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.

ResearchGate Logo

Discover the world's research

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

Join for free

Symposion and

Philanthropia in Plutarch

Josรฉ Ribeiro Ferreira, Delm Leรฃo, Manuel Trรถster

& Paula Barata Dias (eds)

Coimbra - Classica Digitalia / CECH - 2009

POCI/2010

E

Josรฉ Ribeiro Ferreira, Delm Leรฃo, Manuel Trรถster & Paula Barata Dias

T

Symposion and Philanthropia in Plutarch

P

Centro de Estudos Clรกssicos e Humanรญsticos da Universidade de Coimbra (2009)

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

Maria do Cรฉu Fialho

E B

Josรฉ Ribeiro Ferreira, Maria de Fรกtima Silva, Francisco de Oliveira & Nair de Castro Soares

T D   C

Delm F. Leรฃo

R A

รlia Rodrigues & Rodolfo Lopes

D

Rodolfo Lopes

P

Simรตes & Linhares, Lda.

Av. Fernando Namora, nยบ 83 - Loja 4

3000 Coimbra

ISBN: 978-989-8281-17-3

L D: 302102/09

© C  E C  H  U  C

© C D V C

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

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

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,

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 (Gรถteborg 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 Dรญ a S        P

Josรฉ Antonio FERNรNDEZ DELGADO (Universidad de Salamanca)

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

 P-P

Josefa FERNรNDEZ 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 :

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

Lluรญs GONZร€LEZ JULIร€ (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 SรNCHEZ (Universidad de Zaragoza)

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

Franco FERRARI (Universitร  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 (Universitร  di Palermo)

i

iii

3

19

31

37

51

63

75

87

97

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 TRร–STER (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 MARรN (Universidad de Murcia)

T   A

Pilar Gร“MEZ & Francesca MESTRE (University of Barcelona)

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

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

Lukas DE BLOIS (Radboud University of Nijmegen)

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

Nuno Simรตes RODRIGUES (Universidade de Lisboa)

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

Israel MUร‘OZ GALLARTE (Universidad de Groningen)

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

   

Dรกmaris ROMERO GONZรLEZ (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 (Universitรฉ de Florence)

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

Anastasios G. NIKOLAIDIS (University of Crete, Rethymno)

รˆ    S 

Paola VOLPE CACCIATORE (Universitร  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 BรRBARA (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 (Universitร  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 VรRZEAS (University of Oporto)

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

Vicente M. RAMร“N PALERM (Universidad de Zaragoza)

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

Josรฉ M. CANDAU MORร“N (Universidad de Sevilla)

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

C  C  รš

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

รlia 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 Pร‰REZ JIMร‰NEZ (Universidad de Mรกlaga)

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   

  

Josรฉ 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 GONZรLEZ 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 Araรบjo da ROCHA JรšNIOR (Federal University of Paranรก)

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. LEรƒO (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

i

Preface

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 รlia 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 (Muรฑoz Gallarte);

poisoning was always a possibility too (Romero Gonzรกlez). 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 Marรญn). 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. Gรณmez 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 Marรญn); 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, Trรถster,

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 (Trรถster); 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 (Ramรณn Palerm, Candau Morรณn, 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

register for assessing the behaviour of a more powerful person towards those

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 Vรกrzeas 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 Gonzรกlez 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 (Gonzรกlez

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 Leรฃo,

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 (Gonzร lez Juliร ), 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 ( Jรบnior) 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, Gonzร lez Juliร ): 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

(Pรฉrez Jimรฉnez), 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 (Gonzร lez Juliร ). 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 (Gonzร lez Juliร  again, Vicente Sรกnchez).

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 Morรณn, Molina Marรญn): 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 (Fernรกndez 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. Fernรกndez 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

Bรกrbara, 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 Leรฃo 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, 

3

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

Gรถteborg 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, ฮดฮตแฟ–ฯ€ฮฝฮฟฮฝ and ฯƒฯ…ฮผฯ€ฯŒฯƒฮนฮฟฮฝ/

ฯ€ฯŒฯ„ฮฟฯ‚, 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 ฯƒฯ…ฮผฯ€ฯŒฯƒฮนฮฟฮฝ .

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

of kings and tyrants and in the แผ€ฮฝฮดฯแฟถฮฝฮตฯ‚ of citizens in prominent position.

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

the aristocratic แผ‘ฯ„ฮฑฮนฯฮตแฟ–ฮฑฮน. 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 ฮบแฟถฮผฮฟฯ‚ 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 ฯ€ฮฑฮนฮดฮตฮฏฮฑ. 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 ฮบแฟถฮผฮฟฯ‚ of Alcibiades and his group, and see the descriptions of the vulgar ฯ€ฯŒฯ„ฮฟฯ‚

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 ฯƒฯ‰ฯ†ฯฮฟฯƒฯฮฝฮทฯ‚ แผ†ฯฮฑ ฮฟแฝ ฮดฮตฮฎฯƒฮตฮน แผกฮผแฟ–ฮฝ ฯ„ฮฟแฟ–ฯ‚ ฮฝฮตฮฑฮฝฮฏฮฑฮนฯ‚; ฮ แฟถฯ‚ ฮด᾽ฮฟแฝ”; ฮฃฯ‰ฯ†ฯฮฟฯƒฯฮฝฮทฯ‚ ฮดแฝฒ

แฝกฯ‚ ฯ€ฮปฮฎฮธฮตฮน ฮฟแฝ ฯ„แฝฐ ฯ„ฮฟฮนฮฌฮดฮต ฮผฮญฮณฮนฯƒฯ„ฮฑ, แผ€ฯฯ‡ฯŒฮฝฯ„ฯ‰ฮฝ ฮผแฝฒฮฝ แฝ‘ฯ€ฮทฮบฯŒฮฟฯ…ฯ‚ ฮตแผถฮฝฮฑฮน, ฮฑแฝฯ„ฮฟแฝบฯ‚ ฮดแฝฒ แผ„ฯฯ‡ฮฟฮฝฯ„ฮฑฯ‚ ฯ„แฟถฮฝ ฯ€ฮตฯแฝถ

ฯ€ฯŒฯ„ฮฟฯ…ฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ แผ€ฯ†ฯฮฟฮดฮฏฯƒฮนฮฑ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ€ฮตฯแฝถ แผฮดฯ‰ฮดแฝฐฯ‚ แผกฮดฮฟฮฝแฟถฮฝ, 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 ฯƒฯ€ฮฟฯ…ฮดฮฑแฝถ ฮดแฝฒ แผ‘ฯ„ฮฑฮนฯฮนแฟถฮฝ แผฯ€᾽ แผ€ฯฯ‡แฝฐฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯƒฯฮฝฮฟฮดฮฟฮน ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮดฮตแฟ–ฯ€ฮฝฮฑ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯƒแฝบฮฝ ฮฑแฝฮปฮทฯ„ฯฮฏฯƒฮน

5

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 ฯ€ฮฑฮนฮดฮตฮฏฮฑ. 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 แผ€ฯฮตฯ„ฮฎ 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 แผ€ฯฮตฯ„ฮฎ of Socrates, both his

sublime ฯƒฯ‰ฯ†ฯฮฟฯƒฯฮฝฮท 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

ฮบแฟถฮผฮฟฮน, ฮฟแฝฮดแฝฒ แฝ„ฮฝฮฑฯ ฯ€ฯฮฌฯ„ฯ„ฮตฮนฮฝ ฯ€ฯฮฟฯƒฮฏฯƒฯ„ฮฑฯ„ฮฑฮน ฮฑแฝฯ„ฮฟแฟ–ฯ‚ (sc. ฯ„ฮฟแฟ–ฯ‚ ฮบฮฟฯฯ…ฯ†ฮฑฮฏฮฟฮนฯ‚).

11 Lg. 649 d-e ฯ„ฮฟฯฯ„ฯ‰ฮฝ ฮด᾽ ฮตแฝฯ„ฮตฮปแฟ† ฯ„ฮต ฮบฮฑแฝถ แผ€ฯƒฮนฮฝฮตฯƒฯ„ฮญฯฮฑฮฝ ฯ€ฯฯŽฯ„ฮฟฮฝ ฮผแฝฒฮฝ ฯ€ฯแฝธฯ‚ ฯ„แฝธ ฮปฮฑฮผฮฒฮฌฮฝฮตฮนฮฝ

ฯ€ฮตแฟ–ฯฮฑฮฝ, ฮตแผถฯ„ฮฑ ฮตแผฐฯ‚ ฯ„แฝธ ฮผฮตฮปฮตฯ„แพทฮฝ, ฯ€ฮปแฝดฮฝ ฯ„แฟ†ฯ‚ แผฮฝ ฮฟแผดฮฝแฟณ ฮฒฮฑฯƒฮฌฮฝฮฟฯ… ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ€ฮฑฮนฮดฮนแพถฯ‚ ฯ„ฮฏฮฝฮฑ แผ”ฯ‡ฮฟฮผฮตฮฝ ฮผฮทฯ‡ฮฑฮฝแฝดฮฝ

ฮตแผฐฯ€ฮตแฟ–ฮฝ แผ”ฮผฮผฮตฯ„ฯฮฟฮฝ ฮผแพถฮปฮปฮฟฮฝ, แผ‚ฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ แฝฯ€ฯ‰ฯƒฯ„ฮนฮฟแฟฆฮฝ ฮผฮตฮธ᾽ ฮตแฝฮปฮฑฮฒฮตฮฏฮฑฯ‚ ฮณฮฏฮณฮฝฮทฯ„ฮฑฮน; … (650 a) แผฆฮธฮฟฯ‚ ฯˆฯ…ฯ‡แฟ†ฯ‚

ฮธฮตฮฌฯƒฮฑฯƒฮธฮฑฮน; (648 b) … ฮผฮตฯ„᾽ แผ€ฯƒฯ†ฮฑฮปฮตฮฏฮฑฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ แผ„ฮฝฮตฯ… ฮบฮนฮฝฮดฯฮฝฯ‰ฮฝ.

12 Alcaeus frg. 95 Rein. (=frg. 366 V.) ฮฟแผถฮฝฮฟฯ‚, แฝฆ ฯ†ฮฏฮปฮต ฯ€ฮฑแฟ–, ฮบฮฑแฝถ แผ€ฮปฮฌฮธฮตฮฑ, frg. 73 Rein. (=frg.

333 V.) ฮฟแผถฮฝฮฟฯ‚ ฮณแฝฐฯ แผ€ฮฝฮธฯฯŽฯ€ฯ‰ ฮดฮฏฮฟฯ€ฯ„ฯฮฟฮฝ; A. frg. 393 R. ฮบฮฌฯ„ฮฟฯ€ฯ„ฯฮฟฮฝ ฮตแผดฮดฮฟฯ…ฯ‚ ฯ‡ฮฑฮปฮบฯŒฯ‚ แผฯƒฯ„᾽, ฮฟแผถฮฝฮฟฯ‚ ฮดแฝฒ

ฮฝฮฟแฟฆ; cf. eoc. 29.1-3 ῾ฮŸแผถฮฝฮฟฯ‚᾽, แฝฆ ฯ†ฮฏฮปฮต ฯ€ฮฑแฟ–, ฮปฮญฮณฮตฯ„ฮฑฮน ῾ฮบฮฑแฝถ แผ€ฮปฮฌฮธฮตฮฑ᾽.| ฮบแผ„ฮผฮผฮต ฯ‡ฯแฟ† ฮผฮตฮธฯฮฟฮฝฯ„ฮฑฯ‚ แผ€ฮปฮฑฮธฮญฮฑฯ‚

แผ”ฮผฮผฮตฮฝฮฑฮน. | ฮบแผ ฮณแฝผ ฮผแฝฒฮฝ แผฯฮญฯ‰ ฯ„แฝฐ ฯ†ฯฮญฮฝฯ‰ฮฝ ฮบฮญฮฑฯ„᾽ แผฮฝ ฮผฯฯ‡แฟณ; Io Chius frg. 26.12 West (= frg. 89 Leur.)

ฮฟแผถฮฝฮฟฯ‚ แผ”ฮดฮตฮนฮพฮต ฯ†ฯฯƒฮนฮฝ; 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

(ฯ€ฮฑฯฮฟฮนฮฝฮฏฮฑ ) is: "To give pain to one's companions under the inuence of wine".

7

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 ฮบฮฑฮปฮฟฮบแผ€ฮณฮฑฮธฮฏฮฑ.

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 ฮฑแฝฯ„แฝธ ฯ„แฝธ ฮบฮฑฮปแฝธฮฝ, 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 ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฏฮฑ ,

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 ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฏฮฑ 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 แฝ แผ€ฮตแฝถ ฯƒฯฮฝฮฟฮนฮบฮฟฯ‚ แผฮผฮฟแฝถ แผ”ฯฯ‰ฯ‚ ฮบฮตฮฝฯ„ฯฮฏฮถฮตฮน ฮตแผฐฯ‚ ฯ„แฝธฮฝ แผ€ฮฝฯ„ฮฏฯ€ฮฑฮปฮฟฮฝ แผ”ฯฯ‰ฯ„ฮฑ ฮฑแฝฯ„แฟท

ฯ€ฮฑฯฯฮทฯƒฮนฮฌฮถฮตฯƒฮธฮฑฮน.

18 Ch. 8. 15 แผก ฮดแฝฒ ฯ„แฟ†ฯ‚ ฯˆฯ…ฯ‡แฟ†ฯ‚ ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฏฮฑ ฮดฮนแฝฐ ฯ„แฝธ แผฮณฮฝแฝด ฮตแผถฮฝฮฑฮน … ฮฟแฝ … ฮดฮนแฝฐ ฯ„ฮฟแฟฆฯ„ฮฟ ฮบฮฑแฝถ

แผ€ฮฝฮตฯ€ฮฑฯ†ฯฮฟฮดฮนฯ„ฮฟฯ„ฮญฯฮฑ.

19 Ch. 8. 13 แฝ…ฯ„ฮน ฮผแฝฒฮฝ ฮณแฝฐฯ ฮดแฝด แผ„ฮฝฮตฯ… ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฏฮฑฯ‚ ฯƒฯ…ฮฝฮฟฯ…ฯƒฮฏฮฑ ฮฟแฝฮดฮตฮผฮฏฮฑ แผ€ฮพฮนฯŒฮปฮฟฮณฮฟฯ‚ ฯ€ฮฌฮฝฯ„ฮตฯ‚ แผฯ€ฮนฯƒฯ„ฮฌฮผฮตฮธฮฑ.

20 Ch. 8. 1 ฮแฝด ฯ„แฟ†ฮฝ ῞ฮ—ฯฮฑฮฝ, แฝฆ ฮฃฯŽฮบฯฮฑฯ„ฮตฯ‚, ฮบฮฑฮปฯŒฯ‚ ฮณฮต ฮบแผ€ฮณฮฑฮธแฝธฯ‚ ฮดฮฟฮบฮตแฟ–ฯ‚ ฮผฮฟฮน แผ„ฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€ฮฟฯ‚ ฮตแผถฮฝฮฑฮน.

21 Ch. 8. 32-40.

9

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 แผฮฝ ฮดแฝฒ ฯƒฯ…ฮผฯ€ฮฟฯƒฮฏแฟณ ฮ˜ฮตฮฟฯ†ฯฮฌฯƒฯ„ฮฟฯ… ฯ€ฮตฯแฝถ ฯƒฯ…ฮผฯ†ฯ‰ฮฝฮนแฟถฮฝ ฮดฮนฮฑฮปฮตฮณฮฟฮผฮญฮผฮฟฯ… ฮบฮฑแฝถ

᾽ฮ‘ฯฮนฯƒฯ„ฮฟฮพฮญฮฝฮฟฯ… ฯ€ฮตฯแฝถ ฮผฮตฯ„ฮฑฮฒฮฟฮปแฟถฮฝ. Athen. 14.632 A-B quotes a work by Aristoxenus entitled

ฮฃฯฮผฮผฮนฮบฯ„ฮฑ ฯƒฯ…ฮผฯ€ฮฟฯ„ฮนฮบฮฌ.

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 ฮฃฯ…ฮผฯ€ฮฟฯ„ฮนฮบฮฟแฝถ

ฮดฮนฮฌฮปฮฟฮณฮฟฮน, or ฮฃฯ…ฮผฯ€ฮฟฯ„ฮนฮบแฝฐ แฝ‘ฯ€ฮฟฮผฮฝฮฎฮผฮฑฯ„ฮฑ, 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 ฮ ฮตฯฯƒฮฑฮฏฮฟฯ… ฯ„ฮฟแฟฆ ฮšฮนฯ„ฮนฮญฯ‰ฯ‚ แผฮฝ ฯ„ฮฟแฟ–ฯ‚ ฮฃฯ…ฮผฯ€ฮฟฯ„ฮนฮบฮฟแฟ–ฯ‚ แฝ‘ฯ€ฮฟฮผฮฝฮฎฮผฮฑฯƒฮนฮฝ ฮฒฮฟแฟถฮฝฯ„ฮฟฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ

ฮปฮญฮณฮฟฮฝฯ„ฮฟฯ‚ ฯ€ฮตฯแฝถ แผ€ฯ†ฯฮฟฮดฮนฯƒฮฏฯ‰ฮฝ แผฯฮผฮฟฯƒฯ„แฝธฮฝ ฮตแผถฮฝฮฑฮน แผฮฝ ฯ„แฟท ฮฟแผดฮฝแฟณ ฮผฮฝฮตฮฏฮฑฮฝ ฯ€ฮฟฮนฮตแฟ–ฯƒฮธฮฑฮน, id. 4. 162 B-C

ฮ ฮตฯฯƒฮฑฮฏฮฟฯ… ฯ„ฮต ฯ„ฮฟแฟฆ ฮบฮฑฮปฮฟแฟฆ ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฟฯƒฯŒฯ†ฮฟฯ… ฮฃฯ…ฮผฯ€ฮฟฯ„ฮนฮบฮฟแฝบฯ‚ ฮดฮนฮฑฮปฯŒฮณฮฟฯ…ฯ‚ ฯƒฯ…ฮฝฯ„ฮตฮธฮญฮฝฯ„ฮฑฯ‚ …, แผฮฝ ฮฟแผทฯ‚ ฮถฮทฯ„ฮตแฟ–, แฝ…ฯ€ฯ‰ฯ‚

แผ‚ฮฝ ฮผแฝด ฮบฮฑฯ„ฮฑฮบฮฟฮนฮผฮทฮธแฟถฯƒฮนฮฝ ฮฟแผฑ ฯƒฯ…ฮผฯ€ฯŒฯ„ฮฑฮน, ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ€แฟถฯ‚ ฯ„ฮฑแฟ–ฯ‚ แผฯ€ฮนฯ‡ฯฯƒฮตฯƒฮน ฯ‡ฯฮทฯƒฯ„ฮญฮฟฮฝ ฯ€ฮทฮฝฮฏฮบฮฑ ฯ„ฮต ฮตแผฐฯƒฮฑฮบฯ„ฮญฮฟฮฝ

ฯ„ฮฟแฝบฯ‚ แฝกฯฮฑฮฏฮฟฯ…ฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ„แฝฐฯ‚ แฝกฯฮฑฮฏฮฑฯ‚ ฮตแผฐฯ‚ ฯ„แฝธ ฯƒฯ…ฮผฯ€ฯŒฯƒฮนฮฟฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ€ฯŒฯ„ฮต ฮฑแฝฯ„ฮฟแฝบฯ‚ ฯ€ฯฮฟฯƒฮดฮตฮบฯ„ฮญฮฟฮฝ แฝกฯฮฑฯŠฮถฮฟฮผฮญฮฝฮฟฯ…ฯ‚

ฮบฯ„ฮป. …. (ฮ ฮตฯฯƒฮฑแฟ–ฮฟฯ‚), แฝƒฯ‚ ฯ€ฮตฯแฝถ ฯ„ฮฑแฟฆฯ„ฮฑ ฯ„แฝดฮฝ ฮดฮนฮฌฮฝฮฟฮนฮฑฮฝ แผ€ฮตแฝถ ฯƒฯ„ฯฮญฯ†ฯ‰ฮฝ.

31 Ath. 14. 629 EF ฮบฮฑฮปฮตแฟ–ฯ„ฮฑฮน ฮดฮญ ฯ„ฮนฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ แผ„ฮปฮปฮท แฝ„ฯฯ‡ฮทฯƒฮนฯ‚ ฮบฯŒฯƒฮผฮฟฯ… แผฮบฯ€ฯฯฯ‰ฯƒฮนฯ‚, แผงฯ‚ ฮผฮฝฮทฮผฮฟฮฝฮตฯฮตฮน

ฮœฮญฮฝฮนฯ€ฯ€ฮฟฯ‚ แฝ ฮบฯ…ฮฝฮนฮบแฝธฯ‚ แผฮฝ ฯ„แฟท ฮฃฯ…ฮผฯ€ฮฟฯƒฮฏแฟณ.

11

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.

13

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 ฮฃฯ…ฮผฯ€ฮฟฯƒฮนฮฑฮบฮฌ

or ฮฃฯฮผฮผฮนฮบฯ„ฮฑ 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 ฯƒฯ…ฮผฯ€ฮฟฯ„ฮนฮบฮฌ and ฯƒฯ…ฮผฯ€ฮฟฯƒฮนฮฑฮบฮฌ 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 ฮฃฯ…ฮผฯ€ฮฟฯƒฮนฮฑฮบฮฌ 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.

15

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 ฮฃฯ…ฮผฯ€ฮฟฯƒฮนฮฑฮบฮฌ . 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 ฮฃฯ…ฮผฯ€ฮฟฯƒฮนฮฑฮบฮฌ 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 dรฉpassement de la rรฉalitรฉ 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 littรฉrature au banquet

d´Homรจre ร  Athรฉnรฉe", 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.)

16

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 Espaรฑol sobre Plutarco (Cรกdiz, 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, Gรถteborg, 1989.

_____ A Commentary on Plutarch's Table Talks II, Gรถteborg, 1990.

17

S 1

Philosophical and Literary Contexts of the Symposion

19

Trabajos y Dรญas como hipotexto de las obras simposรญacas de Plutarco

Tr a b a j o S y Dรญ 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 รญ 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. Fernรกndez 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 extensiรณn similar al presente he podido

abordar el estudio de la relaciรณn intertextual entre la Teogonรญa hesiรณdica y el

conjunto de la obra plutarquea1 , el anรกlisis de la presencia de Trabajos y Dรญas

solamente, en el marco de las piezas simposรญacas de Plutarco, condicionado por

la temรกtica del presente congreso, se justica en primer lugar por el elevado

nรบmero de citas de este poema hesiรณdico en la obra del Queronense en general,

proporcionalmente mayor incluso que el de las citas homรฉricas, que son con

mucho las mรกs numerosas2 . De hecho el nรบmero de pasajes de Teogonรญa 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 รณ 19 segรบn los cรกlculos de Helmbold &

O'Neil3 , aunque tres de ellos son evocados dos o tres veces; el nรบmero de citas

de Trabajos y Dรญas en sus obras simposรญacas solamente, asciende a 24. De ellas

curiosamente corresponden la mitad al Banquete de los Siete Sabios y la mitad

a Cuestiones Simposรญacas, si bien es cierto que dos de estas รบltimas (Mor. 692B:

VI 7 y Mor. 701D: VII 3) podrรญan referirse al mismo pasaje hediรณdico (Op.

368 s.) y la extensiรณn de las obras es de 105 (Mor. 146B-164D) y 812 (Mor.

612C-748D) parรกgrafos de la paginaciรณn de Estรฉfano respectivamente, con lo

que el รญndice 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

mayorรญa de las citas de Trabajos y Dรญas provienen del Comentario que Plutarco le ha dedicado. Cf.

tambiรฉn la selecciรณn de citas hesiรณdicas de Plutarco analizadas por A. P J, 2004.

3 Idem.

20

Josรฉ Antonio Fernรกndez Delgado

2. El carรกcter de las citas, por el contrario, es muy distinto en una y otra

obra, y no sรณlo por el hecho de que las de la primera se muestran acordes con el

contenido, mรกs discursivo y menos simposial, de la obra, mientras que las de la

segunda tienen mucho mรกs que ver con su ambiente propiamente simposรญaco

y los elementos caracterรญsticos de este, su organizaciรณn, la comida y la bebida,

y otros temas tรญpicos de conversaciรณn 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 opรบsculo; las segundas, en proporciรณn mucho menor (y todavรญa mรกs si

se comparan con las citas homรฉricas, las de la tragedia o las de Platรณn), se

distribuyen, no obstante, aquรญ y allรก, mรกs o menos regular y parsimoniosamente

a lo largo de sus IX "libros" con sus diez o mรกs cuestiones cada uno (el IX

contiene quince cuestiones), aun cuando las cuatro รบltimas cuestiones del libro

IV no se nos hayan conservado, siendo las รบnicas excepciones dignas de nota

la concentraciรณn 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 hesiรณdica segura4 ), la presencia

de tres citas de Teogonรญa en la cuestiรณn 14, otra en la cuestiรณn 15, mรกs otra del

fr. 9 M.-W. (Eeas) en esta misma cuestiรณn5 .

2. 2. De las citas de Trabajos en Banquete, a excepciรณn de la primera (Mor.

156E: Op. 744), que se aplica a una acciรณn tan tรญpicamente simposรญaca cual es la

prohibiciรณn hesiรณdica de poner la enocoe sobre la cratera de vino, y de la รบltima

(Mor. 158B), que sirve para dar un quiebro al tema tratado calicando al contertulio

Esopo de discรญpulo de Hesรญodo con mayor derecho que Epimรฉnides de Creta, al

hacerle heredar de la fรกbula hesiรณdica del halcรณn y el ruiseรฑor (Op. 203-212) toda

su sabidurรญa fabulรญstica, las diez restantes se aplican al tema de la dieta, ya sea en la

forma de alimentaciรณn dietรฉtica practicada por Epimรฉnides (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 mรกs o menos literalmente

el verso (Mor. 157E: Op. 41 y Mor. 157F: Op. 46) o al menos la expresiรณn clave

(Mor. 156E: Op. 744 y Mor. 157F: Op. 45) del correspondiente pasaje de Trabajos

y Dรญas, las ocho restantes son solamente alusiones6 , de localizaciรณn a menudo no

unรญvoca, referidas a la dieta mรฉdica, con excepciรณn de la รบltima7 .

4 El par de hexรกmetros atribuidos a Hesรญodo en Sept. sap. conv. 10 (Mor. 154A) y no

localizados en la obra hesiรณdica conservada, levemente modicados son puestos en boca de

Homero en el Certamen Homeri et Hesiodi 100, que, en tรฉrminos no concordantes con los de

Plutarco, se reere como aquel a la participaciรณn de Hesรญodo en los juegos fรบnebres en honor de

Andamante, episodio recordado nuevamente en Quaest. conv. V 2 (Mor. 675A), segรบn luego

veremos.

5 Sobre la distribuciรณn de las citas y su naturaleza en la obra de Plutarco cf. E. B,

2008.

6 De acuerdo con la clasicaciรณn 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): "Hesรญodo tenรญa conocimientos de

21

Trabajos y Dรญas como hipotexto de las obras simposรญacas de Plutarco

Las citas de Trabajos en Cuestiones Convivales, en cambio, proceden de un

espectro de pasajes del poema mucho mรกs 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 discusiรณn propios del

banquete (VII 2, Mor. 701B "De quiรฉn es el lanzacuernos en Platรณn": Op. 471;

VIII 5, Mor. 725D "De por quรฉ los navegantes se proveen de agua del Nilo":

Op. 595) y mรกs particularmente a cuestiones escolรกstico-literarias (V 2, Mor.

675A: "De que era antiguo el certamen de poesรญa": Op. 654 sqq.; IX 1, Mor.

736E y 737C "Sobre las citas de versos hechas oportuna o inoportunamente":

Op. 11 y 763, la รบnica "cuestiรณn convival" que se sirve de dos citas de Trabajos

y Dias; IX 2, Mor. 738A "De cuรกl 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, aquรญ 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 parรกfrasis, 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 alusiรณn (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 morfologรญa, que es el de la funciรณn que esta desempeรฑa en el texto

receptor, las diferencias entre Banquete y Cuestiones Convivales en relaciรณn

con las citas de Trabajos tambiรฉn son notables. En la primera de las obras, a

pesar de la importante diferencia morfolรณgica entre las cuatro primeras citas

y las ocho alusiones restantes, segรบn hemos dicho, todas ellas desempeรฑan

una funciรณn esencialmente erudita, segรบn la cual la opiniรณn de Hesรญodo es

mencionada como punto de referencia para la propia argumentaciรณn8 . Es

mรกs, el afรกn de remitir a Hesรญodo los principios de argumentaciรณn fuerza a

Plutarco, por un lado, a establecer a veces en la citaciรณn a modo de retruรฉcanos

que aparentan contradecir la opiniรณn hesiรณdica, 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

tรฉrminos: "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 Hesรญodo prohibiรณ en reuniones de hombres mรกs 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 baรฑo de las mujeres, del momento adecuado para las relaciones

sexuales y de cรณmo se ha de sentar a los reciรฉn nacidos".

8 Cf. J. M. D L, 1994, p. 694.

9 ฮฑแผฑ ฮœฮฟแฟฆฯƒฮฑฮน ฮบฮฑฮธฮฌฯ€ฮตฯ ฮบฯฮฑฯ„แฟ†ฯฮฑ ฮฝฮทฯ†ฮฌฮปฮนฮฟฮฝ แผฮฝ ฮผฮญฯƒแฟณ ฯ€ฯฮฟฮธฮญฮผฮตฮฝฮฑฮน ฯ„แฝธฮฝ ฮปฯŒฮณฮฟฮฝ, แพง ฯ€ฮปฮตแฟ–ฯƒฯ„ฮฟฮฝ

22

Josรฉ Antonio Fernรกndez Delgado

Trabajos, que Hesรญodo remite a la Edad de Oro, en que no habรญa necesidad de

trabajar, es contrapuesta a la renada elaboraciรณn de los digamos complejos

vitamรญnicos mediante el siguiente juego de palabras, fuente de dicultades

todavรญa hoy no resueltas en la transmisiรณn del texto: "¿Cรณmo entonces en

Hesรญodo no estarรก puesto "el timรณn al humo" y "se acabarรญan los trabajos de

los bueyes y los sufridos mulos", si ha de ser necesaria tanta preparaciรณn?"10 .

Por otro lado, la cita del v. 41 de Trabajos "cuรกn gran provecho hay en malva

y asfรณdelo"11 es sucesivamente sometida a una triple interpretaciรณn – y con

ello puesta implรญcitamente de maniesto la riqueza y complejidad del texto

hesiรณdico – por parte de los sabios simposiastas Solรณn, Periandro y Anacarsis,

de los cuales para el primero es el germen de la particular dieta alimenticia

seguida por Epimรฉnides de Creta, para el segundo recomendaciรณn de

sobriedad y frugalidad en la alimentaciรณn y para el tercero alabanza de sus

propiedades salutรญferas (tesis apoyada a continuaciรณn por Cleodoro mediante

la cita de la serie de alusiones de Trabajos en relaciรณn con los conocimientos

mรฉdicos de Hesรญodo). En tercer lugar, una vez sobrepasado el umbral de la

primera cita del poema (cap. 13, Mor. 156E: Op. 744), aplicada al carรกcter

especial del presente simposio, todas las demรกs (cap. 14, Mor. 157E-158B) se

ensartan en un anillo composicional que comienza haciendo a Epimรฉnides

discรญpulo de Hesรญodo y, tras el despliegue de referencias de su poema al tema

objeto de discusiรณn, a travรฉs de la รบltima cita acaba concediรฉndole 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 fรกbula (ฯ„แฟ†ฯ‚ ฮบฮฑฮปแฟ†ฯ‚ ฯ„ฮฑแฝปฯ„ฮทฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ€ฮฟฮนฮบฮนฮปแฝทฮทฯ‚

ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ€ฮฟฮปฯ…ฮณฮปแฝฝฯƒฯƒฮฟฯ… ฯƒฮฟฯ†แฝทฮฑฯ‚, como la calica Cleodoro).

La funciรณn de las citas de Trabajos en Cuestiones Convivales es mucho mรกs

variada que en la otra obra, hasta el punto de que su casuรญstica comprende las

tres clases a las que bรกsicamente puede reducirse la tipologรญa funcional de la

cita12 y de las cuales en Banquete no se constata mรกs que el tipo erudito; a saber,

y aun con la dicultad que supone encasillar un tipo de intertexto en el que

generalmente mรกs de una funciรณn se halla presente al mismo tiempo13 , citas

ornamentales (dos: Mor. 657D, 701B) y, dentro de las citas del tipo llamado

lรณgico por su implicaciรณn 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caciรณn con respecto a Banquete alcanza

แผกฮดฮฟฮฝแฟ†ฯ‚ แผ…ฮผฮฑ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ€ฮฑฮนฮดฮนแพถฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯƒฯ€ฮฟฯ…ฮดแฟ†ฯ‚ แผ”ฮฝฮตฯƒฯ„ฮนฮฝ, แผฮณฮตฮฏฯฮฟฯ…ฯƒฮน ฯ„ฮฟฯฯ„แฟณ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮบฮฑฯ„ฮฌฯฮดฮฟฯ…ฯƒฮน ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮดฮนฮฑฯ‡ฮญฮฟฯ…ฯƒฮน

ฯ„แฝดฮฝ ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฟฯ†ฯฮฟฯƒฯฮฝฮทฮฝ, แผแฟถฯƒฮฑฮน ฯ„แฝฐ ฯ€ฮฟฮปฮปแฝฐ ฯ„แฝดฮฝ 'ฮฟแผฐฮฝฮฟฯ‡ฯŒฮทฮฝ' แผ€ฯ„ฯฮญฮผฮฑ ฮบฮตแฟ–ฯƒฮธฮฑฮน 'ฮบฯฮทฯ„แฟ†ฯฮฟฯ‚ แฝ•ฯ€ฮตฯฮธฮตฮฝ,' แฝ…ฯ€ฮตฯ

แผ€ฯ€ฮทฮณฯŒฯฮตฯ…ฯƒฮตฮฝ แผฉฯƒฮฏฮฟฮดฮฟฯ‚ แผฮฝ ฯ„ฮฟแฟ–ฯ‚ ฯ€ฮฏฮฝฮตฮนฮฝ ฮผแพถฮปฮปฮฟฮฝ แผข ฮดฮนฮฑฮปฮญฮณฮตฯƒฮธฮฑฮน ฮดฯ…ฮฝฮฑฮผฮญฮฝฮฟฮนฯ‚.

10 Manteniendo el texto transmitido por la mayorรญa de los mss. se puede entender que el

dicho hesiรณdico de la malva y el asfรณdelo es equiparado, como sinรณnimo de sobriedad, al tiempo

de la Edad de Oro, en el que se colgaba el timรณn del carro por no haber necesidad de trabajar,

contraponiendo hiperbรณlicamente esa situaciรณn a la laboriosidad requerida por la fabricaciรณn de

los fรกrmacos dietรฉticos.

11 ῞ฮŸฯƒฮฟฮฝ แผฮฝ ฮผฮฑฮปแฝฑฯ‡แฟƒ ฯ„ฮต ฮบฮฑแฝถ แผ€ฯƒฯ†ฮฟฮดแฝณฮปแฟณ ฮผแฝณฮณ' แฝ„ฮฝฮตฮนฮฑฯ. El verso ha sido privado por Plutarco de

su negaciรณn inicial para adaptarlo al contexto.

12 Cf. J. M. D L, 1994, pp. 693 sqq.

13 Ibidem, p. 691.

23

Trabajos y Dรญas como hipotexto de las obras simposรญacas de Plutarco

tambiรฉn a las citas de versos enteros o secciones importantes de versos, que, para

empezar, aquรญ son la mayorรญa y no solo las dos de la otra obra, y de ellas:

Mor. 618F: Op. 26 ฯ€ฯ„ฯ‰ฯ‡แฝธฯ‚ ฮณแฝฐฯ ฯ€ฯ„ฯ‰ฯ‡แฟท <ฯ†ฮธฮฟฮฝแฝณฮตฮน> ฮบฮฑแฝถ แผ€ฮฟฮนฮดแฝธฯ‚ แผ€ฮฟฮนฮดแฟท "el

mendigo envidia al mendigo y el aedo al aedo"

desempeรฑa principalmente una funciรณn de autoridad (aparte de ornamental

y erudita), como justicaciรณn de la actitud del simposiarco (Lamprias, el

hermano de Plutarco), quien se propone colocar a los comensales por rasgos

complementarios de su carรกcter o condiciรณn e impidiendo reclinarse juntos a

los de una misma profesiรณn (maliciosamente ejemplicada con "al sosta...con

un sosta y al poeta con un poeta") para evitar fricciones.

Mor. 657D: Op. 464 แผ€ฮปฮตฮพฮนแฝฑฯฮทฮฝ ฯ€ฮฑแฝทฮดฯ‰ฮฝ ฮตแฝฮบฮทฮปแฝตฯ„ฮตฮนฯฮฑฮฝ "ahuyentadora de

males y contentadora de niรฑos"

cita esencialmente ornamental (ademรกs de erudita) trasladada de su

aplicaciรณn hesiรณdica al rastrojo, a la mezcla de dos partes de agua con tres de

vino "la mรกs musical,...adormecedora y quitapenas".

Mor. 701B: Op. 471 ฮตแฝฮธฮทฮผฮฟฯƒแฝปฮฝฮทฮฝ แผ€ฯแฝทฯƒฯ„ฮทฮฝ "(no encuentran) la mejor

disposiciรณn"

cita entre ornamental y de autoridad de la segunda mitad pospentemรญmera

del verso, declinada, que Plutarco aplica a las semillas que al arrojarlas chocan

con los cuernos de los bueyes y no se entierran, y Hesรญodo predica en positivo

del ocultamiento de la semilla para que no la coman los pรกjaros, dato del texto

hesiรณdico que Plutarco deja inferir a sus cultos lectores.

Mor. 701D: Op. 368 s. แผ€ฯฯ‡ฮฟฮผแฝณฮฝฮฟฯ… ฯ€แฝทฮธฮฟฯ… ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮปแฝตฮณฮฟฮฝฯ„ฮฟฯ‚ แผฮผฯ†ฮฟฯฮตแฟ–ฯƒฮธฮฑฮน,

ฮผฮตฯƒฯƒแฝนฮธฮน ฮดแฝฒ ฯ†ฮตแฝทฮดฮตฯƒฮธฮฑฮน, "hartarse cuando se empieza y termina la tinaja, y

economizar a la mitad"

desempeรฑa una funciรณn bรกsicamente erudita (ademรกs de ornamental)

frente a la cual se establece una aparente polรฉmica (que en el fondo no es

tal, puesto que se trata de aspectos distintos del mismo asunto) por boca del

suegro de Plutarco, Alexiรณn, el cual sostiene sobre la calidad del vino la opiniรณn

contraria, es decir, que el vino mejor es el del medio de la barrica.

Mor. 703D: Op. 748 แผ€ฯ€แฝธ ฯ‡ฯ…ฯ„ฯฮฟฯ€แฝนฮดฯ‰ฮฝ แผ€ฮฝฮตฯ€ฮนฯฯแฝณฮบฯ„ฯ‰ฮฝ "de marmitas sin

consagrar"14

cita entre erudita y de autoridad de cierta prohibiciรณn hesiรณdica para

explicar cรณmo las relaciones de agradecimiento y comunicaciรณn deben tenerse

no solo entre los humanos sino tambiรฉn con los seres inanimados.

Mor. 707C: Op. 342 ฮคแฝธฮฝ ฯ†ฮนฮปแฝณฮฟฮฝฯ„' แผฯ€แฝถ ฮดฮฑแฟ–ฯ„ฮฑ ฮบฮฑฮปฮตแฟ–ฮฝ "invita al banquete al

que te quiere"

cita de autoridad aplicada a la desaprobaciรณn de la costumbre de que los

invitados llamados sombras acudan acompaรฑando a otros invitados.

Mor. 725D: Op. 595 ฮบฯแฝตฮฝฮทฯ‚ ฮด' แผ€ฮตฮฝแฝฑฮฟฯ… ฮบฮฑแฝถ แผ€ฯ€ฮฟฯฯแฝปฯ„ฮฟฯ… แผฅ ฯ„' แผ€ฮธแฝนฮปฯ‰ฯ„ฮฟฯ‚ "de

una fuente sempiterna y continua que estรฉ limpia"

cita de autoridad y erudita aplicada a la explicaciรณn de cรณmo el agua quieta

es mรกs fรกcilmente corruptible, por la tierra que acumula, que el agua corriente.

14 Amplia porciรณn del verso, no intercesural.

24

Josรฉ Antonio Fernรกndez Delgado

Mor. 736E: Op. 11 ฮŸแฝฮบ แผ„ฯฮฑ ฮผฮฟแฟฆฮฝฮฟฮฝ แผ”ฮทฮฝ แผ˜ฯแฝทฮดฯ‰ฮฝ ฮณแฝณฮฝฮฟฯ‚ "Sin duda no fue

uno solo el linaje de las Disputas"

cita fundamentalmente erudita, cantada intencionadamente para abrir la

tertulia simposรญaca subsiguiente al banquete con el que Amonio, el maestro de

Plutarco, agasajรณ a los efebos y profesores de cierta escuela ateniense, los cuales

se picaron entre sรญ.

Mor. 737C: Op. 763 ฯ†แฝตฮผฮท ฮด'ฮฟแฝ” ฯ„ฮนฯ‚ ฯ€แฝฑฮผฯ€ฮฑฮฝ แผ€ฯ€แฝนฮปฮปฯ…ฯ„ฮฑฮน "Ningรบn rumor

muere totalmente"

cita de autoridad en la cual cierto senador poco sensible basa su exhortaciรณn

a Casio Longino, a quien le habรญa llegado el rumor de que habรญa muerto su

hijo, a no desdeรฑar el chisme.

La diversicaciรณn alcanza tambiรฉn a los pocos casos de fuerte parรกfrasis

y de alusiones, muchas menos que en Banquete : Mor. 675A (Op. 654 sqq.),

alusiรณn a los juegos de Andamante como mero testimonio erudito; Mor. 692B

(Op . 368), alusiรณn con funciรณn 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),

parรกfrasis con funciรณn erudita del verso 405 de Trabajos ฮŸแผถฮบฮฟฮฝ ฮผแฝฒฮฝ ฯ€ฯแฝฝฯ„ฮนฯƒฯ„ฮฑ

ฮณฯ…ฮฝฮฑแฟ–ฮบแฝฑ ฯ„ฮต ฮฒฮฟแฟฆฮฝ ฯ„' แผ€ฯฮฟฯ„แฟ†ฯฮฑ, al cual, como en algรบn otro caso mencionado,

aparentemente contradice por mor de la explicaciรณn de que la alfa es la primera

de las letras porque asรญ lo dispuso su inventor, el fenicio Cadmo, dado que los

fenicios llamaban asรญ al buey, "al que consideraban no la segunda ni la tercera

de las cosas necesarias, como Hesรญodo, sino la primera".

3. Ahora bien, independientemente de las importantes diferencias

observadas entre Banquete y Cuestiones Convivales en el grado de apropiaciรณn de

Trabajos como hipotexto, si no mรกs numerosa sรญ mรกs regular en su distribuciรณn,

asรญ como mรกs extensa y detallada, a la par que mucho mรกs diversicada, tanto

en su morfologรญa como en su funciรณn, en la segunda de las piezas simposรญacas

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 polรฉmico que se observa en la introducciรณn de algunas de las

citas hesiรณdicas de Banquete mencionadas (Mor. 156E: Op. 744, Mor. 157F:

Op. 45 s.) y que, lejos de cualquier intento de desmarcamiento de la doctrina

hesiรณdica, lo que hacen es conrmar su homenaje a esta mediante una vuelta

de tuerca del ejercicio evocador; algo asรญ encontramos en la citaciรณn 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 recusaciรณn es puesta en boca del suegro de

Plutarco (mencionado solo aquรญ por el autor), del cual dice este que se mofaba

de Hesรญodo por ello, sin darse cuenta, podemos aรฑadir nosotros, de algo de lo

que sin duda Plutarco sรญ se daba cuenta y es que el dicho hesiรณdico no se reere

a la calidad del vino, sino que funciona como metรกfora del ahorro15 ; parece ser,

15 Como bien ha explicado Plutarco en su Comentario a Trabajos y Dรญas, ad loc. y pace

Teodorsson y los comentaristas antiguos Geop. VII 6, 8 y Macrob. Sat. VII 12, 13, que no lo han

25

Trabajos y Dรญas como hipotexto de las obras simposรญacas de Plutarco

pues, una refutaciรณn sarcรกstica y de ahรญ que el autor termine diciendo "dejemos

en paz a Hesรญodo"; o en la citaciรณn 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 Hesรญodo") y en todo caso deudora de la rotunda y no incompatible

declaraciรณn hesiรณdica "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 simposรญacas en estrecha relaciรณn con este es el procedimiento

de citaciรณn en general, el cual constituye uno de los rasgos denitorios en la

caracterizaciรณn de las citas como hecho de intertextualidad16 . A diferencia de

lo que ocurre, sin ir mรกs 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 acompaรฑar

por el nombre del poeta o por una perรญfrasis del mismo (en dos casos)17 , las citas

de Trabajos en Banquete son todas introducidas bajo la menciรณn del nombre

de Hesรญodo, ya se trate de las cuatro citas literales o ligeramente parafrรกsticas

(Mor. 156E-157F), o bien del bloque de alusiones subsiguiente (Mor. 158B),

de modo que el nรบmero no elevado de citas se ve de alguna forma compensado

por la memoria expresa (probablemente mรกs necesaria en este caso que en el

de Homero) que Plutarco hace de las enseรฑanzas 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 alusiรณn erudita a los juegos de Andamante que se supone

es cita-testimonio de Op. 654 sqq., no menciona a Hesรญodo pero aรฑade que

este y Homero, segรบn una fuente no hesiรณdica18 , tomaron parte en aquellos;

la primera (Mor. 618F) y la tercera (Mor. 737C) son sendos hexรกmetros (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 mรกs datos; eso mismo se deduce de los tรฉrminos

en que es introducido el segundo hexรกmetro por el senador que lo pronuncia

("como si no supieses y hubieses leรญdo eso de que..."), tรฉrminos que tambiรฉn

indican que la fuente es escrituraria (y no de tradiciรณn oral, en el caso de una

supuesta proverbializaciรณn del verso). Otras cuatro citaciones (Mor. 657D,

701B, 701D y 738A) mencionan el nombre de Hesรญodo (o el adjetivo derivado,

en Mor. 657D) en tรฉrminos algo mรกs que neutros, si bien su triple menciรณn en

Mor. 701D y su menciรณn en Mor. 738E son aparentemente polรฉmicas, como

hemos dicho. De las cinco citaciones restantes dos se confรญan abiertamente a

la autoridad hesiรณdica (Mor. 692B "como recomendaba Hesรญodo" y Mor.707C

"obedeciendo principalmente a Hesรญodo"), las otras tres ademรกs la ensalzan

entendido asรญ, 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 bibliografรญa citada supra en n. 6.

17 Cf. J. M. D L, 1994, p. 684.

18 Certamen Homeri et Hesiodi 60 sqq.

26

Josรฉ Antonio Fernรกndez Delgado

en tรฉrminos que conocemos por su empleo con estructuras retรณrico-literarias

anes a la cita, como la chreรญa, la sentencia o la propia fรกbula19 , elogiando la

รบltima citaciรณn, en lugar de al autor, el comienzo propiamente dicho del poema

(Mor. 703D "con razรณn Hesรญodo no permite", Mor. 725D "hermosamente

Hesรญodo alabรณ", Mor. 736E "el principio de los Trabajos...lo alabรณ como muy

adecuado al momento").

3. 3. Precisamente esta รบltima cita se halla รญntimamente ligada al tercer

punto de anidad, de orden composicional y semรกntico, que puede observarse

entre las dos obras plutarqueas al respecto, por encima de sus diferencias. Ya

hemos dicho cรณmo la primera cita de Trabajos en Banquete se reere al tipo de

simposio, en este caso el de los Sabios, y la รบltima ensalza el valor educativo-

literario del poema hesiรณdico a travรฉs de la fรกbula, aun cuando la ubicaciรณn de

las citas en la pieza plutarquea no coincide con su comienzo y nal, sino que

se agolpan en dos capรญtulos centrales de esta. De un modo paralelo, aunque en

este caso dispersas a lo largo de los Libros I al IX y รบltimo de las Cuestiones

Convivales, la primera cita de Trabajos en esta obra se reere a la colocaciรณn

de los simposiastas en el banquete y las tres รบltimas, correspondientes a las

Cuestiones 1 y 2 del Libro IX y รบltimo, pueden calicarse, como su homรณloga

de Banquete, de educativo-literarias. Con lo cual la aplicaciรณn 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 alusiรณn mรกs o menos explรญcita al importante papel

que las citas de Trabajos desempeรฑan no solo en estas obras de Plutarco sino en

algo para nosotros y para รฉl mismo mucho mรกs trascendente, que es el sistema

educativo y sociocultural en el que su producciรณn literaria, y la propia tรฉcnica

de la cita, en gran medida se inserta.

Las tres รบltimas citas de Trabajos en Cuestiones Convivales, en efecto, tienen

lugar dos en la Cuestiรณn primera y una en la Cuestiรณn segunda de las quince

de que, en lugar de las diez habituales, originariamente constaba, en razรณn de

la importancia de su temรกtica, el Libro IX, consagrado a las Musas, con cuyo

nรบmero coincide y es eco de las conversaciones mantenidas en su esta ateniense;

ya hemos dicho cรณmo, ademรกs de estas, la Cuestiรณn decimocuarta del Libro,

que es la propiamente dedicada al nรบmero de las Musas, contiene tres citas de

Teogonรญa y la Cuestiรณn decimoquinta una de Teogonรญa y otra de Eeas20 . La cita

de la Cuestiรณn segunda es aplicada, segรบn dijimos, a la explicaciรณn cadmea de

por quรฉ la alfa es la primera de las letras, cuestiรณn lolรณgica, como un buen

nรบmero de las del libro, suscitada en la esta de las Musas entre geรณmetras,

gramรกticos, rรฉtores y mรบsicos (Mor. 737D-E), es decir, entre los representantes

de los cuatro pilares en los que se asentaba la educaciรณn intelectual griega21 .

Las dos citas de la Cuestiรณn primera son la primera y la penรบltima de una serie

19 Cf. J. A. F D, 2007, p. 745 y n. 30.

20 La nรณmina de las citas hesiรณdicas en esta obra se cierra con otra cita de Teogonรญa en

la Cuestiรณn quinta (Mor. 678F) mรกs una cita de Teogonรญa y otra de la Boda de Cรฉix (fr. 267

M.-W.).

21 Cf. H. I. M, 1970, pp. 195-214; R. C, 2001, 185-230.

27

Trabajos y Dรญas como hipotexto de las obras simposรญacas 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 mรบsico Eratรณn 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 habรญa puesto ya de maniesto.

Alabado el verso por Amonio como muy adecuado al momento, a

continuaciรณn este hizo recaer la conversaciรณn nada menos que "Sobre las

citas de versos hechas oportuna o inoportunamente", consciente de que estas,

nos informa el autor, tienen "no solo encanto (ฯ‡แฝฑฯฮนฯ‚) sino utilidad (ฯ‡ฯฮตแฝทฮฑ) a

veces grande", es decir, adelantando en muchos siglos la actual clasicaciรณn

funcional de la cita en sus dos tipos fundamentales (de ornato y lรณgica)23 . El

resto de las ocho citas aparte la segunda de Trabajos ya indicada ("Ningรบn

rumor muere totalmente", รบltima gnome de la parte del poema que precede a

los Dรญas y tรกndem simรฉtrico por tanto de la otra cita hesiรณdica de la Cuestiรณn

IX 1 en cuanto a su ubicaciรณn no solo en esta sino tambiรฉn en el poema)

ilustra la oportunidad o inoportunidad de las mismas poniรฉndolas en boca de

dos rapsodos, del lรณsofo Anaxarco compaรฑero de Alejandro Magno, de un

niรฑo de Corinto a quien el cรณnsul romano que destruyรณ la ciudad le mandรณ

escribir un verso para averiguar quรฉ niรฑos libres sabรญan escribir, de la esposa de

un actor dirigiรฉndose a este, de la hija de Pompeyo Magno leyรฉndosela a este

por indicaciรณn de su profesor al regreso de aquel de la guerra, y de un asistente

a una exhibiciรณn de un gramรกtico 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 mรกs ingeniosos, a la vez que una demostraciรณn brillante y compacta

de la pericia con que Plutarco domina el arte de la cita, asรญ como del grado

de incidencia que esta presenta en la educaciรณn 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, asรญ como el

amplio y rico despliegue no desde el punto de vista numรฉrico sino de destrezas y

estrategias en el manejo de las mismas en sus obras simposรญacas, se entiende muy

bien en un contexto educativo como aquel en el que se formรณ tanto Plutarco

como sus lectores y oyentes, y del que, si no exactamente una teorรญa de la cita, sรญ

conocemos la teorรญa de ejercicios prerretรณricos, o progymnรกsmata, mรกs o menos

anes, como la chreรญa, la sentencia o la fรกbula24 . En el otro cabo de la etapa escolar

del grammatikรณs, es decir, al comienzo de la equivalente a lo que es nuestra segunda

enseรฑanza, estaba la lectura y asimilaciรณn de los grandes prosistas y poetas de la

22 Cuatro de Homero, una de una tragedia desconocida, otra del Orestes de Eurรญpides y otra

de la Electra de Sรณfocles.

23 Cf. J. M. D L 1994, pp. 690 s.; J. B, 1958, pp. 382-404: "Les

citations".

24 Cf. eรณn 62, 65, 70: L. S (ed.), 1854, pp. 57-130; M. P & G. B,

1997, L-LX.

28

Josรฉ Antonio Fernรกndez Delgado

historia de la literatura griega, entre los cuales Hesรญodo era un puntal seguro en

todas las listas canรณnicas25 , como atestigua asimismo el importante nรบmero de

papiros, no solamente de Trabajos, conservados, algunos de ellos escolares26 . A

ello hay que aรฑadir el particular feeling que sin duda suscitรณ en el moralista de

Queronea el poema gnรณmico 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 Moscรณpoulos.

bi b l i o g r a f รญ a c i T a d a

A, J., "Procรฉdรฉs 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 รฉcrivain. Imitation et crรฉation, 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., "Tipologรญa y funciรณn de las citas homรฉricas 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 Espaรฑola 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., "Genealogรญa como pretexto, Teogonรญa 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 Espaรฑola de Plutarquistas, (Universidad de Leรณn, 2006),

Leรณn, 2007, pp. 735-46.

25 Cf. R. C 2001, 197 s. Segรบn Libanio, Ep. 1036, 4 "Homero, Hesรญodo 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 Dรญas, cuya referencia aquรญ intenta

servir solamente como ulterior argumento in cauda en pro del enorme interรฉs de Plutarco en la

obra del moralista paisano, es actualmente objeto de investigaciรณn especรญca por nuestra parte.

29

Trabajos y Dรญas como hipotexto de las obras simposรญacas de Plutarco

H, W. C.  ON, E., Plutarch's Quotations. e American

Philological Association, 1959.

M, H.-I., Historia de la educaciรณn en la antigรผedad. Madrid, 1970. (trad.

de la 3ยช ed. francesa, Paris, 1955: 1ยช 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 รฉon. Progymnasmata, Paris,

1997.

P J, A., "El Hesรญodo 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 ร  l'Intertextualitรฉ, Paris, 1996.

S, L. (ed.), Rhetores Graeci, II, Leipzig, 1854.

T, S.-T., A Commentary on Plutarch's Table Talks, I-III, Uppsala,

1996.

31

Moderaciรณn en el simposio en Sobre la vida y poesรญa de Homero de Pseudo-Plutarco

mo d e r a c i รณ 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 รญ 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 moderaciรณn

en la comida y bebida en Sobre la vida y poesรญa de Homero (ฮ ฮตฯแฝถ ฯ„ฮฟแฟฆ ฮฒแฝทฮฟฯ… ฮบฮฑแฝถ

ฯ„แฟ†ฯ‚ ฯ€ฮฟฮนแฝตฯƒฮตฯ‰ฯ‚ ฯ„ฮฟแฟฆ แฝ‰ฮผแฝตฯฮฟฯ…), atribuida a Plutarco. Para ello, se parte del uso de

las citas de la Ilรญada y la Odisea del autor del tratado, que demuestra que los

excesos tienen efectos adversos en la salud humana. Ilustramos la tradiciรณn en

la que se encuadra esta idea a partir de los paralelismos con la medicina antigua

y el propio Plutarco.

El interรฉs del propio Plutarco por los estudios homรฉricos se demuestra en

una obra de la cual desgraciadamente sรณlo conservamos algunos fragmentos,

y que aparece en el catรกlogo de Lamprias como แฝ‰ฮผฮทฯฮนฮบแฟถฮฝ ฮผฮตฮปฮตฯ„แฟถฮฝ ฮฒฮนฮฒฮปแฝทฮฑ ฮด',

los cuatro libros de las Cuestiones Homรฉricas. A pesar del atractivo que revisten

estos fragmentos, no se corresponden con Sobre la vida y poesรญa de Homero, que

no ha podido ser relacionada con ningรบn otro tรญtulo plutarqueo y que, ademรกs,

segรบn 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 anรณnimo autor

parezca conocer las ideas de Plutarco, y que se hayan seรฑalado paralelismos que

pueden deberse a prรฉstamos tomados directamente de รฉl2 . El autor de Sobre la

vida y poesรญa de Homero es un grammaticus, un profesor, ya que el objetivo de

la obra es demostrar la armaciรณn de que "todo estรก en Homero", que en los

versos de la Ilรญada y Odisea ya encontramos todos los saberes.

En este interรฉs tan propio del mundo antiguo por descubrir el "primero",

el descubridor, el ฮตแฝ‘ฯฮตฯ„แฝตฯ‚ de cada aspecto de su cultura, Homero es el

"inventor" por excelencia. Por ejemplo, aunque sea simplemente en germen,

en รฉl encontramos todos los gรฉneros literarios griegos. Cualquier aspecto de

la vida cotidiana se rastrea en el รฉpico griego y, ademรกs, se llega mรกs allรก y,

segรบn una concepciรณn trascendental, los versos homรฉricos 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 seรฑaladas en G. N. B, 1896. Sobre las Cuestiones Homรฉricas y

la Vita Homeri, cf. H. S, 1899.

3 Ediciรณn de A. N , Porphyrii philosophi Platonici opuscula selecta, iterum recogn. Augutus

Nauck, Leipzig, 18722 (1860). Cf. A. B, 1968.

32

Josefa Fernรกndez Zambudio

donde encontramos una doctrina metafรญsica y cรณsmica escondida tras los nueve

elementos de la descripciรณn de la cueva en el libro XIII de la Odisea 4 .

En el tratado Sobre la vida y poesรญa de Homero se estudia, en primer lugar,

brevemente las tradiciones sobre la biografรญa del รฉpico, para pasar a un anรกlisis

de su obra desde diferentes puntos de vista. Asรญ, se observan las guras retรณricas,

las particularidades de la lengua homรฉrica, 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 capรญtulos 200 y

siguientes.

Homero no se ha limitado a un interรฉs teรณrico, sino que tambiรฉn en su

obra se encuentran referencias a la prรกctica mรฉdica, ฯ„แฝธ ฮดแฝฒ ฯ€ฯฮฑฮบฯ„ฮนฮบแฝธฮฝ ฮผฮญฯฮฟฯ‚ ฯ„แฟ†ฯ‚

แผฐฮฑฯ„ฯฮนฮบแฟ†ฯ‚5 . En este รกmbito, ademรกs de cรณmo ha de ser el ejercicio saludable6 ,

Homero ha tratado la dietรฉtica, es decir, cรณmo y, sobre todo, cuรกnto, se ha de

comer y beber.

El autor de Sobre la vida y poesรญa de Homero utiliza citas de la Ilรญada o de la

Odisea7 para ilustrar los temas de los que se ocupa Homero en sus poemas. En

los capรญtulos objeto de nuestro anรกlisis (205 y 206), comienza Pseudo-Plutarco

reriรฉndose a la ฮดแฝทฮฑฮนฯ„ฮฑ, que sรณlo serรก saludable (แฝ‘ฮณฮนฮตฮนฮฝแฝต) cuando sea ฮปฮนฯ„แฝต. Los

hรฉroes homรฉricos 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

moderaciรณn. Sin embargo, la excesiva frugalidad no es tampoco buena, pues sรณlo

los dioses pueden comer sรณlo ambrosรญa. Los hรฉroes, en cuanto mortales, necesitan

la energรญa proporcionada por los alimentos: แผก ฮณฮฑฯƒฯ„แฝดฯ แผ€ฮตแฝถ ฮดฮตแฟ–ฯ„ฮฑฮน ฯ€ฯฮฟฮปฮทฯแฝฝฯƒฮตฯ‰ฯ‚.

Esta necesidad de llenar el estรณmago se concreta a travรฉs de algunos

tรฉrminos que encontramos en los ejemplos homรฉricos de textos de la Odisea:

ฮบฮตฮปฮตแฝปฯ‰, แผ€ฮฝแฝฑฮณฮบฮท, ฯ€แฝทฮผฯ€ฮปฮทฮผฮน. Las dos citas para este pasaje pertenecen al libro

VII, donde Ulises pide que le dejen cenar tranquilo antes de preguntarle quiรฉn

es, segรบn las leyes de la hospitalidad8 :

แผ€ฮปฮป' แผฮผแฝฒ ฮผแฝฒฮฝ ฮดฮฟฯฯ€แฟ†ฯƒฮฑฮน แผฮฌฯƒฮฑฯ„ฮต ฮบฮทฮดฯŒฮผฮตฮฝฯŒฮฝ ฯ€ฮตฯ·

ฮฟแฝ ฮณฮฌฯ ฯ„ฮน ฯƒฯ„ฯ…ฮณฮตฯแฟ‡ แผฯ€แฝถ ฮณฮฑฯƒฯ„ฮญฯฮน ฮบฯฮฝฯ„ฮตฯฮฟฮฝ แผ„ฮปฮปฮฟ

แผ”ฯ€ฮปฮตฯ„ฮฟ, แผฅ ฯ„' แผฮบฮญฮปฮตฯ…ฯƒฮตฮฝ แผ•ฮฟ ฮผฮฝฮฎฯƒฮฑฯƒฮธฮฑฮน แผ€ฮฝฮฌฮณฮบแฟƒ

(Od. 7.215-217)

แฝกฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ แผฮณแฝผ ฯ€ฮญฮฝฮธฮฟฯ‚ ฮผแฝฒฮฝ แผ”ฯ‡ฯ‰ ฯ†ฯฮตฯƒฮฏฮฝ, แผก ฮดแฝฒ ฮผฮฌฮป' ฮฑแผฐฮตแฝถ

แผฯƒฮธฮญฮผฮตฮฝฮฑฮน ฮบฮญฮปฮตฯ„ฮฑฮน ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ€ฮนฮฝฮญฮผฮตฮฝ, แผฮบ ฮดฮญ ฮผฮต ฯ€ฮฌฮฝฯ„ฯ‰ฮฝ

ฮปฮทฮธฮฌฮฝฮตฮน, แฝ…ฯƒฯƒ' แผ”ฯ€ฮฑฮธฮฟฮฝ, ฮบฮฑแฝถ แผฮฝฮนฯ€ฮปฮทฯƒฮธแฟ†ฮฝฮฑฮน แผ€ฮฝฯŽฮณฮตฮน.

(Od. 7.219-221)

4 En ella introduce Atenea a Ulises para transformarlo en pordiosero y tramar asรญ la venganza

contra los pretendientes.

5 Vit. Hom. 204.

6 En Vit. Hom. 207.

7 Sobre las citas de Homero en la Segunda Sofรญstica, cf. J. F. K, 1973; en Plutarco,

cf. J. M. D L, 2001.

8 Cf. A. M P, 2002.

33

Moderaciรณn en el simposio en Sobre la vida y poesรญa de Homero de Pseudo-Plutarco

Encontramos tambiรฉn en estos versos una referencia a ฯ€แฝทฮฝฯ‰, que Pseudo-

Plutarco aprovecha para pasar a hablar de la bebida y de cรณmo precisa igualmente

de moderaciรณn: se tiene que beber vino con mesura, pues el vino ฮผแฝณฯ„ฯฮนฮฟฯ‚ es

แฝกฯ†แฝณฮปฮนฮผฮฟฯ‚, benecioso, pero si se bebe ฯ€ฮฟฮปแฝปฯ‚, serรก ฮฒฮปฮฑฮฒฮตฯแฝนฯ‚, peligroso.

En los poemas homรฉricos se describen varios benecios proporcionados

por el vino:

- Proporciona fuerza a los hรฉroes. Esta armaciรณn se concreta en el tratado

con la expresiรณn ฮดฯ…ฮฝแฝฑฮผฮตฯ‰ฯ‚ ฯ€ฮฟฮนฮทฯ„ฮนฮบแฝนฯ‚, apoyada por algunos tรฉrminos de las

citas homรฉricas: ฮผฮญฮฝฮฟฯ‚, แผ€ฮญฮพฮตฮน, ฮธฮฑฯฯƒฮฑฮปฮญฮฟฮฝ:

แผ€ฮฝฮดฯแฝถ ฮดแฝฒ ฮบฮตฮบฮผฮทแฟถฯ„ฮน ฮผฮญฮฝฮฟฯ‚ ฮผฮญฮณฮฑ ฮฟแผถฮฝฮฟฯ‚ แผ€ฮญฮพฮตฮน

(Il. 6. 261 9)

แฝƒฯ‚ ฮดฮญ ฮบ' แผ€ฮฝแฝดฯ ฮฟแผดฮฝฮฟฮนฮฟ ฮบฮฟฯฮตฯƒฯƒฮฌฮผฮตฮฝฮฟฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ แผฮดฯ‰ฮดแฟ†ฯ‚

แผ€ฮฝฮดฯฮฌฯƒฮน ฮดฯ…ฯƒฮผฮตฮฝฮญฮตฯƒฯƒฮน ฯ€ฮฑฮฝฮทฮผฮญฯฮนฮฟฯ‚ ฯ€ฮฟฮปฮตฮผฮฏฮถแฟƒ,

ฮธฮฑฯฯƒฮฑฮปฮญฮฟฮฝ ฮฝฯ ฮฟแผฑ แผฆฯ„ฮฟฯ แผฮฝแฝถ ฯ†ฯฮตฯƒฮฏฮฝ, ฮฟแฝฮดฮญ ฯ„ฮน ฮณฯ…แฟ–ฮฑ

(Il. 19. 167-170 10)

- Ayuda a la ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฟฯ†ฯฮฟฯƒแฝปฮฝฮท, pero sรณlo cuando es แผกฮดแฝปฯ‚. Pseudo-Plutarco

recoge el verso que introduce las dos ocasiones en que Pontรณnoo prepara la

mezcla del vino a instancias de Alcรญnoo.

แฝฃฯ‚ ฯ†ฮฌฯ„ฮฟ, ฮ ฮฟฮฝฯ„ฯŒฮฝฮฟฮฟฯ‚ ฮดแฝฒ ฮผฮตฮปฮฏฯ†ฯฮฟฮฝฮฑ ฮฟแผถฮฝฮฟฮฝ แผฮบฮฏฯฮฝฮฑ

(Od. 7. 182; 13. 53)

- Hasta puede curar, convertirse en una medicina. Asรญ ocurre con el vino

de Pramno, el que Macaรณn herido bebe en la tienda de Nรฉstor11 .

Sin embargo, estos benecios sรณlo se producen si estรก presente la

moderaciรณn. Por ello, cuando el vino es fuerte y deja de ser แผกฮดแฝปฯ‚ y ฯƒฯ„ฯ…ฯ†แฝฝฯ‚, si

es un vino ฯƒฯ†ฮฟฮดฯแฝนฯ‚ y ฮบฮฑฯฯ‰ฯ„ฮนฮบแฝนฯ‚, se convierte en perjudicial. Este es el vino

que Ulises da a Polifemo, y que le permite engaรฑar y cegar al cรญclope12 .

En resumen, el tema de este texto es la necesidad de moderaciรณn 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 hรฉroe homรฉrico. Sรณlo los

dioses se han librado de la esclavitud del estรณmago13 . Por otra parte, el vino es

9 Hรฉcuba ofrece vino a su hijo Hรฉctor para aumentar su ardor, pero รฉl lo rechaza, temiendo

que tenga el efecto contrario, y le quite el que ya tiene. Pseudo-Plutarco sรณlo utiliza el consejo

de Hรฉcuba, "olvidando" citar tambiรฉn los temores del hรฉroe 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. Tambiรฉn en esta ocasiรณn el

autor obvia los reparos que expresa Aquiles.

11 En Ilรญada 9. 639. Nรฉstor saca de la batalla a Macaรณn y lo agasaja en su tienda. La esclava

en realidad prepara un brebaje, aรฑadiendo al vino de Pramno queso de oveja rallado y harina. El

vino de Pramno tambiรฉn lo utiliza Circe en el libro X de la Odisea para que los compaรฑeros de

Ulises se olviden de su patria.

12 En el libro IX de la Odisea.

13 Cf. el cรฉlebre verso de la Teogonรญa de Hesรญodo, "ฯ€ฮฟฮนฮผฮญฮฝฮตฯ‚ แผ„ฮณฯฮฑฯ…ฮปฮฟฮน, ฮบฮฌฮบ' แผฮปฮญฮณฯ‡ฮตฮฑ, ฮณฮฑฯƒฯ„ฮญฯฮตฯ‚

34

Josefa Fernรกndez Zambudio

perjudicial si se bebe de mรกs, o si es un vino fuerte, pero siempre y cuando sea

dulce y suave proporciona energรญa y valor, ayuda a la ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฟฯ†ฯฮฟฯƒแฝปฮฝฮท, e incluso

puede curar a los enfermos.

La idea de la moderaciรณn, de la necesidad de un comportamiento

ฮผฮตฯ„ฯฮนแฝนฯ„ฮทฯ‚ en todos los รกmbitos de la vida se resume en la consigna "nada en

demasรญa", ฮผฮทฮดแฝฒฮฝ แผ„ฮณฮฑฮฝ. Esta idea se aplica a la dieta, a los hรกbitos de comida y

bebida, tanto en los textos mรฉdicos conservados como en el propio Plutarco.

Se trata de una concepciรณn que cuenta con una tradiciรณn bien conocida y por

ello me limitarรฉ a exponer algunas ideas generales y textos signicativos, donde

ademรกs de las correspondencias de contenido encontramos tambiรฉn un lรฉxico

similar al que aparece en Sobre la vida y poesรญa de Homero.

La medicina antigua se basa en la bรบsqueda 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 cientรญcos se estudia la dieta que cada

enfermo debe seguir para recuperar la salud, y cuรกndo el vino es perjudicial, pero

tambiรฉn encontramos remedios en los que el vino es uno de los ingredientes15 .

En el Corpus Hippocraticum ya tenemos un tratado que ha sido titulado ฮ ฮตฯแฝถ

ฮดฮนฮฑฮนฯ„แฟ†ฯ‚ แฝ‘ฮณฮนฮตแฝทฮฝฮทฯ‚ y proporciona normas para la ฮดฮฏฮฑฮนฯ„ฮฑ segรบn el momento del

aรฑo y el carรกcter de cada persona.

Se trata de la misma idea de la necesidad de una dieta sana y la moderaciรณn,

que aparece en este texto del Protrรฉptico de Galeno:

แฝกฯ‚ ฮšฯŒฯฮฟฮนฮฒ<ฮฟฯ‚> แผ€ฮฝฮฟฮฎฯ„ฯ‰ฯ‚ ฮบฮฑฯ„ฮตฮณฮฝฯ‰ฮบฯŒฯ„ฮตฯ‚. แฝƒ ฮผแฝฒฮฝ ฮณแฝฐฯ แฝ‘ฮณฮนฮตฮนฮฝแฝดฮฝ ฮดฮฏฮฑฮนฯ„ฮฑฮฝ

แฝ‘ฯ€ฮฟฯ„ฮนฮธฮญฮผฮตฮฝฮฟฯ‚ แผ”ฮปฮตฮณฮต ฯ€ฯŒฮฝฮฟฮน ฯƒฮนฯ„ฮฏฮฑ ฯ€ฮฟฯ„แฝฐ แฝ•ฯ€ฮฝฮฟฮน แผ€ฯ†ฯฮฟฮดฮฏฯƒฮนฮฑ, ฯ€ฮฌฮฝฯ„ฮฑ ฮผฮญฯ„ฯฮนฮฑ (17)

El de Queronea tambiรฉn participa de una tradiciรณn que era bien conocida

en los cรญrculos cultos de su รฉpoca. Recordemos que en las Vidas la aciรณn por la

borrachera se tolera sรณlo cuando sus consecuencias se producen en la intimidad,

pero es inadmisible en la vida pรบblica. Asรญ, Alejandro es ฯ€ฮฟฯ„ฮนฮบฯŒฯ‚ (4.7), aunque

se le deende de su fama de bebedor porque no descuida los asuntos pรบblicos16 .

Ademรกs, Plutarco se recrea en mostrar los efectos de los excesos del vino a

travรฉs de anรฉcdotas, y tambiรฉn trata el tema de la moderaciรณn teรณricamente,

como en este conocido texto del De tuenda sanitate praecepta 17 . Despuรฉs de

hablar someramente de la dieta, el de Queronea dirige su mirada a los lรญquidos,

y mรกs concretamente al vino:

ฯ€ฯแฝธฯ‚ ฮดแฝฒ ฯ„แฝธฮฝ ฮฟแผถฮฝฮฟฮฝ แผ…ฯ€ฮตฯ ฮ•แฝฯฮนฯ€ฮฏฮดฮทฯ‚ ฯ€ฯแฝธฯ‚ ฯ„แฝดฮฝ แผˆฯ†ฯฮฟฮดฮฏฯ„ฮทฮฝ ฮดฮนฮฑฮปฮตฮบฯ„ฮญฮฟฮฝ

ฮตแผดฮทฯ‚ ฮผฮฟฮน, ฮผฮญฯ„ฯฮนฮฟฯ‚ ฮดฮญ ฯ€ฯ‰ฯ‚

ฮตแผดฮทฯ‚, ฮผฮทฮด' แผ€ฯ€ฮฟฮปฮตฮฏฯ€ฮฟฮนฯ‚

ฮฟแผถฮฝฮฟฮฝ" (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.

35

Moderaciรณn en el simposio en Sobre la vida y poesรญa de Homero de Pseudo-Plutarco

ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮณแฝฐฯ ฯ€ฮฟฯ„แฟถฮฝ แฝ ฯ†ฮตฮปฮนฮผฯŽฯ„ฮฑฯ„ฯŒฮฝ แผฯƒฯ„ฮน ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ†ฮฑฯฮผฮฌฮบฯ‰ฮฝ แผฅฮดฮนฯƒฯ„ฮฟฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ แฝ„ฯˆฯ‰ฮฝ

แผ€ฯƒฮนฮบฯ‡ฯŒฯ„ฮฑฯ„ฮฟฮฝ, แผ‚ฮฝ ฯ„ฯฯ‡แฟƒ ฯ„แฟ†ฯ‚ ฯ€ฯแฝธฯ‚ ฯ„แฝธฮฝ ฮบฮฑฮนฯแฝธฮฝ ฮตแฝฮบฯฮฑฯƒฮฏฮฑฯ‚ ฮผแพถฮปฮปฮฟฮฝ แผข ฯ„แฟ†ฯ‚ ฯ€ฯแฝธฯ‚ ฯ„แฝธ

แฝ•ฮดฯ‰ฯ. (Mor. 132B)

El tema de la necesidad de moderaciรณn reaparece en las Quaestiones

convivales o Charlas de sobremesa a propรณsito de los usos convenientes en el

banquete. Ademรกs, en el libro V la cuestiรณn cuarta discute precisamente un

verso homรฉrico, 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 poesรญa de Homero, como hemos visto, el hรฉroe ofrece a sus mejores

amigos un vino ฮถฯ‰ฯแฝนฯ„ฮตฯฮฟฮฝ ฮบแฝณฯฮฑฮนฮต, un vino con una mezcla mรกs fuerte. Aquiles

tenรญa conocimientos de medicina y como tal sabรญa cuรกl era la importancia de la

moderaciรณn en la dieta en ocasiones, como con los caballos enfermos, pero para

recuperar el vigor tras pasar el dรญa luchando, preere ofrecer un vino fuerte18 :

แผˆฯ‡ฮนฮปฮปฮตแฝบฯ‚ ฯ„แฟถฮฝ ฮธ' แผตฯ€ฯ€ฯ‰ฮฝ ฯ€ฯแฝธฯ‚ ฯ„แฝธฮฝ ฮบฮฑฮนฯแฝธฮฝ ฮฟแผฐฮบฮตฮฏฯ‰ฯ‚ แผฯ€ฮตฮผฮตฮปฮตแฟ–ฯ„ฮฟ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ„แฟท ฯƒฯŽฮผฮฑฯ„ฮน

ฯ„แฝดฮฝ แผฮปฮฑฯ†ฯฮฟฯ„ฮฌฯ„ฮทฮฝ ฮดฮฏฮฑฮนฯ„ฮฑฮฝ, แฝกฯ‚ แฝ‘ฮณฮนฮตฮนฮฝฮฟฯ„ฮฌฯ„ฮทฮฝ แผฮฝ ฯ„แฟท ฯƒฯ‡ฮฟฮปฮฌฮถฮตฮนฮฝ, ฯ€ฮฑฯฮตฯƒฮบฮตฯฮฑฮถฮตฮฝ·

แผ„ฮฝฮดฯฮฑฯ‚ ฮด' แผฮฝ ฮผฮฌฯ‡แฟƒ ฮบฮฑแฝถ แผ€ฮณแฟถฮฝฮน ฮดฮน' แผกฮผฮญฯฮฑฯ‚ ฮณฮตฮณฮตฮฝฮทฮผฮญฮฝฮฟฯ…ฯ‚ ฮฟแฝฯ‡ แฝฮผฮฟฮฏฯ‰ฯ‚ แผ€ฮพฮนแฟถฮฝ

ฮดฮนฮฑฮนฯ„แพถฮฝ ฯ„ฮฟแฟ–ฯ‚ แผ€ฯฮณฮฟแฟฆฯƒฮนฮฝ แผฯ€ฮนฯ„ฮตแฟ–ฮฝฮฑฮน ฯ„แฝดฮฝ ฮบฯแพถฯƒฮนฮฝ แผฮบฮญฮปฮตฯ…ฯƒฮต.

(Mor. 678A 7-B 1)

La idea subyacente en Sobre la vida y poesรญa de Homero del vino como

ฯ†ฮฌฯฮผฮฑฮบฮฟฮฝ aparece desarrollada en la medicina y en Plutarco: el vino puede ser

tanto un veneno como un remedio19 . La diferencia estriba precisamente en cuรกl es

la justa medida, en beber (y comer) con moderaciรณn. Del mismo modo que en Sobre

la vida... se decรญa que el vino ฮผแฝณฯ„ฯฮนฮฟฯ‚ es แฝ ฯ†แฝณฮปฮนฮผฮฟฯ‚, Galeno arma que un modo de

vida sano (แฝ‘ฮณฮนฮตฮนฮฝแฝต ฮดแฝถฮฑฮนฯ„ฮฑ) incluye la moderaciรณn en todos los aspectos, incluidos la

comida y la bebida (ฯƒฮนฯ„แฝทฮฑ, ฯ€ฮฟฯ„แฝฑ). En las Quaestiones Aquiles cura a los caballos, asรญ

como Macaรณn se reconstituรญa con vino en la Ilรญada segรบn Pseudo-Plutarco.

En conclusiรณn, el texto que hemos presentado pertenece a una tradiciรณn

que tambiรฉn encontramos en Plutarco y la medicina griega, y que en รบltimo

lugar se relaciona con la famosa sentencia "nada en demasรญa". 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 รญ 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 Espaรฑol sobre Plutarco (Cรกdiz, 14-16 de Mayo, 1998),

Madrid, 1999, pp. 83-92.

18 S.-T. T, 1989-1996.

19 Cf. E. C D, 1999.

36

Josefa Fernรกndez Zambudio

B, A., "Porrio: La gruta de las ninfas. Introducciรณn, traducciรณn 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 Espaรฑol sobre Plutarco (Cรกdiz,

14-16 de Mayo, 1998), Madrid, 1999, pp. 119-28.

D L, J. M., Las citas de Homero en Plutarco, Cรกceres, 2001.

J, J., "Le vin et la mรฉdecine dans la Grรจce 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 poesรญa griega arcaica: anรกlisis y valoraciรณn

del concepto xรฉnos en Homero, Hesรญodo y Pรญndaro, 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, Gรถteborg,

1989-1996.

W, B., La lingua di Plutarco di Cheronea e gli scritti pseudoplutarchei,

Napoli, 1994.

37

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" (แผฮบฯ€ฮตฯ€ฮปฮทฮณฮผแฝณฮฝฮฟฮน) at his beauty5 , whereas

Socrates does not stop merely at such external attributes; indeed Socrates' love

is evidence of Alcibiades' "potential for virtue" (ฯ„แฟ†ฯ‚ ฯ€ฯแฝธฯ‚ แผ€ฯฮตฯ„แฝดฮฝ ฮตแฝฯ†ฯ…ฮฮฑฯ‚ ),

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" (แฝฅฯƒฯ„' แผ„ฯ„ฯฯ‰ฯ„ฮฟฮฝ แฝ‘ฯ€แฝธ ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฟฯƒฮฟฯ†ฮฏฮฑฯ‚ ฮณฮตฮฝฮญฯƒฮธฮฑฮน ฮบฮฑแฝถ

ฮปฯŒฮณฮฟฮนฯ‚ แผ€ฯ€ฯฯŒฯƒฮนฯ„ฮฟฮฝ ฯ€ฮฑฯฯฮทฯƒฮฏฮฑฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮดฮทฮณฮผแฝธฮฝ แผ”ฯ‡ฮฟฯ…ฯƒฮนฮฝ)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

(แผ€ฮบฮฟฮปฮฟฯ…ฮธฮฟแฝปฮฝฯ„ฯ‰ฮฝ mss) or servants ( แผ€ฮบฮฟฮปฮฟแฝปฮธฯ‰ฮฝ 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 แผ€ฮบแฝนฮปฮฟฯ…ฮธฮฟฮน

mentioned at his entrance to the party (212c-d); cf. also the แผ€ฮบแฝนฮปฮฟฯ…ฮธฮฟฮน 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 (แผฮบฯ€ฮตฯ€ฮปฮทฮณฮผแฝณฮฝฮฟฮน) 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 ฮคฮฟแฟ–ฯ‚ ฮปฮตฮณฮฟฮผแฝณฮฝฮฟฮนฯ‚ แผ€ฮณฮฑฮธฮฟแฟ–ฯ‚: an allusion to Rep. 6: the philosophical nature is corrupted and

diverted from philosophy by ฯ„แฝฐ ฮปฮตฮณแฝนฮผฮตฮธฮฑ แผ€ฮณฮฑฮธแฝฑ, 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 (แผ„ฯ„ฯฯ‰ฯ„ฮฟฯ‚) to money; Socrates knows that no-one is invulnerable to the superior

power of philosophy.

10 "Biting" ฯ€ฮฑฯฯฮทฯƒแฝทฮฑ : 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.

39

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" (ฯ€ฮปฮทฮณฮตฮฏฯ‚ ฯ„ฮต ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮดฮทฯ‡ฮธฮตแฝถฯ‚ แฝ‘ฯ€แฝธ ฯ„แฟถฮฝ แผฮฝ ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฟฯƒฮฟฯ†ฮฏแพณ ฮปฯŒฮณฯ‰ฮฝ ).

Such words, he declares, "adhere more ercely than a viper, whenever they grip

the soul of a young and not untalented (ฮผแฝด แผ€ฯ†ฯ…ฮฟแฟฆฯ‚) 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 (แผกฮดฮฟฮฝแฝดฮฝ แผ„ฮฝฮฑฮฝฮดฯฮฟฮฝ) 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 (แผ€ฮฝฮดฯฮตแฝทฮฑฮฝ)" (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, ฯ€ฮฟฮปฮปแฝฐฯ‚ แผกฮดฮฟฮฝแฝฐฯ‚ แฝ‘ฯ€ฮฟฮฒแฝฑฮปฮปฮฟฯ…ฯƒฮนฮฝ). 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"

(แผฮปฮญฮณฯ‡ฮฟฮฝฯ„ฮฟฯ‚ ฯ„แฝฐ ฯƒฮฑฮธฯแฝฐ ฯ„แฟ†ฯ‚ ฯˆฯ…ฯ‡แฟ†ฯ‚ ฮฑแฝฯ„ฮฟแฟฆ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ€ฮนฮตฮถฮฟแฟฆฮฝฯ„ฮฟฯ‚ ฯ„แฝธฮฝ ฮบฮตฮฝแฝธฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ แผ€ฮฝฯŒฮทฯ„ฮฟฮฝ

ฯ„แฟฆฯ†ฮฟฮฝ). is is loosely based on Smp. 215c-216a, where Alcibiades speaks of the

powerful eects of Socrates' ฮปแฝนฮณฮฟฮน 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 แผฮปแฝณฮณฯ‡ฮฟฮฝฯ„ฮฟฯ‚ 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 ฯ€ฮนฮตฮถฮฟแฟฆฮฝฯ„ฮฟฯ‚ (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 (ฯ€ฯแพถฮณฮผฮฑ) 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 ฯ€ฯแพถฮณฮผฮฑ 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 (ฯ€ฯแพถฮณฮผฮฑ) 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 (ฮผฮฑฮปฮธฮฑฮบแฝนฮฝ) 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 (แผฯ€ฮฑฮปแฟ†ฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ แผ€ฮฝแฝฑฮฝฮดฯฮฟฯ… ฮดฮนฮฑแฝทฯ„ฮทฯ‚) . . . 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"

(แฝ… ฯ„ฮน ฯ€ฮฟฯ„᾽ แผฯƒฯ„แฝถ ฯ„แฝธ ฯƒแฝธฮฝ ฯ€ฯแพถฮณฮผฮฑ ). For Socrates' ฯ€ฯแพถฮณฮผฮฑ, cf. also cf. Ap. 20c; Crito 53c-d.

41

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" (ฮบฮฑฯ„ฮฑฯ†ฯฮฟฮฝแฟถฮฝ ฮด' ฮฑแฝฯ„แฝธฯ‚ แผ‘ฮฑฯ…ฯ„ฮฟแฟฆ,

ฮธฮฑฯ…ฮผฮฌฮถฯ‰ฮฝ ฮด' แผฮบฮตแฟ–ฮฝฮฟฮฝ, แผ€ฮณฮฑฯ€แฟถฮฝ ฮดแฝฒ ฯ„แฝดฮฝ ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฟฯ†ฯฮฟฯƒฯฮฝฮทฮฝ, ฮฑแผฐฯƒฯ‡ฯ…ฮฝฯŒฮผฮตฮฝฮฟฯ‚ ฮดแฝฒ ฯ„แฝดฮฝ

แผ€ฯฮตฯ„ฮฎฮฝ). 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" (แผกฮณฮฟฯฮผฮตฮฝฮฟฮฝ ฮผแฝฒฮฝ

แผ ฯ„ฮนฮผฮฌฯƒฮธฮฑฮน, แผ€ฮณฮฌฮผฮตฮฝฮฟฮฝ ฮดแฝฒ ฯ„แฝดฮฝ ฯ„ฮฟฯฯ„ฮฟฯ… ฯ†ฯฯƒฮนฮฝ ฯ„ฮต ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯƒฯ‰ฯ†ฯฮฟฯƒฯฮฝฮทฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ แผ€ฮฝฮดฯฮตฮฏฮฑฮฝ).

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 (ฯƒฯ…ฮฝฮดฮตฮนฯ€ฮฝฮฟแฟฆฮฝฯ„ฮฑ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯƒฯ…ฮผฯ€ฮฑฮปฮฑฮฏฮฟฮฝฯ„ฮฑ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯƒฯ…ฯƒฮบฮทฮฝฮฟแฟฆฮฝฯ„ฮฑ), 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 (ฯƒฯ…ฮฝฮตฮณฮนฮฝแฝนฮผฮทฮฝ. . ฯƒฯ…ฮฝฮทฮผฮตฯฮตแฝปฯƒฮฑฯ‚ . . . ฯƒฯ…ฮณฮณฯ…ฮผฮฝแฝฑฮถฮตฯƒฮธฮฑฮน

. . . ฯƒฯ…ฮฝฮดฮตฮนฯ€ฮฝฮตแฟ–ฮฝ: 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, ฯƒฯ…ฮผฯ€ฮฏฮฝฯ‰ฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯƒฯ…ฯƒฯ„ฯฮฑฯ„ฮตฯ…ฯŒฮผฮตฮฝฮฟฯ‚ แผฮฝฮฏฮฟฮนฯ‚

ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯƒฯ…ฮฝฮฑฮณฮฟฯฮฌฮถฯ‰ฮฝ.

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" (ฯ„ฮฑแฟ–ฯ‚ ฮธแฝปฯฮฑฮนฯ‚ แผฯ€ฮนฯƒฯ„แฝฑฯ‚; cf. Smp. 212d, แผฯ€ฮนฯƒฯ„แฟ†ฮฝฮฑฮน

แผฯ€แฝถ ฯ„แฝฐฯ‚ ฮธแฝปฯฮฑฯ‚), 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 (แฝ‘ฮฒฯฮนฯƒฯ„ฮนฮบแฟถฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ แฝ‘ฯ€ฮตฯฮทฯ†แฝฑฮฝฯ‰ฯ‚) – 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 (แผฮบฯแฝฑฯ„ฮตฮน) him, when

because of his good nature (ฮดฮน' ฮตแฝฯ†ฯ…ฮฮฑฮฝ) Socrates' words would touch him

and twist his heart and force out tears" (แผฯ€ฯ„ฮฟฮผฮญฮฝฯ‰ฮฝ ฯ„แฟถฮฝ ฮปฯŒฮณฯ‰ฮฝ ฮฑแฝฯ„ฮฟแฟฆ ฮบฮฑแฝถ

ฯ„แฝดฮฝ ฮบฮฑฯฮดฮฏฮฑฮฝ ฯƒฯ„ฯฮตฯ†ฯŒฮฝฯ„ฯ‰ฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮดฮฌฮบฯฯ…ฮฑ แผฮบฯ‡ฮตฯŒฮฝฯ„ฯ‰ฮฝ). 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 (ฯ€ฯแฝธฯ‚ แผ‘ฯƒฯ€ฮญฯฮฑฮฝ

แผฯ€ฮญฯƒฯ„ฮท ฮผฮตฮธฯฯ‰ฮฝ แผˆฮปฮบฮนฮฒฮนฮฌฮดฮทฯ‚), 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 ฮ ฮตฯแฝถ ฯƒฯ„แฝฑฯƒฮตฯ‰ฮฝ 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).

43

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" (แผฅ ฯ„ฮต ฮบฮฑฯฮดฮฏฮฑ ฯ€ฮทฮดแพท ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮดฮฌฮบฯฯ…ฮฑ แผฮบฯ‡ฮตแฟ–ฯ„ฮฑฮน แฝ‘ฯ€แฝธ ฯ„แฟถฮฝ

ฮปฯŒฮณฯ‰ฮฝ ฯ„แฟถฮฝ ฯ„ฮฟฯฯ„ฮฟฯ…)22 , but Plutarch has added ฯƒฯ„ฯฮตฯ†แฝนฮฝฯ„ฯ‰ฮฝ ("twisting"), which

gains particular force because of the wrestling metaphor which follows in 6.2

(cf. also ฯ€ฮนฮตฮถฮฟแฟฆฮฝฯ„ฮฟฯ‚ 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' ฮตแฝฯ†ฯ…ฮฮฑ,

prominent already in ch. 4 (cf. Smp. 218a, ฮผแฝด แผ€ฯ†ฯ…ฮฟแฟฆฯ‚). 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 ฮดฮฟแฟฆฮปฮฟฯ‚ (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 (ฮดฯฮฑฯ€ฮตฯ„ฮตแฝปฯ‰ฮฝ) would be quite

simply hunted down, only towards Socrates having the experience of shame

and fear" (ฯ€ฯแฝธฯ‚ ฮผฯŒฮฝฮฟฮฝ แผฮบฮตแฟ–ฮฝฮฟฮฝ แผ”ฯ‡ฯ‰ฮฝ ฯ„แฝธ ฮฑแผฐฮดฮตแฟ–ฯƒฮธฮฑฮน ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ„แฝธ ฯ†ฮฟฮฒฮตแฟ–ฯƒฮธฮฑฮน) (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: แฝกฯ‚

แผ€ฮฝฮดฯฮฑฯ€ฮฟฮดฯ‰ฮดแฟถฯ‚ ฮดฮนฮฑฮบฮตฮนฮผแฝณฮฝฮฟฯ…), 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

(ฮดฯฮฑฯ€ฮตฯ„ฮตแฝปฯ‰ ฮฟแฝ–ฮฝ ฮฑแฝฯ„แฝธฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ†ฮตแฝปฮณฯ‰ ), 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 ฮฃฯ„ฯแฝณฯ†ฯ‰ 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. แผ€ฯ€ฯ‰ฮปแฝทฯƒฮธฮฑฮฝฮต 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 (แผ€ฮฝฮฌฮปฮฑฮฒฮต

ฮบแผ€ฮบฮตแฟ–ฮฝฮฑ แฝงฮฝ แผ€ฯ€ฯŽฮปฮนฯƒฮธฮตฯ‚).

24 Or, "he crouched down like a slave-cock . . .": แผ”ฯ€ฯ„ฮทฮพ' แผ€ฮปฮญฮบฯ„ฯ‰ฯ ฮดฮฟแฟฆฮปฮฟฯ‚ แฝฃฯ‚ ฮบฮปฮฏฮฝฮฑฯ‚ ฯ€ฯ„ฮตฯฯŒฮฝ.

25 Cf. Ar., Birds 71-72, แฝ„ฯฮฝฮนฯ‚ แผ”ฮณฯ‰ฮณฮต ฮดฮฟแฟฆฮปฮฟฯ‚, 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 ฯ€ฮญฯ€ฮฟฮฝฮธฮฑ ฮดแฝฒ ฯ€ฯแฝธฯ‚ ฯ„ฮฟแฟฆฯ„ฮฟฮฝ ฮผฯŒฮฝฮฟฮฝ แผ€ฮฝฮธฯฯŽฯ€ฯ‰ฮฝ, แฝƒ ฮฟแฝฮบ แผ„ฮฝ ฯ„ฮนฯ‚ ฮฟแผดฮฟฮนฯ„ฮฟ แผฮฝ แผฮผฮฟแฝถ แผฮฝฮตแฟ–ฮฝฮฑฮน, ฯ„แฝธ

ฮฑแผฐฯƒฯ‡ฯฮฝฮตฯƒฮธฮฑฮน แฝฮฝฯ„ฮนฮฝฮฟแฟฆฮฝ· แผฮณแฝผ ฮดแฝฒ ฯ„ฮฟแฟฆฯ„ฮฟฮฝ ฮผฯŒฮฝฮฟฮฝ ฮฑแผฐฯƒฯ‡ฯฮฝฮฟฮผฮฑฮน.

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" (ฮบแฝนฮปฮฑฮพฮน). 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" (ฯ€ฮฑฯแฝณฯ‡ฮตฮนฮฝ ฯ„แฝฐ แฝฆฯ„ฮฑ) 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 (แผฯ€ฮนฯƒฯ‡แฝนฮผฮตฮฝฮฟฯ‚

ฯ„แฝฐ แฝฆฯ„ฮฑ) 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" (แผฆฮฝ ฮผแฝฒฮฝ แผ€ฮผฮญฮปฮตฮน ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ€ฯแฝธฯ‚ แผกฮดฮฟฮฝแฝฐฯ‚

แผ€ฮณฯŽฮณฮนฮผฮฟฯ‚); however (ฮฟแฝ ฮผแฝดฮฝ แผ€ฮปฮปแฝฑ) 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 (แผฮบ ฯ„แฟถฮฝ แฝคฯ„ฯ‰ฮฝ). 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. . . แผ€ฯ€ฮฟฮบฮปฮตฮนฯŒฮผฮตฮฝฮฟฯ‚ แฝ‘ฯ€แฝธ ฯ„แฟถฮฝ ฯ€ฯแฝธฯ‚ ฯ‡ฮฌฯฮนฮฝ แผฮพฮฟฮผฮนฮปฮฟฯฮฝฯ„ฯ‰ฮฝ ฮตแผฐฯƒฮฑฮบฮฟแฟฆฯƒฮฑฮน ฯ„ฮฟแฟฆ ฮฝฮฟฯ…ฮธฮตฯ„ฮฟแฟฆฮฝฯ„ฮฟฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ

ฯ€ฮฑฮนฮดฮตฯฮฟฮฝฯ„ฮฟฯ‚, which alludes to Rep. 494d and 559d-560a.

30 Plutarch himself hints that Alcibiades might be seen as Odysseus by applying the

word ฯ€ฮฟฮปแฝปฯ„ฯฮฟฯ€ฮฟฯ‚ 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.

45

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"

(แผกฮปฮฏฮบฯ‰ฮฝ แผฮฝฮดฮตแฝตฯ‚ แผฯƒฯ„ฮน ฮบฮฑแฝถ แผ€ฯ„ฮตฮปแฝดฯ‚ ฯ€ฯแฝธฯ‚ แผ€ฯฮตฯ„แฝตฮฝ ). e reference to Alcibiades'

incompleteness in virtue recalls 4.1 where Socrates had recognised Alcibiades'

"potential for virtue" (ฮตแฝฯ†ฯ…ฮฮฑ ฯ€ฯแฝธฯ‚ แผ€ฯฮตฯ„แฝตฮฝ). 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 (ฯ€ฮฟฮปฮปฮฟแฟฆ แผฮฝฮดฮตแฝตฯ‚ 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 "ฯ€ฮฑฯฮฑฮฝฮฟฮผแฝทฮฑ 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 แผฮฝฮดฮตแฝตฯ‚ 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" (ฮฟแฝฮดฮตฮฝแฝธฯ‚ ฯ†แฟ‚ฯ‚ แผ€ฮฝฮธฯฯŽฯ€ฯ‰ฮฝ แผฮฝฮดฮตแฝดฯ‚ ฮตแผถฮฝฮฑฮน

ฮตแผฐฯ‚ ฮฟแฝฮดฮญฮฝ; 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 (แผฮฝฮดฮตแฟ– ฯ„แฟถฮฝ ฯ€ฯฮตฯ€แฝนฮฝฯ„ฯ‰ฮฝ); 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 (ฯ€ฮฑฮนฮดฮตแฝทฮฑฯ‚ แผฮฝฮดฮตแฝตฯ‚) 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" (แผ ฯแฝทฯƒฯ„ฮตฯ…ฯƒฮฑฮฝ) and the discussion of the prize (แผ€ฯฮนฯƒฯ„ฮตแฟ–ฮฟฮฝ)

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

(ฯƒแฝปฯƒฮบฮทฮฝฮฟฮฝ...ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ€ฮฑฯฮฑฯƒฯ„แฝฑฯ„ฮทฮฝ ) (7.3; cf. 4.4, ฯƒฯ…ฯƒฮบฮทฮฝฮฟแฟฆฮฝฯ„ฮฑ). 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 (ฯ€ฯฮฟฮญฯƒฯ„ฮท ฮบฮฑแฝถ แผคฮผฯ…ฮฝฮต) over

a fallen Alcibiades. Furthermore, the term แผคฮผฯ…ฮฝฮต recalls 4.1, where Socrates

wanted to protect Alcibiades and not allow him to be corrupted (แผ€ฮผแฝปฮฝฮตฮนฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ

ฮผแฝด ฯ€ฮตฯฮนฮฟฯแพถฮฝ . . .). 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 (แผ€ฯฮนฯƒฯ„ฮตแฝทฮฑฮนฯ‚ แผ€ฯฮนฯƒฯ„ฮตแฝทฮฑฯ‚) 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 ฮฑแผฐฯƒฯ‡ฯฮฝฮตฯƒฮธฮฑฮน ฯ„ฮฟแฟ–ฯ‚ ฮฑแผฐฯƒฯ‡ฯฮฟแฟ–ฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ„ฮฟฮปฮผแพถฮฝ

แผฯ€แฝถ ฯ„ฮฟแฟ–ฯ‚ ฮบฮฑฮปฮฟแฟ–ฯ‚. Cf. Amat. 761b.

39 In particular, Plutarch's ฯ„ฮฟแฟฆ ฮด' แผˆฮปฮบฮนฮฒฮนฮฌฮดฮฟฯ… ฯ„ฯฮฑฯฮผฮฑฯ„ฮน ฯ€ฮตฯฮนฯ€ฮตฯƒฯŒฮฝฯ„ฮฟฯ‚ แฝ ฮฃฯ‰ฮบฯฮฌฯ„ฮทฯ‚ ฯ€ฯฮฟฮญฯƒฯ„ฮท

ฮบฮฑแฝถ แผคฮผฯ…ฮฝฮต, ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮผฮฌฮปฮนฯƒฯ„ฮฑ ฮดแฝด ฯ€ฯฮฟฮดฮฎฮปฯ‰ฯ‚ แผ”ฯƒฯ‰ฯƒฮตฮฝ ฮฑแฝฯ„แฝธฮฝ ฮผฮตฯ„แฝฐ ฯ„แฟถฮฝ แฝ…ฯ€ฮปฯ‰ฮฝ is closely based on Smp.

220d-e: ฮฟแฝฮดฮตแฝถฯ‚ แผ„ฮปฮปฮฟฯ‚ แผฮผแฝฒ แผ”ฯƒฯ‰ฯƒฮตฮฝ แผ€ฮฝฮธฯฯŽฯ€ฯ‰ฮฝ แผข ฮฟแฝ—ฯ„ฮฟฯ‚, ฯ„ฮตฯ„ฯฯ‰ฮผฮญฮฝฮฟฮฝ ฮฟแฝฮบ แผฮธฮญฮปฯ‰ฮฝ แผ€ฯ€ฮฟฮปฮนฯ€ฮตแฟ–ฮฝ,

แผ€ฮปฮปแฝฐ ฯƒฯ…ฮฝฮดฮนฮญฯƒฯ‰ฯƒฮต ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ„แฝฐ แฝ…ฯ€ฮปฮฑ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮฑแฝฯ„แฝธฮฝ แผฮผฮญ.

40 Contrast Coriolanus' lonely death without any one to protect him: ฯ€ฯฮฟฯƒฮฎฮผฯ…ฮฝฮตฮฝ ฮฟแฝฮดฮตแฝถฯ‚

ฯ„แฟถฮฝ ฯ€ฮฑฯฯŒฮฝฯ„ฯ‰ฮฝ ( 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: แผฯ€ฮตแฝถ ฮด' ฮฟแผฑ ฯƒฯ„ฯฮฑฯ„ฮทฮณฮฟแฝถ ฮดฮนแฝฐ ฯ„แฝธ แผ€ฮพฮฏฯ‰ฮผฮฑ ฯ„แฟท แผˆฮปฮบฮนฮฒฮนฮฌฮดแฟƒ ฯƒฯ€ฮฟฯ…ฮดฮฌฮถฮฟฮฝฯ„ฮตฯ‚ แผฯ†ฮฑฮฏฮฝฮฟฮฝฯ„ฮฟ

ฯ€ฮตฯฮนฮธฮตแฟ–ฮฝฮฑฮน ฯ„แฝดฮฝ ฮดฯŒฮพฮฑฮฝ, แฝ ฮฃฯ‰ฮบฯฮฌฯ„ฮทฯ‚ ฮฒฮฟฯ…ฮปฯŒฮผฮตฮฝฮฟฯ‚ ฮฑแฝ”ฮพฮตฯƒฮธฮฑฮน ฯ„แฝธ ฯ†ฮนฮปฯŒฯ„ฮนฮผฮฟฮฝ แผฮฝ ฯ„ฮฟแฟ–ฯ‚ ฮบฮฑฮปฮฟแฟ–ฯ‚ ฮฑแฝฯ„ฮฟแฟฆ,

ฯ€ฯแฟถฯ„ฮฟฯ‚ แผฮผฮฑฯฯ„ฯฯฮตฮน ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ€ฮฑฯฮตฮบฮฌฮปฮตฮน ฯƒฯ„ฮตฯ†ฮฑฮฝฮฟแฟฆฮฝ แผฮบฮตแฟ–ฮฝฮฟฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮดฮนฮดฯŒฮฝฮฑฮน ฯ„แฝดฮฝ ฯ€ฮฑฮฝฮฟฯ€ฮปฮฏฮฑฮฝ. Plato, Smp.

