ βεβαίου διαταράσσονται

καὶ κινδυνεύουσιν. ἂν δὲ μὴ μόνον ἔχῃ τὸ ῥᾴδιον ἀλλὰ καί τι περιττὸν ἡ

ἀπόκρισις, ἡδίων ἐστὶ τῷ ἀποκρινομένῳ. (QC II 1.2, 630a)

And yet if it is decided that we too apply ourselves to the problem, it seems

to me, in the rst place, that men are glad to be asked what they are able to

answer easily, that is, questions about matters in which they have experience;

for about what they do not know, either they say nothing and are chagrined

as though asked for what they cannot give or they reply with a guess and an

uncertain conjecture and so nd themselves in a distressing and dangerous

situation. However, if the answer is not only easy but somehow striking, it is

Avviamento Alla Papirologia Pdf Download Free

Post a Comment

Formulir Kontak