220e: ฮบฮฑแฝถ แผฮณแฝผ ฮผฮญฮฝ, แฝฆ ฮฃฯŽฮบฯฮฑฯ„ฮตฯ‚, ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ„ฯŒฯ„ฮต แผฮบฮญฮปฮตฯ…ฮฟฮฝ ฯƒฮฟแฝถ ฮดฮนฮดฯŒฮฝฮฑฮน ฯ„แผ€ฯฮนฯƒฯ„ฮตแฟ–ฮฑ ฯ„ฮฟแฝบฯ‚ ฯƒฯ„ฯฮฑฯ„ฮทฮณฮฟฯฯ‚ ...

47

Plato's Symposium and Plutarch's Alcibiades

imperfects แผฮผฮฑฯฯ„แฝปฯฮตฮน ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ€ฮฑฯฮตฮบแฝฑฮปฮตฮน 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" (แผ€ฮพแฝทฯ‰ฮผฮฑ)

is in Plato, but in Plutarch it gains extra point as it, like แผคฮผฯ…ฮฝฮต, recalls 4.1,

where Socrates' desire to protect Alcibiades comes from his fear of the eect of

Alcibiades' "wealth and rank" (แผ€ฮพแฝทฯ‰ฮผฮฑ), 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 (ฯ„แฝธ ฯ†ฮนฮปฯŒฯ„ฮนฮผฮฟฮฝ แผฮฝ ฯ„ฮฟแฟ–ฯ‚ ฮบฮฑฮปฮฟแฟ–ฯ‚

ฮฑแฝฯ„ฮฟแฟฆ) 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

แผ€ฮปฮปแฝฐ ฮณแฝฐฯ ฯ„แฟถฮฝ ฯƒฯ„ฯฮฑฯ„ฮทฮณแฟถฮฝ ฯ€ฯแฝธฯ‚ ฯ„แฝธ แผฮผแฝธฮฝ แผ€ฮพฮฏฯ‰ฮผฮฑ แผ€ฯ€ฮฟฮฒฮปฮตฯ€ฯŒฮฝฯ„ฯ‰ฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮฒฮฟฯ…ฮปฮฟฮผฮญฮฝฯ‰ฮฝ แผฮผฮฟแฝถ ฮดฮนฮดฯŒฮฝฮฑฮน

ฯ„แผ€ฯฮนฯƒฯ„ฮตแฟ–ฮฑ, ฮฑแฝฯ„แฝธฯ‚ ฯ€ฯฮฟฮธฯ…ฮผฯŒฯ„ฮตฯฮฟฯ‚ แผฮณฮญฮฝฮฟฯ… ฯ„แฟถฮฝ ฯƒฯ„ฯฮฑฯ„ฮทฮณแฟถฮฝ แผฮผแฝฒ ฮปฮฑฮฒฮตแฟ–ฮฝ แผข ฯƒฮฑฯ…ฯ„ฯŒฮฝ.

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 ฯ†ฮฟฮฒฮฟฯฮผฮตฮฝฮฟฯ‚ ฮดแฝฒ ฯ„แฝธฮฝ ฯ€ฮปฮฟแฟฆฯ„ฮฟฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ„แฝธ แผ€ฮพฮฏฯ‰ฮผฮฑ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ„แฝธฮฝ ฯ€ฯฮฟฮบฮฑฯ„ฮฑฮปฮฑฮผฮฒฮฌฮฝฮฟฮฝฯ„ฮฑ ฮบฮฟฮปฮฑฮบฮตฮฏฮฑฮนฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ

ฯ‡ฮฌฯฮนฯƒฮนฮฝ แผ€ฯƒฯ„แฟถฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮพฮญฮฝฯ‰ฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯƒฯ…ฮผฮผฮฌฯ‡ฯ‰ฮฝ แฝ„ฯ‡ฮปฮฟฮฝ (4.2), itself an allusion to Rep. 494c, ฯ€ฯฮฟฮบฮฑฯ„ฮฑฮปฮฑฮผ-

ฮฒฮฌฮฝฮฟฮฝฯ„ฮตฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ€ฯฮฟฮบฮฟฮปฮฑฮบฮตฯฮฟฮฝฯ„ฮตฯ‚ ฯ„แฝดฮฝ ฮผฮญฮปฮปฮฟฯ…ฯƒฮฑฮฝ ฮฑแฝฯ„ฮฟแฟฆ ฮดฯฮฝฮฑฮผฮนฮฝ. Alcibiades' ฮฑฮพแฝทฯ‰ฮผฮฑ ("rank in

society": LSJ 3), was owed in large part to his noble birth (. 5.43.2, แผ€ฮพฮนแฝฝฮผฮฑฯ„ฮน ฯ€ฯฮฟฮณแฝนฮฝฯ‰ฮฝ

ฯ„ฮนฮผแฝฝฮผฮตฮฝฮฟฯ‚; 6.15.3). Later in Plutarch's Life his noble birth and wealth will "open great doors"

(ฮผฮตฮณแฝฑฮปฮฑฯ‚ ฮบฮปฮนฯƒฮนแฝฑฮดฮฑฯ‚ ) 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" (ฯ€ฯแฝธฯ‚ ฯ„แฝธ ฯ†ฮฑฮนฮฝแฝนฮผฮตฮฝฮฟฮฝ ฮบฮฑฮปแฝนฮฝ). e contrast between "the apparent good" and Alcibiades'

"ambition แผฮฝ ฯ„ฮฟแฟ–ฯ‚ ฮบฮฑฮปฮฟแฟ–ฯ‚" 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" (ฯ„แฝดฮฝ แผฯ€แฝถ ฮผแฝฒฮฝ ฯ„ฮฟแฟ–ฯ‚ ฮฑแผฐฯƒฯ‡ฯฮฟแฟ–ฯ‚ ฮฑแผฐฯƒฯ‡ฯฮฝฮทฮฝ,

แผฯ€แฝถ ฮดแฝฒ ฯ„ฮฟแฟ–ฯ‚ ฮบฮฑฮปฮฟแฟ–ฯ‚ ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฟฯ„ฮนฮผฮฏฮฑฮฝ) (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" (ฯ„แฝธ ฯ†ฮนฮปฯŒฯ„ฮนฮผฮฟฮฝ แผฮฝ ฯ„ฮฟแฟ–ฯ‚ ฮบฮฑฮปฮฟแฟ–ฯ‚ ฮฑแฝฯ„ฮฟแฟฆ); 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

ฯ€ฮฑฯแฝณฯ€ฮตฮผฯˆฮต ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ€ฮตฯฮนแฝตฮผฯ…ฮฝฮตฮฝ ("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 แผฯ€แฝถ ฮผแฝฒฮฝ ฯ„ฮฟแฟ–ฯ‚ ฮบฮฑฮปฮฟแฟ–ฯ‚ ฮฑแผฐฯƒฯ‡ฯฮฝฮตฯƒฮธฮฑฮน, แผฯ€แฝถ ฮดแฝฒ ฯ„ฮฟแฟ–ฯ‚ ฮบฮฑฮบฮฟแฟ–ฯ‚ ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฟฯ„ฮนฮผฮตแฟ–ฯƒฮธฮฑฮน.

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 ฯ€ฮตฯฮนแฝตฮผฯ…ฮฝฮตฮฝ, the reading of ฮฅ, is doubtful; ฯ€ฮตฯฮนฮฑฮผแฝปฮฝฯ‰ is attested only here in Greek

literature. Ziegler's apparatus suggests ฯ€ฯฮฟฯƒแฝตฮผฯ…ฮฝฮตฮฝ ("came to the aid of "), which may be right

(cf. Fab. 16.5, แผ€ฯ€ฮฟฮปฮนฯ€แฝผฮฝ ฯ„แฝธฮฝ แผตฯ€ฯ€ฮฟฮฝ ฯ€ฮตฮถแฝธฯ‚ ฯ„แฟท แฝ‘ฯ€ฮฌฯ„แฟณ ฯ€ฯฮฟฯƒฮฎฮผฯ…ฮฝฮต, and Holden on em. 9.3). N.'s

ฯ€ฮตฯฮนแฝณฮผฮตฮนฮฝฮตฮฝ ("waited for") seems bland, but may also be right.

49

Plato's Symposium and Plutarch's Alcibiades

protection both moral (4.1: แผ€ฮผแฝปฮฝฮตฮนฮฝ) and physical (7.4: ฯ€ฯฮฟแฝณฯƒฯ„ฮท ฮบฮฑแฝถ แผคฮผฯ…ฮฝฮต).

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".

50

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, Kรถnigstein,

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.

51

"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.

ฮœฮนฯƒแฝณฯ‰ ฮผฮฝแฝฑฮผฮฟฮฝฮฑ ฯƒฯ…ฮผฯ€แฝนฯ„ฮฑฮฝ

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.

53

"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.

55

"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-scรจne 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.

57

"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 (ฯƒฯ…ฮณฮณฯฮฑฯ†ฮตแฝปฯ‚).

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.

59

"In Learned Conversation". Plutarch's Symposiac Literature and the Elusive Authorial Voice

B, D., "La composition des Dialogues de Plutarque et le problรจme de leur

unitรฉ", 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 etร ", in P. V C F. F (eds.),

Plutarco e la cultura della sua etร , Naples, 2007, pp. 11-38.)

B, A., Les Sept Sages de la Grรจce Antique. Transmission et utilisation d'un

patrimoine lรฉgendaire d'Hรฉrodote ร  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 Lettrรฉs: 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'aprรจs 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 tradiรงรฃo dos Sete Sรกbios", in M. J  .

(eds.), Plutarc a la seva รจpoca: Paideia i societat. Actas del VIII Simposio

espaรฑol sobre Plutarco (Barcelona, 6-8 de Noviembre, 2003), Barcelona,

2005, pp. 235-42.

L, C., "Prรฉsentation", in C. L (ed.), Cicรฉron, Paris, 2008 (=Revue de

Mรฉtaphysique et de Morale 1 [2008]), pp. 1-5.

_____"Cicรฉron, le moyen platonisme et la philosophie romaine: ร  propos de la

naissance du concept latin de qualitas", in C. L (ed.), Cicรฉron, 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,

Gรถttingen, 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.

61

"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 pensรฉe par cercles. Forme et

argumentation dans les Quaestiones Platonicae", in X. Brouillette and A.

Giavatto (eds.), Les dialogues platoniciens chez Plutarque. Stratรฉgies et

mรฉthodes exรฉgรฉtiques, 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 ฮ›ฮฟฮณแฝนฮดฮตฮนฯ€ฮฝฮฟฮฝ: 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, Gรถteborg,

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.

63

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 ฮผแฝณฮธฮฟฮดฮฟฮน; 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 . "Matiรจre de base de la paideia , la rhรฉtorique ne cessait de fournir des

cadres de pensรฉe 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.

65

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-ฮบแฟ†ฮฝฮฑ) as the meal that is taken

along with friends, thus deriving from the word ฮบฮฟฮนฮฝฯ‰ฮฝฮฏฮฑ ("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: "ฮถฯ‰ฯฯŒฯ„ฮตฯฮฟฮฝ

ฮดแฝฒ ฮบฮญฯฮฑฮนฮต" ( QC V 4, 677c-678b). Among the replies, Niceratus rejects the

traditional interpretation of "unmixed" for the term ฮถฯ‰ฯแฝนฯ‚ and proposes the

meaning of "hot" for the word ฮถฯ‰ฯฯŒฯ„ฮตฯฮฟฮฝ, suggested by words such as ฮถฯ‰ฯ„ฮนฮบฮฟแฟฆ

("life-giving") or ฮถฮญฯƒฮตฯ‰ฯ‚ ("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 ฮบแฟ†ฮฝฮฑ .

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: แผ”ฯ€ฮตฮนฯ„ฮฑ ฯ€ฮตฯแฝถ ฯƒฯ„ฮฏฯ‡ฯ‰ฮฝ ฮตแฝฮบฮฑฮนฯฮฏฮฑฯ‚ แผฮฝฮญฮฒฮฑฮปฮตฮฝ ฮปฯŒฮณฮฟฮฝ, แฝกฯ‚ ฮผแฝด ฮผฯŒฮฝฮฟฮฝ ฯ‡ฮฌฯฮนฮฝ แผ€ฮปฮปแฝฐ

ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ‡ฯฮตฮฏฮฑฮฝ แผ”ฯƒฯ„ฮนฮฝ แฝ…ฯ„ฮต ฮผฮตฮณฮฌฮปฮทฮฝ แผฯ‡ฮฟฯฯƒฮทฯ‚. 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 แฝฮผฮนฮปฮทฯ„ฮนฮบฯŒฯ‚, 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:

ฮงฮฑฯฮฏฮตฮฝฯ„ฮฟฯ‚ แผ€ฮฝฮดฯฯŒฯ‚, แฝฆ ฮฃฯŒฯƒฯƒฮนฮต ฮฃฮตฮฝฮตฮบฮฏฯ‰ฮฝ, ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฑฮฝฮธฯฯŽฯ€ฮฟฯ… ฮปฯŒฮณฮฟฮฝ แผ”ฯ‡ฮฟฯ…ฯƒฮน

แฟฌฯ‰ฮผฮฑแฟ–ฮฟฮน ฮดฮนแฝฐ ฯƒฯ„ฯŒฮผฮฑฯ„ฮฟฯ‚, แฝ…ฯƒฯ„ฮนฯ‚ แผฆฮฝ แฝ ฮตแผฐฯ€ฯŽฮฝ, แผฯ€ฮตแฝถ ฮผฯŒฮฝฮฟฯ‚ แผฮดฮตฮฏฯ€ฮฝฮทฯƒฮตฮฝ, 'ฮฒฮตฮฒฯฯ‰ฮบฮญฮฝฮฑฮน,

ฮผแฝด ฮดฮตฮดฮตฮนฯ€ฮฝฮทฮบฮญฮฝฮฑฮน ฯƒฮฎฮผฮตฯฮฟฮฝ', แฝกฯ‚ ฯ„ฮฟแฟฆ ฮดฮตฮฏฯ€ฮฝฮฟฯ… ฮบฮฟฮนฮฝฯ‰ฮฝฮฏฮฑฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฟฯ†ฯฮฟฯƒฯฮฝฮทฮฝ

แผฯ†ฮทฮดฯฮฝฮฟฯ…ฯƒฮฑฮฝ แผ€ฮตแฝถ ฯ€ฮฟฮธฮฟแฟฆฮฝฯ„ฮฟฯ‚. (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).

67

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:

ฮตแผฐ ฮดแฝฒ ฮดฮฟฮบฮตแฟ– ฮบฮฑแฝถ แผกฮผแพถฯ‚ แผฯ€ฮนฮธฮญฯƒฮธฮฑฮน ฯ„แฟท ฮปฯŒฮณแฟณ, ฯ€ฯแฟถฯ„ฮฟฮฝ แผกฮดฮญฯ‰ฯ‚ แผฯฯ‰ฯ„แพถฯƒฮธฮฑฮฏ ฮผฮฟฮน ฮดฮฟฮบฮฟแฟฆฯƒฮนฮฝ

แผƒ แฟฅแพณฮดฮฏฯ‰ฯ‚ แผ€ฯ€ฮฟฮบฯฮฏฮฝฮฑฯƒฮธฮฑฮน ฮดฯฮฝฮฑฮฝฯ„ฮฑฮน· ฯ„ฮฑแฟฆฯ„ฮฑ ฮด' แผฯƒฯ„แฝถฮฝ แฝงฮฝ แผฮผฯ€ฮตฮนฯฮฏฮฑฮฝ แผ”ฯ‡ฮฟฯ…ฯƒฮนฮฝ. แผƒ

ฮณแฝฐฯ แผ€ฮณฮฝฮฟฮฟแฟฆฯƒฮนฮฝ, แผข ฮผแฝด ฮปฮญฮณฮฟฮฝฯ„ฮตฯ‚ แผ„ฯ‡ฮธฮฟฮฝฯ„ฮฑฮน ฮบฮฑฮธฮฌฯ€ฮตฯ ฮฑแผฐฯ„ฮทฮธฮญฮฝฯ„ฮตฯ‚ แฝƒ ฮดฮฟแฟฆฮฝฮฑฮน ฮผแฝด

ฮดฯฮฝฮฑฮฝฯ„ฮฑฮน, แผข ฮปฮญฮณฮฟฮฝฯ„ฮตฯ‚ แผ€ฯ€แฝธ ฮดฯŒฮพฮทฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮตแผฐฮบฮฑฯƒฮฏฮฑฯ‚ ฮฟแฝ ฮฒฮตฮฒฮฑฮฏฮฟฯ… ฮดฮนฮฑฯ„ฮฑฯฮฌฯƒฯƒฮฟฮฝฯ„ฮฑฮน

ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮบฮนฮฝฮดฯ…ฮฝฮตฯฮฟฯ…ฯƒฮนฮฝ. แผ‚ฮฝ ฮดแฝฒ ฮผแฝด ฮผฯŒฮฝฮฟฮฝ แผ”ฯ‡แฟƒ ฯ„แฝธ แฟฅแพดฮดฮนฮฟฮฝ แผ€ฮปฮปแฝฐ ฮบฮฑฮฏ ฯ„ฮน ฯ€ฮตฯฮนฯ„ฯ„แฝธฮฝ แผก

แผ€ฯ€ฯŒฮบฯฮนฯƒฮนฯ‚, แผกฮดฮฏฯ‰ฮฝ แผฯƒฯ„แฝถ ฯ„แฟท แผ€ฯ€ฮฟฮบฯฮนฮฝฮฟฮผฮญฮฝแฟณ. (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

more agreeable to the answerer21.

It is important to ask about things that one's interlocutor will be pleased

to answer (QC II 1.2, 630c); one should not ask about wrongs or misfortune

suered (QC II 1.3, 630e), but should encourage people to speak about their

successes (QC II 1.3, 630f-631a). Similarly, the questions should not lead to

conict; they should elicit not anger or envy among the diners, but goodwill

(QC II 1.3, 631b). However, care is required with conversations that might

contain praise22 . It is important that the host should not drink to one guest

before another (QC I 2.2, 616b), since this may arouse envy and jealousy (QC I

2.3, 616e). And above all one must avoid praising oneself, as the company may

be irritated by the speaker's vainglory (QC II 1.2, 630d).

So, as well as determining which themes are acceptable at a banquet,

another point should be considered before starting to speak: one must bear in

mind who is present (QC I 1.3, 613d)23 . If the philosopher (or, by extension,

any speaker) sees that his dining companions are not interested in his words, he

should change his tone and his subject, in order to follow the others and nd

pleasure in their entertainments (QC I 1.3, 613f). An awareness of the right

occasion and the situation in which one nds oneself (ฮบฮฑฮนฯฯŒฯ‚ ) 24 is especially

21 Translation taken from P. A. C  H. B. H, 1969, p. 111.

22 L. P, 1993a, lists all the aspects that regulated the techniques of composing and

delivering speeches of praise. Despite dealing with epideictic oratory, they can be applied as well

to praises in conversations.

23 Knowing the audience to which one addresses a speech was a basic norm for the orators

in courtrooms and tribunals; by adapting their words to the occasion, their speech could achieve

its objective, according to Quint., Inst. XI 1.43.

24 Appropriateness is one of the basic virtues of the orator. A speech should be delivered in

the right place, at the right moment and in the right manner; cf. Arist., Rh. III 7 1408a-b and

Quint., Inst. XI 1.1.

69

Plutarch's Techne Rhetorike for the symposium in Quaestiones Convivales

important to avoid errors when speaking (QC I 1.1, 613a). As Simonides says

to one of his interlocutors who remained silent, it may even be preferable to

say nothing if one runs the risk of saying something inappropriate:

ฮฃฮนฮผฯ‰ฮฝฮฏฮดฮทฯ‚ แฝ ฯ€ฮฟฮนฮทฯ„ฮฎฯ‚, แฝฆ ฮฃฯŒฯƒฯƒฮนฮต ฮฃฮตฮฝฮตฮบฮฏฯ‰ฮฝ, แผ”ฮฝ ฯ„ฮนฮฝฮน ฯ€ฯŒฯ„แฟณ ฮพฮญฮฝฮฟฮฝ แผฐฮดแฝผฮฝ

ฮบฮฑฯ„ฮฑฮบฮตฮฏฮผฮตฮฝฮฟฮฝ ฯƒฮนฯ‰ฯ€แฟ‡ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮผฮทฮดฮตฮฝแฝถ ฮดฮนฮฑฮปฮตฮณฯŒฮผฮตฮฝฮฟฮฝ, 'แฝฆ แผ„ฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€'' ฮตแผถฯ€ฮตฮฝ, 'ฮตแผฐ ฮผแฝฒฮฝ

แผ ฮปฮฏฮธฮนฮฟฯ‚ ฮตแผถ, ฯƒฮฟฯ†แฝธฮฝ ฯ€ฯแพถฮณฮผฮฑ ฯ€ฮฟฮนฮตแฟ–ฯ‚· ฮตแผฐ ฮดแฝฒ ฯƒฮฟฯ†ฯŒฯ‚, แผ ฮปฮฏฮธฮนฮฟฮฝ.' 'แผ€ฮผฮฑฮธฮฏฮทฮฝ ฮณแฝฐฯ แผ„ฮผฮตฮนฮฝฮฟฮฝ'

แฝฅฯ‚ ฯ†ฮทฯƒฮนฮฝ แผฉฯฮฌฮบฮปฮตฮนฯ„ฮฟฯ‚ [fr. 95] 'ฮบฯฯฯ€ฯ„ฮตฮนฮฝ'. (QC III Praef. 1, 644e)

When the poet Simonides at some drinking-party, my dear Sossius Senecio,

saw a guest sitting in silence and holding no conversation with anyone, he said,

'Sir, if you are a fool, you are doing a wise thing; but if wise, a foolish thing.' As

Heraclitus remarks, 'it is containly better to conceal ignorance'25.

When one is ready to speak and is sure that the inuentio 26 is correct, the

elocutio27 of the speech must also conform to certain basic precepts. In the fourth

question of the rst book, Plutarch examines the qualities of the ideal director

of the feast. One of them is the ability to give brief and concise instructions

(QC I 4.1, 620b). In fact, brevitas/ฮฒฯฮฑฯ‡แฝปฯ„ฮทฯ‚ 28 is one of characteristics stressed

most by treatises on rhetoric. It is required especially in the narrations of events

and the presentation of arguments: in the rst case, so that the explanations

should not be excessively long and the thread of the story be lost, and in the

second, so that the presentation should be energetic, vigorous, clear, and direct.

Although Plutarch does not mention the point explicitly, his reproduction of

the conversation of his dining companions suggests that the most important

features of their interventions are moderation and brevity. is brevity

should not be considered as a lack of expressiveness, but as the need to avoid

superuity or irrelevance to the theme under discussion29 and to make sure

that a single speaker should not turn the conversation into a monologue and

thus defeat the point of the banquet. In the arguments presented during the

symposiac gathering, Plutarch also recommends that speakers try to persuade

their audiences rather than to demonstrate things to them; they should reserve

the use of methods such as enthymemes or syllogisms30 for situations that

require a more energetic and direct type of argumentation (QC I 1.4, 614c).

25 Translation taken from P. A. C  H. B. H, 1969, p. 199.

26 e inuentio ( ฮตแฝ•ฯฮตฯƒฮนฯ‚) is the part of rhetoric that analyses the elements that should be

included in speeches; cf. Quint., Inst. III 3.1 and Hermog., inv. 1.65.

27 e elocutio (ฮปฮญฮพฮนฯ‚) is the part of rhetoric that analyses how the thought and ideas in the

speech are expressed in language; cf. Arist., Rh. III 1 1403b, Quint., Inst.VIII 1.1.

28 Brevity is one of the main virtues of speeches in the simple style; cf. Demetr., Eloc. IV

197-198, Cic., Inv. 1.28 and Quint., Inst. IV 2.31.

29 Quint., Inst. IV 2.42 notes that brevity does not imply speaking little, but that the speech

should not last longer than is strictly necessary. However, excessive brevity is considered an

error: the speaker may leave out important details.

30 Enthymemes and syllogisms are variations on the method of argumentation which

proceeds from deductions made on the basis of logical and dialectical premises and conclusions;

cf. Arist., Rh. I 2 1356a-b and Quint., Inst.V 14.5.

Menander, whose works were among the main instruments used to teach Greek

to schoolchildren, was a model for the ideal style that should be used in the

speeches and his works were appropriate at the banquet as well (QC VII 8.3,

712b). is seems to mean that the style of a table talk must be agreeable and

simple31 , without great ornamentation or metrical rhythms more characteristic

of grander occasions, and must use simple, sensible sentences. And nally, to

heighten the pleasure, seriousness and light-heartedness should be combined32 ,

as Plutarch notes in other passages (QC I 4.3, 621d). e place of jokes at

the banquet is discussed in detail in the QC, though the instructions given

concerning their use are the same as those that refer to serious interventions33 .

One should only use jokes that give pleasure. Just as one should be aware of the

aptness of what one is about to say, one should consider whether it is better to

make the joke or to remain silent (QC II 1.4, 631c); one must be alert to the

opportune moment (QC II 1.10, 633e). A successful joke is one that emerges

naturally from the conversation, one that has an unaected tone, and does not

appear to be premeditated or forced (QC II 2.13, 634d-e). In summary, then,

jokes should be used with discretion, in the same way as good sense is applied

to avoid problems in other situations such as the market place, the arena, or the

courtroom (QC I 5.2, 622b).

e harmony of the meeting will be maintained if all these rules of protocol

are followed. However, the director of the feast must know what to do and what

to say on occasions in which this harmony is threatened. e main dangers that

the host may face are disputes between his fellow diners and the excesses caused

by wine. Some, who have little interest in maintaining friendship, raise topics of

conversation that may bring to light the imperfections in the character of the

others (QC III Praef. 2, 645b). Quite often diners may argue with each other,

or with a servant or with the host himself. is situation is unbecoming among

friends and in the banquet context (QC II 10.2, 644a)34 . So the host should

be careful to seat the guests at table in such a way as to reduce rivalries as far

as possible; dicult guests should be kept apart so as to avoid ghts between

poets and sophists (QC I 2.6, 618e) or teachers (QC IX 1.1, 736e). In general,

then, the host must also create a cordial atmosphere among the diners to avoid

situations of tension (QC I 4.2, 621a). Wine is an excellent instrument for

helping people to relax, to speak to the other guests and to strike up friendships

(QC IV Praef., 660c)35 ; but excess may lead to inappropriate behaviour and may

31 For Dionysius of Halicarnassus (D. H., . 48) the skill in the application of the virtues

of expression should be present both in courtrooms and tribunals and in conversations between

friends.

32 e importance of laughter as a fundamental part of the banquet and as a counterpoint

to the seriousness of philosophical conversations has been stressed by P. G  M. J,

1999 and F. F, 2000a, pp. 487-9.

33 Cf. M. A. B, 2007 for a detailed study of the conception of jokes in Plutarch's QC.

34 P. G, (in press), analyses the vision given by Lucian, in the Symposium or the Lapiths ,

of a banquet disrupted by the ghts between sophists and philosophers caused by excessive

drinking.

35 As explained by L. R, 2002, pp. 172-6, S.-T. T, 1999 and F. B. T,

71

Plutarch's Techne Rhetorike for the symposium in Quaestiones Convivales

cause men to chatter about matters that should remain concealed (QC III Praef.

2, 645b). Excessive drinking also reduces the ability to speak correctly (QC III

5.2, 652d)36 , a skill that is of vital importance to the success of the banquet.

Indeed, there is nothing more imprudent or out-of-place than a conversation

produced by excessive drinking (QC VIII Praef. , 716e)37 . Finally, if nothing can

be done to resolve a conict or to calm a squabble more typical of the market

place than of a feast, the discussion should stop and make way for musical

entertainment (QC VII 8.4, 713e-f ). But music should not be introduced if it is

unnecessary: the diners should take their main pleasure from conversation (QC

VII 8.4, 713d), because conversation should be the centre of the banquet at all

times (QC VII 8.4, 713b-c).

So appropriate conversation helps to create a congenial atmosphere and to

establish bonds of empathy and fellowship feeling between the guests. Talk is

the most important element of the banquet, its foundation. As a rhetor would

have done, Plutarch details the themes that should be discussed at banquets,

how one should speak and even what one should do if the conversation ags.

ough scattered throughout the QC rather than brought together in a

cohesive whole, Plutarch's descriptions are sucient to show the reader that

even at the dinner table, an intimate and relaxed meeting, the techne rhetorike

help guests to participate in a suitable manner in the conversation and help

them to make and maintain friendships.

W o r k s c i T e d

A, R. M., "La amistad segรบn Plutarco: los Moralia", in L. T 

(ed.), Scritti in onore di Italo Gallo, Napoli, 2002, pp. 7-26.

B, M. A., "Amor hacia el prรณjimo: el difรญcil arte de la broma segรบn Plutarco",

in J. M. N I (ed.), El amor en Plutarco. Actas IX Simposio

Internacional de la Sociedad Espaรฑola de Plutarquistas (Leรณn, 28-30

de Septiembre de 2006), Leรณn, 2007, pp. 105-12.

C D, E., "El lรฉxico de la embriaguez en Plutarco," in A. P

J, & F. C B (eds.), Estudios Sobre Plutarco

Misticismo y Religiones Mistรฉricas en la Obra de Plutarco. Actas del

VII Simposio Espaรฑol sobre Plutarco. (Palma de Mallorca, 2-4 de

Noviembre, 2000), Madrid, 2001, pp. 473-82.

C, M., "Plutarco en la encrucijada lingรผรญstica greco-romana", Scriptura,

2 (1986), pp. 117-23.

1999, wine occupies a key function in the banquet, as the name sym-posion itself shows; in

moderate amounts, it animates diners and helps them to participate actively in conversation.

36 Quint., Inst. XI Praef., 1 identies the eects of wine on the ability to speak as poor

pronunciation, a mannered air, tomfoolery, or the trembling characteristic of old age.

37 e vocabulary that Plutarch uses to denote excessive drinking and its consequences for

the drinker is the key feature of the study of E. C D, 2001.

_____ Plutarco. Virtudes y vicios de sus hรฉroes biogrรกcos, Lleida, 1997.

C, P. A.  H, H. B., Plutarch's Moralia, VIII, Cambridge, Mass.,

1969.

C, R., Gymnastics of the mind: Greek Education in Hellenistic and Roman

Egypt, Princeton, 2001.

D, M. L., "Amis/amitiรฉ", in F. H (ed.), Plutarque. Vies parallรจles ,

Paris, 2001, pp. 1952-4.

D L, J. M., "Tipologรญa y funciรณn de las citas homรฉricas en el De

audiendis poetis de Plutarco", in M. G V (ed.), Estudios sobre

Plutarco: ideas religiosas. Actas del III Simposio Espaรฑol sobre Plutarco,

Madrid, 1994, pp. 681-96.

F D, J. A., "El sentido del humor de Plutarco", in J. A.

F D & F. P P (eds.), Estudios

sobre Plutarco: Aspectos Formales. Actas del IV Simposio Espaรฑol sobre

Plutarco (Salamanca, 26-28, Mayo, 1994), Madrid, 1996, pp. 381-

404.

F, F. (a), "Rires et rieurs dans l'oeuvre de Plutarque", in M. L. D

(ed.), Le Rire des Grecs. Anthropologie du rire en Grรจce ancienne, Grenoble,

2000, pp. 469-94.

____ (b), "La rhรฉtorique contemporaine sous le regard de Plutarque", in L.

V  S (ed.), Rhetorical eory and Praxis in Plutarch. Acta of

the IVth International Congress of the International Plutarch Society

(Leuven, July 3-6, 1996), Louvain, Namur, 2000, pp. 183-202.

G A, R., "La parole dell'amicizia. Prassi retorica nel De

amicorum multitudine", in L. V  S (ed.), Rhetorical eory

and Praxis in Plutarch. Acta of the IVth International Congress of

the International Plutarch Society (Leuven, July 3-6, 1996), Louvain,

Namur, 2000, pp. 225-36.

G, P., "Lluciร  a taula: aliments i simposi", in F. M  . (eds.),

Lluciร  de Samรฒsata: escriptor grec i ciutadร  romร , Barcelona (in press).

G, P. & J, M., "La risa y el vino en los escritos simposรญacos de

Plutarco", in J. G. M C . (eds.), Plutarco, Dioniso y El

Vino. Actas del VI Simposio Espaรฑol Sobre Plutarco (Cรกdiz, 14-16 de

Mayo, 1998), Madrid, 1999, pp. 255-68.

K, G., e Art of Rhetoric in the Roman World, Princeton, 1972.

M, A., I discorsi per le feste e per i giochi (Ars Rhet. I et VI Us.- Rad.) ,

Roma, 2005.

M, H. I., Histoire de l'รฉducation dans l'antiquitรฉ, Paris, 1948.

73

Plutarch's Techne Rhetorike for the symposium in Quaestiones Convivales

M J., H. M., "Plutarch", in S. E. P (ed.), Handbook of Classical

Rhetoric in the Hellenistic Period (300 B.C.-A.D. 400), Leiden, 2001, pp.

715-36.

M G, F., Plutarco. Obras morales y de costumbres IV. Charlas de

sobremesa, Madrid, 1987.

M, G., "Strutture retoriche e colloquiali nelle Quaestiones convivales",

in G. D'I, & I. G (eds.), Strutture Formali Dei Moralia

Di Plutarco. Atti del III Convegno Plutarcheo (Palermo, 3-5 Maggio,

1989), Napoli, 1991, pp. 295-314.

M, E. L.  ., Plutarch's Moralia, IX, Cambridge, Mass., 1961.

M, T., Literate Education in the Hellenistic and Roman worlds, Cambridge,

1998.

P, L. (a), La rhรฉtorique de l'รฉloge dans le monde grรฉco-romain, Paris, 1993.

_____ (b), "Un rendez-vous manquรฉ", in L. P, Rhรฉtoriques de la

conversation, de l'Antiquitรฉ a l'รฉpoque moderne, Rhetorica XI.4, 1993, pp.

421-437.

P P, F., "El banquete de Plutarco: ¿cciรณn literaria o realidad

histรณrica?", in J. G. M C  . (eds.), Plutarco, Dioniso y El

Vino. Actas de VI Simposio Espaรฑol Sobre Plutarco (Cรกdiz, 14-16 de

Mayo, 1998), Madrid, 1999, pp. 379-92.

R, B., Le latin dans le monde grec, Bruxelles, 1997.

R, L., Philosophes entre mots et mets: Plutarque, Lucien, Athรฉnรฉe autour de

la table de Platon, Grenoble, 2002.

S, I., "Homer in the dining room: an ancient rhetorical interpretation

of the duel between Paris and Menelaus (Plu., Quaest. conv. 9, 13)", CW,

598 4 (2004-2005), pp. 379-96.

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

G. M C  . (eds.), Plutarco, Dioniso y El Vino. Actas del

VI Simposio Espaรฑol sobre Plutarco (Cรกdiz, 14-16 de Mayo, 1998),

Madrid, 1999, pp. 481-90.

S   T, E., "Diรกlogo, losofรญa y simposio en Plutarco", in M.

J  . (eds.), Plutarc a la seva รจpoca: Paideia i societat. Actas del

VIII Simposio Internacional de la Sociedad Espaรฑola de Plutarquistas

(Barcelona, 6-8 de Noviembre, 2003), Barcelona, 2005, pp. 463-84.

T, S.-T., "La politica nelle Questioni conviviali", in I. G & B.

S (eds.), Teoria e Prassi Politica nelle Opere di Plutarco. Atti del

V Convegno plutarcheo (Certosa di Pontignano, 7-9 Giugno, 1993),

Napoli, 1995, pp. 433-8.

74

Lluรญs Gonzร lez Juliร 

_____ "Principles of composition in the Quaestiones Convivales", in J. A.

F D & F. P P (eds.), Estudios

sobre Plutarco: Aspectos Formales. Actas del IV Simposio Espaรฑol sobre

Plutarco (Salamanca, 26-28 de Mayo, 1994), Madrid, 1996, pp. 39-48.

_____ "Dionysus moderated and calmed: Plutarch on the connvival wine", in

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

VI Simposio Espaรฑol sobre Plutarco (Cรกdiz, 14-16 de Mayo, 1998),

Madrid, 1999, pp. 57-69.

_____ "Four terms of friendly emotion in Plutarch: ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฑฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€ฮฏฮฑ, ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฏฮฑ, แผ”ฯฯ‰ฯ‚,

ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฟฯƒฯ„ฮฟฯฮณฮฏฮฑ", in J. M. N I (ed.), El amor en Plutarco. Actas

IX Simposio Internacional de la Sociedad Espaรฑola de Plutarquistas

(Leรณn, 28-30 de Septiembre, 2006), Leรณn, 2007, pp. 209-19.

T, F. B., "Everything to do with Dionysus: banquets in Plutarch's

'Lives'", in V  S, L. (ed.), Rhetorical eory and Praxis in

Plutarch. Acta of the IVth International Congress of the International

Plutarch Society (Leuven, July 3-6, 1996), Louvain, Namur, 2000.

W, R., "e Progymnasmata as Practice", in Y. L. T (ed.), Education in

Greek and Roman World, Leiden, 2001, pp. 289-316.

W, T., "Alexander's Hellenism and Plutarch's Textualism", CQ, 52.1

(2002), pp. 174-92.

_____ Greek Literature and the Roman Empire. e Politics of Imitation, Oxford,

2001.

75

Inuencia de los progymnasmata en la composiciรณn de los symposia de Plutarco

in f l u e n c i a d e l o s p r o g y m n a S m a T a e n l a c o m p o s i c i รณ n d e l o s

S y m p o S i a d e pl u T a r c o : e l c a s o d e e l b a n Q u e T e D e l o S S i e T e S a b i o S

A V S

Universidad de Zaragoza

Abstract

In the ancient schools of rhetoric some exercises (called progymnasmata) were practiced in

order to teach the students how they should write literary compositions. is training had

some inuence on the composition of the Septem Sapientium Convivium. ese "preliminary

exercises" are preserved in some textbooks of prose composition and rhetoric. In this case,

the earliest collection of exercises has been used: eon's Progymnasmata Handbook, which

probably dates from the rst century after Christ. e three progymnasmata analysed in this

study are: ฯ‡ฯฮตแฝทฮฑ ( chreia or anecdote ), ฮผแฟฆฮธฮฟฯ‚ ( fable) and ฮดฮนแฝตฮณฮทฮผฮฑ (narration). ey are present

in the Septem Sapientium Convivium in many dierent ways. e aim of this study is to

specify them, to compare their form to eon's Handbook, and to explain how Plutarch used

them.

Como reza el tรญtulo de este trabajo1 se va a estudiar la presencia y uso

de algunos ejercicios preparatorios propios de las escuelas de retรณrica en

El banquete de los Siete Sabios. Evidentemente nos encontramos ante una

composiciรณn literaria que, como tal, no va a reproducir con exactitud esos

ฯ€ฯฮฟฮณฯ…ฮผฮฝแฝฑฯƒฮผฮฑฯ„ฮฑ, pero sรญ pueden vislumbrarse las huellas de la formaciรณn

retรณrica: unas caracterรญsticas y unos rasgos que inequรญvocamente nos

remiten a ellos2 . Dada la extensiรณn de este trabajo, se va a limitar el anรกlisis

a tres tipos de progymnasma : ฯ‡ฯฮตแฝทฮฑ , ฮผแฟฆฮธฮฟฯ‚ y ฮดฮนแฝตฮณฮทฮผฮฑ; y, por el mismo

motivo, sรณlo se expondrรก algรบn ejemplo representativo de cada ejercicio.

El punto de partida de estas comparaciones va a ser el manual de Teรณn,

el primero que se nos ha conservado3 , probablemente contemporรกneo4 de

Plutarco.

1 Realizado bajo los auspicios del Proyecto de Investigaciรณn H 2007-64772 de la

Direcciรณn General de Enseรฑanza Superior e Investigaciรณn Cientรญca.

2 Vide otros trabajos que desarrollan esta relaciรณn entre los progymnasmata y la tรฉcnica

compositiva de Plutarco: M. B, 2005 y 2005b; J. A. F D, 2000 y 2005; L.

M C, 2005; F. P P, 2005; A. V S, 2005.

3 El propio autor comenta que existen manuales anteriores: eon, p. 59: ฯ€ฮตฯแฝฑฯƒฮฟฮผฮฑฮน

ฯ€ฮฑฯฮฑฮดฮฟแฟฆฮฝฮฑฮน, ฮฟแฝฯ‡ แฝกฯ‚ ฮฟแฝฯ‡แฝถ ฮบฮฑแฝถ แผ„ฮปฮปฯ‰ฮฝ ฯ„ฮนฮฝแฟถฮฝ ฯƒฯ…ฮณฮณฮตฮณฯฮฑฯ†แฝนฯ„ฯ‰ฮฝ ฯ€ฮตฯแฝถ ฯ„ฮฟแฝปฯ„ฯ‰ฮฝ, แผ€ฮปฮป' ฮฟแฝ ฮผฮนฮบฯแฝนฮฝ ฯ„ฮน

ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮฑแฝฯ„แฝธฯ‚ ฮตฮปฯ€แฝทฮถฯ‰ฮฝ ฯƒฯ…ฮปฮปแฝตฯˆฮตฯƒฮธฮฑฮน ฯ„ฮฟแฟ–ฯ‚ ฮปแฝณฮณฮตฮนฮฝ ฯ€ฯฮฟฮฑฮนฯฮฟฯ…ฮผแฝณฮฝฮฟฮนฯ‚. Se ha utilizado la ediciรณn de M.

P, 1997, conservando la numeraciรณn de la canรณnica de L. S, Rhetores Graeci, vol.

II, Leipzig, 1854.

4 Compuesto quizรก este manual de ejercicios en el siglo I o entre nales del siglo I y

principios del II; cf. R. F. H & E. N. O'N, 1986, p. 10; M. P , 1997, pp. VII sqq.,

G. A. K, 1972, pp. 615 s., y 1983, pp. 54 sqq. y 2003, p. XII s. y 1. Para una dataciรณn mรกs

tardรญa, vide M. H, 2000, pp. 129 sqq., aunque la crรญtica en general – y tambiรฉn este trabajo

– preere esa dataciรณn en torno al siglo I.

I. ฮงฯฮตแฟ–ฮฑฮน. Las siguientes seis ฯ‡ฯฮตแฟ–ฮฑฮน pronunciadas en El banquete 5 pueden

conformar una idea de su forma y uso en este tratado6 , si bien son muchas mรกs

las que contiene la obra7 .

nยบ 1 y 2. 147A-B: แฝกฯ‚ แผฯฯ‰ฯ„ฮทฮธฮตแฝถฯ‚ แฝ‘ฯ€แฝธ ฮœฮฟฮปฯ€ฮฑฮณฯŒฯฮฟฯ… ฯ„ฮฟแฟฆ แผผฯ‰ฮฝฮฟฯ‚ ฯ„ฮฏ

ฯ€ฮฑฯฮฑฮดฮฟฮพฯŒฯ„ฮฑฯ„ฮฟฮฝ ฮตแผดฮทฯ‚ แผ‘ฯ‰ฯฮฑฮบฯŽฯ‚, แผ€ฯ€ฮฟฮบฯฮฏฮฝฮฑฮนฮฟ 'ฯ„ฯฯฮฑฮฝฮฝฮฟฮฝ ฮณฮญฯฮฟฮฝฯ„ฮฑ', ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ€ฮฌฮปฮนฮฝ แผ”ฮฝ

ฯ„ฮนฮฝฮน ฯ€ฯŒฯ„แฟณ, ฯ€ฮตฯแฝถ ฯ„แฟถฮฝ ฮธฮทฯฮฏฯ‰ฮฝ ฮปฯŒฮณฮฟฯ… ฮณฮตฮฝฮฟฮผฮญฮฝฮฟฯ…, ฯ†ฮฑฮฏฮทฯ‚ ฮบฮฌฮบฮนฯƒฯ„ฮฟฮฝ ฮตแผถฮฝฮฑฮน ฯ„แฟถฮฝ ฮผแฝฒฮฝ

แผ€ฮณฯฮฏฯ‰ฮฝ ฮธฮทฯฮฏฯ‰ฮฝ ฯ„แฝธฮฝ ฯ„ฯฯฮฑฮฝฮฝฮฟฮฝ, ฯ„แฟถฮฝ ฮด' แผกฮผฮญฯฯ‰ฮฝ ฯ„แฝธฮฝ ฮบฯŒฮปฮฑฮบฮฑ.

nยบ 3. 147B-C: ฯ€ฯแฝธฯ‚ ฮดแฝฒ ฯ„แฝดฮฝ ฮผฮตฯ„ฮฌฮธฮตฯƒฮนฮฝ ฯ„แฝธ ฯ„ฮฟแฟฆ ฮฝฮตฮฑฮฝฮฏฯƒฮบฮฟฯ… ฯ€ฮญฯ€ฮฟฮฝฮธฮฑ ฯ„ฮฟแฟฆ

ฮฒฮฑฮปฯŒฮฝฯ„ฮฟฯ‚ ฮผแฝฒฮฝ แผฯ€แฝถ ฯ„แฝดฮฝ ฮบฯฮฝฮฑ ฯ€ฮฑฯ„ฮฌฮพฮฑฮฝฯ„ฮฟฯ‚ ฮดแฝฒ ฯ„แฝดฮฝ ฮผฮทฯ„ฯฯ…ฮนแฝฐฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮตแผฐฯ€ฯŒฮฝฯ„ฮฟฯ‚ 'ฮฟแฝฮด'

ฮฟแฝ•ฯ„ฯ‰ ฮบฮฑฮบแฟถฯ‚.'

nยบ 4. 148A: แฝ…ฮธฮตฮฝ แผ„ฯฮนฯƒฯ„ฮฑ ฮงฮฏฮปฯ‰ฮฝ, ฮบฮฑฮปฮฟฯฮผฮตฮฝฮฟฯ‚ แผฯ‡ฮธฮญฯ‚, ฮฟแฝ ฯ€ฯฯŒฯ„ฮตฯฮฟฮฝ

แฝกฮผฮฟฮปฯŒฮณฮทฯƒฮตฮฝ แผข ฯ€ฯ…ฮธฮญฯƒฮธฮฑฮน ฯ„แฟถฮฝ ฮบฮตฮบฮปฮทฮผฮญฮฝฯ‰ฮฝ แผ•ฮบฮฑฯƒฯ„ฮฟฮฝ. แผ”ฯ†ฮท ฮณแฝฐฯ แฝ…ฯ„ฮน ฯƒฯฮผฯ€ฮปฮฟฯ…ฮฝ

แผ€ฮณฮฝฯŽฮผฮฟฮฝฮฑ ฮดฮตแฟ– ฯ†ฮญฯฮตฮนฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯƒฯฯƒฮบฮทฮฝฮฟฮฝ ฮฟแผทฯ‚ ฯ€ฮปฮตแฟ–ฮฝ แผ€ฮฝฮฌฮณฮบฮท ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯƒฯ„ฯฮฑฯ„ฮตฯฮตฯƒฮธฮฑฮน·

ฯ€ฯแฝธฯ‚ ฮดแฝฒ ฯ„แฝธ ฯƒฯ…ฮผฯ€ฯŒฯ„ฮฑฮนฯ‚ แผ‘ฮฑฯ…ฯ„แฝธฮฝ แฝกฯ‚ แผ”ฯ„ฯ…ฯ‡ฮต ฮบฮฑฯ„ฮฑฮผฮนฮณฮฝฯฮตฮนฮฝ ฮฟแฝ ฮฝฮฟแฟฆฮฝ แผ”ฯ‡ฮฟฮฝฯ„ฮฟฯ‚ แผ€ฮฝฮดฯฯŒฯ‚

แผฯƒฯ„ฮนฮฝ.

nยบ 5. 152A: ฯ„ฮฟแฝบฯ‚ ฮฝฯŒฮผฮฟฯ…ฯ‚ แฝ ฮฃฯŒฮปฯ‰ฮฝ แผ”ฯ†ฮท ฮผฮตฯ„ฮฑฮบฮนฮฝฮทฯ„ฮนฮบฮฟแฝบฯ‚ ฮตแผถฮฝฮฑฮน.

nยบ 6. 153E: แฝ ฮดแฝฒ ฯ€ฯฮฟฯ€ฮฏฮฝฯ‰ฮฝ ฯ„แฝดฮฝ ฮธฮฌฮปฮฑฯ„ฯ„ฮฑฮฝ แผˆฮผฮฌฯƒฮนฮดฮน ฮฒฮฌฯฮฒฮฑฯฮฟฯ‚ แผฮดฮตแฟ–ฯ„ฮฟ

ฯ„แฟ†ฯ‚ ฮ ฮนฯ„ฯ„ฮฑฮบฮฟแฟฆ ฮฒฯฮฑฯ‡ฯ…ฮปฮฟฮณฮฏฮฑฯ‚, แพ— ฯ€ฯแฝธฯ‚ แผˆฮปฯ…ฮฌฯ„ฯ„ฮทฮฝ แผฯ‡ฯฮฎฯƒฮฑฯ„ฮฟ ฯ€ฯฮฟฯƒฯ„ฮฌฯ„ฯ„ฮฟฮฝฯ„ฮฌ ฯ„ฮน

ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮณฯฮฌฯ†ฮฟฮฝฯ„ฮฑ ฮ›ฮตฯƒฮฒฮฏฮฟฮนฯ‚ แฝ‘ฯ€ฮตฯฮฎฯ†ฮฑฮฝฮฟฮฝ, แผ€ฯ€ฮฟฮบฯฮนฮฝฮฌฮผฮตฮฝฮฟฯ‚ ฮฟแฝฮดแฝฒฮฝ แผ€ฮปฮป' แผข ฮผฯŒฮฝฮฟฮฝ

ฮบฮตฮปฮตฯฯƒฮฑฯ‚ ฮบฯฯŒฮผฮผฯ…ฮฑ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮธฮตฯฮผแฝธฮฝ แผ„ฯฯ„ฮฟฮฝ แผฯƒฮธฮฏฮตฮนฮฝ.

La chreia es, segรบn el manual de Teรณn, un breve dicho o acciรณn atribuidos

a un personaje generalmente conocido8 , como es el caso de la mayorรญa que

5 El texto procede de la ediciรณn de J. D  ., Plutarque. Oeuvres morales, II, Parรญs,

1985.

6 Sobre su presencia en De tuenda sanitate praecepta, vide M. B, 2005, pp. 209 sqq. y

2005b, pp. 176 sqq.; sobre su uso en otras obras, vide M. B, 2005b, pp. 325 sqq. (agradezco

a la autora, Mariangela Bellu, su gentileza al permitirme consultar su tesis doctoral).

7 Ademรกs de las estudiadas en este trabajo, pueden citarse las siguientes ฯ‡ฯฮตแฟ–ฮฑฮน pronunciadas

por los personajes: 147C (Tales se sirve de una armaciรณn de Pรญtaco), 149A-B (Tales reprocha

a Alexรญdemo mediante las palabras de un lacedemonio anรณnimo), 155 D (Quilรณn sustenta su

parecer a travรฉs de una contestaciรณn de Licurgo), 158C (Cleodoro cita una opiniรณn de Tales),

160A-B (Solรณn utiliza unos versos homรฉricos). A รฉstas podrรญan aรฑadirse las ฯ‡ฯฮตแฟ–ฮฑฮน que Plutarco,

a travรฉs de la narraciรณn de Diocles, se permite utilizar: 147A (una armaciรณn de Nilรณxeno),

150B-C (rรฉplica de Bรญas a Tales), 152A-D (ฯ‡ฯฮตแฟ–ฮฑฮน de los sabios respondiendo a la propuesta

de Periandro sobre reyes y tiranos; a ellas se aรฑade la aportaciรณn de Periandro a peticiรณn de

sus comensales), 152D (intervenciones de Quilรณn y Esopo), 154D-E (opiniones de los sabios

y de Periandro sobre el gobierno igualitario, a peticiรณn de Mnesรญlo), 155C-D (opiniones de

los sabios acerca de la mejor casa, a peticiรณn de Diocles), 157B (Cleobulo, para contestar a una

demanda de Quersias, cuenta una fรกbula cuyo "enlace" - vide infra - consiste en una ฯ‡ฯฮตแฝทฮฑ), 157

C (primera parte de la contestaciรณn de Cleobulo a Cleodoro), 157D (intervenciรณn de Tales

sobre la persona de Epimรฉnides).

8 eon, p. 96: ฯ‡ฯฮตฮฏฮฑ แผฯƒฯ„แฝถ ฯƒฯฮฝฯ„ฮฟฮผฮฟฯ‚ แผ€ฯ€ฯŒฯ†ฮฑฯƒฮนฯ‚ แผข ฯ€ฯแพถฮพฮนฯ‚ ฮผฮตฯ„' ฮตแฝฯƒฯ„ฮฟฯ‡ฮฏฮฑฯ‚ แผ€ฮฝฮฑฯ†ฮตฯฮฟฮผฮญฮฝฮท ฮตแผดฯ‚ ฯ„ฮน

แฝกฯฮนฯƒฮผฮญฮฝฮฟฮฝ ฯ€ฯฯŒฯƒฯ‰ฯ€ฮฟฮฝ แผข แผ€ฮฝฮฑฮปฮฟฮณฮฟแฟฆฮฝ ฯ€ฯฮฟฯƒฯŽฯ€แฟณ, p. 97: แผก ฮผแฝฒฮฝ ฮณแฝฐฯ ฯƒฯฮฝฯ„ฮฟฮผฮฟฯ‚. Puede hacer referencia,

por otra parte, tanto a lo particular como a lo general (eon, p. 96: ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ„แฟท ฯ€ฮฟฯ„แฝฒ ฮผแฝฒฮฝ ฯ„แฝธ ฮบฮฑฮธฯŒฮปฮฟฯ…,

ฯ€ฮฟฯ„แฝฒ ฮดแฝฒ ฯ„แฝธ แผฯ€แฝถ ฮผฮญฯฮฟฯ…ฯ‚ แผ€ฯ€ฮฟฯ†ฮฑฮฏฮฝฮตฯƒฮธฮฑฮน ฯ„แฝดฮฝ ฯ‡ฯฮตฮฏฮฑฮฝ), y se caracteriza tambiรฉn especialmente por

ser รบtil o graciosa o ambas cosas a la vez (eon, p. 96: แผ”ฯ„ฮน ฮดแฝฒ ฯ„แฟท ฯ‡ฮฑฯฮนฮตฮฝฯ„ฮฏฮถฮตฯƒฮธฮฑฮน ฯ„แฝดฮฝ ฯ‡ฯฮตฮฏฮฑฮฝ

แผฮฝฮฏฮฟฯ„ฮต ฮผฮทฮดแฝฒฮฝ แผ”ฯ‡ฮฟฯ…ฯƒฮฑฮฝ ฮฒฮนฯ‰ฯ†ฮตฮปฮญฯ‚, p. 97: ฮตแผดฯฮทฯ„ฮฑฮน ฮดแฝฒ ฯ‡ฯฮตฮฏฮฑ ฮบฮฑฯ„' แผฮพฮฟฯ‡แฝตฮฝ, แฝ…ฯ„ฮน ฮผแพถฮปฮปฮฟฮฝ ฯ„แฟถฮฝ แผ„ฮปฮปฯ‰ฮฝ

ฯ€ฯแฝธฯ‚ ฯ€ฮฟฮปฮปแฝฐ ฯ‡ฯฮตฮนแฝฝฮดฮทฯ‚ แผฯƒฯ„แฝถ ฯ„แฟท ฮฒฮฏแฟณ). Sobre la deniciรณn y uso de la chreia en la retรณrica, vide M.

77

Inuencia de los progymnasmata en la composiciรณn de los symposia de Plutarco

incluye Plutarco en El banquete de los Siete Sabios; las atribuidas a personajes no

determinados son muy poco frecuentes, como la del joven de la ฯ‡ฯฮตแฝทฮฑ nยบ 39 .

Respecto de las clases de chreia, tenemos representados en El Banquete de

los Siete Sabios casi todas las que Teรณn propone: verbales, de acciรณn y mixtas.

Asรญ, siguiendo su clasicaciรณn, tiene el opรบsculo chreiai verbales10 - las que

sรณlo contienen un dicho - tanto enunciativas de tipo espontรกneo11 y de tipo

circunstancial (asรญ las chreiai nยบ 2 y 5), como del gรฉnero llamado "de respuesta",

de cuyos tipos utiliza especialmente Plutarco el de indagaciรณn y el interrogativo-

causal: uno consiste no sรณlo en armar o negar, sino en una respuesta extensa12

(nยบ 1) y el otro en aรฑadir a la respuesta una causa, un consejo o algo similar13

(nยบ 6)14 . Asimismo habla Teรณn de un รบltimo tipo dentro de las verbales que

serรญan las dobles15 , por contener armaciones de dos personajes16, aunque una

de ellas sola ya puede considerarse una chreia. Otro gรฉnero de chreiai son las

acciones que sin palabras muestran un pensamiento17 . Y, por รบltimo, habla

Teรณn de chreiai mixtas18 , mezcla de las anteriores y ejemplicadas en nยบ 3 y 4.

Por otra parte las ฯ‡ฯฮตแฟ–ฮฑฮน tienen distintos modos de enunciaciรณn segรบn

Teรณn (ฯ„ฯแฝนฯ€ฮฟฮน, eo, p. 99) y en El banquete tenemos representados casi todos

esos modos, de los que aquรญ vamos a reejar algunos mediante los seis ejemplos

seleccionados. Un modo de enunciaciรณn ciertamente frecuente es la sentencia

(ฮณฮฝฯ‰ฮผฮฟฮปฮฟฮณฮนฮบแฟถฯ‚ , eon, p. 99), como puede apreciarse en la armaciรณn de

Solรณn acerca de las leyes (nยบ 5). Igualmente reiterada es la expresiรณn de una

ฯ‡ฯฮตแฝทฮฑ con forma de demostraciรณn (แผ€ฯ€ฮฟฮดฮตฮนฮบฯ„ฮนฮบแฟถฯ‚, eon, p. 99), como la

de Quilรณn respecto de los compaรฑeros de banquete (nยบ 4). Muy apreciadas

B, 2005b, pp. 65 sqq.

9 Anรณnima es tambiรฉn la pronunciada por un lacedemonio en 149A-B.

10 eon, p. 97: ฯ„แฟถฮฝ ฮดแฝฒ ฮปฮฟฮณฮนฮบแฟถฮฝ ฮตแผดฮดฮท ฮดฯฮฟ, แผ€ฯ€ฮฟฯ†ฮฑฮฝฯ„ฮนฮบแฝธฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ แผ€ฯ€ฮฟฮบฯฮนฯ„ฮนฮบฯŒฮฝ· ฯ„ฮฟแฟฆ ฮดแฝฒ แผ€ฯ€ฮฟฯ†ฮฑฮฝฯ„ฮนฮบฮฟแฟฆ

ฮฑแผฑ ฮผฮญฮฝ ฮตแผฐฯƒฮน ฮบฮฑฮธ' แผ‘ฮบฮฟฯฯƒฮนฮฟฮฝ แผ€ฯ€ฯŒฯ†ฮฑฯƒฮนฮฝ, ฮฟแผทฮฟฮฝ (…)̣· ฮฑแผฑ ฮดแฝฒ ฮบฮฑฯ„แฝฐ ฯ€ฮตฯฮฏฯƒฯ„ฮฑฯƒฮนฮฝ, ฮฟแผทฮฟฮฝ ฮ”ฮนฮฟฮณฮญฮฝฮทฯ‚ (…)·

ฮฟแฝ ฮณแฝฐฯ แฝ ฮ”ฮนฮฟฮณฮญฮฝฮทฯ‚ แผฯ€ฮปแฟถฯ‚ แผ€ฯ€ฮตฯ†ฮฎฮฝฮฑฯ„ฮฟ, แผ€ฮปฮป' แผฮพ แฝงฮฝ ฮตแผถฮดฮตฮฝ. แผ”ฯ„ฮน ฮบฮฑแฝถ แผ€ฯ€แฝธ ฯ„ฮฟแฟฆ แผ€ฯ€ฮฟฮบฯฮนฯ„ฮนฮบฮฟแฟฆ ฮตแผฐฯƒฮนฮฝ

ฮตแผดฮดฮท ฯ„ฮญฯƒฯƒฮฑฯฮฑ, ฯ„ฯŒ ฯ„ฮต ฮบฮฑฯ„' แผฯฯŽฯ„ฮทฯƒฮนฮฝ, ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ„แฝธ ฮบฮฑฯ„แฝฐ ฯ€ฯฯƒฮผฮฑ, ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ„แฝธ ฮบฮฑฯ„' แผฯฯŽฯ„ฮทฯƒฮนฮฝ ฮฑแผฐฯ„ฮนแฟถฮดฮตฯ‚, ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ„แฝธ

แฝฮผฯ‰ฮฝฯฮผฯ‰ฯ‚ ฯ„แฟท ฮณฮญฮฝฮตฮน ฮปฮตฮณฯŒฮผฮตฮฝฮฟฮฝ แผ€ฯ€ฮฟฮบฯฮนฯ„ฮนฮบฯŒฮฝ.

11 Como la de Pรญtaco en 147C, o la de Tales en 158C.

12 eon, p. 97 s.: ฯ„แฝธ ฮดแฝฒ ฯ€ฯฯƒฮผฮฑ ฮผฮฑฮบฯฮฟฯ„ฮญฯฮฑฮฝ แผ€ฯ€ฮฑฮนฯ„ฮตแฟ– ฯ„แฝดฮฝ แผ€ฯ€ฯŒฮบฯฮนฯƒฮนฮฝ.·

13 eon, p. 98: ฮฑแผฑ ฮดแฝฒ ฮบฮฑฯ„' แผฯฯŽฯ„ฮทฯƒฮนฮฝ ฮฑแผฐฯ„ฮนฯŽฮดฮตฮนฯ‚ ฮตแผฐฯƒฮฏฮฝ, แฝ…ฯƒฮฑฮน ฯ‡ฯ‰ฯแฝถฯ‚ ฯ„แฟ†ฯ‚ ฯ€ฯแฝธฯ‚ ฯ„แฝดฮฝ แผฯฯŽฯ„ฮทฯƒฮนฮฝ

แผ€ฯ€ฮฟฮบฯฮฏฯƒฮตฯ‰ฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮฑแผฐฯ„ฮฏฮฑฮฝ ฯ„ฮนฮฝแฝฐ แผ”ฯ‡ฮฟฯ…ฯƒฮนฮฝ แผข ฯƒฯ…ฮผฮฒฮฟฯ…ฮปแฝดฮฝ แผค ฯ„ฮน ฯ„ฮฟฮนฮฟแฟฆฯ„ฮฟฮฝ.

14 Otros ejemplos son las opiniones de los sabios y de Periandro sobre el gobierno de reyes y

tiranos en 152A-D, la chreia de 157B, las opiniones sobre el gobierno igualitario de 154D-E y

sobre el de una casa 155C-D, opiniones todas ellas que responden a algรบn comensal que asรญ lo

ha pedido (a peticiรณn de Periandro en 151E-F, de Quersias en 157A, de Mnesรญlo en 154C-D

y de Diocles en 154F, respectivamente).

15 eon, p. 98: แผ”ฯƒฯ„ฮน ฮดแฝฒ ฯ€ฮฑฯแฝฐ ฯ„ฮฑแฟฆฯ„ฮฑ ฮบฮฑแฝถ แผ„ฮปฮปฮฟ ฮตแผถฮดฮฟฯ‚ แผฮผฯ€แฟ–ฯ€ฯ„ฮฟฮฝ ฮตแผฐฯ‚ ฯ„แฝฐฯ‚ ฮปฮฟฮณฮนฮบแฝฐฯ‚ ฮบฮฑฮปฮฟฯฮผฮตฮฝฮฟฮฝ

ฮดฮนฯ€ฮปฮฟแฟฆฮฝ, ฮดฮนฯ€ฮปแฟ† ฮดฮญ แผฯƒฯ„ฮน ฯ‡ฯฮตฮฏฮฑ แผก ฮดฯฮฟ ฯ€ฯฮฟฯƒฯŽฯ€ฯ‰ฮฝ แผ€ฯ€ฮฟฯ†ฮฌฯƒฮตฮนฯ‚ แผ”ฯ‡ฮฟฯ…ฯƒฮฑ, แฝงฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ แผก แผ‘ฯ„ฮญฯฮฑ ฮผฮตฮธ' แผ‘ฮฝแฝธฯ‚

ฯ€ฯฮฟฯƒฯŽฯ€ฮฟฯ… ฯ‡ฯฮตฮฏฮฑฮฝ ฯ€ฮฟฮนฮตแฟ–.

16 Como las intervenciones de Quilรณn y Esopo en 152D.

17 eon, p. 98: ฯ€ฯฮฑฮบฯ„ฮนฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮดฮญ ฮตแผฐฯƒฮนฮฝ ฮฑแผฑ ฯ‡ฯ‰ฯแฝถฯ‚ ฮปฯŒฮณฮฟฯ… แผฮผฯ†ฮฑฮฏฮฝฮฟฯ…ฯƒฮฑฮฏ ฯ„ฮนฮฝฮฑ ฮฝฮฟแฟฆฮฝ. De ellas hallamos

en el Banquete de los Siete Sabios el tipo activo (eon, p. 98: ฯ„แฟถฮฝ ฮดแฝฒ ฯ€ฯฮฑฮบฯ„ฮนฮบแฟถฮฝ ฮฑแผฑ ฮผฮญฮฝ ฮตแผฐฯƒฮนฮฝ

แผฮฝฮตฯฮณฮทฯ„ฮนฮบฮฑฮฏ, ฮฑแผฑ ฮดแฝฒ ฯ€ฮฑฮธฮทฯ„ฮนฮบฮฑฮฏ, แผฮฝฮตฯฮณฮทฯ„ฮนฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮผแฝฒฮฝ แฝ…ฯƒฮฑฮน ฮดฮทฮปฮฟแฟฆฯƒฮฏ ฯ„ฮนฮฝฮฑ แผฮฝฮญฯฮณฮตฮนฮฑฮฝ ) de estas ฯ€ฯฮฑฮบฯ„ฮนฮบฮฑแฝถ

ฯ‡ฯฮตแฟ–ฮฑฮน en la armaciรณn de Nilรณxeno acerca de la relaciรณn de Bรญas con los reyes (147A).

18 eon, p. 99: ฮผฮนฮบฯ„ฮฑแฝถ ฮดฮญ ฮตแผฐฯƒฮนฮฝ แฝ…ฯƒฮฑฮน ฯ„ฮฟแฟฆ ฮผแฝฒฮฝ ฮปฮฟฮณฮนฮบฮฟแฟฆ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ„ฮฟแฟฆ ฯ€ฯฮฑฮบฯ„ฮนฮบฮฟแฟฆ ฮบฮฟฮนฮฝฯ‰ฮฝฮฟแฟฆฯƒฮนฮฝ, แผฮฝ ฮดแฝฒ

ฯ„แฟท ฯ€ฯฮฑฮบฯ„ฮนฮบแฟท ฯ„แฝธ ฮบแฟฆฯฮฟฯ‚ แผ”ฯ‡ฮฟฯ…ฯƒฮนฮฝ.

son las ฯ‡ฯฮตแฟ–ฮฑฮน pronunciadas con gracia ( ฮบฮฑฯ„แฝฐ ฯ‡ฮฑฯฮนฮตฮฝฯ„ฮนฯƒฮผแฝนฮฝ , eon, p. 99)

y en El banquete ese es el resultado de la respuesta de Tales a Molpรกgoras

acerca de lo mรกs extraordinario que ha visto: "un tirano viejo" (nยบ 1)19 . La

enunciaciรณn puede hacerse de forma gurada (ฯ„ฯฮฟฯ€ฮนฮบแฟถฯ‚, eon, p. 100), y asรญ

se expresa Tales al identicar a los tiranos con la peor de las eras salvajes, y

a los aduladores, con las domรฉsticas (nยบ 2). Cuando se emite una respuesta

distinta a la pregunta realizada, dice Teรณn que se trata del modo denominado

metalepsis20 , algo que utiliza sabiamente Pรญtaco para replicar a Aliates cuando

รฉste de un modo soberbio escribiรณ y enviรณ ciertas รณrdenes a los lesbios, y

Pรญtaco no le contestรณ otra cosa que animarle a comer cebollas y pan caliente

(nยบ 6). Por รบltimo hay un modo que baraja los anteriores, con la posibilidad de

mรบltiples combinaciones21 , y asรญ, por medio del ejemplo (ฮบฮฑฯ„แฝฐ ฯ€ฮฑฯแฝฑฮดฮตฮนฮณฮผฮฑ ,

eon, p. 100) y compuesto con gracia (ฮบฮฑฯ„แฝฐ ฯ‡ฮฑฯฮนฮตฮฝฯ„ฮนฯƒฮผแฝนฮฝ, eon, p. 99),

menciona Tales la ฯ‡ฯฮตแฝทฮฑ de un joven (nยบ 3): "Y en relaciรณn con esta situaciรณn,

he experimentado lo del joven que tirando a su perra, le dio a su suegra y dijo:

"no estรก mal asรญ tampoco"22 .

A la hora de componer las chreiai pueden ejercitarse una serie de pasos

(ฮณฯ…ฮผฮฝแฝฑฮถฮฟฮฝฯ„ฮฑฮน , eon, p. 101), comenzando por una exposiciรณn clara (ฮบฮฑแฝถ แผก

ฮผแฝฒฮฝ แผ€ฯ€ฮฑฮณฮณฮตฮปแฝทฮฑ ฯ†ฮฑฮฝฮตฯแฝฑ แผฯƒฯ„ฮน, eon, p. 101), algo que, como puede apreciarse

en la selecciรณn de textos, Plutarco cumple a la perfecciรณn. En segundo lugar,

como es natural en un ejercicio escolar, se recomienda practicar los distintos

nรบmeros y casos23 en cada chreia, y tambiรฉn Plutarco ilustrarรก esta prรกctica:

asรญ pasa en la enunciaciรณn del singular al plural en nuestros ejemplos nยบ 2,

4 y 524 , o manteniendo el singular en nยบ 1, 3 y 6. En cuanto a los casos, tal y

como lo indica Teรณn25 , el nominativo no presenta ninguna dicultad y todas

19 Si bien a continuaciรณn Tales atribuye esta ฯ‡ฯฮตแฝทฮฑ a Pรญtaco, mencionando, ademรกs, que la

dijo en broma (147B: 'แผ€ฮปฮปแฝฐ ฯ„ฮฟแฟฆฯ„ฮฟ ฮผฮญฮฝ', ฮตแผถฯ€ฮตฮฝ แฝ ฮ˜ฮฑฮปแฟ†ฯ‚, 'ฮ ฮนฯ„ฯ„ฮฑฮบฮฟแฟฆ แผฯƒฯ„ฮนฮฝ, ฮตแผฐฯฮทฮผฮญฮฝฮฟฮฝ แผฮฝ ฯ€ฮฑฮนฮดฮนแพท

ฯ€ฮฟฯ„ฮต ฯ€ฯแฝธฯ‚ ฮœฯ…ฯฯƒฮฏฮปฮฟฮฝ'.

20 eon, p. 100: ฮบฮฑฯ„แฝฐ ฮผฮตฯ„ฮฌฮปฮทฯˆฮนฮฝ ฮดฮญ แผฯƒฯ„ฮนฮฝ, แฝ…ฯ„ฮฑฮฝ ฯ„แฝธ ฮปฮตฮณฯŒฮผฮตฮฝฮฟฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ„แฝธ แผฯฯ‰ฯ„ฯŽฮผฮตฮฝฮฟฮฝ แผฯ€' แผ„ฮปฮปฮฟ

ฯ„ฮนฯ‚ แผ€ฯ€ฮฟฮบฯฮนฮฝฯŒฮผฮตฮฝฮฟฯ‚ ฮผฮตฯ„ฮฑฮปฮฑฮผฮฒฮฌฮฝแฟƒ.

21 eon, p. 100: แฝ ฮดแฝฒ ฯƒฯ…ฮฝฮตฮถฮตฯ…ฮณฮผฮญฮฝฮฟฯ‚ ฯ„ฯฯŒฯ€ฮฟฯ‚ ฮฟแฝฮบ แผ„ฮดฮทฮปฯŒฯ‚ แผฯƒฯ„ฮนฮฝ, แฝ…ฯ„ฮน ฯ€ฮฟฮปฮปฮฑฯ‡แฟถฯ‚ ฮณฮฏฮฝฮตฯ„ฮฑฮน· แผข

ฮณแฝฐฯ ฮณฮฝฯ‰ฮผฮนฮบแฟท ฯ‡ฮฑฯฮนฮตฮฝฯ„ฮนฯƒฮผแฟท ฯƒฯ…ฮผฯ€ฮปฮฑฮบฮฎฯƒฮตฯ„ฮฑฮน, แผข ฯ€ฮฑฯฮฑฮดฮตฮฏฮณฮผฮฑฯ„ฮน ฯƒฯ…ฮผฮฒฮฟฮปฮนฮบแฟท แผข แผ€ฮผฯ†ฮนฮฒฮฟฮปฮฏแพณ ฮบฮฑแฝถ

ฮผฮตฯ„ฮฑฮปฮฎฯˆฮตฮน แผข แผฯ€ฮปแฟถฯ‚ ฮบฮฑฮธ' แฝ…ฯƒฮฟฯ…ฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ แผ„ฮปฮปฮฟฯ…ฯ‚ ฯ„ฯฯŒฯ€ฮฟฯ…ฯ‚ ฮดฯฮฝฮฑฯ„ฮฑฮน ฯƒฯ…ฮณฮณฮตฮฝฮญฯƒฮธฮฑฮน ฯƒฯ…ฮถฯ…ฮณฮฏฮฑ, แผคฯ„ฮฟฮน ฮดฯ…ฮฟแฟ–ฮฝ

แผข ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ€ฮปฮตฮนฯŒฮฝฯ‰ฮฝ ฯ„ฯฯŒฯ€ฯ‰ฮฝ ฮตแผฐฯ‚ ฮผฮฏฮฑฮฝ ฯ‡ฯฮตฮฏฮฑฮฝ ฯ€ฮฑฯฮฑฮปฮฑฮผฮฒฮฑฮฝฮฟฮผฮญฮฝฯ‰ฮฝ. Es frecuente esta miscelรกnea en

el Banquete: con gracia y de forma alegรณrica (ฯƒฯ…ฮผฮฒฮฟฮปฮนฮบแฟถฯ‚, eon, p. 100 – segรบn el uso que Teรณn

le da a este modo ฯƒฯ…ฮผฮฒฮฟฮปฮนฮบแฟถฯ‚; vide M. P, p. 23, n. 142 y D. Eloc. 99 sqq.) le replica Bรญas

a Tales acerca de su capacidad de discusiรณn bajo los efectos de Dioniso (150B-C); sentencia

mรกs demostraciรณn encontramos en la chreia de Cleobulo en 157B; o sentencia mรกs ejemplo en

157C.

22 La misma combinaciรณn aparece en las palabras del lacedemonio anรณnimo de 149A-B.

23 eon, p. 101: แผก ฮดแฝฒ ฮบฮปฮฏฯƒฮนฯ‚ แผฯƒฯ„แฝถ ฯ€ฮฟฮนฮบฮฏฮปฮท. ฯ„แฝฐ ฮณแฝฐฯ แผฮฝ ฯ„แฟ‡ ฯ‡ฯฮตฮฏแพณ ฯ€ฯฯŒฯƒฯ‰ฯ€ฮฑ ฮตแผฐฯ‚ ฯ„ฮฟแฝบฯ‚ ฯ„ฯฮตแฟ–ฯ‚

แผ€ฯฮนฮธฮผฮฟแฝบฯ‚ แผฮฝฮฑฮปฮปฮฌฯ„ฯ„ฮฟฮผฮตฮฝ, ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ„ฮฟแฟฆฯ„ฮฟ ฮฟแฝฯ‡ แผฯ€ฮปแฟถฯ‚, แผ€ฮปฮป' ฮฟแผทฮฟฮฝ แผ‘ฮฝแฝธฯ‚ ฯ€ฯแฝธฯ‚ แผ•ฮฝฮฑ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ€ฯแฝธฯ‚ ฮดฯฮฟ, ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ€ฯแฝธฯ‚

ฯ€ฮปฮตฮฏฮฟฯ…ฯ‚, ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ€ฮฌฮปฮนฮฝ ฮดฯ…ฮฟแฟ–ฮฝ ฯ€ฯแฝธฯ‚ แผ•ฮฝฮฑ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ€ฯแฝธฯ‚ ฮดฯฮฟ, ฮบฮฑแฝถ…

24 Tambiรฉn en 147A, 154D-E, 157C, 160A-B, y en 152A-D y 155C-D combina ese paso

con chreiai de singular a singular, que tambiรฉn tiene lugar en 147C, 149A-B, 150B-C, 152D,

155D, 157B, 157D y 158C.

25 eon, p. 101: แผก ฮผแฝฒฮฝ ฮฟแฝ–ฮฝ แฝ€ฯฮธแฝด ฮฟแฝฮดฮตฮผฮฏฮฑฮฝ แผ”ฯ‡ฮตฮน ฮดฯ…ฯƒฮบฮฟฮปฮฏฮฑฮฝ· ฮบฮฑฯ„แฝฐ ฮณแฝฐฯ ฮฑแฝฯ„แฝดฮฝ แผ‘ฮบฮฌฯƒฯ„ฮท ฯ„แฟถฮฝ

ฯ‡ฯฮตฮนแฟถฮฝ ฮตแผดฯ‰ฮธฮต ฯ€ฯฮฟฯ†ฮญฯฮตฯƒฮธฮฑฮน.

79

Inuencia de los progymnasmata en la composiciรณn de los symposia de Plutarco

las chreiai suelen enunciarse con dicho caso, como ocurre con la mayorรญa que

utiliza Plutarco (nยบ 4 y 5 de la selecciรณn26 ), aunque tambiรฉn incluye alguna

chreia enunciada en vocativo (ฮบฮปฮทฯ„ฮนฮบแฝต, eon, p. 102 s.; nยบ 1 y 2), genitivo

(ฮณฮตฮฝฮนฮบแฝด ฯ€ฯ„แฟถฯƒฮนฯ‚ , eon, p. 101 s.; nยบ 3 y 6) y acusativo27 . A continuaciรณn puede

aรฑadirse un epifonema que demuestre de modo apropiado y breve que la chreia

es verdadera, hermosa, รบtil, de acuerdo con la opiniรณn de hombres reputados28 ,

como en la nยบ 3, que se corrobora mediante otros personajes - Solรณn y Pรญtaco -,

dignos de menciรณn por compartir el mismo punto de vista29 ; y puede replicarse

a partir de los contrarios30 : tras las ฯ‡ฯฮตแฟ–ฮฑฮน nยบ 1 y 2, como epifonema de rรฉplica,

se critica lo poco agradable de la actitud de Tales31 ; en la nยบ 5 se considera

la imposibilidad de tal armaciรณn tildรกndola de "ridรญcula"32 . En quinto lugar

puede ampliarse o abreviarse la chreia (eon, p. 103), siendo esta รบltima opciรณn

la preferida de Plutarco, parco en casi todas ellas33 . Y, por รบltimo, se pueden

refutar las chreiai desde diversos puntos de vista (eon, p. 104 s.), aunque

no todos son siempre posibles. Esta parte del desarrollo de la chreia, dada la

brevedad hacia la que tiende Plutarco, no es muy frecuente en El banquete ,

pero aun asรญ encontramos algรบn ejemplo como el de la inconveniencia (แผฮบ

ฮดแฝฒ ฯ„ฮฟแฟฆ แผ€ฯƒฯ…ฮผฯ†แฝนฯฮฟฯ… , eon, p. 104 s.) de las chreiai nยบ 1 y 234 . Por otro lado,

tambiรฉn pueden conrmarse (eon, p. 105) a partir del argumento contrario

de lo defectuoso (แผฮบ ฯ„ฮฟแฟฆ แผฮปฮปฮตแฝทฯ€ฮฟฮฝฯ„ฮฟฯ‚, eon, p. 104), como en la conrmaciรณn

de la ฯ‡ฯฮตแฝทฮฑ nยบ 6 (148A: แฝ…ฮธฮตฮฝ แผ„ฯฮนฯƒฯ„ฮฑ ฯ‡แฝทฮปฯ‰ฮฝ) antes de enunciarla35 . Entre

otros elementos amplicadores de la chreia, propone Teรณn tambiรฉn aรฑadir un

proemio (eon, p. 105 s.), pero dado que Plutarco emplea las chreiai como un

elemento mรกs en su narraciรณn, evidentemente ha de prescindir de incluir todas

las partes de que puede constar segรบn el manual de ejercicios retรณricos.

26 Tambiรฉn en 147A, 147C, 149A-B, 150B-C, 152A-D, 152D, 154D-E, 155C-D, 155D,

157B, 157C, 157D, 158C.

27 eon, p. 102: แผฯ€แฝถ ฮดแฝฒ ฯ„แฟ†ฯ‚ ฮฑแผฐฯ„ฮนฮฑฯ„ฮนฮบแฟ†ฯ‚, por ejemplo en 160A-B.

28 eon, p. 103: แผฯ€ฮนฯ†ฯ‰ฮฝฮตแฟ–ฮฝ ฮดแฝฒ แผ”ฯƒฯ„ฮนฮฝ แผ€ฯ€ฮฟฮดฮตฮนฮบฮฝฯ…ฮผฮญฮฝฮฟฯ…ฯ‚ ฮฟแผฐฮบฮตฮฏฯ‰ฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯƒฯ…ฮฝฯ„ฯŒฮผฯ‰ฯ‚ ฯ„แฝธ ฮตแผฐฯฮทฮผฮญฮฝฮฟฮฝ

ฮดฮนแฝฐ ฯ„แฟ†ฯ‚ ฯ‡ฯฮตฮฏฮฑฯ‚, แผข แฝกฯ‚ แผ€ฮปฮทฮธฮญฯ‚ แผฯƒฯ„ฮนฮฝ, แผข แฝกฯ‚ ฮบฮฑฮปฯŒฮฝ, แผข แฝกฯ‚ ฯƒฯ…ฮผฯ†ฮญฯฮฟฮฝ, แผข แฝกฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ แผ„ฮปฮปฮฟฮนฯ‚ ฯ„แฝธ ฮฑแฝฯ„แฝธ ฯ„ฮฟแฟฆฯ„ฮฟ

แผ”ฮดฮฟฮพฮตฮฝ แผ€ฮฝฮดฯฮฌฯƒฮน ฮดฮตฮดฮฟฮบฮนฮผฮฑฯƒฮผฮญฮฝฮฟฮนฯ‚.

29 147C: ฮดฮนแฝธ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮฃฯŒฮปฯ‰ฮฝฮฑ ฯƒฮฟฯ†ฯŽฯ„ฮฑฯ„ฮฟฮฝ แผกฮณฮทฯƒฮฌฮผฮทฮฝ ฮฟแฝ ฮดฮตฮพฮฌฮผฮตฮฝฮฟฮฝ ฯ„ฯ…ฯฮฑฮฝฮฝฮตแฟ–ฮฝ. ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮ ฮนฯ„ฯ„ฮฑฮบแฝธฯ‚

ฮฟแฝ—ฯ„ฮฟฯ‚ ฮตแผฐ ฮผฮฟฮฝฮฑฯฯ‡ฮฏแพณ ฮผแฝด ฯ€ฯฮฟฯƒแฟ†ฮปฮธฮตฮฝ, ฮฟแฝฮบ แผ‚ฮฝ ฮตแผถฯ€ฮตฮฝ แฝกฯ‚ 'ฯ‡ฮฑฮปฮตฯ€แฝธฮฝ แผฯƒฮธฮปแฝธฮฝ แผ”ฮผฮผฮตฮฝฮฑฮน'. Tambiรฉn puede

mencionarse como epifonema el uso de una fรกbula de Esopo por parte de Cleobulo (157B:

แฝฅฯƒฯ€ฮตฯ แฝ ฮ‘แผฐฯƒฯŽฯ€ฮฟฯ… ฮบฯฯ‰ฮฝ…), o la actitud del propio Cleodoro que ha suscitado en 157C la chreia

de Cleobulo, quien a continuaciรณn la va a comparar con el proceder del mรฉdico (157C: ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯƒแฝบ

ฮบฮฑฮธฮฌฯ€ฮตฯ ฯ„แฟท ฮฝฯŒฮผแฟณ ฯ„แฟท ฮปฯŒฮณแฟณ ฯ„ฯฮญฯ†ฯ‰ฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮดฮนฮฑฮนฯ„แฟถฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ†ฮฑฯฮผฮฑฮบฮตฯฯ‰ฮฝ ฯ„ฮฟแฝบฯ‚ ฮบฮฌฮผฮฝฮฟฮฝฯ„ฮฑฯ‚ ฮฟแฝฮบ แผดฯƒฮฟฮฝ

แผ‘ฮบฮฌฯƒฯ„แฟณ, ฯ„แฝธ ฮดแฝฒ ฯ€ฯฮฟฯƒแฟ†ฮบฮฟฮฝ แผ€ฯ€ฮฟฮฝฮญฮผฮตฮนฯ‚ แผ…ฯ€ฮฑฯƒฮนฮฝ).

30 eon, p. 103: แผ€ฮฝฯ„ฮนฮปฮญฮณฮฟฮผฮตฮฝ ฮดแฝฒ ฯ„ฮฑแฟ–ฯ‚ ฯ‡ฯฮตฮฏฮฑฮนฯ‚ แผฮบ ฯ„แฟถฮฝ แผฮฝฮฑฮฝฯ„ฮฏฯ‰ฮฝ.

31 147B: ฯ„ฮฟฮนฮฑแฟฆฯ„ฮฑ ฮณฮฌฯ, ฮตแผฐ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ€ฮฌฮฝฯ… ฯ€ฯฮฟฯƒฯ€ฮฟฮนฮฟแฟฆฮฝฯ„ฮฑฮน ฮดฮนฮฑฯ†ฮญฯฮตฮนฮฝ ฮฟแผฑ ฮฒฮฑฯƒฮนฮปฮตแฟ–ฯ‚ ฯ„แฟถฮฝ ฯ„ฯ…ฯฮฌฮฝฮฝฯ‰ฮฝ, ฮฟแฝฮบ

ฮตแฝฮผฮตฮฝแฟถฯ‚ แผ€ฮบฮฟฯฮฟฯ…ฯƒฮนฮฝ.

32 152A: ฮบฮฑแฝถ แผฮณฯŽ· 'ฮณฮตฮปฮฟแฟ–ฮฟฯ‚', แผ”ฯ†ฮทฮฝ, 'แฝ ฮปฯŒฮณฮฟฯ‚· ฮฟแฝ•ฯ„ฯ‰ ฮณแฝฐฯ แผ”ฮดฮตฮน ฯ€ฯแฟถฯ„ฮฟฮฝ แผ€ฯ€ฮฟฯ€ฮฟฮนฮตแฟ–ฯƒฮธฮฑฮน ฯ„แฝธฮฝ

ฮ›ฯ…ฮบฮฟแฟฆฯฮณฮฟฮฝ ฮฑแฝฯ„ฮฟแฟ–ฯ‚ ฮฝฯŒฮผฮฟฮนฯ‚ แฝ…ฮปฮทฮฝ ฮผฮตฯ„ฮฑฮบฮนฮฝฮฎฯƒฮฑฮฝฯ„ฮฑ ฯ„แฝดฮฝ ฮ›ฮฑฮบฮตฮดฮฑฮนฮผฮฟฮฝฮฏฯ‰ฮฝ ฯ€ฮฟฮปฮนฯ„ฮตฮฏฮฑฮฝ'.

33 Quizรก se extiende un poco mรกs con las explicaciones Cleobulo en 157B y Tales aรฑade los

versos de su antriona en ร‰reso para explicar el dicho sobre Epimรฉnides en 157D.

34 147A: แผ€ฮปฮป' แฝ…ฯ€ฮตฯ แผ”ฯ†ฮทฮฝ, ฮดฮนฮตฮฒฮปฮฎฮธฮทฯ‚ ฮผฮนฯƒฮฟฮฒฮฑฯƒฮนฮปฮตแฝบฯ‚ ฮตแผถฮฝฮฑฮน, ฮบฮฑฮฏ ฯ„ฮนฮฝฮตฯ‚ แฝ‘ฮฒฯฮนฯƒฯ„ฮนฮบฮฑฮฏ ฯƒฮฟฯ… ฯ€ฮตฯแฝถ

ฯ„ฯ…ฯฮฌฮฝฮฝฯ‰ฮฝ แผ€ฯ€ฮฟฯ†ฮฌฯƒฮตฮนฯ‚ แผ€ฮฝฮตฯ†ฮญฯฮฟฮฝฯ„ฮฟ ฯ€ฯแฝธฯ‚ ฮฑแฝฯ„ฯŒฮฝ.

35 Y a partir de lo conveniente en 149A-B.

II. ฮœแฟฆฮธฮฟฮน. A continuaciรณn ilustraremos el segundo progymnasma estudiado

a travรฉs de uno de sus ejemplos36 , la fรกbula del lobo y los pastores (156A)37 .

Segรบn el progymnasma ฮ ฮตฯแฝถ ฮผแฝปฮธฮฟฯ… es la fรกbula una composiciรณn falsa pero

que representa la verdad38 y que a pesar de ser falsa e imposible, sin embargo,

es verosรญmil y รบtil39 . Puesto que Plutarco las emplea como un elemento mรกs

dentro de su composiciรณn, no tendremos las fรกbulas como tal ejercicio retรณrico

con todas sus partes y secciones40 , pero aun asรญ pueden observarse algunas de

las caracterรญsticas que propugna la progymnasmatica, como su exposiciรณn, su

declinaciรณn, su enlace a un relato, su abreviaciรณn y, en ocasiones, su conrmaciรณn.

La exposiciรณn (แผ€ฯ€ฮฑฮณฮณฮตฮปแฝทฮฑ, eon, p. 74) debe hacerse de una forma sencilla

y natural y, a ser posible, sin ornato41 , tal y como nos la presenta Plutarco

(156A):

ฮคฮฟแฟฆ ฮดแฝฒ ฮ ฮนฯ„ฯ„ฮฑฮบฮฟแฟฆ ฮณฮตฮปฮฌฯƒฮฑฮฝฯ„ฮฟฯ‚ แฝ ฮ‘แผดฯƒฯ‰ฯ€ฮฟฯ‚ ฮปฯŒฮณฮฟฮฝ ฮตแผถฯ€ฮต ฯ„ฮฟฮนฮฟแฟฆฯ„ฮฟฮฝ· "ฮปฯฮบฮฟฯ‚ แผฐฮดแฝผฮฝ

ฯ€ฮฟฮนฮผฮญฮฝฮฑฯ‚ แผฯƒฮธฮฏฮฟฮฝฯ„ฮฑฯ‚ แผฮฝ ฯƒฮบฮทฮฝแฟ‡ ฯ€ฯฯŒฮฒฮฑฯ„ฮฟฮฝ แผฮณฮณแฝบฯ‚ ฯ€ฯฮฟฯƒฮตฮปฮธฯŽฮฝ, 'แผกฮปฮฏฮบฮฟฯ‚ แผ‚ฮฝ แผฆฮฝ,'

แผ”ฯ†ฮท, 'ฮธฯŒฯฯ…ฮฒฮฟฯ‚ แฝ‘ฮผแฟถฮฝ, ฮตแผฐ แผฮณแฝผ ฯ„ฮฟแฟฆฯ„' แผฯ€ฮฟฮฏฮฟฯ…ฮฝ.'

El caso empleado en su declinaciรณn (ฮบฮปแฝทฮฝฮฟฮผฮตฮฝ, eon, p. 74) es el

nominativo รบnicamente (ฮปแฝปฮบฮฟฯ‚ ...)42 y pasa de singular a plural. Por otra parte

se inserta la fรกbula (ฯƒฯ…ฮผฯ€ฮปแฝณฮบฮฟฮผฮตฮฝ, eon, p. 75)43 tras unos comentarios sobre

beber vino (155D-156A) y tras plantearse la cuestiรณn de por quรฉ no bebรญa

vino en ese momento Solรณn. Anacarsis explica que en realidad teme una ley

de Pรญtaco que sin embargo รฉl se atreviรณ a transgredir, momento que aprovecha

Esopo para contar una graciosa fรกbula. A continuaciรณn le responde de nuevo

36 Otras fรกbulas que aparecen en El banquete son: 150A-B, 155B-C, 157A-B, 157B.

37 Sobre la presencia de la fรกbula esรณpica en la obra de Plutarco vide C. G G, 1994,

pp. 605 sqq., y sobre la inuencia de la preceptiva escolar, vide J. A. F D, 2005,

pp. 77 s.; acerca de la fรกbula y del papel de los animales en el Banquete de los siete sabios, vide M.

A. D L, 2005, pp. 112 sqq.

38 eon, p. 59 y 72: ฮผแฟฆฮธฯŒฯ‚ แผฯƒฯ„ฮน ฮปฯŒฮณฮฟฯ‚ ฯˆฮตฯ…ฮดแฝดฯ‚ ฮตแผฐฮบฮฟฮฝฮฏฮถฯ‰ฮฝ แผ€ฮปฮฎฮธฮตฮนฮฑฮฝ. G.-J. V D, 1997,

pp. 47 sqq., analiza la informaciรณn que acerca de la fรกbula proporciona Teรณn, cuya deniciรณn es

la mรกs antigua conservada.

39 eon, p. 76: (...) ฮฑแฝฯ„แฝธฯ‚ แฝ ฮผฯ…ฮธฮฟฯ€ฮฟฮนแฝธฯ‚ แฝฮผฮฟฮปฮฟฮณฮตแฟ– ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯˆฮตฯ…ฮดแฟ† ฮบฮฑแฝถ แผ€ฮดฯฮฝฮฑฯ„ฮฑ ฯƒฯ…ฮณฮณฯฮฌฯ†ฮตฮนฮฝ,

ฯ€ฮนฮธฮฑฮฝแฝฐ ฮดแฝฒ ฮบฮฑแฝถ แฝ ฯ†ฮญฮปฮนฮผฮฑ.

40 eon, p. 74: ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮณแฝฐฯ แผ€ฯ€ฮฑฮณฮณฮญฮปฮปฮฟฮผฮตฮฝ ฯ„แฝธฮฝ ฮผแฟฆฮธฮฟฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮบฮปฮฏฮฝฮฟฮผฮตฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯƒฯ…ฮผฯ€ฮปฮญฮบฮฟฮผฮตฮฝ ฮฑแฝฯ„แฝธฮฝ

ฮดฮนฮทฮณฮฎฮผฮฑฯ„ฮน, ฮบฮฑแฝถ แผฯ€ฮตฮบฯ„ฮตฮฏฮฝฮฟฮผฮตฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯƒฯ…ฯƒฯ„ฮญฮปฮปฮฟฮผฮตฮฝ, แผ”ฯƒฯ„ฮน ฮดแฝฒ ฮบฮฑแฝถ แผฯ€ฮนฮปฮญฮณฮตฮนฮฝ ฮฑแฝฯ„แฟท ฯ„ฮนฮฝฮฑ ฮปฯŒฮณฮฟฮฝ, ฮบฮฑแฝถ

ฮฑแฝ– ฮปฯŒฮณฮฟฯ… ฯ„ฮนฮฝแฝธฯ‚ ฯ€ฯฮฟฯ„ฮตฮธฮญฮฝฯ„ฮฟฯ‚, ฮผแฟฆฮธฮฟฮฝ แผฮฟฮนฮบฯŒฯ„ฮฑ ฮฑแฝฯ„แฟท ฯƒฯ…ฮผฯ€ฮปฮฌฯƒฮฑฯƒฮธฮฑฮน. แผ”ฯ„ฮน ฮดแฝฒ ฯ€ฯแฝธฯ‚ ฯ„ฮฟฯฯ„ฮฟฮนฯ‚

แผ€ฮฝฮฑฯƒฮบฮตฯ…ฮฌฮถฮฟฮผฮตฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮบฮฑฯ„ฮฑฯƒฮบฮตฯ…ฮฌฮถฮฟฮผฮตฮฝ.

41 eon, p. 74: (...) แผฮฝ ฮดแฝฒ ฯ„ฮฟแฟ–ฯ‚ ฮผฯฮธฮฟฮนฯ‚ แผฯ€ฮปฮฟฯ…ฯƒฯ„ฮญฯฮฑฮฝ ฯ„แฝดฮฝ แผ‘ฯฮผฮทฮฝฮตฮฏฮฑฮฝ ฮตแผถฮฝฮฑฮน ฮดฮตแฟ– ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ€ฯฮฟฯƒฯ†ฯ…แฟ†,

ฮบฮฑแฝถ แฝกฯ‚ ฮดฯ…ฮฝฮฑฯ„ฯŒฮฝ, แผ€ฮบฮฑฯ„ฮฌฯƒฮบฮตฯ…ฯŒฮฝ ฯ„ฮต ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯƒฮฑฯ†แฟ†.

42 Como ocurre en las fรกbulas de 150A-B, 155B-C; en 157A-B se declina en acusativo; y en

157B pasa de nominativo a acusativo.

43 De modo que se enlaza esta fรกbula a su relato a continuaciรณn de รฉste, como en 157A-B,

mientras que otros ejemplos del Banquete realizan un enlace tanto a lo anterior como a lo posterior.

Asรญ en 150A-B Esopo cuenta una fรกbula referida a la actuaciรณn de Alexรญdemo (148E-F, asunto

mencionado de nuevo a partir de 149F) - que abandona airado el banquete al considerar que se

le habรญa adjudicado una posiciรณn deshonrosa -, pero Plutarco hace que sirva igualmente respecto

del propio Esopo gracias al posterior comentario de Quilรณn: แฝ‰ ฮดแฝฒ ฮงแฝทฮปฯ‰ฮฝ ฮปฮฑฮบฯ‰ฮฝแฝทฯƒฮฑฯ‚ ฯ„แฟ‡ ฯ†ฯ‰ฮฝแฟ‡·

'ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ„ฮฟแฝปฮฝฮท', แผ”ฯ†ฮท, 'ฮฒฯฮฑฮดแฝบฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ <ฮบฮฑฯ„>ฯ„ฯแฝณฯ‡ฮตฮนฯ‚ ฯ„แฝธฮฝ แผกฮผแฝทฮฟฮฝฮฟฮฝ'.

81

Inuencia de los progymnasmata en la composiciรณn de los symposia de Plutarco

Quilรณn, que va a aplaudir su intervenciรณn - 156A: ฮบฮฑแฝถ แฝ ฮงฮฏฮปฯ‰ฮฝ· 'แฝ€ฯฮธแฟถฯ‚',

แผ”ฯ†ฮท, 'ฮ‘แผดฯƒฯ‰ฯ€ฮฟฯ‚ แผ ฮผฯฮฝฮฑฯ„ฮฟ, ฮผฮนฮบฯแฝธฮฝ แผ”ฮผฯ€ฯฮฟฯƒฮธฮตฮฝ แผฯ€ฮนฯƒฯ„ฮฟฮผฮนฯƒฮธฮตแฝถฯ‚ แฝ‘ฯ†' แผกฮผแฟถฮฝ, ฮตแผถฯ„ฮฑ

ฮฝแฟฆฮฝ แฝฯแฟถฮฝ แผ‘ฯ„ฮญฯฮฟฯ…ฯ‚ ฯ„แฝธฮฝ ฮœฮฝฮทฯƒฮนฯ†ฮฏฮปฮฟฯ… ฮปฯŒฮณฮฟฮฝ แฝ‘ฯ†ฮทฯฯ€ฮฑฮบฯŒฯ„ฮฑฯ‚'-, de modo que se

convierte en la conrmaciรณn (ฮบฮฑฯ„ฮฑฯƒฮบฮตฯ…แฝต, eon, p. 76 s.), pues Quilรณn alaba

la conveniencia de la fรกbula en ese momento. Ante la doble posibilidad de

ampliaciรณn o abreviaciรณn de la fรกbula (eon, p. 75) se decanta Plutarco en sus

ejemplos de fรกbula por la abreviaciรณn44 .

III. ฮ”ฮนฮทฮณแฝตฮผฮฑฯ„ฮฑ. Finalmente vamos a ver la puesta en prรกctica de otro

progymnasma igualmente repetido en El banquete de los Siete Sabios 45 , el del

relato. Y nos va a servir de ejemplo el primero que Diocles reere, el relato de

Gorgo y el citaredo Ariรณn (160D - 161B y 162A - 162B). Segรบn la deniciรณn

del manual, un relato debe tratar hechos acaecidos o como si hubieran

acaecido46 , y Plutarco se las ingenia para conseguir estos efectos, si bien en este

anรกlisis รบnicamente se va a hacer referencia a las dos partes clave en el ejercicio

del relato, que son los elementos bรกsicos y las แผ€ฯฮตฯ„ฮฑแฝท de la narraciรณn, puesto

que el resto de indicaciones ofrecen cierta libertad de seguimiento y mรกs bien

consisten en una clasicaciรณn de las posibilidades que un relato presenta.

Diocles nos informa a la entrada de Gorgo en el banquete de lo siguiente:

quiรฉn es, cuรกndo llega, adรณnde habรญa sido enviado, el motivo, el hecho y la

forma de llevarlo a cabo47 ; mientras que a travรฉs de las palabras de Gorgo nos

enteraremos, ademรกs, del momento y del modo de la acciรณn. De esta manera

quedan cubiertos los elementos necesarios para constituir un relato, como bien

especica Teรณn48 : el personaje es Gorgo al mando de una expediciรณn religiosa;

el asunto es llevar a cabo una ฮธฮตฯ‰ฯแฝทฮฑ y sacricios a Posidรณn; la acciรณn tiene lugar

en el Tรฉnaro; la expediciรณn religiosa habรญa sido motivada por unos orรกculos; el

momento de la acciรณn es durante la noche del รบltimo dรญa de los tres que durรณ

la expediciรณn; y, por รบltimo, segรบn las indicaciones de Teรณn49 , podemos decir

que el modo de la acciรณn es involuntario por azar, ya que ellos no esperaban

encontrarse lo que sucediรณ en la playa (160F sqq.), o por necesidad, puesto que

son unos orรกculos divinos los que han inspirado la expediciรณn junto al mar50 .

Por lo tanto ya se han expuesto los elementos necesarios para que el relato sea

completo, siguiendo las instrucciones de Teรณn51 .

44 Parece ser esta una tendencia general en el uso de la fรกbula por Plutarco, vide J. A.

F D, 2005, p. 80 s.

45 Y en otras partes de la obra plutarquea, vide F. P P, 2005, p. 130.

46 eon, p. 78: ฮดฮนฮฎฮณฮทฮผฮฌ แผฯƒฯ„ฮน ฮปฯŒฮณฮฟฯ‚ แผฮบฮธฮตฯ„ฮนฮบแฝธฯ‚ ฯ€ฯฮฑฮณฮผฮฌฯ„ฯ‰ฮฝ ฮณฮตฮณฮฟฮฝฯŒฯ„ฯ‰ฮฝ แผข แฝกฯ‚ ฮณฮตฮณฮฟฮฝฯŒฯ„ฯ‰ฮฝ.

47 160 D: แผœฯ„ฮน ฮดแฝฒ ฯ„ฮฟแฟฆ ฮฃฯŒฮปฯ‰ฮฝฮฟฯ‚ ฮปฮญฮณฮฟฮฝฯ„ฮฟฯ‚ ฮตแผฐฯƒแฟ†ฮปฮธฮต ฮ“ฯŒฯฮณฮฟฯ‚ แฝ ฮ ฮตฯฮนฮฌฮฝฮดฯฮฟฯ… แผ€ฮดฮตฮปฯ†ฯŒฯ‚· แผฯ„ฯฮณฯ‡ฮฑฮฝฮต

ฮณแฝฐฯ ฮตแผฐฯ‚ ฮคฮฑฮฏฮฝฮฑฯฮฟฮฝ แผ€ฯ€ฮตฯƒฯ„ฮฑฮปฮผฮญฮฝฮฟฯ‚ แผ”ฮบ ฯ„ฮนฮฝฯ‰ฮฝ ฯ‡ฯฮทฯƒฮผแฟถฮฝ, ฯ„แฟท ฮ ฮฟฯƒฮตฮนฮดแฟถฮฝฮน ฮธฯ…ฯƒฮฏฮฑฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮธฮตฯ‰ฯฮฏฮฑฮฝ

แผ€ฯ€ฮฌฮณฯ‰ฮฝ.

48 eon, p. 78: ฯƒฯ„ฮฟฮนฯ‡ฮตแฟ–ฮฑ ฮดแฝฒ ฯ„แฟ†ฯ‚ ฮดฮนฮทฮณฮฎฯƒฮตฯŽฯ‚ ฮตแผฐฯƒฮนฮฝ แผ•ฮพ, ฯ„ฯŒ ฯ„ฮต ฯ€ฯฯŒฯƒฯ‰ฯ€ฮฟฮฝ (ฮตแผดฯ„ฮต แผ“ฮฝ ฮตแผดฮท ฮตแผดฯ„ฮต ฯ€ฮปฮตฮฏฯ‰)

ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ„แฝธ ฯ€ฯแพถฮณฮผฮฑ ฯ„แฝธ ฯ€ฯฮฑฯ‡ฮธแฝฒฮฝ แฝ‘ฯ€แฝธ ฯ„ฮฟแฟฆ ฯ€ฯฮฟฯƒฯŽฯ€ฮฟฯ…, ฮบฮฑแฝถ แฝ ฯ„ฯŒฯ€ฮฟฯ‚ แผฮฝ แพง แผก ฯ€ฯแพถฮพฮนฯ‚, ฮบฮฑแฝถ แฝ ฯ‡ฯฯŒฮฝฮฟฯ‚ ฮบฮฑฮธ' แฝƒฮฝ

แผก ฯ€ฯแพถฮพฮนฯ‚, ฮบฮฑแฝถ แฝ ฯ„ฯฯŒฯ€ฮฟฯ‚ ฯ„แฟ†ฯ‚ ฯ€ฯฮฌฮพฮตฯ‰ฯ‚, ฮบฮฑแฝถ แผ•ฮบฯ„ฮฟฮฝ แผก ฯ„ฮฟฯฯ„ฯ‰ฮฝ ฮฑแผฐฯ„ฮฏฮฑ.

49 eon, p. 79: ฯ„แฟท ฮดแฝฒ ฯ„ฯฯŒฯ€แฟณ แผ€ฮบฮฟฯ…ฯƒฮฏฯ‰ฯ‚ แผข แผ‘ฮบฮฟฯ…ฯƒฮฏฯ‰ฯ‚· แผ‘ฮบฮฌฯ„ฮตฯฮฟฮฝ ฮดแฝฒ ฮตแผฐฯ‚ ฯ„ฯฮฏฮฑ ฮดฮนฮฑฮนฯฮตแฟ–ฯ„ฮฑฮน, ฯ„แฝธ ฮผแฝฒฮฝ

แผ€ฮบฮฟฯฯƒฮนฮฟฮฝ ฮตแผฐฯ‚ แผ„ฮณฮฝฮฟฮนฮฑฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ„ฯฯ‡ฮทฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ แผ€ฮฝฮฌฮณฮบฮทฮฝ.

50 Despuรฉs comenta Gorgo que la divinidad parece estar detrรกs de todo el asunto (162B:

แฝ„ฮฝฯ„ฯ‰ฯ‚ ฮฟแฝ–ฮฝ แผฮฟฮนฮบฮญฮฝฮฑฮน ฮธฮตฮฏแพณ ฯ„ฯฯ‡แฟƒ ฯ„แฝธ ฯ€ฯแพถฮณฮผฮฑ).

51 eon, p. 78: ฯ„ฮฟฯฯ„ฯ‰ฮฝ ฮดแฝฒ แฝ„ฮฝฯ„ฯ‰ฮฝ ฯ„แฟถฮฝ แผ€ฮฝฯ‰ฯ„ฮฌฯ„ฯ‰ ฯƒฯ„ฮฟฮนฯ‡ฮตฮฏฯ‰ฮฝ, แผฮพ แฝงฮฝ ฯƒฯ…ฮผฯ€ฮปฮทฯฮฟแฟฆฯ„ฮฑฮน, แผก ฯ„ฮตฮปฮตฮฏฮฑ

Y respecto de la segunda de las claves que mencionรกbamos, las แผ€ฯฮตฯ„ฮฑแฝถ

ฮดฮนฮทฮณแฝตฯƒฮตฯ‰ฯ‚, en ellas se basa la ecacia del relato y, en la medida de lo posible,

deben estar presentes en toda narraciรณn: claridad, concisiรณn y verosimilitud52 .

Siguiendo las indicaciones de Teรณn, puede decirse que este relato de El banquete

se ha compuesto con claridad en cuanto al tema y al estilo (eon, p. 80): por

una parte en cuanto al tema53 , puesto que ni siquiera la actuaciรณn de los delnes

resultarรญa ajena al auditorio54 y solamente se narra un hecho55, sin mezclarlo

con otros simultรกneos, ademรกs de hacerlo con orden56 y sin digresiones57 ;

por otra parte, en cuanto al estilo58 , deben evitarse las nuevas creaciones y

los tรฉrminos poรฉticos, los metafรณricos, arcaicos, extranjeros y homรณnimos, la

ambigรผedad en la expresiรณn, el hipรฉrbaton (suave se permite), las digresiones

extensas, la falta de nombres o utilizar un caso que puede hacer referencia a dos

nombres distintos dando lugar a confusiรณn: la รบnica excepciรณn que aparece en

este pasaje de El banquete la constituirรญa el tรฉrmino (161A) ฯƒฯ…ฮฝฮตฯ€ฮฟฮบฮตแฝทฮปฮฑฮฝฯ„ฮตฯ‚59 .

Tambiรฉn la concisiรณn va a surgir de los hechos y del estilo. Lo primero60 se

consigue cuando no se incluyen muchos asuntos, no se insertan unos en otros,

se dejan de lado los que se sobreentienden, no se empiezan los asuntos desde

lejos, etc. Y para ser conciso en cuanto al estilo hay que evitar sinรณnimos,

perรญfrasis, elementos superuos, compuestos, y decantarse por los nombres mรกs

ฮดฮนฮฎฮณฮทฯƒฮนฯ‚, แผฮพ แผฯ€ฮฌฮฝฯ„ฯ‰ฮฝ ฮฑแฝฯ„แฟถฮฝ ฯƒฯ…ฮฝฮญฯƒฯ„ฮทฮบฮตฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ„แฟถฮฝ ฯƒฯ…ฮฝฮตฮดฯฮตฯ…ฯŒฮฝฯ„ฯ‰ฮฝ ฮฑแฝฯ„ฮฟแฟ–ฯ‚, แผฮปฮปฮนฯ€แฝดฯ‚ ฮดฮญ แผฯƒฯ„ฮนฮฝ แผฅ

ฯ„ฮนฮฝฮฟฯ‚ ฯ„ฮฟฯฯ„ฯ‰ฮฝ แผฯ€ฮนฮดฮญฮฟฯ…ฯƒฮฑ.

52 eon, p. 79: แผ€ฯฮตฯ„ฮฑแฝถ ฮดแฝฒ ฮดฮนฮทฮณฮฎฯƒฮตฯ‰ฯ‚ ฯ„ฯฮตแฟ–ฯ‚, ฯƒฮฑฯ†แฝตฮฝฮตฮนฮฑ, ฯƒฯ…ฮฝฯ„ฮฟฮผฮฏฮฑ, ฯ€ฮนฮธฮฑฮฝฯŒฯ„ฮทฯ‚. ฮดฮนแฝธ ฮผฮฌฮปฮนฯƒฯ„ฮฑ

ฮผฮญฮฝ, ฮตแผฐ ฮดฯ…ฮฝฮฑฯ„ฯŒฮฝ แผฯƒฯ„ฮนฮฝ, แผฯ€ฮฌฯƒฮฑฯ‚ ฯ„แฝฐฯ‚ แผ€ฯฮตฯ„แฝฐฯ‚ แผ”ฯ‡ฮตฮนฮฝ ฮดฮตแฟ– ฯ„แฝดฮฝ ฮดฮนฮฎฮณฮทฯƒฮนฮฝ. Vide su antecedente en

Anaximen. Rh. 1438 a 3-1438 b 13.

53 eon, p. 80: แผฮบ ฮผแฝฒฮฝ ฮฟแฝ–ฮฝ ฯ„แฟถฮฝ ฯ€ฯฮฑฮณฮผฮฌฯ„ฯ‰ฮฝ, แฝ…ฯ„ฮฑฮฝ ฮปฮตฮณฯŒฮผฮตฮฝฮฑ ฯ„แฝฐ ฯ€ฯฮฌฮณฮผฮฑฯ„ฮฑ ฮผแฝด ฯ„แฝดฮฝ ฮบฮฟฮนฮฝแฝดฮฝ

แผฮบฯ†ฮตฯฮณแฟƒ ฮดฮนฮฌฮฝฮฟฮนฮฑฮฝ.

54 Son animales de frecuente apariciรณn, ademรกs de en otros รกmbitos artรญsticos, en la literatura

griega, como en Ilรญada 21. 22 sqq. (se emplea el delfรญn para comparar el temor que provoca en

los peces pequeรฑos a los que sin duda va a devorar, con la actitud de los troyanos en el rรญo Janto

huyendo de un Aquiles enfurecido); famosos por su rapidez, como seรฑala Pรญndaro en Nemea VI

64; conocidos por sus danzas marinas (Eurรญpides, Helena, v. 1455); y son numerosas las fรกbulas

esรณpicas con delnes, como la 62, 73, 113 o la 145 (ediciรณn de B. E. P, Aesopica, I, Urbana,

1952).

55 eon, p. 80: แผข แฝ…ฯ„ฮฑฮฝ ฮผแฝด ฯ€ฮฟฮปฮปแฝฐ แฝฮผฮฟแฟฆ ฮดฮนฮทฮณแฟ†ฯ„ฮฑฮฏ ฯ„ฮนฯ‚, แผ€ฮปฮปแฝฐ ฮบฮฑฮธ' แผ•ฮบฮฑฯƒฯ„ฮฟฮฝ.

56 eon, p. 80: ฯ†ฯ…ฮปฮฑฮบฯ„ฮญฮฟฮฝ ฮดแฝฒ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ„แฝธ ฮผแฝด ฯƒฯ…ฮณฯ‡ฮตแฟ–ฮฝ ฯ„ฮฟแฝบฯ‚ ฯ‡ฯฯŒฮฝฮฟฯ…ฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ„แฝดฮฝ ฯ„ฮฌฮพฮนฮฝ ฯ„แฟถฮฝ ฯ€ฯฮฑฮณฮผฮฌฯ„ฯ‰ฮฝ,

แผ”ฯ„ฮน ฯ„ฮต ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ„แฝธ ฮดแฝถฯ‚ ฯ„แฝฐ ฮฑแฝฯ„แฝฐ ฮปฮญฮณฮตฮนฮฝ.

57 eon, p. 80: ฯ€ฮฑฯฮฑฮนฯ„ฮทฯ„ฮญฮฟฮฝ ฮดแฝฒ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ„แฝธ ฯ€ฮฑฯฮตฮบฮฒฮฌฯƒฮตฮนฯ‚ แผฯ€ฮตฮผฮฒฮฌฮปฮปฮตฯƒฮธฮฑฮน ฮผฮตฯ„ฮฑฮพแฝบ ฮดฮนฮทฮณฮฎฯƒฮตฯ‰ฯ‚

ฮผฮฑฮบฯฮฌฯ‚.

58 eon, p.81: ฮšฮฑฯ„แฝฐ ฮดแฝฒ ฯ„แฝดฮฝ ฮปฮญฮพฮนฮฝ ฯ†ฯ…ฮปฮฑฮบฯ„ฮญฮฟฮฝ ฯ„แฟท ฯƒฮฑฯ†ฮทฮฝฮฏฮถฮฟฮฝฯ„ฮน ฯ„แฝธ ฯ€ฮฟฮนฮทฯ„ฮนฮบแฝฐ แฝ€ฮฝฯŒฮผฮฑฯ„ฮฑ ฮปฮญฮณฮตฮนฮฝ

ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ€ฮตฯ€ฮฟฮนฮทฮผฮญฮฝฮฑ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ„ฯฮฟฯ€ฮนฮบแฝฐ ฮบฮฑแฝถ แผ€ฯฯ‡ฮฑแฟ–ฮฑ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮพฮญฮฝฮฑ ฮบฮฑแฝถ แฝฮผฯŽฮฝฯ…ฮผฮฑ, etc...

59 A partir de las formas แฝ€ฮบแฝณฮปฮปฯ‰ y แผฯ€ฮฟฮบแฝณฮปฮปฯ‰, habituales en la lengua griega, crea Plutarco

el compuesto ฯƒฯ…ฮฝฮตฯ€ฮฟฮบแฝณฮปฮปฯ‰; simplemente aรฑade Plutarco a una forma conocida el preverbio

ฯƒฯ…ฮฝ- para reforzar la imagen de que los delnes realizaban el depรณsito de Ariรณn conjuntamente

y todos a la vez sobre la playa (vรฉase tambiรฉn el uso inmediatamente anterior de ฯƒฯ…ฮฝฮฑฮณฮฑฮณแฝนฮฝฯ„ฮตฯ‚ ,

161A).

60 eon, p. 83: แผฮบ ฮผแฝฒฮฝ ฮฟแฝ–ฮฝ ฯ„แฟถฮฝ ฯ€ฯฮฑฮณฮผฮฌฯ„ฯ‰ฮฝ, แฝ…ฯ„ฮฑฮฝ ฮผฮฎฯ„ฮต ฯƒฯ…ฮปฮปฮฑฮผฮฒฮฌฮฝฯ‰ฮผฮตฮฝ แผ…ฮผฮฑ [ฯ„แฝฐ] ฯ€ฮฟฮปฮปแฝฐ

ฯ€ฯฮฌฮณฮผฮฑฯ„ฮฑ, ฮผฮฎฮธ' แผ‘ฯ„ฮญฯฮฟฮนฯ‚ แผฯ€ฮตฮผฮฒฮฌฮปฮปฯ‰ฮผฮตฮฝ, ฯ€ฮฑฯฮฑฮปฮตฮฏฯ€ฯ‰ฮผฮญฮฝ ฯ„ฮต แฝ…ฯƒฮฑ ฯƒฯ…ฮฝฯ…ฯ€ฮฑฮบฮฟฯฮตฯƒฮธฮฑฮน ฮดฮฟฮบฮตแฟ–, ฮผฮฎฯ„ฮต

ฯ€ฯŒฯฯฯ‰ฮธฮตฮฝ แผ€ฯฯ‡ฯŽฮผฮตฮธฮฑ, etc...

83

Inuencia de los progymnasmata en la composiciรณn de los symposia de Plutarco

breves, sin llegar a caer ni en la vulgaridad ni en la oscuridad61. Todos estos

requisitos los cumple Plutarco con cierta seriedad en su relato. Por รบltimo,

pone gran cuidado en preservar la tercera แผ€ฯฮตฯ„แฝด ฮดฮนฮทฮณแฝตฯƒฮตฯ‰ฯ‚, la verosimilitud.

La conversaciรณn privada de Gorgo con Periandro llama la atenciรณn de nuestro

narrador Diocles por las reacciones que en el tirano provoca. Tanto es asรญ que

Periandro termina por dirigirse alegremente a los comensales para hacerles

partรญcipes de la historia que acaba de oรญr. Pero antes se cuestiona el tirano la

conveniencia de hacerlo pรบblico dado que no cree que parezca verdadero y

mucho menos posible (160D: 'ฮฒฮฟฯฮปฮฟฮผฮฑฮน ฮผฮญฮฝ', แผ”ฯ†ฮท, 'ฯ€ฯแฝธฯ‚ ฯ„แฝธ ฯ€ฮฑฯแฝธฮฝ ฯ†ฯฮฌฯƒฮฑฮน

ฯ„แฝธ ฯ€ฯฮฟฯƒฮทฮณฮณฮตฮปฮผฮญฮฝฮฟฮฝ· แฝ€ฮบฮฝแฟถ ฮด' แผ€ฮบฮฟฯฯƒฮฑฯ‚ ฮ˜ฮฑฮปฮญฯ‰ ฯ€ฮฟฯ„' ฮตแผฐฯ€ฯŒฮฝฯ„ฮฟฯ‚ แฝ…ฯ„ฮน ฮดฮตแฟ– ฯ„แฝฐ ฮผแฝฒฮฝ

ฮตแผฐฮบฯŒฯ„ฮฑ ฮปฮญฮณฮตฮนฮฝ, ฯ„แฝฐ ฮด' แผ€ฮผฮฎฯ‡ฮฑฮฝฮฑ ฯƒฮนฯ‰ฯ€แพถฮฝ'). El planteamiento de esta cuestiรณn se

debe probablemente a que, tal y como se especica en los manuales escolares,

un relato debe tratar hechos acaecidos o como si hubieran acaecido, segรบn la

deniciรณn de Teรณn que citรกbamos al principio. La verosimilitud es, ademรกs, uno

de los medios para realizar la conrmaciรณn de un relato (eon, p. 93 s.), que

es parte importante en el desarrollo de cualquier progymnasma (eon, p. 65),

y el narrador, evidentemente, tratarรก de reforzar esa credibilidad al mรกximo62 .

Por ello, la mayor preocupaciรณn de Plutarco antes de pasar a la narraciรณn,

es sustentar de alguna manera esa credibilidad de cara a los comensales y a

los lectores. Pero Bรญas va a echarle un cable a Periandro igualmente a travรฉs

de otra mรกxima tambiรฉn de Tales, con la intenciรณn de no dar por sentada la

posible inverosimilitud demasiado a la ligera (160E): แฝ‘ฯ€ฮฟฮปฮฑฮฒแฝผฮฝ ฮฟแฝ–ฮฝ แฝ ฮ’ฮฏฮฑฯ‚

'แผ€ฮปฮปแฝฐ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ„ฮฟแฟฆฯ„'', แผ”ฯ†ฮท, 'ฮ˜ฮฑฮปฮญฯ‰ ฯ„แฝธ ฯƒฮฟฯ†ฯŒฮฝ แผฯƒฯ„ฮนฮฝ, แฝ…ฯ„ฮน ฮดฮตแฟ– ฯ„ฮฟแฟ–ฯ‚ ฮผแฝฒฮฝ แผฯ‡ฮธฯฮฟแฟ–ฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ

ฯ€ฮตฯแฝถ ฯ„แฟถฮฝ ฯ€ฮนฯƒฯ„แฟถฮฝ แผ€ฯ€ฮนฯƒฯ„ฮตแฟ–ฮฝ, ฯ„ฮฟแฟ–ฯ‚ ฮดแฝฒ ฯ†ฮฏฮปฮฟฮนฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ„แฝฐ แผ„ฯ€ฮนฯƒฯ„ฮฑ ฯ€ฮนฯƒฯ„ฮตฯฮตฮนฮฝ, แผฯ‡ฮธฯฮฟแฝบฯ‚

ฮผฮญฮฝ, แผ”ฮณฯ‰ฮณ' แผกฮณฮฟแฟฆฮผฮฑฮน, ฯ„ฮฟแฝบฯ‚ ฯ€ฮฟฮฝฮทฯฮฟแฝบฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ แผ€ฮฝฮฟฮฎฯ„ฮฟฯ…ฯ‚, ฯ†ฮฏฮปฮฟฯ…ฯ‚ ฮดแฝฒ ฯ„ฮฟแฝบฯ‚ ฯ‡ฯฮทฯƒฯ„ฮฟแฝบฯ‚

ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ†ฯฮฟฮฝฮฏฮผฮฟฯ…ฯ‚ ฮฑแฝฯ„ฮฟแฟฆ ฮบฮฑฮปฮฟแฟฆฮฝฯ„ฮฟฯ‚'. Asรญ pues, por medio de esta conrmaciรณn,

queda un tanto salvaguardada la verosimilitud del relato y Periandro puede ya

ceder la palabra a su hermano Gorgo.

En este trabajo se han utilizado tres (ฯ‡ฯฮตแฝทฮฑ , ฮผแฟฆฮธฮฟฯ‚ y ฮดฮนแฝตฮณฮทฮผฮฑ) de los distintos

ejercicios que se practicaban en las escuelas de retรณrica y que sirven, segรบn las

indicaciones de Teรณn, en cualquier tipo de composiciรณn (eon, p. 60 s., 70 s.),

cuya correcciรณn depende en gran medida del empleo de estos progymnasmata , de

los que proporciona ejemplos presentes en autores consagrados como Herรณdoto,

Tucรญdides, Platรณn, Demรณstenes, etc. (eon, p. 66 s.). A travรฉs de los casos aquรญ

estudiados se ha podido constatar la coincidencia entre esa preceptiva escolar

y algunos aspectos de El banquete de los Siete Sabios, de modo que podemos

comprender mejor la tรฉcnica compositiva de Plutarco: por una parte, trabaja en

buena medida de acuerdo con las teorรญas retรณricas de la รฉpoca, y, por otra parte,

61 eon, p. 84: แผฮฝ ฮดแฝฒ ฯ„ฮฟแฟ–ฯ‚ ฮบฮฑฯ„แฝฐ ฯ„แฝดฮฝ ฮปฮญฮพฮนฮฝ ฯ€ฮฑฯฮฑฯ„ฮทฯฮทฯ„ฮญฮฟฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ„แฝธ ฮผฮฎฯ„ฮต ฯƒฯ…ฮฝฯ‰ฮฝฯฮผฮฟฮนฯ‚ ฯ‡ฯแฟ†ฯƒฮธฮฑฮน· (...)

ฮผฮฎฯ„ฮต ฮปฯŒฮณฮฟฮฝ แผ€ฮฝฯ„แฝถ แฝ€ฮฝฯŒฮผฮฑฯ„ฮฟฯ‚ ฯ€ฮฟฮนฮตแฟ–ฮฝ (...) แผ”ฯ„ฮน ฮดแฝฒ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ„แฝฐ ฯƒฯ…ฮฝฯ…ฯ€ฮฑฮบฮฟฯ…ฯŒฮผฮตฮฝฮฑ ฯ€ฮฌฮฝฯ„ฯ‰ฯ‚ ฯƒฯ…ฮผฯ€ฮตฯฮนฮฑฮนฯฮตฯ„ฮญฮฟฮฝ

ฯ„แฟท ฯƒฯ…ฮฝฯ„ฯŒฮผฯ‰ฯ‚ แผ€ฯ€ฮฑฮณฮณฮญฮปฮปฮตฮนฮฝ ฮฒฮฟฯ…ฮปฮฟฮผฮญฮฝแฟณ, ฯ‡ฯฮทฯƒฯ„ฮญฮฟฮฝ ฮดแฝฒ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ„ฮฟแฟ–ฯ‚ แผฯ€ฮปฮฟแฟ–ฯ‚ แฝ€ฮฝฯŒฮผฮฑฯƒฮน ฮผแพถฮปฮปฮฟฮฝ แผข ฯ„ฮฟแฟ–ฯ‚

ฯƒฯ…ฮฝฮธฮญฯ„ฮฟฮนฯ‚, ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ„ฮฟแฟ–ฯ‚ ฮฒฯฮฑฯ‡ฯ…ฯ„ฮญฯฮฟฮนฯ‚ ฮผแพถฮปฮปฮฟฮฝ แผข ฯ„ฮฟแฟ–ฯ‚ ฮผฮฑฮบฯฮฟฯ„ฮญฯฮฟฮนฯ‚...

62 Teรณn seรฑala que se conrma y refuta un relato a travรฉs de los mismos medios que ha

explicado para la fรกbula – a los que puede aรฑadirse algรบn otro -, y tambiรฉn en ese progymnasma

comienza destacando la importancia de la defensa de la verosimilitud para raticar cada fรกbula

(eon, p. 76).

puede observarse que, ademรกs de un trasfondo losรณco-moral-religioso, la forma

estรก sumamente cuidada, pues lo contrario serรญa un grave error, como advierte

Teรณn en las primeras lรญneas de su manual (cf. eon, p. 59).

bi b l i o g r a f รญ a c i T a d a

B, M., "La chreia en el De tuenda sanitate praecepta de Plutarco", in M.

J  . (eds.), 2005, pp. 209-16.

____ La Chreia en los Moralia de Plutarco, Tesis Doctoral, Universidad de

Salamanca, 2005B.

D L, M. A., "Los animales en las imรกgenes de Plutarco", in J.

B (ed.), Les Grecs de l'Antiquitรฉ et les animaux. Le cas remarquable

de Plutarque, Lille, 2005, pp. 111-19

F D, J. A., "Le Grillus, une รฉthopรฉe parodique", in L. V

D S (ed.), Rhetorical theory and praxis in Plutarch. Acta of the

IV International Congress of the I.P.S. (Leuven, July 3-6), Lovaina-

Namur, 2000, pp. 171-81.

____ " La fรกbula en Plutarco: de la historieta ejemplicante al ejercicio

progimnasmรกtico", in M. J  . (eds.), 2005, pp. 77-84.

G G, C., "Esopo en Plutarco", in M. G V (ed.), Estudios

sobre Plutarco: ideas religiosas. Actas del III Simposio Internacional sobre

Plutarco (Oviedo, 1992), Madrid, 1994, pp. 605-14.

H, M., "eon and the history of the Progymnasmata", GRBS, 43 (2000)

129-60.

H, R. F. & O'N, E. N., e chreia in ancient rhetoric. vol. I, e

Progymnasmata, Atlanta, 1986.

H, H., Die Hochsprachliche profane Literatur der Byzantiner. Erster Band:

Philosophie, Rhetorik, Epistolographie, Geschichtsschreibung, Geographie,

Mรบnich, 1978.

J, M. . (eds.), Plutarc a la seva รจpoca: paideia i societat. Actas del

VIII Simposio espaรฑol sobre Plutarco (Barcelona, 6-8 de Noviembre,

2003), Barcelona, 2005.

K, G. A., e art of rhetoric in the Roman world, 300 B. C. - A. D. 300,

Princeton, 1972.

____Greek rhetoric under christian emperors , Princeton, 1983.

____Progymnasmata. Greek textbooks of prose composition and rhetoric , Leiden/

Boston, 2003.

85

Inuencia de los progymnasmata en la composiciรณn de los symposia de Plutarco

M C, L., "La teorรญa de la ekphrasis en Plutarco", in M. J

 . (eds.), 2005, pp. 379-86.

P, M., Progymnasmata. Aelius รฉon, Parรญs, 1997.

P , F., "Los papeles escolares y Plutarco", in M. J 

. (eds.), 2005, pp. 117-32.

P, S. E. (ed.), Handbook of classical rhetoric in the hellenistic period 330 BC

- AC 400, Leiden/Nueva York/Colonia, 1997.

V D, J.-G., ฮ‘แผถฮฝฮนฮฟฮน, ฮปแฝนฮณฮฟฮน, ฮผแฟฆฮธฮฟฮน . Fables in Archaic, Classical & Hellenistic

Greek literature. With a study of the theory & terminology of the genre,

Leiden-Nueva York-Colonia, 1997.

V S, A., "Plutarco, Sobre si es mรกs รบtil el agua o el fuego: una tesis

progymnasmatica", in M. J  . (eds.), 2005, pp. 507-16.

87

Simposio e losoa: il problema del "Dio geometra"

S  :    "D "

F F

Universitร  di Salerno

Abstract

According to Plutarch, philosophical questions could be treated in the table talks, but with

caution. e most philosophical problem concerns the meaning of Plato's dictum that the God

is always doing geometry (Quaest. conv. VIII 2. 718 B-720 C). e text proposes four solutions,

all in the spirit of Platonic philosophy. e rst one is epistemological, the second ethical and

political, the third cosmological and nally the fourth is cosmological and metaphysical. e

correct answer is the fourth, according to which the meaning of the dictum is that the creation

of the world can be equated to the solution of a geometrical problem, namely the problem to

construct, given two gures, a third gure which is materially identical to one and formally

similar to the other. In this context, Plutarch introduces a theory based on three principles: God

(as demiurge), matter (as substrate) and the world of ideas (as model).

La questione dell'opportunitร  di trattare argomenti losoci nel contesto

dei simposi dovette essere avvertita da Plutarco come estremamente importante,

se egli si sentรฌ in dovere di aprire le Quaestiones convivales proprio proponendo

il seguente problema: ฮ•แผฐ ฮดฮตแฟ– ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฟฯƒฮฟฯ†ฮตแฟ–ฮฝ ฯ€ฮฑฯแฝฐ ฯ€แฝนฯ„ฮฟฮฝ; (I 1, 612E-615 C).

La soluzione che sembra emergere dalle sue riessioni appare, come

spesso accade nel caso di questo prolico intellettuale greco dell'impero

romano, improntata a un sano buon senso. Come รจ noto, egli respinge tanto

l'atteggiamento serioso di chi ritiene che la losoa debba essere bandita

da simili contesti, quanto quello di coloro che pretendono di arontare nei

simposi questioni losoche eccessivamente ardue e complesse. Del resto,

se la losoa รจ ฯ„แฝณฯ‡ฮฝฮท ฯ€ฮตฯแฝถ ฮฒแฝทฮฟฮฝ, ossia ars vitae, la sua completa esclusione

dalle conversazioni conviviali non sarebbe davvero ammissibile; d'altra parte,

risulterebbe fuori luogo la presenza di dispute intrise di tecnicismi e dicili

problemi logici, quei ฯ€ฯฮฟฮฒฮปแฝตฮผฮฑฯ„ฮฑ ฮดฮนฮฑฮปฮตฮบฯ„ฮนฮบแฝฑ ai quali appartiene, per esempio,

il celebre "argomento dominatore" di Diodoro Crono. Occorre insomma sapere

scegliere i temi adatti, e dimostrarsi in grado di trattarli in modo appropriato,

senza escludere i partecipanti non loso, ma nello stesso tempo senza cadere

nella banalitร 1 .

Nel delineare i contorni generali del ฯƒฯ…ฮผฯ€ฮฟฯ„ฮนฮบแฝธฮฝ ฮณแฝณฮฝฮฟฯ‚ Plutarco sembra

stabilire l'esigenza che il metodo in vigore nei simposi sia quello degli exempla ,

ossia dei ฯ€ฮฑฯฮฑฮดฮตแฝทฮณฮผฮฑฯ„ฮฑ, e dei racconti o esposizioni narrative (ฮผฯ…ฮธฮฟฮปฮฟฮณแฝทฮฑฮน)

piuttosto che quello della dimostrazione (แผ€ฯ€แฝนฮดฮตฮนฮพฮนฯ‚), certamente piรน adatto

alle discussioni logiche e losoche in senso stretto (si pensi ai trattati

polemici contro stoici ed epicurei, oppure a uno scritto come il De animae

procreatione in Timaeo). Inoltre egli invita a proporre argomenti che si fondino

sulla plausibilitร  o probabilitร  piuttosto che sulla rigida conseguenzialitร 

1 Sull'integrazione di Plutarco nella tradizione della letteratura simposiaca, e sull'esigenza di

mescolare nel simposio "speculazione seria e ironia", cf. M. V , 2000, p. 221 e passim.

logica (ฮดฮนแฝฐ ฯ„ฮฟแฟฆ ฯ€ฮนฮธฮฑฮฝฮฟแฟฆ ฮผแพถฮปฮปฮฟฮฝ แผข ฮฒฮนฮฑฯƒฯ„ฮนฮบฮฟแฟฆ). In generale vanno proposte

questioni che possano suscitare la riessione e perno l'acume intellettuale

dei partecipanti al simposio, ma va evitata l'introduzione di problemi intricati,

che richiedano approfondimenti ai quali possono accedere solo gli specialisti

di losoa. Insomma la losoa non va aatto bandita dalle discussioni

simposiache, ma va praticata, per cosรฌ dire, cum grano salis, avendo di mira tanto

il coinvolgimento di tutti i partecipanti quanto il particolare contesto emotivo

in cui essi si trovano2 .

II

Una rapida lettura delle Quaestiones convivales sembra in eetti confermare

le indicazioni programmatiche schizzate da Plutarco in apertura dello scritto.

Gli argomenti, anche quando richiamano tematiche di carattere losoco,

vengono arontati in modo relativamente lieve, per mezzo di esemplicazioni

prese dalla vita di tutti i giorni, e comunque con l'evidente obiettivo di non

allontanare il lettore che non sia losofo in senso stretto (simile in questo ai

partecipanti a un simposio).

Un'eccezione a questa prassi abbastanza consolidata sembrerebbe venire

fornita dalla seconda quaestio dell'VIII libro (VIII 2, 718 C-720 C), che

intende arontare il problema del perchรฉ Platone avrebbe aermato che il

Dio geometrizza sempre (ฮ แฟถฯ‚ ฮ ฮปแฝฑฯ„ฯ‰ฮฝ แผ”ฮปฮตฮณฮต ฯ„แฝธฮฝ ฮธฮตแฝธฮฝ แผ€ฮตแฝถ ฮณฮตฯ‰ฮผฮตฯ„ฯฮตแฟ–ฮฝ). In

eetti, sia l'interrogativo proposto sia lo sviluppo della quaestio non mancano

di sottigliezza losoca; nel corso della discussione vengono toccate tematiche

importanti e complesse, che attengono all'ambito dell'epistemologia, della

losoa morale e politica, della teologia platoniche (senza dimenticare che al

lettore รจ richiesto anche un minimo di competenza matematica, necessaria alla

comprensione tanto dell'andamento della discussione quanto della soluzione

nale avanzata da Plutarco). Tuttavia il tono complessivo adottato da Plutarco

evita di indulgere in eccessivi tecnicismi. Inoltre l'intera quaestio, e in particolare

l'interrogativo alla quale intende fornire una soluzione, vengono presentati

come un omaggio reso a Platone nel giorno in cui ricorre il suo compleanno3 .

Quest'ultimo aspetto dovrebbe contribuire a integrare la conversione nel

contesto simposiaco, allontanandola dalle dispute tecniche proprie dei seminari

specialistici rivolti agli "addetti ai lavori".

Plutarco dimostra di essere perfettamente consapevole del fatto che

l'autore dei dialoghi non ha mai formulato espressamente la sentenza che gli

viene attribuita. Essa tuttavia si adatta molto bene al punto di vista di Platone,

risulta cioรจ, per usare le parole di Plutarco, ฮ ฮปฮฑฯ„ฯ‰ฮฝฮนฮบฮฟแฟฆ ฯ‡ฮฑฯฮฑฮบฯ„แฟ†ฯฮฟฯ‚, di

carattere platonico4 . Si tratta di un eccellente tema intorno al quale discutere

2 Su tutta la prima quaestio cf. il commento ad locum di S.-T. T, 1989, pp. 38-63

e A. S, 1998, pp. 253-80.

3 Si veda M. B, 1996, p. 360.

4 Sulla corrispondenza della formula non alla lettera bensรฌ al pensiero di Platone cf. R. S,

1981, p. 109, S.-T. T, 1996, p. 162, e soprattutto M. B, 1996, p. 360, il quale

osserva che "der Wortlaut dieses Ausspruchs in Platons Dialogen nirgends zu nden ist".

89

Simposio e losoa: il problema del "Dio geometra"

nel giorno del compleanno di Platone, in modo da rendere omaggio al grande

maestro, ricordando alcune delle sue concezioni, accennando a importanti

elementi della sua losoa, e discutendo in modo amichevole e "privo di

invidia". E in eetti, come vedremo, l'intero zetema costituisce un omaggio a

Platone, come dimostra la semplice constatazione che tutte le risposte fornite

all'interrogativo iniziale si richiamano a concezioni eettivamente formulate da

Platone. Insomma, se si vuole onorare Platone nell'ambito di un simposio, non

sembra esserci modo migliore di quello scelto da Plutarco in questo zetema .

III

Nel corso della quaestio vengono suggerite quattro soluzioni all'interrogativo

relativo al perchรฉ Dio opera sempre in modo geometrico. Esse vengono

assegnate rispettivamente a Tindato, Floro, Autobulo e a Plutarco stesso, che

รจ anche il narratore dell'incontro. Non c'รจ dubbio che la risposta corretta รจ

quella fornita da Plutarco in conclusione della discussione. Tuttavia, anche

le altre tre soluzioni possiedono una loro validitร , soprattutto perchรฉ esse, in

forma diretta o indiretta, riprendono importanti concezioni platoniche, come

lo stesso Plutarco riconosce introducendo il suo intervento. Egli spiega infatti

che le opinioni espresse nora sono autoctone (ฮตแผฐฯฮทฮผแฝณฮฝฮฑฯ‚ ฮดแฝนฮพฮฑฯ‚ แฝกฯ‚ แผฐฮธฮฑฮณฮตฮฝฮตแฟ–ฯ‚

ฮบฮฑแฝถ แผฐฮดแฝทฮฑฯ‚), ossia appartengono alla scuola di provenienza, quella platonica. E

cosรฌ deve essere, perchรฉ, secondo Plutarco, non bisogna nรฉ disprezzare se stessi

(แผ‘ฮฑฯ…ฯ„แฟถฮฝ ฮผแฝด ฮบฮฑฯ„ฮฑฯ†ฯฮฟฮฝแฟ†ฯ„ฮต), ossia la propria scuola, nรฉ rivolgersi completamente

al di fuori (ฮผฮทฮด' แผ”ฮพฯ‰ ฮฒฮปแฝณฯ€ฮทฯ„ฮต ฯ€ฮฑฮฝฯ„แฝฑฯ€ฮฑฯƒฮนฮฝ), cioรจ ad altri orientamenti losoci,

ma occorre ricercare la soluzione all'interno degli insegnamenti forniti dalla

scuola platonica (719 F)5 .

Del resto, le risposte avanzate dai partecipanti alla conversazione non sono

veramente in conitto tra di loro, non si escludono cioรจ a vicenda, ma risultano

in qualche modo complementari, e in ogni caso possono venire integrate in un

quadro relativamente unitario. Come, per altro, รจ naturale che sia, trattandosi

in tutti i casi di soluzioni conformi allo spirito della losoa di Platone6 .

Dunque le risposte suggerite dai protagonisti della discussione simposiaca

sono tutte di matrice platonica. Ciascuna di esse mette in luce un aspetto

particolare della funzione che la geometria esercita nell'ambito della riessione

di Platone. E' vero che solo una, quella suggerita da Plutarco, risponde in

modo corretto e appropriato all'enigma iniziale; ma รจ altrettanto vero che tutte

colgono un importante aspetto della losoa di Platone, e in questo modo

contribuiscono a rendere omaggio al grande pensatore.

Il primo a prendere la parola รจ Tindaro, il cui tentativo di soluzione

consiste nel richiamo alla funzione epistemologica della geometria, la quale

รจ in grado di allontanarci dalle cose sensibili indirizzandoci verso la natura

noetica ed eterna (แผ€ฯ€ฮฟฯƒฯ„ฯแฝณฯ†ฮฟฯ…ฯƒฮฑ แผฯ€แฝถ ฯ„แฝดฮฝ ฮฝฮฟฮทฯ„แฝดฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮฑแผฐฮดแฝทฮฟฮฝ ฯ†แฝปฯƒฮนฮฝ), ossia verso

il mondo delle idee (718 C-D). Il signicato del detto attribuito a Platone

5 Cf. per questo punto M. B, 1996, p. 361.

6 Ha richiamato l'attenzione sulla natura non conittuale di queste risposte S. P, 2005,

p. 150.

consiste dunque, secondo Tindaro, nella particolare funzione che occorre

assegnare, conformemente alle indicazioni platoniche contenute nel libro

VII della Repubblica, alla geometria, la quale รจ in grado di puricare l'anima,

allontanandola dalle cose sensibili per indirizzarla verso il pensiero vero e

proprio, cioรจ verso la conoscenza intelligibile7 . Per poter assolvere in modo

compiuto al suo ruolo di avviamento alla conoscenza del mondo intelligibile,

la geometria deve abbandonare ogni approccio empirico, meccanico e

costruttivista, quel tipo di approccio al quale indulsero invece, secondo il

rimprovero di Platone (condiviso da Plutarco), autori quali Eudosso, Archita

e Menecmo (718 E-F)8 .

Tindaro aggiunge poi (718 E) che nelle discipline matematiche (e negli

oggetti delle stesse) si manifestano, come in specchi regolari e lisci, tracce

e immagini della veritร  degli enti intelligibili (ฯ„แฟ†ฯ‚ ฯ„แฟถฮฝ ฮฝฮฟฮทฯ„แฟถฮฝ แผ€ฮปฮทฮธฮตฮฏฮฑฯ‚

แผดฯ‡ฮฝฮท ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮตแผดฮดฯ‰ฮปฮฑ), alludendo in questo modo alla concezione, sviluppata da

Plutarco in altri scritti, che assegna agli enti matematici lo statuto di ฮดฮตแฝปฯ„ฮตฯฮฑ

ฮฝฮฟฮทฯ„แฝฑ ฮฟ ฮดฮตแฝปฯ„ฮตฯฮฑ ฮตแผดฮดฮท, ossia di "secondi intelligibili", copie e immagini dei

"primi intelligibili", costituiti naturalmente dalle idee9 . In quanto copie e

immagini delle idee, cioรจ della realtร  intelligibile vera e propria, gli enti

matematici e le discipline a loro relative (prima fra tutte le geometria)

rappresentano un'eccellente via di accesso alla conoscenza intelligibile, in

virtรน del principio secondo il quale la copia riproduce in qualche misura

la perfezione dell'originale. Non c'รจ dubbio, in ogni caso, che la soluzione

prospettata da Tindaro possa venire considerata di tipo epistemologico perchรฉ

pone l'accento sulla funzione propedeutica e introduttiva che la geometria

svolge nell'ambito del processo epistemico che conduce l'anima dalle cose

sensibili alle realtร  intelligibili.

Dopo Tindaro prende la parola Floro, il cui intervento si apre con

un'esplicita confutazione della risposta precedente (719 A). Egli ha infatti

buon gioco nell'osservare che la soluzione di Tindaro รจ sbagliata perchรฉ non

spiega aatto il motivo per cui Dio geometrizza, ma si limita a indicare la

ragione per la quale la geometria risulta necessaria a noi uomini non agli dรจi

(ฮผแฝด ฮธฮตฮฟแฟ–ฯ‚ แผ€ฮปฮป' แผกฮผแฟ–ฮฝ แผ€ฮฝฮฑฮณฮบฮฑฮฏฮฑฮฝ ฯ„แฝดฮฝ ฮณฮตฯ‰ฮผฮตฯ„ฯฮฏฮฑฮฝ). E del resto, obietta Floro,

Dio non ha bisogno di un mathema come di uno strumento per orientare il

pensiero dalle cose generate agli esseri (แผ€ฯ€แฝธ ฯ„แฟถฮฝ ฮณฮตฮฝฮทฯ„แฟถฮฝ แผฯ€แฝถ ฯ„แฝฐ แฝ„ฮฝฯ„ฮฑ), dal

7 Per i paralleli platonici, tratti soprattutto dal VII libro della Repubblica, cf. S.-T. T,

1996, p. 163 e S. P, 2005, p. 145.

8 Analogo rimprovero si legge in Vit. Marc. 14,9 sqq. Sull'accusa rivolta a Eudosso,

Archita e Menecmo di avere trasformato la geometria in una disciplina "meccanica" cf. S.-T.

T, 1996, pp. 166-7. Sulla strategia plutarchea volta a puricare la geometria da ogni

aspetto meccanico, per farne una disciplina unicamente teoretica, si veda A. G, 1992,

passim.

9 Cf., per esempio, Plat. quaest. III 1001 C. Per una discussione piรน approfondita della

collocazione ontologica degli enti matematici e del loro status di "secondi intelligibili" devo

rinviare a F. F, 1995, pp. 156-8 e 1996, p. 138 sqq.; si veda anche C. S, 1994, pp.

203-7, che intende molto giustamente gli enti matematici in termini di vermittelnde Instanzen

zwischen den Ideen und den ฯ€ฯแฝฑฮณฮผฮฑฯ„ฮฑ , e ora S. P, 2005, p. 146.

91

Simposio e losoa: il problema del "Dio geometra"

momento che questi esseri, cioรจ le idee o gli intelligibili, si trovano giร  "in

lui, sono con lui e intorno a lui" (แผฮฝ ฮฑแฝฯ„แฟท ฮณแฝฐฯ แผ”ฯƒฯ„ฮนฮฝ แผฮบฮตฮฏฮฝแฟณ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯƒแฝบฮฝ ฮฑแฝฯ„แฟท ฮบฮฑแฝถ

ฯ€ฮตฯแฝถ ฮฑแฝฯ„ฯŒฮฝ)10 .

Il signicato di questa aermazione dovrebbe essere il seguente: Dio non

ha bisogno di ricorrere alla geometria come strumento per indirizzare l'anima

dalle realtร  sensibili alle idee per la semplice ragione che egli si trova giร  presso

le idee, facendo parte, insieme ad esse, della sfera intelligibile e suprema della

realtร  (Dio si trova แผฮฝ ฯ„ฮฟแฟ–ฯ‚ ฮฝฮฟฮทฯ„ฮฟแฟ–ฯ‚ per usare la formula di Plat. quaest . III

1002 B). La sua conoscenza delle idee non rappresenta il frutto di un percorso

epistemico, ma risulta in qualche modo giร  da sempre data. Non รจ mancato

chi ha voluto vedere in questa misteriosa precisazione di Floro un'allusione alle

celebre concezione delle idee come pensieri di Dio, molto diusa tra gli autori

platonici contemporanei di Plutarco11 . Non รจ questa la sede per arontare

ed eventualmente dirimere la questione. In ogni caso l'obiezione di Floro

contro la soluzione epistemologica avanzata da Tindaro funziona bene anche

postulando che tra gli แฝ„ฮฝฯ„ฮฑ, cioรจ le idee, e Dio esista una relazione molto

stretta (di vicinanza e appartenenza al medesimo ambito ontologico, appunto:

ฮธฮตแฝธฯ‚ แผฮฝ ฯ„ฮฟแฟ–ฯ‚ ฮฝฮฟฮทฯ„ฮฟแฟ–ฯ‚), senza che si debba per forza ipotizzare che tale relazione

si conguri nella forma della famosa dottrina delle idee come pensieri di Dio.

Confutata la risposta di Tindaro, Floro avanza la sua personale soluzione

all'enigma, richiamandosi alla funzione etica e politica della geometria, che

troverebbe espressione nella preminenza della proporzione geometrica rispetto

a quella aritmetica (719 A-C). Nel ragionamento di Floro la proporzione

assume un valore simbolico che gli consente di collegare la matematica a motivi

extra-matematici, di natura politica e giuridica12 . Egli puรฒ infatti menzionare

a sostegno della sua risposta l'apprezzamento di Platone nei confronti di

Licurgo, il quale estromise dalla Laconia la proporzione aritmetica (solidale

alla democrazia) per sostituirla con quella geometrica, adatta alla oligarchia

moderata e alla monarchia legislativa (แฝ€ฮปฮนฮณฮฑฯฯ‡ฮฏแพณ ฯƒฯŽฯ†ฯฮฟฮฝฮน ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮฒฮฑฯƒฮนฮปฮตฮฏแพณ

ฮฝฮฟฮผฮฏฮฝแฟƒ). Del resto, aggiunge Floro, Dio stesso si serve della proporzione

geometrica come parametro per giudicare le azioni; egli infatti privilegia il

criterio dell'onore (ฮบฮฑฯ„' แผ€ฮพแฝทฮฑฮฝ) rispetto a quello della mera uguaglianza, il

quale trova invece espressione matematica nella proporzione aritmetica.

Con quest'ultima considerazione Floro puรฒ saldare il motivo etico a quello

politico; ai suoi occhi la frase attribuita a Platone si spiega dunque sulla base di

considerazioni di natura etico-politica (ricavate in forma diretta o indiretta da

dialoghi quali la Repubblica e le Leggi ) 13 .

Dopo Floro prende la parola Autobulo, quasi certamente uno dei gli di

Plutarco, il quale si riuta di entrare direttamente in polemica con l'interlocutore

10 L'interpretazione esatta di questo passo, e in particolare la corretta identicazione degli

แฝ„ฮฝฯ„ฮฑcon le idee e non con gli enti matematici, si trova in Ch. S, 1994, p. 147 n. 32.

11 Per esempio S.-T. T, 1996, p. 168 e io stesso in F. F, 1995, pp. 242-7.

12 Del tutto condivisibili le considerazioni svolte da S. P, 2005, pp. 146-7.

13 Per l'indicazioni dei passi platonici ai quali dovrebbe alludere Floro cf. S.-T. T,

1996, pp. 169-70.

che lo ha preceduto, come gli aveva chiesto di fare Tindaro. Egli riconosce

comunque che la sua proposta di soluzione si muove su un altro terreno. Ai suoi

occhi, infatti, l'aermazione relativa al Dio geometra si spiega in riferimento

alla funzione della geometria all'interno dell'impianto cosmologico ricavato,

anche qui in forma diretta o indiretta, dalla lettura del Timeo (719 C-E). Per

Autobulo l'oggetto della geometria รจ costituito dalle proprietร  e dai caratteri

dei limiti (ฯ„แฟถฮฝ ฯ€ฮตฯแฝถ ฯ„แฝฐ ฯ€ฮญฯฮฑฯ„ฮฑ ฯƒฯ…ฮผฯ€ฯ„ฯ‰ฮผฮฌฯ„ฯ‰ฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ€ฮฑฮธแฟถฮฝ), dei quali Dio si รจ

servito allo scopo di ordinare la materia illimitata (แฝ•ฮปฮท แผ„ฯ€ฮตฮนฯฮฟฯ‚). Egli spiega

infatti, rifacendosi in modo indiretto alle aermazioni platoniche contenute

nel Timeo (specialmente 53 C), che linee, superci e solidi (geometrici)

forniscono le prime ฮตแผดฮดฮท ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮดฮนฮฑฯ†ฮฟฯแฝฑฯ‚ per la generazione dei corpi semplici,

ossia aria, terra, acqua e fuoco. Queste entitร  costituiscono in un certo senso la

prima forma di ordinamento del sostrato indeterminato, dal momento che la

loro presenza scandisce l'inizio del processo di organizzazione razionale della

materia, in se stessa dominata dal disordine (แผ€ฯ„ฮฑฮพแฝทฮฑ) e dallo sconvolgimento

(ฯ€ฮปฮทฮผฮผแฝณฮปฮตฮนฮฑ ). Non ci sono dubbi che il contesto nel quale si muove Autobulo

รจ di carattere cosmologico e rinvia al Timeo, interpretato anche alla luce della

riessione tardo-pitagorica ben nota a Plutarco14 .

Questa rapida panoramica sulle prime tre soluzioni al problema del

"Dio geometra" induce a proporre la seguente considerazione: Tindaro, Floro

e Autobulo presentano risposte platoniche all'interrogativo della quaestio e

per questo vanno lodati; nessuna di esse รจ veramente corretta (dal momento

che nessuna risponde in modo appropriato all'interrogativo iniziale), ma

tutte mettono in luce un importante aspetto della concezione platonica della

geometria, contribuendo a rendere omaggio a Platone, secondo lo spirito della

conversazione simposiaca.

IV

Plutarco prende inne la parola per fornire la soluzione esatta

all'interrogativo iniziale, mostrando come la cosmogenesi operata dalla divinitร 

assuma le vesti della soluzione a un problema geometrico, e precisamente

quello di costruire, date due entitร  (la materia e il paradigma ideale), una terza

realtร  che sia materialmente uguale a una e formalmente simile all'altra, cioรจ

uguale al sostrato indeterminato, ossia alla materia, e simile al modello, cioรจ al

mondo delle idee (720 A-C). Egli dichiara di richiamarsi alla ฮดฮนฮฑแฝทฯฮตฯƒฮนฯ‚, che

sarebbe contenuta nel Timeo (48 E e soprattutto 52 D)15 , dove Platone descrive

il processo che ha portato alla generazione del mondo, e i cui "protagonisti

metasici" sarebbero, nell'interpretazione plutarchea, il piรน disordinato dei

sostrati, cioรจ la materia (แฝ•ฮปฮท), il piรน bello dei modelli, ossia il mondo delle

idee (qui nella forma di un singolare collettivo: แผฐฮดแฝณฮฑ), e la migliore delle cause,

cioรจ Dio. Come รจ noto, il problema al quale allude Plutarco era ben conosciuto

14 Sulla valenza cosmologica dell'intervento di Autobulo cf. S.-T. T, 1996, pp.

172-4, R. S, 1981, pp. 109-10 e soprattutto S. P, 2005, pp. 147-8.

15 Sui riferimenti testuali platonici cf. S.-T. T, 1996, pp. 177-8 e soprattutto M.

B , 1996, p. 362 sqq.

93

Simposio e losoa: il problema del "Dio geometra"

a Platone (probabilmente grazie al circolo di Archita)16 e viene menzionato

anche da Euclide (VI, 25); esso consiste nel costruire, date due gure, una terza

che sia uguale alla prima e simile alla seconda (ฯ„แฟท ฮผแฝฒฮฝ แผดฯƒฮฟฮฝ ฯ„แฟท ฮด' แฝ…ฮผฮฟฮนฮฟฮฝ ).

L'atto per mezzo del quale Dio genera il cosmo sensibile rappresenta

dunque agli occhi di Plutarco la soluzione a un problema simile a quello

geometrico appena menzionato. Il cosmo infatti รจ uguale dal punto di vista

dell'estensione materiale alla แฝ•ฮปฮท (il che signica che esso esaurisce tutta la

materia esistente), mentre รจ simile dal punto di vista formale al ฯ€ฮฑฯแฝฑฮดฮตฮนฮณฮผฮฑ ,

cioรจ alla totalitร  unicata del mondo delle idee: esso รจ ฮฟแผถฮฟฮฝ แผก แผฐฮดฮญฮฑ ฮบฮฑแฝถ แฝ…ฯƒฮฟฮฝ

แผก แฝ•ฮปฮท, per usare le parole di Plutarco. Questa risposta fornisce eettivamente

la soluzione corretta all'enigma di partenza perchรฉ spiega la ragione per la

quale Platone avrebbe sostenuto che Dio geometrizza, ossia opera in modo

geometrico. La generazione del mondo, ossia l'atto fondamentale della divinitร ,

viene infatti assimilata alla soluzione di un problema geometrico.

Come detto, Plutarco dichiara di riprendere questa diairesis dal Timeo .

Tuttavia nel dialogo platonico non si trova una classicazione immediatamente

riconducibile a quella plutarchea, neppure nei passi ai quali Plutarco sembra

alludere. Platone parla di tre generi (48E sqq.), l'essere intelligibile, la sua copia,

e un terzo genere, oscuro e misterioso, che egli chiama in diversi modi – ฯ‡แฝฝฯฮฑ ,

ฯ€ฮฑฮฝฮดฮตฯ‡แฝณฯ‚, แฝ‘ฯ€ฮฟฮดฮฟฯ‡แฝด ฯ€แฝฑฯƒฮทฯ‚ ฮณฮตฮฝแฝณฯƒฮตฯ‰ฯ‚, ecc. – e che Plutarco, conformemente

all'uso aristotelico ormai diuso tra i platonici, assimila alla "materia" (แฝ•ฮปฮท ) .

Quindi, alla ne della descrizione della genesi ontologica dei corpi sici (52

D), Platone si riferisce a questi tre principi con i termini "essere" (แฝ„ฮฝ), "spazio"

(ฯ‡แฝฝฯฮฑ ) e "divenire" (ฮณแฝณฮฝฮตฯƒฮนฯ‚). Come si vede, dalla presentazione platonica

sembra del tutto assente Dio, cioรจ il demiurgo. L'operazione esegetica di Plutarco

non รจ perรฒ del tutto priva di plausibilitร  e aderenza al testo. Egli identica

in modo immediato e non problematico la ฯ‡แฝฝฯฮฑ platonica con la แฝ•ฮปฮท; poi,

sdoppia il principio intelligibile e noetico in due entitร , il modello (แผฐฮดแฝณฮฑ) e la

divinitร  demiurgica (ฮธฮตแฝนฯ‚); inne equipara, implicitamente, la ฮณแฝณฮฝฮตฯƒฮนฯ‚ al cosmo

sensibile, ossia al prodotto dell'atto cosmopietico17 . Quasi seguendo il testo

platonico (che alla descrizione delle entitร  che preesistono alla generazione del

mondo fa seguire l'introduzione degli enti matematici, cioรจ numeri e gure, di

cui il demiurgo si serve per ordinare il sostrato), Plutarco dichiara che Dio si

serve di ฮปแฝนฮณฮฟฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮผแฝณฯ„ฯฮฟฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ แผ€ฯฮนฮธฮผแฝนฯ‚ allo scopo di ฮบฮฟฯƒฮผแฟ†ฯƒฮฑฮน ฯ„แฝดฮฝ ฯ†แฝปฯƒฮนฮฝ, ossia

di ordinare la natura indeterminata18 . Accennando alla funzione strumentale

degli enti matematici (i quali costituiscono appunto gli "strumenti" per mezzo

dei quali il demiurgo attua il processo cosmopoietico), Plutarco riprende in

qualche modo la tesi avanzata nell'intervento precedente da Autobulo, il quale

16 Per questo cf. S.-T. T, 1996, p. 176.

17 Quest'ultima assimilazione non puรฒ venire operata esplicitamente da Plutarco per

la semplice ragione che altrove egli identica la genesis di Ti . 52 D con l'anima precosmica

irrazionale, ossia con il principio del movimento disordinato che sconvolge la materia prima

della generazione del cosmo: cf. An. procr. 1024 B-C. Sulla teoria dei principi di Plutarco (Dio,

materia, anima precosmica) e sull'identicazione dell'anima precosmica con la genesis di Ti. 52

D cf. F. F, 1995, pp. 72-90 e M. B , 1996, pp. 399-402.

18 Il riferimento platonico รจ a Ti. 53 A-B (cf. anche 69 B); si veda M. B, 1996, p. 363.

aveva richiamato l'attenzione sul ruolo giocato dalle linee, dalle superci e

dai solidi geometrici nel processo di ordinamento e razionalizzazione della

materia indeterminata19 .

La soluzione avanzata da Plutarco risulta dunque largamente dipendente dal

Timeo, interpretato naturalmente secondo la particolare prospettiva dell'autore.

Detto ciรฒ, vale comunque la pena di spendere due parole sulla concezione

metasico-cosmologica che emerge da questo intervento e in particolare dalle

parole con le quali Plutarco risolve l'interrogativo della quaestio. E' universalmente

noto che Plutarco venga considerato come il massimo rappresentante, almeno

tra gli autori medioplatonici, dell'interpretazione letterale, cioรจ temporale, della

cosmogenesi descritta nel Timeo. Contrariamente agli interpreti accademici

(Speusippo e Senocrate) e alla maggior parte dei suoi colleghi medioplatonici

(Eudoro e Alcinoo), egli intende in senso letterale le parole di Platone relative

alla nascita del mondo (il famoso ฮณแฝณฮณฮฟฮฝฮต di 28 B). Ai suoi occhi, infatti, la

generazione del cosmo dipende da un atto unico compiuto dalla divinitร  e

non puรฒ venire interpretata come la descrizione metaforica di un rapporto di

dipendenza perpetuo, ossia nel senso della cosiddetta creatio continua 20 .

Tuttavia le parole con le quali egli fornisce la soluzione all'interrogativo

di partenza, e la forma stessa di questo interrogativo (nel quale ricorre

l'avverbio แผ€ฮตแฝท), inducono a ritenere, come alcuni studiosi non hanno mancato

di osservare, che egli tenti una sorta di conciliazione tra le due prospettive,

quella letterale (per la quale la genesi del cosmo รจ un atto unico operato

da Dio) e quella metaforica (per la quale tale genesi allude al fatto che il

cosmo costituisce un'entitร  generata, cioรจ costantemente soggetta a un

processo di generazione)21 . In eetti Plutarco ribadisce la tesi dell'unicitร 

dell'atto divino (consistente appunto nella soluzione di un problema simile a

quello geometrico), ma poi aggiunge che Dio ฯ†ฯ…ฮปฮฌฯ„ฯ„ฮตฮน ฮดฮนแฝฐ ฯ€ฮฑฮฝฯ„แฝธฯ‚ ฯ„แฝธ แผดฯƒฮฟฮฝ

ฯ„แฟ‡ แฝ•ฮปแฟƒ ฮบฮฑแฝถ แฝ…ฮผฮฟฮนฮฟฮฝ ฯ„แฟ‡ แผฐฮดฮญแพณ ฯ„แฝธฮฝ ฮบฮฟฯƒฮผแฝนฮฝ, vale a dire si impegna a preservare

per la totalitร  del tempo la condizione per cui il cosmo risulti uguale alla

materia e simile all'idea. Aggiunge poi che il cosmo รจ sempre (แผ€ฮตแฝท), cioรจ

incessantemente, sottoposto al processo di generazione e sconvolgimento

prodotto dalla ฯƒแฝปฮผฯ†ฯ…ฯ„ฮฟฯ‚ แผ€ฮฝแฝฑฮณฮบฮท ฯ„ฮฟแฟฆ ฯƒแฝฝฮผฮฑฯ„ฮฟฯ‚, ossia dalla necessitร 

connaturata all'elemento corporeo, e che viene aiutato dal padre e demiurgo,

cioรจ da Dio, il quale rivolgendosi al modello denisce la sostanza, cioรจ la

materia (ฯ€ฯแฝธฯ‚ ฯ„แฝธ ฯ€ฮฑฯฮฌฮดฮตฮนฮณฮผฮฑ ฯ„แฝดฮฝ ฮฟแฝฯƒฮฏฮฑฮฝ แฝฯฮฏฮถฮฟฮฝฯ„ฮฟฯ‚).

Con la generazione del cosmo il compito di Dio non รจ dunque terminato.

Egli deve preservare l'integritร  dell'universo costantemente messa a repentaglio

19 L'idea che gli enti matematici (numeri e gure geometriche) costituiscano gli strumenti

di cui Dio si serve nella sua azione di ordinamento di un'entitร  indeterminata (corpo o anima)

ritorna numerose volte nelle opere losoche di Plutarco: cf. An. procr. 1013 C; 1015 B; 1017 B;

1023 D; 1029 E; Plat. quaest. IV 1003 A. Si veda S. P, 2005, pp. 151-2 nota 121. Sugli enti

matematici come "misure quantitative" cf. C. S, 1994, pp. 204-7 e F. F, 1996,

p. 139.

20 Sull'esegesi letterale (cioรจ temporale) della cosmogenesi del Timeo in Plutarco cf. M.

B , 1998, pp. 406-14.

21 Per esempio S.-T. T, 1996, p. 162 e 180.

95

Simposio e losoa: il problema del "Dio geometra"

dall'azione della ฯƒแฝปฮผฯ†ฯ…ฯ„ฮฟฯ‚ แผ€ฮฝแฝฑฮณฮบฮท, ossia della condizione che appartiene

costitutivamente alla corporeitร , secondo il celebre mito cosmologico del

Politico (269 C-274 E). E' noto, inoltre, che Plutarco assimila la ฯƒแฝปฮผฯ†ฯ…ฯ„ฮฟฯ‚

แผฯ€ฮนฮธฯ…ฮผแฝทฮฑ di cui si parla nel dialogo platonico all'anima precosmica irrazionale,

cioรจ al principio del disordine e del male. In realtร , la tesi secondo la quale

l'intervento di Dio non si limita all'atto di cosmogenesi ma prosegue per

sempre, rappresenta la risposta di Plutarco a un importante problema legato

all'esegesi del Timeo. Si tratta della questione di spiegare come sia possibile che

un'entitร  generata, come รจ secondo Plutarco il cosmo sensibile, risulti eterna,

ossia destinata a non perire mai. Attraverso un'ardita interpretazione del passo

41 A del Timeo (dove il demiurgo dichiara che le cose da lui generate sono

indissolubili, a meno che lui stesso non voglia dissolverle), Plutarco (seguito

poi da altri platonici) pone l'accento non sulla prima parte dell'aermazione

platonica, bensรฌ sulla seconda, e, probabilmente sulla base di Pol. 270 A, intende

il passo nel senso che il mondo, preso in se stesso, รจ destinato a perire; tuttavia

l'azione provvidenziale del demiurgo gli trasmette una sorta di แผฯ€ฮนฯƒฮบฮตฯ…ฮฑฯƒฯ„แฝด

แผ€ฮธฮฑฮฝฮฑฯƒแฝทฮฑ, ossia di immortalitร  restaurata, rifatta, prodotta cioรจ dall'esterno22 .

Tutto ciรฒ non viene espressamente detto da Plutarco, ma non sembra davvero

azzardato ipotizzare che la concezione qui ricostruita agisca alle spalle delle

aermazione contenute nella parte conclusiva di questo zetema.

La risposta plutarchea comporta dunque la conseguenza che l'attivitร 

(geometrica) di Dio non si limiti all'atto di cosmogenesi, ma prosegua

incessantemente per tutto il tempo in cui il cosmo persiste, ossia per sempre.

Per fare in modo che il mondo costituisca sempre una realtร  quantitativamente

identica alla materia e formalmente simile al modello intelligibile, Dio deve

operare sempre in modo geometrico, anche perchรฉ gli strumenti con i quali egli

puรฒ attuare quest'opera di conservazione sono esattamente i princรฌpi di natura

geometrico-matematica, come Autobulo aveva dimostrato nell'intervento

precedente.

Anche in un contesto simposiaco, dunque, Plutarco non rinuncia ad

accennare a importanti tematiche losoche: in questo caso cosmologiche

e metasiche. Abbiamo visto, poi, come la sua interpretazione del Timeo si

appoggi in larga misura sulla lettura del grande mito cosmologico del Politico .

A suggello di questa rapida panoramica sulla piรน losoca delle

Quaestiones convivales, credo che si possa proporre la seguente considerazione.

La seconda quaestio dell'VIII libro si presenta come un eccellente esempio del

modo di fare losoa ฯ€ฮฑฯแฝฐ ฯ€แฝนฯ„ฮฟฮฝ teorizzato in apertura di questa raccolta. I

partecipanti alla conversazione, e l'autore della medesima, orono un omaggio

a Platone, e lo fanno nel modo piรน appropriato: discutendo ฯ€ฮปฮฑฯ„ฯ‰ฮฝฮนฮบแฟถฯ‚, cioรจ

sia servendosi di concezioni platoniche (intorno a un interessante enigma

platonico), sia ricorrendo alla forma dialogica.

22 Su questa nozione cf. M. B, 1998, p. 422 sqq. e 525.

96

Franco Ferrari

ri f e r i m e n T i b i b l i o g r a f i c i

B, M., Der Platonismus in der Antike, Bd. IV, Stuttgart/Bad Cannstatt,

1996.

_____ Der Platonismus in der Antike, Bd. V, Stuttgart/Bad Cannstatt, 1998.

F, F., Dio, idee e materia. La struttura del cosmo in Plutarco di Cheronea,

Napoli, 1995.

_____ "La teoria delle idee in Plutarco", Elenchos, 17 (1996) 121-42.

G, A., "e Corruption of Geometry and the Problem of two

Mean proportionals" in I. G (ed.), Plutarco e le scienze. Atti del IV

Convegno plutarcheo, Genova, 1992, pp. 147-64.

P, S., Tetraktys. Numero e losoa tra I e II secolo d.C., Pisa, 2005.

S, A., Plutarco. Conversazioni a tavola, libro primo, Napoli, 1998.

S, C ., Plutarchs Interpretation der Ideenlehre Platons, Mรผnster/

Hamburg, 1994.

S, R., Die mathematischen Stellen bei Plutarch, Dissert. Regensburg, 1981.

T, S.-T., A Commentary on Plutarch's Table Talks, vol. I (Books 1-3),

Gรถteborg, 1989.

_____ A Commentary on Plutarch's Table Talks, vol. III (Books 7-9), Gรถteborg,

1996.

V , M., "Plutarco e il 'genere simposio'", in I. G & C. M

(eds.), I generi letterari in Plutarco. Atti del VIII Convegno plutarcheo,

Napoli, 2000, pp. 217-29.

97

Riddling at table: trivial ainigmata vs. philosophical problemata

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

S B

University of Siena

Abstract

In his work On Proverbs, Clearchus writes that "the solution of riddles (griphoi) is not alien to

philosophy, and the ancients used to make a display of their knowledge by means of them. For

in propounding riddles in their drinking-bouts they were not like the people of today who ask

one another, what is the most delightful form of sexual commerce, or what sh has the best

avour". Symposiastic riddles were in fact a very popular sub-literary genre, as is witnessed

by some epigrams of the Greek Anthology (book 14th ) and by the Latin Aenigmata Symposii or

Symphosii, but in order to nd the 'philosophical riddles' mentioned by Clearchus we must turn

to literary banquets. e topics dealt with in Plato's and Xenophon's Symposia (the praise of the

god of Love; the denition of the most beautiful thing in the world) are in fact philosophical

questions (what is love? What is the most beautiful thing in the world?).

is paper deals with Plutarch's position regarding the riddles (griphoi and aenigmata) banqueters

were asked to solve in real symposia and the questions (problemata) banqueters were addressed

in literary symposia; particular attention is devoted to two of Plutarch's works, the Quaestiones

convivales and the Convivium septem sapientium.

In the rst book of his work On Proverbs, the Peripatetic philosopher

Clearchus of Soli writes the following lines: "e solution of riddles (ฮณฯแฟ–ฯ†ฮฟฮน)

is not alien to philosophy, and the ancients used to make a display of their

knowledge by means of them. For in propounding riddles in their drinking-

bouts they were not like the people of today who ask one another, what is the

most delightful form of sexual commerce, or what sh has the best avour or

is at the height of excellence at that season, or what sh is to be eaten chiey

after the rising of Arcturus or of the Pleiades or of the Dog-star"1 .

We owe this quotation to Athenaeus, the Egyptian erudite who, in his

most famous work, the Deipnosophistai, makes the wise protagonists of his

long dinner quote a good number of the typical symposiastic conundrums

Clearchus seemed to regard with disdain2 . ese riddles were a sub-literary

genre that happened to be very popular in real banquets, as is witnessed by

many Greek and Latin authors, starting with Aristophanes, continuing with

some fty epigrams of the Greek Anthology, and reaching late antiquity with the

hundred Latin aenigmata written by the mysterious Symphosius or Symposius 3 .

Plato did not like this kind of riddle either: in the fth book of his Republic,

while hinting at the famous riddle of the eunuch (the 'man who is not a man')

1 Clearchus, fr. 63 Wehrli.

2 Athenaeus, e Deipnosophists, 10.457 CD. All Athenaeus' passages are quoted according

to G's translation, 1930.

3 Aristophanes, Wasps 20 sqq.; Greek Anthology, book XIV. e last edition of Symphosius'

riddles is B, 2005. On riddles in classical literatures, see F, 1860; O,

1886, 19122 ; S, 1909, 19122 ; S, 1914. On the fty-three riddles quoted in the

fourteenth book of the Greek Anthology, see F. B, 1970.

and the bat (the 'bird that is not a bird'), he denes this typical 'drinking-bout

riddle' an ฮฑแผดฮฝฮนฮณฮผฮฑ ฯ„แฟถฮฝ ฯ€ฮฑแฝทฮดฯ‰ฮฝ (a 'childish riddle')4 .

Not all these riddles were so stupid as Clearchus and Plato seem to say,

though. is might be true of some funny and gross quizzes, such as those

attested by the poets of the Middle comedy Eubulus and Diphilus – although

their solutions (ฯ€ฯฯ‰ฮบฯ„แฝนฯ‚ and ฯ€แฝณฮฟฯ‚ respectively) tted in with the loose

atmosphere that marked some quite inebriated symposia5 . But other questions

were more serious. For instance, the riddle of the cupping-glass ("I saw a man

gluing bronze upon another man with re so closely as to make them of one

blood"), quoted by Athenaeus and Plutarch, who attributed it to Cleobulina,

was considered by Aristotle an example of both a clever riddle (ฮฑแผดฮฝฮนฮณฮผฮฑ) and

a good metaphor (ฮผฮตฯ„ฮฑฯ†ฮฟฯแฝฑ): in his Rhetoric, the philosopher states that

"metaphor is a kind of enigma, so that it is clear that the transference – the

etymological meaning of the word ฮผฮตฯ„ฮฑฯ†ฮฟฯแฝฑ – is clever"6 .

But which were the riddles whose solution was, according to Clearchus,

"not alien to philosophy"? In the second part of Athenaeus' quotation, the

philosopher says that "the ancients preferred such problems as these: answering

the rst guest who recited an epic or iambic line, each one in turn capped it

with the next verse; or, if one recited the gist of a passage, another answered

with one from some other poet to show that he had spoken to the same eect;

further, each in turn would recite an iambic verse". And, later on, "similarly to

what has been described, they would tell the name of each leader against Troy,

or of each leader among the Trojans, or tell the name of a city in Asia – all

beginning with a given letter; then the next man and all the rest would take

turns in telling the name of a city in Europe, whether Greek or barbarian, as

prescribed. us their very play, being not unreective, became a revelation of

the friendly terms with culture on which each guest stood; and as a reward

for success they set up a crown and bestowed applause, by which, more than

anything else, mutual friendship is rendered sweet"7 .

Since Clearchus' quotation ends here, we are uncertain as to the

philosophical nature of such pastimes: it's hard to tell whether this play with

words and letters had the gravity real philosophy should have.

erefore I must put for a second time the question I have just asked: which

were the philosophical riddles praised by Clearchus? In order to answer this

question, we must turn to other banquets – not real, but literary banquets.

4 Plato, Republic 479 BC. A fuller version of this riddle is quoted by Athenaeus (10.452 C)

and attributed to Panarces; Athenaeus has drawn it from Clearchus' work (fr. 94 Wehrli). e

most complete version of the riddle can be read in Schol. ad Plat. Resp. 479 C (p. 235 Chase

Greene).

5 Eubulus, fr. 106 Kassel-Austin (with the interesting remarks of R.L. H, 1983), and

Diphilus, fr. 49 Kassel-Austin. ese riddles are quoted by Athenaeus as well (10.449 EF; 451

BC).

6 'Cleobulina' fr. 1 West; Athenaeus 10 452 B; Plutarch, Convivium septem sapientium 154B;

Aristoteles, Rh. 1405a37 and Po. 1458a29; Demetrius, De elocutione 102. A slightly dierent

version of the same riddle can be read in the Greek Anthology (XIV 54).

7 Athenaeus 10 457 EF.

99

Riddling at table: trivial ainigmata vs. philosophical problemata

Let us start with the most celebrated one, Plato's Symposium. If we consider

the main topic dealt with in this work, namely, the seven speeches in praise

(แผฮณฮบแฝฝฮผฮนฮฑ ) of the god of Love uttered by Phaedrus, Pausanias, Eryximachus,

Aristophanes, Agathon, Socrates and Alcibiades, what else are these seven

speeches other than dierent answers to the philosophical question "what is

love?". e philosophical dimension of this ฯ€ฯแฝนฮฒฮปฮทฮผฮฑ is strengthened by the

philosophical earnestness of the answers – and, if we may doubt whether all

the answers were really earnest, we must admit that Socrates' surely was.

e same considerations can be made about the other Socratic symposium:

in their dierent (and sometimes amusing) denitions of what is the personal

feature they are most proud of, the banqueters of Xenophon's Symposium do

answer a kind of philosophical question ("what is the most beautiful quality

of a man?"); the fact that some answers are provocative and ridiculous (for

instance, Socrates asserts he is proud of his being a pander) does not wipe out

the philosophical side of the overall discussion.

Other interesting information can be gained from the two symposiastic

works of Plutarch, the ฮฃฯ…ฮผฯ€ฮฟฯƒฮนฮฑฮบแฟถฮฝ ฯ€ฯฮฟฮฒฮปฮทฮผแฝฑฯ„ฯ‰ฮฝ ฮฒฮนฮฒฮปแฝทฮฑ ฮธ' ( Quaestionum

convivalium libri novem) and the ฯ„แฟถฮฝ แผ‘ฯ€ฯ„แฝฐ ฯƒฮฟฯ†แฟถฮฝ ฯƒฯ…ฮผฯ€แฝนฯƒฮนฮฟฮฝ ( Septem

sapientium convivium), where we nd many useful remarks about this subject.

e ฮฃฯ…ฮผฯ€ฮฟฯƒฮนฮฑฮบแฟถฮฝ ฯ€ฯฮฟฮฒฮปฮทฮผแฝฑฯ„ฯ‰ฮฝ ฮฒฮนฮฒฮปแฝทฮฑ as a whole are a crystal-clear

indication of Plutarch's opinion concerning this topic. Its very generic

title has led modern translators to choose a more precise expression and to

underline the conversational side of the work ('table-talk', 'propos de table',

'conversazioni a tavola', and so on). But the Latin translation (quaestiones) is

more akin to the Greek word used by Plutarch to dene the subject of each

'talk' (ฯ€ฯแฝนฮฒฮปฮทฮผฮฑ). Plutarch mentions it right at the very introduction of his

work, when he states that "each of the nine books contains ฮดแฝณฮบฮฑ ฯ€ฯฮฟฮฒฮปแฝตฮผฮฑฯ„ฮฑ "

('ten questions')8 . But what does ฯ€ฯแฝนฮฒฮปฮทฮผฮฑ precisely mean? Its most common

English translation, problem, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, is

glossed as "a thing thrown or put forward; hence, a question propounded for

solution"9 ; in Greek literature as well, ฯ€ฯแฝนฮฒฮปฮทฮผฮฑ is a 'question' that covers a

broad range of meanings, since it can be a mere synonym of 'riddle' but can also

mean something deeper such as a real philosophical problem10 . In Clearchus'

denition, the word ฯ€ฯแฝนฮฒฮปฮทฮผฮฑ appears twice: "A riddle (ฮณฯแฟ–ฯ†ฮฟฯ‚) is a problem

put in jest (ฯ€ฯแฝนฮฒฮปฮทฮผฮฑ ฯ€ฮฑฮนฯƒฯ„ฮนฮบแฝนฮฝ), requiring, by searching the mind, the answer

to the problem (ฯ„แฝธ ฯ€ฯฮฟฮฒฮปฮทฮธแฝณฮฝ) to be given for a prize or forfeit"11 . In the

introduction to the sixth book of the Quaestiones convivales, while he says to

his friend Sossius Senecio that one of the valuable privileges guaranteed by

8 Quaestiones convivales 612 E.

9 OED, vol. VIII, p. 1403.

10 e OED makes a similar distinction: problem is either "a dicult or puzzling question

proposed for solution; a riddle; an enigmatic statement", or "a question proposed for academic

discussion or scholastic disputation", or "a doubtful or dicult question; a matter of inquiry,

discussion, or thought; a question that exercises the mind".

11 Athenaeus 10 448 C ( = Clearchus, fr. 86 Wehrli).

Plato to the guests of his Symposium was that of recalling afterwards what

had been said over the drinks, Plutarch uses the expression ฯ€ฯฮฟฮฒฮปฮทฮผฮฌฯ„ฯ‰ฮฝ ฮดแฝฒ

ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮปฮฟฮณแฟถฮฝ ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฟฯƒแฝนฯ†ฯ‰ฮฝ แฝฯ€ฮฟฮธแฝณฯƒฮตฮนฯ‚ for indicating "the topics of philosophical

inquiry and discussion"12 .

Many of the Quaestiones convivales are in fact signicant philosophical

topics that could be (and possibly really were) discussed by learned people

during a symposium: this is for instance the case of the rst of the 'table-

talks' ("Whether philosophy is a tting topic for conversation at a drinking-

party"), where Plutarch states that the only questions that should be posed and

answered during a literary banquet must be – if I may borrow the Clearchean

expression – "not alien to philosophy"13 .

But, in spite of the fact that in this work (his longest one) he hardly

mentions a single symposiastic riddle (apart from the quotation of a line that

was part of a very popular ฮฑแผดฮฝฮนฮณฮผฮฑ ) 14 , Plutarch did not spurn that kind of

ฯ€ฯฮฟฮฒฮปแฝตฮผฮฑฯ„ฮฑ. In the introduction to the fth book, he says to Sossius that

"after dinner even common, unliterary people allow their thoughts to wander

to other pleasures, as far away as possible from the concerns of the body":

when their belly is full, they "take up conundrums and riddles (ฮฑแผฐฮฝแฝทฮณฮผฮฑฯ„ฮฑ ฮบฮฑแฝถ

ฮณฯแฝทฯ†ฮฟฯ…ฯ‚), or the Names and Numbers game"15 .

is attitude can be better seen in the other Plutarchean symposium,

the Septem sapientium convivium. e nine questions put by Amasis to the

Ethiopian Pharaoh and discussed by the seven wise men are real philosophical

questions (as a matter of fact, they are called ฯ€ฯฮฟฮฒฮปแฝตฮผฮฑฯ„ฮฑ ). ey are the

following: "What is the oldest thing? What is the most beautiful? What

is the greatest? What is the wisest? What is the most common? What is

the most helpful and the most harmful? What is the strongest and the

easiest?"16 .

12 Quaestiones convivales 686 C (English translation by H. B. H, 1969).

13 If one skims through the index of the Quaestiones convivales, he will nd other philosophical

questions (or questions about philosophy), such as question three in book two ("Whether the

hen or the egg came rst", a question that is much more philosophical that it appears) or

questions seven and eight in book eight (two ฯ€ฯฮฟฮฒฮปแฝตฮผฮฑฯ„ฮฑ about Pythagorean precepts).

14 Quaestiones convivales 660 D, that is the second line of a riddle quoted in full by Athenaeus

10 457 B. On the peculiarities of Plutarch's quotation, see M. S. C, 1984, pp. 293-296;

on the riddle, see also E. F, 2003.

15 Quaestiones convivales 673AB. In his note in the Loeb edition, after having said the "the

letters of the alphabet were regularly used as numerals (alpha being 1, beta 2, etc.)", H,

1969, writes that "in a game called isopsepha the sum of the values of the letters of a name was

equated with the sum comprised in another name" and refers to the many examples in verse that

can be found in the sixth book of the Greek Anthology (321 sqq.). D. L. P, 1981, p. 504, in

the section dedicated to the isophepha epigrams of Leonidas of Alexandria, writes that "there is

a curious example in a Bithynian epitaph of the second century A.D., Peek 1324: the deceased

invites the reader to guess his name, giving clues including the sum of the nine letters". Galen's

father, the mathematician and architect Aelius Nico, was very keen on such riddles (see H.

D, 1936).

16 Convivium septem sapientium 152 F. Because of the signicance of the topics, the answers

given by the Ethiopian king are discussed at length by the banqueters in the following chapters

of the dialogue. On these riddles, see I. M. K, 2004 and 2005.

101

Riddling at table: trivial ainigmata vs. philosophical problemata

But in this symposium it is also possible to nd less philosophical riddles.

Cleobulus, one of the seven sophoi, who was famous for his conundrums,

goes to the dinner oered by Periander together with his daughter Eumetis,

better known by the surname 'Cleobulina' and not unequal to her father in

the cleverness of her riddles. Two of the most celebrated Cleobulina's riddles

are explicitly quoted in the dialogue. In the fth chapter, Aesop mentions the

riddle of the Phrygian ute ("Full on my ear with a horn-bearing shin did a

dead donkey smite me"); here the verb used to indicate the creation of this

riddle is ฮฑแผฐฮฝแฝทฯ„ฯ„ฮฟฮผฮฑฮน (connected with the noun ฮฑแผดฮฝฮนฮณฮผฮฑ )17 . In the tenth chapter,

the same Aesop mentions the riddle of the cupping-glass; here the action of

propounding the riddle is indicated through the verb ฯ€ฯฮฟฮฒแฝฑฮปฮปฮตฮนฮฝ (connected

with the noun ฯ€ฯแฝนฮฒฮปฮทฮผฮฑ )18 .

e mention of this conundrum (and of conundrums in general) is

caused by the intervention of the master of the house after the discussion

of the king's riddles: Periander recalls the famous game of riddles between

Homer and Hesiod held at Chalcis during the funeral of Amphidamas19 . At

this point, one of the banqueters, the physician Cleodorus, asks a question

that, in a certain sense, summarizes the topic of this paper: "What dierence

is there between things like this (that is, riddles like those asked by Homer

and Hesiod) and Cleobulina's riddles? Perhaps it is not unbecoming for her

to amuse herself and to weave these as other girls weave girdles and hair-nets,

and to propound them to women, but the idea that men of sense should take

them at all seriously is ridiculous"20 .

In other words, Cleodorus seems to deny the possibility of a distinction

between trivial ฮฑแผฐฮฝแฝทฮณฮผฮฑฯ„ฮฑ and philosophical ฯ€ฯฮฟฮฒฮปแฝตฮผฮฑฯ„ฮฑ. Cleobulina blushes

and does not answer the question; Aesop takes her part and asks the physician

if it is not even more ridiculous not to be able to solve riddles such as the one

of the cupping-glass (a riddle which, as Aesop points out, ought to be very easy

for a doctor like Cleodorus who owed his reputation as a good physician to the

use of cupping-glass as a form of treatment).

Between these two extreme positions, Plutarch prefers to take a much more

balanced stand. Such a position is expressed at best by the words uttered by ales,

one of the seven sapientes, at the beginning of the dialogue: when Neiloxenus of

Naucratis pays Cleobulina a compliment for the popularity of her riddles in

Egypt and praises her for the cleverness and the skill shown in them, ales says

that she uses those conundrums "like dice, as a means of occasional amusement.

(...) But she is also possessed of wonderful sense, a statesman's mind, and an

amiable character, and she has inuence with her father so that his government

of the citizens has become milder and more popular"21 .

17 Convivium septem sapientium 150 EF; 'Cleobulina' fr. 3 West (English translation by

B, 1928).

18 Convivium septem sapientium 154 B.

19 is famous game is the subject of the Contest of Homer and Hesiod.

20 Convivium septem sapientium 154 AB (B's translation).

21 Convivium septem sapientium 148 DE (B's translation).

102

Simone Beta

ese words acknowledge that the ability to construct trivial riddles good

enough to make people enjoy themselves during a banquet is as important as

the capacity to solve more dicult questions that involve signicant spheres

such as literature, politics, science and, last but not least, philosophy.

W o r k s c i T e d

B, F. C., Plutarch. Moralia II , Cambridge, Mass., 1928.

B, M. (ed.), Aenigmata Symposii. La fondazione dell'enigmistica come

genere poetico, Firenze, 2005.

B, F., Anthologie grecque, premiรจre partie, Anthologie Palatine, tome XII,

livres xiii-xv, Paris, 1970.

C, M. S., "Five Men and Ten Ships: A Riddle in Athenaeus", Greek,

Roman, and Byzantine Studies 27 (1984) 285-296.

D, H., "Nikon (18)", in RE , vol. XVII.1, 1936, coll. 507-8.

F, E., "Il fatale approdo di cinque uomini su dieci navi: un enigma in

Athen. X 457b – c", Klio 85 (2003) 399-410.

F, J. B., Geschichte des Rรคthsels, Dresden, 1860.

G, C. B., Athenaeus. e Deipnosophists. Cambridge, Mass., 1930.

H, H. B., Plutarch. Moralia VIII, Cambridge, Mass., 1969.

H, R. L., Eubulus. e Fragments, edited with a commentary by R.L.

Hunter, Cambridge, 1983.

K I. M., "Trial by Riddle: e Testing of the Counsellor and

the Contest of Kings in the Legend of Amasis and Bias", Classica et

Mediaevalia 55 (2004) 85-137.

______ "Amasis, Bias, and the Seven Sages as Riddlers", Wรผrzburger Jahrbรผcher

fรผr die Altertumswissenschaft 29 (2005) 11-46.

O, K., Rรคtsel und Rรคtselspiele der alten Griechen, Berlin, 1886, 19122

(reprint Hildesheim and New York, 1979);

P , D. L., Further Greek Epigrams, Cambridge, 1981.

S, W., Rรคtsel aus dem hellenischen Kulturkreise, Leipzig, 1909, 19122 .

_____ "Rรคtsel", in RE, vol. IA, 1914, coll. 62-125.

103

e reading of texts at the Graeco-Roman symposium and in the Christian gathering

T      G-R 

   C 

V A

University of Leiden

Abstract

Classical scholars who researched the topic of the activities taking place at Graeco-Roman

banquets, extensively described the artistic presentations that accompanied eating and drinking.

ey have paid much attention to the singing, dancing and dramatic performances given at

banquets. Less attention has been given to the subject of public reading in the context of the

after-dinner symposium. e custom of reading literary works at symposia is well attested in the

symposiastic literature of the rst and the second centuries CE. Plutarch's Moralia are one of the

more important sources that attest the reading of literature at the Graeco-Roman symposium.

In the late 90s it has been argued by several scholars that the early Christian communities during

their weekly gatherings followed the same pattern of Graeco-Roman dining. is paper seeks to

argue that the reading of texts in the early Christian gathering is the historical counterpart of

the reading of texts at the Graeco-Roman symposium.

Introduction

Classical scholars have carefully investigated the activities that

accompanied Graeco-Roman banquets and the entertainment and artistic

contributions that surrounded the eating and drinking.1 ey have paid

much attention to the singing, dancing and dramatic performances given at

banquets2 . However, they have taken less interest in the subject of the public

reading of literary texts in the context of the after-dinner symposium.3

e custom of reading literary works at symposia is well attested in the

symposiastic literature of the rst and second centuries CE. Plutarch's

Moralia is one of the more important sources for our knowledge about the

reading of literature at the symposium. In the late 90's of the last century,

several scholars have convincingly shown that the weekly gatherings held by

early Christian communities conformed to the custom of many voluntary

associations in the Graeco-Roman world which would gather periodically for

a supper and a symposium4 . However, it has not been argued suciently and

in detail that various elements of the Christian gatherings such as reading of

Scripture, preaching and singing have their origins in customs practised at

Graeco-Roman banquets. is paper tries to argue that the reading of texts

in the early Christian gathering is the historical counterpart of the reading

of texts at the Graeco-Roman symposium.

1 K. D, 1998, pp. 81-101; E. S-H, 2005, pp. 220-52.

2 K. D, 1996, pp. 66-80.

3 Discussions of reading at the symposium are found in R. S, 1990-1991, pp. 337-43;

Ch. J, 1991, pp. 191-92.

4 M. K, 1996, pp. 269-378; H. J.  J, 2001, pp. 209-37; D. S, 2003.

e Reading of texts at the Graeco-Roman Symposium

Public reading in antiquity could be performed in various social settings.

Dio Chrysostom describes how, walking through the hippodrome, he

encountered people playing the ute, dancing, performing tricks, reading

out a poem, singing, and recounting a history or tale5 . e most common

context, however, was the after-dinner symposium.6 Numerous Greek and

Roman authors give descriptions of banquets at which the reading of texts

played a prominent role. e reading of texts at a symposium usually served

two purposes. First, it provided entertainment for the guests. Juvenal writes

in his Satirae: "My party today will oer other forms of entertainment. We'll

have a recitation from the author of Iliad and from the poems of Virgil which

challenge Homer's supremacy. With poetry like this, it hardly matters how it

is read"7 . Second, the reading of texts at banquets could give the impulse for a

good conversation and, according to Plutarch, also help "to raise morals to a

higher standard of fairness and kindness"8 .

At the symposium various types of texts could be read: philosophy,

scientic treatises, history, poetry, and comedy. According to Aulus Gellius,

at a banquet of the philosopher Taurus the Symposium of Plato was read.9 At

the dinner of the philosopher Favorinus "there was usually read either an old

song of the lyric poets, or something from history, now in Greek and now

in Latin"10 . Gellius once heard the reading of a passage from the treatise of

Gavius Bassus On the Origin of Verbs and Substantives 11 . Plutarch notices that,

as entertainment at a banquet, the dialogues of Plato could be recited and even

performed12 . According to Lucian, the blessed ones who live on the Isle of the

Blest enjoy a symposium accompanied by poetry and songs. Here, mostly the

poems of Homer are read or recited13 . In Lucian's Symposion, the grammarian

Histiaios recited a combination of verses of Pindar, Hesiod and Anacreon14 .

Plutarch states that the comedian Menander is particularly t to be read at

symposia15 .

e reading at symposia could be performed by persons of various statuses.

First, the person who read the literary text could be the author of the text

himself, who by reading his composition hoped to elicit the comments and

reactions of the participants in the banquet16 . Petronius relates that Trimalchio

5 D. Chr., XX 10.

6 Plu., Quaest. conv. 7.711b-712c; Plin., Epist. 1.15.2.

7 Juv., Sat. 11.180.

8 Plu., Quaest. conv. 7.712d.

9 Gell., NA 17.20.

10 Gell., NA 2.22.

11 Gell., NA 3.19.

12 Plu., Quaest. conv. 7.711c.

13 Luc., VH 2.15.

14 Luc., Symp. 17.

15 Plu., Quaest. conv. 7.712b.

16 E. J. K, "Books and Readers in the Roman World", in E. J. K & W. V. C

(eds.), e Cambridge History of Classical Literature Volume II: Latin Literature, Cambridge, 1982,

105

e reading of texts at the Graeco-Roman symposium and in the Christian gathering

at his banquet read his last will and also some poetry of his own making.17

Second, the reading could be performed by the host of the banquet. ird,

the task of reading could be assigned to a special reader (แผ€ฮฝฮฑฮณฮฝฯŽฯƒฯ„ฮทฯ‚ , lector).

Such readers would often be educated slaves, whose duty in Roman houses

was to entertain their master and his guests at table by a recitation in Greek

and/or Latin18 .

Atticus, for instance, had very good readers, whom he thought

indispensable at dinner parties19 . Gellius relates that a slave usually stood by

the table at dinner with the philosopher Favorinus20 . Plutarch states that slaves

could be charged with the recitation and performance of Plato's dialogues21 .

e evidence cited so far may suce to warrant the conclusion that reading of

literary compositions at symposia was a widely spread custom.

e Reading of texts in the Gatherings of Christians

Generations of scholars have traced the reading of Scripture in early

Christian communities back to the reading of the Law of Moses in the Jewish

synagogue. In this traditional and still current view, it is taken for granted that

the reading of Scripture in Christian assemblies goes back to the reading of

the Law in the synagogue if only for the fact that it was the Jewish Scriptures

that were read in the Christian gatherings22 . e earliest Christians, who were

Jews, would have taken over not only the custom of meeting weekly to read and

interpret the Law and the Prophets but also the practice of singing psalms and

saying prayers and thanksgivings. Jews would have held their scrolls in great

veneration, a respect that was enhanced by the ritualized reading in a religious

setting. In time, the reverence for the word of God and the use of sacred books

in religious gatherings would have become characteristic of Christians as well23 .

is argument for tracing back the reading of Scripture among Christians to

the synagogue prots from the fact that there are no clear-cut or convincing

parallels for the cultic reading of texts in other religions than Judaism, apart

from religions that have been inuenced by Christianity itself. us, on the

assumption that there was historical continuity between Jewish and Christian

cultic practices, scholars inferred and still infer that the reading of Scripture

in the Christian gathering has its roots in Judaism or has been inuenced by

Judaism in one way or another24 .

However, the view that the reading of texts in Christian communities

derives from the practice of reading and studying the Law in Jewish

p. 11; R. S, 1987, p. 213.

17 Petron., Satyr. 71.4; 55.

18 See J.W. D and A. J. S. S, "anagnostes," in OCD3 , p. 80.

19 Nep., Att. 13.3; 14.1.

20 Gell., NA 3.19.

21 Plu., Quaest. conv. 7.711c.

22 F. Y , 2004, p. 91.

23 Ibid., 92.

24 G. R, 2002, p. 305.

communities does not seem to be conrmed by the data contained in early

Christian literature.

To clarify the origin of the reading of Scripture in the gatherings of

Christians it is necessary to look at the context of reading in the Christian

Church during the rst and second centuries.

In the last ten years there has been a substantial shift in the way scholars

viewed the periodical gatherings of the early Christians. is shift began

with the publication of Gemeinschaftsmahl und Mahlgemeinschaft by Matthias

Klinghardt (1996)25 and became stronger through studies by H. J. de Jonge

(2001) and D. Smith (2003)26 . e essence of these authors' new approach can

be formulated as follows: the local early Christian community, as a sociological

phenomenon, functioned as a voluntary religious association just like many

other associations in the Graeco-Roman world of the rst century CE.

ere is rm evidence from the rst two centuries CE to support this view.

For instance, in 55 CE Paul compares the local Christian community with

pagan religious associations in Corinth27 . In 112 CE Pliny does the same in

his correspondence with the Roman Emperor Trajan28 . Lucian in the second

century CE calls the leader of a Christian community a thiasarches, that is,

leader of a cult association29 . About 200 CE Tertullian compares meals of the

Christian communities with meals of various other religious associations such

as the collegia Saliorum and the Dionysus and Sarapis cults30 .

Recent scholarship mostly accepts and subscribes to the view that,

sociologically, early Christian communities functioned as Hellenistic cult

associations. Such associations, whether pagan, Jewish, or Christian, held

periodical gatherings that had a bipartite structure: a meal (deipnon) and

a drinking party (symposion) afterwards. Most descriptions of Christian

gatherings in the rst three centuries present these gatherings as banquets that

took place weekly on Sunday evening (Paul, Pliny, Justin Martyr, Clement of

Alexandria, Municius Felix, Tertullian). Basically, the early Christian gathering

was a supper with a drinking party, not a meeting for the study of the Bible,

as was the synagogue meeting on Sabbath. e early Christians met in private

houses on Sunday evening and held their symposia more or less the same way

as other groups did in those days. During the symposium part of the evening,

Christians not only engaged in such oral communication as prayer, singing,

speeches, homilies, lessons and revelations, they also practised public reading

of texts.

It may seem exaggerated to seek the roots of the reading of texts in

the gatherings of Christians one-sidedly and exclusively in the Hellenistic

symposium, and not both in synagogue and symposium. ere are, however,

25 M. K, 1996, pp. 269-378.

26 H. J. de J, 2001, pp. 209-37; D. S, 2003.

27 1 Cor. 10:16-21.

28 Luc., Peregr. 11.

29 Plin., Epist. 10.96.

30 Tert., Apol. 39.

107

e reading of texts at the Graeco-Roman symposium and in the Christian gathering

strong reasons to trace the Christians' reading exclusively to the symposium.

e meeting in the synagogue took place on Saturday in the morning did

not comprise a meal or a symposium. e literary evidence from Philo and

Josephus suggests that the synagogue was used primarily for reading and

interpreting the Law of Moses31 . Christians did not read the Torah or the Law

of Moses as was the custom in the synagogual meeting. Moreover, during the

rst century, Christians read texts without any interpretation that followed the

reading. ere simply no continuity: neither between the ceremonies involved,

nor between the texts read.

e rst Christian texts to be read in Christian gatherings were apostolic

letters, for instance, those of Paul. ese were read from the middle of the rst

century onwards. is can be inferred from the Pauline correspondence and the

Book of Acts32 . At rst, the reading of the apostles' letters was not yet a liturgical

practice; rather these letters were read just as letters received. In certain cases,

the messenger who brought them could read such letters to the audience.33

Many early Christian letters were intended to be heard by all members of the

community to which they were addressed; this means that they had to be read

aloud in that community's weekly gathering at the symposium.

It should be admitted that reading at the Hellenistic symposium could

have dierent functions and goals, and that various genres were read. But

one function could certainly be the instruction or edication of the audience,

which comes close to that of the reading of apostolic letters among Christians.

Plutarch said that one should read moral stu, especially Plato's dialogues.34

Moreover, one should not conceive of the apostolic letters read in the Christian

communities as documents of high canonical, holy or divine status. At rst,

they were no more than messages from contemporary teachers, and documents

almost of the level of every-day life; nothing particularly special. Furthermore,

it is already signicant of and in itself that reading occurred at the Christian

symposium: why would one suppose that this has other roots than reading at

symposia in general. at the genres that were read could vary, both within

paganism and between paganism and Christianity, does not alter the fact

that reading at symposia was the continuation of the reading at symposia in

general.

Around 100 CE the author of 1 Timothy admonishes his addressee to

devote himself to the public reading of the Scriptures.35 Since there is no

evidence that there existed special meetings intended only for the reading of

Scripture and preaching, it is probable that 1 Timothy means that portions

of the Old Testament in Greek should be read at the symposium on Sunday

evening. Until the third century36 there is no indication that Christians in their

31 Philo, Som. 2.127; Jos., Ant. 16.2.4.

32 1 ess. 5:27, Acts 15:31; Col. 4:16.

33 Luc., Symp. 21.

34 Plu., Quaest. conv. 7.711.c.

35 1 Tim. 4:13.

36 Or., Hom. Josh. 4.1; Hom. Gen. 12.1. According to Melito of Sardes, On Pascha, he read

gatherings read the Law of Moses; it is most probable, therefore, that they read

other books of the Old Testament, for example, the Prophets or the Psalms.

In the second century, in addition to letters and Prophets, the writings

read at Christian symposia included sermons, apocalypses and accounts of

Christian martyrdoms37 .

Explicit information about the reading of Gospels in the gatherings of

Christians is provided by Justin Martyr (ca. 155):

On the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together

in one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are

read, as long as time permits. en, when the reader has nished, the president

in a discourse instructs and exhorts to the imitation of these good things38.

us, in Justin's Church in Rome, the reading of Gospels and/or Prophets

was followed by a speech, including ethical exhortations, and prayers. Only

then would the supper begin.

Some decades later, the reading of Gospels in gatherings of Christians is

attested by the Acts of Peter, written between 180 and 190 CE. Here Peter is said

to have entered the house where the Christians had gathered. When he came

into the dining-room (triclinium ), "he saw that the gospel was being read. And

rolling it up he said, 'Men, who believe in Christ and hope in him, you shall

know how the holy scriptures of our Lord must be explained …. Now I will

explain to you that which has been read to you.'"39 e reading and exposition of

Scripture are concluded with a supper (ch. 22). e course of things described

here must be that of the Roman Church in the late second century.

In about 200 CE, Tertullian gives a brief description of the Christian

gathering in North Africa. With respect to the reading of Scripture in this

gathering he observes:

We assemble to read our sacred writings, if any peculiarity of the times makes

either forewarning or reminiscence needful. However it be in that respect, with

the sacred words we nourish our faith, we animate our hope, we make our

condence more steadfast; and no less by inculcations of God's precepts we

conrm good habits40.

Interestingly, in Tertullian's view the reading has a pastoral purpose. e

hearing of Scripture strengthens the listeners' faith, hope and morality.

Whereas at Graeco-Roman symposia the reading of texts normally took

place after the supper, the evidence in Justin and Tertullian suggests that, in

Ex. 12 on Easter day, but this is of course a special case; it is not the reading in a regular Sunday

gathering.

37 2 Clem. 19.1.; Rev. 1:3-8, 11; Herm., Vis. 2.8.4; Canon Muratori, lines 71-78; M. Polyc.

20. 38 Just., 1 Apol. 67.3.

39 Acta Petri 20.

40 Tert., Apol. 39.3.

109

e reading of texts at the Graeco-Roman symposium and in the Christian gathering

the second century, Christians reversed the order and put the reading before

the communal meal. e easiest explanation of this reversal is that it allowed

those who were not yet full members of the community, the catechumens, to

participate in the gathering until the supper began, from which moment on

they were excluded41 . If the reading of Scripture took place after the supper

it was dicult to arrange for the catechumens to arrive precisely in time

to hear the reading. It was, thus, much more practical to put the reading,

together with the exposition, before the supper.

e oce of "reader" or "lector" has arisen in the Church at the end of the

second century: Tertullian in North Africa is the rst to attest the existence

of the function of reader42 . The oce originated certainly some time before

Tertullian makes mention of it.

Before the oce of reader originated, the reading of Scripture in

Christian gatherings must have been performed by ordinary members of the

community. is earlier practice is reected in Revelation 1:3, where a blessing

is pronounced over "the one who reads" the Book of Revelation out loud in

Church. Obviously, this reader does not yet have an ocial capacity, for he is

designated with the participle แผ€ฮฝฮฑฮณฮฝฯŽฯƒฮบฯ‰ฮฝ, not with the noun แผ€ฮฝฮฑฮณฮฝฯŽฯƒฯ„ฮทฯ‚ .

On the other hand, in 1 Timothy 4:13, the responsibility for the reading of

Scripture is assigned to the leader of the community. Apparently, around the

turn of the rst to the second century, practices as to who performed the

reading still varied.

Towards the middle of the second century we encounter someone who

reads his own composition in a Christian congregation, namely the author of

the homily known as 2 Clement. is author concludes his homily by stating:

"Brothers and sisters, … , I am reading to you an exhortation to pay attention

to that which is written, that you may save both yourselves and the one who

reads among you"43 . Obviously, "reading" is the delivering of the homily; it is

read aloud by the author himself.

Justin's account of the Sunday gathering mentions "the person who reads

[namely, a passage from a Gospel or a Prophet]"44 . But Justin does not use a

noun designating the reader and it cannot be inferred from this passage that

he already knew the oce of lector. Tertullian, however, as already stated, is

acquainted with the reader as an ocial of the Church.45 From the third century

onwards the reader regularly appears as an ocial functionary who, at various

places, assists bishops and other clergy in conducting the service of Christian

congregations. e ceremony of the appointment of a reader is mentioned

in a mid-third-century manual on Church practice from Rome, the Apostolic

Tradition; it states: "A reader is installed as the bishop hands him a book. He

41 Did. 9.5.

42 Tert., Praescr. 41.8.

43 2 Clem. 19.1.

44 Just., 1 Apol. 67.4.

45 Tert., Praescr. 41.8.

has no laying on of hands"46. Around the same time, the appointment of lectores

is attested by other authors in Rome and Carthage47 . In the Syriac Didascalia

(ca . 215 CE?) it is not a reader, but the bishop himself who performs the

reading from the Scriptures.48

One may nd it dicult to accept that readers in Christian communities

are analogous with the slave lectors at Graeco-Roman symposia. However, as

it has been stated in the beginning of this article the reading at symposia could

have been performed by various persons provided they have ability to perform

the reading. As long as Christian communities conducted theirs gatherings

in the evening following the standard pattern of meal plus symposium the

reading of various texts could be performed by host himself, his educated slave

or any member of the community who could do it. Christian communities

may have lacked educated slaves who read texts at Hellenistic symposia, but

with time they began to appoint some members of their congregations to

perform reading of authoritative texts in their gatherings. In any case the oce

of reader in Christian Church can be best traced back to reader at symposia in

the Graeco-Roman world in general.

Conclusion

Christians in the rst and second centuries met in private houses on

Sunday evening. ey held their symposia in the same way as other, non-

Christian, groups did in those days. Accordingly, they practised public reading

of texts at their symposia and had special readers to do the reading, at least from

some point of time in the second century onwards. e reading of authoritative

writings took place in the social gathering that followed the supper. is was

the context in which apostolic and other important letters, Prophets, Gospels

and other genres were read aloud to the community. ere is a close analogy

between the reading of texts at non-Christian banquets and the reading of

texts in the weekly gatherings of Christians. is analogy cannot be incidental.

We are witnessing here one and the same phenomenon in both non-Christian

and Christian contexts. e analogy challenges the current view, recently

upheld by some scholars, according to which the reading of the Scriptures in

the gatherings of Christians should be traced back to the Jewish practice of

reading and studying the Law of Moses on Sabbath in the synagogue. ere is

no continuity between the reading in the synagogue and that in the Church.

e public reading of Scripture in Christian communities goes back, not to

the reading of the Law in the synagogue, but to the reading of literature at the

Hellenistic banquet in general.

46 Trad. ap. 11.

47Eus., Hist. 6.43.11 (Rome, 251 CE); Cypr., Epist. 29.1 (Carthage, ca. 250 CE).

48 Did. ap. 2.58. e bishop is supposed to perform the reading in a sitting position.

111

e reading of texts at the Graeco-Roman symposium and in the Christian gathering

W o r k s c i T e d

A, P., "Omne Verbum Sonat: e New Testament and the

Oral Environment of Late Western Antiquity", JBL, 109 (1990), pp.

3-27.

D, Katherine. "Convivial Spaces: Dining and Entertainment in the

Roman Villa", JRA, 9 (1996) 66-80.

––––––––– "Ut Graeco more bibetur: Greeks and Romans on a Dining

Coach". In I. N & H. S. N (eds.), Meals in a Social Context,

Aarhus, 1998, pp. 81-101.

G, D., "Menander's Comedies Best with Dessert and Wine (Plut. Mor .

712C)", Athenaeum, 65 (1987), pp. 511-16.

J, Ch. ,"Dinner eater", In W. S (ed.), Dining in a Classical Context,

Michigan, 1991, pp. 191-92.

J, de H. J., "e Early History of the Lord's Supper". In J. W. van H

& A. H (eds.), Religious Identity and the Invention of Tradition,

Assen, 2001, pp. 209-37.

K, E. J., "Books and Readers in the Roman World". In E. J. K

& W. V. C (eds.), e Cambridge History of Classical Literature

Volume II: Latin Literature, Cambridge, 1982, pp. 3-32;

K, M., Gemeinschaftsmahl und Mahlgemeinschaft. Soziologie und

Liturgie frรผhchristlicher Mahlfeiern. Tรผbingen/Basel, 1996.

M, D., "Performing the Book". Classical Antiquity, 19 (2000), p. 138-

179.

R, L., Philosophes entre mots et mets. Plutarque, Lucien et Athรฉnรฉe autour de

la table de Platon. Grenoble, 2002.

R, G., "e Reading of Scripture in Early Christian Liturgy". In L.

R (ed.), What Athens has to do with Jerusalem. Essays on Classical,

Jewish, and Early Christian Art and Archaeology in Honor of Gideon

Foerster, Leuven, 2002, pp. 305-31.

S, Wiliam J. (ed.), Dining in a Classical Context. Michigan, 1991.

S, D. E., From Symposium to Eucharist. e Eucharist in the Early Christian

World. Minneapolis, 2002.

S, R., "e Circulation of Literary Texts in the Roman World". CQ, 37

(1987) 213-223.

––––––––– "Reading Aloud: Lectores and Roman Reading", CJ, 86 (1990-

1991) 337-43.

112

Valeriy Alikin

S-H, E. Das rรถmische Gastmahl. Eine Kulturgeschichte ,

Mรผnchen, 2005.

Y, F., "Christian Teaching", in F. Y  & L. A (eds.), Cambridge

History of Early Christian Literature, Cambridge, 2004, pp. 91-104.

113

Plutarco e la lettura nel simposio

P     

G D'I

Universitร  di Palermo

Abstract

In the symposium, by then merged into the banquet, Plutarch practises, in accordance with the

rules of his "ethical anthropology", the collective reading of poetry and prose writers not only

for mere entertainment but as a stimulus for a debate of high cultural dignity, always directed to

improve man. Refusing many authors of popular convivial praxis, e. g. Aristophanes, he prefers

Plato among the prose writers and Homer and Menander among the poets.

Rispetto al simposio greco del periodo arcaico e classico e al banchetto-

spettacolo romano, il simposio greco d'etร  postclassica non godeva di molta

attenzione da parte degli studiosi sia per un'obiettiva carenza di fonti sia

per la falsa idea che esso avesse perduto d'importanza. Ma negli ultimi anni

sono apparsi diversi lavori1 che hanno ribadito, anche per l'etร  alessandrina e

romana, il suo ruolo come istituzione sociale e come luogo di presentazione di

letteratura attraverso letture o esibizioni attoriali2 .

Fra gli autori greci della prima etร  imperiale, a Plutarco si devono le

testimonianze piรน importanti sul simposio. Esse ci dimostrano la sua vitalitร 

ed insieme la sua trasformazione3 .

Com'รจ noto, a parte gli episodi simposiaci che s'incontrano nelle Vite e

contribuiscono alla caratterizzazione morale dei personaggi4 , due dei Moralia

sono proprio dedicati al simposio: uno รจ il ฮฃฯ…ฮผฯ€แฝนฯƒฮนฮฟฮฝ ฯ„แฟถฮฝ แผ‘ฯ€ฯ„แฝฐ ฯƒฮฟฯ†แฟถฮฝ (cito

secondo il Catalogo di Lampria), l'altro i ฮฃฯ…ฮผฯ€ฮฟฯƒฮนฮฑฮบแฝฑ. Il primo, il Septem

sapientium convivium5 , ci riporta, col tipico gusto nostalgico di Plutarco e sulla

scia dei due Simposi precedenti, di Platone e di Senofonte, ad un simposio

arcaico e indubbiamente inventato, dove si segue l'esempio di Platone, centrato

sulla discussione, piuttosto che quello di Senofonte, che, dando rilevanza

allo spettacolo, con le sue performances meliche, orchestiche, drammatiche,

mimiche o acrobatiche, riproduceva piรน fedelmente il costume conviviale greco.

I ฮฃฯ…ฮผฯ€ฮฟฯƒฮนฮฑฮบแฝฑ, che opportunamente, nella edizione napoletana del Corpus

Plutarchi Moralium, vengono presentati come Conversazioni a tavola6 , in eetti

1 Mi riferisco soprattutto al capitolo III ("e symposium": pp. 71-103) del volume

callimacheo di A. C, 1995, e ad una serie di convegni sull'argomento (O. M ,

1990; W. J. S, 1991; O. M  M. T, 1995).

2 In un volume sulla lettura nel mondo ellenistico L. D C, 2005, dedica un paragrafo

(pp. 114-25) a "La lettura in gruppo e il simposio", non trascurando Plutarco.

3 Sul simposio in Plutarco cf. A. M. S, 1998, pp. 117-33, F. P P,

1999 e M. V, 2000.

4 Cf. A. B, 2008.

5 Cf. F. L C, Plutarco. Il convito dei sette sapienti (introduzione, testo critico, traduzione

e commento a c. di F. L. C.), Napoli, 1997.

6 Editi nora solo i libri I-IV: A. M. S 1998 e I, Plutarco. Conversazioni

a tavola. Libro quarto (introduzione, testo critico, traduzione e commento a c. di A. M. S.),

documentano giร  una trasformazione, cui non รจ estranea l'inuenza romana. Se

prima symposion e deipnon erano nettamente distinti, le due situazioni adesso

appaiono confuse: cosรฌ il termine symposion vale a indicare anche il deipnon 7 ,

che talora รจ detto ฯƒฯ…ฮฝฮดฮตแฟ–ฯ€ฮฝฮฟฮฝ, mentre il momento del bere, nell'ambito del

banchetto, spesso viene espresso dal generico ฯ€แฝนฯ„ฮฟฯ‚ "8 .

Pur considerando la letterarietร  delle descrizioni simposiali di Plutarco, non

v'รจ dubbio che le sue parole lascino trasparire la realtร  contemporanea9 . Accanto

alla sopravvivenza e all'incremento di un simposio di puro intrattenimento, le

testimonianze plutarchee convergono nel difendere soprattutto un simposio

serio, losoco, di ascendenza sostico-platonica, dove si pratica la lettura

collettiva di poeti e prosatori, ma in genere non solo per motivi ricreativi, bensรฌ

come stimolo per avviare una discussione di alta dignitร  culturale.

Per quel che concerne le testimonianze speciche sulla lettura, e in

particolare sulla lettura nel simposio, Plutarco porta la nota inconfondibile

della sua ideologia profonda, che altrove ho denito "antropologia etica"10 e

che si caratterizza per una amorevole attenzione per l'uomo e per una costante

propensione a migliorarlo.

Secondo Plutarco, la pratica di leggere ad alta voce, consigliata in genere

come esercizio atto a migliorare la respirazione (De tuenda sanitate praecepta,

16, 130A-D), a tavola, nel corso dei pasti, รจ giovevole sia al corpo sia allo spirito,

purchรฉ gli argomenti non provochino discussioni accese (ib., 20, 133B-C). Ma

su questo tema egli mantiene la sua preferita posizione di medietร .

E dice: "Le parole dei massaggiatori e i discorsi dei maestri di ginnastica,

pronti a ripetere ad ogni occasione che un dotto ragionare durante il pranzo

rovina il pasto e appesantisce la testa, si devono temere solo se a pranzo vogliamo

risolvere 'il problema indiano' o discutere 'l'argomento dominante'11 . ... Ma se

costoro non ci consentono di svolgere durante il pranzo qualche altra ricerca o

discutere di losoa o leggere testi che, nell'ambito del bello e dell'utile, orano

un elemento di attrattiva e di gradevolezza che dร  piacere, li inviteremo a non

importunarci ed a tornare, invece, nelle gallerie dei ginnasi e nelle palestre e

discutere di questi argomenti con gli atleti: sono loro che li allontanano dai libri e

li abituano a trascorrere l'intera giornata fra scherzi e buonate, e cosรฌ li rendono,

come diceva l'arguto Aristone, lucidi e duri come le erme del loro ginnasio".

Napoli, 2001; A. C, Plutarco. Conversazioni a tavola. Libro secondo (introduzione, testo

critico, traduzione e commento a c. di A. C.), Napoli, 2001; I. C, Plutarco. Conversazioni

a tavola. Libro terzo (introduzione, testo critico, traduzione e commento a c. di I. C.), Napoli,

2001. Sull'opera cf. S.-T. T, 1989-1996. Una 'conversazione a tavola' รจ pure il ฮ ฮตฯแฝถ

ฮผฮฟฯ…ฯƒฮนฮบแฟ†ฯ‚, dialogo di discussa atribuzione, che si conclude richiamando l'utilitร  della musica nel

convito.

7 Cf. A. M. S, 1998, pp. 121-5.

8 Cf., per es., il titolo del primo problema del Libro I delle Quaestiones convivales (612E): ฮ•แผฐ

ฮดฮตแฟ– ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฟฯƒฮฟฯ†ฮตแฟ–ฮฝ ฯ€ฮฑฯแฝฐ ฯ€แฝนฯ„ฮฟฮฝ.

9 Cf. F. P P, 1999.

10 G. D'I, 2005, pp. 898-9.

11 Non sappiamo esattamente che cosa voglia dire, ma di certo allude a problemi in sommo

grado ardui e complessi.

115

Plutarco e la lettura nel simposio

Plutarco si cura di indicare i testi che conviene leggere e commentare.

Anche se il simposio plutarcheo รจ soprattutto luogo della discussione losoca,

non cessa per questo di essere pure un luogo privilegiato per ascoltare poesia.

Accanto, perรฒ, all'uso di testi destinati specicamente al convito, soprattutto

epigrammi12 , รจ diusa ormai la ripresa di generi classici, concepiti a suo tempo

per fruizioni dierenti.

Ma Plutarco, vedremo, per il suo banchetto pone dei veti che lo allontanano

dal costume corrente.

Le indicazioni sono discusse in Plu., Quaest. conv. 711A-713F: si tratta

dell'ottavo ฯ€ฯแฝนฮฒฮปฮทฮผฮฑ del libro settimo, che cosรฌ viene enunciato: ฮคแฝทฯƒฮน ฮผแฝฑฮปฮนฯƒฯ„ฮฑ

ฯ‡ฯฮทฯƒฯ„แฝณฮฟฮฝ แผ€ฮบฯฮฟแฝฑฮผฮฑฯƒฮน ฯ€ฮฑฯแฝฐ ฮดฮตแฟ–ฯ€ฮฝฮฟฮฝ, cioรจ Quali audizioni ammettere nel corso del

banchetto. Da notare due termini: แผ€ฮบฯแฝนฮฑฮผฮฑ, che privilegia l'udito rispetto alla

vista, e ฮดฮตแฟ–ฯ€ฮฝฮฟฮฝ, che sta ad indicare come all'intrattenimento e alla discussione

comunitaria non sia piรน specicamente destinata la parte nale del banchetto,

il tradizionale simposio. La discussione continua ed integra la precedente, che

si occupava della convenienza o meno dell'uso della musica, in particolare di

ฮฑแฝฮปฮทฯ„ฯแฝทฮดฮตฯ‚, durante il banchetto. Gli interlocutori sono ospiti di Plutarco a

Cheronea: l'amico Diogeniano di Pergamo, che, come vedremo, รจ portavoce

delle idee dell'autore, ed inoltre due stoici abbastanza diversi, il primo dei

quali รจ un sosta anonimo, dalla lunga barba (ฮฒฮฑฮธฯ…ฯ€แฝฝฮณฯ‰ฮฝ), che si adombra

perchรฉ si vuol sonare il auto o la lira in un banchetto, e si rende ridicolo col

manifestare disgusto per i piaceri piรน innocenti, mentre il secondo รจ Filippo

di Prusa, che al contrario รจ convinto che il banchetto sia il momento migliore

per concedersi una pausa e una distrazione sotto il segno di Dioniso. Ma

l'anonimo esponente del Portico insiste proponendo un passatempo venuto da

Roma e non ancora molto diuso: si tratta di utilizzare i dialoghi drammatici

di Platone per recite adate agli schiavi davanti ai convitati di un banchetto.

Allora Filippo taglia corto e, con un discorso perfettamente in linea con le

idee di Plutarco altrove manifestate, ammette che anche lui รจ contrario a chi

pretende di ridurre Platone a servire da passatempo ai bevitori e di consumare

i suoi dialoghi tra leccornie e profumi. E del resto anche la lettura delle poesie

di Sao o di Anacreonte sarebbe fuori luogo.

E tuttavia Plutarco parla (Quaest. conv. 700C) di ฮ ฮปฮฑฯ„ฯ‰ฮฝฮนฮบฮฑแฝถ

ฯƒฯ…ฮฝฮฑฮฝฮฑฮณฮฝแฝฝฯƒฮตฮนฯ‚, di "letture in comune" dei testi di Platone. E in Cato Minor

67 si ricorda che Catone "andรฒ a tavola con un bel gruppo di persone ... tutti

i suoi compagni e le autoritร  di Utica" e che "dopo la cena, il simposio (ฯ€แฝนฯ„ฮฟฯ‚)

fu assai colto e gradevole, e si passarono in rassegna argomenti losoci, uno

dopo l'altro, nchรฉ la discussione cadde sui cosiddetti paradossi stoici, in

particolare su quello per cui solo l'uomo onesto รจ libero e invece i malvagi sono

tutti schiavi".

Qui va osservato che Plutarco, nel negare la opportunitร  di certe letture

durante un convito alla sua maniera, lascia intravvedere che appunto queste

letture ricorrevano durante i banchetti contemporanei.

12 Sulle antologie poetiche destinate ai simposi cf. F. F, 1988 e F. P

P , 2001.

Rincara la dose Diogeniano soggiungendo (Quaest. conv. 711E) che "certo

bisogna radiare dalla lista la piรน parte delle audizioni, e in primo luogo la

tragedia, i cui clamori non sono aatto adatti al convito, ma troppo severi,

rappresentando azioni che smuovono passione e pietร ". Dunque, contro la

tragedia Plutarco non riprende gli argomenti di Platone, ma tuttavia giudica il

suo tono incompatibile con l'atmosfera del convito13 . Ed in questo ci fa arguire

che almeno Euripide fosse oggetto non raro di lettura.

Quindi lo stesso Diogeniano passa ad arontare il tema della commedia14 ,

e distingue nettamente fra l'antica e la nuova (Quaest. conv. 711F). "Quanto alle

commedie, io dico che l'archaia, a causa della sua disomogeneitร , non รจ adatta

ai simposiasti: infatti nelle parti che si chiamano parabasi la gravitร  e la libertร 

di parola presentano troppa violenza e tensione; e la propensione agli scherzi

e alle buonerie รจ terribilmente nauseante quando si scatena infarcendosi di

espressioni volgari e parole scurrili". Per di piรน sarebbe necessario, per intendere

bene il testo, che ciascuno avesse accanto, oltre al coppiere, all' ฮฟแผฐฮฝฮฟฯ‡แฝนฮฟฯ‚, anche

un maestro di scuola, un ฮณฯฮฑฮผฮผฮฑฯ„ฮนฮบแฝนฯ‚, il quale gli spiegasse il signicato di

questo o quel nome legato ad una attualitร  sociopolitica vecchia di cinque

secoli, sicchรฉ il convito diventerebbe un ฮณฯฮฑฮผฮผฮฑฯ„ฮฟฮดฮนฮดฮฑฯƒฮบฮฑฮปฮตแฟ–ฮฟฮฝ, una scuola.

Secondo lo stilema ilomorco della ฯƒแฝปฮณฮบฯฮนฯƒฮนฯ‚ 15 , Plutarco fa seguire al

rigetto della commedia antica l'elogio della commedia nuova, della quale aerma

Diogeniano (Ib. 712B-C): "Essa รจ cosรฌ legata ai conviti, che sarebbe oggi piรน

agevole progettare un convito senza vino piuttosto che senza Menandro".

Infatti lo stile che accompagna l'azione รจ gradevole e semplice, e perciรฒ non

puรฒ essere spregiato dai sobri nรฉ mai annoierร  gli ebbri. Le riessioni oneste

e sincere, penetrando dentro, addolciscono anche i caratteri piรน duri come

in un fuoco e li piegano ad una maggiore moderazione; parallelamente la

mescolanza di serio e faceto per nulla sembrerebbe essere stata realizzata se

non per il piacere ed insieme per il protto di quelli che hanno bevuto e si

sono rasserenati.

Non ultima delle qualitร  della poesia menandrea – aggiunge ancora

Plutarco per bocca di Diogeniano – รจ la trattazione della tematica erotica

sempre in maniera conforme all'etica della famiglia: le seduzioni si concludono

ordinariamente col lieto ne del matrimonio, e mai si indulge alla licenza e

all'amore pederotico16 : parlando di eros, perciรฒ, la commedia nuova appaga la

morale dei convitati, che dopo il banchetto si andranno a coricare accanto alle

mogli, rilassati dal vino e dalla piacevolezza di Menandro.

L'elogio di Menandro non รจ perรฒ fondato su un giudizio relativo e

contingente, legato al momento particolare del simposio: Diogeniano esprime

qui anche un giudizio in termini assoluti di valore artistico, che riette le idee di

13 Su Plutarco e la tragedia cf. A. M. T, 1960, L. D G, 1976 e F.

J , 2002.

14 Su Plutarco e la commedia cf. R. M. A, 1997, G. Z, 2000 e O. I,

2004; su Menandro, in particolare, A. C, 2005 e M. D F, 2005.

15 Cf. G. D'I, 1996.

16 Cf. G. D'I, 2007.

117

Plutarco e la lettura nel simposio

Plutarco medesimo, come assicura la fondamentale concordanza col giudizio,

ancor piรน severo, pronunciato nella Aristophanis et Menandri comparatio

(853A-854D)17 . Giร  all'inizio in un tricolon di aggettivi sostantivati vengono

sinteticamente ssate le ragioni di una scelta. "ฮคแฝธ ฯ†ฮฟฯฯ„ฮนฮบฯŒฮฝ," ฯ†ฮทฯƒฮฏฮฝ, "แผฮฝ ฮปฯŒฮณฮฟฮนฯ‚

ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮธฯ…ฮผฮตฮปฮนฮบแฝธฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮฒฮฌฮฝฮฑฯ…ฯƒฮฟฮฝ แฝฅฯ‚ แผฯƒฯ„ฮนฮฝ แผˆฯฮนฯƒฯ„ฮฟฯ†ฮฌฮฝฮตฮน, ฮœฮตฮฝฮฌฮฝฮดฯแฟณ ฮด' ฮฟแฝฮดฮฑฮผแฟถฯ‚.

"Il linguaggio volgare, la teatralitร , il cattivo gusto come sono in Aristofane, in

Menandro non lo sono mai".

Dirร  piรน avanti (854A-B): "Menandro, al contrario, con la sua eleganza si

mostra assolutamente sodisfacente: nei teatri, nelle conversazioni, nei simposi,

presenta la sua poesia come oggetto piรน accettato di lettura (แผ€ฮฝแฝฑฮณฮฝฯ‰ฯƒฮผฮฑ), di

studio e di rappresentazione drammatica fra le cose belle che la Grecia ha

prodotto". E qui, insieme con l'esaltazione della poesia menandrea, fa capolino

"un certo orgoglio nazionale", proprio di un greco che, ormai politicamente

soggetto alla potenza romana, "rimane comunque consapevole della grandezza

del suo popolo nel campo dei valori spirituali"18 .

Testimonianza ulteriore di un'apprezzata presenza di Menandro nel

convito รจ in De vitioso pudore 531B, dove un attore strapazza (แผฯ€ฮนฯ„ฯแฝทฮฒฮตฮน) il

poeta davanti ai simposiasti, e per questo applaudirlo sarebbe un peccato di

ฮดฯ…ฯƒฯ‰ฯ€แฝทฮฑ, cioรจ di "esagerazione di pudore" (แฝ‘ฯ€ฮตฯฮฒฮฟฮปแฝต ฯ„ฮฟแฟฆ ฮฑแผฐฯƒฯ‡แฝปฮฝฮตฯƒฮธฮฑฮน).

Tirando le la del discorso, mentre spesso si puรฒ essere incerti sulla modalitร 

della presenza di un autore nei banchetti, se essa, cioรจ, si risolva in una lettura di

gruppo o nella declamazione attoriale di un testo memorizzato, tuttavia nessun

dubbio permane almeno nel caso di Platone, Menandro ed Omero: per il primo,

infatti come abbiamo visto, Plutarco parla di (ฯƒฯ…ฮฝ ) ฮฑฮฝฮฑฮณฮฝแฝฝฯƒฮตฮนฯ‚, mentre per gli

altri due usa il termine แผ€ฮฝแฝฑฮณฮฝฯ‰ฯƒฮผฮฑ 19 .

Cosรฌ, แฝฮผฮทฯฮฟฯ‚ แผฆฮฝ แผ€ฮฝแฝฑฮณฮฝฯ‰ฯƒฮผฮฑ, Omero era la lettura per eccellenza (De

Alexandri magni fortuna aut virtute 328D), e non solo per Alessandro. Ce lo

conferma Plutarco, De garrulitate 504D:

Di tutti i giudizi espressi nei riguardi del poeta Omero il piรน esatto รจ che solo

lui riesce veramente a vincere la noia dei suoi lettori, perchรฉ รจ sempre nuovo e

al colmo della leggiadra vigoria espressiva.

Inne, in Quaest. conv. 683B-C Plutarco introduce nel convito la

declamazione di Omero, riportando un verso e un emistichio

17 Cf. O. I, 2004, pp. 192-3.

18 M. D F, 2008, p. 116 n. 48.

19 Lingue moderne indicano con lo stesso termine – l'italiano con "lettura", il francese con

lecture, lo spagnolo con lectura, il portoghese con leitura, l'inglese con reading, il tedesco con

Lektรผre – i due concetti che in greco, ancora oggi, vengono indicati con due parole: แผ€ฮฝแฝฑฮณฮฝฯ‰ฯƒฮนฯ‚ "

e แผ€ฮฝแฝฑฮณฮฝฯ‰ฯƒฮผฮฑ sono i due termini che designano il primo la "lettura" come azione del leggere,

coerentemente col valore del susso -ฯƒฮนฯ‚", che indica nomen actionis, il secondo la "lettura"

come testo destinato alla lettura, d'accordo col susso -ฮผฮฑ, che indica nomen rei actae. Anche il

latino usa lectio per indicare sia l'azione di leggere sia il testo letto, ma mentre qui si distingue

fra lettura privata, lectio, e lettura pubblica, recitatio, il greco usa per entrambe le accezioni il

termine แผ€ฮฝแฝฑฮณฮฝฯ‰ฯƒฮนฯ‚.

"ฯƒฯ…ฮบฮญฮฑฮน ฯ„ฮต ฮณฮปฯ…ฮบฮตฯฮฑแฝถ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮผฮทฮปฮญฮฑฮน แผ€ฮณฮปฮฑฯŒฮบฮฑฯฯ€ฮฟฮน

ฮบฮฑแฝถ 'แผฮปฮฑแฟ–ฮฑฮน ฯ„ฮทฮปฮตฮธฯŒฯ‰ฯƒฮฑฮน"

derivati da due versi omerici, Od. 7. 115-116:

แฝ„ฮณฯ‡ฮฝฮฑฮน ฮบฮฑแฝถ แฟฅฮฟฮนฮฑแฝถ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮผฮทฮปฮญฮฑฮน แผ€ฮณฮปฮฑฯŒฮบฮฑฯฯ€ฮฟฮน

ฯƒฯ…ฮบฮญฮฑฮน ฯ„ฮต ฮณฮปฯ…ฮบฮตฯฮฑแฝถ ฮบฮฑแฝถ แผฮปฮฑแฟ–ฮฑฮน ฯ„ฮทฮปฮตฮธฯŒฯ‰ฯƒฮฑฮน.

peri e granati e meli con splendidi frutti,

e chi dolci e ulivi rigogliosi.

Va osservato che Plutarco non riferisce i versi omerici cosรฌ come

tramandati, bensรฌ opera uno spostamento di emistichi, mostrando in tal modo

che Omero, oltre ad essere lettura preferita nei conviti, veniva anche declamato

a memoria.

Concludendo, tra autori bocciati ed autori promossi la testimonianza

di Plutarco รจ importante non solo perchรฉ chiarisce qual era il tipo di letture

che riteneva preferibile nel suo convito ideale ma anche perchรฉ, attraverso

la polemica, apre uno spiraglio su quella che era la prassi conviviale alla sua

epoca.

ri f e r i m e n T i b i b l i o g r a f i c i

A, R. M.ยช, "Plutarco y la comedia ateniense", in C. S  .

(eds.), Plutarco y la historia. Actas del V Simposio Espaรฑol sobre Plutarco

(Zaragoza, 20-22 de Junio, 1996), Zaragoza, 1997, pp. 3-28.

B, A.,"Plutarque et la scรจne du banquet", in A. G. N (ed.),

e Unity of Plutarch's Work. Moralia emes in the Lives, Features of the

Lives in the Moralia, Berlin /New York, 2008, pp. 577-88.

C, A., Callimachus and His Critics, Princeton/New Jersey, 1995.

C, A., "Plutarco e Menandro", in A. C(ed.), Plutarco e l'etร 

ellenistica. Atti del Convegno Internazionale di Studi (Firenze, 23-24

Settembre, 2004), Firenze, 2005, pp. 105-18.

D C, L., La lettura nel mondo ellenistico, Roma-Bari, 2005.

D F, M., "Usi e riusi menandrei in Plutarco", in A. C(ed.),

Plutarco e l'etร  ellenistica. Atti del Convegno Internazionale di Studi

(Firenze, 23-24 Settembre, 2004), Firenze, 2005, pp. 119-40.

_____ Plutarco. Il confronto tra Aristofane e Menandro, compendio (introduzione,

testo critico, traduzione e commento a c. di M. D. F.), Napoli, 2008.

D G, L.,"Plutarco e la tragedia greca", Prometheus, 2 (1976) 151-74.

119

Plutarco e la lettura nel simposio

D'I, G.,"Stilemi ilomorci nel macrotesto plutarcheo", in J. A.

F D  F. P P (eds.), Estudios sobre

Plutarco: Aspectos formales. Actas del IV Simposio Espaรฑol sobre Plutarco

(Salamanca, 26 a 28 de Mayo, 1994), Madrid, 1996, pp. 17-29.

_____ "Plutarco e l'antropologia", in M. C. R(ed.), Le parole dei giorni.

Scritti per Nino Buttitta, Palermo, 2005, (II) pp. 890-9.

_____ "Omosessualitร  e pederastia in Plutarco", in J. M.a N I & R.

L L (eds.), El amor en Plutarco. Actas del IX Simposio espaรฑol

sobre Plutarco (28-30 Septiembre, 2006), Leรณn, 2007, pp. 467-76.

F, F., "P. Berol. Inv. 13270: i canti di Elefantina", SCO, 38 (1988) 181-

227.

I, O., "I comici a simposio: le Quaestiones Convivales e la Aristophanis

et Menandri Comparatio di Plutarco", in I. G (ed.), La biblioteca di

Plutarco. Atti del IX Convegno plutarcheo (Pavia, 13-15 Giugno, 2002),

Napoli, 2004, pp. 185-96.

J, F., "Quelques rรฉexions sur Plutarque et la tragรฉdie", SIFC, s. III, 20

(2002) 186-96.

M, O. (ed.), Sympotica. A Symposion on the Symposion, Oxford, 1990.

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

P P, F., "El Banquete de Plutarco: ¿Ficciรณn Literaria o

Realidad Histรณrica?", in J. G. M C  . (eds.), Plutarco,

Dioniso y el vino, Actas del VI Simposio Espaรฑol sobre Plutarco (Cรกdiz,

14-16 de Mayo, 1998), Madrid, 1999, pp. 379-92.

_____"Les Anthologies de P. Tebt. I 1 et 2", in I. A  . (eds.), Atti

del XXII Congresso Internazionale di Papirologia. (Firenze, 23-29 Agosto,

1998), Firenze 2001, pp. 1077-93.

S, A. M., Plutarco. Conversazioni a tavola. Libro primo (introduzione,

testo critico, traduzione e commento a c. di A. M. S.), Napoli, 1998.

S, W. J. (ed.), Dining in a Classical Context, Michigan, 1991.

T, A. M., "Plutarco e la tragedia greca", Dioniso, 34 (1960) 124-42.

T, S.-T., A Commentary on Plutarch's Table Talks, Gรถteborg I 1989,

II 1990, III 1996.

V , M., "Plutarco e il genere simposio", in I. G C. M

(eds.), I generi letterari in Plutarco. Atti dell'VIII Convegno plutarcheo

(Pisa, 2-4 Giugno, 1999), Napoli, 2000, pp. 217-29.

Z, G., "Plutarco e la commedia", in I. G  C. M (eds.),

I generi letterari in Plutarco. Atti dell'VIII Convegno plutarcheo (Pisa,

2-4 Giugno, 1999), Napoli, 2000, pp. 319-33.

S 2

e Symposion as a Space for Social and Political

Gatherings

123

Leading the party, Leading the City: the Symposiarch as politikos

le a d i n g T h e p a r T y , l e a d i n g T h e c i T y

T h e s y m p o s i a r c h a s p o l i T i k o S

P A. S

University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

Abstract

Plutarch's outline of the aims and duties of the symposiarch at Quaest. Conv. 1.4 (620A-

622B) and the conversations he reports oer many similarities to the political program of his

Precepts for Politicians, notably his focus on concord and the obstacles to it. is paper explores

the implications of these parallels for Plutarch's thinking on the polis and on leadership. e

symposium as a community of friends is a kind of idealized polis, but nevertheless the host and

symposiarch must be alert at all times to the potential for divisiveness and ill-feeling. Wine

may reveal both good and bad qualities in the members of the party, which will need to be

guided and harmonized by the leader. Even seating or the distribution of food at the dinner

preceding may be a cause of ill-will, and the most innocent-seeming topics iname the spirits

of the participants. In the Precepts, Plutarch outlines the goals of political activity, the means a

leader should use, and the obstacles he will encounter. e chief goal is civic concord; the chief

obstacle rivalry among the city's elite, prompted by ambition, competitiveness, and greed. e

potential for discord at the symposium mimics in a restricted situation the potential discord of

the polis. In both cases the leader must use great skill in facilitating an atmosphere of good will

and harmony.

e Symposiaca, Plutarch's longest non-biographical work, is also the most

puzzling. e diculty lies in discovering unity and purpose in the ninety-ve

reported conversations from many dierent dinner parties, distributed among

nine books1 . is paper will trace one important theme which runs through

the work and helps unify it: the nature of the civil society which this work

describes, the leadership which it requires, and the parallels with the needs of

political leadership in Plutarch's day.

e political context of this work is an empire still remembering the

revolts and civil wars of the rst century. At the local level, cities ruled by

an elite backed by Rome frequently suered from aristocratic rivalry, which

destabilized their economies and not infrequently led to factional ghting and

violent Roman intervention.

Within this world of political conict, Plutarch sought by his essays and

biographies to encourage self-knowledge and virtue in his contemporaries,

especially those who were responsible for the governance of cities, provinces,

and the empire itself. His two great biographical projects, the Lives of the Caesars

and the Parallel Lives, examine political leadership through narrative studies of

the emperors and of outstanding Greek and Roman statesmen. His Rules for

1 Nine of the conversations, with fragments of three others, (4.6b-10 and 9.6b-12a) have

been lost. I have found especially helpful F. F, 1996; S.-T. T, 1989-96 and

A. C, 2001. An earlier version of this paper was read at the 'Plato and Platonism'

conference, University of South Carolina, Columbia SC (March 20-22, 2008). I am grateful for

the comments of Melissa Lane to that version of this paper, and to the respondent Mark Beck

and others present then, as well as to the anonymous reader of this paper for generous advice.

Politicians sets out practical advice for conducting oneself as an eective leader

in a Greek city under Roman rule. ere Plutarch advises his young addressee

to seek concord for his city and avoid the ambition, competitiveness, and greed

- philotimia , philonikia , philokerdia - which have cost his city and its political

class so much grief.

e Symposiaca

e Symposiaca are dedicated to Sosius Senecio, the same extremely

distinguished member of Trajan's court to whom were dedicated the Parallel

Lives, and they share a central purpose with the Lives, to make moral discourse

concrete through narrative. e Symposiaca create a narrative model of

community and interpersonal relationships within the limited compass of the

symposium.

e central theme of the Symposiaca is to philopoion, 'friend-making'

(612D)2 . In the words of Plutarch's friend eon, the aim of a symposium is

"through pleasure to produce or heighten friendship among the participants"

(621C). But friend-making is not automatic.

In the very rst conversation of the Symposiaca, Sosius Senecio raises

the question: how is it possible at a drinking party to avoid wrangling and

self-display (tous erizontas kai sophistiรดntas)? Plutarch's Symposiaca respond to

this question, modeling good drinking parties, in implicit opposition to the

degenerate variety often documented in our sources3 . Senatorial and imperial

dinner parties often served to assert the power and wealth of those who gave

them. Plutarch rejects this attitude. Instead he focuses on the strategies which

may be used by the host, the symposiarch, and the guests to foster friendship.

I will treat these strategies under three heads: the guests at the party, the role

of the symposiarch or host, and the topics proposed for discussion. At the end

I will consider parallels with political life.

e guests at the party

Ideally, the guests should know the host and each other, so that they can be

comfortable together. When they do not, there is a risk of misunderstandings.

For this reason, a particular diculty arises when one guest invites other

guests, the so-called shadows (Symposiaca 7.6). On the plus side, this practice

2 Plutarch's work deliberately operates at a lower plane than Plato's Symposium. It diminishes

the erotic charge which energizes Plato's masterpiece, discussing eros in only a few of the

conversations (the major treatments are in Quaest. Conv. 1.5, 2.1, and 7.8, with other references

in 5.7, 7.7, and 9.14). On Plato's blending of banquet practice with philosophical argument, see

D. B, 1994.

3 I have treated this topic more fully in "Drinking, Table Talk, and Plutarch's Contemporaries",

in J. G. M C  . (eds.), 1999. For recent discussions of Greek dining, see P.

S-P 1992, and for symposia in particular see S 1991 and the bibliography

cited there; for Roman banquets, see the special number of AJPh 124, 3 (2003) on Roman

dining; K. V, 2004 and E. S-H, 2005.

125

Leading the party, Leading the City: the Symposiarch as politikos

allowed friends to introduce new members into the group, or to have a favorite

companion present, as we nowadays regularly will include a spouse, partner, or

companion in a dinner or party invitation. Plutarch recommends that when

possible a guest should invite those who are already friends of the host, or

share common interests with him, whether in philosophy, literature, or politics.

(In Plato's Symposium, Socrates himself had invited such a friend to Agathon's

party.) But such was often not the case. In Plutarch's day the desirable friendly

atmosphere could be compromised when a Roman governor, senator, or other

imperial or civic ocial had been invited to a dinner party. e political world,

with all its stresses, intruded into the social. Besides the tension caused by the

presence of one person more powerful and wealthier than the other guests,

the great man would expect to bring some of his friends or sta, and the host

had no choice in the matter. Such a party became a quite dierent occasion

from a simple meeting of friends (708B), and the risks of oense, ill-temper,

or hostility were correspondingly higher.

e symposiarch

In Plato's Symposium, the drunken Alcibiades burst into the party and

appointed himself symposiarch, that is, the man chosen by the group to

regulate the drinking of the party. He immediately ordered that all drink

heavily, as he had already (213E). For Plutarch such behavior is unsuitable and

contrary to the goal of the symposium. He is more inuenced by Plato's Laws ,

in which the symposium is a site of moral education, where the young may

learn to resist the temptation of pleasure under the watchful eye of a wise ruler

(archon ) who will see that the drinking is orderly and follows rules. us the

properly regulated symposium will encourage not just amusement (paidia), but

also temperance (to sรดphronein), under the supervision of a sober, older leader

(Laws 2.673e, cf. 1.639c-641c, 649d-650b, 2.671 c-d).

e qualities of Plutarch's ideal symposiarch, less severe than Plato's, and

not expressly moralistic, are set out in one of the early conversations (Quaest.

Conv. 1.4). He must be neither reluctant to drink nor given to drunkenness,

but rather sympotikotatos, "especially symposiastic". e unusual superlative,

Plutarch explicitly states, was suggested by Plato's discussion of the guardians

in the Republic, where he asserts that the commanders (archontes) of the

guardians should be phylakikรดtatoi, 'especially protective' of the city (R. 412C).

us Plutarch insists that we compare the role of his ideal symposiarch with

that of the guardians in Plato's ideal state. e symposiarch should have a

relation of philia with those in his care, as the Platonic guardian must love,

philei, the city and do what is best for it (R. 412 D-E). Plutarch goes on to

make the parallel of symposiarch and ruler yet more precise with an anecdote

of Pericles, found also in Rules for Politicians (813 E, cf. Apophth. Reg. 186 C).

Pericles used to say to himself, as he assumed his duties as general, "Remember,

Pericles, that you rule free men, you rule Greeks, you rule Athenians". e

symposiarch, Plutarch explains, should remember that "he rules friends", and

thus should do what is best for them, and neither allow them to become rowdy

nor deprive them of their pleasure. As the symposiarch himself should seek a

mean in his drinking, so also in his governance of others he should observe a

mean between dull sobriety and drunken carousing.

Unlike Plato's Alcibiades, the symposiarch should be sensitive to the

physical and psychological state of the guests, exactly to avoid drunkenness

(Quaest. Conv . 1.4, 620E-621A). e symposiarch must, in Plutarch's words,

know what change drinking produces in each person, into what emotional state

he is liable to fall, and how he carries strong drink. . . . Like a musician adjusting

a lyre, he should give one a little more (wine) and another a little less, to bring

their dispositions (physeis) into evenness and concord (symphonia) from their

original diversity4.

If the symposiarch does not know the guests as intimately as this ne

tuning requires, he should at least use general criteria: old men and gloomy

ones get drunk more quickly than the young and the cheerful, for example.

is knowledge permits the symposiarch to regulate the harmony and good

behavior of the party. He will foster the blend of seriousness and play, spoudรช and

geloion, necessary for a good party. is blend will reect that of a good wine,

which warms the austere and charms the more lively. e party guests are the

citizens of his little city, and he should govern them like Plato's guardians, not

for his prot, but thinking of the best for them, always aiming at a harmonious

concord. is is the ideal.

Topics that avoid hostility and violence

However, as someone observes early in the Symposiaca, parties are often

shipwrecked by mockery and insults, and engender hostility and anger, unless

they are guided rightly (621C-622B). I will touch on some general points

regarding this guidance that emerge from the conversations Plutarch records.

ose who have lived through rancorous political campaigns will

appreciate the total avoidance of contemporary politics in the Symposiaca .

Such conversations did occur at parties, of course: one concerning items

coming before the Athenian assembly is eetingly mentioned at the beginning

of a chapter before a new subject is introduced5 . Plutarch considers a proper

selection of topics for discussion essential, but politics is not one of them. Topics

must t the occasion, the kairos, as he illustrates in the very rst discussion (1.1,

4 is requirement recalls Plato's insistence that the orator know dierent types of souls

and the arguments proper to each (Phaedrus 271a-272b). Compare also Plato's discussion in the

Laws of the proper ages for wine, noting that Dionysus had given wine as "a helpful medicine

for the austerity of old age" (2.666b).

5 Quaest. Conv. 7.9, 714A. Just before, at the end of 7.8 (713F), Plutarch had noted that

musical performances could divert a conversation moving toward political controversy. eon's

strictures against turning the party into a democratic assembly or sophist's school (621B)

indicate Plutarch's aversion to such subjects. Cf. S.-T. T, 1995, pp. 433-7.

127

Leading the party, Leading the City: the Symposiarch as politikos

613A-C) and often throughout the work. Stories from history or everyday

life are especially suitable (614A), for they allow a more relaxed presentation,

and provide examples of admirable behavior, without requiring a rigorous

philosophical demonstration. If philosophical topics are raised, Plutarch

remarks, gentle persuasion works more eectively then ironbound proof (614

CD). Bringing up a topic suitable to a given guest requires skill, thought, and

respect for the person addressed. In the rst conversation of the second book,

Plutarch gives examples of well-chosen questions which permitted a guest

both to entertain the company and win admiration by discussing subjects he

knows and loves. For instance, travelers are glad to be questioned about the

distant places they have visited, or statesmen about missions they have served

on or posts they have held (630A-631C).

Guests regularly entertained themselves by setting requirements or

challenges to one another, or teasing them for habits or predilections. Plutarch

warns (621D-622B, cf. 631C-F) that too often these carry a degree of

maliciousness or mockery which is not playful but hybristic. Ideally a challenge

should give someone a chance to show his talent, not ridicule his incapacity.

e object of the symposium is kindness and friendship (philophrosyne), not

self-assertion or scorn.

e entire ninth book of the Symposiaca, some fteen chapters, is devoted to

a single party given by Plutarch's teacher Ammonius in Athens for the teachers

at a school for young men, to which Plutarch and other friends were invited

as well. Very soon the underlying tensions between the teachers of dierent

disciplines, and between those whose pupils had done well or poorly, made

itself apparent, and it is all that Ammonius and his friends can do to dispel

the contentious atmosphere. In this case Plutarch focuses on Ammonius' adroit

redirection of the conversation through addressing questions to dierent people

and suggesting topics for discussion. Once, when a discussion broke down into

a competitive wrangle of claims and counterclaims, Ammonius invited a guest

to sing some poetry. As with Alcinous' similar request in the Odyssey, the singing

introduced a pause and permitted the talk to resume on a dierent subject

(736E, cf. Od . 8.250-55). Later, Ammonius required that professors of the same

discipline may not question each other, but only someone in a dierent area,

thus avoiding boring or contentious 'shop-talk' (737DE). He reinforced this by

urging Plutarch to respond to a question on grammar (738A). Other guests also

tried to help, not allowing a professor who had fared badly in the competitions

to sit grumpily, for instance, but teasing a good-humored response from him

(739E, 741A). e symposium is brought into harmony not only by controlling

the ow of wine, but by channeling the conversation into suitable topics. e

'tuning' of the society depends on 'tuning' of the discourse.

Fittingly, the ninth book, and the Symposiaca, ends with two speeches on

the role of the Muses. In the rst (746B-747A), Plutarch asserts that both

the desire for pleasure and the desire for the good, cited by Plato as the two

principles of action (cf. Phaedrus 237D), require the divine guidance of the

Muses. ese goddesses can direct human desires to their proper fulllment

in a noble pleasure, free from anything disorderly, debauched or violent. is

speech expresses the ideal of the symposium, and of civil society. In the second

speech (747B-748D), Ammonius explains how the art of dance is able to

delight the divine in men. e dancer's body creates a kind of silent poetry,

a discourse leading men to noble pleasure6 . In these nal conversations, as

throughout the Symposiaca, the presence of the Muses, representatives of

harmony, limit, and rened pleasure, protect conviviality and drinking from

degenerating into insults, violence, and debauchery.

Politics

Plutarch's desire for peace and harmony at a symposium is parallel to his

view of the ideal society founded on concord. e guests at a symposium may

be compared to the citizens of a city or state: both are the raw material from

which a civilized society is constructed7 . Each group shares, at least ideally, a

common aim, the happiness of the whole, and accepts that they all individually

have a role in reaching that goal. Moreover, they recognize a ruler or leader,

either imposed on them or chosen by them, who has the responsibility of

fostering the unity of the assemblage and enabling its movement toward the

common goal. Ideally, they will all be friends or friendly to each other, but

in fact there will usually be dierences of rank, wealth, temperament, and

personal objectives which tend to divide them.

e quality of self-control so basic to Plutarch's symposiarch was necessary

to a leader as well. In addition, the political leader, like the symposiarch, must

understand men's natures and recognize their dierences, either individually

or according to general classes. In his Rules for Politicians, Plutarch explains

how the politician must know his fellow citizens and adjust his behavior to

their qualities. e politician who wishes to alter the รชthos of the citizen body

must move slowly, rst accommodating himself to the people's pre-existing

character, then gradually modifying it (799B), as the symposiarch does when

adjusting the doses of wine. e politician should not assimilate himself to the

popular character, as atterers do, but "understand it and employ for each kind

that by which it can be won over" (800A). Once he has become inuential and

trusted, then the politician can try to lead the character of the citizens toward

a better state, one of harmony and concord, and bring them into tune as a

musician does his lyre (cf. e.g. 809E). e statesman needs the same knowledge

of character, individually and in classes, as the symposiarch.

In a city as in a symposium, small matters may lead to major disruptions

in a city. In his Rules for Politicians, Plutarch observes that:

6 e speech reects back to earlier in the book, when some of the students had performed a

dance for the guests. e dance is given a higher role than just entertainment by Ammonius.

7 e parallel is armed early in the Symposiaca through the anecdote of Aemilius Paullus,

who asserted that the same man could organize both fearsome armies and delightful dinner

parties, since both required good order (eutaxia , Quaest. conv. 1.2, 615 E-F, cf. Aem. 28.9,

Apophth. reg . 198B, already in Polyb. 30.14, Livy 45.32.11).

129

Leading the party, Leading the City: the Symposiarch as politikos

Violent civil conict is not always kindled by disputes on public matters, but

frequently private dierences prompted by personal oences aect public life

and throw the whole state into disorder (Praec. rei publ. ger. 825A).

e same sort of small oences which can disrupt a drinking party can

disrupt a state as well. A poorly guided party will lead to anger and enmity, as

a poorly ruled city degenerates into civil war and tyranny.

Like the leader of a symposium, a political leader must consider carefully

what topics are suitable for which people, and the proper moment to introduce

them. In speeches as at parties, stories are usually better than logical argument

to persuade an audience. As serious philosophical discussion may be out of

place at a convivial party, moral rigidity in a politician may not t the times,

and as with Cato of Utica, be like fruit ripening out of season, attractive but

useless (Phoc. 3.2). Overall, a sense of limit and harmony is necessary to achieve

the consensus needed in a civil society.

e tension between theoretical ideal and political practice means that

neither a party nor a polis is ever in a stable state: each needs constant care by

both its leaders and the individuals which comprise it to maintain the concord

and harmony essential to its function, under the protection of the Muses8 .

e Symposiaca describe gatherings that at rst reading seem

commonplace and tame, far removed from the brilliance of Plato's imagined

drinking party. Nevertheless, these unremarkable dinner parties speak to the

ethical underpinnings of society. Contemporary political life, in Plutarch's

view, required the self-examination and principles of action of his own brand

of moral and political philosophy, with its emphasis on self-improvement,

conscious control of the passions, and goodwill and concord among friends

and in states. e Symposiaca, in the concern of a good-natured and sensitive

leader to respect the individuality and dignity of each participant and in the

goodwill and harmony of their conversations, express an ideal of humanity

and friendship which we can still admire and recognize as the basis of human

society9 .

W o r k s c i T e d

B, D., "Peinture et dรฉpassement de la rรฉalitรฉ dans le Banquet de Platon",

Parerga, CMO 24, Litt. 6, 1994, 171-95 (reprinted from REA 82, 1980,

5-29).

C, A., Plutarco , Conversazioni a tavola, libro II, Naples, 2001.

8 e necessity of constant care by a leader to maintain a city or state is a frequent theme in

Plato, e.g. in the shepherd analogy of Republic 1 and the ancient tale in the Statesman. Cf. the

analysis by M. S. L, 1998.

9 In a vignette, Plutarch presents King Cleomenes III of Sparta as just such an ideal ruler in

his simplicity and graciousness at table, where he won friends by conversation, not gifts (Cleom .

13.4-9).

130

Philip A. Stadter

F, F., Plutarque , Propos de Table, Livres VII-IX, Paris, 1996.

L, M. S., Method and Politics in Plato's Statesman, Cambridge 1998.

S P, P., La citรฉ au banquet. Histoire des repas publics dans les citรฉs

grecques, Rome 1992.

S, W. J., Drinking in a Classical Context, Ann Arbor 1991.

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

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

del VI Simposio espaรฑol sobre Plutarco (Cadiz, 14-16 de Mayo, 1998),

Madrid, 1999, pp. 481-90.

S-H, E., Das rรถmische Gastmahl. Eine Kulturgeschichte, Munich,

2005.

T, S.-T., A Commentary of Plutarch's Table Talks, 3 vols., Gรถteborg,

1989-96.

_____ "La politica nelle Questioni conviviali", in I. G & B. S

(eds.), Teoria e Prassi Politica nelle opere di Plutarco. Atti del V. Convegno

Plutarcheo (Certosa di Pontignano, 7-9 de Giugno, 1993), Naples,

1995, pp. 433-7.

V, K., Mensa Regia. Das Bankett beim hellenistischen Kรถnig und beim

rรถmischen Kaiser, Munich/Leipzig, 2004.

131

A 'barbarian' symposium and the absence of philanthropia ( Artaxerxes 15)

a "b a r b a r i a n " S y m p o S i u m a n d T h e a b s e n c e o f p H i l a n T H r o p i a

(ar T a x e r x e S 15)*

E A

e Hebrew University of Jerusalem

Abstract

is paper studies a unique symposium scene in the Artaxerxes and aims to understand its

narratological signicance in the biography. It is a "barbarian" banquet, which in many respects

is the complete opposite of its Greek counterpart. Yet familiar features of the symposium are

nevertheless discernible in it. During the feast, Mithridates, an inebriated Persian, is tricked

into telling a certain truth, which contradicts the ocial royal version. As a result he is brutally

punished by Artaxerxes, in a deed that essentially removes the trait of philanthropia from the

monarch. e paper presents how, on the one hand, the wine imbibed at the party can be

regarded as revealing the true character of the king, and how, on the other, the symposium is

crucial in altering the ethos of Artaxerxes. Like Mithridates at the banquet, the reader is also

baed by the interplay of ethnic stereotypes, and by the thin line between the real and the

apparent, artistically presented by Plutarch.

e Greek Symposium, according to Plutarch, should produce Philanthropia

and friendly feeling among its participants1 . By contrast, in a non-Greek

setting found in the biography of Artaxerxes (15.1-7), a "barbarian" symposium ,

as it were, is portrayed by Plutarch as leading to the eective removal of the

trait of Philanthropia from the Persian king. It is the aim of this paper to show

the manner in which this reverse outcome is created, and to demonstrate the

narratological signicance of the Greek symposium in this Life 2 .

e context is a feast taking place in the aftermath of the battle of Cunaxa

(401 BC), which saw the victory of Artaxerxes over his rebellious brother,

Cyrus the Younger3 . e guests in this dinner are barbarian, including a young

Persian named Mithridates, who was responsible, according to one version,

for striking Cyrus in the temple with his spear4 . He was not the only one who

* I am grateful to Profs. C. Pelling and D. Gera for commenting on earlier drafts of this

paper.

1 Quaest. conv. 1.4.3.621c, 4.Proem. 660ab; Cons. ad ux. 610a; Sept. sap. conv. 156cd, 158c.

Cf. S.-T. T, 1989, p. 102; 1999, pp. 66-9; A. G. N, 1999, p. 342 n.17.

2 e banquet is not presented as typically Persian. In the Quaest. conv. Plutarch sometimes

discusses special features of the Persian dinner, which do not specically appear here. E.g.,

1.1.613a (Persians drink and dance with their concubines rather than with their wives); 1.4.620c

(the ability of Cyrus the Younger to hold his wine; cf. Reg. et imp. apophth. 173e); 2.1.629e-630a

(many questions posed at the Persian banquets of Cyrus the Great; cf. X., Cyr . 5.2.18 ); 7.9.714a,

d (deliberation on issues of state over wine, a custom no less Greek than Persian; cf. Hdt. 1.133;

Str. 15.3.20). A rather dierent approach to the text of Plutarch and to this scene in particular is

presented by Binder, C., Plutarchs Vita des Artaxerxes: Ein historischer Kommentar, Berlin, 2008,

244 ("reine Fiktion")

3 On this battle see J. K, 1924; J. K. A, 1974, pp. 106 sqq.; P. A. R,

1980; J. M. B, 1983; G. W, 1992; R. B. S, 1997, pp. 84-93; P. B,

2002, pp. 627-30.

4 Art . 11.5: ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ€ฮฑฯฮฑฯ„ฯฮญฯ‡ฯ‰ฮฝ ฮฝฮตฮฑฮฝฮฏฮฑฯ‚ ฮ ฮญฯฯƒฮทฯ‚ แฝ„ฮฝฮฟฮผฮฑ ฮœฮนฮธฯฮนฮดฮฌฯ„ฮทฯ‚ แผ€ฮบฮฟฮฝฯ„ฮฏแฟณ ฮฒฮฌฮปฮปฮตฮน ฯ„แฝธฮฝ

injured the prince in the course of the combat. Another person, a Carian slave

from the city of Caunos, is reported to have stabbed Cyrus from behind, in

the back of the leg, and the wounds inicted by the two men brought about

the death of the prince5 . During the dinner, Mithridates relates his part in the

event and instantly causes his own downfall, since the facts revealed by him

contradict the ocial royal version. Even though Artaxerxes himself was not

involved in the killing of Cyrus, as the king was quickly removed from the

battle after incurring an injury (Art. 11.2-3) and was not even present at the

ensuing clash (Art. 11.4-10, 12.2, 13.1), he nevertheless appropriated the glory

for it. Before the feast, the king gave Mithridates gifts; but these were allegedly

for another deed – namely, presenting the monarch with the blood-stained

saddle-cloth of Cyrus, which had fallen from the prince's horse6 .

Mithridates received the gifts silently and walked away (Art. 14.7). Still,

at the banquet, he is induced to disclose his feelings by Sparamizes, the chief

eunuch of the queen mother, Parysatis, who wishes to avenge the death of her

son Cyrus7 . e ill-advised conduct of Mithridates at the dinner party leads

to his brutal execution by Artaxerxes, which is detailed in the next chapter of

the biography8 . is scene is an adaptation of a story recounted in the Persica

of Ctesias, the Greek physician at the court of the Great King (FGrH 688 F

16.67)9 .

ฮบฯฯŒฯ„ฮฑฯ†ฮฟฮฝ ฮฑแฝฯ„ฮฟแฟฆ ฯ€ฮฑฯแฝฐ ฯ„แฝธฮฝ แฝ€ฯ†ฮธฮฑฮปฮผฯŒฮฝ, แผ€ฮณฮฝฮฟแฟถฮฝ แฝ…ฯƒฯ„ฮนฯ‚ ฮตแผดฮท. Cf. the description of Xenophon (An .

1.8.27), who does not name Mithridates but merely claims แผ€ฮบฮฟฮฝฯ„แฝทฮถฮตฮน ฯ„ฮนฯ‚ and locates Cyrus'

wound below the eye (แฝ‘ฯ€แฝธ ฯ„แฝธฮฝ แฝ€ฯ†ฮธฮฑฮปฮผแฝนฮฝ). It is most probable that Xenophon relied on Ctesias'

account. Cf. S. R. B, 1999, who seems to infer too much from the minor dierences

between the two authors.

5 Art . 11.9-10: แผฮฝ ฮดแฝฒ ฯ„ฮฟฯฯ„แฟณ ฮšฮฑฯฮฝฮนฮฟฮฏ ฯ„ฮนฮฝฮตฯ‚ แผ„ฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€ฮฟฮน...ฯ„แฟ‡ ฯ„ฮฟแฟฆ ฮฒฮฑฯƒฮนฮปฮญฯ‰ฯ‚ ฯƒฯ„ฯฮฑฯ„ฮนแพท

ฯ€ฮฑฯฮฑฮบฮฟฮปฮฟฯ…ฮธฮฟแฟฆฮฝฯ„ฮตฯ‚, แผ”ฯ„ฯ…ฯ‡ฮฟฮฝ ฯƒฯ…ฮฝฮฑฮฝฮฑฮผฮตฮนฯ‡ฮธฮญฮฝฯ„ฮตฯ‚ แฝกฯ‚ ฯ†ฮฏฮปฮฟฮนฯ‚ ฯ„ฮฟแฟ–ฯ‚ ฯ€ฮตฯแฝถ ฯ„แฝธฮฝ ฮšแฟฆฯฮฟฮฝ...ฮตแผทฯ‚ ฮฟแฝ–ฮฝ

แผฮบฮตฮฏฮฝฯ‰ฮฝ แผฯ„ฯŒฮปฮผฮทฯƒฮตฮฝ แผ€ฮณฮฝฮฟแฟถฮฝ แผฮพฯŒฯ€ฮนฯƒฮธฮตฮฝ ฮฒฮฑฮปฮตแฟ–ฮฝ ฯ„แฝธฮฝ ฮšแฟฆฯฮฟฮฝ แผ€ฮบฮฟฮฝฯ„ฮฏแฟณ. ฯ„แฟ†ฯ‚ ฮดแฝฒ ฯ€ฮตฯแฝถ ฯ„แฝดฮฝ แผฐฮณฮฝฯฮฑฮฝ

ฯ†ฮปฮตฮฒแฝธฯ‚ แผ€ฮฝฮฑฯฯฮฑฮณฮตฮฏฯƒฮทฯ‚, ฯ€ฮตฯƒแฝผฮฝ แฝ ฮšแฟฆฯฮฟฯ‚ แผ…ฮผฮฑ ฯ€ฮฑฮฏฮตฮน ฯ€ฯฯŒฯ‚ ฯ„ฮนฮฝฮน ฮปฮฏฮธแฟณ ฯ„แฝธฮฝ ฯ„ฮตฯ„ฯฯ‰ฮผฮญฮฝฮฟฮฝ ฮบฯฯŒฯ„ฮฑฯ†ฮฟฮฝ,

ฮบฮฑแฝถ แผ€ฯ€ฮฟฮธฮฝแฟ„ฯƒฮบฮตฮน. It should be noted that both Mithridates and the Carian struck Cyrus without

knowing his identity.

6 Art. 14.5: ฮฟแผฐฯŒฮผฮตฮฝฮฟฯ‚ [scil. ฮฒฮฑฯƒฮนฮปฮตแฝบฯ‚] ฮดแฝฒ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮฒฮฟฯ…ฮปฯŒฮผฮตฮฝฮฟฯ‚ ฮดฮฟฮบฮตแฟ–ฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮปฮญฮณฮตฮนฮฝ ฯ€ฮฌฮฝฯ„ฮฑฯ‚

แผ€ฮฝฮธฯฯŽฯ€ฮฟฯ…ฯ‚, แฝกฯ‚ ฮฑแฝฯ„แฝธฯ‚ แผ€ฯ€ฮตฮบฯ„ฯŒฮฝฮฟฮน ฮšแฟฆฯฮฟฮฝ, ฮœฮนฮธฯฮนฮดฮฌฯ„แฟƒ ฯ„ฮต ฯ„แฟท ฮฒฮฑฮปฯŒฮฝฯ„ฮน ฯ€ฯฯŽฯ„แฟณ ฮšแฟฆฯฮฟฮฝ แผฮพฮญฯ€ฮตฮผฯˆฮต

ฮดแฟถฯฮฑ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮปฮญฮณฮตฮนฮฝ แผฮบฮญฮปฮตฯ…ฯƒฮต ฯ„ฮฟแฝบฯ‚ ฮดฮนฮดฯŒฮฝฯ„ฮฑฯ‚ แฝกฯ‚ "ฯ„ฮฟฯฯ„ฮฟฮนฯ‚ ฯƒฮต ฯ„ฮนฮผแพท [แฝ] ฮฒฮฑฯƒฮนฮปฮตฯฯ‚, แฝ…ฯ„ฮน ฯ„แฝธฮฝ แผฯ†ฮฏฯ€ฯ€ฮตฮนฮฟฮฝ

ฮšฯฯฮฟฯ… ฯ€แฟ–ฮปฮฟฮฝ ฮตแฝ‘ฯแฝผฮฝ แผ€ฮฝฮฎฮฝฮตฮณฮบฮฑฯ‚". Cf. 11.6: ฯ„แฝธฮฝ ฮด' แผฯ†ฮฏฯ€ฯ€ฮตฮนฮฟฮฝ ฯ€แฟ–ฮปฮฟฮฝ แผ€ฯ€ฮฟฯฯฯ…ฮญฮฝฯ„ฮฑ ฮปฮฑฮผฮฒฮฌฮฝฮตฮน ฯ„ฮฟแฟฆ

ฯ„แฝธฮฝ ฮšแฟฆฯฮฟฮฝ ฮฒฮฑฮปฯŒฮฝฯ„ฮฟฯ‚ แผ€ฮบฯŒฮปฮฟฯ…ฮธฮฟฯ‚ ฮฑแผตฮผฮฑฯ„ฮฟฯ‚ ฯ€ฮตฯฮฏฯ€ฮปฮตฯ‰.

7 It is possible that the whole banquet was organized by Parysatis in order to trap Mithridates,

the queen mother wanting to avenge Cyrus' death by causing the noble Persian to bring harm

on himself. e resigned demeanour of Mithridates upon receiving the gifts from the king had

not suited her intentions, and she may have plotted to engineer his ruin. Cf. her manipulations

in getting rid of other persons in Art. 17.1-8, 23.1.

8 Mithridates was punished by the torture of the boats (แผ€ฯ€ฮฟฮธฮฑฮฝฮตแฟ–ฮฝ ฯƒฮบฮฑฯ†ฮตฯ…ฮธแฝณฮฝฯ„ฮฑ: 16.2), a

method of execution that inicts a horrendous death. e condemned man is placed between

two boats (ฯƒฮบแฝฑฯ†ฮฑฮน), one on top of the other, and is force-fed until he incurs severe diarrhea.

While his intestinal waste accumulates in the boats, worms and other creatures breed in it and

devour his esh.

9 On the Persica see F. J, 1922, pp. 1640-66; R. D, 1973, pp. 103-16. On its

shortcomings see J. M. B, 1976, 1978, 1983 (errors, questionable numbers, faulty

geography, bias, simplication, confusion, duplication, anachronisms, etc.). See also R. B.

133

A 'barbarian' symposium and the absence of philanthropia ( Artaxerxes 15)

e feast portrayed here is very dierent from a Greek symposium, and

one could say that it is its complete opposite10 . To begin with, this is not an all-

male gathering11 , as some of the participants are eunuchs, a problematic group

in Greek imagination12 , and the chief gure is a eunuch belonging to a woman,

the queen mother. Nor is this an event of aristocratic and free members, since

the eunuchs are slaves. Moreover, the dinner betrays no social equality among

the guests, and this fact is reected in the garments Mithridates chooses to wear

to the banquet. ese clothes, which were gifted to him before the banquet

with the intention of exalting him above the others, are indeed admired by the

rest of the company13 .

e setting too is unlike that of a Greek banquet. Strictly speaking, there

is no clear distinction between eating and drinking, as was customary in the

Classical symposium 14 . In addition, drinking seems to take place before the

prayer that generally accompanied the libation in the Hellenic ritual, marking

the beginning of the banquet15 . No entertainment is mentioned, neither music

nor dance. e participants do not sing or recite16 . ough there is no direct

reference to drinking wine neat, in the barbarian manner, a word play on the

unrestrained (akrates), intoxicated Mithridates alludes to the unmixed (akratos)

wine17 .

S, 1997, pp. 3-9; D. L, 2004, pp. vii-xxiv. ough lost, a short summary of the

work was made in the 9th century AD by the patriarch Photius and is included in his Bibliotheca

(Codex 72). e parallel passage to Plutarch's description is extremely short: แฝกฯ‚ แผˆฯฯ„ฮฟฮพแฝณฯฮพฮทฯ‚

ฯ€ฮฑฯแฝณฮดฯ‰ฮบฮตฮฝ ฮฑแผฐฯ„ฮทฯƒฮฑฮผแฝณฮฝฮทฮน ฮœฮนฯ„ฯฮฑฮดแฝฑฯ„ฮทฮฝ ฮ ฮฑฯฯ…ฯƒแฝฑฯ„ฮนฮดฮน, แผฯ€ฮน ฯ„ฯฮฑฯ€แฝณฮถฮทฯ‚ ฮผฮตฮณฮฑฮปฮฑฯ…ฯ‡แฝตฯƒฮฑฮฝฯ„ฮฑ แผ€ฯ€ฮฟฮบฯ„ฮตแฟ–ฮฝฮฑฮน

ฮšแฟฆฯฮฟฮฝ, ฮบแผ€ฮบฮตแฝทฮฝฮท ฮปฮฑฮฒฮฟแฟฆฯƒฮฑ ฯ€ฮนฮบฯแฟถฯ‚ แผ€ฮฝฮตแฟ–ฮปฮต. On the value and reliability of Photius' summary

of Ctesias see G. G, 1950, p. 519, J. M. B, 1976, pp. 2-5. e discrepancies

between the versions of Plutarch and Photius may point to an adaptation of the original account

of Ctesias by the biographer, or, alternatively, reveal that the patriarch's epitome is not accurate.

ere is no need to suppose that Plutarch used a dierent source here.

10 On the actual form of the oriental symposia see W. B, 1991.

11 On the symposium as a drinking party intended for males only see O. M , 1982;

1983, p. 199; 1990, p. 6; M. J. V, 1984, p. 5. e female ute players, dancing-girls (Ar.,

Ach. 1093, X., Smp. 2.1) and hetairas attended the symposium solely to entertain the men.

12 Cf. Athen. 10.452c (แผ€ฮฝแฝตฯ ฯ„ฮต ฮบฮฟแฝฮบ แผ€ฮฝแฝตฯ). Cf. Pl., R. 5.479b-c.

13 By contrast, sympotic participants all wore wreaths (cf. gn. 1001; Ar., Ach.1091, 1145;

Ec. 844; Menander, Pseuderacles, Fr. 451.15 Kassel-Austin; Athen. 15.669c), which not only was

a ritual act signifying initiation into a new reality (see W. R, 1995, p. 108) but probably

also highlighted the aspect of equality and commensality. Cf. D. T, 1943, pp. 28-9.

14 e host openly exhorts the guests "ฯ€ฮฏฮฝฯ‰ฮผฮตฮฝ แผฮฝ ฯ„แฟท ฯ€ฮฑฯฯŒฮฝฯ„ฮน ฮบฮฑแฝถ แผฯƒฮธฮฏฯ‰ฮผฮตฮฝ". On the

distinction between deipnon and symposium see A. H, 1931, pp. 1266-7; O. M, 1990,

p. 6; 1995, p. 225. Cf. G. P , 1991, p. 158 on its gradual erosion in Hellenistic and Roman

times.

15 Cf. Pl., Smp. 176a; X., An. 6.1.5; Cyr. 4.1.6; Smp. 2.1; Athen. 4.149c, e; Ar., Eq. 105. Cf. F.

L, 1990, p. 25-6. e sequence here may t a Sassanian custom, in which a prayer

for the gods and the king apparently comes after the banquet. is practice is known from a

document published by J. C. T, 1935, pp. 11, 19, 89.

16 Nevertheless, the practice of asking riddles (ฮฑแผฐฮฝแฝทฮณฮผฮฑฯ„ฮฑ or ฮณฯแฟ–ฯ†ฮฟฮน) is hinted at. For this

custom see Athen. 10.448b; Plut. Sept. sap. conv. 152f; Quaest. conv. 5.proem. 673ab; Ar. V. 20,

1308-13; Pl. Smp. 215a. Cf. gn., 681-2.

17 An observation made by T. D, 1999, p. 92 n. 76 with regard to the double meaning

e banquet proceeds contrary to the code of behaviour appropriate to a

symposium. ere are instances of paroinia, that is, irresponsible and oensive

drunkenness, insolent talk, or hybris 18 . No feelings of ease and joy are felt,

no friendship, or euphrosyne 19 . ere is no calm and civilized conversation,

nor, for that matter, any evidence of talk owing freely. Quite the reverse is

evident; the other participants are silent upon perceiving Mithridates' calamity

(Art . 15.7). eir silence is a sort of behaviour depicted by classical authors

as inappropriate20 . e only discourse presented in the scene – namely that

between Mithridates and Sparamizes – concerns war or conict, topics that

early poets21 banned as themes unsuitable to a symposium. e dialogue is

lethal. Note the mention of a knife in the rst act (15.2). e very presence

of weapons, in the form of the Persian akinakes, symbolizes strife in what is

supposed to be a peaceful context22 . All in all, the atmosphere is one of mistrust,

lack of transparency and treachery. Mithridates is seduced into exposing his

thoughts and harming himself, and he is isolated, as the rest of the guests let

him bring about his own destruction. ough this picture supposedly describes

a real party, it seems to present a thought experiment, so to speak, a suggestion

of what could happen if the institution of the symposium were to fall into the

hands of non-Greeks23 .

It is in these barbarian circumstances that the notion of the Greek

symposium is introduced, enfolded in the words of Sparamizes the eunuch on

the question of truth, "แผฯ€ฮตแฝถ ฮดฮญ ฯ†ฮฑฯƒฮนฮฝ แผฮปฮปฮทฮฝฮตฯ‚ ฮฟแผถฮฝฮฟฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ แผ€ฮปฮฎฮธฮตฮนฮฑฮฝ ฮตแผถฮฝฮฑฮน" (15.4).

of แผ€ฮบฯฮฑฯƒแฝทฮฑ.

18 On paroinia see X., Smp. 6.2 with B. H, 1999, pp. 333-4 ad loc. and S.-T. T,

1999, p. 63-64. Cf. Hsch. s.v. ฯ€ฮฑฯฮฟฮนฮฝแฝทฮฑฮน (ฯ€ 968 Schmidt): ฮบฯฮฑฮนฯ€แฝฑฮปฮฑฮน. แฝ•ฮฒฯฮตฮนฯ‚ แผ€ฯ€แฝธ ฮฟแผดฮฝฮฟฯ… Cf.

Plu., Quaest. conv. 2.10.2.644a. On avoiding hybris at dinner parties by doing "what is right"

(ฯ„แฝฐ ฮดแฝทฮบฮฑฮนฮฑ ) see Xenophanes, B1 West 15-17. Cf. Plu., Quaest. conv. 2.1.629e and W. J. S,

1990, pp. 214-5.

19 On euphrosyne in banquets see Anacreon, Eleg. Fr. 2 West; Cf. H. O, 1984, pp.

103-7; W. J. S, 1990, p. 213. For examples of discordant behaviour at symposia, disrupting

the ideal pleasant atmosphere, see G. P , 1991; F. T, 1999, pp. 492-4. Cf. another

banquet where things go wrong in Plut. Alex. 51.

20 See X., Smp. 6.2 and B. H, 1999, pp. 334-5. Cf. Plu., Quaest. conv. 3.prooem. 644f.

21 See Anacreon, Eleg. Fr. 2 West; Xenophanes, B1 West 21-24; cf. gn., 763-4. Cf. W. J.

S, 1981.

22 See W. J. S, 1990, pp. 215-6. Cf. the humorous allusion to Il. 2.381 (ฮฝแฟฆฮฝ ฮด' แผ”ฯฯ‡ฮตฯ„ฮฑฮน

แผฯ€แฝถ ฮดฮตแฟ–ฯ€ฮฝฮฟฮฝ แผตฮฝฮฑ ฮพฯ…ฮฝแฝฑฮณฯ‰ฮผฮตฮฝ แผŒฯฮทฮฑ) in Plu., Quaest. conv. 1.1.613c. Cf. Hdt. 5.20 on the

concealment of daggers in the Macedonian banquet.

23 Much more than a garbled adaptation of Hellenic practices, as in Crass. 33.1-7 (on which

see in this volume J. C, pp. 185-7), this scene indicates a mismatch of Greek institutions

and a non-Greek context. e description ts the image of the Persians in Greek literature as

not free, slaves either to the king or to their passions, and suits the portrayal of the Persian court

as a scene of decadence, corruption, arbitrary decisions, hypocrisy, betrayal of trust and brutality.

In accordance with the prevailing orientalist image of the Eastern Empire, men are depicted

as eeminate and women as dominant. Persia is seen as a place which breeds creatures on the

fringes of human society, such as eunuchs, and on the other hand blurs the distinction between

a human king and divine beings. See H. S-W, 1987; W. N, 2002, p.

290; D. L. G, 2007.

135

A 'barbarian' symposium and the absence of philanthropia ( Artaxerxes 15)

is saying, connecting wine and truth, which is known from other sources24 ,

is, according to some scholars, the very essence of the Greek symposium 25 . It

reects the obligation of the participants to disclose their thoughts openly and

completely, as well as encapsulating the symbolic transition to a new state of

existence, in which full understanding and communication are present. Yet

the employment of this proverb in the present context not only evokes the

Hellenic practice of the banquet but also does it in a manner considered to be a

Greek way of action, one involving cunning, and an indirect scheming instead

of outright savagery26 .

e mention of truth entails a play on Persian religion and royal ideology. In

the Zoroastrian Avesta, the world is divided between drug (the Lie, or disorder)

and aลa (Truth, or cosmic, social and ritual order)27 . e drug corresponds to

the evil spirit (Angra Mainyu) and the aลa is championed by the good spirit

(Ahura Mazda), who will eventually prevail28 . Ahura Mazda upholds Truth

(Yasna 31.8), is a friend of the truthful ones or believers (aลanan : c f. Yasna 47.5)29

and punishes liars. is belief was familiar to Greek readers - and certainly to

Plutarch himself - from the portrayal of the Persians in Greek literature, with

its emphasis on telling the truth as a key concept in the education of the

young30 , and with the depiction of lying and dishonesty as being in Persia the

most despicable of evils31 . In the royal Achaemenid ideology the Lie (drauga)

is considered a serious oence against the king32 ; it is tantamount to rebellion,

as "those following the Lie" are regarded as lawbreakers33 . But by persuading

24 Alcaeus, F. 366 Lobel-Page: ฮฟแผถฮฝฮฟฯ‚, แฝฆ ฯ†ฮฏฮปฮต ฯ€ฮฑแฟ– ฮปแฝณฮณฮตฯ„ฮฑฮน ฮบฮฑแฝถ แผ€ฮปฮฌฮธฮตฮฑ; Ion of Chios, F 26.12

West; Pl., Smp. 217e; eoc., Idyll 29.1; Ath. 2.37f; Zenobius, Paroem. 4.5, Diogenianus, Paroem.

4.81 (แผฮฝ ฮฟแผดฮฝแฟณ แผ€ฮปแฝตฮธฮตฮนฮฑ); Diogenianus, Paroem. 7.28 (ฮฟแผถฮฝฮฟฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ แผ€ฮปแฝตฮธฮตฮนฮฑ). Cf. Alcaeus, F. 333

Lobel-Page (ฮฟแผถฮฝฮฟฯ‚ ฮณแฝฐฯ แผ€ฮฝฮธฯแฝฝฯ€แฟณ ฮดแฝทฮฟฯ€ฯ„ฯฮฟฮฝ); gn. 500; A., TrGF F 393; Pl., Lg. 649a-650b.

Cf. Horace, Sat. 1.4.89; Carm. 3.21.14-16; cf. Pliny, Nat. 14.141. Cf. the treatment of this view

in Plu., Quaest. conv. 3. Proem. 645a-c and 7.10.715d-f.

25 See W. R, 1995; W. J. H, 2000, p. 17.

26 See M. D & J. P. V, 1978.

27 On the centrality of this opposition between truth and lie in the Indo-Iranian religious

setting prior to the emergence of the Zoroastrian belief see H. L, 1930, pp. 40-52; M.

S, 2002, pp. 91-5.

28 Cf. Yasht 19.92-96; Cf. M. B, 1975, pp. 200-1, 283; 1982, pp. 120-1. In the Gathas ,

the oldest stratum of the Avesta, drug appears more frequently than the evil spirit itself. See M.

B, 1982, p. 123.

29 Cf. XPh. 46-56: e king demands respect for the law Ahura Mazda has established in

order to be blessed (artava-). Cf. M. B, 1982, pp. 174-7.

30 Hdt. 1.136 (แผ€ฮปฮทฮธแฝทฮถฮตฯƒฮธฮฑฮน). Cf. Strabo, 15.3.18 (แผ€ฮปฮทฮธฮตแฝปฮตฮนฮฝ).

31 Hdt. 1.138; cf. 7.102, 7.209. Interestingly, cf. Plu., De vit. aer. alien. 829c, who claims that

they were the second worst things in Persia.

32 Cf. DB 4.33-5: "Darius the King says: ese are the provinces which became rebellious.

e Lie made them rebellious, so that these (men) deceived the people"; cf. DB 4.36-39: "Darius

the King says: You who shall be king hereafter, protect yourself vigorously from the Lie; the man

who shall be a Lie-follower, him do you punish well" (trans. by R. G. K, 1953, p. 131). Cf.

DB 1. 34, 4.63; cf. DNb.12. e supposed pretenders in the Behistun text are presented as liars.

cf., 1.39, 1.78, 3.80. See P. B, 2002, pp. 126-7, 138.

33 e Liars are habitually punished in Greek depictions of Persia. See Ctesias, FGrH 688 F

9.1 (แฝ…ฯ„ฮน แผฯˆฮตฯฯƒฮฑฯ„ฮฟ แผ€ฮณฮฝฮฟฮตแฟ–ฮฝ ฮตแผฐฯ€แฝผฮฝ แผฯฮตฯ…ฮฝฯŽฮผฮตฮฝฮฟฮฝ แผˆฯƒฯ„ฯ…ฮฏฮณฮฑฮฝ.); cf. Hdt. 3.27.

Mithridates to tell the truth about the incidents that occurred during the

battle, the king's own version turns out to be a lie; Artaxerxes becomes a liar,

while the truthful Mithridates is made to seem a rebel34 . ere is also irony

in the employment of deceit to bring out the truth35 . After all, it is stated

clearly that Sparamizes, the eunuch of the queen mother, was not ignorant

of the truth (ฮฟแฝฮบ แผ€ฮณฮฝฮฟแฟถฮฝ ฯ„แฝธ แผ€ฮปฮทฮธแฝฒฯ‚: 15.5) but pretended to be so in order to

manipulate Mithridates.

Before the feast Mithridates kept his account of the events to himself. It is

the false presentation of a frank and friendly fellowship typical of a symposium

that leads him to divulge everything. Mithridates seems convinced that in

accordance with the Greek sympotic ethical code ‒ apparently introduced by

Sparamizes' allusion to the banquet ‒ his vulnerable state will not be abused

by any other participant at dinner and that his words will not harm him later36 .

He is unable to see the plot against him. Just as he missed (ฯ„ฮฟแฟฆ … แฝ€ฯ†ฮธฮฑฮปฮผฮฟแฟฆ

ฮผฮนฮบฯแฝธฮฝ แผฅฮผฮฑฯฯ„ฮฟฮฝ: 15.6) Cyrus' eye and struck him elsewhere, he cannot perceive

that his words about the prince's destruction in fact harm another person,

namely, himself. e ploy is therefore successful. Mithridates is tricked into

relating his part in slaying Cyrus, thus proving false the ocial version, which

had Artaxerxes as the sole killer.

But the report of the events is not the only truth revealed by the unfortunate

inebriated Persian. e true character of Mithridates is also disclosed through

wine, and this is what Sparamizes is trying to uncover. Mithridates shows

signs of excessive philotimia. Not satised with the rewards given him by the

king, he also wishes to gain the glory of being Cyrus' killer, a title ocially held

by Artaxerxes. In fact, Mithridates presents himself as competing with the

king, and Plutarch shows this ambition in various ways. Mithridates' arrival

at the dinner wearing the clothes and jewellery he received from Artaxerxes37

alludes to a previous scene in the biography, in which Tiribazus wore the

king's robe and necklace, although forbidden to do so38 . e contrast made

by Mithridates between idle talk about the saddle-cloth and his own actual

deed39 matches Artaxerxes' distinction between the general liberty to speak

34 On the Orwellian overtones of this passage see B. L, 2007, p. 94.

35 Notwithstanding n. 33, Greek authors do not hesitate to point at Persian hypocrisy,

and the question of truth is often found to be the subject of ironic descriptions. For instance,

according to Herodotus, the Magus' reign as king involves a deceit (3.61-3), and it also takes

a lie to overthrow him. Cf. Darius' saying that sometimes the lie is necessary (แผ”ฮฝฮธฮฑ ฮณฮฌฯ ฯ„ฮน ฮดฮตแฟ–

ฯˆฮตแฟฆฮดฮฟฯ‚ ฮปฮญฮณฮตฯƒฮธฮฑฮน, ฮปฮตฮณฮญฯƒฮธฯ‰: Hdt. 3.72). When Cambyses does tell the truth, the nobles do not

believe him (Hdt. 3.66). On deceitfulness versus truthfulness as a Leitmotiv in Herodotus' third

book see S. B, 1969, pp. 69-98. Cf. also Hdt. 8.142 (แฝกฯ‚ ฮฒฮฑฯฮฒฮฌฯฮฟฮนฯƒฮฏ แผฯƒฯ„ฮน ฮฟแฝ”ฯ„ฮต ฯ€ฮนฯƒฯ„แฝธฮฝ

ฮฟแฝ”ฯ„ฮต แผ€ฮปฮทฮธแฝฒฯ‚ ฮฟแฝฮดฮญฮฝ).

36 Cf. gn, 309-312.

37 Art. 15.1: แผงฮบฮตฮฝ แผฯƒฮธแฟ†ฯ„ฮน ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ‡ฯฯ…ฯƒแฟท ฮบฮตฮบฮฟฯƒฮผฮทฮผฮญฮฝฮฟฯ‚ ฮฟแผทฯ‚ แผ”ฮปฮฑฮฒฮต ฯ€ฮฑฯแฝฐ ฮฒฮฑฯƒฮนฮปฮญฯ‰ฯ‚.

38 Art . 5.3-4: ฮฟแฝ•ฯ„ฯ‰ฯ‚ แผฯ€ฮฟฮฏฮทฯƒฮตฮฝ ฮตแผฐฯ€ฯŽฮฝ· "ฮดฮฏฮดฯ‰ฮผฮน ฮผแฝฒฮฝ แฝฆ ฮคฮนฯฮฏฮฒฮฑฮถฮต, ฯƒฮฟแฝถ ฯ„ฮฟแฟฆฯ„ฮฟฮฝ, ฯ†ฮฟฯฮตแฟ–ฮฝ ฮด'

แผ€ฯ€ฮฑฮณฮฟฯฮตฯฯ‰." ฯ„ฮฟแฟฆ ฮดแฝฒ ฮคฮนฯฮนฮฒฮฌฮถฮฟฯ… ฮผแฝด ฯ†ฯฮฟฮฝฯ„ฮฏฯƒฮฑฮฝฯ„ฮฟฯ‚ … แผ€ฮปฮปแฝฐ ฯ„ฯŒฮฝ ฯ„ฮต ฮบฮฌฮฝฮดฯ…ฮฝ ฮตแฝฮธแฝบฯ‚ แผฮบฮตแฟ–ฮฝฮฟฮฝ แผฮฝฮดฯฮฝฯ„ฮฟฯ‚

ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮดฮญฯฮฑฮนฮฑ ฯ‡ฯฯ…ฯƒแพถ [ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮณฯ…ฮฝฮฑฮนฮบฮตแฟ–ฮฑ] ฯ„แฟถฮฝ ฮฒฮฑฯƒฮนฮปฮนฮบแฟถฮฝ ฯ€ฮตฯฮนฮธฮตฮผฮญฮฝฮฟฯ…, ฯ€ฮฌฮฝฯ„ฮตฯ‚ ฮผแฝฒฮฝ แผ ฮณฮฑฮฝฮฌฮบฯ„ฮฟฯ…· ฮฟแฝ ฮณแฝฐฯ

แผฮพแฟ†ฮฝ.

39 Art . 15.6: "แฝ‘ฮผฮตแฟ–ฯ‚ ฮผแฝฒฮฝ แฝ… ฯ„ฮน ฮฒฮฟฯฮปฮตฯƒฮธฮต ฯ€ฮฏฮปฮฟฯ…ฯ‚ ฮปฮญฮณฮตฯ„ฮต ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ†ฮปฯ…ฮฌฯฮฟฯ…ฯ‚· แผฮณแฝผ ฮด' แฝ‘ฮผแฟ–ฮฝ ฮปฮญฮณฯ‰

137

A 'barbarian' symposium and the absence of philanthropia ( Artaxerxes 15)

as one wishes and the monarch's unique privilege to act40. Finally, when the

young Persian claims that what he did "on that day is worthy of great things"41 ,

he appears to allude to Tiribazus' words of advice to the king at the scene of

the battle to "remember this day, for it is unworthy of forgetfulness"42 . What

seems to be insinuated here is a war of versions between that of Artaxerxes and

that of Mithridates. e young Persian gives the impression that it was he who

saved the crown of Artaxerxes on that fateful day, that his acts were powerful

enough to decide the feud over the monarchy, and by implication – that his

power surpasses that of the king.

Upon hearing these alarming words, Artaxerxes sends Mithridates to

his horrible death. is outcome causes the words of the intoxicated Persian

noble to appear as conveying yet another truth, for his claim that he felled

"the man" (ฮบฮฑฯ„ฮญฮฒฮฑฮปฮฟฮฝ ฯ„แฝธฮฝ แผ„ฮฝฮดฯฮฑ, Art . 15.6), ostensibly referring to Cyrus,

also seems to predict the downfall of Mithridates himself43 . As in the battle

he missed Cyrus' eye yet fatally injured the prince, now his words deliver an

unintended and no less deadly blow to himself. It is the king, however, who

turns this description into reality, by interpreting this utterance as disobedient

and deserving of punishment. With its focus on wine and truth, the Greek

symposium envisioned the human body as if it were a sort of instrument for

processing liquid and transforming it into truthfulness44 . Analogous to that

practice, the body of Mithridates is expected to function as a similar device

when he incurs the torture of the boats: into his mouth are poured uids (milk

and honey)45 and this punishment is meant to prove Artaxerxes' account as

accurate46 . In fact, through the disintegration and complete destruction of the

young Persian's body, the king establishes once and for all his version of the

ฮดฮนฮฑฯฯฮฎฮดฮทฮฝ แฝ‘ฯ€แฝธ ฯ„ฮฑฯฯ„ฮทฯ‚ แผ€ฮฝแฟƒฯแฟ†ฯƒฮธฮฑฮน ฮšแฟฆฯฮฟฮฝ ฯ„แฟ†ฯ‚ ฯ‡ฮตฮนฯฯŒฯ‚."

40 Art. 5.2: "ฯƒฮฟแฝถ ฮผแฝฒฮฝ แผ”ฮพฮตฯƒฯ„ฮนฮฝ ฮตแผฐฯ€ฮตแฟ–ฮฝ แผƒ ฮฒฮฟฯฮปแฟƒ, แผฮผฮฟแฝถ ฮดแฝฒ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮปฮญฮณฮตฮนฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ€ฮฟฮนฮตแฟ–ฮฝ".

41 Art. 15.3: "ฮผฮตฮนฮถฯŒฮฝฯ‰ฮฝ ฮณแฝฐฯ แผฮณแฝผ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮบฮฑฮปฮปฮนฯŒฮฝฯ‰ฮฝ ฮฒฮฑฯƒฮนฮปฮตแฟ– ฯ„แฝดฮฝ แผกฮผฮญฯฮฑฮฝ แผฮบฮตฮฏฮฝฮทฮฝ แผ„ฮพฮนฮฟฮฝ แผฮผฮฑฯ…ฯ„แฝธฮฝ

ฯ€ฮฑฯฮญฯƒฯ‡ฮฟฮฝ".

42 Art. 10.1 : "แฝฆ ฮฒฮฑฯƒฮนฮปฮตแฟฆ, ฮผฮญฮผฮฝฮทฯƒฮฟ ฯ„แฟ†ฯ‚ แผกฮผฮญฯฮฑฯ‚ ฯ„ฮฑฯฯ„ฮทฯ‚· ฮฟแฝ ฮณแฝฐฯ แผ€ฮพฮฏฮฑ ฮปฮฎฮธฮทฯ‚ แผฯƒฯ„ฮฏ".

43 On Dionysus giving the gift of prophecy see E., Ba. 298-301.

44 P. D, 1991, pp. 68, 75-91 (and passim) shows how, in the Greek mind, truth was

conceived of as an inaccessible, buried secret within the body, which had to be brought to

the surface, even by coercion. Presumably, one such means was liquids. Plato, Lg. 1.648a-c,

649e proposes that wine should be used, rather than some other test (ฮฒแฝฑฯƒฮฑฮฝฮฟฯ‚), to reveal true

facts about the character of a person. Cf. P. D, 1991, pp. 108-10. Note that Diogenianus

(7.28) explains the phrase ฮฟแผถฮฝฮฟฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ แผ€ฮปแฝตฮธฮตฮนฮฑ in a manner which suggests that the Persians

substituted tortures (ฮฒแฝฑฯƒฮฑฮฝฮฟฮน) for wine with the aim of extracting the truth: ฮ•แฝ”ฮฑฮฝฮดฯฮฟฯ‚ ฯ€ฮฑฯแฝฐ

ฯ„ฮฟแฟ–ฯ‚ ฮ ฮญฯฯƒฮฑฮนฯ‚ ฯ†ฮทฯƒแฝถฮฝ ฮฟแฝ ฮฒฮฑฯƒฮฌฮฝฮฟฮนฯ‚ แผฮพฮตฯ„ฮฌฮถฮตฯƒฮธฮฑฮน, แผ€ฮปฮปแฝฐ ฮผฮตฮธฯ…ฯƒฮบฮฟฮผฮญฮฝฮฟฯ…ฯ‚. In his Indica ( FGrH 688

F 45.31) Ctesias describes a liquid obtained from a spring, which acts as wine; when someone

drinks it, he แผฮพฮฑฮณฮณแฝณฮปฮปฮตฮน ฯ€แฝฑฮฝฯ„ฮฑ แฝ…ฯƒฮฑ แผ”ฯ€ฯฮฑฮพฮต. Ctesias adds that the king makes use of it whenever

he wishes to nd the truth concerning an accusation. One would assume that here again torture

is being replaced by a beverage.

45 Art. 16.4: ฯ†ฮฑฮณฯŒฮฝฯ„ฮน ฮดแฝฒ ฯ€ฮนฮตแฟ–ฮฝ ฮผฮญฮปฮน ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮณฮฌฮปฮฑ ฯƒฯ…ฮณฮบฮตฮบฯฮฑฮผฮญฮฝฮฟฯ… แผฮณฯ‡ฮญฮฟฯ…ฯƒฮนฮฝ ฮตแผฐฯ‚ ฯ„แฝธ ฯƒฯ„ฯŒฮผฮฑ...

46 Art . 16.2: แผฮฒฮฟฯฮปฮตฯ„ฮฟ [scil. ฮฒฮฑฯƒฮนฮปฮตแฝบฯ‚] ฮณแฝฐฯ ฮฒฮฑฯฮฒฮฌฯฮฟฯ…ฯ‚ แผ…ฯ€ฮฑฮฝฯ„ฮฑฯ‚ ฯ€ฮตฯ€ฮตแฟ–ฯƒฮธฮฑฮน ฮบฮฑแฝถ แผฮปฮปฮทฮฝฮฑฯ‚,

แฝกฯ‚ แผฮฝ ฯ„ฮฑแฟ–ฯ‚ แผฮพฮตฮปฮฌฯƒฮตฯƒฮน ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯƒฯ…ฮผฯ€ฮปฮฟฮบฮฑแฟ–ฯ‚ ฮดฮฟแฝบฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮปฮฑฮฒแฝผฮฝ ฯ€ฮปฮทฮณฮฎฮฝ, แผฯ„ฯฯŽฮธฮท ฮผแฝฒฮฝ ฮฑแฝฯ„ฯŒฯ‚, แผ”ฮบฯ„ฮตฮนฮฝฮต ฮด'

แผฮบฮตแฟ–ฮฝฮฟฮฝ.

events as the 'true' one47.

is cruelty exhibited by the king is not at all what we would expect

from the foregoing narrative. Earlier on (Art. 4.4), he is described as one who

appears ฯ†ฮนฮปแฝฑฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€ฮฟฯ‚ and mild. Specically, it is stated that the king seems no

less generous and kind as a recipient of favours than when he bestows favours

upon others48 . But here, Artaxerxes emerges as ungrateful to Mithridates, the

man who struck down Cyrus and eectively handed him power. Seemingly,

by his action the monarch demonstrates that the former description was

false49 . Up to this point in the story, the king had never tortured or sentenced

anyone to death. He released Cyrus even though his brother was suspected of

having attempted assassination (Art. 3.5-6); he ignored Tiribazus' insolence

with respect to the royal robe and its mutinous overtones, in a way that could

have only been interpreted as weakness on the king's part (Art. 5.4); towards

Euclides, who admonished him publicly, he was temperate (Art. 5.2); he was

relatively lenient with defectors during the war (Art. 14.3-4); even the Carian

who, like Mithridates, claimed the glory for Cyrus' death, was not punished

by Artaxerxes himself, but was handed over to Parysatis, the queen mother

(Art . 14.9-10). e punishment meted out to Mithridates constitutes therefore

a turning point in the revelation of the king's character. We begin to doubt

whether the former Greek traits describing the barbarian monarch were

accurate, especially regarding the application of the essentially Hellenic quality

of ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฑฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€แฝทฮฑ 50 . Artaxerxes is now seen as a brutal, despotic oriental ruler,

whose real personality is exposed by his resort to torture.

e narratological signicance of the symposium is thus immediately seen.

It has already been shown that wine proverbially reveals truth, but Plutarch

appears to play with the idea of in uino ueritas. Here it is not merely Mithridates'

own truth that his drinking reveals, but also Artaxerxes' truth. It is the wine

imbibed by Mithridates that reveals the true nature of the king, the truth of

what the king is 51 .

Yet this is only one way of seeing the importance of the Greek banquet

in the Life and the role it plays in the characterization of the hero. Another

view is possible: our symposium may not, after all, lead the way to the truth,

47 According to B. L, 2007, pp. 87-94, the punishment of Mithridates was in fact a

Zoroastrian "judicial ordeal", involving a careful examination of its outcome and the application

of pressure in order to disclose the inner moral nature of the accused. If Mithridates was guilty,

he would have to be destroyed in the process, and his physical decay would demonstrate his

moral corruption.

48 แผฮฝ แผ€ฯฯ‡แฟ‡ ฮดแฝฒ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ€ฮฌฮฝฯ… ฮถฮทฮปฮฟแฟฆฮฝ แผ”ฮดฮฟฮพฮต ฯ„แฝดฮฝ แผˆฯฯ„ฮฟฮพฮญฯฮพฮฟฯ… ฯ„ฮฟแฟฆ แฝฮผฯ‰ฮฝฯฮผฮฟฯ… ฯ€ฯฮฑฯŒฯ„ฮทฯ„ฮฑ ... แผฮฝ <ฮดแฝฒ> ฯ„แฟท

ฮดฮญฯ‡ฮตฯƒฮธฮฑฮน ฯ‡ฮฌฯฮนฯ„ฮฑฯ‚ ฮฟแฝฯ‡ แผงฯ„ฯ„ฮฟฮฝ ฯ„ฮฟแฟ–ฯ‚ ฮดฮนฮดฮฟแฟฆฯƒฮนฮฝ แผข ฯ„ฮฟแฟ–ฯ‚ ฮปฮฑฮผฮฒฮฌฮฝฮฟฯ…ฯƒฮนฮฝ แผฮฝ [ฮดแฝฒ] ฯ„แฟท ฮดฮนฮดฯŒฮฝฮฑฮน ฯ†ฮฑฮนฮฝฯŒฮผฮตฮฝฮฟฯ‚

ฮตแฝ”ฯ‡ฮฑฯฮนฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฌฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€ฮฟฯ‚. Cf. Reg. et imp. apophth. 172b.

49 is may also be seen in the use of the word แผ„ฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€ฮฟฯ‚ ( Art . 16.7) at the end of the torture

portrayal to mark the gap between the previously attributed trait and reality.

50 Cf. Phil. 8.1; Flam. 5.7; Lys. 27.7; Pyrrh. 1.4. See H. M. M J., 1961, pp. 166-8, 174;

Cf. R. H, 1912, p. 25; J. D R, 1979, pp. 279, 303-4; A. G. N, 1986, pp.

239-40.

51 is notion is an expansion of the idea that wine discloses the true character of the

drinker, on which see T. D, 1999, pp. 15 n. 6, 32 n. 56.

139

A 'barbarian' symposium and the absence of philanthropia ( Artaxerxes 15)

but rather deviate from it, creating a new reality altogether. Plutarch seems to

take great pains in creating the strong impression that truth is absent from

the description of the "barbarian" feast. He does it with the help of an array

of literary devices. Sparamizes is explicitly presented as deceiving his fellow

drinker (15.5). e act of casting their eyes downward attributed to the guests

(ฮตแผฐฯ‚ ฯ„แฝดฮฝ ฮณแฟ†ฮฝ แผ”ฮบฯ…ฯˆฮฑฮฝ : 15.7) 52 echoes a Platonic image concerning the limited

vision of people who shy away from true reality53 . Even the young Persian's

story is only partially true, since, as will be recalled, Cyrus died as a result of

injuries inicted by two men, a Carian as well as Mithridates. Leaving the

Carian out of the account is not telling the whole truth. Moreover, in the

last two parts of the dialogue between Sparamizes and Mithridates the king

himself is omitted: First, he is not mentioned as the recipient of the saddle-

cloth54 ; second, he is neglected in the report of the battle (Art. 15.6). Contrary

to the picture given earlier, in which Artaxerxes did try to aim a blow at his

brother before being wounded himself55 , here mention is made only of the

attempt by the commander of the Cadusians, Artagerses, to strike Cyrus (Art .

9.3)56 . e struggle of the brothers and their entourages (Art. 11.1-2) is skipped

over. ese are clear cases where aletheia gives way to lethe 57 . Noteworthy also

is the absence of truthfulness indicated by the imagery of failure to hit the

mark, which is prominent in the speech of Mithridates (Art. 15.6), since truth

signies correspondence with reality, like a spear hitting the target, not missing

it58 . To the same eect is perhaps the recurring motif of utterances that miss

a real correspondence in the closing picture of the scene (15.7: ฮปแฝนฮณฮฟฯ…ฯ‚ ฮดแฝฒ

ฮผฮตแฝทฮถฮฟฯ…ฯ‚ แผข ฮบฮฑฮธ' แผกฮผแพถฯ‚) and in the Mithridates' description of an empty throw

(15.6: แผˆฯฯ„ฮฑฮณฮญฯฯƒฮทฯ‚ แผ ฮบฯŒฮฝฯ„ฮนฯƒฮฑ ฮบฮตฮฝแฝธฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮผฮฌฯ„ฮฑฮนฮฟฮฝ), where Plutarch is probably

alluding to Demosthenes' idiom in the second Olynthiac oration (12) about

words being vacuous and vain if unaccompanied by deeds59 .

52 Plutarch employs this expression elsewhere (Brut. 27.5: ฮบฯฯ†ฮฑฮฝฯ„ฮฑฯ‚ ฮตแผฐฯ‚ ฮณแฟ†ฮฝ แผกฯƒฯ…ฯ‡ฮฏฮฑฮฝ แผ„ฮณฮตฮนฮฝ;

Ages. 12.5: ฮบแฝปฯ€ฯ„ฮฟฮฝฯ„ฮฑฯ‚ ฮตแผฐฯ‚ ฯ„แฝดฮฝ ฮณแฟ†ฮฝ). e context in the Agesialos is the Spartans' reaction to

the complaints of Pharnabazus on the destruction done by them to his land. In this case, the

biographer's intervention in the text can be ascertained by a comparison of this description with

its probable source, X., HG. 4.1.34. Cf. D. H. S, 1997, pp. 184-5.

53 Pl., R. 9.586a: ฮŸแผฑ แผ„ฯฮฑ ฯ†ฯฮฟฮฝฮฎฯƒฮตฯ‰ฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ แผ€ฯฮตฯ„แฟ†ฯ‚ แผ„ฯ€ฮตฮนฯฮฟฮน... แฝ‘ฯ€ฮตฯฮฒฮฌฮฝฯ„ฮตฯ‚ ฮดแฝฒ ฯ„ฮฟแฟฆฯ„ฮฟ ฯ€ฯแฝธฯ‚ ฯ„แฝธ

แผ€ฮปฮทฮธแฟถฯ‚ แผ„ฮฝฯ‰ ฮฟแฝ”ฯ„ฮต แผ€ฮฝฮญฮฒฮปฮตฯˆฮฑฮฝ ฯ€ฯŽฯ€ฮฟฯ„ฮต ฮฟแฝ”ฯ„ฮต แผ ฮฝฮญฯ‡ฮธฮทฯƒฮฑฮฝ...แผ€ฮปฮปแฝฐ ฮฒฮฟฯƒฮบฮทฮผฮฌฯ„ฯ‰ฮฝ ฮดฮฏฮบฮทฮฝ ฮบฮฌฯ„ฯ‰ แผ€ฮตแฝถ

ฮฒฮปฮญฯ€ฮฟฮฝฯ„ฮตฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮบฮตฮบฯ…ฯ†ฯŒฯ„ฮตฯ‚ ฮตแผฐฯ‚ ฮณแฟ†ฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮตแผฐฯ‚ ฯ„ฯฮฑฯ€ฮญฮถฮฑฯ‚ ฮฒฯŒฯƒฮบฮฟฮฝฯ„ฮฑฮน ฯ‡ฮฟฯฯ„ฮฑฮถฯŒฮผฮตฮฝฮฟฮน ฮบฮฑแฝถ แฝ€ฯ‡ฮตฯฮฟฮฝฯ„ฮตฯ‚...

54 Art ., 15.4: ฯ„ฮฏ ฮปฮฑฮผฯ€ฯแฝธฮฝ แฝฆ ฯ„แพถฮฝ แผข ฮผฮญฮณฮฑ, ฯ€แฟ–ฮปฮฟฮฝ ฮตแฝ‘ฯฮตแฟ–ฮฝ แผตฯ€ฯ€ฮฟฯ… ฯ€ฮตฯฮนฯฯฯ…ฮญฮฝฯ„ฮฑ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ„ฮฟแฟฆฯ„ฮฟฮฝ

แผ€ฮฝฮตฮฝฮตฮณฮบฮตแฟ–ฮฝ;

55 Art ., 11.2: ฮฒฮฑฯƒฮนฮปฮตแฝบฯ‚ ฮด' แผ€ฯ†ฮตแฝถฯ‚ ฯ„แฝธ ฮดฯŒฯฯ… ฮšฯฯฮฟฯ… ฮผแฝฒฮฝ ฮฟแฝฮบ แผ”ฯ„ฯ…ฯ‡ฮต, ฮฃฮฑฯ„ฮนฯ†ฮญฯฮฝฮทฮฝ ฮดแฝฒ ฯ€ฮนฯƒฯ„แฝธฮฝ แผ„ฮฝฮดฯฮฑ

ฮšฯฯแฟณ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮณฮตฮฝฮฝฮฑแฟ–ฮฟฮฝ แผ”ฮฒฮฑฮปฮต ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮบฮฑฯ„ฮญฮบฯ„ฮตฮนฮฝฮต.

56 Cf. X., An. 1.8.24

57 On the ancient understanding of truth as something that is perceived or transmitted

without any gaps caused by forgetfulness, neglect or ignorance, that is, complete and with no

omissions, see B. S, 1975; T. C, 1983.

58 Cf. T. C, 1983, pp. 13-6 on the meaning of the archaic word ฮฝฮทฮผฮตฯฯ„แฝตฯ‚ denoting

Truth, as something not failing to strike the target. Vide supra, on the correspondence between

Mithridates' missing the mark in battle and his failure to grasp the situation at the symposium.

59 ...แผ…ฯ€ฮฑฯ‚ ฮผแฝฒฮฝ ฮปฯŒฮณฮฟฯ‚, แผ‚ฮฝ แผ€ฯ€แฟ‡ ฯ„แฝฐ ฯ€ฯฮฌฮณฮผฮฑฯ„ฮฑ, ฮผฮฌฯ„ฮฑฮนฯŒฮฝ ฯ„ฮน ฯ†ฮฑฮฏฮฝฮตฯ„ฮฑฮน ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮบฮตฮฝฯŒฮฝ... Plutarch also

uses this phrase in the Philop. 9.7; Quom. adolesc. 28b.

What the 'barbarian' symposium lacks in truthfulness, it gains in passion.

Traditionally, the unrepressed barbarian, especially Scythian, consumption

of wine was conceived of as the counterpart of the Greek banquet60 . It was

set as a sort of limit, one not to be transgressed by members of the civilized

community61 . However, in the reverse world depicted here by Plutarch, it is the

Greek way of drinking that is presented both as a model to be followed by the

barbarians and as having no restraints. Mithridates is encouraged to abandon

his self-control and act "as the Greeks do". Ironically, while it was usually the

Greeks who regarded the barbarians as uninhibited and unconstrained in their

demeanour62 , here it is the other way around: the Hellenes are seen as basically

licentious and lacking in restraint.

Passions appear to be uncontrolled when the Greek symposium is situated in

a barbarian context63 . In his retort, Sparamizes questions the greatness involved

in bringing a saddle-cloth to the king64 . He implicitly doubts the merit of a

form of restraint, in this case, applicable to a horse but symbolically relevant

to the behaviour of Mithridates. e reader will recall at once the Platonic

imagery of the soul in the Phaedrus as a chariot driven by a team of winged

horses (246a)65 . Now it is the black, unrestrained steed, evidently representing

the passionate part of the human soul66 , that drags down its driver67, far away

from the plain of Truth and from beholding the true being (248bc)68 . e

soul then sheds its wings and plummets to earth, only to be incarnated in a

60 Anacr., Fr. 11b Page = PMG 356; Hdt. 6.84; Pl., Lg. 1.637e; Arist., Pr. 3.7.872a3-9;

Athen. 10.427a-c; 11.499f. Cf. F. H, 1988, pp. 169-70; M. C. M, 1991, p. 68.

61 is sentiment may provide a clue for the occasional appearances of symposiasts in

typically oriental dress, including the tiara cap, found painted on vases. Cf. F. L,

1990, pp. 11-3, who argues that these images signify the search for otherness experienced in the

symposium, an escape from social restrictions. For other interpretations, which suggest that the

gures represent foreign guests at dinner parties or else wealthy Athenians aping Eastern ways

and dress, see K. D V, 1973, p.39 and M. C. M, 1991, pp. 69-71.

62 E. H, 1989, pp. 79-84, 101 sqq.; E. A, 2005, pp. 50-2. In Plutarch's writing, the

barbarians are known for their lack of temperance. ey engage in acts of savagery and cruelty

(A. G. N, 1986, pp. 241-2; T. S. S, 1999, pp. 27-67), indulge in luxury (A. G.

N, 1986, pp. 237-8; T. S. S, 1999, pp. 107-139), are generally untrustworthy

(T. S. S, 1999, pp. 203-12) and hold superstitious beliefs (A. G. N, 1986, pp.

234-35; T. S. S, 1999, pp. 224-34), to name but a few their negative traits.

63 Cf. Hdt. 5.18-20. Compared with these depictions, Xenophon's descriptions in the

Cyropaedia of the Persian banquets as devoid of drunkenness (cf. C. J. T, 1990, p. 26; D. L.

G, 1993, pp. 150-1) would seem a literary idealization.

64 Vide supra n. 54.

65 Cf. Ant. 36.2. Cf. C. B. R. P, 1988, p. 217; T. D , 1999, pp. 78-9, 85. Cf. M. B.

T , 1990 on the popularity of this image in second century AD literature.

66 On the exact nature of this correspondence see R. H, 1952, p. 72; C. J. R,

Plato. Phaedrus, with Translation and Commentary, Warminster, 1986 ad loc. 246b1-3; cf. D. A.

W, 1993, pp. 89-93; E. B, 2006.

67 247b: ฮฒฯฮฏฮธฮตฮน ฮณแฝฐฯ แฝ ฯ„แฟ†ฯ‚ ฮบฮฌฮบฮทฯ‚ แผตฯ€ฯ€ฮฟฯ‚ ฮผฮตฯ„ฮญฯ‡ฯ‰ฮฝ, แผฯ€แฝถ ฯ„แฝดฮฝ ฮณแฟ†ฮฝ แฟฅฮญฯ€ฯ‰ฮฝ ฯ„ฮต ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮฒฮฑฯฯฮฝฯ‰ฮฝ แพง ฮผแฝด

ฮบฮฑฮปแฟถฯ‚ แผฆฮฝ ฯ„ฮตฮธฯฮฑฮผฮผฮญฮฝฮฟฯ‚ ฯ„แฟถฮฝ แผกฮฝฮนฯŒฯ‡ฯ‰ฮฝ. Other souls strive to follow the gods in seeing the true

being, which provides pasturage proper for their noblest part, but none has a full vision of it.

68 Cf. Plu., De def. orac. 422b.

141

A 'barbarian' symposium and the absence of philanthropia ( Artaxerxes 15)

mortal body and embedded in the cycle of births69. While basing his account

on Ctesias' description, Plutarch seems to skillfully combine this imagery of

passion as an unbridled horse, deviation from truth, and a general movement

downward, manifested in the action of the banquet participants, whose eyes

are cast earthward70 .

At the end of the dinner scene, the host, assuming one of the key functions

of a symposiarch71 , tones down emotions by urging the participants to keep their

dierences within bounds as they eat and drink, and to prostrate themselves

before the king's daimon 72 . Here a play of stereotypes is manifest, since it is

one thing, a very Greek thing, to be a calming symposiarch but quite another

to do so by recommending this most non-Greek of actions. is play has a

bearing on the character of the monarch. e appeal to this deity seems to

fulll a restrictive role; it is now expected of the king to restrain the passions so

recklessly exhibited during the feast73 . But instead of curbing passions with a

measure of self-control as he has done on previous occasions, Artaxerxes sties

them in another manner.

It would seem that the insertion of the potentially disorderly Greek

symposium into barbarian circumstances, inherently devoid of the Hellenic rules

and codes for self-control - which consist of trust, cooperation and equality -

produces a new situation. e king chooses to react with unprecedented cruelty

to the misbehaviour of Mithridates and to suppress passion with even greater

passion. Since this unbridled conduct is directly linked with the loosening of

control begun at the banquet and caused by it, the symposium appears not so

much as revealing the king's true character but as totally altering it from its

previous portrayal.

At this juncture in the narrative, the reader is not sure as to the correct

interpretation of the ethos of Artaxerxes74 . One possibility is that his inner

69 248c: แฝ…ฯ„ฮฑฮฝ ฮดแฝฒ แผ€ฮดฯ…ฮฝฮฑฯ„ฮฎฯƒฮฑฯƒฮฑ แผฯ€ฮนฯƒฯ€ฮญฯƒฮธฮฑฮน ฮผแฝด แผดฮดแฟƒ, ฮบฮฑฮฏ ฯ„ฮนฮฝฮน ฯƒฯ…ฮฝฯ„ฯ…ฯ‡ฮฏแพณ ฯ‡ฯฮทฯƒฮฑฮผฮญฮฝฮท ฮปฮฎฮธฮทฯ‚ ฯ„ฮต

ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮบฮฑฮบฮฏฮฑฯ‚ ฯ€ฮปฮทฯƒฮธฮตแฟ–ฯƒฮฑ ฮฒฮฑฯฯ…ฮฝฮธแฟ‡, ฮฒฮฑฯฯ…ฮฝฮธฮตแฟ–ฯƒฮฑ ฮดแฝฒ ฯ€ฯ„ฮตฯฮฟฯฯฯ…ฮฎฯƒแฟƒ ฯ„ฮต ฮบฮฑแฝถ แผฯ€แฝถ ฯ„แฝดฮฝ ฮณแฟ†ฮฝ ฯ€ฮญฯƒแฟƒ...e

souls are incarnated in several types of men, ranging from the philosopher to the tyrant, in

accordance with the measure of the truth seen by them (248d).

70 It is also manifested in the statement of Mithridates ฮบฮฑฯ„แฝณฮฒฮฑฮปฮฟฮฝ ฯ„แฝธฮฝ แผ„ฮฝฮดฯฮฑฮฝ (15.6).

71 See Quaest. conv. 1.4, 620a-622b. Cf. S.-T. T, 1999, p. 61.

72 A signicant question is whether the host is the same person as Sparamizes, as both

use the relatively uncommon phrase แฝฆ ฯ„แพถฮฝ when addressing Mithridates (15.4, 15.7). Several

scholars have already been baed by this diculty or have confounded the two. (Cf. F. E.

B, 1977, p. 151). W.W. T , 1928, p. 209, claims to have formerly equated the two and

then changed his opinion after a conversation with A. D. Nock. Did Plutarch mean to confuse

his readers? It should be noted that one of the characters aims to restrain passion while the other

aspires to give vent to it. Attributing these two conicting roles to the same gure may point to

the two possible routes of action expected of the king with regard to the oence of Mithridates,

and even to an innate inconsistency within the ethos of Artaxerxes, which is also displayed by

the mention of the daimon and which constitutes a recurring motif in the biography to its very

end (culminating in 29.11).

73 I deal with the literary signicance of the king's daimon in a forthcoming paper.

74 ree scholars suggest dierent portrayals of the king. Orsi (in M. M  O,

1987, pp. xxvii – xxviii) stresses a positive characterization emerging from the biography; D. C.

H, 1967, pp. 68-85, on the other hand, emphasizes a negative image. T. S. S, 1999, p.

savagery, so far concealed, has been nally unmasked. Another is that he has

degenerated from a mild and philanthropos monarch to a cruel and harsh despot75 .

e banquet scene plays an important role in this uncertainty. For wine itself is

an ambiguous beverage. Sweet and dangerous, it reveals as much as it distorts,

making the real apparent and the apparent real. It discloses the truth as much

as it leads to forgetfulness, generates civilized fellowship and philanthropia

but at the same time may cause the lowest form of brutal behaviour. One

would assume that what is needed is moderation, or nding the right measure,

which Mithridates and Artaxerxes, being barbarians, are clearly shown to lack.

Or is it so? Plutarch does not simply adopt ethnic stereotypes. He plays on

them and exploits various familiar ethnic themes to create a complex interplay.

e diculty of interpreting what is happening in this "barbarian" symposium

reects how disconcerting it is when familiar features from the Greek banquet

combine in a new and disorienting way. Eventually the evasiveness of the

categories makes understanding of the situation a complicated matter for the

reader, just as it proves to be for Mithridates.

Works cited

A, E., "Who Is a Barbarian? e Barbarians in the Ethnological and

Cultural Taxonomies of Strabo", in D. D  . (eds.), Strabo's

Cultural Geography, Cambridge, 2005.

A, J. K., Xenophon, London, 1974.

B, S. R., "e Death of Cyrus the Younger", CQ, 49 (1999) 473-83.

318-24, in his research into the representation of barbarians in Plutarch's Lives, advances a more

attractive and balanced approach by combining both views. He depicts Artaxerxes as better than

other barbarians, including the minor characters in this biography, though he argues that his

portrait reveals more negative traits. Perhaps the development of the presentation of Artaxerxes'

character should also be considered in the evaluation of his personality; notice, then, should be

taken of the story-line of this Life.

75 Plutarch was long seen as ascribing a static ethos to his heroes, thus making ostensible

dramatic changes, such as cruelty, to be understood as the revelation of true character traits,

which were concealed for various reasons (cf. Philip's case in Aratus, 49.1, another non-parallel

Life). Nevertheless, this approach has been challenged by scholars who believe that Plutarch

espoused a belief in the possibility of an altered character. See F. E. B, 1977, pp. 176-81; S.

S, 1989. Cf. De sera, 559bc. According to this modied view, Plutarch holds that a person

confronted with great changes in circumstances, or vitiated by undeserved calamities, may lose

his internal balance between the rational and irrational. Compare the notable case of Sertorius

(Sert. 25.6). See D. A. R, 1966, p. 146; B. B-I, 1972, pp. 79-80, for the opinion

that Plutarch believes in the constant nature (physis) of a hero, i.e., his inborn qualities, as

opposed to his changeable character. Cf. De tranq. an., 475d-476a. Yet cf. C. G, 2006, pp.

412-21, who advances the possibility of a collapse of character in Plutarch's Lives, consistent

with the biographer's Platonic-Aristotelian view (cf. C. G, 1983 for an earlier formulation of

this idea, based on a conceptual contrast between 'character' and 'personality', on which cf. C. B.

R. P, 2002, pp. 283-329).

143

A 'barbarian' symposium and the absence of philanthropia ( Artaxerxes 15)

B, E., "Dancing with Gods: e Myth of the Chariot in Plato's

Phaedrus", AJPh, 127 (2006) 185-217.

B, S., Herodotean Inquiries, e Hague, 1969.

B, J. M., "Ctesias'Account of the Revolt of Inarus", Phoenix, 30 (1976)

1-25.

_____"Ctesias as Historian of the Persian Wars", Phoenix, 32 (1978) 19-41.

_____"e Ancient Accounts of the Battle of Cunaxa", AJPh, 104 (1983) 340-

57.

B, M., A History of Zoroastrianism, vol. 1, Leiden, Cologne, 1975.

_____ A History of Zoroastrianism, vol. 2, Leiden/Cologne, 1982.

B, F. E., In Mist Apparelled: Religious emes in Plutarch's Moralia and

Lives, Leiden, 1977.

B, P., From Cyrus to Alexander, Winona Lake, IN, 2002.

B-I, B., Norm und Individualitรคt in den Biographien Plutarchs, Bern,

Stuttgart, 1972.

B, W., "Oriental Symposia: Contrasts and Parallels", in W. J. S

(ed.), 1991, pp.7-24.

C, T., "Archaic Truth", QUCC, 42 (1983) 7-28.

D, M. & V, J.-P. (eds.), Cunning Intelligence in Greek Culture

and Society (trans. J. L), Hassocks, 1978.

D, R., e Greek Accounts of Eastern History, Cambridge, MA, 1973.

DB, P., Torture and Truth, New York, London, 1991.

D, T., Plutarch's Lives: Exploring Virtue and Vice, Oxford, 1999.

G, D. L., Xenophon's Cyropaedia: Style, Genre and Literary Technique,

Oxford, 1993.

_____"Viragos, Eunuchs, Dogheads, and Parrots in Ctesias", in G.

H & I. S (eds.), Greeks between East and West:

Essays in Greek Literature and History in Memory of David Asheri,

Jerusalem, 2007.

G, C., "e Question of Character-Development: Plutarch and Tacitus",

CQ, 33 (1983) 469-87.

_____ e Structured Self in Hellenistic and Roman ought, Oxford, New York,

2006.

G, G., "Le sommaire des Persica de Ctรฉsias par Photius", RBPH , 28

(1950) 513-21.

H, R., Plato's Phaedrus, translated with introduction and

commentary. Cambridge, 1952.

H, E., Inventing the Barbarian, Oxford, 1989.

H, T. (ed.), Greeks and Barbarians, New York, 2002.

H, F., e Mirror of Herodotus (trans. J. Lloyd), Berkeley/Los Angeles,

London, 1988.

H, W. J., "Aspects of the Ancient Greek Symposium", Akroterion ,

45 (2000) 6-26.

H, R., Plutarch, Leipzig, 1912.

H, D. C., Plutarch and the Persians, PhD diss. University of Southern

Califonia, 1967.

H, A., "Symposion", RE, 4. A 1 (1931) 1266-70.

H, B., Xenophons Symposion : Ein Kommentar, Stuttgart, Leipzig, 1999.

J, F., "Ktesias", RE, 11.2 (1922) 2032-73.

K, R.G., Old Persian: Grammar, Text, Lexicon, New Haven, 1953.

K, J., "Kunaxa", in J. K & G. V (eds.), Antike

Schlachtfelder, Berlin, (1924-1931), pp. 222-42.

L, D., Cetsias de Cnidos, Paris, 2004.

L, B., Religion, Empire and Torture: e Case of Achaemenian Persia, with

a Postscript on Abu Ghraib, Chicago, 2007.

L, F., e Aesthetics of the Greek Banquet: Images of Wine and Ritual

(trans. A. S M), Princeton, 1990.

L, H., Die Religion Zarathustras nach dem Awesta dargestellt, Tรผbingen,

1930.

M, M. O, D. P., Plutarcho, Le Vite di Arato et di Artaserse,

Rome, 1987.

M J., H. M., "e Concept of Philanthropia in Plutarch's Lives", AJPh,

82 (1961) 164-75.

M, M. C., "Foreigners at the Symposium?", in W. J. S (ed.), 1991,

pp. 59-81.

M, A., "Tradizione e invenzione in Ctesia", Atena e Roma, n.s. 12

(1931) 15-44.

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

VI Simposio Espaรฑol Sobre Plutarco (Cรกdiz, 14-16 de Mayo, 1998),

Madrid, 1999.

145

A 'barbarian' symposium and the absence of philanthropia ( Artaxerxes 15)

M, O., "Symposium and Mรคnnerbund", in P. O & A. F

(eds.), Concilium Eirene, Prague, 1982.

_____ "e Symposium as a Social Organization", in R. H (ed.), e

Greek Renaissance of the Eighth Century BC: Tradition and Innovation.

Stockholm, 1983.

_____ (ed.), Sympotica. A Symposium on the Symposium, Oxford, 1990.

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

N, A. G., "Hellenikos-Barbarikos: Plutarch on Greek and Barbarian

Characteristics", WS, 20 (1986) 229-44.

_____"Plutarch's Attitude to Wine", in J. G. M C  . (eds.),

1999, pp. 337-48.

N, W., "e construction of the 'Other'" (trans. A. Nevill), in T. H

(ed.), 2002, pp. 278-310.

O, H., Euripides' Bacchae: e Play and Its Audience, Leiden, 1984.

P , G., "Symposia and Deipna in Plutarch's Lives and in Other Historical

Writings", in W. J. S (ed.), 1991, pp. 157-69.

P, C. B. R., Plutarch: Life of Antony, Cambridge, 1988.

_____ Plutarch and History, London, 2002.

R, P. A., "e Military Situation in Western Asia on the Eve of Cunaxa",

AJPh, 101 (1980) 79-96.

D R, J., La douceur dans la pensรฉe grecque, Paris, 1979.

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

T (eds.), 1995, pp. 106-12.

R, D. A., "On Reading Plutach's Lives", G&R, 13 (1966) 139-54.

S-W, H., "Decadence in the Empire or Decadence in the

Sources? From Source to Synthesis: Ctesias", AchHist 1 (1987) 33-46.

S, T. S., Plutarque et les Barbares: la rhรฉtorique d'une image, Louvain,

1999.

S, A. S., "An Achaemenid Symbol I. A Farewell to 'Fravahr and

Ahuramazda' ", AMI, 7 (1974) 135-44.

_____ "An Achaemenid Symbol II. Farnah '(God given) Fortune' Symbolised",

AMI, 13 (1974) 119-47.

S, D. R., A Commentary on Plutarch's Life of Agesilaos, Oxford, 1997.

S, W. J., "Peace, Symposium, and the Poet", ICS, 6 (1981) 205-14.

_____ "Sympotic Ethics in the Odyssey", in O. M (ed.), 1990, pp.

146

Eran Almagor

213–20.

_____ (ed.), Dining in a Classical Context, Ann Arbor, 1991.

S, B., "Aletheia", Wรผrzburger Jahrbucher fรผr die Altertumswissenschaft, 1

(1975) 9-17.

S, M., Die Religion Zarathushtras. vol. I & II, Stuttgart, 2002.

S, R. B., Persica, Edinburgh, 1997.

S, S., "Character Change in Plutarch", Phoenix, 43 (1989) 62-8.

T, W. W., "e Hellenistic Ruler-Cult and the Daemon", JHS, 48 (1928)

206-19.

T, J. C., "Sลซr Saxvan: A Dinner Speech in Middle Persian", JCOI, 29

(1935) 1-99.

T, L. R., "e 'Proskynesis and the Hellenistic Ruler Cult", JHS, 47

(1927) 53- 62.

T, S.-T., A Commentary on Plutarch's Table Talks, vol. I, Gรถteborg.

1989.

_____ A Commentary on Plutarch's Table Talks, vol. III, Gรถteborg. 1996.

_____"Dionysus Moderated and Calmed: Plutarch on the Convivial Wine",

in J. G. M C  . (eds.), 1999, pp. 57-69.

T, F. B., "Everything to Do with Dionysus: Banquets in Plutarch's

Lives", in J. G. M C  . (eds.), 1999, pp. 491-99.

T, D., e Banquet Libations of the Greeks, Ann Arbor, 1943.

T, M. B., "Plato's Phaedrus in Second-Century Greek Literature", in D. A.

R (ed.), Antonine Literature, Oxford, 1990, pp. 141-73.

T, C. J., "Persian decor in Cyropaedia: some observations", AchHist, 5

(1990) 17-29.

V, M. J., Greek Symposia, London, 1984.

D V, K., "East Meets West at Dinner", Expedition, 15 (1973) 32-9.

W, D. A., Rhetoric and Reality in Plato's Phaedrus, Albany, NY, 1993.

W, G., "Cunaxa and Xenophon", AClass, 61 (1992) 119-34.

147

Cena apud Catones: ideology and sympotic behavior

ce n a a p u D ca T o n e S : i d e o l o g y a n d s y m p o T i c b e h a v i o r

M B

University of South Carolina, Columbia

Abstract

In this paper I will analyze the ideological ramications of the sympotic behavior of Cato

Censorious and Cato Minor as exhibited in their respective Lives. In particular their treatment

of slaves or other participants at the symposia will be discussed. I will demonstrate that Plutarch

is at pains to contrast their behavior negatively with that of Socrates who gures in all four Lives

of the two pairs as an extraneous foil. Ultimately I will examine the primary target of Plutarch's

literary attack; Cicero's highly idealized portraits of both of these Roman exemplars. I will

show that Plutarch is pursuing an ideological agenda that seeks to negatively evaluate two great

symbols of Roman virtue against the truly philosophical Socratic paradigm.

Our earliest sources of information in the history of Greek literature

and culture characterize the symposium as a place of relaxation for the elite

members of society. Dining, drinking, sexual activity, all of this and more took

place with regularity. It was also a social function in which an individual's

"civilized behavior patterns" or lack thereof could be scrutinized behind "a

pretence of entertainment"1 . From the gross transgressions of Penelope's

suitors to Alcibiades' encomium to his would-be-erastes Socrates, the attention

to social norms or their violation could be represented in great works of

literature that depict such scenes. Socrates, for Plato, as well as for Plutarch,

was the exemplar, the canon, whose public behavior mirrored his philosophic

principles. As Plutarch writes: "He was rst to show that life at all times and

in all parts, in all experiences and activities, universally admits philosophy"

(An seni ger. r. p. 796D)2 . is paper will explore Plutarch's use of the Socratic

paradigm in several biographies that touch on sympotic behavior3 .

e Lives of Aristides, Cato the Elder, Phocion, and Cato the Younger all

contain explicit and implicit references to the Athenian. e gure of Socrates

functions as an extraneous foil in all of these Lives 4 . In the Life of Aristides,

Socrates is mentioned comparatively early on in the section discussing Aristides

alleged poverty (Arist. 1.9)5 . e linkage of Socrates with Aristides appears to

be a natural one for Plutarch elsewhere. Aristides is mentioned in the same

breath with Socrates as an example of moderation in the De cohibenda ira

(458C-D), both of whom exemplify the qualities of "mildness (ฯ€ฯฮฑแฝนฯ„ฮทฯ„ฮฟฯ‚)

and forgiveness (ฯƒฯ…ฮณฮณฮฝแฝฝฮผฮทฯ‚), and moderation in passion (ฮผฮตฯ„ฯฮนฮฟฯ€ฮฑฮธฮตแฝทฮฑฯ‚)".

1 T. W, 2005, p. 32.

2 Translation by H. N. F, Plutarch's Moralia X, LCL.

3 See C. B. R. P, 2005b. Pelling focuses in particular on the Life of Alcibiades.

4 I treat this topic in greater detail in a forthcoming article, "Contrasting Catos: e Socratic

Paradigm in Plutarch's Lives".

5 See also the reference to the book by Demetrius of Phalerum entitled Socrates in the proem

(Arist . 1.2).

Phocion underwent philosophic training in the Academy that informed to

some extent his political behavior, and his mode of death recalled Socrates' end

(Phoc . 5.4-56 ; 32.6-77, 38.5)8. e contrast of the two Catos with Socrates is

distinctly dierent and, for obvious reasons, much less natural.

We know that when Plutarch penned the Censor's Life he had the

Younger Cato in mind since he makes explicit reference to him saying that

he was "the best and most illustrious man of his time" (Cat . Ma. 27.7). is

statement comes at the close of the Life, just prior to the synkrisis. Plutarch's

lavish praise of the Younger Cato at the conclusion of the Censor's Life makes

us immediately realize that no such comparably enthusiastic assessment of

the Censor has been made in his Life that we have just read. In contrast we

discern in it the exploration of several realms of activity that nd no parallel in

the Life of Aristides and that Plutarch construes quite negatively. ese same

themes, moreover, appear to link the Life of Cato the Elder to the Life of Cato

the Younger, a linkage reinforced by references to Socrates and by the explicit

reference to the Censor at the beginning of the Younger Cato's Life and twice

thereafter (Cat. Mi. 1.1; 5.1; 8.2-3). ey include the treatment of slaves,

women, and frugality. e intertwining of the theme of the treatment of slaves

with the Socratic paradigm is particularly crucial, as we shall see.

e Elder Cato, whom I shall call the Censor to avoid confusion, explicitly

rejects Socrates, the blameless symbol of Greek culture in the eyes of Plutarch9 .

Plutarch portrays the Censor's criticism as an attempt "to discredit Greek

civilization and culture as a whole":

After all, even Socrates was, according to him [sc. Cato] a chatterbox and

coercive, whose intention it was to lord it over his homeland by using whatever

means he could, namely by undermining traditional values and by compelling

his fellow citizens to modify their views so that they were no longer in

conformity with the laws (Cat. Ma. 23.1)10.

e allusion to Plato's Apology and the charges against Socrates presented

therein is evident in Plutarch's paraphrase of the Censor's critique of Socrates

cited above.

Early in the Life the Censor's oratorical ability is favorably compared with

Socrates' (Cat. Ma. 7. 1). is is Plutarch's own assessment, since the general

6 Cf. Pl., Prt. 342a-343d.

7 Cf. Pl., Grg. 469c; 474b .; Crit. 49b; R. 335d; Ap. 30c-d; 41d.

8 See M. B. T, 1999, pp. 487-98. See also H.-J. G, 1976, pp. 139-41; L. T,

1988, pp. 30-3; C. A M, 1999, pp. 159-71, T. D  , 1999, pp. 131-58, and C. B.

R. P, 2005b, 115-6.

9 A. E. A, 1978, p. 339 thinks that the Censor's remarks about Socrates may be derived

from the Ad lium.

10 Translation D. S with some modication.

149

Cena apud Catones: ideology and sympotic behavior

viewpoint is that Cato's brand of oratory resembles that of Lysias, as he himself

informs us (Cat Ma. 7.2). Socrates is not the man one would normally expect

to be mentioned as a rhetorical paragon. e youth of Rome emulate him and

associate with him (Cat. Ma. 4.2-5; 8.6; cf. also 19.7, and 25.3). e Censor is

their role model. e Censor's only positive remark about Socrates concerns his

role as father and husband. As Plutarch relates, Cato used to say that "the only

thing he admired about him [sc. Socrates] was his abiding civility and restraint

in his dealings with a shrewish wife and retarded children" (Cat. Ma. 20.3)11 .

e Censor, we are informed, enjoyed dinner parties at which the topic of

virtuous conduct was aired. Plutarch comments on this (Cat . Ma. 25.3-4):

He tried to outdo himself also with the feasts that he provided on his farm.

He would always invite his friends from the neighboring farms and the

surrounding areas and would have a delightful time with them. Nor was it

only his contemporaries who found his company pleasant and who sought

him out. He appealed also to the young, since he had, after all, undergone so

many valuable experiences and since he was familiar with so many writings

and important speeches. He regarded the table as the very best creator of

friendships and, while considerable praise of ne and upstanding citizens was

allowed, considerable neglect of those who were worthless and wicked was the

order of the day, since Cato would permit neither censure nor commendation

of such men to gain admittance to the party.

His role as exemplar for the youth, it will be noted, is brought out by

Plutarch in this passage. is is an important theme throughout the Life 12 .

Apparently he had some less successful imitators like Socrates (Pl., Apol .

23c-d) who were know as "left-handed Catos" (Cat . Ma. 19.7). Early in the

Life the frugality of Manius Curius, who is visited by an embassy from the

Samnites while is boiling turnips for dinner, inspires the Censor's own brand

of frugality, according to Plutarch (Cat . Ma. 2.1-3). Manius Curius' example

has a profound impact on the young man:

With his head full of these things Cato would return home and, when he

contemplated instead his own house, his estate, his slaves, his way of life, he

would exert himself all the more and would cut back inessential expenses (Cat .

Ma. 2.3)13.

is is the rst mention of slaves (ฮธฮตฯแฝฑฯ€ฮฟฮฝฯ„ฮฑฯ‚) in the life, another very

signicant theme, as we shall see, and one that is interlocked with the frugality

11 Translation by D. S.

12 On the Elder Cato as a moral example in Plutarch see A. P J, 2002, pp.

109-11.

13 Translation by Sansone with a slight modication. On Plutarch's source for this anecdote

see D. S, 1989, p. 205 ad loc who thinks, with F. P, 1933, p. 57, that Plutarch

found it in Cato's Origines.

theme. Use of Cicero's De senectute has been detected in this anecdote14 .

While Manius Curius's meeting with the Samnite embassy is referred to in

other ancient sources15 , only Cicero in De senectute 16 connects it explicitly with

the Censor's visit to the great Roman statesman's farm.

Immediately after this passage we encounter the introduction of another

major theme, the Censor's rst encounter with Greek philosophy, his training

in Pythagorean doctrine by Nearchus:

In the course of conversation he heard from him those doctrines which Plato

too had formulated, namely that the greatest enticement to wrongdoing is

pleasure, that the soul's chief encumbrance is the body, that those exercises

of reason that most successfully sunder and divorce the soul from corporeal

sensation are the true liberators and puriers of the soul. is caused him to

espouse still more fondly the life of simplicity and self-discipline (Cat . Ma.

2.3-4)17.

e references to the Phaedo (64e-65d) and the Timaeus (69d) are

unmistakable18 . As David Sansone in his commentary notes, the only other

source that mentions this most likely ctitious encounter is Cicero in his

De senectute 12.41 and it is most likely of Cicero's own invention. In his

commentary on De senectute, Powell also thinks that Plutarch draws on Cicero

here, but is less inclined to think that Cicero is "indulging in completely

unfounded invention at this point"19 . We know that Plutarch was familiar

with this work of Cicero's because he explicitly cites it (De senectute 12.42) in

his Life of Titus Flamininus (18.10) and in his Life of Cato the Elder (17.5)20 .

e scene in the Life of Titus Flamininus (18.3-19.6) dramatizes the cruel

execution of a prisoner at a symposium by Titus' brother Lucius to gratify a

young male lover. e scene, which is also depicted even more lavishly in the

Life of Cato the Elder (17.1-6) also serves to introduce the Censor's successful

expulsion of Lucius from the Senate for this horric spectacle committed at

14 On Plutarch's use of De senectute in general, see J. G. F. P, 1988, p. 19, n. 50 and on

this passage in particular 218-219, ad loc.

15 Plu., Mor. 194f, Apophth . Rom. Curius 2, Ath. 10.419a (=Megacles, FGH 4,443), Plin.,

Nat. 19.26 (87), Flor. 1.13.22, V. Max. 4.3.5a.

16 He also makes very brief reference to the Censor's connection with Manius Curius in De

rep. 3.40.

17 Translation by D. S.

18 C f. D. S, 1989, p. 206 ad loc., who only notes here the reference to Plato's Timaeus

69d.

19 J. G. F. P (ed.), 1988, p. 182 ad loc. notes : "…it seems highly likely that this

passage of Plutarch derives from Cicero, and so cannot be used as independent corroboration."

20 See E. V, 1982, p. 291, in reference to the close correspondence of Plu., Cat.

Ma. 2.5 and Cic., Sen. 1.3, who acknowledges the possibility that Plutarch used De senectute,

but thinks it probable that Plutarch used another (unnamed) source, yet nevertheless concedes

(p. 299) the signicance of Cicero as an important source for Plutarch in general: "Cicerone

รจ fonte autorevole per Plutarco". Valgiglio appears to be unaware of the direct citation of De

senectute in the Life of Titus Flamininus. See also the suggestive remarks of A. E. A, 1978,

p. 300.

151

Cena apud Catones: ideology and sympotic behavior

the banquet. ere can be little doubt that Plutarch has his eye on Cicero's

representation of the Censor as he composes his Life.

Cicero's idealized portrait of the Censor not only makes him out to be a

sapiens, a proto-philosopher in a pre-philosophic era in Rome, it also explicitly

contrasts him positively with Socrates21 . For Cicero at any rate Cato's

superiority as a paradigm derives not just from his words, as in the case of

Socrates, but from his deeds as well22 . Especially in De senectute, Cicero holds

up the Censor's behavior in old age as exemplary and praiseworthy. e vigor

in old age that Cicero praises is an ambiguous trait for Plutarch because it leads

to immoderate behavior, actions never mentioned or even misrepresented by

Cicero. For example, one immediate consequence of his wife's death is that

the Censor takes a young slave girl as his concubine (Cat . Ma. 24.1-10). is

act is the23 source of estrangement between father and son. Cato attempts to

eradicate the problem by contracting a marriage with a young woman of lower

status who is a fraction of his age. His explanation to his son that he wishes

to sire more sons is branded a boldfaced lie by Plutarch, who evidently regards

the old man's inability to master his passion in old age as reprehensible (Cat .

Ma. comp. 33/6.1-2). is entire chain of events is related in great detail by

Plutarch who does not always delve into his subject's private lives with the

enthusiasm and graphic detail of a Suetonius24 . Both the Censor and Cato the

Younger lie to their sons, according to Plutarch!

Clearly however Plutarch adopts his most critical stance with respect to

the Censor's treatment of slaves. We are informed initially that he works

alongside them in summer and in winter, eating the same bread and drinking

the same wine as they do (Cat. Ma. 3.2)25 . We are also told that he never paid

more than 1,500 drachma for a slave as a general rule and was accustomed

to sell o the aged and inrm ones (4.5-6). is latter habit elicits one of

the most decidedly critical discussions in the entire Life, in which Plutarch

maligns the unfeeling attitude (แผ€ฯ„ฮตฮฝฮฟแฟฆฯ‚ แผ„ฮณฮฑฮฝ แผคฮธฮฟฯ…ฯ‚) that he thinks must be

responsible for this practice (Cat. Ma. 5.1-7)26 .

21 See in particular F. P, 1933; R. G, 1936; U. K, 1964.

22 Amic. 2.6-10.

23 Cf. Cicero's Censor (Sen. 14.47).

24 See, e.g, Plutarch's Life of Julius Caesar in comparison with Suetonius's Divus Julius. On

male sexual behavior in Plutarch in general see P. A. S, 1995, P. W, 1998, T. D ,

1999, pp. 94-7, J. B, 2003 and M. B, 2007a, pp. 53-66. See also H. G, 1977, pp.

73-95, for a detailed analysis of the category Erotika in Suetonius' biographies.

25 is was not a typical Greek desiderium. Cf P. C, 1998, p. 12: "…the Pagan

Greeks were mostly agreed that working for one's living was not an intrinsic good, and their

term for hard physical toil, ponos, is generally pejorative; to be without ponos was, according to

Hesiod, to live like the blessed immortal gods." See also Cat . Ma. 1.9.

26 See P. A. S, 1997, pp. 77-8, M. B, 2000, pp. 15-32 and B. A 2005,

pp. 220-2. is same adjective atenes (indicating in Plutarch rigid, inexorable, and inexible

behavior) recurs in the Life of the Younger Cato several times (2.3; 4.1-2), where it appears

to characterize Cato's unbending pursuit of justice (dikaiosune) in association with the Stoic

Later in the Life the Censor's commitment to frugality is called into

question. We are told he possessed many slaves (Cat . Ma. 21.1). Cato, we

are told, regularly subjected those slaves who delivered less than attentive

service at the dinner table to a postprandial lashing (Cat. Ma. 21.4). e fear

of severe punishment was the determinant of his slave Paccius' suicide (Cat.

Ma. 10.6)27 . We can infer this from Plutarch's later description of the harsh

discipline and complete control the Censor appears to maintain over his slaves,

even restricting even their sexual behavior in a way that generates increased

revenue for himself (Cat . Ma. 21.1-3). He contrived to foment divisiveness

among them as a prophylactic measure against any suspected concord which

he feared (Cat . Ma. 21.4). ose slaves whom he found guilty of some serious

oence he executed in front of the other slaves, presumably as a warning (Cat .

Ma. 21.4). e repeated evocation of this theme in the Life of the Elder Cato

nds no corresponding parallel in any of the other Lives with perhaps one

exception. Generally slaves are mentioned in their expected roles, as incidental

participants in various events28 . Only in the Life of Antony do we nd frequent

reference to slaves and slave-like behavior that appears to be thematic, though

in a very dierent way29 .

In the context of our discussion, his punishment of slaves at symposia

requires further scrutiny because Plutarch describes a transformation in the

Censor's behavior over time:

Now, at rst, when Cato was still poor and serving in the army he was not at

all fastidious about his meals. Instead, he made it clear that it was singularly

reprehensible to bicker with a slave for the sake of one's belly. Later however,

philosopher Antipater of Tyre. It is no accident that this same adjective is applied to Aristides

(Arist . 2.2), in contrast to emistocles, to describe his characteristic unwavering pursuit of

justice.

27 "…when Cato found out about it he hanged himself rather than face him." (trans. D.

S) Cf. K. R. B, 1994, p.111: "It seems that Paccius was so afraid of Cato and

his powers of correction that forestalling certain punishment by the act of suicide was all that

he could do."

28 See, e.g. Lyc. 2 (enslavement of helots), 11, 16, 24 (helots), 28 (the killing of helots during

the krupteia, etc,), Sol. 7, Arist. 10 (Spartans accompanied by 7 helots each), em. 30, Aem. 22,

TG. 2, 8, CG. 37(16), Mar. 2, 5, 37, 43-44, Sull. 9, 28, 37, Pomp. 49, 75, Caes. 46.

29 Antony is depicted as dressing like a slave (Ant. 10). He changes into a slave's clothes to

avoid detection (Ant. 14). Slave boys resembling Eros accompany Cleopatra, as Aphrodite, on

her yacht as she sails to Antony, as Dionysus (Ant. 26). Both Antony and Cleopatra dress like

slaves to walk the streets of Alexandria (Ant. 29). e role of various slaves is foregrounded in

the nal phase of the Life, as their master and mistress become increasingly passive and helpless

(Ant . 63, 67, 75, 76). Antony and Cleopatra die as slaves among their slaves (Ant. 75-87).

Perhaps telling in this context of Plutarch's underlying motives is the depiction of Antony's

virtual enslavement of freeborn Greeks, including Plutarch's great-grandfather Nicarchus, by

forcing them with whips to carry grain to the harbor, after having taken their money, slaves, and

yoke-animals (Ant. 68). e negative paradigmatic value of the Lives of Demetrius and Antony is

of course explicit (Dem. 1). Here the criticism is directed at those who behave in slavish ways,

hinting at a lack of self-mastery.

153

Cena apud Catones: ideology and sympotic behavior

as his circumstances improved, when he entertained friends and colleagues, no

sooner was dinner over than he would punish those who had been the slightest

bit negligent in any aspect of the service or preparation of the feast by beating

them with a leather strap (Cat . Ma. 21.4).

It is unclear whether the Censor's guests were still present to witness this

unsightly spectacle. e important point is that it is not the mark of a sapiens to

behave in this manner. is passage needs to be read with the one cited above

that follows about the discussions permitted at the Censor's dinner parties

(Cat . Ma. 25.3-4) 30 . is type of behavior would be unthinkable for Socrates

who also preferred edifying topics of conversation at the dinner table. As we

can well imagine, Cicero does not refer to the Censor's punitive treatment

of slaves in De senectute (14.46). Nevertheless De senectute may be Plutarch's

source for the Censor's custom of hosting edifying dinner parties31 . Notably

Cicero has the Censor quote a remark of Socrates related in Xenophon's

Symposium (2.26). Plutarch's insertion violently disrupts the Socratic illusion.

In Plutarch's Life of Cato the Elder, self-mastery vis-ร -vis his own slaves seems

to be a central issue32 .

is same question is raised in the Life of the Younger Cato. If we turn

to that Life we encounter a dramatic scene that abruptly calls into question

the Younger Cato's self-mastery and treatment of his slaves33 . I am referring

to the prelude to his suicide and the depiction of his death. is scene has

recently been closely analyzed by several scholars so I will be brief34 . We are

rst made aware of Cato's state of mind at a symposium the night prior to

his death. Cato rises to the defense of one of the paradoxes of the Stoic

position that "the good man alone is free, and that all the bad are slaves" which

has been opposed by an unnamed Peripatetic35 who is present (Cat. Mi. 67)36 .

Cato's long reply is delivered in a tone that is loud, harsh, and astonishingly

contentious (ฯƒฯ†ฮฟฮดฯแฝธฯ‚ แผฮผฯ€ฮตฯƒแฝผฮฝ แฝ ฮšฮฌฯ„ฯ‰ฮฝ, ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ„ฯŒฮฝฮฟฮฝ ฯ€ฯฮฟฯƒฮธฮตแฝถฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ„ฯฮฑฯ‡ฯฯ„ฮทฯ„ฮฑ

ฯ†ฯ‰ฮฝแฟ†ฯ‚, แผ€ฯ€ฮญฯ„ฮตฮนฮฝฮต ฯ€ฮฟฯฯฯ‰ฯ„ฮฌฯ„ฯ‰ ฯ„แฝธฮฝ ฮปฯŒฮณฮฟฮฝ, แผ€ฮณแฟถฮฝฮน ฮธฮฑฯ…ฮผฮฑฯƒฯ„แฟท ฯ‡ฯฮทฯƒฮฌฮผฮตฮฝฮฟฯ‚). e

vehemence of this verbal onslaught, we are informed, signals to the onlookers

that Cato has decided to take his own life. is type of behavior at a symposium

is obviously unacceptable and unphilosophic in the extreme. His emotional

30 Read this also with his prosecution of Lucius for disrupting a symposium with violence

(Cat . Ma. 17.1-6).

31 See J. G. F. P, 1988, p. 19, n. 50.

32 T. W, 1988, p.182, in citing this passage, notes: "Even in antiquity, Cato

was seen as an example of a cruel master, and his attitude towards his slaves was considered

inhumane."

33 Cf. also Cato's reluctance to free the slaves in an emergency situation (Cat. Mi. 60. 3-4).

34 See J. G, 1999, M. B. T, 1999; A. V. Z, 2007 and M. B

(forthcoming, see n. 4).

35 Presumably Demetrius. Cf. Cat. Mi. 65.11 and G's note, 1993, p. 514 n. 458, in her

edition.

36 Perrin's translation. e intensity of Cato's reaction would appear to contradict Plutarch's

earlier (Cat . Mi. 1.5-6) assessment of Cato's slowness to anger.

volatility is again underscored when, later that night, he begins to raise his

voice (ฮผแพถฮปฮปฮฟฮฝ แผฮฝฮญฯ„ฮตฮนฮฝฮต ฯ„แฝดฮฝ ฯ†ฯ‰ฮฝแฝดฮฝ) at his slaves who do not bring him his

sword and ends by striking one of them on the mouth with his st so hard that

he injures his hand, now in a state of anger and shouting loudly (ฯ‡ฮฑฮปฮตฯ€ฮฑฮฏฮฝฯ‰ฮฝ

ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮฒฮฟแฟถฮฝ แผคฮดฮท ฮผฮญฮณฮฑ) (Cat. Mi. 68.4-5). is type of behavior towards slaves

is explicitly rejected by Plutarch (De coh. ira 459B-460C; 461A-462A; 463B)

and Seneca (De ira 2.25.4; 3.1.4; 3.24.2; 3.35.1-3; 3.39.2-4) in their treatises

on restraining rage37 .

Here in the nal moments of his life Cato clearly does not embody the

calm and serene Stoic sage38 . In the world of Socrates, as portrayed to us by

Plato, Cato's behavior is more like that of a rasymachus or Callicles. is

comportment unbecoming of a philosopher is juxtaposed with the eminently

philosophic pastime of reading Plato's Phaedo, bearing here its ancient title of

On the Soul39 . We are informed no less than four times that Cato is reading

or returning to his reading of this dialogue, the classic portrait of philosophic

death (Cat. Mi. 68.2; 68.3; 68.4; 70.2)40 . is striking contrast reects the

culmination of the Socrates-motif, a motif alluded to in the Life (cf. Cat . Mi.

46.1, where Cato is implicitly compared to Socrates). rough mention of this

dialogue an educated audience is prompted to recollect and contrast Cato's

agitated nal moments with Socrates' calm bearing to the detriment of our

image of the former41 . Cato's bloody mode of death is equally divergent (Cat.

Mi.70). Returning to his reading of the Phaedo, we are informed that he has

managed to read it through twice completely. After sleeping for a while he

summons his freedmen Butas and doctor Cleanthes. Cleanthes bandages his

hand. Left alone he then attempts to kill himself with his sword, but because

of his injured hand the thrust is not lethal and his bowels sag out of the wound.

In his death throes (ฮดฯ…ฯƒฮธฮฑฮฝฮฑฯ„แฟถฮฝ) he falls to the oor overturning a geometric

37 W. V. H, 2001, pp. 317-36 provides an excellent survey.

38 Plutarch also related that Cato shifts the focus of the conversation (which has now stalled

thanks to his outburst) to those who are attempting to escape by sea, etc. At this juncture Cato

expresses his fear (ฮดฮตฮดฮนแฝฝฯ‚ repeated twice) for their safety, another inappropriate emotion for a

Stoic sage to confess (Cat. Mi. 67.4). Cf. also Phaedo's assessment of Socrates's fearlessness

(แผ€ฮดฮตแฟถฯ‚ ) and nobility (ฮณฮตฮฝฮฝฮฑแฝทฯ‰ฯ‚) in confronting death that nds conrmation in the subsequent

dramatization of the condemned philosopher's death (Pl., Phaed. 58e). I nd it impossible to

follow T. D , 1999, pp. 143-4) here who writes: "e calm of both men [sc. Phocion and

Cato] at crises, and particularly at their deaths, is another Sokratic feature…Like Sokrates, both

men remain calm despite the emotions of others." T. D, 1999, p.151) later seems to notice

the incongruity of Cato's behavior.

39 Plato (R., 8. 548e-549a) associates the harsh treatment of slaves with the uneducated

man.

40 Cf. T. E, 2004, p. 7: "Das Bild des philosophischen Todes, das Platon seinen Lesern

im Phaidon vorstellt, hat diesen Dialog รผber die Jahrhunderte zu dem klassischen Beispiel einer

consolatio philosophiae werden lassen."

41 e exemplum Socratis includes inter alia the restraint of anger. Cf. e.g., Sen., De ira

3.13.3 and Plu., De coh. ira 455B. Socrates' calm and jovial bearing is frequently alluded to in

the Phaedo.

155

Cena apud Catones: ideology and sympotic behavior

abacus that stood near him42. His servants, summoned by the noise, discover

him still alive. His doctor tries to replace his bowels and sew up the wound

but Cato thrusts him away, rips open the wound and claws at his bowels with

his hands and so dies. Only Plutarch's account provides us with details such

as the striking of the slave and the repeated references to Cato's resumption

of reading the dialogue until he has read it through twice. e other major

accounts of this event that we possess lack these details43 .

is Socrates-motif44 , as I said, is found in the Life of Phocion too45. e

dierence is that Phocion's death reminded the Athenians of Socrates' end and

was not antithetical to it (Phoc. 38.5). Cato and Phocion may both go around

barefoot in public as Socrates46 customarily did (Phoc. 4.4; Cat. Mi. 6.6; 44.1;

50.1), both underwent philosophic training which informed in some way their

political activities (Phoc. 3.1 (referring to Cicero's critique of Cato acting as

though he lived in Plato's commonwealth47 ); 4.1-2; 5.4-548; 32.6-749 , Cat. Mi.

4.2; 10.1-3; 46.1), but, in a crisis situation, only Phocion maintains delity

to the behavioral guidelines his training in philosophy advocates and thus

faces death with admirable calmness and รฉlan (แผฮธฮฑฯฮผฮฑฮถฮฟฮฝ ฯ„แฝดฮฝ แผ€ฯ€ฮฌฮธฮตฮนฮฑฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ

ฮผฮตฮณฮฑฮปฮฟฯˆฯ…ฯ‡ฮฏฮฑฮฝ ฯ„ฮฟแฟฆ แผ€ฮฝฮดฯฯŒฯ‚) (Phoc. 36.1)50 . Cato's behavior in contrast appears

to cast doubt on the depth of his commitment to philosophy and successful

internalization of its precepts51 . e contrast in the Life of Phocion, as we

have indicated, focuses on the retention of emotional control under trying

circumstances. e possession of inner calm founded on conviction so vividly

depicted in the Phaedo is reduplicated in Phocion's death scene. e Younger

Cato lacks this inner calm born of conviction. His frenetic reading and rereading

of the Phaedo in the nal moments of his life may serve to underscore this.

His overt display of immoderate grief at the death of his half-brother Caepio

42 On the symbolic nature of this see A. V. Z, 2007, p. 219, and Plato, Phaedo

108d with B's, 1911, p. 128 and 150) note and Appendix II.

43 Appian, b. c. 2.99; Cassius Dio, 43.11.4-5; Florus, 2.13.71-2; Livy, Per . 114; [Caes.], b.

Afr. 88.3-4. On the provenance of this account see J. G, 1979 and below.

44 e parallels and dierences between Cato's suicide and Socrates's execution are recounted

in detail by M. B. T, 1999.

45 See H.-J. G, 1976, pp. 139-41; L. T, 1988, pp. 30-3; C. A M,

1999, pp. 159-71, and T. D , 1999, pp. 131-58.

46 Cf. Pl., Phdr. 229a and Smp. 220b supported by Aristophanes, Clouds 103 and 363.

47 Cicero, Att. 2.1.8.

48 Cf. Pl., Protagoras 342a-343d.

49 Cf. Pl., Grg. 469c; 474b .; Crit. 49b; R. 335d; Ap., 30c-d; 41d.

50 Cato appears to possess this quality too in better times (Cat. Mi. 65. 10).

51 We remember Plutarch's early judgment that Cato's apparent "reluctance to be persuaded

made his learning more laborious" (Cat. Mi.1.8). His rereading of the Phaedo in such a short

time span might seem to allude to this defect. Another problem that may have troubled Cato

(at least in Plutarch's conceptual world) is that Socrates in the Phaedo (61c-62c) appears to

forbid suicide explicitly. On suicide in the Phaedo see J. W, 2001, pp. 91-106. On the

Stoic conception of suicide as permissible for rational reasons in certain exigencies (ฮตแฝ”ฮปฮฟฮณฮฟฯ‚

แผฮพฮฑฮณฯ‰ฮณแฝต) see SVF 3.757-768 with G's, 1951, p. 476) note in his edition of the Tusculan

Disputations, M. G, 1986, pp. 72-5, and J. W, 2001, pp. 100-1.

is interpreted by Plutarch as signaling a failure in his philosophic training

(Cat. Mi. 11. 3-8)52 , a failing shared by another contemporary Roman devotee

of Greek philosophy, Cicero, whose overwhelming grief at the death of his

daughter Tullia is regarded by Plutarch as a sign of the statesman's philosophic

insuciency (Cic. 41.8)53 .

Michael Trapp has rightly pointed out that Socrates is an intermediary

foil sharing resemblances that allow comparison of Cato and Phocion in

a way that obviates the need for a formal synkrisis at the end, which this

pair lacks54 . He also notes (correctly in my opinion) that the message –

whatever it may be – that Plutarch is seeking to communicate "bears more

closely on Cato than on Phocion"55 . Trapp then suggests that Plutarch's

intent was to critique subtly earlier Roman writing on Cato known (?) from

Cicero's Tusculan Disputations (1.71.); Cicero had employed the Cato-

Socrates comparison to embellish the man's legend56 . For Cicero, Cato in

particular exemplied the principle that the philosopher's way of life is really

a preparation for death. In a particularly telling passage a comparison of

Cato's with Socrates's mode of death serves to introduce a paraphrase of

Plato's Phaedo 57 ( Tusc. 1.71-75). Undoubtedly there was more of this in

Cicero's lost work Cato, in response to which Caesar penned his scathing

Anti-Cato, also lost to us58 . is book, as Goar notes, "established Cato as

52 [sc. ฮšแฝฑฯ„ฯ‰ฮฝ] แผฮผฯ€ฮฑฮธฮญฯƒฯ„ฮตฯฮฟฮฝ แผ”ฮดฮฟฮพฮตฮฝ แผข ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฟฯƒฮฟฯ†ฯŽฯ„ฮตฯฮฟฮฝ แผฮฝฮตฮณฮบฮตแฟ–ฮฝ ฯ„แฝดฮฝ ฯƒฯ…ฮผฯ†ฮฟฯฮฌฮฝ. Cf. Consol.

ad uxor. 608c, 609b, 611a. See also T. D  , 1999, p. 151. We are informed in the Life ( Cat . Mi.

6.2-4) that Cato's civic duties kept him from literary pursuits (philologein) and that he spent his

nights drinking and conversing with philosophers (ฮฝฯฮบฯ„ฯ‰ฯ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ€ฮฑฯแฝฐ ฯ€ฯŒฯ„ฮฟฮฝ ฯƒฯ…ฮณฮณฮฏฮฝฮตฯƒฮธฮฑฮน ฯ„ฮฟแฟ–ฯ‚

ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฟฯƒฯŒฯ†ฮฟฮนฯ‚). Early in the Life we are led to question Cato's pursuit of literature in a passage

that stresses his excessive love of dice-throwing and overindulgence in drinking: "At suppers he

would throw dice for the choice of portions [. . .] At rst, also, he would drink once after supper

and then leave the table; but as time went on he would allow himself to drink very generously,

so that he often tarried at his wine till early morning. His friends used to say that the cause of

this was his civic and public activities; he was occupied with these all day, and so prevented from

literary pursuits, wherefore he would hold intercourse with the philosophers at night and over

the cups. For this reason, too, when a certain Memmius remarked in company that Cato spent

his entire nights in drinking, Cicero answered him by saying: 'Shouldn't you add that he also

spends his entire days throwing dice?'"(Cat . Mi. 6.2-5)

53 Cf. also Cicero's reaction to his exile (32.5-7). S. S, 1990b/1995, p. 242f. sees excessive

grief in Plutarch as symptomatic of "ineective education". For Plutarch's attitude towards how

one ought to mourn the death of a loved one see the Life of Fabius Maximus 24.6.

54 M. T, 1999, p. 495: "And Socrates, ultimately the Socrates of the Phaedo, is the

principle medium through which the comparison is developed. Plutarch uses him as a 'third

man', a tertium comparationis whose resemblances to both of the other two individually allow

them to be compared not only with him but with each other." e only other pairs lacking a

formal synkrisis are the Lives of emistocles and Camillus, Pyrrhus and Marius, and Alexander the

Great and Caesar.

55 M. T, 1999, p. 496.

56 M. T, 1999, p. 496 (Trapp himself does not in the end subscribe to this view). See

also J. G, 1999, pp. 357-64 on the subsequent tradition of the Cato/Socrates coupling.

57 Cf. Pl., Phaedo 67d and 80e

58 On Cicero's role in establishing the Cato legend and Caesar's response see R. G, 1987,

157

Cena apud Catones: ideology and sympotic behavior

the Roman model of the Stoic sage — a fact of great importance for later

adherents of Stoicism"59 . Seneca's frequent juxtaposing of the deaths of Cato

with Socrates attests to this60 . Much of the material critical of Cato that

Plutarch presents in the Life appears to be drawn from the Anti-Cato 61 . It is

notable that Plutarch, in his Life of Julius Caesar (54.6), mentions that both

of these works continued to have many eager readers in his own day because

of Caesar and Cato. e presentation of this material in the Life and the

nature of the juxtaposed portrait of Phocion, in my opinion, are expressive

of Plutarch's opposition to Cicero's idealized image of the man qua Stoic

sage and its survival into the imperial period, especially in the writings of

Seneca62 . Plutarch's portraits go a long way towards undermining this image

of the proto-Stoic Censor and his grandson Cato, the paradigmatic Stoic

sage.

In conclusion it appears that Plutarch inserted the gure of Socrates into

the Lives of Aristides, Cato the Elder, Phocion, and Cato the Younger to discredit

the ideologically motivated comparison of the Censor and Cato the Younger

with Socrates that Cicero presented to posterity. Both men are portrayed

as disrupting the civilized and civilizing atmosphere of the symposium with

reproachable behavior. While Aristides and Phocion are positively compared

to Socrates who clearly functions as a positive canon, the Censor and Cato

the Younger fall short. Supercially they resemble Socrates. eir virtue is

admired in certain circles. ey function as role models for the youth. ey

dress modestly. e younger Cato even goes barefoot in public. Both however

deviate most strongly from the Socratic paradigm in their violent treatment

of slaves. Not surprisingly the treatment of women, children, slaves, and

animals is constantly mentioned by Plutarch in De cohibenda ira as indicative

of a man's self-control. Ability in this area is for Plutarch directly related to

education (paideia), specically philosophical training. Plutarch, in adopting

this rhetorical strategy, invites us to contrast the Censor with the Younger Cato

and both with Socrates. He wants us to realize that Late Republican Rome

had made some progress that could be directly attributed to their increasing

assimilation of Greek culture but that even their best representatives still were

not fully trained in the philosophic arts as the comparison with the Socratic

paradigm fully reveals. e Ciceronian idealization of the two men is thus

repudiated.

pp. 13-8.

59 R. G, 1987, p.15.

60 See Sen., Ep. 67.7; 71.17; 98.12; 104. 28f.; Prov. 3.4; 3.12.; Tranq. 16.1; Marc. 22.3

(collected by J. G, 1979, p. 64-5, n. 61).

61 See, e.g., J. G, 1979, pp. 54-6. I disagree with Geiger's skeptical conclusion (p. 56)

that questions Plutarch's direct acquaintance with both the Anticato and Cicero's Cato. Just the

opposite would likely be true, i.e., that the availability and continued popularity of both works

in Plutarch's own time (cf. Caes. 54.6) would virtually ensure that he read them.

62 See especially J. G, 1999 on this.

W o r k s c i T e d

A, A., "Die politische Bedeutung des jรผngeren Catos", Classica et

Mediaevalia, 4 (1941) 100-203.

A, B., Prรผfstein der Gemรผter. Untersuchungen zu den ethischen

Vorstellungen in den Parallelbiographien Plutarchs am Beispiel des Coriolan,

Hildesheim, Zurich/New York, 2005.

A M, C., "Rasgos socrรกticos de la personalidad de Fociรณn en la

Vida de Plutarco", in A. P J  . (eds.), Plutarco, Platรณn

y Aristรณteles. Actas del V Congreso Internacional de la I.P.S. (Madrid-

Cuenca, 4-7 de Mayo, 1999), Madrid, 1999, pp. 159-72.

A, A. E., Cato the Censor, Oxford, 1978.

B, D., Plutarque et le stoรฏcisme, Paris, 1969.

B, H., "Interne Synkrisis bei Plutarch", Hermes, 130 (2002) 467-89.

B, M., "Anecdote and the Representation of Plutarch's Ethos", in L. V

D S (ed.), Rhetorical eory and Praxis in Plutarch. Acta of the

IV International Congress of the I.P.S. (Leuven, July 3-6), Louvain,

2000, pp.15-32.

______ "Eroticism, Power, and Politics in the Parallel Lives", in J. M. N I

 R. L. L (eds.), El amor en Plutarco. Actas del IX Simposio espaรฑol

sobre Plutarco (28-30 Septiembre, 2006), Leรณn, 2007a, pp. 457-66.

______ "e Story of Damon and the Ideology of Euergetism in the Lives of

Cimon and Lucullus", Hermathena, 182 (2007b) 53-69.

B, J., "No Time for Love: Plutarch's Chaste Caesar", GRBS, 43 (2003)

13-29.

B, K. R., Slavery and Society at Rome, Cambridge, 1994.

B, J., Plato's Phaedo (edited with introduction and notes by J. B.),

Oxford, 1911.

C, P., "e economy (economies) of ancient Greece", Dialogos:

Hellenic Studies Review, 5 (1998) 4-24.

C, C. P., "Cicero's Stoicism and the Understanding of Cicero's Speech for

Murena", TAPhA, 116 (1986) 229-39.

D, A., "Ein Streit um die rechte Sokrates-Nachfolge", in Hortus Litterarum

Antiquarum: Festschrift fรผr Hans Arnim Gรคrtner zum 70. Geburtstag,

Heidelberg, 2000, pp. 93-105.

D, K., Exemplum Socratis: Studien zur Sokratesnachwirkung in der

kynischstoischen Popularphilosophie der frรผhen Kaiserzeit und im frรผhen

Christentum, Wiesbaden, 1979.

159

Cena apud Catones: ideology and sympotic behavior

D, T., Plutarch's Lives: Exploring Virtue and Vice, Oxford, 1999.

E, T., Platon Phaidon (translation and commentary by . E.), Gรถttingen,

2004.

E, H., "Die Bedeutung der Synkrisis in den Parallelbiographien Plutarchs",

Hermes, 84 (1956) 398-424.

F, R., Cato Uticensis, Darmstadt, 1983.

F, F., "Synkrisis", Hermes, 58 (1923) 327-68.

F, M., "e Philosopher", in J. B & G. E. R. L (eds.),

Greek ought: A Guide to Classical Knowledge, Cambridge, Mass., 2000,

pp. 3-19.

F, B.-P., "An Interpretation of Plutarch's Cato the Younger", History of

Political ought, 18 (1997) 1-23.

F, S., Plutarco Vite Parallele: Cimone (introduzione, traduzione e note

di S. F., Lucullo, introduzione e note di B. S, traduzione di B.

M), Milan, 1989.

G, H.-J., Phokion: Studien zur Erfassung seiner historischen Gestalt ,

Munich, 1976.

______ "Rรถmischer mos und griechische Ethik. รœberlegungen zum

Zusammenhang von Akkulturation und politischer Ordnung im

Hellenismus", HZ, 258.3 (1994) 593-622.

G, J., "Munatius Rufus and rasea Paetus on Cato the Younger",

Athenaeum, 57 (1979) 48-72.

______ "Plutarch's Parallel Lives: the Choice of Heroes", Hermes, 109 (1981)

85-104, (reprinted in B. S, 1995, pp. 165-90).

______ Cornelius Nepos and Ancient Political Biography, Stuttgart, 1985.

______ "Nepos and Plutarch: From Latin to Greek Political Biography", ICS,

13 (1988) 245-56.

______ "Plato, Plutarch, and the Death of Socrates and of Cato", in A. P

J . (eds.), Plutarco, Platรณn y Aristรณteles. Actas del V Congreso

Internacional de la I.P.S (Madrid-Cuenca, 4-7 de Mayo, 1999), Madrid,

1999, pp. 357-64.

______ "Felicitas Temporum and Plutarch's Choice of Heroes", in P. A.

S & L. V  S (eds.), Sage and Emperor: Plutarch,

Greek Intellectuals, and Roman Power in the Time of Trajan (98-117

A.D.), Leuven, 2002, pp. 93-102.

______ "Plutarch's Choice of Roman Heroes: Further Considerations", in

A. P J & F. T (eds.), Historical and Biographical

Values of Plutarch's Works. Studies devoted to Professor Philip A. Stadter by

the International Plutarch Society, Mรกlaga, 2005, pp. 231-42.

G, L., Plutarco Vite parallele: Focione (introduzione, traduzione e note di

C. B), Catone Uticense (introduzione di J. G, traduzione e

note di L. G), Milan, 1993.

G, O. (ed.), Cicero: Gesprรคche in Tusculum, Munich, 1951.

G, R., Die Bedeutung des Marius und Cato maior fรผr Cicero, Berlin, 1936.

G, R., e Legend of Cato Uticensis from the rst Century B.C. to the Fifth

Century A.D., Bruxelles, 1987.

G, M., "Philosophy, Cato, and Roman Suicide: I and II", G&R, 33

(1986) 64-77, 192-202.

G, E. S., Culture and National Identity in Republican Rome, London,

1992.

G, H., Studien zur biographischen Technik Suetons, Vienna/Cologne/Graz,

1977.

H, T. N., e Politics of Latin Literature: Writing, Identity, and Empire

in Ancient Rome, Princeton/Oxford, 1998.

H, P., Introduction aux Pensรฉes de Marc Aurรจle, Paris, 1997².

______ What is Ancient Philosophy, translated by Michael Chase from

the French original Qu'est-ce que la philosophie antique, Paris, 1995/

Cambridge, Mass., London, 2002.

H, W. V., War and Imperialism in Republican Rome 327-70 BC, Oxford,

1979.

______ Restraining Rage: e Ideology of Anger Control in Classical Antiquity ,

Cambridge, Mass., London, 2001.

H, J. P., "Plutarch's Portrait of Socrates", ICS, 13.2 (1988) 365-81.

______ "Plutarch and Stoicism", ANRW, 2. 36.5 (1992) 3336-52.

H, K.-J., "Exempla und mos maiorum: รœberlegungen zum kollektiven

Gedรคchtnis der Nobilitรคt,", in H.-J. G & A. M (eds.),

Vergangenheit und Lebenswelt: Soziale Kommunikation, Traditionsbildung

und historisches BewuรŸtsein, Tรผbingen, 1996, pp. 301-38.

H, V., "Pittalacus and Eucles: Slaves in the Public Service of Athens",

Mouseion, 6 (2006) 1-13.

K, U., Untersuchungen zu Ciceros Bild von Cato Censorius, Frankfurt,

1964.

K, K., "Scurra Atticus. e Epicurean View of Socrates", in P. C

161

Cena apud Catones: ideology and sympotic behavior

(ed.) Suzetesis. Studi sull'Epicureismo Greco e Romano oerti a Marcello

Gigante, Naples, 1983, pp. 227-53.

K, F., Rรถmische Geisteswelt, Munich, 1961.

L, D. H. J., "Making Parallels: 'Synkrisis' and Plutarch's emistocles

and Camillus", ANRW, 33.6 (1992) 4154-200.

L, A. A., "Socrates in Hellenistic Philosophy", CQ, 38.1 (1988) 150-71.

______ Epictetus: a Stoic and Socratic Guide to Life, Oxford, 2002.

M, J. M., "Plutarch, Pyrrhus, and Alexander", in P. A. S (ed.),

Plutarch and the Historical Tradition, London and New York, 1992, pp.

90-108.

P, F., Cicero und Cato Censorius, Bottrop, 1993.

P, C. B. R., "Synkrisis in Plutarch's Lives", in F. B I. G

(eds.), Miscellanea Plutarchea, Quad. Giorn. Fil. Ferr., 8 (1986) 83-96.

______ "e Moralism of Plutarch's Lives", in D. I  . (eds.), Ethics

and Rhetoric: Classical Essays for Donald Russell on his Seventy-Fifth

Birthday, Oxford, 1995, pp. 205-20.

______ "Is Death the End? Closure in Plutarch's Lives", in D. H. R &

F. M. D (eds.), Classical Closure: Reading the End in Greek and Latin

Literature, Princeton, 1997, pp. 228-50.

______ "Rhetoric, paideia, and psychology in Plutarch's Lives", in L. V 

S (ed.), Rhetorical eory and Praxis in Plutarch. Acta of the IV

International Congress of the I.P.S. (Leuven, July 3-6) 2000, Leuven,

pp. 331-39.

______ Plutarch and History, London, 2002.

______ "Synkrisis Revisited", in A. P J & F. T (eds.),

Historical and Biographical Values of Plutarch's Works. Studies devoted to

Professor Philip Stadter by the International Plutarch Society, Mรกlaga,

2005a, pp. 325-40.

______ "Plutarch's Socrates", Hermathena, 179 (2005b) 105-39.

P J, A., "e Paradigmatic Education of the Ruler", in P. A .

S & L. V  S (eds.), Sage and Emperor: Plutarch,

Greek Intellectuals, and Roman Power in the Time of Trajan (98-117

A.D.), Leuven, 2002, pp. 105-14.

P, M. (ed.), M. Tullius Cicero: Tusculanae Disputationes, Stuttgart,

1918.

P, J. G. F. (ed.), Cicero Cato Maior De Senectute, Cambridge, 1988.

R, K., "Born to Be Wolves? Origins of Roman Imperialism", in R. W.

W & E. M. H (eds.), Transitions to Empire: Essays Greco-Roman

History, 360-146 B.C., in Honor of E. Badian, Norman, 1996, pp. 273-314.

S, D., Plutarch: e Lives of Aristeides and Cato (edited with translation

and commentary by D. S.), Warminster, 1989.

S, B. (ed.), Essays on Plutarch's Lives, Oxford, 1995.

S, P . A., "Plutarch's Comparison of Pericles and Fabius Maximus", GRBS,

16 (1975) 77-85 (reprinted in B. S, 1995, pp. 155-64).

______ "e Proems of Plutarch's Lives", ICS, 13.2 (1988) 275-95.

______ "Subject to the Erotic: Male Sexual Behavior in Plutarch", in D. C.

I  . (eds.), Ethics and Rhetoric: Classical Essays for Donald Russell

on his Seventy-Fifth Birthday, Oxford, 1995, pp. 221-36.

______ "Anecdotes and the ematic Structure of Plutarchean Biography", in J.

A. F D  F. P P (eds.), Estudios sobre

Plutarco, IV, Aspectos formales. Actas del IV Simposio Espaรฑol sobre Plutarco

(Salamanca, 26-28 de Mayo de 1994), Madrid, 1996, pp. 291-303.

______ "Plutarch's Lives: e Statesman as Moral Actor", in C. S

 . (eds.), Plutarco y la historia. Actas del simposio espaรฑol sobre

Plutarco (Zaragoza, 20-22 de Junio, 1996), Zaragoza, 1997, pp. 65-

81.

S, G., "Plato's Socrates and the Stoics", in P. A. V W (ed.),

e Socratic Movement, Ithaca/London, 1994, pp. 241-51.

S, S., "Character Change in Plutarch", Phoenix, 43 (1989) 62-8.

______ "Plutarch's Lives of Cicero, Cato, and Brutus", Hermes, 118 (1990a)

192-203.

______ "Hellenic Culture and Roman Heroes of Plutarch", JHS, 110 (1990b)

126-45. (reprinted in B. S, 1995, pp. 229-64).

______ "Plutarchan Synkrisis", Eranos, 90 (1992) 101-11.

______ Hellenism and Empire: Language, Classicism, and Power in the Greek

World AD 50-250, Oxford, 1996.

______ "Plato, Plutarch, Athens and Rome", in J. B  M. G

(eds.), Philosophia Togata ii: Plato and Aristotle at Rome, Oxford, 1997,

pp. 165-87.

T, M. B., "Socrates, the Phaedo and the Lives of Phocion and Cato the

Younger", in A. P J  . (eds.), Plutarco, Platรณn y Aristรณteles.

Actas del V Congresso Internacional de la I.P.S. (Madrid-Cuenca, 4-7

de Mayo, 1999), Madrid, 1999, pp. 487-500.

T, L., Phocion the Good, London/New York/Sydney, 1988.

163

Cena apud Catones: ideology and sympotic behavior

V, E., "Alcuni aspetti di Cicerone come fonte di Plutarco", in Studi in

onore di Aristide Colonna, Perugia, 1982.

W, P., "Plutarch on Sex", G&R, 45 (1998) 166-87.

W, J., "Socratic Suicide", JHS, 121 (2001) 91-106.

W, T., e Second Sophistic, Oxford, 2005.

W, T., Greek & Roman Slavery, London/New York, 1988, reprint

of 1981.

Z, A. V., "Cato's Suicide in Plutarch", CQ, 57 (2007) 216-30.

165

Banquet and Philhellenism in the Lives of Flamininus and Aemilius Paullus

ba n q u e T a n d p h i l h e l l e n i s m i n T h e li v e S o f fl a m i n i n u S

a n d ae m i l i u S pa u l l u S

M T

University of Coimbra

Abstract

e Lives of Flamininus and Aemilius Paullus are good examples of Plutarch's tendency to judge his

Roman heroes according to their Hellenic qualities and benefactions to Greeks. While modern

scholars rightly stress that both politicians were mainly driven by Roman interests and personal

ambition, the biographer chooses primarily to highlight their philanthropic nature as well as

their favourable attitude to Greek liberty and culture. Conspicuously, his praise is particularly

generous in two episodes related to feasts and spectacles. Following the proclamation of liberty

at the Isthmian Games, Flamininus' policies are celebrated in the course of a banquet, with his

achievements being judged equal or superior to those of the most eminent Greek statesmen of

the past (Flam. 11). In the Aemilius, it is the protagonist himself who organises splendid feasts

in a way that inspires profound admiration on the part of the Greeks (Aem. 28). While Livy's

account suggests that the victory celebrations at Amphipolis should primarily be seen as a show

of Roman power, Plutarch essentially describes the event as a pleasant entertainment with a

view to revealing Aemilius' personal qualities. Greek-style festivals and banquets thus provide a

most suitable background for presenting the 'liberators' of Greece as exemplars of philhellenism

and philanthrรดpia.

While much attention continues to be devoted to the signicance of the

Parallel Lives as an expression of a shared Graeco-Roman identity among the

imperial รฉlite, recent scholarship has tended to stress the essential Greekness

of Plutarch's outlook and criteria of judgement1 . Evidently, this does not imply

that the Greek heroes are systematically presented as superior to their Roman

pairs2 , yet it is important to acknowledge that the great men of the res publica

are often accorded praise and blame on the basis of their attitude to Hellenic

culture and their benefactions to Greeks3 . us, the representatives of Rome

are expected to prove their worth on a playing eld dened by the norms and

values of Greek civilisation, and it is by displaying ฯ€ฯแพณแฝนฯ„ฮทฯ‚, ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฑฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€แฝทฮฑ ,

and other qualities cherished by Second Sophistic authors that they earn

recognition and acclaim4 .

1 Cf. T. E. D, 1999, pp. 287-309; R. P, 2001, pp. 97-109; S. G, 2002, pp.

254-71; G. R, 2004, pp. 255-64; also G. D'I, 2005, pp. 182-6; M. A. O. S,

2007.

2 Rather the protagonists are treated as equals, as can be seen most clearly in the synkriseis .

Cf. T. E. D, 1999, pp. 257-62, who argues that this is meant to focus the reader's attention

on the moral issues involved. Also note J. B, 1994, pp. 62-9; idem, 2000, who thinks

of a cultural programme.

3 In particular, this applies to their Hellenic education. Cf. C. B. R. P, 1989; S. S,

1990; also idem, 1996, pp. 139-144; further L. A. G M, 1995, pp. 136-47; idem,

2002.

4 On Plutarch's use of these concepts cf. H. M. M J., 1960; idem, 1961; C.

P, 1977, pp. 216-22; J.  R, 1979, pp. 275-307; F. F, 1996, pp.

231-9.

e Lives of Flamininus and Aemilius Paullus may be particularly relevant

in this respect since the two protagonists were not only benefactors but also

conquerors of Greece5 . Both of them are commonly viewed as exponents of

philhellenism, yet it is perfectly clear that this concept cannot be separated from

the parameters of Roman power, public relations, and political manoeuvring6 .

In the case of Aemilius Paullus, it is surely signicant that the sources place at

least as much emphasis on his devotion to mos maiorum as on his admiration

for Greece, but the actions of Flamininus, too, must be understood primarily

with reference to the pursuit of glory, honour, and dignity in the competitive

culture of Republican Rome7 .

is less romantic perspective is by no means absent from Plutarch's

biographical portraits. However, the two statesmen's commitment to Roman

values and the armation of Roman power is not viewed as a serious

limitation on their philhellenic inclinations and policies. In the Flamininus ,

the two spheres are to a large extent structurally separated: while political

machinations do play a certain rรดle in the account of the general's command

in Greece (Flam. 7.1-3; 13.1-4), they are clearly secondary to the focus on

Flamininus' 'Hellenic' qualities and his ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฟฯ„ฮนฮผแฝทฮฑ to confer benefactions (12

and passim). Later on, his return to Rome marks the beginning of excessive,

unreasonable, and untimely ambition both in destructive conicts with his

peers and in the relentless hunt for Hannibal (18.3-21.14)8 . Consequently,

Plutarch's overall judgement of the 'liberator' of Greece is by no means wholly

attering or uncritical9 , but this does not diminish his generous praise for the

protagonist's philhellenism.

Contrary to the biographer's usual practice of ascribing both positive

and negative qualities to his heroes, the Life of Aemilius provides an

exceptionally favourable portrait of the victor of Pydna, which Alberto

Barzanรฒ has even called a piece of "pagan hagiography"10 . Above all, the

protagonist is depicted as a wise educator of those around him in matters

5 On Plutarch's attitude to the 'liberators' of Greece cf. J. M. B, 2005.

6 On the political dimension of Roman philhellenism cf. esp. J.-L. F, 1988, pp. 96-

117 and passim. Consequently, the impact of 'sentimental' considerations and deference to

Greek culture should not be overestimated. Cf. E. B, 1970, pp. 53-7; E. S. G , 1984,

pp. 267-72; R. M. E, 1999; also N. P, 1974, pp. 105-11.

7 Cf., e.g., H. B, 2005, pp. 368-93; R. P, 2005, pp. 325-42 and passim.

8 On the dual structure of the Life cf. C. B. R. P, 1997, pp. 309-18; also idem, 1989,

pp. 208-14; J. J. W, 1992, pp. 219-21.

9 Cf., e.g., R. F & E. C, 1969, pp. 163 sq.; C. P. Jones, 1971, p. 99; pace J.

M. B, 2005, p. 257 (see following note). Nor is the biographer's assessment consistently

more favourable than that advanced by Polybius. Cf. C. B. R. P, 1997, pp. 299-309. Also

note H. T, 1977, pp. 162-4.

10 Cf. A. B, 1994: "agiograa pagana" (p. 406); also idem, 1996, pp. 97-9. However,

this view is partly based on a misreading of Aem. 1, which Barzanรฒ takes to indicate a deliberate

choice on the part of Plutarch to "eliminare dal suo racconto tutti gli aspetti negativi" (A.

B , 1994, p. 404). For a similar appraisal, cf. W. R, 1988, pp. 97-106. Further note J.

M. B, 2005, p. 257, who suggests that both the Flamininus and the Aemilius "come close

to hagiography".

167

Banquet and Philhellenism in the Lives of Flamininus and Aemilius Paullus

of ancestral customs (Aem. 3.2-7), in political and military affairs (11;

17.4)11 , and as regards the vicissitudes of fortune (26.8-27.6; 36)12 . At

Rome, he admirably succeeds in overcoming the common divide between

Senate and people, acting as a champion of the aristocracy while at the

same time winning the affection of the multitude (38.1sq.; 38.6)13 . Beyond

the capital, too, Aemilius is represented as being held in high esteem even

among his enemies (39.7-9), whereas his order to pillage the cities of

Epirus is excused as being "contrary to his good and kind nature (ฯ€ฮฑฯแฝฐ

ฯ„แฝดฮฝ ฮฑแฝ‘ฯ„ฮฟแฟฆ ฯ†ฯฯƒฮนฮฝ, แผฯ€ฮนฮตฮนฮบแฟ† ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ‡ฯฮทฯƒฯ„แฝดฮฝ ฮฟแฝ–ฯƒฮฑฮฝ)" (30.1)14 . In contrast to the

vile and cowardly figure of Perseus15 , the Roman general thus emerges as

a paradigm of wisdom and excellence.

is paper takes a closer look at two spectacular events that epitomise the

relationship between Flamininus and Aemilius Paullus on the one hand and

the Greek public on the other: the proclamation of liberty at the Isthmian

Games in 196 and the victory celebrations at Amphipolis in 167. In both

cases, Plutarch not only takes the opportunity to stress the Roman statesmen's

'Hellenic' qualities but also chooses to highlight the concomitant admiration

and amazement on the part of the Greeks. Conspicuously, this is expressed in

the context of banquets: while Flamininus' policy of liberation is praised by

dining Greeks, Aemilius excels as the courteous and attentive host of a Greek-

style feast.

In the Life of Flamininus, the account of the celebrated proclamation of

liberty is focused not so much on the protagonist himself as on the historical

signicance of the declaration and the consequent gratitude of the Greeks.

is does not mean that the impact of Flamininus' personality and philhellenic

disposition is lost on the reader. For one thing, the episode is preceded by a

clear statement to the eect that it was the proconsul himself who insisted

on withdrawing the Roman garrisons from the whole of Greece (Flam. 10.1-

11 Also note 31.4-10 on the education of the people by the consular M. Servilius.

12 Cf. S. S, 1989, pp. 323-7; also M. P, 1961, esp. pp. 602-4 and 609 sq. on Plutarch's

elaboration of Aemilius' speeches on ฯ„แฝปฯ‡ฮท. In addition, note P. D, 1989, pp. 204-9. More

generally, cf. L. L. H, 2005 for Plutarch's Aemilius as a philosopher statesman. However,

also note V. P, 1997, pp. 56-8 on the rejection of passionate impulses as an element of

Aemilius' family tradition.

13 For the antithesis between ฮฒฮฟฯ…ฮปแฝต and ฮดแฟ†ฮผฮฟฯ‚ in the Roman Lives cf. esp. C. B. R. P,

1986, pp. 165-87/ 2002, pp. 211-25; also L.  B, 1992 passim; M. M, 1995, esp. pp.

264-8; K. S-J, 2000, pp. 66-9.

14 On Aemilius' harshness and cruelty towards (some of) the Greeks cf. R. V,

1972, pp. 87-9; A. B, 1994, pp. 417-9; , 1996, pp. 110-2. Also note the emphatic

statement in W. R, 1988, pp. 141 sq.: "amidst the ruins of seventy cities and one hundred

and fty thousand lives, there is no room for the image of Aemilius as a man of benevolence and

humanity". For a balanced assessment, cf. J.-L. F, 1988, pp. 547-53.

15 Cf. R. S, 2004/05 with references. Citing the prominence of the Macedonian king,

A. B, 1994, pp. 405 sq.; , 1996, pp. 87-90 argues that Aemilius is not even the real

protagonist of the Life, but this goes too far. On the elaboration of the theme in the historical

tradition beyond Plutarch cf. G.  L, 2003.

3)16 . For another, Plutarch subsequently resumes the narrative by praising

Flamininus' actions as being consonant with the pledges made at Corinth

(Flam . 12.1).

As for the event of the proclamation itself, the protagonist is mainly

viewed and characterised through the eyes of the Greek audience17 . Thus,

the assembled multitude is described as watching the athletic contests, as

listening to the words of the herald, and as reacting first with tumultuous

confusion and then with a vocal outburst of joy, extolling Flamininus

as "the saviour and champion of Greece (ฯ„แฝธฮฝ ฯƒฯ‰ฯ„แฟ†ฯฮฑ ฯ„แฟ†ฯ‚ แผ™ฮปฮปฮฌฮดฮฟฯ‚

ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ€ฯฯŒฮผฮฑฯ‡ฮฟฮฝ)" ( Flam . 10.4-7). While the Roman statesman himself

is reported to have retired from the scene, the Greeks are said to have

gathered together, shouting about Flamininus' tent until nightfall (Flam .

11.1sq.).

Up to this point, Plutarch's narrative is broadly in agreement with

Polybius, who similarly focuses on the expectations and reactions of the

crowd before, during, and after the proclamation (Plb. 18 F46.1-12). In

his account, which is likely to be Plutarch's main source, this leads on to

a number of authorial reflexions on the wider significance of the episode

and on the generosity of Flamininus and the Romans (18 F46.13-15).

Livy, too, describes the event primarily from the perspective of the Greek

audience, though he also makes an observation regarding the joy of the

young Flamininus at reaping the concomitant reward of gloria (Liv.

33.32.3-33.3). Moreover, he relates that expressions of gratitude continued

for many days, and goes on to depict the Greeks as praising Rome's

commitment to the promotion of justice, right, and law (33.33.4-8: ius ,

fas, lex)18 .

What follows in Plutarch is something quite different. Having shown

enthusiastic appreciation for Flamininus, the multitude continues its

celebrations in the Greek fashion: "with greetings and embraces for any

friends and fellow citizens whom they saw, they turned around to eat and

drink with one another. And here, their pleasure naturally increasing, it

occurred to them to reason and discourse (ฮปฮฟฮณแฝทฮถฮตฯƒฮธฮฑฮน ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮดฮนฮฑฮปแฝณฮณฮตฯƒฮธฮฑฮน )

about Greece" (Flam. 11.2sq.). The event is thus characterised as a

spontaneous feast involving an exchange of thoughts and ideas. Significantly,

this is an entirely Greek activity, in which the Romans merely figure as

objects of reflexion and evaluation. This perspective is further reinforced

16 Cf. the fuller accounts in Plb. 18 F45.7-12; Liv. 33.31.7-11. In actual fact, this may be

quite misleading. Cf. R. P, 2005, pp. 285-302, who suggests that the discrepancies

between the policies favoured by Flamininus and the senatorial commission, respectively, were

rather minor. By contrast, the personal factor is stressed by A. M. E, 1987, pp. 294-302;

J. J. W, 1996, pp. 355-8.

17 On the various functions of public opinion in Plutarch's biographical technique cf.

generally F. F, 1996, pp. 110-24.

18 E. M. C, 1988, pp. 231 suggests that Livy is here "inuenced by an annalistic

tradition in which the treachery of the allies was given greater emphasis, and Flamininus, for

his futile crusade, was held to blame". is may or may not be true.

169

Banquet and Philhellenism in the Lives of Flamininus and Aemilius Paullus

at the beginning of the next chapter, which concludes the deliberations

of the Greeks while at the same time shifting the narrative focus to the

subsequent actions of Flamininus (Flam. 12.1).

In the actual debate about the meaning of the proclamation, the name

of the proconsul is conspicuous by its absence. In fact, the whole discussion

is concerned with the general characteristics of Greece and Rome rather than

with the virtues of any individual leader19 . To be sure, Flamininus is on the

reader's mind when Plutarch mentions a number of outstanding generals from

Greek history as exemplars of valour and wisdom (แผ€ฮฝฮดฯฮตแฝทฮฑ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ†ฯแฝนฮฝฮทฯƒฮนฯ‚) who

fell short of the ideal of the just man (แฝ ฮดแฝทฮบฮฑฮนฮฟฯ‚ , Flam. 11.4-6). By implication,

the Roman politician is thus judged to be superior to statesmen as eminent

as Agesilaus, Lysander, Nicias, and Alcibiades, and his achievements stand

comparison with the great victories over the Persians in the rst half of the

fth century.

Notwithstanding, the main point of the considerations ascribed

to the participants in the banquet is a history lesson about Greece and

Rome. Instead of achieving freedom on their own, the Greeks are said to

have fought most of their battles to bring servitude (แผฯ€แฝถ ฮดฮฟฯ…ฮปฮตแฝทแพณ) upon

themselves, chiefly due to the baseness and contentiousness (ฮบฮฑฮบแฝทแพณ ฮบฮฑแฝถ

ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฟฮฝฮนฮบแฝทแพณ) of their leaders (Flam. 11.6). This observation is all the more

instructive as ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฟฮฝฮนฮบแฝทฮฑ is the central characteristic of Flamininus' pair

Philopoemen, "the last of the Greeks" (Phil. 1.7)20 . Owing to this lack of

common purpose, the liberation of Greece is seen as depending on the

intervention of foreigners who would undergo the greatest dangers and

hardships in order to set her free from the harshest and most tyrannical

despots (Flam. 11.7). Thus, the Greek admirers of Flamininus and the

Romans take a remarkably negative view of the whole of Greek history21 ,

though Plutarch's readers may well be expected to remember at this point

that Rome herself was later to be torn apart by war and civil strife22 .

Evidently, this is not merely a point about the past. In his political

writings, Plutarch insists that bickering, rivalry, and excessive ambition

ought to be avoided at a time when concord and consensus appear to serve

the interests of the Greek poleis and the local aristocracy under the Roman

Empire23 . As Christopher Pelling has pointed out, he is much more reluctant

19 is point has also been made regarding the pair as a whole. Cf. C. B. R. P, 1997,

pp. 148-53 and 254-258; also J. J. W, 1992, pp. 212-8.

20 Cf. Phil. 3.1; 17.7; Flam. 22.4; 22.7, with the analysis in C. B. R. P, 1997, pp. 129-

35; also J. J. W, 1992, pp. 209-12. Both studies emphasise the relevance of the theme to the

pair, on which cf. further C. B. R. P, 1986a, pp. 84-9/ 2002, pp. 350-3. However, also note

S. S, 1988, pp. 343-5, who stresses the similarity between Philopoemen's ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฟฮฝฮนฮบแฝทฮฑ and

Flamininus' ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฟฯ„ฮนฮผแฝทฮฑ, concluding with regard to Flam. 11.6 that "it is unlikely that Plutarch is

here stigmatizing Philopoemen" (p. 345).

21 Cf. E. G, 2004, p. 313: "un ragionamento che รจ di fatto una visione del tutto negativa,

o almeno fortemente restrittiva, dell'intiera storia greca classica e dei suoi protagonisti".

22 I am grateful to Philip Stadter for suggesting this reading to me.

23 Cf. esp. Mor. 814e-825f (Praecepta gerendae rei publicae), with the discussions in P.

in the Lives, most notably in the Philopoemen – Flamininus, to spell out moral

lessons for his own present24 . Undoubtedly, the contemporary resonance

matters, yet much is left to the reader's interpretation25 . Interestingly,

the following chapter of the Flamininus draws a comparison with Nero's

proclamation of liberty in 67 A.D. (Flam. 12.13), which plainly made a

strong impression on the Greeks of Plutarch's generation. is reference

is preceded by some considerations regarding the appeal of the Romans

and the rapid growth of their power, to which everything became subject

in the end (Flam. 12.8-10). As for Flamininus himself, however, it is not

the subjection but the liberation of Greece which the biographer chooses

to underscore, citing the proud inscriptions recording his dedications at

Delphi (Flam. 12.11sq.)26 .

While these nal remarks do not alter the fact that Plutarch's treatment

of the Isthmian Proclamation is primarily concerned with Greece and

with Greek perceptions of Rome, it would obviously be wrong to conclude

that the episode is only marginally relevant to the portrait of Flamininus.

For one thing, the proconsul is ennobled by the emotional response of

the Greek audience and by the favourable comparison with some of the

greatest generals of Greek history. For another, the reexions voiced in the

course of the banquet serve to characterise him as a just man and generous

benefactor. What is more, his subsequent actions closely match the hopes and

expectations of the Greeks as he endeavours to establish among them good

order, great justice, concord, and mutual friendliness (Flam. 12.6: ฮตแฝฮฝฮฟฮผฮฏฮฑฮฝ

แผ…ฮผฮฑ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮดฮฏฮบฮทฮฝ ฯ€ฮฟฮปฮปแฝดฮฝ แฝฮผฯŒฮฝฮฟฮนฮฌฮฝ ฯ„ฮต ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฟฯ†ฯฮฟฯƒฯฮฝฮทฮฝ ฯ€ฯแฝธฯ‚ แผ€ฮปฮปฮฎฮปฮฟฯ…ฯ‚.)27 .

Beyond these political benefactions, Flamininus is also reported to have

performed the rรดle of แผ€ฮณฯ‰ฮฝฮฟฮธแฝณฯ„ฮทฯ‚ for the Nemean Games (Flam. 12.5),

where liberty was proclaimed to the Argives28 .

is latter aspect of the protagonist's active involvement in the organisation

of spectacles emerges much more prominently in the second passage to be

discussed in the present paper. In the wake of his victory at Pydna, Aemilius

Paullus, too, is described as a benefactor of the Greeks, whose perspective is

again highly relevant to the evaluation of a Roman general's actions. Unlike in

the account of the Isthmian Proclamation, however, the biographer's focus is

mainly on the proconsul himself and on Roman behaviour in front of a Greek

audience.

D, 1986; S. S, 1996, pp. 161-86.

24 Cf. C. B. R. P, 1995, esp. pp. 213-7/ 2002, pp. 243-7.

25 us, P. D, 1998, pp. 934 sq. suggests that the Flamininus serves to express the

idea of a "consortium imperii", in which the Greeks provide "una legittimazione del dominio

romano ... in cambio di un privilegio di libertร , anche se non illimitata" (p. 935).

26 e distinction between Rome and Flamininus is heavily stressed by S. S, 1988, pp.

342 sq.; idem, 1996, pp. 148 sq.

27 Cf. also Liv. 34.48.2 and Flamininus' advice to the Greeks at 34.49.9sq.

28 Cf. Liv. 34.41.1-3. Plutarch decontextualises the event and misleadingly suggests that

liberty was once more proclaimed to the whole of Greece. Cf. C. B. R. P, 1997, pp. 384

sq., n. 116.

171

Banquet and Philhellenism in the Lives of Flamininus and Aemilius Paullus

Following the surrender of Perseus, Aemilius embarked on an extensive tour

of Greece, which Plutarch mainly describes in terms of his hero's philhellenism

and benefactions (Aem. 28.1-5). Having praised the commander's conduct as

honourable and humane (แผ”ฮฝฮดฮฟฮพฮฟฮฝ แผ…ฮผฮฑ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฌฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€ฮฟฮฝ), the biographer goes

on to record that Aemilius restored political order, oered gifts from the king's

stores, and expressed admiration for the Zeus sculpted by Phidias. Apart from

this, Plutarch does not fail to mention the general's order to put his own statue

on the great monument that was meant to honour Perseus at Delphi (Aem .

28.4)29 . is demonstration of power as well as Aemilius' interventions in the

aairs of the Greek states unmistakably indicate that the trip was not merely

a sightseeing tour designed to pay homage to Hellas30 . As Ulrich Eigler has

convincingly argued, Livy actually describes the journey as an act of Roman

dominance over Greek culture (Liv. 45.27.5-28.6)31 . By contrast, the emphasis

in Plutarch's narrative is clearly on the protagonist's ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฑฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€แฝทฮฑ rather than

on the expression of Roman supremacy.

Subsequently, even the harsh conditions imposed on the defeated

Macedonians are interpreted as generous benefactions; for the biographer

stresses that the former subjects of Perseus received liberty and independence,

with their nancial burden being less than half the amount due to the

Antigonid kings (Aem. 28.6)32 . Prior to his departure, moreover, Aemilius is

depicted as wisely exhorting them to preserve their freedom by good order

and concord (Aem. 29.1: ฮดฮน' ฮตแฝฮฝฮฟฮผฮฏฮฑฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ แฝฮผฮฟฮฝฮฟฮฏฮฑฯ‚). As emerges from Livy's

account, the announcement of the terms regarding the future of Macedon

formed part of the lavish victory celebrations at Amphipolis (Liv. 45.29-33)33 ,

which Plutarch essentially reads as a delightful event organised by the Roman

general to please his Greek guests34 .

us, the biographer relates that Aemilius "held spectacles of all sorts

of contests and performed sacrices to the gods, at which he gave feasts and

banquets, making use of abundant supplies from the royal stores, while in the

arrangement and ordering of them, in seating and greeting his guests, and

in paying to each one honour and friendliness (ฯ„ฮนฮผแฟ†ฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฟฯ†ฯฮฟฯƒฯฮฝฮทฯ‚ )

according to their dignity (ฮบฮฑฯ„ ' แผ€ฮพแฝทฮฑฮฝ), he showed such accurate and

29 Cf. L.-M. G, 1995, who reads this act as a "machtbewuรŸte Siegerpose, keine

sympathieheischende Geste philhellener 'paideia'" (p. 84).

30 is point should not be overstated, however. Cf., e.g., the categorical statement in E.

F, 2000, p. 138: "Mit Philhellenismus hatte das nichts zu tun", which may be contrasted

with J.-L. F, 1988, pp. 554-60, who speaks of "une vรฉritable oensive de charme" (p.

556), as well as with E. S. G, 1992, p. 246. Further note P. B, 1974/75 (1979), pp.

167 sq., who suggests that Aemilius chiey sought to acquire foreign clientelae.

31 Cf. U. E, 2003: Livy "inszeniert vielmehr die Tour als einen Akt ideeller

Besitzergreifung Griechenlands" (p. 262).

32 Cf. the more detailed and similarly apologetic treatment in Liv. 45. 29.4-30.8 and 32.1-7,

which serves to celebrate the just order established by Rome. Also note D. S. 31 F8.1-9.

33 On Amphipolis as a place on Livy's 'mental map' of the Roman Empire cf. U. E-

G, 2006, pp. 49-51.

34 According to C. L, 1935, p. 223, Plutarch's failure to identify the locality

indicates that his version is based on the work of a compiler, but this is not cogent.

thoughtful perception that the Greeks were amazed (ฮธฮฑฯ…ฮผแฝฑฮถฮตฮนฮฝ), seeing that

not even their pastimes were treated by him with neglect, but that a man

involved in such great aairs gave even to small things their due attention"

(Aem . 28.7sq.).

Just as in the case of the Isthmian Proclamation, it is conspicuous that

Plutarch views the event through the eyes of the Greeks present on the

occasion. Not only are the guests amazed at Aemilius' organisational skills,

but their reactions are also thought to show that the Roman general himself

provides them with the most pleasant enjoyment and spectacle (Aem. 28.9).

While these remarks evidently serve to eulogise the proconsul, it should also

be noted that the quality the Greeks admire most of all is his extraordinary

attention to detail – a trait that the biographer has earlier associated with his

hero's concern for ancestral customs and ceremonies at Rome (Aem. 3.2-7).

Accordingly, Aemilius appears successfully to apply skills developed in a

Roman context to impress a Greek audience. is point is actually reinforced

by his dictum that the same spirit is required to do well both in marshalling a

line of battle and in presiding at a symposium (Aem. 28.9).

While Plutarch fails to elaborate on this statement, which corresponds

to a Polybian fragment (Plb. 30 F14)35 , the laudatory context clearly suggests

that it signals the biographer's approval of the carefully arranged order of the

banquet36 . However, it may be more appropriate to read Aemilius' comment

not simply as a witty bon mot, let alone as an innocent remark regarding an

enjoyable festival, but as a reminder of Roman supremacy in the military

sphere and beyond37 . Signicantly, a much less harmonious picture of the

victory celebrations emerges from the more comprehensive account given by

Livy, who represents the event primarily as a show of Roman maiestas and

power38 . us he describes the setting of the ceremony as frightening to the

audience (Liv. 45.29.2: novi in<perii> formam terribilem praebuit tribunal), and

stresses that Aemilius chose to announce the decisions of the Senate in Latin

before having them translated into Greek (45.29.3)39 .

35 Cf. also Liv. 45.32.11; further D. S. 31 F8.13. According to F. W. W, 1979, p.

437, Polybius thus intends "to point the contrast with the victory games given by L. Anicius" at

Rome, which are judged by him to have been disorderly and utterly uncivilised (Plb. 30 F22).

is may be true but hardly constitutes the sole function of the statement.

36 Cf. G. P, 1991, p. 160. Also note Plu., Mor. 198b (Regum et imperatorum apophthegmata);

615e-f (Quaestiones convivales).

37 Pace R. F  E. C, 1966, p. 69, who call it a "boutade". Further note C.

L, 1935, p. 236: Aemilius "wil als het ware een tweede Achilles zijn, die behalve een

verwoed strijder de organisator was van de grootse lijkspelen ter ere van Patroclus".

38 Cf., e.g., E. S. G, 1992, pp. 245-7. E. F, 2000, pp. 139 sq. puts it more crudely:

"Die Feier von Amphipolis war ein rรถmisches Spektakel, eingerahmt von rรถmischer politischer

Symbolik, welche die Griechen und ihre Athleten zu Statisten degradierte" (p. 139). A dierent

perspective is provided by J.- L. F, 1988, pp. 560-5; J. C. E, 1999, pp. 78-81

and passim, who both stress the importance of Hellenistic precedents and parallels.

39 Cf. Plu., Cat. Ma. 12.5-7 on Cato's speech to the Athenians in 191. Also note V. Max.

2.2.2. J. K, 1979, p. 100 suggests that Aemilius' choice was made with a view to producing

a "dramatic eect".

173

Banquet and Philhellenism in the Lives of Flamininus and Aemilius Paullus

What is more, Livy highlights Roman interference in the internal aairs

of the Greek polities and records the severe punishment of those who had

actually or supposedly been aligned with the losing side in the war (45.31). As

for the ensuing festival, the admiration of the Greeks is related not so much

to Aemilius as to the Romans in general, who were then inexperienced (rudes)

in giving spectacles (45.32.10). Consequently, it appears as though a Roman

proconsul can outdo the Greeks even in organising Greek-style games and

banquets – if he so chooses40 . While Livy does not fail to mention the gifts

handed out to the participants from the royal stores, it is quite revealing that

the event is concluded by the dedication of spoils from the enemy and by the

display of the booty to be carried o to Rome (45.33.1-7). us, the celebrations

of Amphipolis are presented to the reader as an eloquent manifestation of the

Roman conquest of Greece.

Evidently, this interpretation is rather dierent from Plutarch's version.

Instead of exploring the implications of the event in terms of Roman power,

the biographer's narrative goes on to highlight Aemilius' แผฮปฮตฯ…ฮธฮตฯฮนแฝนฯ„ฮทฯ‚ and

ฮผฮตฮณฮฑฮปฮฟฯˆฯ…ฯ‡แฝทฮฑ as evidenced by his supposed disinterest in the gold and silver

of the royal treasuries (Aem. 28.10)41 . At the same time, Plutarch obviously

approves of his hero's decision to appropriate Perseus' library as an invaluable

resource of Greek learning for the benet of his sons (Aem. 28.11) 42 . Howe ver,

it should not be overlooked that the king's books were undoubtedly of great

material and symbolic value as items of booty43 . What Plutarch reads as

enthusiasm for Greek erudition appears simultaneously to reect a selective

and power-conscious approach in claiming and using objects of Hellenic

culture44 . e analysis of the victory celebrations of 167 thus leads back to

the issues raised at the beginning of this paper regarding the interrelation

between philhellenism and the pursuit of individual and collective interests by

the representatives of Rome.

In the Plutarchan accounts of the Isthmian Proclamation and the festival

at Amphipolis, there is a deliberate, though hardly surprising, emphasis on

'Hellenic' qualities and benefactions to Greece. In the case of Flamininus and

the declaration of 196, it has been seen that the focus is on Greece and Greek

history rather than on the protagonist himself, yet Plutarch's narrative also

serves to praise the proconsul's justice as being equal or superior to that of

40 Cf. U. E-G, 2006, p. 52 with further considerations.

41 For the theme of Aemilius' poverty and indierence to wealth cf. also Aem. 4.4sq.; 39.10;

Tim. 41.8; Mor. 198b-c ( Regum et imperatorum apophthegmata) as well as Plb. 18 F35.4-6; 31

F22.1-7; Liv. Per. 46.14; D. S. 31 F26.1 sq.; D. C. 20 F67.1; Zonar. 9.24.4; Cic., O. 2.76;

Orat. 232; V. Max. 4.3.8; Vir . ill. 56.6. Cf. I. S, 1975, pp. 243 sq. for an estimate of his

property.

42 Cf. also Isid., Etym. 6.5.1.

43 us, rightly, A. B, 1994, p. 413; idem, 1996, pp. 106 and 218, n. 181.

44 Hence the often stressed dierence between Aemilius' outlook and that of Cato (cf., e.g.,

J.-L. F, 1988, pp. 535-9) may not be all that great. On the meaning and limitations of

Cato's anti-Hellenism cf. D. K, 1954, pp. 101-16; A. E. A, 1978, pp. 157-81; E. S.

G, 1992, pp. 52-83; H.-J. G, 1994, pp. 599-607; M. J, 1999.

the most eminent statesmen of the Greek past. By contrast, the biographer's

treatment of the victory celebrations after Pydna is mainly concentrated on

Aemilius Paullus' courteous behaviour and outstanding skills in entertaining

his guests. What both episodes have in common is not only the context of

feasts and spectacles, but also the crucial rรดle assigned to the Greek audience

and its expressions of admiration and amazement. Consequently, the two

Roman statesmen are judged with reference to Greek values, on the basis of

their attitude to Greece, and according to their ability to impress the Greek

public. Greek-style festivals and the world of the banquet thus provide a most

suitable background for presenting the 'liberators' of Greece as exemplars of

philhellenism and ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฑฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€แฝทฮฑ 45.

W o r k s c i T e d

A, A. E., Cato the Censor, Oxford, 1978.

B, E., Titus Quinctius Flamininus. Philhellenism and Realpolitik ,

Cincinnati/Ohio, 1970.

B, A., "Biograa pagana come agiograa. Il caso della vita plutarchea

di Lucio Emilio Paolo", RIL, 128 (1994) 403-24.

_____"Introduzione" (Emilio Paolo), in   . (eds.), Plutarco: Vite

parallele. Emilio Paolo – Timoleonte, Milano, 1996, pp. 87-116.

B, H., Karriere und Hierarchie. Die rรถmische Aristokratie und die Anfรคnge des

cursus honorum in der mittleren Republik, Berlin, 2005.

B, P., "Alcune questioni sulla carriera politica di L. Emilio Paolo",

Index, 5 (1974/75 [1979]) 155-78.

B, J., Plutarque. Un aristocrate grec sous l'occupation romaine, Villeneuve

d'Ascq, 1994.

_____"Les ฮฃฮฅฮ“ฮšฮกฮ™ฮฃฮ•ฮ™ฮฃ de Plutarque. Une rhรฉtorique de la ฮฃฮฅฮฮšฮกฮ‘ฮฃฮ™ฮฃ [!]",

in L. V  S (ed.), Rhetorical eory and Praxis in Plutarch.

Acta of the IVth International Congress of the International Plutarch

Society, Leuven, 2000, pp. 33-44.

B, J. M., "Plutarch and the 'Liberation of Greece'", in L. D B 

. (eds.), e Statesman in Plutarch's Works. Proceedings of the Sixth

International Conference of the International Plutarch Society, vol. 2:

e Statesman in Plutarch's Greek and Roman Lives (Nijmegen/ Castle

Hernen, May 1-5, 2002), Leiden, 2005, pp. 257-67.

45 For their paradigmatic function cf., e.g., Plu., Sull. 12, where their philhellenic benefactions

are favourably contrasted with the cynical policies pursued by Sulla. I am grateful to Lukas de

Blois for pointing out to me the signicance of this passage.

175

Banquet and Philhellenism in the Lives of Flamininus and Aemilius Paullus

C, E. M., "Graecia Liberata and the Role of Flamininus in Livy's

Fourth Decade", TAPhA, 118 (1988) 209-52.

D B, L., "e Perception of Politics in Plutarch's Roman 'Lives'", ANRW,

2.33.6 (1992) 4568-615.

D R, J., La douceur dans la pensรฉe grecque, Paris, 1979.

D, P., "La vita politica cittadina nell'Impero. Lettura dei Praecepta

gerendae rei publicae e dell'An seni res publica gerenda sit", Athenaeum, 64

(1986) 371-81.

_____"Teoria e prassi storiograca di Plutarco. Una proposta di lettura della

coppia Emilio Paolo – Timoleonte", Maia, 41 (1989) 199-215.

_____"L'Impero bilingue e il parallelismo greci/romani", in S. S

(ed.), I greci. Storia – cultura – arte – societร , vol. 2.3: Una storia greca.

Trasformazioni, Torino, 1998, pp. 909-38.

D L, G., "Tra Polibio e Livio. Diodoro e la presunta avarizia di Perseo", in

D. A (ed.), ฮฃฮฅฮ“ฮ“ฮกฮ‘ฮฆฮ—. Materiali e appunti per lo studio della

storia e della letteratura antica, vol. 5, Como, 2003, pp. 89-105.

D'I, G., "Filantropia, ellenocentrismo e polietnismo in Plutarco", in

A. P J & F. T (eds.), Historical and Biographical

Values of Plutarch's Works. Studies Devoted to Professor Philip A. Stadter by

the International Plutarch Society, Mรกlaga, 2005, pp. 179-96.

D, T. E., Plutarch's Lives. Exploring Virtue and Vice, Oxford, 1999.

E, A. M., Senate and General. Individual Decision Making and Roman

Foreign Relations, 264-194 B.C., Berkeley/Cal., 1987.

E, J. C., "e Cultural Politics of Public Spectacle in Rome and the

Greek East, 167-166 BCE", in B. B & C. K (eds.),

e Art of Ancient Spectacle, Washington, D.C., 1999, pp. 77-95.

E-G, U., "Der triumphierende Leser. Die Siegesfeier von

Amphipolis in der Geschichtserzรคhlung des Livius", in D. E 

 O  . (eds.), Texte als Medium und Reexion von Religion

im rรถmischen Reich, Stuttgart, 2006, pp. 41-61.

E, U., "Aemilius Paullus. Ein Feldherr auf Bildungsreise? (Liv. 45, 27-

28)", in   . (eds.), Formen rรถmischer Geschichtsschreibung von den

Anfรคngen bis Livius. Gattungen – Autoren – Kontexte, Darmstadt, 2003,

pp. 250-67.

E, R. M., "Philhellenismus und praktische Politik", in G. V-

S  B. R (eds.), Rezeption und Identitรคt. Die kulturelle

Auseinandersetzung Roms mit Griechenland als europรคisches Paradigma,

Stuttgart, 1999, pp. 149-54.

F, J.-L., Philhellรฉnisme et impรฉrialisme. Aspects idรฉologiques de la conquรชte

romaine du monde hellรฉnistique. De la seconde guerre de Macรฉdoine ร  la

guerre contre Mithridate, Rome, 1988.

F, R. & C, E., "Vie de Paul-Emile. Notice", in  (eds.),

Plutarque: Vies, vol. 4, Paris, 1966, pp. 59-71.

_____"Vie de Flamininus. Notice", in  (eds.), Plutarque: Vies, vol. 5,

Paris, 1969, pp. 159-73.

F, E., "Lucius Aemilius Paullus – militรคrischer Ruhm und familiรคre

Glรผcklosigkeit", in K.-J. H & E. S-H

(eds.), Von Romulus zu Augustus. GroรŸe Gestalten der rรถmischen Republik ,

Mรผnchen, 2000, pp. 131-46.

F, F., Histoire et morale dans les Vies parallรจles de Plutarque, Paris, 1996.

G, E., "Plutarco e Polibio", in I. G (ed.), La biblioteca di Plutarco. Atti

del IX Convegno plutarcheo, Napoli, 2004, pp. 311-6.

G M, L. A., "Roma y los protagonistas de la dominaciรณn romana

en Grecia en las Vidas paralelas de Plutarco", in E. F F. G

(eds.), Graecia capta . De la conquista de Grecia a la helenizaciรณn de Roma ,

Huelva, 1995, pp. 129-47.

_____"Filohelenismo y moderaciรณn. Garantรญas segรบn Plutarco de una dominaciรณn

estable del mundo griego por Roma", in J. R. F (ed.), Actas do

Congresso Plutarco Educador da Europa, Porto, 2002, pp. 261-80.

G, H.-J., "Rรถmischer mos und griechische Ethik. รœberlegungen zum

Zusammenhang von Akkulturation und politischer Ordnung im

Hellenismus", HZ, 258 (1994) 593-622.

G, S., Who Needs Greek? Contests in the Cultural History of Hellenism ,

Cambridge, 2002.

G, E. S., e Hellenistic World and the Coming of Rome, 2 vols., Berkeley/

Cal., 1984.

_____Culture and National Identity in Republican Rome , Ithaca/N.Y., 1992.

G, L.-M., "L. Aemilius Paullus und 'sein' Pfeilerdenkmal in Delphi",

in C. S & K. B (eds.), Rom und der griechische Osten.

Festschrift fรผr Hatto H. Schmitt zum 65. Geburtstag, Stuttgart, 1995, pp.

81-5.

H, L. L., "Plutarch's Aemilius Paullus and the Model of the Philosopher

Statesman", in L. D B  . (eds.), e Statesman in Plutarch's

Works. Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference of the

International Plutarch Society, vol. 2: e Statesman in Plutarch's Greek

and Roman Lives (Nijmegen/ Castle Hernen, May 1-5, 2002), Leiden,

2005, pp. 269-79.

177

Banquet and Philhellenism in the Lives of Flamininus and Aemilius Paullus

J, M., "Cato und die Bewahrung der traditionellen res publica. Zum

Spannungsverhรคltnis zwischen mos maiorum und griechischer Kultur

im zweiten Jahrhundert v.Chr.", in G. V-S  B. R

(eds.), Rezeption und Identitรคt. Die kulturelle Auseinandersetzung Roms

mit Griechenland als europรคisches Paradigma, Stuttgart, 1999, pp. 115-

34.

J, C. P., Plutarch and Rome, Oxford, 1971.

K, J., e Romans and the Greek Language, Helsinki, 1979.

K, D., Cato, der Zensor. Seine Persรถnlichkeit und seine Zeit, Heidelberg,

1954 (repr. Darmstadt, 1979).

L, C., Plutarchus' biographie van Aemilius Paullus. Historische

commentaar, Utrecht, 1935.

M J., H. M., "e Concept of Praotes in Plutarch's Lives", GRBS, 3

(1960) 65-73.

_____"e Concept of Philanthropia in Plutarch's Lives", AJPh, 82 (1961)

164-75.

M, M., "Plutarco e la politica romana. Alcune riconsiderazioni", in

I. G B. S (eds.), Teoria e prassi politica nelle opere di

Plutarco. Atti del V Convegno plutarcheo, Napoli, 1995, pp. 245-68.

P, C., "Vocabulaire et mentalitรฉ dans les Moralia de Plutarque",

DHA, 3 (1977) 197-235.

P, G., "Symposia and Deipna in Plutarch's Lives and in Other Historical

Writings", in W. J. S (ed.), Dining in a Classical Context, Ann

Arbor/Mich., 1991, pp. 157-69.

P , M., "Due discorsi di Lucio Emilio Paolo", StudRom, 9 (1961) 593-

613.

P, C. B. R. , "Plutarch and Roman Politics", in I. S. M .

(eds.), Past Perspectives. Studies in Greek and Roman Historical Writing ,

Cambridge, 1986, pp. 159-87 (in C. B. R. P, 2002, pp. 207-36).

_____"Synkrisis in Plutarch's Lives", in F. E. B  I. G (eds.),

Miscellanea plutarchea. Atti del I Convegno di studi su Plutarco, Ferrara,

1986a, pp. 83-96 (in C. B. R. P, 2002, pp. 349-63).

_____"Plutarch: Roman Heroes and Greek Culture", in M. G  J.

B (eds.), Philosophia togata. Essays on Philosophy and Roman Society,

Oxford, 1989, pp. 199-232.

_____"e Moralism of Plutarch's Lives", in D. I  . (eds.), Ethics and

Rhetoric. Classical Essays for Donald Russell on His Seventy-Fifth Birthday,

Oxford, 1995, pp. 205-220 (in C. B. R. P, 2002, pp. 237-51).

_____"Introduzione" (Filopemene, Tito Flaminino), in   E . M

(eds.), Plutarco: Vite parallele. Filopemene – Tito Flaminino, Milano, 1997,

pp. 87-166, pp. 249-331.

_____ Plutarch and History. Eighteen Studies, London, 2002.

P, N., Roman Attitudes to the Greeks, Athens, 1974.

P, V., "Deux gures hรฉroรฏques de l'Histoire romaine de Tite-Live. Paul-

Emile pรจre et ls", in G. F & L. P (eds.), Du hรฉros

paรฏen au saint chrรฉtien, Paris, 1997, pp. 53-60.

P, R., Titus Quinctius Flamininus. Untersuchungen zur rรถmischen

Griechenlandpolitik, Gรถttingen, 2005.

P, R., "Roman Questions, Greek Answers. Plutarch and the

Construction of Identity", in S. G (ed.), Being Greek under

Rome. Cultural Identity, the Second Sophistic and the Development of

Empire, Cambridge, 2001, pp. 86-119.

R, W., Aemilius Paullus. Conqueror of Greece, London, 1988.

R, G., "Plutarch on Self and Others", AncSoc, 34 (2004) 245-73.

S, R., "Perseo, ultimo sovrano di Macedonia, nella biograa plutarchea

di Emilio Paolo", ACD, 40/41 (2004/05) 55-64.

S, I., Senatorial Wealth and Roman Politics, Bruxelles, 1975.

S, M. A. O., "L'identitร  greca in Plutarco", in J. M. N I

R. L L (eds.), El amor en Plutarco, Actas del IX Simposio

espaรฑol sobre Plutarco (28-30 de septiembre de 2006), Leรณn, 2007, pp.

839-46.

S-J, K., Von der Republik zum Prinzipat. Ursachen fรผr den

Verfassungswechsel in Rom im historischen Denken der Antike, Stuttgart,

2000.

S, S., "Plutarch's Philopoemen and Flamininus", ICS, 13 (1988) 335-47.

_____"Plutarch's Aemilius and Timoleon", Historia , 38 (1989) 314-34.

_____"Hellenic Culture and the Roman Heroes of Plutarch", JHS, 110 (1990)

126-45.

_____ Hellenism and Empire. Language, Classicism, and Power in the Greek

World, A.D. 50-250, Oxford, 1996.

T, H., Livius und Polybios, Basel, 1977.

V, R., "Carattere e tendenza della tradizione su L. Emilio Paolo", in M.

S (ed.), Contributi dell'Istituto di storia antica, vol. 1, Milano, 1972,

pp. 78-90.

179

Banquet and Philhellenism in the Lives of Flamininus and Aemilius Paullus

W, F. W., A Historical Commentary on Polybius, vol. 3: Commentary on

Books XIX-XL, Oxford, 1979.

W, J. J., "Syzygy, eme and History. A Study in Plutarch's Philopoemen

and Flamininus", Philologus, 136 (1992) 208-33.

_____"Flamininus and the Propaganda of Liberation", Historia, 45 (1996)

344-63.

181

Crassus as Symposiast in Plutarch's Life of Crassus

cr a s s u s a s s y m p o s i a s T i n pl u T a r c h 's li f e o f cr a S S u S

J T. C

University of Manitoba, Winnipeg

Abstract

e references to Crassus as a host of, and a guest at, dinner parties in the Life of Crassus suggest

a complex persona. ree references appear in the early chapters, followed by the description

of the symposium at the Parthian court at the end of Life. is paper examines these four

passages. It argues that the simplicity of Crassus' repasts are carefully positioned by Plutarch

to contrast sharply Crassus' reputation as Rome's most famous plutocrat, and the debauched

Parthian symposium redeems partially Crassus for his failure as an imperialist.

e Romans say that the many virtues of Crassus

were obscured by the sole vice of desire for wealth;

it is likely that this one vice became stronger,

weakening the others. (2.1)1

is sentence reveals Nicias-Crassus to be a study of how a single negative

character trait can obscure good character traits, and the (very serious)

consequences of such a situation. In the case of Crassus, the vice of avarice

(ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฟฯ€ฮปฮฟฯ…ฯ„แฝทฮฑ ) overshadows his many virtues. is is not the opinion of

Plutarch alone, since he reports what his (Roman) sources write. By the time

that Plutarch came to write the Later Roman Lives, avarice had been the

dening historical fact about Crassus for over a century2 .

Closer inspection of the Life of Crassus suggests that Plutarch problematises

his exploration of Crassus' love of wealth through the inclusion of well-placed

references to his moderation with respect to dinner parties. ree references

to Crassus as an abstemious host and guest serve to mediate the discussion of

his apparently insatiable taste (thirst?) for the acquisition of wealth3 . Plutarch

concludes the Life with an extensive description of a dinner party at the

Parthian court, where the debauchery of the Parthians serves to absolve partially

Crassus of his philoploutia and undertaking of the Parthian expedition.

I.

Plutarch frequently comments upon his subject's behaviour at dinner parties in

the early chapters of the Life4 . us in the third chapter one nds the following:

1 Translations are adapted from the Loeb Classical Library.

2 Cicero refers to Crassus' wealth several times: Att. 1.4.3 and 2.4.2; Tusc. 1.13; Div. 2.22;

O. 3.75-76. So too Sallust: Cat. 48.5. See B. A. M, 1976, p. 149; cf. idem, pp. 178-9.

3 E. S. G, 1977, p. 117 summarises Crassus thus: "an enigma indeed: fearsome and

unpredictable, greedy and benecent, ostentatious and temperate, aable and explosive" (italics are

mine).

4 Examples from the Roman Lives include: Sull. 2.2; Cic. 36.3 (there are earlier references

at 3.5 and 8.2 where Plutarch comments upon Cicero's delicate digestion); Pomp. 2.11-12; Cat.

Mi. 6.1.

When he entertained at table, his invited guests were for the most part plebeians

and men of the people, and the simplicity of the repast was combined with a

neatness and good cheer which gave more pleasure than lavish expenditure.

(3.2)

If Plutarch disapproved of Crassus, then this passage is unique in that

the author appears to express approval of one aspect of his subject's character5 .

Symposia comprise three elements: the meal (both food and drink), the guests,

and the conversation or entertainment; Plutarch expeditiously identies all

three in this sentence. Crassus appears to subscribe to the maxim of quality over

quantity: the success of his dinner parties is attributed to the entertainment (i.e.,

intelligent conversation) rather than the amount of food or drink provided6 .

e limited amount of wine ensures that the conversation is not adversely

aected7 . Given the tradition of Crassus as (one of) Rome's wealthiest

citizen(s), the placement of this passage early in the Life establishes Crassus as

a complex persona, since his tremendous wealth, the process by which he came

to acquire it Plutarch begins to describe in the previous chapter (see below, p.

184), does not automatically mean that he enjoys excessive indulgences. at

is, one might expect Plutarch to explain how Crassus became wealthy, then

explore how he uses his wealth for personal prot. Such an approach would

underline eectively Crassus' dominant negative character trait of philoploutia.

Rather, Crassus appears to be the opposite sort of person: he scolds those who

spend money on trivialities, dinner parties included, although his criticism of

others is not contained in this Life8 . His aversion to excessive expenditure

is revealed by his treatment of his philosopher-companion Alexander, who

was given a cloak for travelling only to have to return it upon the journey's

completion (3.8)9 .

e passage above introduces a section in which Plutarch catalogues

Crassus' positive attributes: his desire to be an eective public speaker; his

willingness to plead cases when those presumably more talented than he –

Pompey, Caesar and Cicero – are unwilling to serve as advocate; his warm

greeting towards those he meets in public, especially plebeians; and his strong

interest in history and philosophy (3.3-8). ese attributes extend from, and

feed back into, Crassus' eective execution of his role as symposiarch. e rst

and last of these – his desire to be an eloquent advocate and his historical and

5 F. T, 1999, p. 496.

6 F. T, 1999, p. 496: "a certain panache vis-ร -vis banquet arranging was denitely

a mark in someone's favor, but the main attraction in Plutarch's view should be companionship

and conversation".

7 And his guests are not corrupted, as Plutarch writes that Catiline did (Cic. 10.5).

8 Pompey and Crassus criticise Lucullus for his extravagance (Luc. 38.5; Plutarch describes

Lucullus' dinner parties at 41). Both R. F, 1972, p. 302 and M. G. B, 1993,

p. 330 note the sharp dierences between Crassus and Lucullus in this respect.

9 Including an interjection from Plutarch or an indirect quotation from one of his sources:

"Alas the patience of this unfortunate man, for his philosophy did not regard poverty as an

indierent condition".

183

Crassus as Symposiast in Plutarch's Life of Crassus

philosophical predilections – are intellectual pursuits, and the latter reveal the

probable source of the "good cheer" (ฯ†ฮนฮปฯ†ฯฮฟฯƒแฝปฮผฮทฮฝ) for which Crassus' guests

appreciate – and presumably seek out – his company10 .

Crassus' disinclination to host elaborate dinner parties is not a decision he

makes on his own, for, as Plutarch writes in the opening sentence of the Life,

Crassus' paideia shaped his attitudes in this area:

Marcus Crassus was the son of a man who had been censor and had enjoyed a

triumph; but he was reared in a small house with two brothers. His brothers

were married while their parents were still alive, and all shared the same table,

which seems to have been the main reason why Crassus was temperate and

moderate in his manner of life. (1.1-2)

e moderate appetite of Crassus' family is supported by a passage in

Macrobius' Saturnalia (3.17.7-9), which ascribes to Crassus' father a sumptuary

law in his tribunate of 103 BCE. By beginning the Life in this way, Plutarch

implies that his presentation of Crassus may not follow the historical tradition

established by his sources11 . Plutarch immediately establishes Crassus as

someone who eschews unnecessary ostentation, and the tautology "temperate

and moderate" (ฯƒแฝฝฯ†ฯฯ‰ฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮผแฝณฯ„ฯฮนฮฟฯ‚) situates Crassus in an exceptionally

advantageous position upon which he can draw or away from which he can

deviate. By how much he does the former or how quickly he does the latter

determines the nal verdict on Crassus' character.

A very illuminating perspective is oered by a passage which features

Crassus not as a host, but as a guest of Vibius Paciacus in Spain during Crassus'

self-imposed exile under Cinna:

Now, the meals were abundant, and so prepared as to gratify the taste and not

merely to satisfy hunger. For Vibius had made up his mind to pay Crassus

every sort of friendly attention, and it even occurred to him to consider the

young man his guest, and he was quite a young man, and that some provision

be made for the enjoyments appropriate to his years; the mere supply of his

wants he regarded as the work of one who rendered help under compulsion

rather than with ready zeal. (5.2)

Vibius is the attentive host by providing Crassus' needs and anticipating

his desires. Plutarch does not indicate whether Crassus partook of the extra

provisions, gastronomical and otherwise, but one might reasonably expect that

had Crassus refrained from so doing, it would be mentioned here. One might

postulate that Crassus' abstemiousness in this instance would have appeared

inappropriate; that is, while he became a good host, his behaviour as a guest

10 Table-Talk 6.14b indicates that history and contemporary events are appropriate topics

for a dinner party.

11 Pace C. B. R. P, 1979, I do not believe that Pollio (or the Pollio-source) was the

main source for Crassus. In my view, the most likely main source on Crassus available to Plutarch

in this instance was Livy.

was poor. e use of the same word – ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฟฯ†ฯฮฟฯƒแฝปฮฝฮท 12 – to describe the good

cheer of Crassus' symposia and Vibius' provision of Crassus' needs establishes

a connection between Vibius and Crassus as host. Crassus does not emulate

Vibius in terms of the kind of repast provided, but Vibius remonstrates the

need for being a convivial host. In other words, Vibius exerts a positive

inuence, helping to mould Crassus into the congenial symposiarch for which

he becomes famous. is passage appears as part of the only extended anecdote

in the Life; therefore, the decision to include it strongly suggests that Plutarch

believed it was important to establishing Crassus' character, which in turn

conrms the importance of the previous references to symposia in the Life13 .

II.

e three references to Crassus' as symposiast discussed above are

contained in the rst ve chapters of the Life; that is, they end approximately

one-sixth the way in. And these passages do not stand on their own, but are

surrounded by passages which indicate Crassus' avarice14 . e rst reference

follows directly from Plutarch's opening comments about Crassus' family in

the form of an anecdote of Crassus' suspected involvement with the vestal

Licinia (1.4). Seeking to acquire her substantial home cheaply, Crassus fell

under suspicion of corrupting her. Ironically, Crassus' avarice absolves him

of this serious accusation, that he does not have a more serious aw: deviant

sexual inclinations. Crassus' involvement with Licinia, it ought to be noted,

probably involved entertaining her or being her guest at dinner; it was the

frequency with which this occurred that brought Crassus under suspicion.

e most famous example of Crassus' philoploutia appears in the description

of his acquisition of property in the second chapter, where he takes advantage

of the misfortune of others when he buys homes on re (2.5). is was

clearly something of which Plutarch disapproved, since in the beginning of

the synkrisis (1.1), he declares that the manner through which Nicias became

wealthy was "more blameless" (แผ€ฮผฮตฮผฯ€ฯ„ฮฟฯ„แฝณฯฮฑฮฝ). Plutarch notes disapproval of

Crassus for his proscribing someone in order to acquire his property, which he

does without Sulla's permission (6.8). We might identify an additional passage

referring to Crassus as a good symposiarch in the sentence immediately prior,

which might be seen as partially negating the unwarranted proscription, when

Plutarch writes that Crassus on one occasion saves Sulla from military defeat,

an action for which his only request is to ask for dinner for his men (6.7,

ฮดฮตแฟ–ฯ€ฮฝฮฟฮฝ ฯ„ฮฟแฟ–ฯ‚ ฯƒฯ„ฯฮฑฯ„ฮนแฝฝฯ„ฮฑฮนฯ‚)15 .

12 e word is used for a third time at 12.3 (negated with ฮฟแฝ ฮผแฝตฮฝ) to describe the absence of

friendship or spirit of co-operation between Crassus and Pompey during their rst consulship.

13 T. W. H, 1987, p. 23 calls it "outstanding". e source appears to be Fenestella,

identied by name at 5.6. See B. A. M, 1976, pp. 177-8.

14 See also T. S, 1999, pp. 303-4.

15 Plutarch mentions another large feast at 12.3 and Syn. Nic.-Crass. 1.4 (see below, n. 30),

where Crassus feeds the people (ฯ„แฝธฮฝ ฮดแฟ†ฮผฮฟฮฝ), also providing them with grain for three months.

ese passages do not contradict the impression of Crassus for which I argue in section I. In

both instances, Plutarch makes the point that Crassus provided for a very large number of

185

Crassus as Symposiast in Plutarch's Life of Crassus

e passages identied here are deftly interwoven with the passages

on Crassus as symposiast, and, depending on one's perspective, Crassus'

abstemiousness as symposiast weakens the negative impression of his

philoploutia, or his philoploutia dilutes the positive impression of his moderate

provision and consumption of food and drink. It would seem preferable

to choose the former over the latter, since these early examples of Crassus'

avarice do not necessarily portray him in a negative light. e rst two are

similar in that they reveal Crassus' desire to achieve the maximum benet

for the minimum price. is is similar to what he does as a host: getting the

maximum benet (making friends and political allies) for the lowest possible

cost (oering a simple repast). And while Crassus desires to acquire property,

despite his immense resources (which in addition to money and land includes

a very large number of slaves, some of whom are builders and artists), he does

not construct himself a new (that is, a larger and more ostentatious) home. In

fact, Plutarch indirectly quotes a bon mot of Crassus that those who are fond of

building are their own worst enemies (2.6)16 .

Political actions – in as far as Crassus' political career is covered by

Plutarch – which one might expect to be presented as additional evidence of

Crassus' avarice in fact appear relatively innocuous. His plan to annex Egypt,

for instance, which Plutarch calls a "dangerous and violent policy" (13.2),

does not appear to have been undertaken out of the expectation of personal

prot. Most importantly, Crassus' tremendous joy at being assigned Syria as

his province is initially represented as the desire for recognition (philotimia ) ,

not nancial gain (16.1-2)17 .

III.

If the positive references to Crassus as symposiast do not obviate the

negative impression of his ineectiveness as a political gure and his failure

as imperialist in Mesopotamia, that is, his philoploutia remains the dominant

impression, then the biographer redeems partially Crassus through his intricate

construction of the nal episode of the Life: the dinner party at the Parthian

royal court (33.1-7). e positive generalities of Crassus' symposia weigh

favourably against the grotesque details of the Parthian party18 .

citizens; he does not necessarily provide luxurious repasts. In fact, that he provides bread (12.3,

ฯƒแฟ–ฯ„ฮฟฮฝ) implies that he provides basic sustenance only.

16 A similar thought appears to be expressed by Juvenal (10.105-09).

17 is is the approach taken by B. A. M, 1976, p. 177. Note Florus 1.46.1: "Both

gods and men were deed by the avarice (cupiditas) of the consul Crassus, in coveting the gold

of Parthia (dum Parthico inhiat auro), and its punishment was the slaughter of eleven legions and

the loss of his own life". But note the synkrisis of Nicias-Crassus (4.1-4), where Plutarch suggests

that Crassus ought not to be blamed for his Parthian failure, since he was only undertaking

an expansive military campaign; Pompey, Caesar, and Alexander were praised for the same.

Crassus receives criticism from Plutarch when he does not advance immediately but waits for

his son to arrive from Gaul. Instead of using that time productively by arranging for training

exercises for his soldiers, he devotes himself to counting the money he has been able to collect

in Syria and Palestine (17.8-9).

18 A. V. Z, 1995, p. 180: "Plutarch constructs his Parthia as a moral antiworld,

Most striking is Crassus' involuntary participation in this dinner party

through the presentation of his head19 during the staging of the nal moments

of Euripides' Bacchae 20 . In Crassus , then, intellectual discussion and drunken

revelry are mutually exclusive activities; Romans appear to do the former,

Parthians indulge in the latter. Granted, that the Parthians are drunk is not

stated explicitly by Plutarch, but reading between the lines it is clear that

Plutarch intends for them to be perceived as intoxicated. Plutarch therefore

redeems Crassus by representing him as the (Greco-Roman) ideal against

which the Parthians consciously position themselves. If "to Plutarch statecraft

was stagecraft"21 , then in Crassus the opposite is true also. Reading the narrative

of Crassus' Parthian misadventure as an extended metaphor for his (lack of )

leadership ability, the depravity of the Parthian symposium appears as a highly

condensed parallel which illustrates their inability to govern themselves, which

indirectly redeems both Crassus' political actions (including the Parthian

campaign itself) and (ironically) Roman politics of this period.

Crassus' lack of a clearly dened role as either host or guest in the

symposium endangers the Parthians, who, delighting and participating in the

spectacle, inadvertently cross the boundary from being spectators to Bacchants,

from dinner guests to entertainment, instead of redirecting their eorts

towards critical appreciation of dramatic art or serious political discussion.

In the case of Surena, his behaviour at the dinner party – grabbing Crassus'

head and completing the verse instead of the actor in an act of obeisance to

Hyrodes – abnegates the positive impressive of Surena and the Parthian troops

which Plutarch crafts in the previous chapters22 . Surena inadvertently engages

in amateur dramatics through which he seamlessly and instantaneously

downgrades his political and social position, from triumphant military

commander to mediocre actor (and shortly afterwards disenfranchised corpse;

see below). is contrasts very sharply a symposium hosted by Crassus, where,

to recall the main passage on Crassus' dinner parties, his guests were "for the

most part plebeians and men of the people" (ฯ„แฝฐ ฯ€ฮฟฮปฮปแฝฐ ฮดฮทฮผฮฟฯ„ฮนฮบแฝด ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮปฮฑฯŽฮดฮนฯ‚),

where the notion of philanthropia is unknown, or even deliberately challenged". Cf. G. P ,

1991, p. 157: "In Greco-Roman historiography accounts of symposia and deipna often have a

cautionary or admonitory eect. e incidents related may range from there merely disquieting

to the murderously dire but their eect is to disturb and dissipate the atmosphere of ease and

joy that the ideal symposium or dinner is expected to create". Plutarch revisits an Eastern

symposium in Artaxerxes: see in this volume E. A.

19 A.V. Z, 1995, p. 181: "I do believe, that nearly all the acts of the Parthians, like

cutting-o heads…that appear so cruel and perverted to Plutarch, are in fact ritual". Plutarch

thought the harsh treatment of the defeated enemy was a sign of ฮฒฮฑฯฮฒฮฑฯฮนฮบแฝนฯ‚: A. G. N,

1986, p. 241; D. B, 1993, p. 469.

20 Euripides' Bacchae permeates Plutarch's Crassus, with Crassus as a Pentheus gure: D.

B, 1993. Scholars point out the symmetry of Plutarch's references to Euripides at the end

of both Crassus and Nicias, but with very dierent results: M. G. A. B, 1993, p. 422; D.

B, 1993, p. 469; R. F, 1972, p. 310; A. V. Z, 1995, p. 180.

21 G. W. M. H, 2005, p. 59 calls this episode "melodramatic".

22 See the analysis of T. S, 1999, pp. 301-2. On murder and decapitation at a dinner

party, see G. P, 1991, pp. 164-66.

187

Crassus as Symposiast in Plutarch's Life of Crassus

Romans who may have courted Crassus' attention in order to advance their

own position in Rome's political and social circles, as well as to improve their

minds.

e most noticeable dierence between Roman and Parthian symposia

manifests itself in the performances of Hyrodes and Crassus as symposiarch,

where Plutarch intends for the men to be compared, and for Crassus to appear

the better person. Plutarch ascribes to both men an extensive knowledge of

literature, but only Crassus appears to derive a benet from this knowledge.

Plutarch suggests this through the placement of his description of the literary

tastes of each man in relation to the description of his behaviour as symposiarch.

Crassus is described as a good host with his knowledge of history and

philosophy noted several sentences later (see above, 182-3). Hyrodes' extensive

knowledge of literature is mentioned rst, followed by the description of the

Parthian party. Plutarch therefore establishes Hyrodes' literary expertise, and

by implication his cognizance of, and for the reader insists upon the expectation

of, the proper social conventions described therein, which presumably includes

symposia, before revealing his disregard for the same23 . By revealing Crassus'

literary predilections after describing his (repeated) successful performances

as symposiarch, there is no such expectation placed upon him, although the

statement reinforces Plutarch's judging Crassus' parties to be intellectually

edifying.

To recall a point made earlier, the quality of the company is the main

criterion by which a dinner party is judged in this Life. e Parthian dinner

party appears to meet this criterion, but Plutarch replaces pleasure with

treachery in the nal sentences of the Life (33.8-9), in which he describes

the deaths of Hyrodes and Surena. e death of the latter at the hands of

the former conrms the superciality of the camaraderie at the dinner party,

since to kill a guest during or after dinner is inappropriate (in narrative-time

Plutarch places the murder as immediately following the dinner party)24 .

e deaths of Hyrodes and Surena underline the degeneracy which Plutarch

describes in the earlier passage. e ultimate failure of a Parthian symposium,

then, is the fact that those in attendance quickly turn against each other, which

contrasts very sharply the conviviality of Crassus' symposia.

IV.

And Nicias? Nicias and Crassus share the dubious honour of being their

country's wealthiest citizens at a time when said wealth would presumably

enable them to achieve a political position far greater than their natural

abilities (or lack thereof) would normally allow, and thereby prove equal to, or

23 Plutarch notes that Crassus' soldiers were found to have erotic texts in their possession,

but this is mitigated by the Parthian reading of the Bacchae later: A.V. Z, 1997, pp.

181-2 and 2005, p. 120.

24 Plutarch elsewhere writes that Pompey considered eeing to Hyrodes' court after his

defeat at Pharsalus (Pomp. 76.6); ironically he is killed before being received as a dinner guest

by Ptolemy.

perhaps even eclipse, their more talented political rivals25. Nicias and Crassus

are similar in that neither spends money with the explicitly stated expectation

of earning political support.

e attitude of both men towards dinner parties reveals their characters,

and therefore for Plutarch marks a subtle yet importance point of divergence

in the pair. Crassus appears admirable because he refrains from oering lavish

dinner parties. Nicias appears excessively cautious by refusing to dine with

others for fear of being spied upon: "since [Nicias] was inclined to be wary of

public informers, he would neither dine with a fellow citizen, nor indulge in

general interchange of views or familiar social intercourse" (5.1)26 . Crassus'

parties contribute to maintaining the established, albeit indirect, avenues of

political discourse, in Rome27 ; Nicias' lack of dinner parties do the opposite in

Athens: they closing down, or at the very least severely limit, political discussion.

As argued above, Plutarch takes Crassus' abstemiousness as indicative of his

other positive qualities; Nicias' restraint points to his negative qualities, upon

which scholars note Plutarch appears to dwell28 . Reading Nicias, then, serves

to bring into sharper focus Crassus' positive attributes; or, Crassus' positive

attributes accentuate the perception of Nicias' shortcomings29 . at Nicias

comes rst in the pair indicates that the latter is probably the case30 .

V.

Twenty years ago the Life of Crassus was called "a particularly lightweight

and anecdotal Life"31 . While Crassus compares (very) unfavourably with

the Lives alongside which it was very likely composed, the intricacy of his

presentation of Crassus as symposiast enables us to appreciate better this

enigmatic text. e references to Crassus as a moderate symposiast juxtaposed

with the elucidation of his career as an ineective politician and failed

imperialist enables Plutarch to oer a complex portrait of his subject in a

short text. e apparent inconsistency between Crassus' moderate tastes and

his avarice may have been what attracted Plutarch, and therefore by studying

the description of Crassus' gastronomical preferences, one comes to a better

understanding why Plutarch wrote Crassus.

25 On Crassus' inferiority to Pompey and Caesar, which appears to be conveyed in the Lives

of all three men, see J. B, 2005, esp. pp. 320-25.

26 Cf. Per. 7.4.

27 On Crassus in Roman politics, see E. S. G, 1977, and A. M. W, 1977; on

Plutarch's treatment of Crassus' political career, see C. B. R. P, 1986, pp. 161-3. Plutarch

appears to imply that Nicias only used his wealth to advance his political career against the

actions of Cleon (Nic. 3.2).

28 A. G. N, 1988; J. E. A, 1995.

29 F. T, 1991, p. 158 suggests that Plutarch only wrote Nicias to provide a Greek

pair for Crassus.

30 A passage in the synkrisis (1.4) may suggest another view, at least when examining Crassus

from the perspective of his philanthropia: see in this volume the paper of A. G. N;

S.-T. T, 2008, p. 88. On the synkrisis of Nicias-Crassus, see A. G. N, 1988,

pp. 329-33; T. E. D , 1999, pp. 269-75.

31 C. B. R. P, 1986, p. 161.

189

Crassus as Symposiast in Plutarch's Life of Crassus

W o r k s c i T e d

A, J. E., "Nicias and the fear of failure syndrome", AHB, 9 (1995)

55-63.

B, J., "ematic Correspondences in Plutarch's Lives of Caesar, Pompey,

and Crassus", in L.  B  . (eds.), e Statesman in Plutarch's

Works, vol.2., Leiden, 2005, pp. 315-25.

B, M. G. A.  ., Plutarco. Le vite di Nicia e di Crasso. Milan,

1993.

B, D., "Dionysiac Tragedy in Plutarch, Crassus", CQ, 43 (1993) 468-74.

D, T. E., Plutarch's Lives: Exploring Virtue and Vice. Oxford, 1999.

F, R., & C, ร‰. (eds.), Plutarque. Vies Tome VII: Cimon-

Lucullus – Nicias-Crassus. Paris, 1972.

G, E. S., "M. Licinius Crassus. A Review Article", AJAH, 2 (1977) 117-

28.

H, G. W. M., "Plutarch the Dramaturg: Statecraft as Stagecraft in the

Lives", in L.  B  . (eds.), e Statesman in Plutarch's Works, vol.

2, Leiden, 2005, pp. 53-9.

H, T. W., "Plutarch's late-Republican Lives: between the lines",

Antichthon, 21 (1987) 19-48.

M, B. A., Crassus, A Political Biography, Amsterdam, 1976.

N, A. G., "Hellenikos-Barbarikos: Plutarch on Greek and Barbarian

Characteristics", WS, 20 (1986) 229-44.

_____ "Is Plutarch Fair to Nicias?", ICS, 13 (1988) 319-33.

P, G., "Symposia and Deipna in Plutarch's Lives and Other Writings", in

W. J. S (ed.), Dining in a Classical Context. Ann Arbor, 1991, pp.

157-83.

P, C. B. R. , "Plutarch's Method of Work in the Roman Lives", JHS, 99

(1979) 74-94.

_____"Plutarch and Roman Politics", in I. S. M  ., (eds.), Past

Perspectives: Studies in Greek and Roman Historical Writing. Cambridge,

1986, pp 159-87.

____ "Childhood and Personality in Greek Biography", in C. B. R. P

(ed.), Characterization and Individuality in Greek Literature. Oxford,

1990, pp. 213-44.

S, T., Plutarque et les Barbares: La rhรฉtorique d'une image. Leuven,

1999.

190

James T. Chlup

T, S.-T., "Health is Wealth: Plutarch on Contemporary Luxury",

Ploutarchos, 5 (2008) 81-90.

T, F., "Why did Plutarch write about Nicias?", AHB, 5 (1991) 153-

58.

_____"Everything to do with Dionysus: Banquets in Plutarch's Lives", in J.

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

VI Simposio Espaรฑol sobre Plutarco (Cรกdiz, 14-16 de Mayo de 1998),

Madrid, 1999, pp. 491-99.

W, A. M., Marcus Crassus and the Late Roman Republic. Columbia, MO,

1997.

Z, A. V., "Tragedy and Epic in Plutarch's 'Crassus'", Hermes, 125

(1997) 169-82.

_____"'Stabbed with Large Pens': Trajectories of Literacy in Plutarch's Lives",

in L. D B  . (eds.), e Statesman in Plutarch's Works, vol. 2,

Leiden, 2005, pp. 113-37.

191

S 3

Disruptive Symposia

193

Drunken Violence and the Transition of Power in Plutarch's Alexander

dr u n k e n v i o l e n c e a n d T h e T r a n s i T i o n o f p o W e r i n

pl u T a r c h ' s al e x a n D e r

J B

University of Wisconsin, Madison

Abstract

is essay compares two episodes from Plutarch's Alexander: the wedding of Philip and

Cleopatra (9) and Alexander's attack on Cleitus (50-51). e wedding episode, in which an

angry, drunken Philip attacks Alexander, foreshadows Alexander's own attack on Cleitus, but

it also marks an important turning point in the development of the young Alexander. Prior

to the wedding episode, Plutarch portrays Alexander as highly rational, wise beyond his years,

and eager to rule. In creating this image, Plutarch uses Philip as a foil, showing how Alexander

was better suited than his father to be king and how he had grown restless in his role as heir.

us their clash over insults traded at the wedding party is the result of a rift in the father-

son relationship and is intimately tied both to the positive and negative aspects of Alexander's

character and to the transition of power between father and son1 .

e Life of Alexander ts quite well with the theme of the symposium,

since, according to Plutarch, Alexander was a drinker by nature and made a

habit of spending late nights at drinking parties. ere are two episodes in

particular that feature symposiastic settings and appear to be signicant to the

overall structure of the biography. e rst is the wedding party from chapter

nine, where a drunken Philip draws his sword on Alexander, and the second is

the drinking party in chapters 50 and 51, where a drunken Alexander attacks

and kills his friend Cleitus. Others, including Judith Mossman and John

O'Brien, have argued convincingly for a relationship between these episodes,

showing how Philip's attempt on Alexander's life pregures Alexander's

drunken assault on Cleitus later in the book2 . In this essay, I will take that idea

as a starting point and then argue further that Plutarch has used both episodes

to mark important transitions in Alexander's acquisition and use of power.

Let me begin by summarizing very briey the relevant details of both

episodes. Philip's wedding party is on the surface a relatively straightforward

aair. Philip has married a young Macedonian woman – too young perhaps,

since Plutarch says that Philip loved her ฯ€ฮฑฯ᾽ แผกฮปฮนฮบฮฏฮฑฮฝ, contrary to his age. At

the wedding banquet, the bride's uncle, Attalus, urges the guests to pray that

this marriage produce a legitimate heir to the throne. Alexander is insulted by

the insinuation that he, the present heir, is illegitimate, and he verbally rebukes

Attalus and throws his cup at him. Philip immediately rises up, draws his

sword, and charges his son, but "luckily for both men Philip tripped and fell

on account of his anger and his drunkenness (ฮดฮนแฝฐ ฯ„แฝธฮฝ ฮธฯ…ฮผแฝธฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ„แฝธฮฝ ฮฟแผถฮฝฮฟฮฝ)".

en Alexander closes the scene with a cutting remark: "Look, men, this man

is making preparations to cross from Europe into Asia, but he's been tripped up

1 I would like to thank Craig Gibson, who read earlier drafts of this paper and provided

helpful comments and criticism.

2 J. M. M, 1988, p. 86 (= 1995, p. 215); J. M. O'B, 1992, p. 139.

crossing from one couch to another". Following this confrontation, Alexander

leaves Macedonia, moving his mother to Epirus and biding his time among

the Illyrians.

At its core, the second episode is quite similar to the rst in that it involves

drunkenness and anger, but there is an important dierence as well. At the

wedding, Philip and Alexander escaped disaster because they both were lucky

(ฮตแฝฯ„ฯ…ฯ‡ฮฏแพณ ฮด᾽ แผ‘ฮบฮฑฯ„ฮญฯฮฟฯ…). But in the Cleitus aair, luck will not be on Alexander's

side. Plutarch writes that, "if we consider both the cause and the moment,

we discover that the king did not act according to a plan, but through some

misfortune (ฮดฯ…ฯƒฯ„ฯ…ฯ‡ฮฏแพณ ฯ„ฮนฮฝฮฏ) he oered his anger and drunkenness (แฝ€ฯฮณแฝดฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ

ฮผฮญฮธฮทฮฝ) as an excuse to the daemon of Cleitus". e critical elements of the

story are as follows: at a drinking party, Alexander and Cleitus begin to ght

after Cleitus is oended by a song that ridicules some Macedonian generals;

he then goes on to mock Alexander for being subservient to the Persians; in a

rage, Alexander seeks his sword and calls his body guard, but these are withheld

and Cleitus is rushed from the room; he returns, however, chanting yet another

insult, and Alexander runs him through with a spear. As soon as Cleitus falls

dead, "the anger of Alexander left him immediately (ฮตแฝฮธแฝบฯ‚ แผ€ฯ†แฟ†ฮบฮตฮฝ แฝ ฮธฯ…ฮผแฝธฯ‚

ฮฑแฝฯ„ฯŒฮฝ)" and he is barely kept from killing himself with the same spear.

Mossman rightly says that, "Philip's drunken attempt to attack Alexander

is a doublet of the death of Cleitus". Before making a forward comparison to

the Cleitus episode, however, I would like to look backward to the preceding

chapters on Alexander's youth. For the wedding scene represents not only a

foreshadowing of Alexander's own drunken and angry violence, but also the

culmination of a rather complex character portrait that Plutarch has been

sketching over the course of several chapters. e young Alexander whom we

meet at the wedding party has been cast as highly rational, wise beyond his

years, and ready to rule. In creating this image, Plutarch uses Philip as a foil,

showing how Alexander was better suited than his father to be king and how

he had grown restless in his role as heir apparent. us their clash over the

insults traded between Attalus and Alexander is the result of a much deeper

divide in the father-son relationship and is intimately tied to both the positive

and the negative aspects of Alexander's nature.

Plutarch introduces a fundamental element of his portrait of Alexander

in the well-known passage from chapter two, where Philip has a dream in

which he is closing his wife's womb with a seal that bears the image of a lion.

Aristander the seer interprets the dream correctly when others cannot: Philip's

wife Olympias is pregnant with a child who will possess a lion-like and a

spirited (ฮธฯ…ฮผฮฟฮตฮนฮดฮฎฯ‚) nature (2.4-5). Plutarch adds depth to this prediction

in chapter four, where he explains the origins and implications of Alexander's

spiritedness, adds that he also possessed temperance (ฯƒฯ‰ฯ†ฯฮฟฯƒฯฮฝฮท) with regard

to pleasures of the body, and introduces a discussion of Alexander's ambition

(4.7-11). Plutarch does not dwell on the rst two elements of Alexander's

nature, but he uses the remaining element, his ambition, to make two important

points. First, he asserts that the young Alexander's ambition was exceptional

195

Drunken Violence and the Transition of Power in Plutarch's Alexander

for his age and so kept his thought or purpose "weighty and high-minded"

(แผฅ ฯ„ฮต ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฟฯ„ฮนฮผฮฏฮฑ ฯ€ฮฑฯ᾽ แผกฮปฮนฮบฮฏฮฑฮฝ แผฮผฮฒฯฮนฮธแฝฒฯ‚ ฮตแผถฯ‡ฮต ฯ„แฝธ ฯ†ฯฯŒฮฝฮทฮผฮฑ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮผฮตฮณฮฑฮปฯŒฯˆฯ…ฯ‡ฮฟฮฝ ).

Second and more important, he introduces a comparison between Alexander

and Philip that runs through several chapters, up to and including the wedding

episode in chapter nine.

Plutarch introduces this comparison ostensibly to support his point

about Alexander's high-mindedness, but it becomes the vehicle for a more

detailed sketch of his character. Plutarch begins by explaining that Alexander's

seriousness of purpose made him discriminating when it came to building his

reputation:

For Alexander did not love glory of every kind or from every source, as Philip

did, who adorned himself sophistically with cleverness of speech (ฮปฯŒฮณฮฟฯ… ฯ„ฮต

ฮดฮตฮนฮฝฯŒฯ„ฮทฯ„ฮน ฯƒฮฟฯ†ฮนฯƒฯ„ฮนฮบแฟถฯ‚ ฮบฮฑฮปฮปฯ‰ฯ€ฮนฮถฯŒฮผฮตฮฝฮฟฯ‚) and engraved his chariot victories at

Olympia on his coins; but when those around Alexander kept asking if he

wished to compete in the footrace at the Olympic games, since he was a fast

runner, he said, "Sure, if I would have kings as competitors" (4.9-10).

e comparison in this passage is somewhat surprising, because Plutarch

has claimed that Alexander's ambition was ฯ€ฮฑฯ᾽ แผกฮปฮนฮบฮฏฮฑฮฝ, contrary to his age.

We might have expected an example of how Alexander surpassed one or more

of his young companions in high-minded and weighty thoughts. Instead, he

surpasses even his father, a point that Plutarch seems eager to press. He tells

us that Philip took pride in his success at the Olympic games; then he has

Alexander denigrate this sort of victory as being beneath a king. Plutarch is

referring to the years of Alexander's youth, and so his ambition is certainly

contrary to his age, but his high-minded remark also distinguishes him from

his father, the king that he will eventually replace. Comparing this passage to

the wedding episode, we cannot help but notice that Alexander was ambitious

ฯ€ฮฑฯ᾽ แผกฮปฮนฮบฮฏฮฑฮฝ, while Philip was in love with Cleopatra ฯ€ฮฑฯ᾽ แผกฮปฮนฮบฮฏฮฑฮฝ: the

young Alexander exceeds expectations, while the mature Philip fails to meet

them. Between these two points in the biography, Plutarch builds his case for

Alexander's superiority.

Philip, according to the passage above, not only celebrated his Olympic

victories, but he also "adorned himself sophistically with cleverness of speech".

Plutarch takes up this point again after the quip about kings as competitors,

going on to say that Alexander was generally disinterested "in the race of

athletes" but preferred instead to stage contests for tragedians, musicians,

hunters and men who fought with rods (4.11). Plutarch is creating an antithesis

here between displays of physical skill and intellectual skill, with Alexander

showing an obvious preference for the intellectual over the physical. Plutarch

does not claim that Alexander, who is fast enough to compete at Olympia, had

disdain for athletics, but only that he preferred to be around intellectual types.

Philip, on the other hand, eager for any type of glory, settled for sophistries,

just as he proudly won Olympic victories against lesser competitors.

is discussion leads directly to an anecdote, in chapter ve, that reinforces

the intellectual prowess of Alexander in comparison with Philip. An embassy

from the Persian king arrives in Macedonia while Philip is absent. Alexander

meets the visitors and does not question them as a young, inexperienced man

would, but he makes serious inquiries about the Persian king, his military

strength, and the geography of the Asian interior. As a result of his questioning,

the ambassadors "were amazed and thought that the legendary cleverness of

Philip (ฯ„แฝดฮฝ ฮปฮตฮณฮฟฮผฮญฮฝฮทฮฝ ฮฆฮนฮปฮฏฯ€ฯ€ฮฟฯ… ฮดฮตฮนฮฝฯŒฯ„ฮทฯ„ฮฑ) was nothing compared with the

boy's eagerness and his inclination to do great deeds". As with the example from

the previous chapter, this comparison with Philip is not automatic. Alexander

does not ask "any small or childish question", so the Persians might naturally

have compared him to other young men his age. But as Plutarch narrates

the anecdote, in their eyes Alexander is superior even to Philip, who is again

relegated to the intellectual backseat, enjoying a reputation for cleverness, but

as a leader paling in comparison with his son.

Plutarch rounds out this chapter by exposing the tension between

Alexander's "inclination to do great deeds" and his lack of real political power.

He describes him as agitated when he hears of Philip's victories in war, and

worried that his father will leave him nothing to conquer (5.4-6). He also

describes two of Alexander's teachers, pointing out that one, Leonidas, was

called Alexander's foster-father (ฯ„ฯฮฟฯ†ฮตฯฯ‚) and the other, Lysimachus, referred

to himself as Phoenix, to Alexander as Achilles, and to Philip as Peleus (5.7-8).

ere is no doubting who is best in that trio, and so for a third time Alexander

is compared favorably to his father. Moreover, the description of both teachers

serves to emphasize that Alexander's education is making him independent

of Philip, and while being heir limits his opportunity to act, at least for the

moment, it does not limit the potential of his nature. is notion is reinforced

in anecdotes that appear in subsequent chapters, when Alexander is reported to

have said that he had life on account of Philip but a virtuous life on account of

Aristotle (8.4); and when the Macedonians, as a result of Alexander's military

success at age sixteen and his actions at the battle of Chaeronia, call Alexander

their king but Philip their general (9.4)3 .

ere is an additional anecdote that precedes the wedding episode and

that eshes out Alexander's rational nature and his relationship to Philip. is

is the famous taming of Bucephalas in chapter six. Philip Stadter and Tim

Whitmarsh have shown that the Platonic undertone of this passage ts well

with Plutarch's emphasis on the philosophical education of Alexander4 . All

Philip's men are unable to break the horse, and when Philip decides to send

the animal away, Alexander charges that the men are soft and inexperienced.

In response, Philip confronts his youthful son, saying, "Are you reproaching

your elders, as though you know more or are better able to control the horse?".

3 Looking even farther ahead, when Cleitus is insulting Alexander at the drinking party, he

accuses Alexander of rejecting Philip and promoting the idea that Zeus Ammon was his real

father (50.11).

4 P. A. S, 1996, pp. 293-4; T . W, 2002, pp. 180-1.

197

Drunken Violence and the Transition of Power in Plutarch's Alexander

Alexander does, in fact, know more than the others. Rather than try to

break the horse physically, as Philip's men had done, Alexander observes the

horse's behavior, recognizes that it fears its own shadow, and then turns the

horse (Platonically, as Whitmarsh says) toward the sun and masters it with

relative ease. Once he succeeds, Philip joins other characters of this Life in

acknowledging Alexander's superiority: "My son," he says, "seek a kingdom that

is your equal, because Macedonia cannot contain you!" It seems reasonable to

take Philip's words as prophetic and to look ahead to Alexander's war against

the Persian empire5 , and so this episode says something important about

Alexander's future campaigns as well as his nature: he will conquer Persia not

by force alone but mainly by wisdom, and he will succeed where Philip would

have failed. Taking Philip's declaration together with Alexander's cutting

remarks about racing at Olympia, the reaction of the Persian ambassadors,

and the Macedonians' praise of Alexander's leadership, we are encouraged to

conclude that Philip was a great general, but that Alexander was the king

who could compete with Darius. By the time we arrive at the wedding scene,

Alexander himself is impatient enough to confront Philip with the truth.

us the wedding scene is the culmination of an extended comparison

of Alexander to Philip. However, in addition to putting Philip in his place,

Alexander also reacts angrily and impulsively to the insult of Attalus. is

reaction is at odds with the portrait that Plutarch has been creating: apart

from describing Alexander's spirited and thirsty nature in chapter four,

he has presented his hero as rational and controlled. e discussion of his

philosophical interests and his training under Aristotle, which comes in

chapters seven and eight, between the taming of Bucephalas and the wedding

episode, only reinforces this point. Looking backward from the murder of

Cleitus, the precedent set by Philip's attack on Alexander is obvious, but the

embarrassment of Philip at the end of the scene overshadows Alexander's

anger, so that on its own, the wedding scene is not particularly foreboding.

ere is, however, an anecdote in the very next chapter that also

demonstrates Alexander's tendency to act out of anger and further complicates

the picture of a rational hero. e marriage of Philip to Cleopatra and the

insult of Attalus raised doubts for Alexander about his standing in the family.

When he hears that Pixodarus, the king of Caria, is planning to marry his

daughter to Philip's other son, Arrhidaeus, he becomes upset and he makes

arrangements to marry the daughter himself. Philip discovers his plan and

chastises him, explaining that such a marriage was beneath him. In contrast

to the disagreement over the taming of Bucephalas, Philip is right about

the Carian princess, and Alexander is wrong. More important, Alexander's

behavior reveals that when he is suspicious or feels slighted, his judgment may

be confused – ฮดฮนฮฑฯ„ฮฑฯฮฑฯ‡ฮธฮตฮฏฯ‚, Plutarch writes – and he may act in an irrational

manner. In this case, he has acted more like Philip at the Olympic games,

seeking out the glory of a royal marriage even to the daughter of a lesser man.

5 Of the extant accounts, Plutarch is the rst to report Philip's prophecy; see A. R. A,

1930, pp. 17-21.

is scene, even more than the drunken ght with Philip, casts an ominous

shadow over Alexander's future, and both together serve as background for his

angry attack on Cleitus in response to a perceived insult6 .

Looking forward to the Cleitus episode, Plutarch has left no doubt that

Alexander is acting irrationally in attacking his friend: he says at the start

that the event was not premeditated (ฮฟแฝฮบ แผ€ฯ€แฝธ ฮณฮฝฯŽฮผฮทฯ‚) and at the end that

it was driven by Alexander's anger (ฮธฯ…ฮผฯŒฯ‚). His spirited nature has proved

to be his Achilles' heel, but this episode also leads to a fundamental change

in Alexander's behavior and even his character. As Whitmarsh has written,

the Cleitus episode ushers in a reevaluation of Alexander's relationship to

philosophy, and it is therefore no coincidence that the murder takes place

in a symposiastic setting. "If Plato's and Xenophon's Symposia constitute the

paradigms of philosophical friendship, then the Clitus episode represents the

negative image of such serenity and self-control"7 . What better way to represent

Alexander's break with his philosophical past than an angry, lethal ght at a

symposium8 . Plutarch, in fact dwells for several chapters on philosophical

matters following the murder. In order to relieve Alexander's suering, the

philosopher Anaxarchus convinces him that he is a law unto himself and

therefore need feel no shame for killing Cleitus. is argument, according to

Plutarch, relieved Alexander's suering, but it also changed him, making "his

ethos in many respects chaunoteron and more lawless" (52.7). "Chaunoteron "

in this passage may mean "more frivolous" or "more conceited"9 , but in either

case, it represents a departure from the Alexander that we met in the early

chapters, whose ambition kept his thoughts weighty and high-minded. In

fact, Alexander has not only acted like Philip in attacking his friend; in heeding

Anaxarchus' sophistic justication for the murder and becoming chaunoteron ,

he has actually become more like Philip, whom Plutarch described as vain and

adorned with sophistic cleverness, and who Alexander charged was unt to

invade Asia as a result of his drunken stumble. As Alexander looks forward to

a new campaign in India, this is certainly not a positive development10 .

Plutarch also describes here the severing of ties between Alexander and

Aristotle, even though this happened at a later time. He writes that Alexander

6 E. D. C, 1992, examines both the wedding episode and the Pixodarus aair for their

historical accuracy but without tting them into Plutarch's larger narrative.

7 T. W, 2002, p. 183.

8 Excessive drunkenness was not a rare event at a typical Macedonian drinking party (see

E. N. B , 1983), and so we may view Alexander's behavior as not only a break with his

philosophical training but also a return to his more basic instincts.

9 See LSJ, ฯ‡ฮฑแฟฆฮฝฮฟฯ‚ II.

10 e Cleitus aair is by no means the rst irrational moment for Alexander following the

incident at Philip's wedding and the attempt to arrange a marriage with Pixodarus' daughter,

but like the wedding episode, it represents the climactic moment in an extended illustration of

Alexander's character. In Plutarch's narrative, Alexander becomes more violent and irrational

as his reign progresses, and he is always susceptible to rash behavior when he suspects an insult;

cf. 42.4: "And especially when slandered he would abandon good sense (ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮผฮฌฮปฮนฯƒฯ„ฮฑ ฮบฮฑฮบแฟถฯ‚

แผ€ฮบฮฟฯฯ‰ฮฝ แผฮพฮฏฯƒฯ„ฮฑฯ„ฮฟ ฯ„ฮฟแฟฆ ฯ†ฯฮฟฮฝฮตแฟ–ฮฝ) and would become cruel and obstinate, because he valued his

reputation above his life and his kingdom". See B. B, 2008, pp. 189-90.

199

Drunken Violence and the Transition of Power in Plutarch's Alexander

had a falling out with Callisthenes, the great-nephew of Aristotle, and eventually

Callisthenes was implicated in the pages conspiracy, for which Alexander put

him to death (53-55). Plutarch quotes from a letter in which Alexander vows

to punish not only Callisthenes, but also "those who sent him and who are

harboring in their cities conspirators against me". Plutarch says that by this

letter, Alexander "openly revealed himself as being against Aristotle" in whose

home Callisthenes had been raised (55.7-8). Alexander once said that Philip

gave him life, but Aristotle gave him a virtuous life; now he accuses Aristotle

of supporting a conspiracy to kill him, rejecting his philosophical father in

order to preserve the life that his ordinary father, Philip, had granted him.

All of this happens, as Plutarch admits, much later, but by narrating the

break with Aristotle immediately following the murder of Cleitus, Plutarch

encourages the reader to consider them together. And when Plutarch steers

his narrative thread back to the present, he does so with an anecdote that

ties the Cleitus aair back to the wedding scene and makes a point about

transitions in leadership. Following the confrontation at the wedding in

chapter nine, Alexander left Macedonia for Illyria. Straightaway, Demaratus

the Corinthian visits Philip and chides him for inquiring about the political

situation in Greece when he cannot keep his own household in order (9.12-

14). is counsel leads Philip to recall Alexander; then the very next chapter

narrates the aair with Pixodarus and Philip's murder. us Demaratus plays

a small but critical role in the transition of power from father to son.

Following the murder of Cleitus, Plutarch inserts the digression on

Callisthenes and Aristotle; then the wise Demaratus returns again in chapter

56, this time expressing pity for the Greeks who died before seeing Alexander

on the throne of Darius. en he also dies. is anecdote is poignant, but it

seems out of place, because Demaratus has already made this observation, in

chapter 37, when Alexander sat on Darius' throne for the rst time at Persepolis.

In his commentary, J. R. Hamilton remarks that the good treatment that

Demaratus receives from Alexander is meant to stand in contrast to the harsh

treatment of Callisthenes11 . is is no doubt true, but this nal appearance

by Demaratus leaves an ominous impression. As Plutarch has constructed

the narrative, Demaratus was on hand to facilitate or to mark Alexander's

surpassing of two kings, Philip and Darius. By returning a third time, after

Alexander has killed his friend Cleitus in anger, developed a more frivolous

character, and made a formal break with his philosophical past, he signals a less

hopeful transition: it seems that he can die now because he has seen Alexander

at his peak. e ascent toward high-minded glory began when Alexander

declared that the stumbling Philip was unt to invade Asia, and it has ended

with Alexander's own drunken assault on Cleitus, which serves as a warning

that he, too, may now be unt for the campaigns that lie ahead.

e very next chapter opens with Alexander's preparations to make a

crossing into India. He will accomplish amazing things, to be sure, but his

11 J. R. H, 1969.

200

Jerey Beneker

behavior will continue to deteriorate and he will eventually lose control of his

army. us both the wedding scene and the Cleitus aair signal important

transitions in the personality of Alexander and in the leadership of the

Macedonians. e ght at the wedding marks the ascendance of Alexander

while at the same time revealing a crack in his rational foundation. e violent

disruption of the symposium, and the concomitant rejection of philosophical

ideals, vividly illustrates the power of Alexander's ฮธฯ…ฮผฯŒฯ‚ and also marks the

beginning of his decline as king. In the Cleitus aair, Alexander has taken the

role that his father played in the wedding episode, but rather than yield to a

better man, as Philip did after his drunken mistake, Alexander gives way to a

lesser version of himself.

W o r k s c i T e d

A, A. R., "Bucephalas and his Legend", AJPh, 51 (1930) 1-21.

B , E. N., "e Symposium at Alexander's Court", Archaia Makedonia, 3

(1983) 45-55.

B, B., "Caesar's Ambition: A Combined Reading of Plutarch's

Alexander-Caesar and Pyrrhus-Marius", TAPhA, 138 (2008) 185-215.

C, E. D., "e Politics of Polygamy: Olympias, Alexander and the

Murder of Philip", Historia, 41 (1992) 169-89.

H, J. R., Plutarch: Alexander, A Commentary, Oxford, 1969.

M, J. M., "Tragedy and Epic in Plutarch's Alexander", JHS, 108

(1988) 83-93. (reprinted in S, B. (ed.), Essays on Plutarch's

Lives, Oxford, 1995, pp. 209-28)

O'B, J. M., Alexander the Great: e Invisible Enemy , London, New York,

1992.

S, P. A.,"Anecdotes and the ematic Structure of Plutarchean

Biography", in F D, J. A.  P P, F.

(eds.), Estudios sobre Plutarco: Aspectos Formales. Actas del IV Simposio

Espaรฑol Sobre Plutarco (Salamanca, 26-28 de Mayo, 1994), Madrid,

1996, pp. 291-303.

W, T., "Alexander's Hellenism and Plutarch's Textualism", CQ, 52

(2002) 174-92.

201

Polรญtica y confrontaciรณn en los banquetes macedonios en la obra de Plutarco

P      

    P

A I M M

Universidad de Murcia

Abstract

In the ancient world, the symposium was a way to make politics. Consequently, it is also

a reection of ancient society and its inherent conicts. ere is a very curious case that

surprisingly has not attracted much attention from specialists: Plutarch's mention of

Macedonian banquets. ese banquets were very much inuenced by the Homeric tradition,

and very dierent events happened there, for example, singers sang and the king gave gifts.

But it was even a suitable place to denigrate an enemy or to plan his murder. It was also a way

to win the support of the Macedonians, to introduce literary discussions or to talk politics.

It was even present in funeral rites. e versatile character of Macedonian banquets was due

to the fact that there were no assemblies or councils that met periodically. Moreover, the

Macedonians drank pure wine in their banquets, which was considered a barbarian act by

the Greeks. Many times Plutarch shows his condemnation of Macedonians' drunkenness.

For example, in his Lives he condemns Philip and Demetrius when they get drunk. By

contrast, he defends Alexander when he does it. is is because of the sources, but also, and,

above all, because of the admiration Plutarch feels for Alexander. Let us remember that

in one of his rst works (Moralia 329C) Plutarch had presented Alexander as a supporter

of Greek culture and philanthropy. All that had led to contradictions in his biography of

Alexander.

Convocar un simposio implica abrir las puertas del hogar, oรญkos, al resto de

la ciudad, lo que, en denitiva, signica entremezclar lo pรบblico y lo privado.

Un banquete es por tanto algo mรกs que un espacio de esparcimiento y de ocio,

sino tambiรฉn el el reejo de las tensiones que acucian la sociedad en la que se

celebra, puesto que implica una reuniรณn.

Ademรกs, esta celebraciรณn en el mundo antiguo, como en todo encuentro,

no dejรณ de ser una forma de hacer polรญtica, y fue por tanto un reejo del tipo

de estado imperante.

El simposio es un universo en el que existe siempre un frรกgil equilibrio

entre el ciudadano con el ciudadano, el hombre con el dios o el sรบbdito con

su emperador. Todas estas tensiones estรกn muy presentes siempre en la obra

de Plutarco de Queronea. Un caso curioso son las menciones que realiza a los

banquetes macedonios. Si bien los simposios aparecen con frecuencia en la obra

de Plutarco, son frecuentemente descripciones de eventos griegos o romanos1 ,

y muy pocos de pueblos bรกrbaros2 . El pueblo macedonio al ser considerado por

la mayorรญa de los griegos como un pueblo bรกrbaro3 , pero que al mismo tiempo

reivindicaba su helenidad a travรฉs de sus gobernantes4 es un caso diferente al

del resto y merece ser estudiado detenidamente.

1 Cf. Plu., es. 30; Lyc.10; 12; 26; Phoc.19; Dio 20; Lys. 4; Aem. 27; Cat. Ma. 17; Cor. 23.

2 Plu., Art.15.

3 D., Philippica III 31. Ep

4 Cf. N. G. L. H, 1992, p. 42.

202

Antonio Ignacio Molina Marรญn

Si en Atenas el banquete podรญa reejar formas polรญticas acordes con el

mundo democrรกtico5 , en Macedonia la forma de gobierno era la monarquรญa,

lo que implicaba que el simposio fuese siempre mucho mรกs jerarquizado con

un centro de autoridad muy denido, el soberano. Un monarca cuyo modelo

era el mundo homรฉrico y que, por lo tanto, estarรก presente en las festividades

macedonias.

Al igual que Demรณdoco amenizaba con su mรบsica la comida a la que fue

invitado Odiseo por el rey Alcรญnoo, en Macedonia se perpetuรณ la costumbre

de banquetear acompaรฑados con mรบsica. Esquines y Demรณstenes con motivo

de su embajada a Filipo II tuvieron la oportunidad de ver a un jovencรญsimo

Alejandro mostrar sus habilidades con la citara durante una comida6 (Aeschin.,

Contra Timarco 168). Algo que le valiรณ los reproches de su padre, Filipo, pues

a un verdadero rey le bastaba con ser un espectador y dejar que fuesen otros

quienes tocasen7 (Plu., Per. 1.6).

Un arte que sin duda el joven Alejandro dominaba debido a su admiraciรณn

por otro consumado mรบsico su antepasado Aquiles (Il. 9.185-89). El propio

Plutarco nos cuenta la anรฉcdota de como rechazรณ la lira de Paris en Troya,

porque preferรญa la de Aquiles (Plu., Alex. 15.9).

En cualquier caso no parece haber sido una costumbre รบnicamente del

reinado de Alejandro. Demetrio Poliorcetes gustaba de celebrar sus simposios

acompaรฑado de autistas, como la cรฉlebre Lamia (Plu., Demetr. 16, 27).

Precisamente, eran exclusivamente las hetairas y las artistas las รบnicas

mujeres que tenรญan acceso al banquete8 . Herรณdoto (V.18-21) cuenta que los

embajadores del Gran Rey a su llegada a Macedonia pidieron que fuesen

atendidos por mujeres macedonias durante el transcurso de un banquete. Los

macedonios accedieron a regaรฑadientes, porque no era costumbre que las

mujeres de condiciรณn libre estuviesen presentes en tales eventos. Cuando los

persas intentaron abusar de las mujeres, el prรญncipe Alejandro I con la excusa

de que tenรญan que arreglarse adecuadamente para sus huรฉspedes las recondujo

al gineceo, pero en lugar de devolvรฉrselas introdujo a jรณvenes macedonios

disfrazados con ropas de mujer que dieron muerte a los persas. La historia, aunque

falsa, muestra una prรกctica que era realidad entre los griegos, y seguramente

entre los macedonios, la exclusiรณn de las mujeres de estos eventos9 .

Conocemos los nombres de algunas de las mujeres que acompaรฑaron a los

macedonios en su expediciรณn, como Antรญgona la amante de Filotas (Plu., Alex.

5 Pl., Smp. 177d.

6 Sobre el recital de Alejandro ante Demรณstenes consรบltese a I. P, 1993; quien

calica la escena descrita por Esquines de ฯƒฯ„ฮนฮณฮผฮนฯŒฯ„ฯ…ฯ€ฮฟ, una "instantรกnea" de la vida del joven

macedonio.

7 Otro ejemplo de una actitud similar a la mostrada por Filipo hacia la mรบsica se encuentra

en Plu., em. 2.4. Cf. W. A, 1988, pp. 665-6.

8 Cf. W. W. T, 1948, p. 48, quien niega que en los banquetes macedonios participasen

autistas.

9 Plu., Pel. 11 cuenta una historia similar a la de Herรณdoto. Cuando Pelรณpidas y sus soldados

se introdujeron en un banquete para asesinar a los oligarcas tebanos lo hicieron disfrazados de

mujeres, de tal modo que nadie sospechรณ de ellos.

203

Polรญtica y confrontaciรณn en los banquetes macedonios en la obra de Plutarco

48.4-49.1) y Taรญde la de Ptolomeo que tuvo un papel destacado en el incendio

de Persรฉpolis:

Pero ocurriรณ que habiรฉndose entregado junto a sus compaรฑeros a una esta

y celebraciรณn, tambiรฉn se unieron a ellos unas mujeres para beber junto a sus

amantes. Destacaba entre todas ellas Taรญde, natural de รtica, compaรฑera de

Ptolomeo, el que mรกs tarde serรญa rey. En parte por elogiar cumplidamente a

Alejandro, en parte por gastar una broma, se dejรณ llevar en medio de la bebida

a hacer una propuesta muy propia del carรกcter de su patria, aunque de mayor

trascendencia de lo que a sรญ misma correspondรญa10.

Sin embargo, la presencia de mujeres no signicaba que las relaciones

homo-erรณticas estuviesen excluidas del simposio. Se sabe que Alejandro y

Hefestiรณn fueron amantes. El propio monarca macedonio besรณ pรบblicamente

a su eunuco Bagoas en el transcurso de una esta, donde se habรญa servido

abundante vino (Plu., Alex. 67.7-8).

El rey, por lo que cuenta Arriano (VII 11.8-9), debรญa de sentarse siempre

en el centro de la estancia al igual que lo hacรญa cuando administraba justicia (Cf.

Polieno IV 24). Una posiciรณn, el centro, que habรญa sido un elemento vital en el

desarrollo del pensamiento griego. Tenรญa un matiz polรญtico y por supuesto tenรญa

un valor moral que la losofรญa supo emplear. Pero tambiรฉn servรญa para designar

lo comรบn, lo cotidiano, a la comunidad11 . Siendo tambiรฉn el banquete un

lugar idรณneo para recompensar a quienes se habรญan distinguido en el combate,

una forma sencilla de hacerlo era permitir que tomaran asiento junto al rey.

Cuanto mรกs prรณximos estaban del soberano mรกs claro quedaba que ocupaban

una posiciรณn importante. Esto quedรณ patente cuando el rey Antรญgono Dosรณn

invitรณ a un banquete a Arato de Siciรณn, para mostrar que era muy estimado

por el rey fue sentado en un sitial mรกs elevado que el suyo propio e incluso el

propio Antรญgono se encargรณ de arroparlo (Plu., Arat. 43). El modelo de este

protocolo vuelve a encontrarse en los poemas homรฉricos. Alcรญnoo sentรณ a su

lado a Odiseo porque era su huรฉsped preferente (Od. 7.169), al igual que habรญa

hecho Aquiles cuando recibiรณ a los embajadores que encabezaba el Laertรญda

en su tienda (Il. 9.215-21).

Pero no sรณlo la situaciรณn en el banquete denotaba la importancia del

invitado, segรบn la forma en la que รฉste se sentase podรญa revelar que se trataba de

un guerrero consumado. Ateneo (I 18a) nos recuerda que ningรบn macedonio

podรญa comer reclinado en un lecho sin haber matado, anteriormente, a un jabalรญ

con la รบnica ayuda de su lanza. Una costumbre que tuvo que experimentar el

mismรญsimo rey Casandro en los banquetes macedonios.

Una de las escenas tรญpicas de la Odisea es la entrega de regalos al invitado

durante el simposio (Od. 6.587-615). El banquete macedonio, un lugar donde

se reunรญan los guerreros, era el sitio indicado para que los soldados presumiesen

de sus hazaรฑas ante una audiencia, y sobre todo delante del rey, que debรญa

10 Plu., Alex. 38.1-2.

11 J.-P. V, 1993, p. 198.

204

Antonio Ignacio Molina Marรญn

distribuir premios conforme al valor mostrado12. Plutarco (Alex. 39.2) cuenta

que el lรญder de los peonios, Aristรณn, le mostrรณ la cabeza de un enemigo

pidiรฉndole el premio acostumbrado entre los suyos, una copa de oro. Alejandro

respondiรณ entregรกndole una copa llena de vino puro y brindando por รฉl.

El propio rey podรญa agasajar a uno de sus amigos con un banquete en

su honor. Esto fue lo que se hizo cuando Nearco retornรณ de su periplo (Alex .

75.4-5) o cuando Alejandro asesinรณ a Clito (Alex. 50.7). Los invitados debรญan

de ocupar un sitio cercano al del monarca como sus huรฉspedes de honor, puesto

que el macedonio habrรญa querido oรญr detalles sobre el viaje de su almirante o

conversar con Clito, a quien no habrรญa podido asesinar de no haberse sentado

cerca del monarca.

Durante el banquete se realizaban numerosos brindis en honor del huรฉsped

principal. Una forma de honrar a los invitados y de que la alegrรญa se extendiera

entre los comensales (cf. Plu., Demetr. 25; 36; Alex. 67.1-6; 69.9). Aunque

tambiรฉn podรญa ser el mejor medio para desprestigiar a un adversario. รtalo

realizรณ un brindis durante los festejos nupciales de Filipo II con su sobrina

Cleopatra para poner en duda la legitimidad de Alejandro como sucesor al

trono13 .

El rey Demetrio (Plu., Demetr. 25) disfrutaba en sus banquetes cuando

sus hombres realizaban brindis descalicando a sus adversarios. Un Filipo

ebrio, en las celebraciones que siguieron a la batalla de Queronea, cantรณ el

principio de un decreto de Demรณstenes, llevando el compรกs con los pies y

las manos14 . Se habrรญa tratado de un kรณmos epinรญkios 15 similar al que realizรณ

Alejandro en el incendio de Persรฉpolis, para vengarse de Jerjes (Plu., Alex .

37.5). Pausanias, el asesino de Filipo, fue tambiรฉn vejado por รtalo en el

transcurso de un banquete. Plutarco (Alex. 10.5) no especica el lugar, pero

Diodoro dice, rotundamente, que ocurriรณ en el transcurso de una cena en la

que fue emborrachado y violado por los hombres de รtalo16 . Los enemigos de

Arato aprovechaban los banquetes para menoscabar la conanza de Filipo V

en su persona (Plu., Arat. 48.7).

Incluso era el lugar idรณneo para eliminar fรญsicamente a un rival. Esto

fue lo que intentรณ Alejandro, el hijo de Casandro, inรบtilmente con Demetrio

Poliorcetes (Plu., Demetr. 36). Pirro aprovechรณ el momento contra su enemigo

Neรณptolemo (Plu., Pyrrh. 5). Del mismo modo Alejandro dio muerte a

Clito en el transcurso de una cena (Plu., Alex. 51.9-10). El modelo mรญtico

que justicaba un asesinato durante la celebraciรณn de un banquete lo ofrecรญa

Odiseo, que habรญa dado muerte a los pretendientes que acosaban a su esposa

(Od. 22.8-325).

El envenenamiento era otro de los mรฉtodos que podรญan ser empleados

para acabar con un rival en un simposio. La sombra de la sospecha podรญa caer

12 Plu., Alex. 48.5, Filotas fanfarroneaba como suelen hacer los soldados en la esta.

13 Plu., Alex. 9.7-11.

14 Plu., Dem. 20.

15 D. S. XVI 87.1.

16 D. S. XVI 93.7.

205

Polรญtica y confrontaciรณn en los banquetes macedonios en la obra de Plutarco

sobre el antriรณn cuyo huรฉsped morรญa poco despuรฉs de un festรญn. Esto fue lo

que le ocurriรณ a Medio de Larisa17 tras la muerte de Alejandro Magno (Plu.,

Alex. 75.4-5; OBRA CITADA Arr.VII 25.1) o a Filipo V tras la de Arato de

Siciรณn (Plu., Arat. 52; Plb. VIII 12 1-6).

Pero tambiรฉn era un medio de aliviar el cansancio y de ganarse el apoyo

de los macedonios. Pocas cosas unen tanto a los hombres como el compartir la

misma comida y el mismo pan18 . El banquete que siguiรณ a la victoria de Queronea

y el de la boda entre Filipo y Cleopatra tenรญa ese objetivo; Alejandro organizaba

muy frecuentemente juegos y representaciones teatrales para contentar a sus

soldados19 ; la bacanal de Carmania se realizรณ para celebrar la vuelta victoriosa

de Alejandro de la India, y paliar los padecimientos que habรญa sufrido el ejรฉrcito

en el desierto de Gedrosia20 . Los enemigos de ร‰umenes de Cardia intentaron

acabar con la creciente popularidad del griego entre los macedonios obsequiando

a sus tropas con numerosos banquetes (Plu., Eum. 13.5; 14.2).

Quizรกs el banquete mรกs importante, que tuvo lugar buscando la concordia

y la lantropรญa entre griegos, macedonios y persas, fue el que se celebrรณ poco

despuรฉs del motรญn del Opis (Arr. VII 11.8-9).

Tal era la importancia del simposio en la vida cotidiana de la antigua

Macedonia que estaba presente hasta en los ritos funerarios. En una tumba

encontrada en Agios Athanasios, a unos 20km de Tesalรณnica, se ha hallado

un impresionante fresco donde se representa un banquete funerario21 . De

igual modo, se celebrรณ un banquete funerario en honor de Cรกlano (Plu., Alex.

70.1-2; Ath. X 49), despuรฉs de su inmolaciรณn.

Con la misma nalidad lรบdica podรญan organizarse banquetes en el estado

macedonio en los que se podรญa disfrutar de discusiones literarias o losรณcas.

Calรญstenes se ganรณ la enemistad de la corte cuando segรบn Plutarco (Alex. 53.3-4)

mostrรณ sus dotes como orador defendiendo un argumento y posteriormente

su contrario, dejando entrever su animadversiรณn por los macedonios. Duelos

dialรฉcticos como los tenidos entre Anaxarco de Abdera y Calรญstenes de Olinto

pudieron entretener a los macedonios (Plu., Alex. 52.8-9).

Al ser el simposio el sitio donde solรญa encontrarse la cรบpula del poder

era el lugar idรณneo para practicar la polรญtica en un ambiente mรกs distendido.

Los embajadores de la paz del 346 fueron agasajados con un banquete en

el transcurso del cual pudieron admirar las grandes dotes de Filipo como

bebedor (Plu., Dem.16). Alejandro cuando quiso introducir la Proskรฝnesis en el

ceremonial de su corte preriรณ hacerlo en la atmรณsfera del simposio22 .

Igualmente el rey podรญa presentarse pรบblicamente vestido con el atuendo

persa (Plu., Mor. 329F-330A, Alex. 45.2; Ant. 54.8; Diod. XVII 77.5; Curt. VI

17 Cf. H. B, 1926, pp. 261-2; L. P, 1960, pp. 68-70; J. A, 2005, pp. 116-

22; A. I. M M, 2007, pp. 287-90.

18 X., Cyr. VIII 2.2-3.

19 Plu., Alex. 4.11, 10.2-4, 29.1-6, 47.7, 67.7-8, 72.1-2; Arr. VII 14.10; Ath. XIII 595.

20 Plu., Alex. 67.1-6.

21 M. T-A, 2006, p. 324.

22 Plu., Alex. 54.4-6.

206

Antonio Ignacio Molina Marรญn

6.4-5; Justin. XII 3.8; Arr. IV 7.4; 9.9, VII 6.2. 22.2-5; Ps.-Callisth. I 34.2) o

disfrazado en cenas con los atributos divinos de Heracles, รrtemis o Hermes

(Ath. XII 537e) para promover su adopciรณn de las costumbres forรกneas. El

banquete era un lugar mรกs apropiado que las audiencias reales para sondear el

รฉxito que tendrรญa su orientalizaciรณn.

La necesidad de discutir y confrontar los problemas de la sociedad

macedonia en el transcurso de un banquete puede deberse a que al contrario

de lo que ocurrรญa en otras ciudades como en Atenas, donde habรญa un lugar

especico para las discusiones polรญticas, como la asamblea (ekklesรญa) y el consejo

(boulรฉ ) que se reunรญan periรณdicamente, no existรญa un marco espacial denido en

el que poder solventar las tensiones que acuciaban a los macedonios. Es cierto

que los banquetes griegos no eran ajenos a estas tensiones, pero la existencia de

instituciones polรญticas provocaba que nunca fuesen tan serias como ocurrรญa en

Macedonia. Por el contrario, los banquetes se celebraban mรกs frecuentemente

y al ser un lugar donde se encontraba la plana mayor del ejรฉrcito era normal

que se tomaran decisiones polรญticas, o que se produjesen discusiones. A lo

largo de la historia de Macedonia la autoridad siempre estuvo muy claramente

representada en la gura del rey, pero conforme los monarcas fueron ganando

poder, resultaba mรกs difรญcil tener acceso a su persona (Plu., Demetr. 42).

Durante el banquete los dignatarios podรญan luchar por ganarse el favor del

rey23 , mediante el halago como Proteas (Plu., Alex. 39.6) o bien hacer alarde de

sus mรฉritos o de los desmรฉritos de sus rivales como hemos visto.

Los asesinatos, las violaciones y las disputas internas debieron de

escandalizar profundamente a los griegos. De igual modo, la presencia de

armas en los banquetes macedonios (Plu., Alex. 9.9; 51.9; Demetr. 36) no era

comรบn desde el siglo VI a.C., entre los griegos. Pero lo que mรกs debรญa disgustar

a los helenos era que los macedonios bebiesen el vino puro24 (รกkratos ). Beber

vino simbolizaba el hacerse adulto para un griego, (Cf. Il. 9.485-95), y su

desconocimiento demostraba la falta de civilizaciรณn de un pueblo. Aunque

beberlo en estado puro y de forma inmoderada era un signo de barbarie.

El ejemplo mรกs claro nos lo ofrece Plutarco (es. 30) cuando describe la

embriaguez de los centauros. Los macedonios eran equiparables en las mentes

de los griegos a estos seres monstruosos cuando se emborrachaban.

Era costumbre de los macedonios organizar competiciones de bebedores

en las que llegaban a producirse varias muertes debido a las enormes cantidades

de vino puro que se ingerรญan. Prรณmaco muriรณ tras haber bebido unos 4 congios

(13 litros) de vino sin mezclar (Plu., Alex. 70.1-2). Filipo aparece borracho

frecuentemente en nuestras fuentes (Plu., Dem. 16, 20; Alex. 9.9-10); De

Alejandro se dice que era capaz de vaciar la copa de Heracles (Plu., Alex. 75.5)

y Demetrio aparece muchas veces borracho en la vida de Plutarco (Demetr. 19,

52). En gran parte la pasiรณn de los macedonios por el vino estaba originada

23 E. N. B, 1990, p. 242: "e symposium was the arena in which were played out the

sometimes deadly political games of the Macedonians".

24 E. N. B, 1983. La prรกctica de beber vino puro, รกkratos, aparece dos veces en la vida de

Alejandro (Plu., Alex. 39.3; 70.2).

207

Polรญtica y confrontaciรณn en los banquetes macedonios en la obra de Plutarco

en la importancia que tenรญan los cultos orgiรกsticos a Dioniso en Macedonia,

que diferรญan profundamente de los del resto de Grecia por ser mรกs brutales

(Plu., Alex. 2.9). El exceso de vino es siempre el responsable de numerosas

desgracias o errores a los ojos de Plutarco25 : รtalo insultรณ a Alejandro por el

vino (Alex. 9); Filipo intentรณ matar a su hijo porque estaba borracho (Alex .

9.9-10); Alejandro quemรณ Persรฉpolis por los efectos del vino (Alex. 38.2); el

asesinato de Clito se produjo porque tanto Alejandro como รฉl estaban ebrios

(Alex . 50.9); Calรญstenes insulta con su discurso a los macedonios tras haber

bebido (Alex. 53.3-4); el vino tambiรฉn estรก muy presente en la bacanal de

Carmania que Plutarco desaprueba (Alex. 67.1-6.); bebido besa a Bagoas (Alex .

67.7-8); mueren 41 personas por el concurso de bebedores (Plu., Alex. 70.1-2);

Hefestiรณn muere tras beber una jarra de vino (Plu., Alex. 72.2). Solamente

parece haber sido el causante indirecto de una buena acciรณn, el haberle rendido

honores a la estatua de Teodecto, un alumno de Aristรณteles (Plu., Alex. 17.9).

Sin embargo, la valoraciรณn que tiene Plutarco de Alejandro es muy positiva

pese a su adicciรณn, al contrario que en otras obras, en las que sus protagonistas

tambiรฉn se dejan vencer por los efectos del vino.

Sigue a Aristรณbulo de Casandrea cuando dice que bebรญa por el mero placer

de la conversaciรณn (Plu., Alex. 23.1; Arr. VII 29.4), pero mรกs adelante seรฑala que

cuando lo hacรญa se convertรญa en un vulgar y jactancioso soldado que era presa

fรกcil de los aduladores (Plu., Alex. 23.7). La aciรณn a la bebida (ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฟฯ€ฮฟฯƒฮฏฮฑ) es

la responsable directa de que Alejandro pierda la moderaciรณn (ฯƒฯ‰ฯ†ฯฮฟฯƒฯฮฝฮท)

que anteriormente se habรญa encargado de destacar Plutarco (Alex. 22). Estas

contradicciones son debidas en parte a las distintas fuentes que emplea el

de Queronea de forma directa o indirecta26 . Fuentes totalmente hostiles a la

memoria del macedonio como Epo de Olinto27 que achacaba su muerte a

los excesos con el vino y positivas como Aristรณbulo o Cares de Mitilene que

intentรณ justicar su abuso del alcohol atribuyรฉndolo a una costumbre india

(Cf. Ath. X 43). Con algunos hรฉroes como Catรณn, se muestra comprensivo al

decir que su adicciรณn al vino se debรญa a los asuntos de gobierno que le apartaron

del estudio y de la erudiciรณn (Plu., Cat. Ma. 6.1). No obstante, para Plutarco

el vino serรญa un elemento impuesto por la propia naturaleza de Alejandro. El

calor de su cuerpo es el responsable de que se produzca un buen olor corporal,

pero como contrapartida le obliga a beber en exceso28 .

La diferencia entre el macedonio y los otros protagonistas de las vidas

radicaba en que Plutarco siendo mรกs joven, habรญa escrito un discurso llamado

Sobre Fortuna o virtud de Alejandro. Siguiendo a Onesรญcrito de Astipalea habรญa

alabado la lantropรญa del conquistador por haber extendido la paideia griega

entre los pueblos de Asia (328 c-d). Es llamativo que siendo considerado

Alejandro por sus contemporรกneos un bรกrbaro fuese esgrimido como un

25 M. C M, 1999, p.171. Es el exceso el responsable de los vicios y no el vino,

pues Plutarco (Mor. 715 E) admite que puede ser benecioso para el alma de quien sabe beber.

26 J. E. P, 1939; A. E. W, 1955, p. 107.

27 H. B, 1926, p. 161; L. P, 1960, pp. 61-8.

28 Plu., Alex. 4.7.

208

Antonio Ignacio Molina Marรญn

representante del helenismo. No fue un hecho aislado, otro contemporรกneo

de Plutarco, Diรณn Crisรณstomo, ensalzรณ a Alejandro como un hรฉroe griego29 .

Alejandro era griego porque su paideia lo era.

Se trataba de una visiรณn mรกs positiva de la que darรญa posteriormente

en su biografรญa y totalmente diferente de la de T. Livio (IX 17) que habรญa

infravalorado las conquistas de Alejandro por haberlas hecho ante pueblos

afeminados. Mientras que el รฉxito de los romanos en De Fortuna Romanorum

radica en su virtus y en su fortuna, no en su paideia o lantropรญa30 .

El Alejandro de la Moralia 328 c-d fue un instrumento de Plutarco para

reivindicar la importancia de la civilizaciรณn helena en el imperio romano. En el

imperio del macedonio todos los hombres, independientemente de su origen

o raza, podรญan ser integrados en รฉl, simplemente a travรฉs de su educaciรณn, algo

que no ocurrรญa en el imperio romano. Este es el motivo por el que Plutarco,

a diferencia de otros ilustres macedonios, muestre una mayor simpatรญa por

Alejandro, al considerarlo un lรณsofo que fue capaz de llevar la teorรญa a la

prรกctica, pero tambiรฉn al ser un sรญmbolo polรญtico.

Si para los romanos era un modelo del emperador, para los griegos de la

segunda sofรญstica era un ejemplo de lo que debรญa de haber sido un hรฉroe heleno

y en cuyo reinado incluso los orgullosos romanos llegaron mostrarse sumisos

enviรกndole embajadores31 .

Esto no quiere decir que Plutarco negase el papel y la importancia del

Imperio Romano. Pese a todas sus crรญticas a los romanos, รฉl mismo justica sus

conquistas y no puede escapar a trasladar su ideologรญa a sus obras. De hecho la

concepciรณn que muestra Plutarco de la lantropรญa estรก muy inuenciada por

el concepto romano de la humanitas 32 . La lantropรญa en el mundo helenรญstico

era solamente extensible a los sรบbditos del gobernante, pero en el caso de

Alejandro se dice que pretendรญa unir a todos los pueblos. Estando mรกs cerca

del concepto romano de la humanitas 33 .

En denitiva, la admiraciรณn e importancia de Alejandro de Macedonia

para Plutarco hace que se intenten suavizar algunos rasgos de los banquetes

macedonios que en รฉpoca clรกsica e imperial romana podรญan ser considerados

como propios de un pueblo bรกrbaro.

bi b l i o g r a f รญ a c i T a d a

A, W., "Alexander und Achilleus: Ein Bestandsaufnahme", in Zu

Alexander d. Gr. Festschrift G. Wirth, II, Amsterdam, 1988, pp. 657-92.

A, R. S., "Classicism and Romanitas in Plutarch's De Alexandri

Fortuna aut Virtute", AJPh, 126 (2005) 107-25.

29 G. Z, 1984.

30 S-T. T, 2005, pp. 435-6.

31 Arr.VII 15.5.

32 R. S. A, 2005.

33 R. S. A, 2005, p.119.

209

Polรญtica y confrontaciรณn en los banquetes macedonios en la obra de Plutarco

A, J. Les historiens d'Alexandre, Parรญs, 2005.

B, H., Das Alexanderreich auf prosopographischer Grundlage, II, Mรบnich,

1926, pp. 261-2.

B, E. N. "e Symposium at Alexander's Court", AM, 3 (1983) 45-55.

_____ In the Shadow of Olympus. e Emergence of Macedon, Princeton, 1990.

C M, M., "Embriaguez y vida disoluta en las vidas", in J. G. M

C . (eds.), Plutarco, Dioniso y el vino. Actas del VI Simposio

Espaรฑol sobre Plutarco (Cรกdiz, 14-16 de Mayo, 1998), Madrid, 1999,

pp.171-80.

H, N. G. L., Alejandro Magno. Rey, general y estadista, Madrid, 1992.

M M, A. I., Geรณgrafos y geografรญa en la empresa de Alejandro Magno ,

Tesis doctoral, Universidad de Murcia, 2007.

P, L., e lost histories of Alexander the Great, Nueva York-Oxford,

1960.

P, I., "แผฉ ฯ€ฮฑฮนฮดฮตฮฏฮฑ ฯ„ฮฟแฟฆ ฮœฮตฮณฮฌฮปฮฟฯ… ฮ‘ฮปฮตฮพฮฌฮฝฮดฯฮฟฯ…", Parnassos, 35 (1993)

281-91.

P, J. E., "e Sources of Plutarch's Alexander", JHS, 59 (1939) 229-40.

T , W. W., Alexander the Great, II, Cambridge, 1948.

T, S.-T., "Plutarch, Amalgamator of Greece and Rome", in A.

P J & F. T (eds.), Historical and Biographical

Values of Plutarch's works. Studies devoted to Professor Philip A. Stadter by

the International Plutarch Society, Mรกlaga-Utah, 2005, pp. 433-40.

T-A, M., "La tombe macรฉdonienne d'Hagios Athanasios

prรจs de essalonique", in A.-M. G-S  . (eds.),

Rois, Cites, Necropoles. Institutions, Rites et Monuments en Macedoine,

MELETHMATA 45, Atenas, 2006, pp. 321-30.

V, J-P., Mito y pensamiento en la Grecia antigua, Barcelona, 1993.

W, A. E., "Plutarch and Alexander", CQ, 49 (1955) 96-107.

Z, G.,"Alessandro Magno nella cultura dell'eta Antonina", in M. S

(ed.), Alessandro Magno tra storia e mito, Milano, 1984, pp.195–212.

211

e Banquets of Alexander

T   A

P G  F M

University of Barcelona

Abstract

Banquet scenes are often described in Plutarch's Lives. In the Life of Alexander, Plutarch denes

the exemplary prole of the Macedonian king in his relations with others – his companions

and friends and his defeated enemies. e social institution of symposium, so deeply rooted

in the Greek tradition, is used as an instrument to highlight certain aspects of Alexander's

"Greekness", either to contrast them with the customs of the barbarians, or, alternatively, to

conrm that the conqueror fully adopted barbarian ways.

In spite of the fact that Alexander behaves immoderately at banquets, Plutarch neither criticizes

him openly nor censures him; the behaviour should not be taken as belonging to Alexander's

แผฆฮธฮฟฯ‚, but to the changes that he introduces in the Greek tradition itself.

e ritualized act of sharing food and drink played an important role in

the social, political and religious cohesion of Archaic and Classical Greece,

since the banquet, either public or private, oered an occasion to strengthen

ideological links and friendships1 . Due to the economic outlay that it represented

and the time it required, the private symposium was associated above all with

an aristocratic lifestyle; it was a reunion inter pares in an exclusively masculine

environment2 .

Equally, the size of the group that participated in the symposiac gathering

– and the venue – had a direct eect on the nature of the loyalties inside

the group and on the formation of the corresponding แผ‘ฯ„ฮฑฮนฯฮตแฝทฮฑ, bearing in

mind that the symposium – "un spettacolo a se stesso"3 – became a space that

was outside the polis, with specic rules and norms of its own. Examples are

its distinct treatment of sexuality, both in terms of the homoerotic relations

established among the young in the closed setting of the banquet – in parallel

with the gymnasium and the palaestra –, the creation of a kind of free love

associated with the hetairae and artists who customarily attended symposia,

and the development of forms of ritual exhibitionism and violence inherent in

the event's nal ฮบแฟถฮผฮฟฯ‚ 4 .

From the fourth century onwards, the decline of the cities and the changes

in the forms of power were often attributed to the extreme luxury in which

the richest sectors of society lived. is impression was greatly reinforced by

the tales of the fabulous banquets of the Hellenistic monarchies, which were

obvious examples of the transformation that the institution of the symposium

had undergone. is explains why Plutarch speaks so highly of the private

1 Cf. P. S-P, 1992, pp. 13-117.

2 e Etruscans and Romans admitted their wives and daughters to their banquets; the

Greeks regarded this as a clear example of their lack of education and morality; cf. eopomp.

Hist. FGH 115 F 204; Cic., Ver . 2.1.64-66.

3 Cf. L. E. R, 1983.

4 Cf. E. P, 1990, pp. 182-3.

212

Pilar Gรณmez & Francesca Mestre

banquet as a privileged space where knowledge and friends could meet, a place

where diners come "to share not only meat, wine, and dessert, but conversation,

fun and the amicability that leads to friendship"5 .

e discussions and entertaining talk would take place during the

symposiac stage per se of the banquet6 , in which wine always played a central

role. e wine was not an end in itself but the prologue to speech – in particular,

of the philosophical speech that was an integral part of the symposium and

which brought to the banquet measure and appropriateness (ฯ„แฝธ ฮผแฝณฯ„ฯฮฟฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ

ฯ„แฝธฮฝ ฮบฮฑฮนฯแฝนฮฝ)7 . e wine should be mixed with water so that the conversation

and the entertainment could last as long as possible, and to prevent the

misbehaviour that might ensue from excess, distorting the true aim of the

banquet and disrupting the harmony of the meeting. Indeed, the drinking of

pure wine was considered to be a practice of barbarian peoples8 .

e controversial gure of Alexander the Great plays a key role in the

contraposition between the Greek and the non-Greek, and, to an extent,

constitutes a point at which this duality undergoes a change in direction. As

has been noted elsewhere9 , Plutarch's presentation of Alexander changes as his

oeuvre progresses: that is, he does not apply the same analytical parameters in

the Moralia as in his extensive biography of the Macedonian king. In treatises

such as On the fortune of Alexander, inuenced by the rhetorical tradition of

the conqueror and the ideology of the Flavian dynasty, Plutarch presents

a vindication of the Macedonian king whose mission is to carry out a vast

geopolitical project involving the fusion of various territories; later, while

writing the Life, Plutarch appears to enjoy greater freedom in his presentation

of Alexander as a model and reference point for Roman emperors.

In this article we explore the Life of Alexander in order to establish how

and to what extent the banquet – the place in which Plutarch's heroes may

display moral virtues such as ฯ†ฮนฮปแฝทฮฑ or ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฑฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€แฝทฮฑ 10 – contributes to dening

the exemplary prole of the Macedonian king in his relations with others, both

his companions and friends and his defeated enemies. In this way we aim to

determine whether Plutarch uses this social institution, so deeply rooted in the

Greek tradition, as an instrument to highlight certain aspects of Alexander's

"Greekness" and to contrast them with the customs of the barbarians, or,

alternatively, to conrm that the conqueror fully adopted barbarian ways.

5 Cf. Plu., Mor. 660 b: แฝ ฮณแฝฐฯ ฯƒแฝปฮฝฮดฮตฮนฯ€ฮฝฮฟฯ‚ ฮฟแฝฮบ แฝ„ฯˆฮฟฯ… ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮฟแผดฮฝฮฟฯ… ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ„ฯฮฑฮณฮทฮผแฝฑฯ„ฯ‰ฮฝ ฮผแฝนฮฝฮฟฮฝ, แผ€ฮปฮปแฝฐ

ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮปแฝนฮณฯ‰ฮฝ ฮบฮฟฮนฮฝฯ‰ฮฝแฝธฯ‚ แผฅฮบฮตฮน ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ€ฮฑฮนฮดฮนแพถฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฟฯ†ฯฮฟฯƒแฝปฮฝฮทฯ‚ ฮตแผฐฯ‚ ฮตแฝ”ฮฝฮฟฮนฮฑฮฝ ฯ„ฮตฮปฮตฯ…ฯ„แฝฝฯƒฮทฯ‚. Translations

of Table Talks are by Clement & Hoeit (LCL).

6 From the Hellenistic era onwards, however, the contacts rst with Macedonia and later

with Rome linked erudite discussion to the meal; cf. Ath. IV.

7 Cf. Plu., Mor. 613 b. On the connection between wine and the word, see L. R, 2002,

pp. 171-89.

8 Cf. O. M, 1990, p. 6.

9 Cf. L. P, 2000, pp. 385-6.

10 Cf. F. F, 1996, pp. 233-6.

213

e Banquets of Alexander

Banquet scenes are often described in Plutarch's Lives and take on

a variety of functions11 . Following the tradition of Plato and Xenophon,

Plutarch is particularly interested in the ethics of the symposium, presided

over by controlled enjoyment, friendship, and the freedom of speech12 . With

its exibility and its duality (it may be public or private, formal or informal,

comic or tragic) the banquet becomes an appropriate setting for Plutarch's

narration of some of the episodes in the biographies. e banquet serves as

the backdrop for the discussion of political questions, for murdering one's

enemies, for impressing one's friends and one's adversaries – or making fun

of them, or drawing attention to their dierences –, as a meeting-place for

lovers, and so on. e symposium, then, oers Plutarch an ideal opportunity to

reveal the true characters of his heroes, perhaps because it is a context in which

individuals behave in consonance with their true nature13 . is may have been

why Pericles did not attend the banquets in the homes of his friends during

his political career: "Conviviality is prone break down and over power the

haughtiest reserve, and in familiar intercourse the dignity which is assumed

for appearance's sake is very hard to maintain"14 .

In the Life of Alexander banquet scenes appear time and again to highlight

the conduct, culture and character of its protagonist, whose liking for wine

in fact formed part of his legend15 . Plutarch devotes one of his Table Talks (I

6) to Alexander's drinking, and reports that the conversation with Philinus

and others was indeed on the ฯ€ฮฟฮปฯ…ฯ€ฮฟฯƒฮฏฮฑ of the Macedonian king, but in the

sense that "he did not drink excessively, but did spend much time in drinking

and conversing with his friends"16 . Nonetheless, Plutarch's Philinus denies

this, stating that in the royal Journal, compiled by Eumenes of Cardia and

Diodotus of Erithras, "it is written, 'after a bout of drinking Alexander slept

this day through', sometimes with the addition of 'and the following day also'.

Accordingly he was very lazy about love-making, though his bold and choleric

temperament indicated a hot-natured body"17 . Plutarch also states that one of

the reasons why Callisthenes earned himself the enmity of Alexander was that

he did not share the king's liking for pure wine, remarking "that he did not

wish to drink from Alexander's cup and so stand in need of Asclepius's"18 .

11 Cf. G. P, 1991 who presents a catalogue of anecdotes that took place during the

celebration of a banquet in the Parallel Lives; cf. also L. R, 2002, p.173.

12 Cf. T. W, 2002, p. 182.

13 Cf. F. T , 1999, p. 499.

14 Cf. Plu., Per. 7.5.

15 Cf. Ath. 434 b; Ael., VH 3.23.

16 Cf. Plu., Mor. 623 d: ฮปฯŒฮณฮฟฯ‚ แผฆฮฝ ฯ€ฮตฯแฝถ แผˆฮปฮตฮพฮฌฮฝฮดฯฮฟฯ… ฯ„ฮฟแฟฆ ฮฒฮฑฯƒฮนฮปฮญฯ‰ฯ‚ แฝกฯ‚ ฮฟแฝ ฯ€ฮฟฮปแฝบ ฯ€ฮฏฮฝฮฟฮฝฯ„ฮฟฯ‚ แผ€ฮปฮปแฝฐ

ฯ€ฮฟฮปแฝบฮฝ ฯ‡ฯฯŒฮฝฮฟฮฝ แผฮฝ ฯ„แฟท ฯ€ฮฏฮฝฮตฮนฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮดฮนฮฑฮปฮญฮณฮตฯƒฮธฮฑฮน ฯ„ฮฟแฟ–ฯ‚ ฯ†ฮฏฮปฮฟฮนฯ‚ แผ•ฮปฮบฮฟฮฝฯ„ฮฟฯ‚.

17 Ibidem 623 e: แผ€ฯ€ฮตฮดฮตแฝทฮบฮฝฯ…ฮตฮฝ ฮด' ฮฑแฝฯ„ฮฟแฝบฯ‚ ฯ†ฮปฯ…ฮฑฯฮฟแฟฆฮฝฯ„ฮฑฯ‚ ฮฆฮนฮปแฟ–ฮฝฮฟฯ‚ แผฮบ ฯ„แฟถฮฝ ฮฒฮฑฯƒฮนฮปฮนฮบแฟถฮฝ

แผฯ†ฮทฮผฮตฯแฝทฮดฯ‰ฮฝ, แผฮฝ ฮฑแผทฯ‚ ฯƒฯ…ฮฝฮตฯ‡แฝณฯƒฯ„ฮฑฯ„ฮฑ ฮณแฝณฮณฯฮฑฯ€ฯ„ฮฑฮน ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ€ฮปฮตฮนฯƒฯ„แฝฑฮบฮนฯ‚ แฝ…ฯ„ฮน 'ฯ„แฝตฮฝฮดฮต ฯ„แฝดฮฝ แผกฮผแฝณฯฮฑฮฝ แผฮบ ฯ„ฮฟแฟฆ ฯ€แฝนฯ„ฮฟฯ…

ฮบฮฑฮธฮตแฝปฮดฯ‰ฮฝ' แผ”ฯƒฯ„ฮน ฮด' แฝ…ฯ„ฮต 'ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ„แฝดฮฝ แผฯ†ฮตฮพแฟ†ฯ‚'· ฮดฮนแฝธ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ€ฯแฝธฯ‚ ฯ„แฝฐฯ‚ ฯƒฯ…ฮฝฮฟฯ…ฯƒแฝทฮฑฯ‚ แผ€ฯฮณแฝนฯ„ฮตฯฮฟฯ‚ แผฆฮฝ, แฝ€ฮพแฝบฯ‚ ฮดแฝฒ ฮบฮฑแฝถ

ฮธฯ…ฮผฮฟฮตฮนฮดแฝดฯ‚ แผ…ฯ€ฮตฯ แผฯƒฯ„แฝถ ฯƒฯ‰ฮผฮฑฯ„ฮนฮบแฟ†ฯ‚ ฮธฮตฯฮผแฝนฯ„ฮทฯ„ฮฟฯ‚.

18 Ibidem 624 a: ฮดฮฟฮบฮตแฟ– ฮดแฝฒ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮšฮฑฮปฮปฮนฯƒฮธฮญฮฝฮทฯ‚ แผฮฝ ฮดฮนฮฑฮฒฮฟฮปแฟ‡ ฮณฮตฮฝฮญฯƒฮธฮฑฮน ฯ€ฯแฝธฯ‚ ฮฑแฝฯ„ฯŒฮฝ, แฝกฯ‚ ฮดฯ…ฯƒฯ‡ฮตฯฮฑฮฏฮฝฯ‰ฮฝ

ฯƒฯ…ฮฝฮดฮตฮนฯ€ฮฝฮตแฟ–ฮฝ ฮดฮนแฝฐ ฯ„แฝธฮฝ ฯ€ฯŒฯ„ฮฟฮฝ· แผฯ€ฮตแฝถ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮบฯฮปฮนฮบฮฑ ฮปฮตฮณฮฟฮผฮญฮฝฮทฮฝ แผˆฮปฮตฮพฮฌฮฝฮดฯฮฟฯ… ฮผฮตฮณฮฌฮปฮทฮฝ แผฮปฮธฮฟแฟฆฯƒฮฑฮฝ แผฯ€'

214

Pilar Gรณmez & Francesca Mestre

Let us look now at several particularly signicant episodes in Macedonia,

Persepolis and Samarkand.

In Plutarch's Life, the rst banquet that serves as the background to a

manifestation of Alexander's character is the one held at the Macedonian

court to mark the wedding of Philip to the young Cleopatra, after the king's

repudiation of Olympias on suspicion of indelity. In this symposiac scene

– devoid of any amicable conversation – it is Alexander's antagonists who

are inebriate. Despite his youth, Alexander reveals a passionate and spirited

nature (ฮธฯ…ฮผฮฟฮตฮนฮดแฝตฯ‚ )19 as he defends his legitimate status as heir to the

Macedonian throne; he insults Attalus and laughs at his father who is too

drunk to stand up, while he, Alexander, appears to be unaected by the wine.

Attalus, the uncle of the bride, "being in his cups" (แผฮฝ ฯ„แฟท ฯ€แฝนฯ„แฟณ ฮผฮตฮธแฝปฯ‰ฮฝ ,

Alex. 9.7)20 , proposes an ill-chosen toast, urging the Macedonians to pray

to the gods to bless the union of Philip and Cleopatra with an heir to the

throne. Alexander, beside himself with fury (ฯ€ฮฑฯฮฟฮพฯ…ฮฝฮธฮตแฝทฯ‚ ), hurls a goblet at

him and shouts at him: "But what of me, base wretch? Dost thou take me

for a bastard?"21 . Hearing this insult, Philip stands up, his sword in his hand,

and makes for his son, but, "fortunately for both, his anger and his wine

made him trip and fall". Alexander, in his insolence (แผฯ†ฯ…ฮฒฯแฝทฮถฯ‰ฮฝ) exclaims

sarcastically: "Look now, men! here is one who was preparing to cross from

Europe into Asia; and he is upset in trying to cross from couch to couch"22 .

is scene conrms, then, that the explosiveness of Alexander's character is

due to his nature, not due to his liking for wine.

After describing Alexander's extraordinary triumph at the battle of

Issus (333 BC), Plutarch briey interrupts his narration of historical events

to highlight Alexander's exemplary treatment of the Persian royal captives –

Darius' mother, his wife, and his two unmarried daughters. With them the

Macedonian victor behaves chivalrously and keeps his word (ฯ„ฮฟแฟฆ ฮปแฝนฮณฮฟฯ… ฯ„ฮฑแฟ–ฯ‚

ฮณฯ…ฮฝฮฑฮนฮพแฝถฮฝ แผกฮผแฝณฯฮฟฯ… ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ‡ฯฮทฯƒฯ„ฮฟแฟฆ ฯ†ฮฑฮฝแฝณฮฝฯ„ฮฟฯ‚, Alex . 22.3), and is above all humane

in his actions (แผ”ฯ„ฮน ฮผแพถฮปฮปฮฟฮฝ ฯ„แฝฐ ฯ„แฟถฮฝ แผ”ฯฮณฯ‰ฮฝ แผ€ฯ€แฝตฮฝฯ„ฮฑ ฯ†ฮนฮปแฝฑฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€ฮฑ , ibidem). e

meeting takes place when Alexander is going to dine. Despite the daughters'

extraordinary beauty, the Macedonian treats them with respect and does not

even deprive them of honours, since – in the opinion of Plutarch – "it would

seem, considering the mastery of himself a more kingly thing that the conquests

of his enemies"23 . Alexander also shows presence of mind in his treatment of

the other captives, who also have a ne bearing: "Persian women were torments

to the eyes." – he says – but Plutarch adds that the king "displaying in rivalry

ฮฑแฝฯ„แฝธฮฝ แผ€ฯ€ฮตฯŽฯƒฮฑฯ„ฮฟ ฯ†ฮฎฯƒฮฑฯ‚ ฮฟแฝฮบ แผฮธฮญฮปฮตฮนฮฝ แผˆฮปฮตฮพฮฌฮฝฮดฯฮฟฯ… ฯ€ฮนแฝผฮฝ แผˆฯƒฮบฮปฮทฯ€ฮนฮฟแฟฆ ฮดฮตแฟ–ฯƒฮธฮฑฮน. is anecdote is

also found in Athenaeus (X 434 d).

19 Cf. T. D , 1999, p. 85.

20 Translations of Life of Alexander are by Perrin (LCL).

21 Cf. Plu., Alex. 9.8.

22 Ibidem 9.10.

23 Ibidem 21.7.

215

e Banquets of Alexander

with their fair looks the beauty of his own sobriety and self-control, he passed

them by as though they were lifeless images for display"24 .

In this same context Plutarch devotes an entire chapter to Alexander's

conception of drinking and banqueting. In an echo of the Table Talk (I 6)

Plutarch now says that Alexander spent a long time on each drink, devoting

more time to talking than to drinking, and drinking only in times of leisure,

"for in the stress of aairs he was not be detained, as others commanders were,

either by wine, or sleep, or any sport, or amour, or spectacle"25 . So, Plutarch

presents Alexander as a perfect host, concerned that his guests be served as

equals and in abundance, and repeats that the drinking was spread over a long

period of time, for the sake of the conversation26 .

However, Plutarch recognizes in the next paragraph of the Life that

under the eects of wine the Macedonian conqueror acts like any other soldier

and abandons himself to boasting and adulation, to such an extent that the

success of the banquet is put at risk. is places the diners of a ner spirit in a

particularly awkward situation, wishing neither to compete with the atterers

nor to appear reticent in their praise, since the former course appears shameful

to them and the latter dangerous27 . After the bout of drinking, Alexander

would wash and sleep profoundly until midday, and on occasion would spend

the entire day asleep, as we saw in the Table Talk mentioned above28 .

Excessive drinking can lead to the death of somebody, as in the case of

Cleitus, in an episode which Whitmarsh29 considers emblematic of Alexander's

progressive decline into barbary and which reveals how Alexander has begun

his slide into decadence by renouncing Greek austerity for Eastern luxury. It

is no coincidence that the episode occurs after Alexander has begun to adopt

Persian dress and other attributes30 . In this scene, Alexander runs Cleitus

through with a spear; Cleitus, "who was already drunk and naturally of a

harsh temper and wilful" (แผคฮดฮท ฮผฮตฮธแฝปฯ‰ฮฝ, ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ†แฝปฯƒฮตฮน ฯ„ฯฮฑฯ‡แฝบฯ‚ แฝขฮฝ ฯ€ฯแฝธฯ‚ แฝ€ฯฮณแฝดฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ

ฮฑแฝฮธแฝฑฮดฮทฯ‚, Alex . 50.9), had rebuked the Macedonian king for allowing diners at

the banquet to sing verses mocking the Macedonian generals who had recently

been defeated by the barbarians at the siege of the acropolis of Maracanda31 . Far

from the camaraderie and relaxed atmosphere characteristic of a banquet, the

confrontation between Alexander and Cleitus, his loyal friend and companion

who had even saved his life at the battle of the Granicus, provokes uproar. e

24 Ibidem 21.10. e good treatment given by Alexander to the Persian captives is also

recorded in Ps.-Callisth. II 22.

25 Ibidem 23.1-2.

26 Ibidem 23.6. Plutarch (Mor. 620 a-622 b) devotes the fth question of the rst book of

the Table Talks to a discussion of the ideal nature of the director of a banquet, a gure who was

essential to the success of the celebration; cf. P. G  M. J, 1999, pp. 261-3.

27 Ibidem 23.7.

28 Cf. Plu., Mor. 623 e; Ath. X 434 b.

29 Cf. T. W, 2002, p. 182.

30 Cf. Plu., Alex. 45.

31 Cf. Arr., An. IV 3.7.

216

Pilar Gรณmez & Francesca Mestre

king commands Cleitus to be silent, but Cleitus refuses, and invites Alexander

"to speak out freely what he wished to say, or else not to invite to supper men

who were free and spoke their minds, but to live with Barbarians and slaves,

who would do obeisance to his white tunic and Persian girdle"32 .

Plutarch places side by side the freedom of speech – the ฯ€ฮฑฯฯฮทฯƒแฝทฮฑ as a

key component of the Greek symposium33 – and the verbal or physical violence

deriving from a lack of self-control in both Cleitus and Alexander. It is also

interesting to see how Cleitus celebrates this banquet context, understood as

a free conversation between equals, as the centre of "his" model of Hellenicity

which he refuses to abandon in order to follow his king. Cleitus formulates this

explicitly, speaking "in all boldness" (ฯ„ฮฟฮนฮฑแฟฆฯ„ฮฑ ฯ„ฮฟแฟฆ ฮšฮปฮตแฝทฯ„ฮฟฯ… ฯ€ฮฑฯฯฮทฯƒฮนฮฑฮถฮฟฮผแฝณฮฝฮฟฯ… ,

Alex. 51.3), and saying that he envies the Macedonians who died before seeing

Alexander give way to Persians and Medes. However, at the same time, Plutarch

seems to suggest that Alexander has his own model of Hellenicity which,

going beyond the norms of an ancient institution such as the banquet, consists

precisely in integrating new lands inside the Hellenic structure. Cleitus's death

at the hands of Alexander during the banquet is an example of excess against

the moderation, restraint, kindness and friendship which, for Plutarch, should

always preside over the relations between the participants at a symposium: a

death that represents everything that Alexander's model of Hellenicity wishes

to leave behind. It is clear that in this celebration it is not the word as a vehicle

for education that conditions action, but violence; but since Plutarch is not

excessively critical of this violence, what the episode in fact shows, in our view,

is the diculty of adapting the immutability of the Hellenic to the outside

world, to the context beyond the classical polis; a new context in which Greeks,

Macedonians and Barbarians act at the same level.

In Plutarch's account – the episode has not survived in the version by

Diodorus Siculus – it is Cleitus who provokes the king with words. Alexander

responds with actions, and there is no doubt that his reaction is excessive.

Plutarch, however, wishes to excuse Alexander: the act was performed in a

moment of fury, when he had lost control of his senses. So, like Ajax when he

realizes that he has not killed Odysseus, Alexander, when he realizes what he

has done and comes to himself (ฮณฮตฮฝแฝนฮผฮตฮฝฮฟฯ‚ ฯ€ฮฑฯ' แผ‘ฮฑฯ…ฯ„แฟท , Alex. 51.11), tries to

commit suicide, only to be prevented by his companions and friends; he spends

the night weeping and the next day says not a word until the philosophers

Callisthenes and Anaxarchus of Abdera are brought to him to alleviate his

suering. Anaxarchus consoles Alexander for the murder saying that Zeus

also has Dike and emis seated next to him, so that all that is done by a king

appears legitimate and just34 . Nonetheless, in the treatise To an uneducated ruler

Plutarch presents Anaxarchus as an example of a attering philosopher; he

states that a sovereign should be more afraid of doing wrong than suering

32 Cf. Plu., Alex. 51.5.

33 Cf. W. R, 1995, pp. 108-9.

34 Plutarch's contemporary Dio of Prusa compares the government of a good king with that

of Zeus as well, cf. D.Chr. I 37-41, II 75-78, III 51-53, IV 40-43.

217

e Banquets of Alexander

it, while before Alexander "neither correct nor helpful were the means he

[Anaxarchus] took in endeavouring to heal the king's remorse for his sin, by

encouraging him to further acts of the same sort"35 . Underlying this anecdote,

however – and going beyond the strictly literal interpretation – we nd one of

the favourite themes not only of Plutarch but of other writers of the era: the

virtues of the good ruler. Naturally enough, one of the virtues of the good ruler

is the ability to impose his will when necessary, in spite of the opposition of

those around him36 , even if a certain amount of violence is required.

So, as we have seen, , Plutarch excuses Alexander of the murder of Cleitus,

which he considers to have occurred not "of set purpose, but through some

misfortune of the king" (ฮฟแฝฮบ แผ€ฯ€แฝธ ฮณฮฝแฝฝฮผฮทฯ‚, แผ€ฮปฮปแฝฐ ฮดฯ…ฯƒฯ„ฯ…ฯ‡แฝทแพณ ฯ„ฮนฮฝแฝถ , Alex. 50.2). In

justifying the king's behaviour, then, Plutarch just links the king's misfortune

(ฮดฯ…ฯƒฯ„ฯ…ฯ‡แฝทฮฑ ) to Cleitus' destiny (ฮดฮฑแฝทฮผฯ‰ฮฝ). In the same way, Cleitus also had

attributed the defeat of the Macedonian generals sent to put down the revolt

in the Sogdian region to misfortune (ฮดฯ…ฯƒฯ„ฯ…ฯ‡แฝทฮฑ ) 37 not to cowardice (ฮดฮตฮนฮปแฝทฮฑ ),

when he tried to restore the honour of the fallen in the face of the scorn

heaped on them by the other diners – which Alexander did nothing to stop

(Alex . 50.9-10). In so doing, Cleitus only brings on his own death38 .

e recognition of his murder leaves Alexander speechless and lled with

remorse. In this way, also, Plutarch maintains the link between philosophy –

that is, philosophical themes and the men who devote themselves to them

– and the banquet, understood as a space in which philosophy veries in

fact (แผ”ฯฮณแฟณ) what the word (ฮปแฝนฮณฮฟฯ‚) teaches, as proof of its value as a vehicle

for education, as it is presented in Table Talk I 39 . However, in the biography,

and facing such a problematic aair, Plutarch wishes to make clear that the

position of philosophers is not always convenient: Anaxarchus is blamed

for increasing Alexander's vanity and lawlessness, and for being indulgent

with his whims, whereas Callisthenes, after the death of Cleitus, alleviates

the king's pain by considerate and gentle methods, employing insinuations

and circumlocutions (แผ ฮธฮนฮบแฟถฯ‚ แผฯ€ฮตฮนฯแพถฯ„ฮฟ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ€ฯแพดฯ‰ฯ‚ แฝ‘ฯ€ฮฟฮดฯ…แฝนฮผฮตฮฝฮฟฯ‚ ฯ„แฟท ฮปแฝนฮณแฟณ

ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ€ฮตฯฮนฯŠแฝผฮฝ แผ€ฮปแฝปฯ€ฯ‰ฯ‚ ฮปฮฑฮฒแฝณฯƒฮธฮฑฮน ฯ„ฮฟแฟฆ ฯ€แฝฑฮธฮฟฯ…ฯ‚, Alex . 52.3)40 . us, Anaxarchus is

described as arrogant and inconsiderate towards his associates, a philosopher

who had always followed a path of his own – in clear contrast to Callisthenes,

who nally falls foul of the Macedonian king in spite of giving clear signs of

35 Cf. Plu., Mor. 781 b. However, in Mor. 331 e, Plutarch reports that Anaxarchus was

the friend that Alexander held in most esteem – precisely as an example of the king's love of

wisdom.

36 Cf. D.Chr. II 71-72.

37 Cf. F. M  P. G, 2005, on the meaning of ฯ„แฝปฯ‡ฮท in the Parallel Lives.

38 Cf. Plu., Alex. 52.4. Nonetheless, on another occasion, Plutarch describes Cleitus as an

example of vainglory ("when he had scuttled three or four Greek triremes at Amorgos, caused

himself to be proclaimed Poseidon and carried a trident", Mor. 338 a), which he contrasts with

Alexander's sobriety in matters of state, "nor was he made drunk nor led to revelling by authority

and power" (Mor. 337 f).

39 Cf. Plu., Mor. 613 c; L. R, 2002, p. 275; E. S   , 2005, p. 480.

40 Cf. J. M. M, 1988, pp. 88-90.

218

Pilar Gรณmez & Francesca Mestre

leading an ordered, dignied and independent life, and in spite of his renown

as an orator41 .

Perhaps for this reason Plutarch uses the gure of Callisthenes to question

Alexander's adoption of the Persian custom of ฯ€ฯฮฟฯƒฮบแฝปฮฝฮทฯƒฮนฯ‚ or obeisance. is

custom was an act of homage in recognition of the sovereign's rank, but it was

interpreted by the Greeks as an exaggerated act of veneration, treating the king

as a god. On the subject of the obeisance, Plutarch notes that Callisthenes

was the only man who in the presence of Alexander "rehearsed in public the

reasons for the indignation which all the oldest and best of the Macedonians

cherished in secret"42 . Like Cleitus, Callisthenes became the victim of his own

ฯ€ฮฑฯฯฮทฯƒแฝทฮฑ by acting ill-manneredly, appearing to want to force the king, rather

than to persuade him, to give up this barbarian custom.

Callisthenes' open rejection of obeisance appears again during the banquet,

when Alexander, after drinking, hands the cup to a friend who takes it, makes

obeisance to the king, kisses him and resumes his place on the couch. All the

guests do the same, until it is Callisthenes' turn; he takes the cup, drinks, and

goes towards the king to kiss him. Informed by Demetrius that Callisthenes

had not honoured him, Alexander refuses the kiss –Plutarch notes that

Alexander had been distracted, conversing with Hephaestion.

Alexander's friends – men like Hephaestion, Lysimachus and Hagnon

– close ranks around him; Callisthenes is the object of slander and false

accusations and is implicated by his detractors in Hermolaus' failed conspiracy

against Alexander43 . Callisthenes's refusal to make obeisance "by refusing

sturdily and like a philosopher to perform the act" (แผฐฯƒฯ‡ฯ…ฯแฟถฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฟฯƒแฝนฯ†ฯ‰ฯ‚ ,

54.3), is interpreted by Whitmarsh not so much as an ethical analysis of

Alexander's conduct, already contaminated by barbarian practices, but as an

example of how philosophy resists submitting to power44 ; again we see how

the ancient model of the banquet, an ideal institution for "philosophy", seems

to have diculty in maintaining its position in a new context. Nonetheless,

on another occasion, Cassander incurs the wrath of Alexander by laughing at

some barbarians making obeisance to their king, since he "had been reared as

a Greek and had never seen such a sight as this before"45 . Again, Greek and

Barbarian customs are found in opposition in the context of the banquet.

An excess of wine is also present in Alexander's death. e king has

overcome his grief for the death of Hephaestion – also caused by drinking

"a huge cooler of wine"46 . In the biography, after participating in a splendid

41 Cf. Plu., Alex. 53.1.

42 Ibidem 54.3.

43 Hermolaus, son of Macedonian nobles, was a member of Alexander's bodyguard. He

was severely punished for outing protocol during a hunt. Seeking vengeance, he and his

companions agreed to kill the monarch while he slept. Hermolaus may also have been urged on

by the philosophers who disapproved of Alexander's orientalization (cf. Arr., An. IV 13.2).

44 Cf. T. W, 2002, p. 184.

45 Cf. Plu., Alex. 74.3.

46 Ibidem, 72.2.

219

e Banquets of Alexander

banquet in honour of Nearchus, Alexander is persuaded by Medius to attend

another feast where he drinks all night and the following day: Plutarch states

that Alexander did not nish "the bowl of Heracles", but fell victim to a high

fever, and felt a great thirst; he drank wine and became delirious, until nally

he died47 . However, Diodorus Siculus states that at this feast, which Alexander

attended in the company of his friend Medius, the king drank a large quantity

of pure wine48 , and drank a great bowl of Heracles, down to the last drop49.

e barbarization of Alexander mentioned in some of the passages

above – all of them related to the symposiac context: interdict of ฯ€ฮฑฯฯฮทฯƒแฝทฮฑ ;

obligation of ฯ€ฯฮฟฯƒฮบแฝปฮฝฮทฯƒฮนฯ‚; drinking pure wine, … – contrasts with the respect

for Greek tradition that, in Plutarch's account, the Macedonian king displays

in Persepolis, also during the course of a celebration. During a feast, the Attic

courtesan aรฏs proposed that they set re to the palace of Xerxes in order to

avenge the burning of Athens during the Persian invasion of the fth century

BC. Alexander is easily persuaded, and he himself "with a garland on his head

and a torch in his hand, led them the way"50 . Plutarch suggests that there were

several reasons for his action, among them the fact that burning the palace

and destroying it was a clear sign of the will of someone who is not intending

to settle in barbarian lands – perhaps it is no coincidence that the episode of

the palace re occurs just before Alexander adopts Persian dress51 . For this

reason, Plutarch states that the Macedonian king repented immediately and

ordered the re to be put out52 . Again, the version of Diodorus Siculus diers

here, as he presents Alexander in a much more exalted state because of the

drink consumed at the splendid feasts that he prepared for his friends, at the

head of a Dionysiac retinue which, led by aรฏs, set re to the Persian royal

palace53 .

Alexander's conduct in the symposiac context does not reveal an

exemplary paradigm of the Greek tradition. He is by no means a model guest

or a magnicent host. For Plutarch, the director of the feast must be a good

drinker, neither inclined to drunkenness nor an enemy of wine; he must be

aware that he is leading a group of friends; he must make it possible for the

guests to engage in serious discussion and jocular speech; and, like a pleasant

wine, without being sour, should have a natural tendency towards gravity

47 Ibidem 75.6. In the narration of the king's death, Plutarch explicitly mentions his source,

Aristobulus, as he considers that other versions have been invented by those who felt it necessary

to create a tragic end, worthy of a great drama.

48 Alexander also served pure wine at the wedding of his companions celebrated at Susa

with a splendid banquet for nine thousand guests, each one of whom was given a gold cup for

the libations; cf. Plu. Alex. 70.3

49 Cf. D.S. XVII 117.

50 Cf. Plu., Alex. 38.6.

51 Ibidem 45; cf. D.S. XVII 77.

52 Cf. Plu., Alex. 38.8.

53 Cf. D.S. XVII 72; Arr. An. III 8.

220

Pilar Gรณmez & Francesca Mestre

and austerity, which will make him respectable; but as the wine softens and

smooths him, his temper will be pleasant and agreeable54 .

For all these reasons, even though Plutarch repeatedly justies Alexander's

conduct in the symposium – so often lacking in restraint – it is signicant that

in one of the few symposiac scenes in the Life of Alexander in which drink

is associated with the moment after dinner when the conversation proper

begins55 (a discussion of climate and the temperature of the atmosphere), one

of the interlocutors should be Callisthenes56 , the king's friend, but also the

victim of his wrath.

As many scholars have noted57 , the historical value of the Life of Alexander

suers from a clear inconsistency. More than a biography, the account appears

to be dominated by a taste for adventure and character analysis of the hero,

whose successes Plutarch is keen to portray as due not to the whims of Fortune

but to the protagonist's eorts and character. In this biography, then, the writer

attempts to defend Alexander against his detractors even to the extent of

justifying inexcusable acts – as we have highlighted in the case of the death of

Cleitus or the king's animadversion towards Callisthenes – although on other

occasions his tone is openly critical58 .

e Life of Alexander, then, describes several occasions on which Alexander

behaves immoderately at banquets. Plutarch, however, neither criticizes him

openly nor censures him; the behaviour should not be taken perhaps as belonging

to Alexander's แผฆฮธฮฟฯ‚ , but to the changes that he introduces in the Greek tradition

itself. It is, in our opinion relevant, that, in his attempt to dene Alexander as

a king and as the man that has hellenized the world, Plutarch chooses the

frame of the banquet to show his signicant แผฆฮธฮฟฯ‚ , with all the hesitations and

contradictions that such an achievement involves. Alexander seems to be obliged

to kill Cleitus but immediately after he feels regret over the loss of a friend; he

imposes ฯ€ฯฮฟฯƒฮบแฝปฮฝฮทฯƒฮนฯ‚ as a sign of obeisance even if he knows that it is something

ridiculous for a Greek; he wants to burn the Palace of Xerxes to revenge the

burning of Athens but puts out the re immediately. It is as if Alexander were

forced to restrain his natural being in order to succeed in his hellenizing goal.

54 Cf. Plu., Mor. 620 a-622 b; and supra note 26.

55 Cf. P . A. S, 1999, for an analysis of how in the Table Talks Plutarch tells his

contemporaries of the advantages of those symposia in which the drinking of wine was

combined with good conversation, but does not directly attack the dissipation and drunkenness

that characterized certain circles in his times.

56 Cf. Plu., Alex. 52.8.

57 Cf. J. S, 2000, pp. 313-16.

58 Cf. Plu., Alex. 42.4, where Plutarch states that Alexander was increasingly preoccupied

with his fame rather than with his life or his kingdom, and therefore behaved cruelly and

inexorably; or 57.3, where he states that at the time of the preparations for the invasion of India,

Alexander was feared by his men because of the terrible punishments he meted out.

221

e Banquets of Alexander

In fact, these banquet scenes, in our view, stress two interrelated themes:

rst, the model of Hellenicity, and therefore of Hellenization, that Alexander

wishes to impose; and second, the virtues of the good ruler – an issue of

particular interest to the authors of the Empire59 . e banquet, then, can be

taken as a symbol of the ancient Hellenic institutions, the institutions which

Alexander will now adapt in his attempts to make the Hellenic universal.

W o r k s c i T e d

D, T., Plutarch's Lives. Exploring Virtue and Vice, Oxford, 1999.

F, F., Histoire et morale dans les Vies parallรจles de Plutarque, Paris, 1996.

G, P. & J, M., "La risa y el vino en los escritos simposรญacos de

Plutarco", in J. G. M C . (eds.), Plutarco, Dioniso y el

vino, Actas del VI Simposio Espaรฑol sobre Plutarco (Cรกdiz, 14-16 de

Mayo, 1998), Madrid, 1999, pp. 255-67.

M, F. G, P ., "Tyche e individuo: ambigรผedad de usos en las

Vidas Paralelas de Plutarco", in A. P J & F. T

(eds.), Valori letterari delle Opere di Plutarco. Studi oerti al Professore

Italo Gallo dall' International Plutarch Society, Mรกlaga-Utah, 2005, pp.

295-306.

M, O. (ed.), Sympotica. A symposium on the Symposion, Oxford, 1990.

M, J. M., "Tragedy and Epic in Plutarch's Alexander", JHS, 108 (1988)

83-93.

P, G., "Symposia and Deipna in Plutarch's Lives and in Other Historical

Writings", in W. J. S (ed.), Dining in a Classical Context: Contrast

and Parallels, Ann Arbor, 1991, pp. 157-69.

P, E., "Outlines of a Morphology of Sympotic Entertainment", in O.

M (ed.), Sympotica. A symposium on the Symposion, Oxford, 1990,

pp. 177-83.

P, L., "L'Alessandro di Plutarco (Riessioni su De Al. Magn. Fort. e su

Alex.)", in L. V  S (ed.), Rhetorical eory and Praxis in

Plutarch, Leuven, 2000, pp. 375-86.

R, L., Philosophes entre mots et mets. Plutarque, Lucien et Athรฉnรฉe autour de

la table de Platon, Grenoble, 2002.

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

T (eds.), In vino veritas, Oxford, 1995, pp. 106-12.

59 Alexander is in fact the protagonist of two of Dio of Prusa's speeches on kingship: one of

them (Or. II) is a dialogue between a young Alexander and his father Philip, while the other (Or .

IV) evokes a meeting between the king and Diogenes the Cynic.

222

Pilar Gรณmez & Francesca Mestre

R, L. E., "Il simposio greco arcaico e classico come spettacolo a se stesso",

in Centro di studi sul teatro medioevale e rinascimentale (eds.), Spettacoli

conviviali dall'antichitร  classica alle corti italiane del' 400. Atti del VII

Convegno di Studio, Viterbo, 1983, pp. 41-50.

S-P, P., La citรฉ au banquet, Rome, 1992.

S, J., Plutarque, Paris, 2000.

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

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

Espaรฑol sobre Plutarco (Cรกdiz, 14-16 de Mayo, 1998), Madrid, 1999,

pp. 481-90.

S   T, E., "Diรกlogo, losofรญa y simposio en Plutarco", in M.

J  . (eds.), Plutarc a la seva รจpoca: paideia i societat. Actas del

VIII Simposio espaรฑol sobre Plutarco, Barcelone, 2005, pp. 463-84.

T, F., "Everything to do with Dionysus", in J. G. M C 

. (eds.), Plutarco, Dioniso y el vino. Actas del VI Simposio Espaรฑol

sobre Plutarco (Cรกdiz, 14-16 de Mayo, 1998), Madrid, 1999, pp. 491-

99.

W, T., "Alexander's Hellenism and Plutarch's Textualism", CQ , 52

(2002) 174-92.

223

e disruption of an imperial banquet by angry soldiers in Plutarch's Otho

cr o s s i n g s T a T u s b a r r i e r s : T h e d i s r u p T i o n o f a n i m p e r i a l

b a n q u e T b y a n g r y s o l d i e r s i n p l u T a r c h 's oT H o

L  B

Radboud University of Nijmegen

Abstract

In his Life of Otho, chapter 3, Plutarch describes a dinner that the emperor Otho had with 80

senators, some of whom had brought their ladies with them. e dinner was disturbed by soldiers

of the praetorian guard, who felt very uneasy and distrustful against the senators, and thought

that they had to save the emperor from a senatorial conspiracy after having seen weapons loaded

upon wagons. Violating the exclusivity of the imperial dinner, in other words breaking through

an important status barrier, they inverted the positive eect of this great banquet, and thus

damaged Otho's reputation among the upper classes beyond repair. In Plutarch's Galba and

Otho, which should be read as one opus, this dinner story negatively inverts an important means

of imperial representation and thus indicates how weak Otho's position really was. It presents as

well a clear symptom of the serious deterioration of military discipline that in this year of civil

strife (AD 68-69) manifested itself and may be seen as a consequence of bad leadership at the

top (by Galba and Otho) and at the second level of authority (by people such as Nymphidius

Sabinus, Vinius, Laco, Icelus and Otho's cronies). By choosing an imperial banquet, which should

be a place of friendship with high status amici Caesaris, a show-case of imperial power and

paideia, and a mirror of hierarchies within the urban Roman elite, as the scene where the utter

escalation of military misbehaviour and the total loss of imperial authority over the military mob

came to light, Plutarch accentuates the social and representational importance of such banquets.

In Otho 3.3-7 Plutarch tells us that near Rome soldiers of the praetorian

guard became suspicious when they noticed that weapons were loaded on

wagons (probably to equip soldiers who were to participate in the war against

the Vitellians, LdB). Some soldiers attacked the wagons, others killed two

centurions who opposed them, as well as Crispinus, the higher ocer in charge.

Apparently the soldiers thought that a coup against the emperor Otho was at

hand, which they wanted to prevent. e whole mob, putting themselves in

array and exhorting one another to go to the help of the emperor, marched to

Rome. Here, learning that eighty senators were at supper with Otho – some

of them with their wives – they rushed to the palace, declaring that now was a

good time to take o all the emperor's enemies at one stroke. In the palace there

was dire perplexity, which fell upon Otho and his guests, who kept their eyes

xed upon him in speechless terror. But he sent the prefects of the guard with

orders to explain matters to the soldiers and appease them, while at the same

time he dismissed his guests by another door; and they barely made their escape

as the soldiers, forcing their way through the guards into the great hall, asked

what was become of the enemies of Caesar. In this crisis, then, Otho stood

up on his couch, and after many exhortations, and entreaties, and not without

plentiful tears, at last succeeded in sending them away (Plutarch, Otho 3.4-7).

Is this just a minor episode in a chaotic year, the year of the four emperors,

which was full of usurpations, civil strife, killing and plundering? Why does

Plutarch give us this dinner story, in this very short biography of Otho, when he

could have opted for seemingly more important things, such as heroic episodes

in battles and sieges, or political upheavals, or other spectacular events? It is

well known that Plutarch in his Alexander 1.2 explicitly indicates that the

description of the ethos, the character, of his heroes was his primary goal, and

that trivial things sometimes showed this better than battles and sieges would

do. However, this episode is more than such a trivial detail. e suspicious

behaviour of some praetorians, who saw weapons being loaded on wagons, and

the ensuing disruption of Otho's banquet by soldiers of the praetorian guard

is also treated with some emphasis and in full detail by Tacitus, and is more

briey mentioned by Suetonius and Cassius Dio1 . So four important authors

or their sources considered this disruption of Otho's dinner an important event,

important enough to insert it in their account of Otho's reign. is should not

come as a surprise to us. Banquets were of great consequence in Roman social

life, they gave the rich and powerful opportunities to show o, to trumpet their

own standing, as John Donahue puts it (Donahue 2004, 113). e sharing of

food with people of lower status, with equals or among large numbers was a

constant feature of social and cultural elite life in Rome and other Roman towns

(ibid. 116) and attending dinners gave plenty of opportunities to communicate

with equals, or with people of higher or lower standing, to men as well as

women. As recently published works have shown, to Roman emperors dinners

were an important means to share opinions with senators and other important

people, and to show their good character. Imperial dinners were show-cases of

imperial gratia and paideia, and unveiled existing hierarchies within the upper

layers of society2 . To give dinners in the right and proper way was one of many

means through which emperors could enhance their reputation; it was one of

many ritualized standard practices that enabled emperors to show that they

were the right persons in the right place, in other words, could legitimize their

position. Other such standard practices were sessions of the senate presided

by the emperor, adlocutiones, adventus, or even better, triumphal processions,

which showed the emperors' military prowess. Yet other ones were salutationes,

receiving embassies, distributing congiaria or donativa and attending the games

at Rome. Some of those standard practices, such as adlocutiones, adventus, and

liberalitates, were regularly propagated on coins, in inscriptions, or even in

sculpture (think of Trajan's arch at Beneventum), but other ones, like imperial

dinners, stayed outside this form of imperial representation. e reason must be

that the elite audience that was involved could be present personally or could

hear about it rst hand, and that other people had nothing to do with it. In

this respect imperial dinners were an in-crowd form of imperial representation

1 Tacitus, Histories 1.80-82; Suetonius, Otho 8.1f.; Cassius Dio 64.9.2. See K. V, 2004,

p. 347 and E. S-H, 2005, p. 49.

2 See J. F. D, 2004, pp. 67-72; K. V, 2004, pp. 265-539; E. S-H,

2005, pp. 41-55. In general on Roman upper class banquets see J. D'A, 1999; K. M. D.

D, 2003; J. F. D, 2004, esp. 113 and 116; K. V, 2004, pp. 187-264; E.

S-H, 2005.

225

e disruption of an imperial banquet by angry soldiers in Plutarch's Otho

aiming at a very limited group of senators and other important high status

people. So in this case there was a status barrier, which precluded any other

people. General advertisement of this type of ritualized standard practice

would destroy its exclusive character and break the status barrier.

Ritualized standard practices can be transposed to dierent contexts,

or even inverted into their reverses, in a kind of dynamic of rituals. In this

way an author can attack and de-legitimize a ruler, by inverting the standard

practices through which he usually shows his prowess, eectiveness, liberality

and culture into their negative counterparts. Just one example. e author of

the Historia Augusta, who clearly wished to give an utterly negative image of

the emperor Elagabalus, portrays him giving an adlocutio to the prostitutes of

Rome, instead of to the military (HA, Vita Heliogabali 26.3-4). Adlocutio was an

important ritualized standard practice of emperors going to war3 , but instead

Elagabalus is portrayed as plunging into every kind of debauchery instead

after his oration to the prostitutes. In Historia Augusta 26.3-4 we read:

He gathered together in a public building all the harlots from the Circus, the

theatre, the Stadium, and all other places of amusement, and from the public

baths, and then delivered a speech to them, as one might to soldiers, calling

them 'comrades' (commilitones, LdB) and discoursing upon various kinds of

postures and debaucheries4 .

A second example is Nero's triumphal procession after his voyage through

Greece during which he won many prizes at the great Greek games. e

procession was about victories in Greek games, not about successful battles

and sieges. Soldiers forming a special guard, the augustiani, had to act as a

kind of claque, which had to praise Nero's qualities as a performer at the

Greek games. Nero may have staged the procession himself, thinking it would

enhance his reputation of a cultured and educated ruler, but if this was the case

it completely backred, for this triumphal procession is utterly condemned

by the literary sources in which it is described, which must echo upper class

feelings in Rome5 . In Nero 25.1 Suetonius tells us:

… but at Rome he (= Nero) rode in the chariot which Augustus had used in his

triumphs in days gone by, and wore a purple robe and a Greek cloak adorned

with stars of gold, bearing on his head the Olympic crown, and in his right

hand the Pythian, while the rest were carried before him with inscriptions

telling where he had won them and against what competitors, and giving the

3 A ne example of the propagation of an adlocutio in Severan times is depicted on a

medallion published by F. G, 1912, II, pl. 93,8. See M. C, 1997, p. 10.

4 HA, Vita Elagabali 26.3-4: Omnes de circo, de theatre, de Stadio, et omnibus locis et balneis

meretrices collegit in aedes publicas et apud eas contionem habuit quasi militarem, dicens eas

commilitones, disputavitque de generibus schematum et voluptatum. See on this emperor and his

image in ancient and modern literature M. I, "Heliogabalus, a Monster on the Roman

rone. e Literary Construction of a Bad Emperor", in I. S & R. M. R (eds.),

KAKOS. Badness and Anti-Values in Classical Antiquity, Leiden, 2008, forthcoming.

5 On Nero's voyage to Greece (AD 67) see Suetonius, Nero 22-26 and Cassius Dio 63.8-9.

titles of the songs or the subject of the plays. His car was followed by his claque

and by the escort of a triumphal procession, who shouted that they were the

attendants of Augustus and the soldiers of his triumphs6 .

In his Life of Otho, chapter 3, Plutarch gives us another example. Otho's

high status dinner with 80 senators and their ladies was disturbed by soldiers,

who felt very uneasy and distrustful, especially against the senators, and

thought that they had to save the emperor from a senatorial conspiracy as soon

as they had seen weapons loaded upon wagons. Violating the exclusivity of the

imperial dinner, in other words breaking through an important status barrier,

they inverted the positive eect of this great banquet, and thus damaged Otho's

reputation among the upper classes beyond repair. is is how Plutarch presents

the story to us. Giving this story relatively much space within this short Vita,

he emphasized how little authority Otho had and how weak his position really

was. In contrast, in Histories 1.82 Tacitus has the soldiery come to its senses

and return to discipline after speeches of the praetorian prefects. In 1.83 f. he

adds an oration to the praetorians, which is put into Otho's mouth, and in

which the existence of the senate is defended in very positive tones. Tacitus'

story is more optimistic about the soldiers of the guard than Plutarch's is, and

Tacitus sees t to use this event to insert a laudatory oration on the position

of the senate into his report.7 He thus gives us a much more positive image of

Otho than Plutarch does. So Plutarch must have deliberately painted Otho's

authority in very dark colours, in this way inverting an important, exclusive

representation of his power into its negative counterpart.

In my view this dinner story is not ctional. In Otho 3.3-7 Plutarch

gives us a clever rhetorical elaboration of a story that seems to be historical,

given the fact that three other literary sources tell it as well, however briey

or elaborately8 . I think that the account of the disruption of Otho's banquet,

which Plutarch must have found in his written sources or may have got from

6 Suetonius, Nero 25.1: "… sed et Romam eo curru, quo Augustus olim triumphaverat, et in

veste purpurea distinctaque stellis aureis chlamyde coronamque capite gerens Olympiacam, dextra

manu Pythiam, praeeunte pompa ceterarum cum titulis, ubi et quos quo cantionum quove fabularum

argumento vicisset; sequentibus currum ovantium ritu plausoribus, Augustianos militesque se triumphi

eius clamantibus.

7 I owe thanks to Christopher Pelling for pointing this out to me during the discussion that

followed my lecture at the eighth conference of the International Plutarch Society, Coimbra,

Portugal, 24 September 2008.

8 An common source of Tacitus, Suetonius, and Plutarch might have made up this story,

in which case it could be largely ctional. I do not believe this, because the story, especially in

the versions given by Tacitus and Plutarch, contains too many specic details and because this

source, if it had been historiographical, which it probably had, would have been a contemporary

of the events of AD 68-69. He would have had to take into account that many eye-witnesses

were still around, who would not easily have accepted a ctional story about emperors and their

praetorians that had been inserted into an historical work.[I am not so sure about this!] I owe

thanks to Philip Stadter, who brought this up during the discussion that followed my lecture at

the eighth conference of the International Plutarch Society, Coimbra, Portugal, 24 September,

2008.

227

e disruption of an imperial banquet by angry soldiers in Plutarch's Otho

hearsay, suited him well. In the opening lines of his Galba, Plutarch gives us

the main theme of his Galba and Otho, which should be read as one narrative9 .

is theme is the escalation of military misconduct in times of diminished or

missing leadership. In Galba 1 Plutarch observes:

Iphicrates the Athenian used to think that the mercenary soldier might well

be fond of wealth and fond of pleasure, in order that his quest for the means

to gratify his desires might lead him to ght with greater recklessness; but

most people think that a body of soldiers, just like a natural body in full vigour,

ought to have no initiative of its own, but should follow that of its commander.

Wherefore Paullus Aemilius, as we are told, nding that the army which he had

taken over in Macedonia was infected with loquacity and meddlesomeness, as

though they were all generals, gave out word that each man was to have his

hand ready and his sword sharp, but that he himself would look out for the rest.

Moreover, Plato (Resp. 376c) sees that a good commander or general can do

nothing unless his army is amenable and loyal; and he thinks that the quality of

obedience, like the quality characteristic of a king, requires a noble nature and a

philosophic training, which, above all things, blends harmoniously the qualities

of gentleness and humanity with those of high courage and aggressiveness.

Many dire events, and particularly those which befell the Romans after the

death of Nero, bear witness to this, and show plainly that an empire has

nothing more fearful to show than a military force given over to untrained and

unreasoning impulses10.

e disruption of Otho's banquet not only shows Otho's hopeless position,

but is also one of many examples of a deterioration of military discipline as a

function of bad leadership at the top (by the emperors Galba and Otho) and at

the second level of authority (by people such as Nymphidius Sabinus, Vinius,

Laco, Icelus and Otho's cronies). By now soldiers of the guard at Rome thought

that they could do anything they liked. In Plutarch's Galba the worst kind of

leadership is displayed by the emperor himself and by his close assistants, men

such as Vinius, Laco, and Icelus. ose second line leaders were rapacious and

acted in an arbitrary, selsh, tyrannical way. In practically all literary sources

9 On Plutarch's Galba and Otho being one story see C. B. R. P, 2002, p. 188 (+ 195

n. 68), and p. 383 n. 11.

10 Plutarch, Galba 1: แฝ‰ ฮผแฝฒฮฝ แผˆฮธฮทฮฝฮฑแฟ–ฮฟฯ‚ แผธฯ†ฮนฮบฯฮฌฯ„ฮทฯ‚ ฯ„แฝธฮฝ ฮผฮนฯƒฮธฮฟฯ†ฯŒฯฮฟฮฝ แผ ฮพฮฏฮฟฯ… ฯƒฯ„ฯฮฑฯ„ฮนฯŽฯ„ฮทฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ

ฯ†ฮนฮปฯŒฯ€ฮปฮฟฯ…ฯ„ฮฟฮฝ ฮตแผถฮฝฮฑฮน ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฎฮดฮฟฮฝฮฟฮฝ, แฝ…ฯ€ฯ‰ฯ‚ ฯ„ฮฑแฟ–ฯ‚ แผฯ€ฮนฮธฯ…ฮผฮฏฮฑฮนฯ‚ ฯ‡ฮฟฯฮทฮณฮฏฮฑฮฝ แผฯ€ฮนฮถฮทฯ„แฟถฮฝ แผ€ฮณฯ‰ฮฝฮฏฮถฮทฯ„ฮฑฮน

ฯ€ฮฑฯฮฑฮฒฮฟฮปฯŽฯ„ฮตฯฮฟฮฝ, ฮฟแผฑ ฮดแฝฒ ฯ€ฮปฮตแฟ–ฯƒฯ„ฮฟฮน, ฮบฮฑฮธฮฌฯ€ฮตฯ แผฯฯฯ‰ฮผฮญฮฝฮฟฮฝ ฯƒแฟถฮผฮฑ, ฯ„แฝธ ฯƒฯ„ฯฮฑฯ„ฮนฯ‰ฯ„ฮนฮบแฝธฮฝ แผ€ฮพฮนฮฟแฟฆฯƒฮนฮฝ แผฐฮดฮฏแพณ

ฮผฮทฮดฮญฯ€ฮฟฯ„ฮต ฯ‡ฯฯŽฮผฮตฮฝฮฟฮฝ แฝฯฮผแฟ‡ ฯƒฯ…ฮณฮบฮนฮฝฮตแฟ–ฯƒฮธฮฑฮน ฯ„แฟ‡ ฯ„ฮฟแฟฆ ฯƒฯ„ฯฮฑฯ„ฮทฮณฮฟแฟฆ. ฮดฮนแฝธ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮ ฮฑแฟฆฮปฮฟฮฝ ฮ‘แผฐฮผฮฏฮปฮนฮฟฮฝ ฮปฮญฮณฮฟฯ…ฯƒฮน

ฯ„แฝดฮฝ แผฮฝ ฮœฮฑฮบฮตฮดฮฟฮฝฮฏแพณ ฮดฯฮฝฮฑฮผฮนฮฝ ฯ€ฮฑฯฮฑฮปฮฑฮฒฯŒฮฝฯ„ฮฑ ฮปฮฑฮปฮนแพถฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ€ฮตฯฮนฮตฯฮณฮฏฮฑฯ‚, ฮฟแผทฮฟฮฝ ฮดฮนฮฑฯƒฯ„ฯฮฑฯ„ฮทฮณฮฟแฟฆฯƒฮฑฮฝ,

แผ€ฮฝฮฌฯ€ฮปฮตฯ‰ฮฝ, ฯ€ฮฑฯฮตฮณฮณฯ…แฟ†ฯƒฮฑฮน ฯ„แฝดฮฝ ฯ‡ฮตแฟ–ฯฮฑ ฯ€ฮฟฮนฮตแฟ–ฮฝ แผ‘ฯ„ฮฟฮฏฮผฮทฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ„แฝดฮฝ ฮผฮฌฯ‡ฮฑฮนฯฮฑฮฝ แฝ€ฮพฮตแฟ–ฮฑฮฝ แผ•ฮบฮฑฯƒฯ„ฮฟฮฝ, ฮฑแฝฯ„แฟท

ฮดแฝฒ ฯ„แฟถฮฝ แผ„ฮปฮปฯ‰ฮฝ ฮผฮตฮปฮฎฯƒฮตฮนฮฝ. แฝ ฮดแฝฒ ฮ ฮปฮฌฯ„ฯ‰ฮฝ ฮฟแฝฮดแฝฒฮฝ แผ”ฯฮณฮฟฮฝ แฝฯแฟถฮฝ แผ„ฯฯ‡ฮฟฮฝฯ„ฮฟฯ‚ แผ€ฮณฮฑฮธฮฟแฟฆ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯƒฯ„ฯฮฑฯ„ฮทฮณฮฟแฟฆ

ฯƒฯ„ฯฮฑฯ„ฮนแพถฯ‚ ฮผแฝด ฯƒฯ‰ฯ†ฯฮฟฮฝฮฟฯฯƒฮทฯ‚ ฮผฮทฮดแฝฒ แฝฮผฮฟฯ€ฮฑฮธฮฟฯฯƒฮทฯ‚, แผ€ฮปฮปแฝฐ ฯ„แฝดฮฝ ฯ€ฮตฮนฮธฮฑฯฯ‡ฮนฮบแฝดฮฝ แผ€ฯฮตฯ„แฝดฮฝ แฝฮผฮฟฮฏฯ‰ฯ‚ ฯ„แฟ‡

ฮฒฮฑฯƒฮนฮปฮนฮบแฟ‡ ฮฝฮฟฮผฮฏฮถฯ‰ฮฝ ฯ†ฯฯƒฮตฯ‰ฯ‚ ฮณฮตฮฝฮฝฮฑฮฏฮฑฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ„ฯฮฟฯ†แฟ†ฯ‚ ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฟฯƒฯŒฯ†ฮฟฯ… ฮดฮตแฟ–ฯƒฮธฮฑฮน, ฮผฮฌฮปฮนฯƒฯ„ฮฑ ฯ„แฟท ฯ€ฯแพดแฟณ ฮบฮฑแฝถ

ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฑฮฝฮธฯฯŽฯ€แฟณ ฯ„แฝธ ฮธฯ…ฮผฮฟฮตฮนฮดแฝฒฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮดฯฮฑฯƒฯ„ฮฎฯฮนฮฟฮฝ แผฮผฮผฮตฮปแฟถฯ‚ แผ€ฮฝฮฑฮบฮตฯฮฑฮฝฮฝฯ…ฮผฮญฮฝฮทฯ‚, แผ„ฮปฮปฮฑ ฯ„ฮต ฯ€ฮฌฮธฮท ฯ€ฮฟฮปฮปแฝฐ

ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ„แฝฐ แฟฌฯ‰ฮผฮฑฮฏฮฟฮนฯ‚ ฯƒฯ…ฮผฯ€ฮตฯƒฯŒฮฝฯ„ฮฑ ฮผฮตฯ„แฝฐ ฯ„แฝดฮฝ ฮฮญฯฯ‰ฮฝฮฟฯ‚ ฯ„ฮตฮปฮตฯ…ฯ„แฝดฮฝ แผ”ฯ‡ฮตฮน ฮผฮฑฯฯ„ฯฯฮนฮฑ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ€ฮฑฯฮฑฮดฮตฮฏฮณฮผฮฑฯ„ฮฑ

ฯ„ฮฟแฟฆ ฮผฮทฮดแฝฒฮฝ ฮตแผถฮฝฮฑฮน ฯ†ฮฟฮฒฮตฯฯŽฯ„ฮตฯฮฟฮฝ แผ€ฯ€ฮฑฮนฮดฮตฯฯ„ฮฟฮนฯ‚ ฯ‡ฯฯ‰ฮผฮญฮฝฮทฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ แผ€ฮปฯŒฮณฮฟฮนฯ‚ แฝฯฮผฮฑแฟ–ฯ‚ แผฮฝ แผกฮณฮตฮผฮฟฮฝฮฏแพณ

ฯƒฯ„ฯฮฑฯ„ฮนฯ‰ฯ„ฮนฮบแฟ†ฯ‚ ฮดฯ…ฮฝฮฌฮผฮตฯ‰ฯ‚. On this passage see for example R. A, 1997.

Galba is reproached with giving them too much latitude, whereas he refused

to give the soldiers their due. He never gave them a proper donative, not even

at the occasion of the adoption of an heir, Piso, and he tried in an exaggerated

way to be an example of old-fashioned severitas towards the soldiers, even if

they had more or less justied claims to make. Galba decimated, for example,

eet soldiers, and a band of German bodyguards, for no good reasons. Plutarch

tells us that the soldiers began to cherish a dire and savage hatred towards

Galba, because he was defrauding them and so doing laid down instructions

for succeeding emperors. By treating too positively some of Vindex' supporters,

and by not explicitly siding with the soldiers of Verginius Rufus, who had put

down Vindex' rebellion in Gaul in AD 67, Galba also lost the support of the

armies of the Germaniae, which ended up supporting the ensuing usurpation

of Vitellius11 .

Otho was really no better leader than Galba had been. In Otho 3.2-6

Plutarch tells us that Otho was placing his government on a sound basis and

took a number of wise decisions, but all available sources show that Otho was

not the master of the soldiers and their ocers, but their plaything. In Otho

5.3 Plutarch speaks of the disorderly and arrogant spirit of the soldiers, their

ataxia and thrasutรจs. Otho did not behave as a good, strong leader would have

done, and did not overcome the disciplinary problem. His best act seems to

have been his impressive suicide12 . In this context an elaborate story about the

disruption of Otho's banquet by the soldiery ts in well, showing how low

military discipline had become and to what depth Otho's authority over the

soldiers and their ocers had sunk.

In conclusion. In Plutarch's Galba and Otho, which in my opinion should

be read as one story, this dinner story negatively inverts an important means of

imperial self-representation and so indicates how weak, in Plutarch's opinion,

Otho's position really was. It is as well one of many examples of a serious

deterioration of military discipline as a function of bad leadership at the top

and at the second level of authority. By choosing an imperial banquet, which

should be a place of friendship with high status amici Caesaris, a show-case

of imperial power and paideia, and a mirror of hierarchies within the urban

Roman elite, as the scene where the extreme escalation of military misbehaviour

and the total loss of imperial authority over the military mob came to light,

Plutarch highlights the social importance of such banquets.

11 On Galba's reign see Tacitus, Histories 1.4-41; Suetonius, Galba 11-20; Plutarch, Galba

10-28; Cassius Dio 64.1-6. On the decimation of the eet soldiers see Suetonius, Galba 12.2 and

Plutarch, Galba 15.3-4. Cf. Tacitus, Histories 1.6. In the same paragraph, Galba 12.2, Suetonius

narrates that Galba also disbanded a cohort of Germans, whom the previous Caesars had made

their body-guard and had found absolutely faithful in many emergencies. On Galba, Otho, their

assistants, and the soldiers see L. D B, 2008.

12 On Otho's reign see Tacitus, Histories 1.44-47; 71-90; 2.11-56; Suetonius, Otho 7-12;

Plutarch, Otho 1-18; Cassius Dio 64.7-15. On Otho's suicide see Tacitus, Histories 2.48-49;

Suetonius, Otho 10-11; Plutarch, Otho 16-18 and Cassius Dio 64.13-15.

229

e disruption of an imperial banquet by angry soldiers in Plutarch's Otho

W o r k s c i T e d

A, R., "Severed Heads: Individual Portraits and Irrational Forces in Plutarch's

Galba and Otho, " in J. M. M (ed.), Plutarch and his Intellectual

World, London, 1997, pp. 189-214.

D B, L., "Soldiers and Leaders in Plutarch's Galba and Otho", in V.

H  . (eds.), A Roman Miscellany. Essays in Honour of

Anthony R. Birley on his Seventieth Birthday, Gdansk, 2008, 5-13 or

http://www.phil-fak.uni-duesseldorf.de/geschichte/xaltegeschichte/

birley/fsbirley.html.

C, M., L'empire romain du IIIe siรจcle. Histoire politique (de 192, mort de

Commode, ร  325, concile de Nicรฉe), Paris, 1997.

D'A, J., "Performing Culture: Roman Spectacle and the Banquets of the

Powerful", in B. B & C. K (eds.), e Art of Ancient

Spectacle, Washington, 1999, pp. 301-19.

D, J. F., e Roman Community at Table, Ann Arbor, MI, 2004.

D, K. M. D., e Roman Banquet. Images of Conviviality, Cambridge,

2003.

G, F., I medaglioni Romani, Milan, 1912.

P, C. B. R. , Plutarch and History, London, 2002.

S, M.-T., "I soggetti politici e I conitti civili del 68/69 d.C. in

Plutarco", in L.  B  . (eds.), e Statesman in Plutarch's Works.

Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference of the International

Plutarch Society, vol. II, (Nijmegen/ Castle Hernen, May 1-5, 2002),

Leiden/ Boston, 2005, pp. 351-61.

S, R., "Le Vite Plutarchee di Galba e di Otone: Teoria e prassi politica

nella successione imperiale", in I. G & B. S (eds.), Teoria

e prassi politica nelle opere di Plutarco. Atti del V convegno Plutarcheo

(Certosa di Pontignano, 7-9 Giugno, 1993), Naples, 1995, pp. 399-

413.

S-H, E., Das rรถmische Gastmahl, Munich, 2005.

V, K., Mensa regia . Das Bankett beim hellenistischen Kรถnig und beim

rรถmischen Kaiser, Munich/Leipzig, 2004.

W, T. E. J., "From Nero to Vespasian", in A. K. B  ., e

Cambridge Ancient History X2 , Cambridge, 1996, pp. 256-82.

231

Festins de Sangue. A Tradiรงรฃo do Banquete aziago em Plutarco

F  :     

 P

N S R

Universidade de Lisboa

Abstract

is paper's title evokes Garcรญa Lorca's play Bodas de Sangre. In fact, the strong contrast we

can nd between the feast and the blood is used several times by Plutarch in his Vitae. But

the Author only follows an ancient literary tradition that can be found in mythological texts

as well as in epic and tragic poetry or even in historiography. So, Plutarch makes an important

contribution to what we call "pathetic History". Our aim is to demonstrate how well Plutarch

ts in this tradition, discussing his qualities and interests as Historian.

Na biograa que escreveu de Teseu, Plutarco assinala que, quando Pirรญtoo

desposou Deidamia, os centauros foram convidados para a boda. Nunca

tendo provado vinho antes, porรฉm, quando o zeram, a natureza selvagem

dos centauros revelou-se e estes tornaram-se agressivos, desejando violentar as

mulheres presentes no festim1 . O que deveria ter sido uma festa, qual expressรฃo

da ordem e da harmonia, terminou em agressรตes e sangue, acabando por

conferir ao banquete de casamento um carรกcter funesto e caรณtico.

Na vida do rei Artaxerxes II, Plutarco conta que Parisatis, a rainha-mรฃe,

envolvida nas teias e intrigas polรญticas da corte persa, decide eliminar a nora,

a rainha Estatira, dado o ciรบme e a inveja que nutria por ela2 . Para o efeito,

organiza um banquete de reconciliaรงรฃo. Escreve Plutarco, baseado em Ctรฉsias e

em Dรญnon, que, apesar de reconciliadas, as duas rainhas temiam-se mutuamente,

pelo que apenas comiam o que a outra tambรฉm comia e que era servido sempre

pelas mesmas mรฃos. Mas ainda assim Parisatis conseguiu introduzir veneno na

refeiรงรฃo, oferecendo ร  nora um pedaรงo de carne contaminada. Estatira acabou

envenenada, no meio de fortes convulsรตes e grandes sofrimentos3 .

Segundo Plutarco, tambรฉm a biograa de Alexandre-o-Grande foi

inuenciada pelo distรบrbio ocorrido durante um banquete em que pai e lho se

defrontaram, ao ponto de Alexandre se ter retirado com a mรฃe da casa paterna

e refugiado na Ilรญria, enquanto Olรญmpia era levada para o Epiro. Na sequรชncia

destes acontecimentos, serรก relatada a morte de Filipe4 . Na mesma vida, um

outro banquete, em que Alexandre promove um concurso de bebida de vinho,

acaba por terminar na morte de quarenta e dois dos convivas5 .

1 Plu., es . 30, 3. Este รฉ o tema que decorava o pedimento ocidental do templo de Zeus,

em Olรญmpia. Nesse conjunto escultรณrico, a gura de Apolo, ao centro, representa a reposiรงรฃo da

ordem, a que se deseja regressar apรณs a experiรชncia do caos. Sobre esta questรฃo dissertou jรก G.

P, 1991, p. 160; sobre as funcionalidades do vinho neste contexto, ver o nosso estudo, 2001.

2 Plu., Art. 19. Sobre esta Vida, ver o estudo de C. S, 2008.

3 Plu., Art. 19, 7. Uma anรกlise deste passo pode tambรฉm ser lida no estudo de D. R

G, neste mesmo volume, pp. 255-60.

4 Plu., Alex. 9.

5 Plu., Alex. 70.

Na vida de Sertรณrio, o autor das Vidas arma que o general romano

mantinha sempre um nรญvel de austeridade e decoro nos banquetes em que

participava. Num desses festins, porรฉm, os inimigos de Sertรณrio decidiram

aproveitar-se da ocasiรฃo para lhe montar uma armadilha. Fingiram estar

embriagados e comportarem-se de forma desordeira, de modo a enfurecerem

o antriรฃo. Sertรณrio tentou ngir que nada o afectava. Ainda assim, os

conspiradores levaram o plano avante e assassinaram Sertรณrio enquanto este,

impotente, se mantinha reclinado no seu leito6 .

Tambรฉm na vida de Crasso, Plutarco informa que foi com um banquete

que Orodes, o rei dos Partos, comemorou, juntamente com Artavasdes, o

rei armรฉnio, a derrota romana em Carras, no ano 53 a.C. Segundo o relato

plutarquiano, os reis orientais assistiam entรฃo a uma representaรงรฃo de As

Bacantes de Eurรญpides, viam a cena em que a rainha Agave surge com a cabeรงa

de Penteu. Terรก sido precisamente nessa ocasiรฃo que um mensageiro entrou no

salรฃo com a cabeรงa de Crasso, que foi aproveitada pelo actor que interpretava

Agave, de modo a conferir mais realismo ao momento7 . Mas os acontecimentos

deste festim pressagiam tambรฉm o castigo que acabou por cair sobre Orodes e

a crueldade demonstrada ao longo da sua vida8 .

Os exemplos citados, a que poderiamos juntar alguns outros, comungam do

facto de serem relatos historiogrรกcos, supostamente histรณricos, enquadrados

por um ambiente simposรญaco, que confere um estilo patรฉtico ร  narraรงรฃo dos

acontecimentos9 . A utilizaรงรฃo do banquete como tema narrativo ou eixo director

da descriรงรฃo dos eventos foi jรก reconhecida como uma das caracterรญsticas do

estilo plutarquiano, com particular presenรงa nas Vidas. 10 A tรญtulo de exemplo

da sua importรขncia, podemos referir o inesquecรญvel passo da vida de Antรณnio ,

em que o autor descreve o ambiente no palรกcio de Cleรณpatra, em Alexandria, o

qual contribui para que o casal protagonista do texto fosse conhecido entre os

seus contemporรขneos como "os da vida inimitรกvel"11 .

O tema em si, porรฉm, estรก longe de ser uma criaรงรฃo original do tratadista

de Queroneia. O motivo do festim maldito, em particular – aquele em que nos

centramos –, aparece nas literaturas antigas desde muito cedo. Apresentamos

alguns exemplos.

Jรก na Odisseia, no canto em que Circe recebe os companheiros de Ulisses,

lemos que a feiticeira os assentou e lhes serviu queijo, cevada, mel e vinho, aos

6 Plu., Sert. 26. Uma anรกlise deste passo pode tambรฉm ser lida no estudo de I. M

G, neste mesmo volume, pp. 245-257.

7 Plu., Crass. 33.

8 Plu., Crass. 33, 7-9.

9 Ver e.g. Plu., Pel . 9, 4-11; Dem. 36, 4-12; Pyrrh. 5, 7-14; Cleom. 7-8. Alguns destes banquetes

incluem o vinho como motivo desencadeador do conito.

10 A importรขncia do banquete na obra de Plutarco foi reconhecida pelo facto de o autor

lhe ter dedicado uma obra, Symposiaka. As funรงรตes do banquete nas Vidas foram jรก destacadas

por G. P , 1991 e por F. B. T, 1999. Paul refere outros tratamentos da vida de

Alexandre, por exemplo, onde o banquete aziago estรก igualmente presente.

11 Plu., Ant. 28, 2.

233

Festins de Sangue. A Tradiรงรฃo do Banquete aziago em Plutarco

quais juntou terrรญveis drogas, cujo objectivo era transformรก-los em porcos12 . O

banquete de Circe tem, portanto, um objectivo nefasto, anunciando a desgraรงa

que estรก para acontecer aos companheiros de Ulisses. No mesmo poema, o

desenlace da histรณria do regresso de Ulisses a รtaca dรก-se com a organizaรงรฃo de

um banquete, onde, desde o inรญcio, a tragรฉdia espreita. O Poeta refere-se-lhe

do seguinte modo:

Mas nenhuma refeiรงรฃo podia ser mais desgraciosa do que aquela que uma deusa

e um homem forte estavam prestes a oferecer-lhes13.

ร‰ no contexto deste banquete que Penรฉlope consegue que se realize a prova

do arco, na sequรชncia da qual ocorre a mortandade dos pretendentes ร s mรฃos

de Ulisses, trazendo um desfecho inesperado e sangrento ร  festa14 . ร‰ ainda na

Odisseia que se conta uma variante do mito de Agamรฉmnon. Segundo esta

versรฃo, que difere da contada por ร‰squilo, Egisto teria recebido o rei de Argos/

Micenas, regressado da guerra de Trรณia, com um festim, que aproveitou para o

matar o atrida "como a um boi"15 . A mesma tradiรงรฃo serรก seguida por Sรฉneca

que, na tragรฉdia Agamรฉmnon, traz o registo da morte do rei ร  cena recorrendo ร 

tรญpica descriรงรฃo coral, que evoca o motivo do banquete sangrento16 .

Radicado no mito de Agamรฉmnon, conta-se o de Atreu, de quem aquele

rei รฉ dito descendente. A maldiรงรฃo que na mitologia grega se cola ร  famรญlia

dos Atridas justica-se precisamente com um acontecimento, in illo tempore ,

cujo acme ocorre durante um banquete maldito. A histรณria de Atreu, lho

de Pรฉlops e Hipodamia, รฉ preenchida pelo รณdio deste ao irmรฃo Tiestes, bem

como pelas vinganรงas que os dois irmรฃos planearam alternadamente um

contra o outro. Depois de Tiestes se ter tornado amante da cunhada, Aรฉrope,

Atreu concebeu o plano de dar a comer ao irmรฃo os prรณprios lhos dele, num

banquete propositadamente preparado para isso17 . O acto horrendo de Atreu

fez cair a vinganรงa dos deuses sobre si e sobre todos os seus descendentes. O

mesmo enredo pode ser lido nos mitos de Tรขntalo, Licรกon e Tereu.

O primeiro รฉ tido como um dos ascendentes dos Atridas, o que transforma

a caracterรญstica do festim maldito num topos familiar, que eventualmente

traduz a repetiรงรฃo de um mesmo motivo numa famรญlia mitolรณgica18 . Segundo

a tradiรงรฃo mitolรณgica, Tรขntalo teria imolado o seu lho Pรฉlops para servi-

lo em forma de guisado, num banquete, aos deuses. A crer em alguns dos

autores antigos, Tรขntalo tรช-lo-ia feito por piedade, numa รฉpoca em que a

fome grassava na Hรฉlade e nรฃo havia outra vรญtima para oferecer ร s divindades.

Outros consideravam que Tรขntalo quis pรดr ร  prova a clarividรชncia divina. Seja

12 Od. 10, 233-240.

13 Od. 20, 392-393, em trad. F. L.

14 Od. 21-22.

15 Od. 4, 519-537.

16 Sen., Ag. 875-909.

17 Sen., y.; A. A. 1590-1601.

18 I.e., poderemos estar perante uma mesma estrutura de um mito, que ganhou formas de

acordo com as variaรงรตes locais-geogrรกcas e temporais-cronolรณgicas.

como for, todos os deuses reconheceram a carne que lhes estava a ser servida,

ร  excepรงรฃo de Demรฉter, cuja fome nรฃo impediu que devorasse um ombro da

vรญtima19 . Mas os deuses acabaram por reconstruir o corpo de Pรฉlops, a quem

foi assim concedida a ressurreiรงรฃo. No lugar do ombro devorado, foi colocada

uma prรณtese de marm.

Quanto a Licรกon, contava-se entre os Gregos que este era um rei

piedoso e que por isso mesmo os deuses o visitavam amiรบde. Os lhos do

rei, contudo, quiseram saber se as visitas da casa eram efectivamente deuses,

pelo que mataram uma crianรงa e misturaram as suas carnes com as da vรญtima

que havia sido preparada para o banquete. Os deuses, horrorizados com o que

viram, fulminaram os culpados. Uma variante do mito, porรฉm, reza que, tanto

Licรกon como os lhos, eram รญmpios e que, um dia, Zeus decidiu testar o grau

da impiedade do homem. Visitou-o, na forma de um camponรชs, e Licรกon,

suspeitando de que poderia tratar-se de um deus, decidiu pรดr o hรณspede ร 

prova, servindo-lhe a carne de uma crianรงa num banquete. A ira de Zeus levou

a que Licรกon fosse fulminado20 .

O mito de Tereu contรฉm igualmente o topos da crianรงa sacricada e servida

num festim. Apesar de casado com Procne e desta ter um lho, Tereu inamou-

se de paixรฃo pela cunhada Filomela. Tereu violou Filomela e, para evitar

que esta o denunciasse, cortou-lhe ainda a lรญngua. Mas Filomela encontrou

forma de contar o que se havia passado, bordando a sua histรณria num pano.

Conhecedora da verdade, Procne decidiu entรฃo vingar-se do marido, matando

o prรณprio lho, รtis, cozinhando as carnes da crianรงa e servindo-as ao marido,

que as comeu sem suspeitar de nada21 . Aquiles Tรกcio refere-se no seu romance

a este mito, numa รฉcfrase, que termina do seguinte modo:

Era assim que o artista tinha concebido a cena bordada no tecido da tela.

Quanto ao resto do quadro, as mulheres mostravam a Tereu, numa cesta, os

restos do banquete: a cabeรงa e as mรฃos de seu lho; riam, mas ao mesmo tempo

estavam apavoradas. Tereu estava representado a saltar do leito e, sacando da

espada contra as mulheres, dava um empurrรฃo ร  mesa com a perna; a mesa nem

estava de pรฉ, nem estava por terra, dando antes a impressรฃo de que era o quadro

que estava na iminรชncia de cair22.

Outro mito em que ponticava o tema do banquete aziago era o das

Leucรญpides. A histรณria destas lhas de Leucipo e sobrinhas de Tรญndaro – primas

portanto de Helena e de Clitemnestra, as esposas dos Atridas – resume-se ร 

luta que, por sua causa, opรดs os Dioscuros, seus primos, a dois outros primos,

lhos de Afareu. No festim que Castor e Pรณlux ofereceram em Esparta a Eneias

e Pรกris, quando estes visitaram Menelau com o objectivo de raptar Helena, os

19 Ov., Met. 6, 401-411.

20 Apollod., Bib. 3, 8, 1; Ov., Met. 1, 196; Paus., 8, 2, 1-2. Alguns autores consideram que

estas lendas estรฃo relacionadas com antigos sacrifรญcios humanos, associados ao culto de Zeus

Licรกon.

21 Paus. 1, 41, 8; 10, 4, 8; Apollod., Bib. 3, 14, 8; O., Met. 6, 426-674; Ach. Tat. 5, 3.

22 Ach. Tat. 5, 3, 7-8, em trad. A. N. Pena.

235

Festins de Sangue. A Tradiรงรฃo do Banquete aziago em Plutarco

lhos de Afareu, motivados pelo vinho que haviam ingerido, censuraram os

Dioscuros por se terem casado sem terem oferecido um dote ao tio. Insultados,

Castor e Pรณlux reagiram e a discussรฃo acabou num violento confronto, que

levou ร  morte de um dos gรฉmeos, bem como de dois dos seus primos23 .

Como se conrma, sรฃo vรกrios os episรณdios mitolรณgicos gregos que

aludem ao tema do festim maldito ou aziago. A sua pertinรชncia รฉ de tal modo

assinalรกvel que atรฉ mesmo as bodas de Peleu e Tรฉtis se celebram num banquete

cujo desfecho culmina naquela que veio a ser a mais sangrenta e simbรณlica das

guerras do imaginรกrio grego24 .

Mas o tema em causa nรฃo surge exclusivamente na mitologia. Ele estรก

igualmente presente nas tradiรงรตes histรณricas e historiogrรกcas gregas, ainda

que com funcionalidades razoavelmente diferentes, como atestam os casos de

Simรณnides e de Herรณdoto25 . As Histรณrias de Hรฉrodoto sรฃo, aliรกs, particularmente

ricas nesta temรกtica. O autor inclui uma sรฉrie de banquetes, supostamente

factuais – o que nรฃo รฉ linearmente exacto –, em que a desgraรงa รฉ a protagonista.

Independentemente da factualidade, interessa-nos destacar a pertinรชncia da sua

presenรงa na narrativa26 . A propรณsito da egรญpcia Nitรณcris, por exemplo, o "Pai da

Histรณria" refere que, depois de lhe terem matado o irmรฃo e entregado o poder, a

rainha convidou os egรญpcios que considerava terem sido os assassinos do parente

a participarem num sumptuoso festim. Enquanto eles se banqueteavam, a rainha

fez cair sobre eles as รกguas do rio, atravรฉs de uma conduta secreta27 . Em Herรณdoto,

encontramos tambรฉm o relato de um banquete que evoca os mitos de crianรงas

cozinhadas, acima referidos. Concedamos voz ao prรณprio historiador, a propรณsito

de Astรญages, rei dos Medos, que deseja vingar-se de Hรกrpago, por este nรฃo ter

matado Ciro quando ele era ainda crianรงa, tal como lhe havia sido ordenado:

Ao ouvir estas palavras, Hรกrpago prostrou-se e, de regresso a casa, considerou uma

grande sorte que o seu erro tivesse acabado em bem e que, sob tรฃo bons auspรญcios,

o tivessem convidado para jantar. Mal chegou, mandou a toda a pressa o รบnico

lho que tinha, que andava pelos treze anos, com a recomendaรงรฃo de se dirigir ao

palรกcio de Astรญages e fazer aquilo que o rei lhe ordenasse. Ele prรณprio, exultante de

alegria, contou ร  mulher o sucedido. Astรญages, quando o lho de Hรกrpago chegou,

mandou-o degolar e esquartejar em pedaรงos; uma parte das carnes assou-a, outra

cozeu-a, e pรดs tudo pronto a servir. Quando chegou a hora do jantar e Hรกrpago

e os outros convivas compareceram, a todos os presentes e ao prรณprio Astรญages

foram servidas mesas repletas de carne de carneiro, a Hรกrpago, o corpo inteiro

do lho, menos a cabeรงa, mรฃos e pรฉs; estas partes caram de lado, dentro de um

cesto, e cobertas. Logo que Hรกrpago pareceu satisfeito, Astรญages perguntou-lhe se

23 eoc. 22; Apollod., Bib. 3, 11, 2.

24 Apollod., Bib. 3, 13, 4-5.

25 Isso porque o tema da crianรงa cozinhada e oferecida em banquete parece ter tido um

objectivo especรญco ou derivado de situaรงรตes concretas, como a possibilidade de estar relacionado

com eventuais sacrifรญcios humanos antigos. Sobre esta problemรกtica, ver L. N. F, 1996;

M. H-T, 20072 .

26 Do mesmo modo que nos interessa assinalar a inclusรฃo de episรณdios como o de Giges e

Candaules ou o de Arรญon e o golnho.

27 Hdt. 2, 100.

tinha gostado do festim. Perante a resposta de que tinha gostado muito, aqueles

que estavam incumbidos dessa missรฃo trouxeram a cabeรงa, as mรฃos e os pรฉs do

rapaz, ainda cobertos; dirigiram-se a Hรกrpago e convidaram-no a destapar o cesto

e a servir-se do que quisesse. Este obedeceu, e, ao destapรก-lo, viu os restos do

lho. Mas, perante o espectรกculo, nรฃo se perturbou nem perdeu o auto-domรญnio.

Astรญages perguntou-lhe se sabia de que animal eram as carnes que tinha comido.

Ele respondeu que sim e que aceitava tudo o que o rei zesse. Depois desta

resposta, pegou no resto das carnes e voltou para casa28 .

Como facilmente se conclui, o banquete canibal de Astรญages reecte os

dos mitos de Tรขntalo e Atreu, conrmando a contaminaรงรฃo da historiograa

grega pelas temรกticas mitolรณgicas29 . Mas a sua inclusรฃo no relato funciona

sobretudo pelo dramatismo e pelo tom patรฉtico que lhe dรก forma. No mesmo

livro, Herรณdoto relata tambรฉm um plano de Creso e Ciro para aniquilar

os Massรกgetas, seus inimigos. Estes sรฃo neutralizados atravรฉs de um lauto

banquete que lhes รฉ oferecido. O abuso da comida e da bebida deixa-os

totalmente incapazes de reagir contra os Persas que os atacam30 . ร‰ ainda em

Herรณdoto que encontramos relato de um outro festim, igualmente marcado

pelo desfecho funesto, apesar de essa nรฃo ter sido uma intenรงรฃo premeditada,

como acontece com outros casos. Trata-se do momento em que Amintas,

rei da Macedรณnia, convida os Persas a banquetearem-se na sua casa. Estes,

saciados de comida e de bebida, pedem ao antriรฃo que, ร  maneira persa,

as mulheres do palรกcio se juntem aos convivas, ainda que esse nรฃo seja um

costume grego. Amintas acaba por anuir, mas os convidados, embriagados,

nรฃo se refreiam e comeรงam a exceder-se no seu comportamento, em relaรงรฃo

ร s mulheres presentes. ร‰ entรฃo que Alexandre, o lho de Amintas, engendra

um plano para inverter a situaรงรฃo a seu favor: faz sair as mulheres do festim e

substitui-as por outros tantos mancebos, vestidos de mulheres e armados de

punhais. Estes acabam por matar os Persas, marcando o festim com sangue31 .

ร€ semelhanรงa de outros episรณdios herodotianos, tambรฉm neste reconhecemos

a inuรชncia da mitologia, mais concretamente do mito das bodas de Deidamia

e Pirรญtoo, acima referido. No livro IX do mesmo historiador, regista-se outro

episรณdio ainda particularmente revelador das contaminaรงรตes temรกticas na

historiograa antiga. Trata-se da histรณria da tรบnica de Xerxes. Herรณdoto

conta que a rainha Amรฉstris, mulher de Xerxes, teria oferecido ao marido

uma tรบnica feita pelas suas prรณprias mรฃos. O rei, porรฉm, viu-se obrigado a

oferecรช-la ร  nora, Artainte, por quem estava apaixonado, e que era tambรฉm

lha da cunhada do rei, por quem ele se havia enamorado antes. Ao tomar

conhecimento do que se passara, Amรฉstris elabora o seu plano de vinganรงa

e para o efeito aproveita a festa de aniversรกrio do rei, pois sabia que nessa o

28 Hdt. 1, 119, em trad. M. F. S in Herรณdoto, Histรณrias I, trad., introd. e notas de M. F.

S e J. R F, Lisboa, 1994.

29 Sobre este problema, ver o nosso estudo, 2007.

30 Hdt. 1, 207. Sobre este episรณdio, ver C. C, 1994, p. 63; S. F, 1987, pp. 42-3.

31 Hdt. 5, 19-20. Este banquete tem algumas semelhanรงas com o narrado em Plu., Pel . 9,

4-11, designadamente o elemento eonista.

237

Festins de Sangue. A Tradiรงรฃo do Banquete aziago em Plutarco

monarca estava obrigado a atender a todos os pedidos que lhe fossem feitos

nessa ocasiรฃo32 . Amรฉstris decide pedir ao marido que lhe seja entregue a

cunhada, mรฃe de Artainte, que considerava ser a culpada daquela situaรงรฃo.

Amรฉstris deixa entรฃo emergir a vinganรงa de uma forma atroz sobre aquela

que considera sua rival, concretizada com a mutilaรงรฃo sรกdica e impiedosa do

nariz, das orelhas, dos lรกbios, da lรญngua e dos seios da cunhada33 . A ocasiรฃo que

proporciona tamanha barbaridade รฉ precisamente a do banquete real ou "Ceia

Real", como Herรณdoto lhe chama34 . Em contexto herodotiano, poderรญamos

citar ainda o banquete aziago de Atagino, pouco antes da batalha de Plateias,

em que um persa prevรช a desgraรงa dos seus conterrรขneos no confronto que

se aproxima, permitindo o contraste entre a alegria da refeiรงรฃo tomada em

comum por Persas e Gregos e a morte que se anuncia e aproxima35 .

Em relaรงรฃo a Simรณnides de Ceos, hรก que assinalar a antiga tradiรงรฃo que

referia que o poeta, depois de ter estado presente num banquete na casa da

famรญlia de Escopas, teve de regressar ao local do festim para identicar os corpos

dos convivas que haviam sido soterrados, na sequรชncia do desabamento do tecto

da sala. Um dos testemunhos do episรณdio รฉ Cรญcero, que conta que o banquete se

realizou na casa de Crรขnon e que o tecto desabou pouco tempo depois de o poeta

de Ceos ter abandonado o local36 . O momento de festa foi, portanto, totalmente

ofuscado pela tragรฉdia que se lhe seguiu. Na verdade, as opiniรตes acerca da

facticidade do episรณdio divergem, nรฃo faltando os autores que consideram que se

trata de uma mera tradiรงรฃo sem qualquer fundamento verรญdico37 .

Uma histรณria muito semelhante pode ser lida em Tรกcito e Suetรณnio,

contemporรขneos de Plutarco, a propรณsito do principado de Tibรฉrio. No

autor dos Annales, lemos que certo dia, enquanto Tibรฉrio jantava numa uilla

conhecida como "A caverna", pois localizava-se numa gruta natural, a abรณbada

soltou-se e parte do tecto caiu, esmagando alguns dos servos. Tรกcito acrescenta

mesmo que terรก sido Sejano, o prefeito do pretรณrio, quem salvou o imperador,

sobrepondo-se sobre o corpo do prรญncipe38 . O mesmo relata Suetรณnio, sem no

entanto se referir explicitamente a Sejano39 . O que nos interessa destacar deste

episรณdio, porรฉm, tenha ele efectivamente ocorrido ou nรฃo, รฉ que uma vez mais

o festim foi marcado pela tragรฉdia, sendo por isso signicativa a sua inclusรฃo

na narrativa pelos historiadores antigos.

32 A. M. B, 2003, destaca o facto de este ser um tema oriental, uma vez que exalta o rei

e o seu poder enquanto indivรญduo; ver ainda O. S, 2006.

33 Hdt. 9, 108-13. Ver C. S, 2003, pp. 353-9; E. W, 1964.

34 Hdt. 9, 110.

35 Hdt. 9, 16. Tema jรก salientado por C. C, 1994, p. 64. O passo em que Herรณdoto

conta uma das versรตes da forma como Cambises provoca a morte da sua esposa-irmรฃ sugere que

tudo se terรก passado durante um banquete, Hdt. 3, 32. Ver ainda Hdt. 3, 34-35; L. E,

1987.

36 Cic., Orat. 2, 86, 351-353; Quint., Inst. 11, 2, 11-16.

37 Uma discussรฃo do passo pode ser lida em L. N. F, 2005, pp. 138-40.

38 Tac., Ann. 4, 59. Trata-se da cรฉlebre gruta de Spelunca, onde foram encontradas esculturas

alusivas ร  Odisseia.

39 Suet., Tib. 39.

ร‰ ainda da historiograa romana que nos chega o relato de pelo menos

mais quatro exemplos de festins fรบnebres. O primeiro decorreu durante o

principado de Clรกudio e diz respeito ao processo que desencadeou a execuรงรฃo

da sua mulher, a imperatriz Valรฉria Messalina. ร‰ na sequรชncia de um banquete

orgรญaco de caracterรญsticas trรกgico-dionisรญacas que Messalina รฉ acusada de ter

praticado bigamia e conspirado contra o imperador. Estas acusaรงรตes acabarรฃo

por levar a imperatriz ร  morte, bem como muitos dos que com ela se envolveram

no festim bรกquico40 . O segundo exemplo data do nal do mesmo principado.

Ou melhor, marca o nal desse mesmo principado, dado que Suetรณnio levanta

a suspeita de Clรกudio ter sido envenenado durante um banquete que se

realizou no Capitรณlio41 . O terceiro caso data do principado de Nero e refere-

se ao homicรญdio de Britรขnico, precisamente o lho de Messalina e Clรกudio.

Tรกcito conta, pormenorizadamente, que foi durante um banquete que o jovem

prรญncipe foi envenenado por Nero, atravรฉs de uma estratรฉgia digna da que

Plutarco regista para o episรณdio de Parisatis e Estatira42 . ร‰ ainda atravรฉs de

Tรกcito e Suetรณnio que camos a saber que o mesmo Nero maquinou a morte

da prรณpria mรฃe, Agripina Menor, a quem atraiu a um banquete para depois a

fazer entrar num navio preparado para naufragar43 . Quatro situaรงรตes fรบnebres,

germinadas em outros tantos festins.

Estes sรฃo alguns exemplos que, quanto a nรณs, comprovam quรฃo difundido

era o tema do festim maldito na literatura greco-latina, no tempo de Plutarco.

Mas o topos teve um รชxito com ecos bem alรฉm desse universo. Efectivamente,

ele estava jรก presente nas literaturas orientais prรฉ-clรกssicas e suas herdeiras.

Podemos encontrรก-lo, por exemplo, nas culturas do mundo bรญblico, em diversos

episรณdios e textos. Na histรณria de Josรฉ, a morte do padeiro-mor da corte egรญpcia

รฉ decretada enquanto decorre o banquete de aniversรกrio do farรกo44 . No livro

dos Juรญzes, o relato da vida de Sansรฃo, uma narrativa de forma deuteronomรญstica

com contornos รฉpico-trรกgicos, romanescos e folclรณricos datada de entre os

sรฉculos VIII e VI a.C.45 , recorre ao tema por duas vezes. A primeira enquadra

o relato do casamento do herรณi com uma listeia. Sansรฃo oferece um banquete,

em que propรตe um enigma a um grupo de jovens. Estes, incapazes de decifrar o

que lhes foi apresentado, decidem chantagear a mulher de Sansรฃo, para que ela

obtenha do marido a resposta desejada. A listeia cede e trai o marido. Sansรฃo

acaba por revelar-lhe a resposta e a mulher transmite-a aos interessados. Irado

por ter sido enganado, Sansรฃo mata os jovens46 . A segunda vez contextualiza

o episรณdio da morte do herรณi. Conta-se que os prรญncipes dos Filisteus se

40 Tac., Ann. 11, 26-32. Analisรกmos jรก este episรณdio, bem como os ecos mitolรณgico-literรกrios

que nele podemos descortinar, em 2003.

41 Suet., Cl. 44.

42 Tac., Ann. 13, 16.

43 Suet., Nero 34; Tac., Ann. 14, 3-4.

44 Gn 40, 20-23. ร‰ esse mesmo acontecimento que faz com que o copeiro-mor nรฃo volte a

recordar-se de Josรฉ, que cou na prisรฃo; ver H. G, 1964 (1ยช ed., 1901).

45 Ver R. G. B, 1975, pp. 30-1; J. N C, 1993, p. 211.

46 Jz 14, 10-20. No cรฉlebre lme de Cecil B. De Mille, de 1949, o argumentista nomeou a

mulher de Sansรฃo como Semadar.

239

Festins de Sangue. A Tradiรงรฃo do Banquete aziago em Plutarco

reuniram para oferecer um sacrifรญcio a Dagon e celebrar um banquete. ร‰ nesse

contexto que Sansรฃo, jรก cego graรงas ร  traiรงรฃo de Dalila – o motivo de Dalila

como que repete o da mulher listeia na histรณria do mesmo herรณi –, se coloca

sob as colunas do templo e fรก-lo ruir, esmagando todos os que se encontravam

no seu interior47 .

Outro episรณdio bรญblico em que o banquete proporciona a desgraรงa pode ser

lido no livro de Judite, texto judaico que nos chegou na sua versรฃo grega. Apesar

de enquadrado no tempo de Nabucodonosor (secs. VII-VI a.C.), a composiรงรฃo

deste "romance" deverรก datar do sรฉculo II a.C., mais especicamente do tempo

de Antรญoco IV Epifรขnio (168-163 a.C.)48 . O texto gira em torno de uma bela

judia, epรณnima dos prรณprios Judeus, que decide tomar parte activa no conito

que opรตe Assiro-babilรณnios a Hebreus/Judeus, matando um dos generais

inimigos. Para isso, Judite aceita participar num banquete organizado pelo

inimigo Holofernes, que, vencido pelo vinho, acaba decapitado ร s mรฃos da

bela mulher49 .

No livro de Daniel, igualmente datado do perรญodo helenรญstico, encontramos

tambรฉm um episรณdio que assume a forma do festim maldito. Trata-se do

banquete de Baltasar, no qual o rei babilรณnio, depois de ter abusado do vinho,

decide fazer introduzir no festim os vasos de ouro e prata que Nabucodonosor

havia tirado do templo de Jerusalรฉm. Depois de todos os convivas terem

bebido pelos objectos referidos, decidem louvar os deuses de Babilรณnia. ร‰

nesse momento que surge do nada uma mรฃo humana que escreve nas paredes

do palรกcio uma frase enigmรกtica. ร‰ o profeta Daniel quem acaba por decifrar o

seu signicado, por indicaรงรฃo da rainha. O enigma anunciava o m de Baltasar.

Diz o texto que "na mesma noite, foi morto Baltasar, rei dos caldeus"50 . Uma

vez mais, o banquete serve de pretexto para o anรบncio da desgraรงa.

Hรก ainda dois outros banquetes bรญblicos aziagos que nรฃo podemos deixar

de referir neste estudo, dada a pertinรชncia do seu enquadramento e dos motivos

a que dรฃo forma. O primeiro deles รฉ o celebre "Banquete de Herodes", que

assinala o aniversรกrio do tetrarca Herodes ร‚ntipas e que motiva a execuรงรฃo de

Joรฃo Baptista. Reconhecemos nesta histรณria, aliรกs, vรกrios motivos comuns ร  que

assinalรกmos acima, a propรณsito de Xerxes, Amรฉstris e Artainte. Sรฃo diversos

os elementos comuns entre o relato de Herรณdoto e o que encontramos nos

Evangelhos de Mateus e de Marcos. Estes referem que o tetrarca da Galileia

se comprometeu publicamente, no dia do seu aniversรกrio, em oferecer ร  lha

de Herodรญade o que a jovem pedisse como recompensa por ter danรงado

nessa ocasiรฃo. A princesa, que Flรกvio Josefo identica como sendo Salomรฉ, รฉ

instigada pela mรฃe a pedir a cabeรงa do Baptista num prato51 . A forma como a

47 Jz 16, 23-31.

48 Ver J. A. R, 2005, pp. 45-6.

49 Jdt 12-13.

50 Dn 5, em trad. J. A. R in Nova Bรญblia dos Capuchinhos, Lisboa/Fรกtima, 1998.

51Mt 14,3-12, Mc 6,17-29; J., AJ 18, 110-111, 136-137, 148, 240. O รณdio de Herodรญade por

Joรฃo explica-se pelo facto de o profeta denunciar o casamento tido como incestuoso entre esta

princesa e o seu cunhado, Herodes ร‚ntipas. Curiosamente, o nome da jovem permanece oculto

nos textos bรญblicos.

narrativa รฉ apresentada sugeriu jรก vรกrios estudos, em particular de autores com

formaรงรฃo jungiana, que a relacionam com os antigos mitos telรบricos, centrados

nas guras da mรฃe e da lha52 . Mas a sua estrutura recorda igualmente o

episรณdio herodotiano do livro IX, em que ร‚ntipas se assume como alter-ego

de Xerxes, Herodรญade de Amรฉstris e Salomรฉ de Artainte. A comunhรฃo dos

dois casos faz-se com o banquete maldito, que acaba por suscitar a desgraรงa de

alguรฉm. Se existe ou nรฃo relaรงรฃo entre ambos os textos, nรฃo o sabemos nem รฉ

este o lugar para proceder a uma discussรฃo em torno dessa problemรกtica. Mas

o que nos parece indubitรกvel รฉ a semelhanรงa tรณpica do leit motiv que dรก sentido

ร  narrativa.

Foi jรก notado que o banquete de Herodes pregura uma inversรฃo da Ceia

eucarรญstica53 . Assim poderรก ser entendido, se tivermos em conta a inclusรฃo

de ambos os episรณdios nos mesmos Evangelhos, bem como a funcionalidade

de cada uma das narrativas na economia dos textos em que se inserem. Mas

consideramos que a รšltima Ceia, tal como vem narrada nos textos sinรณpticos e

apesar da sua funcionalidade etiolรณgica no รขmbito da instituiรงรฃo do cristianismo

como religiรฃo e ritual, congura igualmente um outro banquete aziago. Nรฃo

รฉ em torno desse banquete que se anuncia, processa e concretiza a traiรงรฃo de

Jesus de Nazarรฉ por Judas Iscariotes, que acaba com a prisรฃo do Nazareno e sua

posterior condenaรงรฃo e execuรงรฃo?

Os textos e tradiรงรตes assinalados sรฃo anteriores ou contemporรขneos das

Vidas de Plutarco, o que nos leva a concluir que, no que diz respeito ao estilo,

ao mรฉtodo e ร  forma, o tratadista de Queroneia estava bem apoiado para

a composiรงรฃo das biograas que escreveu, tanto por exempla mitolรณgicos,

como por tradiรงรตes e topoi literรกrios em geral, mas particularmente

associados ร  historiograa – nรฃo podemos esquecer que os textos bรญblicos

sรฃo supostamente Histรณria, quer para a cultura judaica quer para a cristรฃ.

Trouxemos ร  colaรงรฃo apenas alguns exemplos que o provam. Longe de se

associar exclusivamente ao banquete de tipo oriental54 , o carรกcter aziago,

nefasto ou maldito de alguns dos festins referidos por Plutarco parece antes

seguir uma tradiรงรฃo, cuja escolha nรฃo รฉ isenta ou inocente55 . Efectivamente,

a opรงรฃo de conferir um contexto a um momento que seria supostamente

festivo e que se transforma numa catรกstrofe para os que nele intervรชm tem um

efeito retรณrico de signicativa ecรกcia poรฉtico-historiogrรกca, uma vez que

a funcionalidade festiva e positiva รฉ substituรญda pelo inesperado nal aziago

e negativo, produzindo o efeito contrรกrio do que se espera56 . A sua utilizaรงรฃo

poderรก mesmo traduzir uma intencionalidade "suspensiva" na narrativa,

contribuindo para o que cou denido como historiograa patรฉtica e que

52 C. G. J & C. K, 2002, em especial as pp. 119-83. Ver ainda B. L. K,

1977.

53 Mt 26,17-29; Mc 14,12-25; Lc 22,7-20; M. D-O, 1998, p. 14.

54 A. M. B, 2003, p. 107.

55 Apesar de alguns dos exemplos citados sobressaรญrem pelo tema da crianรงa sacricada, e

mesmo tendo em conta que esse รฉ o tรณpico principal dessas narrativas, quisemos salientar que

outro elemento que lhes รฉ comum na conduรงรฃo da narrativa รฉ o do banquete aziago.

56 Sobre o uso do banquete em geral na historiograa, ver G. P , 1991, p. 158.

241

Festins de Sangue. A Tradiรงรฃo do Banquete aziago em Plutarco

dominou o estilo dos historiadores durante grande parte da Antiguidade

Clรกssica, particularmente a que oresceu durante o perรญodo da Segunda

Sofรญstica. Alรฉm disso, o mรฉtodo repete-se com alguma frequรชncia. Veja-se

como um passo do segundo livro dos Reis, por exemplo, รฉ signicativamente

enriquecido, na parรกfrase correspondente de Flรกvio Josefo, ao se acrescentar

um banquete aziago ร  narrativa em causa57 .

Note-se tambรฉm como a maioria destas narrativas tem o vinho e a sua

introduรงรฃo no ambiente do festim como agente catalisador da acรงรฃo. ร‰ a partir

do momento em que os convivas o ingerem que estes cam inoperacionais ou,

em contrapartida e no extremo da acรงรฃo, se revelam elementos perturbadores

do ambiente em que estรฃo inseridos. Este รฉ portanto um topos complementar

do motivo do banquete aziago58 . O vinho revela-se um dos instrumentos

que proporciona que o festim, cujo conceito se associa ร  ideia de comunhรฃo

eucarรญstica, logo de felicidade, se torne atravรฉs de uma contrafacรงรฃo no seu

prรณprio contrรกrio e passe a simbolizar o mundo ร s avessas ou caos59 . A alegria

inicial e expectรกvel รฉ contradita pela fatalidade que se sucede. Ao revelar-se

negativo, o que deveria ser supostamente positivo enfatiza a desgraรงa. Ao

evocarmos a obra de Lorca no tรญtulo deste estudo, pretendemos pois recuperar

a mesma forรงa dos contrastes que o dramaturgo espanhol tรฃo bem pressentiu

ao escrever o magistral Bodas de sangre. Por outro lado, este รฉ um tipo de

banquetes que contrasta fortemente com o que Plutarco cultiva nos Symposiaka,

por exemplo. Por conseguinte, a utilizaรงรฃo do tema do banquete acaba por ser

tambรฉm um instrumento para expressar as mundividรชncias antigas do caos e

do cosmos, da desordem e da ordem.

Ao considerarmos o trabalho de Plutarco como biรณgrafo-historiador, o

recurso a esta metodologia leva-nos necessariamente a colocar outras questรตes.

Se estamos perante a utilizaรงรฃo de motivos literรกrios e de topoi com funรงรตes

estรฉticas, que lugar hรก para a factualidade dos acontecimentos narrados pelo

autor? Quando pesquisou informaรงรฃo e a recolheu em autores precedentes,

tรช-la-รก Plutarco reproduzido acriticamente? E se o fez, terรก sido de forma

intencional ou nรฃo intencional? Por outras palavras, terรก Plutarco descrito e

registado acontecimentos tal como lhe foram dados a conhecer ou recriou-os e

enriqueceu-os, recorrendo a instrumentos sucientemente conhecidos na sua

รฉpoca e providenciados por tradiรงรตes literรกrias anteriores? Por conseguinte, รฉ

Plutarco um historiador ou um erudito "contador de histรณrias"?60 Estas sรฃo

57 J., AJ 9, 233-235; 2Rs 15,25. Outros exemplos josรฉcos podem ser lidos em G. P ,

1991.

58 Ver nosso estudo, 2001.

59 Idem. Efectivamente, jรก o Nรญcias de Plutarco confessava que os banquetes eram ocasiรตes

propรญcias a conitos, Plu., Nic. 5, 1.

60 Sobre o ambiente cultural e historiogrรกco do tempo de Plutarco, ver J. S, 2000;

F. F, 1996; P. A. S, 1992; A. M, 1971. Como referiu A. L, 1995,

p. 862, a Plutarco nunca "preocuparam as conexรตes histรณricas ou a etiologia polรญtica no sentido

de Tucรญdides: sรณ lhe interessam as grandes guras humanas, cujos traรงos caracterรญsticos... se

manifestam nรฃo apenas nas grandes acรงรตes, mas tambรฉm em gestos muito pequenos, e em

muitos ditos".

questรตes que naturalmente se colocam na sequรชncia das nossas reexรตes, mas

cujas respostas exigem outro tempo e outro lugar de escrita61 .

bi b l i o g r a f i a c i T a d a

B, R. G., e Anchor Bible – Judges, New York, 1975.

B, A. M., "Fate may harm me, I have dined today: Near-Eastern Royal

Banquets in Herodotus", Pallas, 61 (2003) 99-109.

B, F. E., "Antony-Osiris, Cleรณpatra-Isis. e end of Plutarch's Antony", in

P. A. S (ed.), Plutarch and the historical tradition, London/New

York, 1992, pp. 159-81.

C, C., "Boire et manger dans l'Enquรชte d'Hรฉrodote", BAGB, 41 (1994)

56-70.

D-O, M., "O banquete de Herodes", in M. D-O (ed.),

Salomรฉ, Lisboa, 1998, pp. 13-68.

E, L., "eognis 815-18 and the Banquet of Attaginus", CPh, 82/4

(1987) 323-25.

F, L. N., Sacrifรญcios de crianรงas em Eurรญpides, Coimbra, 1996.

_____ Mobilidade poรฉtica na Grรฉcia Antiga. Uma leitura da obra de Simรณnides ,

Coimbra, 2005.

F, S., e Archaic Smile of Herodotus, Detroit, 1987.

F, F., Histoire et Morale dans les Vies parallรจles de Plutarque, Paris, 1996.

G, H., e Legends of Genesis. e Biblical Saga & History, New York,

1964 (1ยช ed., 1901).

H-T, M., Cannibalisme et immortalitรฉ. L'enfant dans le chaudron en

Grรจce ancienne, Paris, 20072 .

J, C. G. & K, C., Science of Mythology. Essays on the Myth of the

Divine Child and the Mysteries of Eleusis, London/New York, 2002.

K, B. L., "Herodias/Salome: Mother/Daughter Identication", in ,

Women in Myth, New York, 1977, pp. 87-110.

L, A., Histรณria da Literatura Grega, Lisboa, 1995.

M, A., e Development of Greek Biography, Cambridge/MA,

1993.

61 Esta problemรกtica foi tambรฉm abordada por F. E. B, 1992, e por nรณs prรณprios, 2002,

quando analisรกmos a presenรงa do mitema de รsis e Osรญris na composiรงรฃo das biograas de

Antรณnio e Cleรณpatra. Cumpre-nos agradecer ao Prof. Doutor Josรฉ Augusto Ramos, com quem

discutimos vรกrias das ideias que aqui apresentamos.

243

Festins de Sangue. A Tradiรงรฃo do Banquete aziago em Plutarco

N C, J., Histรณria antes de Herรณdoto, Lisboa, 1993.

P, G., "Symposia and Deipna in Plutarch's Lives and in other Historical

Writings", in W. J. S (ed.), Dining in a Classical Context, Ann

Arbor, 1991, pp.157-69.

R, J. A., "Judite. A heroรญna ctรญcia e a identidade nacional de Israel", in

D. F. L  . (eds.), Mito clรกssico no Imaginรกrio Ocidental, Coimbra,

2005, pp. 43-58.

R, N. S., "Histรณria, Filologia e Problemรกticas da Antiguidade

Clรกssica", in M. F. R (ed.), Rumos e Escrita da Histรณria. Estudos em

Homenagem a A. A. Marques de Almeida, Lisboa, 2007, pp. 643-59.

_____ "Messalina ou Aphrodita Tragica in Vrbe", in A. V (ed.), Presenรงa

de Victor Jabouille, Lisboa, 2003, pp. 513-34.

_____ "O Vinho, elemento do cosmos e do caos na cultura grega", in J.

M R (ed.), Actas do I Simposio de la Asociaciรณn Internacional

da Historia e Civilizaciรณn de la Vid y el Vino I, Cรกdiz, 2001, pp. 243-56.

_____ "Plutarco, historiador dos Lรกgidas: o caso de Cleรณpatra VII Filopator",

in Actas do Congresso Plutarco Educador da Europa , Porto, 2002, pp. 127-

49.

S, J., Plutarque. Un philosophe dans le siรจcle, Paris, 2000.

S, C., "Decadรชncia na corte persa: um soberano inconstante e uma

rainha-mรฃe vingativa na Vida de Artaxerxes", in C. S  . (eds.),

ร‰tica e Paideia em Plutarco, Coimbra, 2008, pp. 51-68.

_____ A morte em Herรณdoto. Valores universais e particularismos รฉtnicos, Lisboa,

2003.

S, P. A. (ed.), Plutarch and the historical tradition, London, New York,

1992.

S, O., "Voiceless victims, memorable deaths in Herodotus", CQ, 56/2

(2006) 393-403.

T, F. B., "Everything to do with Dionysus: Banquets in Plutarch's

Lives", in J. G. M C  . (eds.), Plutarco, Dioniso y el vino .

Actas del VI Simposio Espaรฑol sobre Plutarco (Cรกdiz, 14-16 de Mayo,

1998), Madrid, 1999, pp. 491-500.

W , E., "Das Weib von Masistes", Hermes, 92 (1964) 51-8.

245

El banquete traicionero en las Vidas de Plutarco

el b a n q u e T e T r a i c i o n e r o e n l a s vi D a S d e pl u T a r c o

I M G

Universidad de Groningen

Abstract

e aim of this study is to explore the topic of the death during the banquet in Plutarch's

Vitae. e motif is frequent in classical literature and various authors provide us with numerous

examples and the question arises whether we are dealing with a literary topos or rather with

historical facts. Can we nd a structural relationship between the texts? By means of an analysis

of Alexander, Arquias-Pelopidas and others shorter quotations we will try to determine how

Plutarch saw these events and why the conjurers chose this occasion to full their objective.

En una obra, ya clรกsica, de Nicolae I. Barbu, Biographies de Plutarque 1 ,

se puso de relieve la importancia que en las Vidas adquieren las muertes y

los tipos de muerte descritos por Plutarco. De este modo, el paso a la otra

vida, minuciosamente narrado por su autor, parece estar en una interesante

simbiosis con las hazaรฑas realizadas por sus protagonistas. En este sentido,

el de Queronea arma acerca de la muerte de Pericles: แผˆฮปฮปแฝฐ ฯ„ฮฑแฟฆฯ„ฮฑ ฮผแฝฒฮฝ แผดฯƒฯ‰ฯ‚

แผ‘ฯ„ฮญฯฮฑฯ‚ ฮดฯŒฮพฮตฮน ฯ€ฯฮฑฮณฮผฮฑฯ„ฮตฮฏฮฑฯ‚ ฮตแผถฮฝฮฑฮน, corroborando con estas palabras que el nal

de la vida de los hรฉroes es "una conrmaciรณn de sus hechos gloriosos", en el

que "Plutarco aรฑade, a veces, sus pensamientos acerca de la vida del personaje

o sobre la vida humana en general"2 .

Algunas de las muertes que describe Plutarco, puntos nales de las

vidas ilustres de sus protagonistas, se desarrollan en un escenario concreto,

el banquete. En las siguientes pรกginas se analizarรกn estos casos de traiciรณn y

asesinato, documentados por Plutarco en las Vidas, con la intenciรณn de explicar

su signicado y la opiniรณn que merecen a su autor.

1. Introducciรณn: ¿era el banquete un evento lรบdico?

El banquete en el mundo greco-romano ha sido tradicionalmente descrito

como "el encuentro privado que, con ocasiรณn de una cena renada, reรบne a una

serie de protagonistas de los ambientes de la polรญtica o del pensamiento"3 , en

cuya atmรณsfera รญntima de juego y esparcimiento los personajes disfrutan del

vino, la comida, la mรบsica y la conversaciรณn.

Sin embargo, a pesar de la deniciรณn anteriormente expuesta, Plutarco no

sรณlo concibe el banquete como un momento de diversiรณn, sino que tambiรฉn

arma categรณricamente en sus Quaestiones romanae que la mesa es sagrada –

แผฑฮตฯแฝธฮฝ ฮด᾽ แผก ฯ„ฯฮฌฯ€ฮตฮถฮฑ4 . Este carรกcter sagrado es imprescindible para entender que,

1 N. I. B, 1933.

2 Idem, p. 15.

3 Quizรก reminiscencia del cรญrculo aristocrรกtico en el que tiene su origen el simposio, cf. G.

P, 1991, p. 161.

4 Plu., Mor. 279E. Plutarco inserta esta informaciรณn al tratar por quรฉ una mesa no puede

encontrarse nunca vacรญa.

aunque se trata de un contexto lรบdico donde los comensales pueden divertirse,

ciertas acciones de mal gusto, crueles u homicidas pueden corromper las

reglas del convite, ocasionando diversas consecuencias que sufrirรกn quienes las

infringieron.

Los banquetes relatados en las Vitae 5 ofrecen mรบltiples ejemplos en los

que se rompen sus caracterรญsticas intrรญnsecas, el ambiente lรบdico-festivo o su

carรกcter religioso. Sirva de ejemplo el mรญtico enfrentamiento surgido entre

lapitas y centauros, a propรณsito de las bodas de Pirรญtoo6 , o el anuncio de Catรณn

de su prรณximo suicidio, cuando en palabras de Plutarco7 :

ฮผฮตฯ„แฝฐ ฯ„แฝธฮฝ ฮปแฝนฮณฮฟฮฝ ฯƒฮนฯ‰ฯ€แฟ†ฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮบฮฑฯ„ฮทฯ†ฮตแฝทฮฑฯ‚ ฮณฮตฮฝฮฟฮผแฝณฮฝฮทฯ‚ แผฮฝ ฯ€แพถฯƒฮนฮฝ

"tras su discurso, hubo un silencio y tristeza en todos".

Otro caso de mayor crudeza resulta el destino que corre el cadรกver de

Craso, asesinado por los partos, cuya cabeza, lanzada por Silaces en medio del

banquete, sirviรณ como atrezo de una improvisada representaciรณn de Bacantes ,

embellecida por los versos del poeta Eurรญpides8 .

Igualmente son numerosos los casos de complots fallidos en las Vidas de

Plutarco, documento interesante para conocer las causas que llevan a elegir el

banquete como lugar adecuado para este tipo de acciones. Tanto es asรญ que,

para el autor de las Vidas, una de las mรกs importantes razones para declinar

una invitaciรณn es la posibilidad de que uno de los comensales pueda atentar

contra la vida de otro:

- Medea elige matar con uno de sus venenos a Teseo, quien se hacรญa pasar

por extranjero, durante la comida que celebraba su llegada a Atenas. Pero Egeo,

al reconocer la espada de su hijo "arrojรณ el vaso del veneno" - ฯ„แฝดฮฝ ฮผแฝฒฮฝ ฮบแฝปฮปฮนฮบฮฑ

ฯ„ฮฟแฟฆ ฯ†ฮฑฯฮผแฝฑฮบฮฟฯ… ฮบฮฑฯ„แฝณฮฒฮฑฮปฮต9 .

- Parisรกtide, hija extramatrimonial de Artajerjes I, pone n a la vida de su

nuera, Estatira, quien, sin la advertencia de ninguno de los comensales, come

del ave envenenada que le ofrece su suegra10 .

- Alejandro V de Macedonia, tras intentar asesinar a Demetrio durante un

banquete en Dio, terminรณ su vida unos dรญas despuรฉs a la salida de otro convite,

a manos de los soldados enviados por Demetrio, sufriendo el mismo nal que

5 Frances B. Titchener explica la existencia de una dualidad, positiva y negativa, en los

banquetes descritos por Plutarco; cf. F. B. T, 1999, pp. 491-2.

6 Plu., es., 30. 3-4.

7 Plu., Cat. Mi., 67. Acerca de la posible relaciรณn existente entre la muerte de Catรณn y la de

Sรณcrates, cf. T. E. D, 1999, pp. 144-5.

8 Plu., Crass., 33. 1-4. Cf. N. S R, en este mismo volumen, p. 232.

9 Plu., es., 12. 3-4. Cf. D. R G, en este mismo volumen, pp. 257-58.

10 Plu., Art., 19; Dinon, FGrH 690 F 15b; Ctes., FGrH 688 F 29b. Eludimos abordar

en la presente comunicaciรณn los casos de asesinato en el banquete mediante la utilizaciรณn de

veneno, tratados por D. R G en este mismo volumen, pp. 255-61. Tambiรฉn, cf.

N. S R, en este mismo volumen, pp. 231-32.

247

El banquete traicionero en las Vidas de Plutarco

รฉl habรญa urdido11 .

- Tambiรฉn Otรณn se vio envuelto en un enfrentamiento, en el que si

no hubiera sido por sus ruegos e incluso lรกgrimas, un grupo de exaltados

pretorianos habrรญa dado muerte a ochenta senadores invitados a cenar al

palacio del emperador, ya que los soldados creรญan que de ese modo acababan

con los enemigos del Cรฉsar12 .

- Arato y Antonio consiguieron librarse del intento de asesinato de

Nicocles13 y Menas, respectivamente14.

Finalmente, el banquete puede ser el escenario para reconocer futuros

intentos de asesinato, como el de Lucio Terencio contra su compaรฑero de

tienda, Pompeyo, el cual, enterado de lo que iba a ocurrir, mientras nge con

Terencio durante la cena, advierte a la guardia de las malas intenciones del

simposiasta, lo que acabarรก con รฉste15 .

Tras observar estos primeros ejemplos se puede adelantar ya que, lejos de

la idรญlica deniciรณn anteriormente aportada del banquete greco-romano, รฉste,

en la prรกctica, era una celebraciรณn llena de luces y sombras, en la que la traiciรณn

y el homicidio acompaรฑaban al vino y a las conversaciones amistosas.

2. Muertes en banquete

Mรกs interesantes para el tema que aquรญ se trata son los banquetes en los

que se lleva a cabo el peor acto traicionero, la muerte de uno de los convidados16 .

En este caso, el simposio ofrece unas posibilidades inmejorables para llevar a

cabo un asesinato. Asรญ lo explica Plutarco en la Vida de Pelรณpidas17 :

ฮตแผฐฯ‚ ฮดแฝฒ ฯ„แฝดฮฝ แผกฮผแฝณฯฮฑฮฝ แผฮบฮตแฝทฮฝฮทฮฝ แผฮบ ฯ€ฮฑฮปฮฑฮนฮฟแฟฆ ฮบฮฑฯ„ฮทฮณฮณฮตฮปฮบแฝผฯ‚ ฯ„ฮฟแฟ–ฯ‚ ฯ€ฮตฯแฝถ ฯ„แฝธฮฝ แผˆฯฯ‡แฝทฮฑฮฝ

ฯ€แฝนฯ„ฮฟฮฝ ฯ„ฮนฮฝแฝฐ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯƒฯ…ฮฝฮฟฯ…ฯƒแฝทฮฑฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮณแฝปฮฝฮฑฮนฮฑ ฯ„แฟถฮฝ แฝ‘ฯ€แฝฑฮฝฮดฯฯ‰ฮฝ, แผ”ฯ€ฯฮฑฯ„ฯ„ฮตฮฝ แฝ…ฯ„ฮน ฮผแฝฑฮปฮนฯƒฯ„ฮฑ

ฯ„ฮฑแฟ–ฯ‚ แผกฮดฮฟฮฝฮฑแฟ–ฯ‚ แผฮบฮปฮตฮปฯ…ฮผแฝณฮฝฮฟฯ…ฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮบฮฑฯ„ฮฟแฝทฮฝฮฟฯ…ฯ‚ ฮผฮตฯ„ฮฑฯ‡ฮตฮนฯแฝทฯƒฮฑฯƒฮธฮฑฮน ฯ€ฮฑฯแฝณฮพฮตฮนฮฝ ฯ„ฮฟแฟ–ฯ‚

แผฯ€ฮนฯ„ฮนฮธฮตฮผแฝณฮฝฮฟฮนฯ‚

desde hacรญa tiempo, habรญa invitado para aquel dรญa a Arquias y a los suyos a una

reuniรณn para beber con mujeres casadas, se ocupรณ de dejarlos muy debilitados

por los placeres y beodos para entregรกrselos a los atacantes.

Plutarco detalla en las Vitae tres de estos asesinatos: el de Arquias en la

Vida de Pelรณpidas, el de Clito en el relato de la Vida de Alejandro y la muerte

de Sertorio. Las tres escenas resultan interesantes por los elementos comunes

11 Plu., Demetr., 36.4-12; el mismo nal, en semejantes circunstancias, sufre Neoptรณlemo,

a manos de Pirro, cf. Plu., Pyrrh., 5.7-14. Cf. D. R G, en este mismo volumen,

pp. 256-257.

12 Plu., Oth., 3.4.

13 Plu., Arat., 6.4-7.1.

14 Plu., Ant., 32.3.8; App., BC, 5.73, 308-11; Dio 48.38.

15 Plu., Pomp., 3.2.

16 Son numerosos los casos de complots fallidos; cf. F. B. T, 1999, pp. 492-3.

17 Plu., Pel., 9.4.

que el biรณgrafo ofrece18. Junto a estas tres, tambiรฉn se analizarรกn otras breves

noticias de la misma temรกtica recogidas por Plutarco.

2.1. L   A

La muerte de Arquias se inserta en un contexto concreto: el complot contra

los magistrados impuestos por Esparta en Tebas. La traiciรณn de Pelรณpidas

era un acto sabido y fรกcil de predecir, porque la oposiciรณn del pueblo tebano

era maniesta y conocida, incluso por algunos de los aliados de Arquias. No

obstante, fue la bebida, junto con otros disfrutes del banquete, la que hizo

que el tirano tomara la mala decisiรณn de dejar para el dรญa siguiente la carta en

que se le ofrecรญan los datos exactos de la conjura que se urdรญa contra รฉl. Dice

Plutarco:

ฯ„แฝธฮฝ แผˆฯฯ‡แฝทฮฑฮฝ แผ€ฯ€ฮฑฮณฮฑฮณแฝผฮฝ ฮฑแฝ–ฮธฮนฯ‚ ฮตแผฐฯ‚ แผ„ฮบฯฮฑฯ„ฮฟฮฝ ฯ€ฮฟฮปแฝบฮฝ ฮบฮฑฯ„แฝณฮฒฮฑฮปฮต ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ„ฮฑแฟ–ฯ‚ ฯ€ฮตฯแฝถ ฯ„แฟถฮฝ

ฮณฯ…ฮฝฮฑฮนฮบแฟถฮฝ แผฮปฯ€แฝทฯƒฮน ฮดฮนฮตฯ€ฮฑฮนฮดฮฑฮณแฝฝฮณฮตฮน ฯ„แฝธฮฝ ฯ€แฝนฯ„ฮฟฮฝ

(scil . Fรญlidas) llevรกndose de nuevo a Arquias le sirviรณ buena cantidad de vino

puro y entretenรญa el festรญn con la esperanza de mujeres.

Asรญ, Arquias y los suyos, beodos y perdidos, no pueden oponerse al ataque

de Pelรณpidas y los demรกs conjurados que, disfrazados de mujeres, entran en el

banquete armados y acaban asesinando a los comensales en la misma sala o

durante su huรญda a las casas vecinas.

El levantamiento de Pelรณpidas, tras una noche de enfrentamientos contra

la guardia, termina nalmente con el regreso de los exiliados desde Atenas y la

victoria del bando tebano.

Un caso semejante es el crimen de estado que Euriclidas cometiรณ contra

los ร‰foros, por mandato de Cleomenes19 . La imagen del homicida, al igual que

la de Pelรณpidas, fue para Plutarco la del libertador de la patria, lo cual garantiza

una justicaciรณn รฉtica, segรบn la moral del biรณgrafo, al acto cometido.

Sin embargo, no todos los magnicidios son รฉticamente admisibles,

como se relata en la Vida de Cimรณn20 , en la que el autor relata cรณmo el joven

Damรณn Peripoltas de Queronea, importunado por un jefe de cohorte que

se habรญa enamorado de รฉl, se vio obligado a asesinarlo durante un sacricio.

Posteriormente, los magistrados romanos condenaron a muerte a รฉste y a sus

compaรฑeros de complot, lo que produjo que los conjurados tambiรฉn acabaran

con รฉstos, eligiendo como escenario del crimen una cena.

En esta cita aparecen elementos comunes a la muerte de Arquias, a saber,

los conjurados se camuan, tiznรกndose los rostros con hollรญn, y "beben vino

puro" – แผฮผฯ€ฮนแฝนฮฝฯ„ฮตฯ‚ ฮด' แผ„ฮบฯฮฑฯ„ฮฟฮฝ –, antes de cometer los asesinatos. Sin embargo,

18 En la cronologรญa relativa establecida por C.P. Jones, las Vidas de Pelรณpidas y Marcelo

ocuparรญan una posiciรณn entre la II y la IV; Sertorio y Eumenes ocuparรญan un lugar difรญcil de

determinar, o bien II-IV, o bien XVI-XXIII; nalmente, Alejandro y Cรฉsar, serรญan XIII-XIV;

cf. C.P. J, 1966, p. 68.

19 Plu., Cleom., 7-8.

20 Plu., Cim., 1.5.

249

El banquete traicionero en las Vidas de Plutarco

el nal de Damรณn fue distinto al de Pelรณpidas y Euriclidas, pues sus crueles

desmanes por la regiรณn de Queronea, que no buscaban acabar con un gobierno

injusto para la polis, sino un bien personal, lo llevaron a ser asesinado en el

gimnasio de la ciudad.

Como se puede ver en estos ejemplos, Plutarco no muestra en todas las

ocasiones una visiรณn negativa de las muertes en banquete, sino que simplemente

las trata como ocasiones favorables para cometer un asesinato. Son la moral y las

intenciones de los protagonistas las que le coneren al magnicidio traicionero

un valor positivo o negativo para la comunidad.

2.2. L   C

El nal de Clito21 , famoso ya en tiempos de Plutarco por los numerosos

autores que lo habรญan tratado, comienza con la exculpaciรณn de Alejandro, pues,

en palabras del autor, este desgraciado hecho se produjo por dos elementos que

no suelen faltar en un banquete de esta รญndole, la cรณlera y la embriaguez:

ฮดฯ…ฯƒฯ„ฯ…ฯ‡แฝทแพณ ฯ„ฮนฮฝแฝถ ฯ„ฮฑแฟฆฮธ' ฮตแฝ‘ฯแฝทฯƒฮบฮฟฮผฮตฮฝ ฯ€ฮตฯ€ฯฮฑฮณฮผแฝณฮฝฮฑ ฯ„ฮฟ แฟฆ ฮฒฮฑฯƒฮนฮปแฝณฯ‰ฯ‚, แฝ€ฯฮณแฝดฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮผแฝณฮธฮทฮฝ

ฯ€ฯแฝนฯ†ฮฑฯƒฮนฮฝ ฯ„แฟท ฮšฮปฮตแฝทฯ„ฮฟฯ… ฮดฮฑแฝทฮผฮฟฮฝฮน ฯ€ฮฑฯฮฑฯƒฯ‡แฝนฮฝฯ„ฮฟฯ‚

descubrimos que esta acciรณn fue producto de una desgracia del rey, cuya cรณlera

y embriaguez fueron el pretexto del que se sirviรณ el mal dรฉmon de Clito.

Con esto Plutarco deja fuera de dudas quiรฉn es el culpable de la muerte de

Clito, el vino22 , no siรฉndolo, en ningรบn caso, el protagonista de su Vita que, en

รบltimo tรฉrmino, debe ofrecer un ejemplo de comportamiento moral.

Continรบa el de Queronea comentando dos ฯ€ฮฟฮฝฮทฯฮฌ ฯƒฮทฮผฮตแฟ–ฮฑ, "malos

augurios", que anuncian la prรณxima muerte de Clito: "tres de las reses sobre las

que habรญa vertido las libaciones lo siguieron" y la extraรฑa visiรณn que se presentรณ

a Alejandro en sueรฑos.

Ya en el banquete, el autor describe cรณmo se habรญa bebido gran cantidad de

vino y se cantaban canciones de escarnio contra los vencidos. La mezcla de ambos

ingredientes, sumados a la osadรญa de Clito, fueron los detonantes de una airada

discusiรณn entre Alejandro y su general, en la que se pone en duda la valentรญa de

Clito, se bromea con la divinidad del soberano, se exalta el origen macedonio del

ejรฉrcito frente a la barbarie de los pueblos sometidos y, nalmente, se acusa de

lobรกrbaro a Alejandro. ร‰ste, sin poder contener su ira, le arroja unas manzanas

a Clito y, gracias a la entrada de la guardia, se consigue evitar el enfrentamiento

directo de los contendientes. No obstante, la posterior entrada de Clito en la

sala del banquete da la oportunidad a Alejandro de robar una lanza a uno de sus

guardias y clavรกrsela en el costado al general macedonio.

21 Plu., Alex., 50-51. Cf. N. S R, en este mismo volumen, pp. 231-232.

22 Acerca de la importancia de esta bebida en la Vida de Alejandro, cf. C. A M,

1999, pp. 90-1. No obstante, tambiรฉn se debe tener en cuenta la distinta interpretaciรณn que

ofrece Plutarco de este hecho en Mor. 71 B: ฮฟแผถฮผฮฑฮน ฮดแฝฒ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮšฮปฮตแฟ–ฯ„ฮฟฯ‚ ฮฟแฝฯ‡ ฮฟแฝ•ฯ„ฯ‰ ฯ€ฮฑฯแฝฝฮพฯ…ฮฝฮต ฮดฮนแฝฐ ฯ„แฝธฮฝ

ฮฟแผถฮฝฮฟฮฝ, แฝกฯ‚ แฝ…ฯ„ฮน ฯ€ฮฟฮปฮปแฟถฮฝ ฯ€ฮฑฯแฝนฮฝฯ„ฯ‰ฮฝ แผฮดแฝนฮบฮตฮน ฮบฮฟฮปฮฟแฝปฮตฮนฮฝ แผˆฮปแฝณฮพฮฑฮฝฮดฯฮฟฮฝ.

Alejandro, apesadumbrado por sus actos, intenta suicidarse con la misma

lanza, pero, tras el impedimento de su propia guardia, se marcha a sus aposentos

en los que pasa la noche lamentรกndose.

A la maรฑana siguiente, los macedonios consiguen tranquilizarle

relativamente, pero รฉste no volverรก a ser el mismo: ฯ„แฝธ ฮด' แผฆฮธฮฟฯ‚ ฮตแผฐฯ‚ ฯ€ฮฟฮปฮปแฝฐ

ฯ‡ฮฑฯ…ฮฝแฝนฯ„ฮตฯฮฟฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ€ฮฑฯฮฑฮฝฮฟฮผแฝฝฯ„ฮตฯฮฟฮฝ แผฯ€ฮฟแฝทฮทฯƒฮตฮฝ, "su carรกcter se hizo, con mucho,

mรกs vanidoso e injusto".

2.3. L   S

Un tercer ejemplo de homicidio en un banquete es el de Sertorio23 , un

relato que Plutarco desarrolla ofreciendo, al igual que en el de Clito, gran

cantidad de detalles:

Comienza Plutarco planteando la situaciรณn en la que el protagonista de la

Vita se encontraba en aquel momento, sin un futuro claro, con la mayorรญa de

los hispanienses24 "dominados por la envidia" y con un Sertorio que, habiendo

abandonado las แผฯ€ฮนฮตฮนฮบฮตฮฏฮฑ y ฯ€ฯแพณฯŒฯ„ฮทฯ‚ –"moderaciรณn" y "paciencia"- propias de

su carรกcter, ha cometido una gran injusticia contra los hijos de los nobles รญberos

que estudiaban en Osca.

En esta situaciรณn, que presagia el nal de Sertorio, un grupo de conjurados

hispanienses con Perpenna a la cabeza decide llevar a tรฉrmino un complot que

ya habรญa planeado desde hacรญa tiempo: la muerte de Sertorio en un banquete.

El plan debe acelerarse por la falta de discreciรณn de Manlio, de modo

que, inmediatamente, hacen llegar a Sertorio una carta en la que le proponen

celebrar una supuesta victoria militar.

Sertorio, antes del banquete, se encuentra curiosamente, al igual que Clito,

realizando un sacricio en agradecimiento de la buena noticia recibida.

Posteriormente, describiendo ya la preparaciรณn del convite de Perpenna,

Plutarco se permite un pequeรฑo inciso para explicar cรณmo a Sertorio le gustaban

las comidas caracterizadas por el ฮฑแผฐฮดแฟถ y el ฮบฯŒฯƒฮผฮฟฮฝ – "respeto" y "orden" –, algo

que lo diferencia radicalmente de las desenfrenadas celebraciones del ejรฉrcito

macedonio. En ese momento, segรบn el autor, Perpenna busca un "inicio de

confrontaciรณn" – แผ€ฯฯ‡แฝดฮฝ แผฯˆฮนฮผฮฑฯ‡ฮฏฮฑฯ‚ – con palabras groseras y ngimiento de estar

bebidos. Esta actitud provocรณ que Sertorio diera la espalda a los conjurados,

circunstancia que es aprovechada por รฉstos para acabar con el general25 .

Un elemento curioso que ha suscitado una duda en la crรญtica es el siguiente:

la elecciรณn del banquete para llevar a cabo un asesinato se explica por sus

caracterรญsticas esenciales antes mencionadas, es decir, se trata de un ambiente

privado de esparcimiento, en el que la vรญctima no debe esperar el ataque. Por

tanto, no se entiende por quรฉ Perpenna y los conjurados provocaron a Sertorio,

lo que, sin duda, le pondrรญa alerta. Konrad escribiรณ literalmente: "a happy

victim is more easily dispatched than a resentful one who may be on edge and,

hence, on guard". Ante esta duda, el comentarista, basรกndose en el paralelo de

23 Plu., Sert., 26. Cf. N. S R, en este mismo volumen, p. 232.

24 Romanos del bando Sertoriano, ancados en Hispania.

25 Este mismo hecho aparece resumido por Plutarco en Pomp. 20. 3-4.

251

El banquete traicionero en las Vidas de Plutarco

la muerte de Cicerรณn, propone que provocando la ira de Sertorio se intenta

legitimar el homicidio, al demostrar el carรกcter despรณtico de รฉste. Ernst Badian

supone que Perpenna y los conjurados partรญan de un plan preconcebido, segรบn

el cual darรญan muerte a Sertorio en la confusiรณn de un enfrentamiento26 . Quizรก

la respuesta a esta posible incongruencia se encuentre en la estructura que

Plutarco articula a la hora de describir las muertes en banquete.

3. Conclusiones

Si se analizan los relatos de las muertes de Arquias, Clito y Sertorio, se

observa que los tres siguen en paralelo detalles clave:

- Los trรกgicos asesinatos son predecibles antes de ocurrir el suceso, en el

caso de Arquias por una carta que anunciaba la prรณxima conjura, en el de Clito

mediante visiones en sueรฑos y en el de Sertorio por la traicionera actividad de

sus aliados en Hispania.

- Los dos รบltimos banquetes se celebran por victorias, una cierta, la otra

cticia, de los ejรฉrcitos macedonio e hispaniense, respectivamente.

- Clito y Sertorio celebran un sacricio de agradecimiento a los dioses

antes del banquete.

- En todos los relatos se produce, previo a la muerte, un violento

enfrentamiento verbal y fรญsico, en los que se vitupera el mal uso del vino y de

las palabras27 .

- Finalmente, aquellos que han cometido el homicidio cruel en un

banquete sufren unas consecuencias no deseadas, a excepciรณn de Pelรณpidas

y los suyos. El futuro de Perpenna queda pronto cercenado por Pompeyo y

su ejรฉrcito; mientras que el nal de Alejandro, segรบn el relato de Plutarco se

vuelve a relacionar, por รบltima vez con el vino: ฮฑแฝฯ„แฝธฮฝ ฯ€ฯ…ฯแฝณฯ„ฯ„ฮฟฮฝฯ„ฮฑ ฮฝฮตฮฑฮฝฮนฮบแฟถฯ‚,

ฮดฮนฯˆแฝตฯƒฮฑฮฝฯ„ฮฑ ฮดแฝฒ ฯƒฯ†แฝนฮดฯฮฑ, ฯ€ฮนฮตแฟ–ฮฝ ฮฟแผถฮฝฮฟฮฝ, "le sube una alta ebre y, teniendo una

gran sed, bebe vino"28 .

De este modo se puede entender que Plutarco, al escribir los relatos de

homicidios en los banquetes, parte de unos elementos comunes que, de manera

consciente o inconsciente, estructuran la escena. En esta construcciรณn el autor

parece hacer uso de unos hechos histรณricos y tradicionales que organiza y relata

para que cumplan sus propios nes morales29 . Asรญ, compone vรญvidas escenas

de las que se extraen claras conclusiones: Plutarco, en este tipo de asesinatos,

advierte la posibilidad de que el banquete puede perder sus caracterรญsticas

26 Cf. C.F. K, 1994, p. 212.

27 Tambiรฉn paralelo al relato de la muerte de Clito es el enfrentamiento causado por la

denuncia de alcoholismo de Alejandro a su padre, Filipo; cf. F.B. T, 1999, p. 492.

28 Cf. Plu., Alex. 75. Cf. G. P, 1991, p. 162.

29 Resulta interesante observar los textos paralelos a los relatos de Plutarco. Sirvan de ejemplo

acerca de la muerte de Sertorio los textos de Salustio, Hist. III,81; Livio, Per.,96; Apiano, B.C.I. ,

113,528; Diodoro XXXVII,22; Veleyo II,31,1; Amiano Marcelino 30,1,23; Eutropio 6,1,3;

Orosio V,23,13. Especialmente curioso resulta el documento de Apuleyo, en el que se arma:

"(scil. Perpenna) tras haberle emborrachado a รฉl (scil. Sertorio) y a su guardia, que rodeaba la sala

del banquete, le dio muerte al acabar la esta".

esenciales, para tornarse en una acciรณn trรกgica y traicionera, cuando se conjugan

dos elementos como แฝ€ฯฮณฮฎ y ฮผฮญฮธฮท –"cรณlera" y "embriaguez"-; asรญmismo tambiรฉn,

que quien, aprovechando las circunstancias de este microcosmos, las rompe, en

primer lugar, no conseguirรก aquello que busca con su acto cruel y, en segundo

lugar, acabarรก sufriendo un nal igualmente funesto –lo que parece responder

a la concepciรณn religiosa que del banquete defendรญa Plutarco-. El ejemplo de

la muerte de Arquias ofrece un nal distinto, puesto que, a diferencia de los

anteriores, es un magnicidio legรญtimo: se trata de acabar con el poder dictatorial,

lo que da carta blanca moral a los conjurados.

A la luz de los contextos analizados se constata que Plutarco estaba muy

interesado en describir las luces y las sombras que rodeaban los banquetes30 . L a

inversiรณn de aquellos elementos, que se suponen consustanciales al simposio,

como el ambiente de juego y esparcimiento, unido a su religiosidad, sirven a

Plutarco de exempla para advertir al lector del cruel nal que puede sufrir, si no

observa los sucesos premonitorios, anteriores al banquete, o si bebe en exceso.

Una buena soluciรณn la encuentra el de Queronea en el comportamiento de

Epaminondas, basado en la austeridad y discreciรณn, pues "tal tipo de comida

no deja sitio a la traiciรณn"31 .

bi b l i o g r a f รญ a c i T a d a

A M, C., "Usos indebidos del vino", in J.G. M  .

(eds.), Plutarco, Dioniso y el vino. Actas del VI Simposio Espaรฑol

sobre Plutarco (Cรกdiz, 14-16 de Mayo de 1998), Madrid, 1999, pp.

83-92.

B, N. I., Les procรฉdรฉs de la peinture des caractรจres et la vรฉritรฉ historique dans

les Biographies de Plutarque, Parรญs, 1933.

D, T. E., Plutarch's Lives. Exploring Virtue and Vice, New York, 1999.

G, M. D., "Estado actual de los estudios sobre los simposios de

Platรณn, Jenofonte y Plutarco," CFC, 3 (1972) 127-92.

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

61-74.

30 En contra de la opiniรณn mantenida durante el Congreso por algunos de sus participantes,

no existen elementos de juicio que permitan armar que las muertes en el banquete siempre se

producรญan durante el แผ„ฯฮนฯƒฯ„ฮฟฮฝ. La ambigรผedad terminolรณgica de Plutarco se observa en el uso

de numerosos y diferentes tรฉrminos con signicado relativamente diferente, pero para referirse a

contextos semejantes. A continuaciรณn reproducimos el rango de uso de los tรฉrminos usados por

el autor al describir la muerte en banquete: ฮดฮตแฟ–ฯ€ฮฝฮฟฮฝ (10): es., 30.3, Cat . Mi., 67, Crass., 33.6,

Demetr., 36.4 y (ab), 36.11, Pyrrh., 5. 7-14, Ant., 32.3, Pomp., 3.2, Alex., 50.7, Sert., 26.7; ฯ€ฯŒฯ„ฮฟฮฝ

(4): Crass., 33.1, Demetr., 36.4, Pel., 9.4, Sert., 26.8; ฮดฮตฮนฯ€ฮฝฮตแฟ–ฮฝ (3): Oth., 3.4, Ant., 32.4, Cim., 1.5;

แผ‘ฯƒฯ„ฮฏฮฑฯƒฮนฯ‚ (2): Crass., 33.1, Sert., 26.6; แผ„ฯฮนฯƒฯ„ฮฟฮฝ (2): Tes., 12.4, Arat., 6.4-7.1; ฯƒฯ…ฮฝฮฟฯ…ฯƒฮฏฮฑฮฝ (1): Pel.,

9.4; ฯƒฯ…ฯƒฯƒฮฏฯ„ฮนฮฟฮฝ (1): Cleom., 7-8; ฯƒฯ…ฮผฯ€ฯŒฯƒฮนฮฟฮฝ (1): Pel., 11.3; ฯƒฯ…ฮฝฮดฮตฮนฯ€ฮฝฮตแฟ–ฮฝ (1): Art., 19.1.

31 Plu. Lyc., 13, 3.

253

El banquete traicionero en las Vidas de Plutarco

K, C. F., Sertorius. A Historical Commentary, Chapel Hill and London,

1994.

N, A. G., "Plutarch's Heroes in Action: Does the End justify the

Means?", in I. G, B. S (eds.), Teoria e Prassi Politica

nelle Opere di Plutarco. Atti del V Convegno plutarcheo (Certosa di

Pontignano, 7-9 Giugno 1993), Napoli, 1995, pp. 301-312.

P, G., "Symposia and Deipna in Plutarch's Lives and Other Historical

Writings", in W. J. S (ed.), Dining in a classical context, Ann Arbor,

1991, pp. 157-169.

P, C ., "Is Death the End? Closure in Plutarch's Lives", in D. H.

R, D. H. (eds.), Classical Closure. Reading the End in Greek and

Latin Literature, Princeton, 1997, pp. 228-250.

T, F.B., "Everything to do with Dionysus: Banquets in Plutarch's

Lives", in J. G. M C  . (eds.), Plutarco, Dioniso y el vino.

Actas del VI Simposio Espaรฑol sobre Plutarco (Cรกdiz, 14-16 de Mayo

de 1998), Madrid, 1999, pp. 491-499.

255

Veneno simposรญaco. Envenenamiento en los banquetes en la obra plutarquea

V :     

  

D R G

Universidad de Birmingham

Abstract

In the festive environment of the banquet, it is possible to identify moments when this mood has

been broken, and Plutarch presents many examples of it in the Vitae and Moralia. One possibility

of disrupting this context is poisoning the guest, as Parysatis killed Stateira, or trying to do it, such

as Medea did with eseus or Neoptolomeus with Phyrrus. Apart from relating these deaths, or

failed attempts, by poison at the banquet, Plutarch also adds the consequences for the hosts of

breaking down this happy time and the reasons why they committed the murders.

Plutarco, consciente de que el envenenamiento era un crimen bastante

habitual, presenta numerosos ejemplos de esto en Vidas y, en menor medida,

en Moralia 2 . Ahora bien, esto no siempre tiene lugar en los banquetes y como

muestra de ello se encuentran los siguientes ejemplos, que, por no estar

encuadrados dentro del contexto simposรญaco, quedan descartados: un primer

grupo son los envenenamientos por error de una persona3 ; un segundo, los

que se producen por la mezcla del veneno con un lรญquido4 o con un alimento

sรณlido5 y, nalmente, un tercero, en los que el queronense no da ninguna pista

que induzca a pensar que se realizan en un banquete6 .

I. Del complot al envenenamiento

La imagen que se tiene del banquete griego es, en general, idรญlica: se

presenta como la reuniรณn en un ambiente amigable de un grupo limitado de

1 Agradezco a la Fundaciรณn Hardt (Ginebra) la beca que me concediรณ para consultar

su biblioteca y poder realizar esta comunicaciรณn. Parto como base del artรญculo de R M.ยช

A, 2008, en el que se estudia la frecuencia y los sentidos de la palabra pharmakon en el

queronense.

2 Como R. M.ยช A, 2008, pp. 754-5, 759 dice "en general, excepto si se trata de

alguna anรฉcdota, el signicado (en Mor.) es el de remedio o medicamento, bien en sentido

recto o en el gurado. (...) De otra parte, el reparto de signicados resulta coherente con el tipo

de discurso. En los textos histรณricos el signicado de 'veneno' aparece porque el ฯ†แฝฑฯฮผฮฑฮบฮฟฮฝ se

usa para ejecutar al enemigo o eliminarle ocultamente o, por n, en un suicidio como recurso

รบltimo ante la derrota. En cambio, en textos de carรกcter discursivo o losรณco el signicado de

'medicamento' o 'remedio' muestra mayor frecuencia y, las mรกs veces, guradamente".

3 Lรบculo, quien muriรณ por los supuestos ltros amorosos de su esclavo (Luc. 43.1-2).

4 Sinorix a manos de Camma ante el altar de รrtemis (Mor. 258B-C, 768C (la mezcla de

leche y miel – o tambiรฉn hidromiel).

5 Creso, aunque, gracias a la lealtad del panadero, no llegรณ a comer el pan envenenado que su

madrastra querรญa darle (Mor. 401 E-F); el asesinato de un padre por un hijo en un pastel (Cic.

26.5).

6 El intento de asesinato de Aretala a su marido Nicรณcrates y descubierto por su suegra

(Mor. 256 B-D), el de Hirodes por su hijo Fraates (Crass. 33,5) o el de Pirro por su mรฉdico

(Pyrrh. 21.1, Mor. 195B), Elisio (Mor. 109B), los invitados del padre de Tespesio (Mor. 566F).

256

Dรกmaris Romero Gonzรกlez

personas, con una determinada vinculaciรณn entre ellos, que se reunรญan en salas

privadas de una casa7 , acompaรฑados de ciertos divertimentos, como el disfrute

del vino y la comida, la recitaciรณn o la conversaciรณn, entre otros8 . De hecho, en

los ejemplos que dan origen a esta comunicaciรณn se cumplen gran parte de estos

requisitos: se evidencia el tipo de vinculaciรณn que unรญa a los asistentes, como la

familiaridad en el caso de Parisatis y Estatira, suegra y nuera respectivamente;

la polรญtica, asรญ Gelรณn busca en Mรญrtilo un aliado "polรญtico" para Neoptรณlemo; y

la hospitalidad, cuando Teseo es agasajado como huรฉsped de Egeo. Tambiรฉn

se disfruta del vino y la comida, ya sea como divertimento de los convidados,

sirviendo como ejemplo los brindis que hubo en el banquete de Gelรณn o la

comida dispuesta para agasajo de Teseo, ya sea como instrumento de muerte,

asรญ Teseo lleva el veneno en su copa y Estatira muere por el ave ryntakis

envenenado ofrecido por Parisatis.

Si bien es cierto que la mayorรญa de las veces el ambiente suele ser afable,

no signica que siempre sea asรญ. Como dice F. B. Titchener, "un banquete

era un lugar sorprendentemente peligroso para estar, por norma general"9 :

los banquetes son propicios para los atentados o para planearlos. Plutarco,

conocedor de esta realidad, presenta tres ejemplos en Vidas de envenenamiento

en el banquete, que permiten seguir el recorrido del veneno desde los momentos

iniciales, en los cuales se urde el complot, hasta su nalizaciรณn con la muerte

de la vรญctima elegida.

El primer paso para acabar con el adversario es tramar su muerte, en estos

casos, usando veneno. Plutarco lo ejemplica en Pyrrh. 5.7-14. Gelรณn, partidario

de Neoptรณlemo, encuentra una buena oportunidad de colaborar en la muerte de

su enemigo (Pirro) con el desplante que Pirro le hizo a su copero Mรญrtilo:

(scil. Gelรณn) le (scil. Mรญrtilo) invitรณ a un banquete en el que, como algunos

dicen, aparte de aprovecharse entre copas de la juventud de Mรญrtilo, le estuvo

aduciendo razones y exhortรกndole a que se uniera a Neoptรณlemo y asesinara a

Pirro mediante un veneno10.

Ideada la maquinaciรณn, ya sรณlo queda llevarla a cabo. Sin embargo, el tener

todos los movimientos planicados, no asegura el รฉxito, pues siempre hay que

considerar el elemento sorpresa. Plutarco lo muestra con los fracasos de Pirro

y Teseo.

En el primero de los envenenamientos fracasados, el de Pirro (Pyrrh.

5.10-14), dos fueron las causas por las que no tuvo lugar el emponzoรฑamiento.

ร‰stas fueron, por una parte, la lealtad de Mรญrtilo a Pirro, al que le descubriรณ

todo lo que Gelรณn tramaba, y, por otra, la excesiva conanza de Neoptรณlemo

en la aparente buena marcha del plan, de modo que bajรณ la guardia y comenzรณ

a hablar abiertamente de la asechanza.

7 P. G, 1999, p.131.

8 E. P, 1994, bosqueja los tipos de entretenimiento en el simposium.

9 F. B. T, 1999, p. 492.

10 Pyrrh. 5.8.

257

Veneno simposรญaco. Envenenamiento en los banquetes en la obra plutarquea

El segundo de los envenenamientos fracasados es quizรก uno de los mรกs

conocidos en la literatura griega y es el de Teseo por parte de Medea en el

banquete en que รฉste se dio a conocer como hijo de Egeo.

(scil. Medea) lo persuadiรณ (scil. a Egeo) para que, invitando al extranjero,

lo envenenara. Asรญ pues, yendo Teseo al banquete, pensรณ que serรญa mejor

no descubrir de primeras quiรฉn era, sino que quiso dar una pista para ser

descubierto, y, cuando la carne se sirviรณ, sacando la espada para cortarla, se la

enseรฑรณ. Al instante Egeo se percatรณ y dejรณ caer la copa de veneno...11

Medea quiso eliminar a Teseo con el inocente beneplรกcito de Egeo,

desconocedor en ese momento de que el extranjero al que homenajeaban era su

hijo. A diferencia del rey, Medea sรญ lo sabรญa, puesto que habรญa indagado sobre Teseo

cuando รฉste llegรณ a Atenas, pero temรญa que fuera una amenaza para su posiciรณn,

ya que ella le dio a Egeo un hijo, Medo12 . Toda esperanza de matar a Teseo se

vio frustrada cuando Egeo reconociรณ como suya la espada que Teseo utilizรณ para

trinchar la carne del banquete, objeto con el que Medea no habรญa contado.

El รบnico ejemplo que Plutarco ofrece de envenenamiento exitoso es el de

Estatira por Parisatis (Art. 19.1-5). ร‰sta, que era la madre del rey Artajerjes,

recelaba de Estatira, esposa del mismo, por el gran inujo que estaba ejerciendo

sobre su hijo en detrimento de ella, de modo que decide matarla:

(scil. Parisatis) Tenรญa una esclava el llamada Gigis, con gran inuencia sobre

ella y quien, segรบn Dinรณn, la ayudรณ a preparar el veneno, aunque, segรบn Ctesias,

fue cรณmplice involuntaria... Despuรฉs de un tiempo de sospechas y disensiones,

(scil. Parisatis y Estatira) habรญan empezado otra vez a visitarse y a cenar juntas,

aunque comรญan de los mismos alimentos y servidos por las mismas manos por

desconanza y precauciรณn... Parisatis, segรบn Ctesias, trinchรณ una de estas aves

con un cuchillo untado por un lado con el veneno, con lo que esa parte del ave

quedรณ emponzoรฑada; mientras ella se llevรณ a la boca para comรฉrsela la que

estaba limpia de veneno, dio a Estatira la emponzoรฑada... Asรญ pues la mujer

(Estatira) muriรณ con grandes dolores y convulsiones...

II. De la risa a las lรกgrimas

Ahora bien, ¿por quรฉ el banquete deja de ser lugar de divertimento para

convertirse en lugar de muerte? Porque las intenciones de los antriones no

son el esparcimiento de sus invitados, sino la muerte de ellos, y se valen del

despreocupado contexto festivo en el que se desarrolla el banquete para llevar

a cabo sus planes. Ni Teseo, Pirro o Estatira13 imaginan las intenciones de

11 es. 12.2-3.

12 Estos acontecimientos no los relata Plutarco, sino otros autores como Apollod. I.9.28,

Epit. 1.5-6, D.S. IV.55.4-6 o Paus. II.3.8.

13 Quizรก Estatira podrรญa imaginarlo de Parisatis pues Plutarco cuenta que ambas comรญan los

mismos alimentos servidos por las mismas manos, pero al ver que Paristis degustaba la misma

258

Dรกmaris Romero Gonzรกlez

sus compaรฑeros de mesa, ya que "las diversiones son terribles para mantener

cualquier actitud distante"14 .

De ese modo, al producirse la ruptura del ambiente lรบdico y sagrado en el

que se celebra el simposio15 , se incumple el objetivo por el que รฉste se festeja y

que Plutarco pone en boca de Teรณn en sus Quaestiones Convivales :

...concederรก un sitio sรณlo a aquellas conversaciones, espectรกculos y bromas que

cumplan con la nalidad del banquete, y esto serรญa producir en los presentes,

por medio del placer, un robustecimiento o el origen de una amistad; pues

el banquete es un entretenimiento con vino que por el encanto acaba en

amistad16.

Ninguno de los tres banquetes pretende ese n, conseguir una nueva amistad

o robustecer una ya existente. Gelรณn, aprovechando el enfado de Mรญrtilo por el

desplante de Pirro, intenta beneciarse de la cercanรญa del copero para asesinar

a su adversario. Por su parte, Paristatis, que sentรญa aversiรณn hacia Estatira y

estaba celosa del poder que รฉsta tenรญa sobre su hijo, reanuda sus relaciones

con su nuera para tramar contra ella. Finalmente, Medea, recurriendo a la

costumbre griega de la hospitalidad, quiere agasajar a Teseo para envenenarlo.

Sin embargo, este quebrantamiento no queda impune y, como apunta

I. Muรฑoz17 , quienes han tramado o cometido el envenenamiento, sufren las

consecuencias de este acto.

Neoptรณlemo, creyendo que la asechanza seguรญa adelante y rebosante de

alegrรญa porque pronto verรญa muerto a su enemigo, acude a la invitaciรณn de Pirro

a un banquete, sin sospechar que รฉste conoce por partida doble sus planes,

primero por Mรญrtilo y luego por la mujer del mayoral. En ese banquete Pirro lo

mata, adelantรกndosele y teniendo de su parte a los principales de los epirotas18 .

Ahora bien, siguiendo la lรณgica de lo dicho en el pรกrrafo anterior, Pirro

tambiรฉn tendrรญa que haber muerto poco despuรฉs. Sin embargo, la excepciรณn

a esta posible regla, como el propio I. Muรฑoz seรฑala, se incumple cuando el

asesinato se comete como soluciรณn a una situaciรณn tirรกnica, tal que sucede

aquรญ: "...debido al odio que les inspiraba la forma opresiva y violenta con que

Neoptรณlemo se conducรญa en su gobierno"19 .

Tras descubrirse el intento de envenenamiento de Teseo, Medea es

expulsada del รtica, junto con su hijo Medo, por Egeo20 .

comida que ella, le harรญa mรกs conada. Cf. N. S R, en este mismo volumen, p.

251.

14 Per. 7.3.

15 Cf. I. M G, en este mismo volumen, p. 246.

16 Mor. 621C.

17 Cf. I. M G, en este mismo volumen, p. 251.

18 J. M. M, 1992, p. 94, al comparar los intentos de asesinato de Alejandro y Pirro

escribe: "Donde Alejandro es un rey que responde a las conspiraciones de hombres inferiores a

รฉl, Pirro es un jugador mรกs en un juego de intriga".

19 Phyrr. 5.2.

20 Cf. n. 12.

259

Veneno simposรญaco. Envenenamiento en los banquetes en la obra plutarquea

Tanto Gigis como Parisatis son castigadas por el emponzoรฑamiento de

Estatira. La condena que recibiรณ la esclava fue, como Plutarco recoge, segรบn

la ley en Persia: machacar y moler con una piedra su cabeza, colocada en otra

piedra ancha, hasta que la cara y la cabeza quedan deshechas. Para la reina

madre, la condena fue mรกs leve y dictada por Artajerjes: es exiliada, estando

ella de acuerdo, a Babilonia, ciudad que su hijo Artajerjes no volverรก a visitar

mientras ella estuviese allรญ21 .

III. Conclusiones: Razones para el Envenenamiento

Plutarco, en su faceta de biรณgrafo, ha hecho acopio de sucesos que

pertenecen a la vida de los protagonistas de su obra, completando estas

semblanzas con anotaciones de carรกcter moral, de modo que el queronense no

se limita a exponer el envenenamiento de un personaje, sino tambiรฉn las razones

que condujeron a ello. Esto ocurre en los casos de Teseo y Estatira, porque en

el ejemplo de Pirro no se da ninguna razรณn para el intento de envenenamiento

por parte de Neoptรณlemo y sin embargo sรญ se dan muchas para su posterior

asesinato: la forma de gobernar de Neoptรณlemo y su conjura. No obstante,

รฉstas son una excusa de la verdadera razรณn del asesinato de Neoptรณlemo: la

ambiciรณn natural de Pirro (Phyrr. 5.1, 14).

La primera causa es el miedo a la usurpaciรณn del poder, como le ocurrรญa a

Egeo. Plutarco cuenta que Egeo, a causa de sus aรฑos, estaba "lleno de celos y

sospechas, y temiendo cualquier cosa a causa de la facciรณn que entonces estaba

en la ciudad"22 . Asรญ pues, Egeo, anciano, estaba sometido a la presiรณn de la

presencia de pretendientes al trono, de modo que se deja convencer por Medea

para, por una parte, tomar fรกrmacos capaces de hacerle engendrar de nuevo y,

por otro, usar un veneno para matar al extranjero Teseo23 .

La segunda causa es la mezcla del odio y los celos que Parisatis sentรญa

hacia Estatira. El odio viene provocado por una acumulaciรณn de actuaciones

en clara oposiciรณn a Parisatis por parte de Estatira, quien tampoco sufrรญa a

su suegra, como eran la acusaciรณn de ser la culpable del inicio de la guerra

fraticida, la muerte del eunuco que cortรณ la cabeza y la mano a Ciro muerto

y el cambio de decisiรณn de Artajerjes respecto al destino de Clearco24 . Los

celos son reejo de la impotencia de Parisatis al ver que la inuencia sobre

su hijo era fruto del respeto y el honor que รฉl tenรญa hacia ella, mientras que

21 Art. 19.6

22 es. 12.2.

23 H. J. W, 1995, pp. 87-8, observa que, en tan sรณlo dos frases yuxtapuestas, Plutarco

expresa los dos poderes antagonistas de los fรกrmacos: "Pueden destrozar completamente a un

hombre y su casa (que es lo que Medea intenta hacer cuando Teseo llega) y son necesarios si un

hombre desea preservar su casa (que es la razรณn por la que Egeo tiene a Medea viviendo con

รฉl)".24 Art. 6.5; 17.6; 18.3. Plutarco minimiza la opiniรณn de Ctesias sobre la muerte de Clearco

por inuencia de Estatira y en contra de Parisatis, como causa nal y denitiva por la que

Parisatis, arriesgรกndose a dar muerte a la mujer legรญtima del rey y madre de sus hijos, preparรณ el

veneno contra Estatira.

260

Dรกmaris Romero Gonzรกlez

la de su esposa era por el gran amor y la fuerte conanza existente entre

ellos25 .

La tercera, que por otra parte es la mรกs evidente y concluyente, es que los

asesinados son, de una manera u otra, adversarios polรญticos que se cruzan en

el camino del personaje en cuestiรณn: Pirro de Neoptรณlemo, Teseo de Medea y

Estatira de Parisatis. El banquete se presenta entonces como la escena donde se

revela una de las caras del poder, el de la violencia que se usa para conservarlo26 .

Ninguno de los personajes de estos banquetes duda en utilizar cualquier

mรฉtodo para eliminar a su adversario y, de ese modo, seguir conservando el

poder que temรญan perder o estaban perdiendo.

bi b l i o g r a f รญ a c i T a d a

A, R., "Pharmakon en Plutarco", in A. G. N (ed.), e Unity

of Plutarch's Work. Moralia emes in the Lives, Features of the Lives in the

Moralia, Berlin/New York, 2008, pp. 751-71.

B, A., "Plutarque et la scรจne du banquet", in A. G. N (ed.),

e Unity of Plutarch's Work. Moralia emes in the Lives, Features of the

Lives in the Moralia, Berlin/ New York, 2008, pp. 577-90.

G, P., Food and Society in Classical Antiquity, Cambridge, 1999.

M, J. M., "Plutarch, Pyrrus and Alexander", in P. A. S (ed.),

Plutarch and the Historical Tradition, London, 1992, pp. 90-108.

P, E., "Outlines of a Morphology of Sympotic Entertainment", in O.

M (ed.), Sympotika. A Symposium on the Symposion, Oxford, 1994,

pp. 177-84.

T, F. B., "Everything to do with Dionysus: Banquets in Plutarch's

Lives", in J. G. M C  . (eds.), Plutarco, Dioniso y el vino .

Actas del VI Simposio Espaรฑol sobre Plutarco (Cรกdiz, 14-16 de Mayo,

1998), Madrid, 1999, pp. 491-500.

W, H. J., eseus and Athens, New York, 1995.

25 Art. 19.1.

26 A. B, 2008, p. 578.

261

S 4

Philanthropia, Philia and Eros

263

La notion de philanthrลpia chez Plutarque: contexte social et sources philosophiques

la n o T i o n d e p H i l a n T H r ล p i a c h e z pl u T a r q u e :

c o n T e x T e s o c i a l e T s o u r c e s p h i l o s o p h i q u e s

F B

Universitรฉ de Florence

Abstract

In a period in which some natural feelings, like philia and philanthrลpia, are disappearing, it

is natural that an intellectual, like Plutarch, asks for the reasons that have determined this

disappearance. e philosopher from Chaeronea identies them in the greed (pleonexia) and

in the insatiability (aplฤ“stia) that have invaded the soul of the aristocracy of his time. Due to

these passions, which derive from wrong judgements and empty opinions, the soul has become

attached to goods that are foreign to itself and eventually loses the emotional impulse for

showing its proper virtues. Consequently, these passions end up wearing out human relations

in such a way as to make man no more familiar and friend to his fellows (oikeios), but a stranger

(allotrios).

Regarding the philosophical coordinates, Plutarch's philosophy of philanthrลpia as oikeiotฤ“s

seems to nd its starting point in Aristotle's EN and, more in general, in Peripatetic philosophy

beginning with eophrastus.

… ฮผฮฎ ฯ„ฮน ฯ€ฮฑฯ…ฯƒฯŽฮผฮตฯƒฮธฮฑ ฮดฯแฟถฮฝฯ„ฮตฯ‚ ฮตแฝ– ฮฒฯฮฟฯ„ฮฟฯฯ‚1

Au cours des premiers siรจcles de l'รฉpoque impรฉriale, durant lesquels

l'รฉthique paรฏenne et l'รฉthique chrรฉtienne cohabitent et s'opposent2 , le sentiment

qui domine, est , semble-t-il, celui de la philia pour les biens matรฉriels. La

riche aristocratie de cette pรฉriode, qui est รฉgoรฏste et รฉgocentrique, est aussi

la proie facile des pires passions de l'รขme3 , et apparaรฎt dominรฉe par le dรฉsir

des richesses (ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฟฯ‡ฯฮทฮผฮฑฯ„ฮฏฮฑ), du pouvoir (ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฑฯฯ‡แฝทฮฑ) et des honneurs

(ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฟฮดฮฟฮพแฝทฮฑ ou ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฟฯ„ฮนฮผแฝทฮฑ 4 ), ainsi que par l'aviditรฉ (ฯ€ฮปฮตฮฟฮฝฮตฮพแฝทฮฑ) et par le dรฉsir

insatiable (แผ€ฯ€ฮปฮทฯƒฯ„แฝทฮฑ) de nourriture (ฮณฮฑฯƒฯ„ฯฮนฮผฮฑฯฮณแฝทฮฑ), de vin (ฮฟแผฐฮฝฮฟฯ†ฮปฯ…ฮณแฝทฮฑ)

et de sexe (ฮปฮฑฮณฮฝฮตแฝทฮฑ )5 . Ces passions malsaines de l'รขme ont supplantรฉ et fait

disparaรฎtre de l'esprit humain des sentiments naturels comme la ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฑฮดฮตฮปฯ†แฝทฮฑ ,

la ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฟฯƒฯ„ฮฟฯฮณแฝทฮฑ, la ฯ†ฮนฮปฮตฯ„ฮฑฮนฯแฝทฮฑ ou ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฟฯ†ฮนฮปแฝทฮฑ et la ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฟฮพฮตฮฝแฝทฮฑ ainsi que la

ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฑฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€แฝทฮฑ qui avaient caractรฉrisรฉ la civilisation hellรฉnique en gรฉnรฉral et la

1 TrGF 2 F 410a Kannicht-Snell, citรฉ par Plutarque dans An Seni resp. 791D et suav. viv.

Epic. 1099A.

2 Voir A. Postiglione dans Plutarco, L'amore fraterno, L'amore per i gli, Napoli 1991, p. 25: "Al

conne fra l'etica pagana e l'etica cristiana Plutarco dice che bisogna amare tutti gli uomini,…

non conoscendo, e tuttavia quasi presagendo quel comandamento piรน alto, che ormai si andava

diondendo per il mondo, di amare tutti gli uomini come fratelli". Sur ce point il faut rappeler

la recommandation de Plutarque (Soll. an. 984) ร  aimer l'homme ฮบฮฑฮธ' แฝƒ แผ„ฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€ฯŒฯ‚ แผฯƒฯ„ฮน.

3 Comme l'envie ou la colรจre, qui (Coh. ira 462F) est une douleur (ฮปแฝปฯ€ฮท) et un mรฉlange des

semences de toutes les passions (ฯ€ฮฑฮฝฯƒฯ€ฮตฯฮผแฝทฮฑ ฯ„แฟถฮฝ ฯ€ฮฑฮธแฟถฮฝ).

4 Pour l'acception nรฉgative de ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฟฯ„ฮนฮผแฝทฮฑ voir Plu., Sull. 7. 1; Ages. 23. 33. Sur la notion de

ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฟฯ„ฮนฮผแฝทฮฑ chez Plutarque voir maintenant M. C. F, 2008, pp. 45-6.

5 Voir V. A. S, 1974, pp. 65-83; C. P. J, 1978, p. 104 sqq.; P. D, 1978, p.

353 n. 29.

civilisation athรฉnienne en particulier6. Ainsi la dรฉpravation humaine – comme

le commente Plutarque, non sans amertume, dans le De fraterno amore 7 – qui a

germรฉ comme la zizanie au milieu du blรฉ8 , a rendu impossible le fait de trouver

un rapport d'amitiรฉ qui soit sincรจre, pur et sans passions9 . ร€ une รฉpoque oรน la

sophistique est en train de devenir prรฉpondรฉrante, il est plus facile de trouver,

semble-t-il, quelqu'un capable d'รฉcrire des textes sur l'amitiรฉ que quelqu'un

qui la mette en pratique10 . Pourtant l'homme, qui est un รชtre non seulement

sociable mais aussi rationnel (ฮปฮฟฮณฮนฮบแฝธฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ€ฮฟฮปฮนฯ„ฮนฮบแฝธฮฝ ฮถแฟทฮฟฮฝ)11 , ne peut pas vivre

sans la philia, moins par son manque d'autonomie (ฮฑแฝฯ„แฝฑฯฮบฮตฮนฮฑ), que parce que

cela est contre nature. Dans la Vie de Solon 12 Plutarque prรฉsente une objection

ร  cette sociรฉtรฉ avide et insatiable (แผ€ฯ€ฮปแฝตฯฯ‰ฯ„ฮฟฯ‚), qui par ignorance semble avoir

abandonnรฉ la nature pour suivre la nature de ce qui est contre nature, avec la

conviction que le bonheur consiste ร  accumuler des richesses et ร  possรฉder des

biens matรฉriels13 . Pour lui, l'รขme humaine, qui par nature est portรฉe ร  aimer

(ฯ†ฮนฮปฮตแฟ–ฮฝ ), ร  sentir, ร  penser, ร  se souvenir et ร  apprendre, perd sa charge aective

au moment oรน elle par aviditรฉ ou par une ambition excessive perd l'amour pour

ce qui lui est propre (ฮฟแผฐฮบฮตแฟ–ฮฟฮฝ) et apparentรฉ et s'attache aux biens matรฉriels (ฯ„แฝฐ

แผฮบฯ„แฝนฯ‚)14 . Alors, il est naturel que les rapports humains en soient compromis et

que la philanthrลpia disparaisse. Elle perd – pour citer l'introduction de la Vie

de Pรฉriclรจs15 – le sentiment naturel d'amour et d'aection que l'homme a en lui

et qu'il est appelรฉ ร  manifester ร  l'รฉgard de ses semblables. Ce sont en eet les

soucis dus au dรฉsir d'argent qui, entraรฎnant pour l'รขme des rides prรฉcoces et des

cheveux blancs, font aussi se faner la philanthrลpia (ฯ„แฝธ ฯ†ฮนฮปแฝฑฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€ฮฟฮฝ) selon le

De cupiditate divitiarum 16 .

En conrmant que le bonheur chez l'homme n'arrive pas de l'extรฉrieur et

que ce n'est pas quelque chose que l'on peut acheter17 , le philosophe de Chรฉronรฉe

ne se borne pas ร  rappeler l'idรฉal de la modรฉration (ฯ€ฯฮฑแฝนฯ„ฮทฯ‚ et ฮผฮตฯ„ฯฮนแฝนฯ„ฮทฯ‚) et

de l'autosusance (ฮฑแฝฯ„แฝฑฯฮบฮตฮนฮฑ) qui rรฉduit au minimum le besoin des biens

6 Plu., Frat. am. 478C ; Cup. div. 523D; Comp. Arist. - Cat. Ma. 4. 2.

7 Plu., Frat. am. 481F ฮฟแฝ”ฯ„ฮต ฯ„แฝธ แผ‘ฯ„ฮฑฮนฯฮนฮบแฝธฮฝ... ฮตแผฑฮปฮนฮบฯฮนฮฝแฝฒฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ แผ€ฯ€ฮฑฮธแฝฒฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮบฮฑฮธฮฑฯแฝธฮฝ แผ”ฯƒฯ„ฮนฮฝ ฮตแฝ‘ฯฮตแฟ–ฮฝ

ฮบฮฑฮบฮฏฮฑฯ‚...

8 Voir Plu., Am. prol. 497CD.

9 Plu., Cap. ex inim. ut. 89B ; Luc. 41. 9.

10 Plu., Frat. am. 481BC.

11 Plu., Am. prol. 495C.

12 Plu., Sol. 7. 3.

13 Plu., Cup. div. 524B. On devrait pรฉnser non seulement au petit traitรฉ de Plutarque

intitulรฉ ฮ ฮตฯแฝถ ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฟฯ‡ฯฮทฮผฮฑฯ„แฝทฮฑฯ‚ ( De divitiarum cupiditate), mais aussi au texte de Galien ฮ ฮตฯแฝถ ฯ„แฟถฮฝ

ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฟฯ‡ฯฮทฮผแฝฑฯ„ฯ‰ฮฝ ฯ€ฮปฮฟฯ…ฯƒแฝทฯ‰ฮฝ ( Sur les riches amoureux de l'argent), que l'intellectuel de Pergame cite

dans le traitรฉ ฮ ฮตฯแฝถ แผ€ฮปฯ…ฯ€แฝทฮฑฯ‚ ( Sur l'inutilitรฉ de se chagriner), rรฉcemment dรฉcouvert au monastรจre des

Vlatades ร  essalonique et รฉditรฉ par Vรฉronique Boudon-Millot (V. B-M  .,

2008, pp. 78-123).

14 Plu., Sol. 7.3.

15 Plu., Per. 1. 1-2.

16 Pour la ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฑฯฮณฯ…ฯแฝทฮฑ qui obscurcie la ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฑฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€แฝทฮฑ voir Plu., Cup. div. 526F-527A; Tranq.

an. 468EF.

17 Plu., Fort. 99E; Cap. ex inim. ut. 92DE; Virt. et vit. 100C, 101B-D; Tranq. an. 466D,

477A.

265

La notion de philanthrลpia chez Plutarque: contexte social et sources philosophiques

matรฉriels18 , mais il montre un nouveau modรจle d'humanitรฉ aux hommes de son

รฉpoque, habiles ร  pratiquer la philia uniquement par les mots19 . Ce nouveau

modรจle est caractรฉrisรฉ par la bienveillance et par la bontรฉ, par la gรฉnรฉrositรฉ

et par la clรฉmence, des qualitรฉs qui, dans les rapports humains, trouvent un

champ d'application plus vaste que celui de la loi et de la justice20 . Dans la Vie

de Caton l'Ancien, en critiquant le comportement dur de Caton ร  l'รฉgard de ses

vieux esclaves, comportement qui est celui d'un homme qui ne pratiquait pas

la philanthrลpia mais qui croyait seulement ร  l'existence de rapports humains

fondรฉs sur l'utilitรฉ (ฯ‡ฯฮตแฝทฮฑ), Plutarque arme que tout naturellement l'homme

est portรฉ ฯ€ฯแฝธฯ‚ ฮตแฝฮตฯฮณฮตฯƒฮฏฮฑฯ‚...ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ‡ฮฌฯฮนฯ„ฮฑฯ‚ non seulement dans les rapports

humains, mais aussi vis-ร -vis des animaux, si ce n'est pour une autre raison, du

moins pour s'exercer ร  la vertu de la ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฑฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€แฝทฮฑ 21 .

L'accusation la plus grave que Plutarque adresse ร  la sociรฉtรฉ de son รฉpoque

n'est pas seulement celle de la recherche du plaisir (ฯ†ฮนฮปฮทฮดฮฟฮฝแฝทฮฑ), de l'aviditรฉ

insatiable et de la goinfrerie (แผ€ฯ€ฮปฮทฯƒฯ„แฝทฮฑ), dues ร  un jugement faux et irrationnel

(ฮดฮนแฝฐ ฮบฯฮฏฯƒฮนฮฝ ฯ†ฮฑฯฮปฮทฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ แผ€ฮปฯŒฮณฮนฯƒฯ„ฮฟฮฝ ) 22 , mais aussi celle de vivre contre nature

(ฯ€ฮฑฯแฝฐ ฯ†แฝปฯƒฮนฮฝ ), d'une maniรจre indigne d'un homme libre (แผ€ฮฝฮตฮปฮตฯ…ฮธแฝณฯฯ‰ฯ‚), c'est-

ร -dire inhumainement (แผ€ฯ€ฮฑฮฝฮธฯแฝฝฯ€ฯ‰ฯ‚ ) 23 , sans jamais rien orir (แผ€ฮผฮตฯ„ฮฑฮดแฝนฯ„ฯ‰ฯ‚ ),

en รฉtant dur avec ses amis (ฯ€ฯแฝธฯ‚ ฯ†ฮฏฮปฮฟฯ…ฯ‚ แผ€ฯ€ฮทฮฝแฟถฯ‚) et indiรฉrent ร  l'รฉgard de ses

concitoyens (ฯ€ฯแฝธฯ‚ ฯ€ฮฟฮปฮฏฯ„ฮฑฯ‚ แผ€ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฟฯ„แฝทฮผฯ‰ฯ‚ )24 , comme si la nature humaine รฉtait

incapable d'aimer de faรงon dรฉsintรฉressรฉe et sans y trouver son compte25 . Par

contre, parmi les liens sacrรฉs, c'est celui naturel de l'amitiรฉ qui est le plus sacrรฉ

et le plus fort26 . La conformitรฉ avec la nature de ce sentiment de la philia, qui

est ร  la base de tous les rapports humains est dรฉmontrรฉ par les animaux27 qui,

ne possรฉdant pas l' adaptabilitรฉ, ni l'excellence, ni la pleine autonomie de la

raison, suivent leur instinct et demeurent enracinรฉs dans la nature28 , alors que

chez l'homme, la raison qui est la reine absolue et qui se trouve inuencรฉe par

de nombreuses opinions et de nombreux prรฉjugรฉs, est sortie du droit chemin

signalรฉ par la nature et a ni par n'en laisser aucune trace claire et visible29 .

18 Plu., Comp. Arist. - Cat. Ma. 4. 2.

19 Les opuscules qui nous sont parvenus oรน Plutarque dรฉveloppe le sujet de la ฯ†ฮนฮปแฝทฮฑ sont au

nombre de trois: de adulatore et amico , de amicorum multitudine et de fraterno amore. ร€ ceux-ci on

pourrait ajouter le ฮ ฯแฝธฯ‚ ฮ’ฮนฮธฯ…ฮฝแฝธฮฝ ฯ€ฮตฯแฝถ ฯ†ฮนฮปแฝทฮฑฯ‚ (Cat. Lampr. nr. 83) et l' แผ˜ฯ€ฮนฯƒฯ„ฮฟฮปแฝด ฯ€ฯแฝธฯ‚ ฮฆฮฑฮฒฯ‰ฯแฟ–ฮฝฮฟฮฝ

ฯ€ฮตฯแฝถ ฯ†ฮนฮปแฝทฮฑฯ‚· แผฮฝ แผ„ฮปฮปแฟณ ฮดแฝฒ ฮ ฮตฯแฝถ ฯ†แฝทฮปฯ‰ฮฝ ฯ‡ฯแฝตฯƒฮตฯ‰ฯ‚ (Cat. Lampr. nr. 132). Cf. Plutarchus, Moralia VII,

Fragmenta 154 -166 Sdb.

20 Plu., Cat. Ma. 5. 2.

21 Plu., Cat. Ma. 5. 2-5.

22 Plu., Cup. div. 524D.

23 Cf. Plu., Dio 7. 5. Voir Plu., Frat. am. 479C (แผ€ฯ†ฮนฮปแฝฑฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€ฮฟฯ‚).

24 Plu., Cup. div. 525C.

25 Plu., Am. prol. 495A ฮบฮฑฯ„ฮทฮณฮฟฯฮฟแฟฆฯƒฮน ฯ„แฟ†ฯ‚ แผ€ฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€ฮฏฮฝฮทฯ‚ ฯ†ฯฯƒฮตฯ‰ฯ‚ ฮผฯŒฮฝฮทฯ‚ ฮผแฝด ฯ€ฯฮฟแฟ–ฮบฮฑ ฯ„แฝธ ฯƒฯ„ฮญฯฮณฮตฮนฮฝ

แผฯ‡ฮฟฯฯƒฮทฯ‚ ฮผฮทฮด' แผฯ€ฮนฯƒฯ„ฮฑฮผฮญฮฝฮทฯ‚ ฯ†ฮนฮปฮตแฟ–ฮฝ แผ„ฮฝฮตฯ… ฯ‡ฯฮตฮฏฮฑฯ‚;

26 Plu., Frat. am. 479D.

27 Plu., Am. prol. 493BC.

28 Sur l'idรฉe que la nature ne fait jamais rien d'inutile (ฯ€ฮฑฮฝฯ„ฮฑฯ‡ฮฟแฟฆ ฮผแฝฒฮฝ ฮณแฝฐฯ แผก ฯ†ฯฯƒฮนฯ‚ แผ€ฮบฯฮนฮฒแฝดฯ‚

ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ†ฮนฮปฯŒฯ„ฮตฯ‡ฮฝฮฟฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ แผ€ฮฝฮตฮปฮปฮนฯ€แฝดฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ แผ€ฯ€ฮญฯฮนฯ€ฯ„ฮฟฯ‚) voir Plu., Am. prol. 495C.

29 Plu., Am. prol. 493DE.

Dรฉjร  ร  l'รฉpoque de Plutarque (ฮบฮฑฮธ ' แผกฮผแพถฯ‚), la pratique de la philia, naturelle et

propre ร  un peuple pour les Anciens30 , รฉtait devenue plus rare que le phรฉnix,

rare comme l'avait รฉtรฉ la haine chez les Anciens (แผฯ€แฝถ ฯ„แฟถฮฝ ฯ€ฮฑฮปฮฑฮนแฟถฮฝ )31 ; de toute

faรงon, comme nous le conrme Lucien dans son dialogue Sur l'amitiรฉ, ce

sentiment รฉtait depuis longtemps bien loin de pouvoir รชtre considรฉrรฉ comme

une exclusivitรฉ de la civilisation grecque, celle-ci รฉtant dรฉsormais uniquement

habile ร  composer des discours sur l'amitiรฉ, mais non plus ร  la mettre en

pratique. Dans le dialogue de Lucien, le scythe Toxaris qui s'adresse ร  son

interlocuteur, le grec Mnรฉsippe, arme :

Valons-nous mieux que les Grecs sous les autres rapports, sommes-nous plus

justes, plus respectueux qu'ils ne le sont envers nos parents ? Je ne prรฉtends

pas entrer en contestation avec toi sur cette question. Toujours est-il que les

Scythes sont, plus que les Grecs, des amis tendres et dรจles, et que l'amitiรฉ est

chez nous plus honorรฉe que chez vous : ce serait un point facile ร  dรฉmontrer

[…] Vous me paraissez capables de faire sur l'amitiรฉ les plus beaux discours du

monde ; mais, loin que vos actions rรฉpondent ร  vos paroles, vous vous contentez

de la louer et de montrer quel grand bien elle est pour les hommes ; puis, au

moment d'agir, traรฎtres ร  votre langage, vous fuyez, je ne sais comment , la mise

en application de vos thรฉories32 .

Ainsi, ร  ses lecteurs qui, comme Caton l'Ancien, ne semblent plus

croire ร  l'existence d'autres rapports que ceux dictรฉs par l'utilitรฉ33 , Plutarque

ne perd aucune occasion de prรฉsenter, comme l'รฉcrit Ziegler34 , des exemples

de bienveillance, de bontรฉ, de philanthrลpia 35 ; cette derniรจre รฉtant une vertu

profondรฉment enracinรฉe dans son caractรจre, une vertu qu'il recommanda lร  oรน

il la rencontra et dont il t preuve personnellement et non seulement ร  l'รฉgard

de ses concitoyens et de toute crรฉature ร  visage humain36 .

30 Pour la ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฑฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€แฝทฮฑ des anciens voir Plu., Quaest. conv. II 643D; Soll. an. 970A; Cim.

10. 6.

31 Plu., Frat. am. 478C, 481F.

32 Luc., XLI 9.

33 Plu., Cat. Ma. 5. 1.

34 K. Z, 1965, p. 367. Cf. J. D R, 1979, p. 293: "la douceur ne semble pas, chez

Plutarque, une notion qu'il auraรฎt reรงue toute faite, en hรฉritage doctrinal, mais plutรดt une valeur

enracinรฉe dans sa personalitรฉ et son caractรจre".

35 Plu., Aem. 28. 1, 39. 9; Ages. 1. 5; Alex. 58. 8; Ant. 3. 10, 25. 3; Arist. 23. 1; Brut. 30. 6 ;

Caes. 34. 7 ; Cat. Mi. 21. 10, 23. 1; 29. 4; Cim. 6. 2, 10. 7; Cleom. 34. 3-4; Crass. 3. 5; Demetr. 4.

1, 17. 1, 50. 1; Fab. 22. 8 ; Comp. Phil. - Flam. 3. 4 ; Galb. 11. 1, 20. 5 ; Luc. 18. 9, 29. 6; Marc. 1.

3, 10. 6, 20. 1 (Marcel est le premier des Romains qui ait fait preuve de ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฑฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€แฝทฮฑ ); Pel. 21.

3; Per. 30. 3; Phoc. 5. 1 ; Publ. 1. 2, 4. 5 ; Pyrrh. 11. 8 ; Sol. 15. 3 ; es. 6. 4, 36. 4. Mais ร  cรดtรฉ

de ceux-ci il ne manque pas dans les Vies de Plutarque des exemples aussi d' แผ€-ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฑฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€แฝทฮฑ et

d'แผ€ฯ€ฮฑฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€แฝทฮฑ : Cat. Ma. 5. 1, 5. 5; Dio 7. 5 ; Nic. 11. 2 ; Sull. 14. 8.

36 Voir Plu., Cat. Ma. 5. 2: "nous ne devons pas traiter les รชtres vivants comme des chassures

ou des ustensiles, qu'on jette quand ils sont abรฎmรฉs ou usรฉs ร  force de servir, car il faut s'habituer

ร  รชtre doux et clรฉment envers eux, sinon pour une autre raison, du moins pour s'exercer ร  la

pratique de la vertu d'humanitรฉ (ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฑฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€แฝทฮฑ)".

267

La notion de philanthrลpia chez Plutarque: contexte social et sources philosophiques

Philanthrลpia37 dans l'acception commune d' "humanitรฉ" ou de

"bienveillance" est un terme qui apparaรฎt pour la premiรจre fois dans le monde

grec dans la premiรจre moitiรฉ du IV e siรจcle av. J.-C. avec les Discours d'Isocrate

et les Dialogues de Platon38 , mรชme si l'adjectif philanthrลpos, qui durant la

pรฉriode classique est l'un des trois termes "les plus couramment employรฉs …

pour dรฉsigner la douceur"39 , est dรฉjร  connu d'Eschyle qui l'utilise dans son

Promรฉthรฉe40 . Comme idรฉal civil, la ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฑฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€แฝทฮฑ entendue comme ฯ†ฮนฮปแฝทฮฑ ฯ€ฯแฝธฯ‚

ฯ€แฝฑฮฝฯ„ฮฑฯ‚ แผ€ฮฝฮธฯแฝฝฯ€ฮฟฯ…ฯ‚41 , ร  laquelle par nature nous sommes liรฉs, car tout homme,

ฯ€ฮฟฮปฮนฯ„ฮนฮบแฝธฮฝ ...ฮถแฟทฮฟฮฝ ... ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮบฮฟฮนฮฝฯ‰ฮฝฮนฮบแฝธฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ†ฮนฮปฯŒฮบฮฑฮปฮฟฮฝ42 , est parent (ฮฟแผฐฮบฮตแฟ–ฮฟฯ‚)

et ami (ฯ†แฝทฮปฮฟฯ‚), semble une crรฉation aristotรฉlicienne et pรฉripatรฉticienne plus

qu'une doctrine crรฉรฉe par les รฉcoles de pensรฉe modernes qui – en limitant la

ฯ†ฮนฮปแฝทฮฑ ou aux sages, comme le stoรฏcisme ancien, ou aux membres du groupe,

comme l'รฉpicurรฉisme – restรจrent fondamentalement รฉtrangรจres ร  cette philia

pour l'homme en tant qu'homme. Aprรจs l'idรฉal cicรฉronien de l'humanitas qui

naรฎt comme terme et comme concept au Ier siรจcle, en tant que plein exercice de

la nature humaine, on assiste au dรฉbut de l'รฉpoque impรฉriale ร  la renaissance

et ร  la diusion du sentiment de ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฑฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€แฝทฮฑ aussi bien chez les Grecs que

chez les Romains comme humanitas de la part d'intellectuels comme Philon,

Sรฉnรจque, ร‰pictรจte et Dion ; avec eux la philanthrลpia ne s'identie plus avec le

plein exercice de la nature humaine, mais elle parvient ร  devenir "expression du

sentiment de la sociabilitรฉ"43 .

Parmi les intellectuels des premiers siรจcles de l'รฉpoque impรฉriale, Plutarque

se rรฉvรจle รชtre l'auteur qui a fait un "usus frequentissimus" de la notion de

philanthrลpia aussi bien dans les ล’uvres Morales que dans les Vies , oรน les

occurrences sont bien plus nombreuses qu'a dรฉnombrรฉes Tromp de Ruiter dans

la premiรจre moitiรฉ du XXe siรจcle dans une รฉtude consacrรฉe au sens et ร  l'emploi

de ce terme44 . Face aux 11 occurrences pour le substantif, 40 pour l'adjectif et

3 pour les formes adverbiales, que le chercheur a relevรฉes dans tout l'opus de

Plutarque (ล’uvres Morales et Vies), la banque de donnรฉes du TLG signale

20 occurrences pour le substantif, 79 pour l'adjectif (dont 18 comme adjectif

substantivรฉ) et 16 pour l'adverbe dans les ล’uvres Morales, tandis que dans

les Vies sont enregistrรฉes 36 occurrences pour le substantif, 96 pour l'adjectif

37 Pour une dรฉnition gรฉnรฉrale de la notion de ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฑฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€แฝทฮฑ voir D.L. III 98 ฮคแฟ†ฯ‚

ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฑฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€ฮฏฮฑฯ‚ แผฯƒฯ„แฝถฮฝ ฮตแผดฮดฮท ฯ„ฯฮฏฮฑ· แผ“ฮฝ ฮผแฝฒฮฝ ฮดฮนแฝฐ ฯ„แฟ†ฯ‚ ฯ€ฯฮฟฯƒฮทฮณฮฟฯฮฏฮฑฯ‚ ฮณฮนฮฝฯŒฮผฮตฮฝฮฟฮฝ, ฮฟแผทฮฟฮฝ แผฮฝ ฮฟแผทฯ‚ ฯ„ฮนฮฝฮตฯ‚ ฯ„แฝธฮฝ

แผฮฝฯ„ฯ…ฯ‡ฯŒฮฝฯ„ฮฑ ฯ€ฮฌฮฝฯ„ฮฑ ฯ€ฯฮฟฯƒฮฑฮณฮฟฯฮตฯฮฟฯ…ฯƒฮน ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ„แฝดฮฝ ฮดฮตฮพฮนแฝฐฮฝ แผฮผฮฒฮฌฮปฮปฮฟฮฝฯ„ฮตฯ‚ ฯ‡ฮฑฮนฯฮตฯ„ฮฏฮถฮฟฯ…ฯƒฮนฮฝ. แผ„ฮปฮปฮฟ ฮตแผถฮดฮฟฯ‚,

แฝ…ฯ„ฮฑฮฝ ฯ„ฮนฯ‚ ฮฒฮฟฮทฮธฮทฯ„ฮนฮบแฝธฯ‚ แพ– ฯ€ฮฑฮฝฯ„แฝถ ฯ„แฟท แผ€ฯ„ฯ…ฯ‡ฮฟแฟฆฮฝฯ„ฮน. แผ•ฯ„ฮตฯฮฟฮฝ ฮตแผถฮดฯŒฯ‚ แผฯƒฯ„ฮน ฯ„แฟ†ฯ‚ ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฑฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€ฮฏฮฑฯ‚ แผฮฝ แพง ฯ„ฮนฮฝฮตฯ‚

ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฟฮดฮตฮนฯ€ฮฝฮนฯƒฯ„ฮฑฮฏ ฮตแผฐฯƒฮน. ฯ„แฟ†ฯ‚ แผ„ฯฮฑ ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฑฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€ฮฏฮฑฯ‚ ฯ„แฝธ ฮผฮญฮฝ แผฯƒฯ„ฮน ฮดฮนแฝฐ ฯ„ฮฟแฟฆ ฯ€ฯฮฟฯƒฮฑฮณฮฟฯฮตฯฮตฮนฮฝ, ฯ„แฝธ ฮดแฝฒ ฮดฮนแฝฐ ฯ„ฮฟแฟฆ

ฮตแฝฮตฯฮณฮตฯ„ฮตแฟ–ฮฝ, ฯ„แฝธ ฮดแฝฒ ฮดฮนแฝฐ ฯ„ฮฟแฟฆ แผ‘ฯƒฯ„ฮนแพถฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฟฯƒฯ…ฮฝฮฟฯ…ฯƒฮนฮฌฮถฮตฮนฮฝ.

38 Pour l'idรฉe platonico-acadรฉmicienne de ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฑฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€แฝทฮฑ voir Pl., [Def.] 412E ฮฆฮนฮปฮฑฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€ฮฏฮฑ

แผ•ฮพฮนฯ‚ ฮตแฝฮฌฮณฯ‰ฮณฮฟฯ‚ แผคฮธฮฟฯ…ฯ‚ ฯ€ฯแฝธฯ‚ แผ€ฮฝฮธฯฯŽฯ€ฮฟฯ… ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฏฮฑฮฝ· แผ•ฮพฮนฯ‚ ฮตแฝฮตฯฮณฮตฯ„ฮนฮบแฝด แผ€ฮฝฮธฯฯŽฯ€ฯ‰ฮฝ· ฯ‡ฮฌฯฮนฯ„ฮฟฯ‚ ฯƒฯ‡ฮญฯƒฮนฯ‚·

ฮผฮฝฮฎฮผฮท ฮผฮตฯ„' ฮตแฝฮตฯฮณฮตฯƒฮฏฮฑฯ‚.

39 J. D R, 1979, p. 328; F. F, 1996, p. 231.

40 A., Pr. 11, 28.

41 Stob., II 120, 20 et 121, 22 W.: แผœฯƒฯ„ฮน ฮดแฝฒ ฮบฮฟฮนฮฝฮฎ ฯ„ฮนฯ‚ แผกฮผแฟ–ฮฝ แฝฯ€แฝฑฯฯ‡ฮตฮน ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฑฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€แฝทฮฑ….

42 Voir Asp., EN, CAG XIX 1, ed. G. H, Berolini 1889, p. 23, 7-8.

43 Voir M. P, 19782, pp. 125, 212.

44 S. T D R, 1932, pp. 297-9.

(dont 22 comme adjectif substantivรฉ) et 33 pour l'adverbe, pour un total de

280 occurrences environ pour les deux ouvrages45 .

La notion de philanthrลpia 46 au sein de l'opus plutarquien reprรฉsente en

gรฉnรฉral une qualitรฉ naturelle ou une aptitude de l'รขme humaine susceptible d'รชtre

รฉduquรฉe et transformรฉe grรขce ร  l'แผฮธฮนฯƒฮผแฝนฯ‚ dans une disposition permanente, au

point de devenir une vertu du caractรจre (แผฆฮธฮฟฯ‚ / habitus). Il s'agit d'un concept

ร  la fois variable et adaptable, selon les circonstances, il se teint des couleurs

des meilleures qualitรฉs du caractรจre47 comme la ฯ‡ฯฮทฯƒฯ„แฝนฯ„ฮทฯ‚, l'แผฮปฮตฯ…ฮธฮตฯฮนแฝนฯ„ฮทฯ‚,

la ฯ€ฯฮฑแฝนฯ„ฮทฯ‚ , l ' แผฯ€ฮนฮตแฝทฮบฮตฮนฮฑ 48 , l 'ฮตแฝฮณฮฝฯ‰ฮผฮฟฯƒแฝปฮฝฮท et la ฮผฮตฮณฮฑฮปฮฟฯ†ฯฮฟฯƒแฝปฮฝฮท 49, vertu que

l'homme est appelรฉ ร  mettre en pratique ne serait-ce que par humanitรฉ50 . Mais

cette qualitรฉ de l'รขme51 , que Romilly a dรฉnie comme une qualitรฉ "de sociabilitรฉ"

52 et Frazier d' "humanitรฉ" 53 se prรฉsente dans les Vies sous un aspect diรฉrent

de celui qu'elle revรชt dans les ล’uvres Morales. Dans les Vies, la philanthrลpia

dรฉsigne surtout une qualitรฉ innรฉe (ฯƒแฝปฮผฯ†ฯ…ฯ„ฮฟฯ‚ vel ฯ†แฝปฯƒฮตฮน) de l'รขme54 et propre

au peuple grec55 en gรฉnรฉral et athรฉnien56 en particulier, tandis que dans les

ล’uvres Morales, elle se prรฉsente le plus souvent comme une vรฉritable vertu

du caractรจre. En eet, dans les Vies, l'adjectif philanthrลpos se circonscrit plus

รฉtroitement ร  la vie de la citรฉ et devient synonyme de แผ‘ฮปฮปฮทฮฝฮนฮบแฝนฯ‚ 57 , ฯ€ฮฟฮปฮนฯ„ฮนฮบแฝนฯ‚ 58 ,

ฮดฮทฮผฮฟฯ„ฮนฮบแฝนฯ‚59 et ฮดฮทฮผฮฟฮบฯฮฑฯ„ฮนฮบแฝนฯ‚60 et philanthrลpia nit par caractรฉriser la vertu du

45 Voir maintenant J.R F, 2008, p. 89 n. 5.

46 S. T D R, 1932, pp. 287, 295, 299 : "apud Plutarchum

ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฑฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€แฝทฮฑ 11 locis invenitur

ฯ†ฮนฮปแฝฑฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€ฮฟฯ‚ 40 " "

adverbialiter 3 " "

... Plutarchi locis allatis satis apparere mihi videtur vocem et notionem philantropiae

admodum orere apud illum auctorem".

47 Voir J. R F, 2008, pp. 78-84.

48 Plu., Nic. 9. 6.

49 Plu., Cap. ex inim. ut. 88C ; Alex. Magn. fort. virt. 336E..

50 Plu., Cat. Ma. 5. 5. Pour la critique de Plutarque ร  la conduite de Caton l'Ancien, qui

poussait la dรฉlitรฉ ร  ses principes d'austรฉritรฉ jusqu'ร  vendre ses esclaves, devenus vieux, pour ne

pas avoir ร  les nourrir sans prot voir supra n.36.

51 On pourrait dรฉnir la philanthrลpia avec les mรชmes mots employรฉs par le Stagirite pour

caractรฉriser dans l'EN (1155a) la philia : แผ€ฯฮตฯ„แฝต ฯ„ฮนฯ‚ แผข ฮผฮตฯ„' แผ€ฯฮตฯ„แฟ†ฯ‚.

52 J. D R, 1979, p. 37.

53 F. F, 1996, p. 231.

54 Voir Plu., Marc. 10. 6 . Mais "une nature gรฉnรฉreuse et bonne, quand elle manque

d'รฉducation, produit pรชle-mรชle des fruits excellents et des fruits dรฉtestables, comme un sol riche

restรฉ sans culture" (Plu., Cor. 1. 3).

55 Plu., Pelop. 6. 5 ; Quaest. conv. II 643D.

56 Plu., Arist. 27.7 ; Cim. 10. 6-7 (ฯ„แฝดฮฝ ฯ€ฮฑฮปฮฑฮนแฝฐฮฝ ฯ„แฟถฮฝ แผˆฮธฮทฮฝฮฑฮฏฯ‰ฮฝ ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฟฮพฮตฮฝฮฏฮฑฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฑฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€ฮฏฮฑฮฝ);

Demetr. 22. 2 ; Pel. 6. 5 (ฮฟแผฑ ฮผแฝฒฮฝ ฮฟแฝ–ฮฝ แผˆฮธฮทฮฝฮฑแฟ–ฮฟฮน, ฯ€ฯแฝธฯ‚ ฯ„แฟท ฯ€ฮฌฯ„ฯฮนฮฟฮฝ ฮฑแฝฯ„ฮฟแฟ–ฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯƒฯฮผฯ†ฯ…ฯ„ฮฟฮฝ ฮตแผถฮฝฮฑฮน ฯ„แฝธ

ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฌฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€ฮฟฮฝ...); Soll. an. 970A : ฯ„แฝธ ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฑฮฝฮธฯแฝฝฯ€ฮตฯ…ฮผฮฑ ฯ„แฟถฮฝ ฯ€ฮฑฮปฮฑฮนแฟถฮฝ แผˆฮธฮทฮฝฮฑฮฏฯ‰ฮฝ).

57 Plu., Phil. 8. 2 (แผ™ฮปฮปฮทฮฝฮนฮบแฝดฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฌฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€ฮฟฮฝ ฯ€ฮฟฮปฮนฯ„ฮตฮฏฮฑฮฝ); Lys. 27. 7 (แผ™ฮปฮปฮทฮฝฮนฮบแฝฐ ฮบฮฑแฝถ

ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฌฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€ฮฑ).

58 Plu., Demetr. 1. 5 (ฮฟแฝ ฯ€ฮฌฮฝฯ… ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฌฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€ฮฟฮฝ ฮฟแฝฮดแฝฒ ฯ€ฮฟฮปฮนฯ„ฮนฮบฮฎฮฝ...).

59 Plu., Ages. 1. 5; Crass. 3. 5; Galb. 11. 1; Oth. 1. 3.

60 Plu., Comp. Cim.-Luc. 1, 6; Nic. 11, 2; Agis et Cleom. 34. 3.

269

La notion de philanthrลpia chez Plutarque: contexte social et sources philosophiques

citoyen grec (แผ€ฯฮตฯ„แฝด ฯ€ฮฟฮปฮนฯ„ฮนฮบแฝต )61 – tout comme la ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฟฮฝฮนฮบแฝทฮฑ caractรฉrise la vertu

militaire (แผ€ฯฮตฯ„แฝด ฯƒฯ„ฯฮฑฯ„ฮนฯ‰ฯ„ฮนฮบแฝต) des Romains62 – au point d'รชtre insรฉparable de

la notion de civilisation hellรฉnique63 . Cependant, dans les ล’uvres Morales la

philanthrลpia, considรฉrรฉe comme รฉtant ฯ†ฮนฮปแฝทฮฑ pour l'homme en tant qu'homme

(แผ„ฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€ฮฟฮฝ แผ€ฯƒฯ€ฮฌฮถฮตฯ„ฮฑฮน, ฮบฮฑฮธ' แฝƒ แผ„ฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€ฯŒฯ‚ แผฯƒฯ„ฮน ), comme l'arme le De sollertia

animalium64 , et assimilรฉe ร  la ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฟฮบฮฑฮปแฝทฮฑ 65, se rรฉvรจle รชtre une vertu divine ou

presque66 . Se modelant sur la perfection et sur l'amour que la divinitรฉ nourrit

pour les hommes (ฯ€ฯแฝธฯ‚ ฯ„แฝธ ฮบฮฑฮปแฝธฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฌฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€ฮฟฮฝ ) 67 , elle s'explique dans

l'ฮตแฝฮตฯฮณฮตฯ„ฮตแฟ–ฮฝ, dans l'ฮตแฝ– ฯ€ฮฟฮนฮตแฟ–ฮฝ et dans le ฮบฮฑฮปแฝนฮฝ ฯ„ฮน ฯ€ฯแฝฑฯ„ฯ„ฮตฮนฮฝ 68 .

Convaincu de l'importance sociale et politique que revรชt une telle vertu69 ,

tournรฉe vers l'extรฉrieur au point d'embrasser l'humanitรฉ entiรจre70 mais qui exige

ร  son intรฉrieur une รฉducation et une formation morale correcte, l'intellectuel de

Chรฉronรฉe ne perd pas une occasion de recommander comme seule ฮดฮนฮดฮฑฯƒฮบฮฑฮปแฝทฮฑ71 ,

l'exercice (ฮผฮตฮปแฝณฯ„ฮท) qui permet ร  la philanthrลpia de vertu naturelle qu'elle est ร 

s'รฉlever au niveau de la sphรจre morale72 par le biais de l'แผ”ฮธฮฟฯ‚ (vel แผฮธฮนฯƒฮผแฝนฯ‚ ) 73 ou

de la ฯƒฯ…ฮฝแฝตฮธฮตฮนฮฑ74 de ces qui sont les premiers liens humains que les hommes ont

61 Plu., Arist. 27. 7.

62 Cf. Plu., Phil. 3. 1; Marc. 20. 1.

63 Voir l'analisi di H. M. M J., 1961, p.167: "ese threee concepts – philantrลpia ,

civilization, Hellenism – seem almost inseparabile for Plutarch". Cf. D. D C, 1982, p.

15. 64 Plu., Soll. an. 984C แผ”ฮฟฮนฮบฮต ฯ„แฝธ ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฌฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€ฮฟฮฝ ... ฮธฮตฮฟฯ†ฮนฮปแฝฒฯ‚ ฮตแผถฮฝฮฑฮน. ร€ propos de la dรฉnition

de ฯ†ฮนฮปแฝฑฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€ฮฟฯ‚ voir Plu., [Cons. ad Apoll.] 120A ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฟฯ€ฮฌฯ„ฯ‰ฯ ... ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฟฮผฮฎฯ„ฯ‰ฯ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฟฮฏฮบฮตฮนฮฟฯ‚

ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ†ฮนฮปฯŒฯ†ฮนฮปฮฟฯ‚, ฯ„แฝธ ฮดแฝฒ ฯƒฯฮผฯ€ฮฑฮฝ ฮตแผฐฯ€ฮตแฟ–ฮฝ ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฌฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€ฮฟฯ‚.

65 ร€ propos de la ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฟฮบฮฑฮปแฝทฮฑ dans les textes de Plutarque voir Amat. 767A (ฯ†ฮนฮปแฝนฮบฮฑฮปฮฟฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ

ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฌฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€ฮฟฯ‚); Cum princ. philos. 776B (ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฟฮบแฝฑฮปฯ‰ฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฑฮฝฮธฯแฝฝฯ€ฯ‰ฮฝ); An seni resp. 783E (ฯ„แฝธ

ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฌฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€ฮฟฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ†ฮนฮปแฝนฮบฮฑฮปฮฟฮฝ), 791C (ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฟฮบแฝฑฮปฯ‰ฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฑฮฝฮธฯแฝฝฯ€ฯ‰ฯ‚ ฮถแฟ†ฮฝ); Ad princ. ind. 781A

(ฯ„แฝธ ฮบฮฑฮปแฝธฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฌฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€ฮฟฮฝ ). ร€ propos de la ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฑฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€แฝทฮฑ et de la ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฟฮบฮฑฮปแฝทฮฑ en tant que

subordonnรฉes ร  l'แผ€ฯฮตฯ„แฝต vd. [Arist.], VV. 1251b 33-36 (voir n. 92).

66 Cf. Pl., Lg. 713D: ...แฝ ฮธฮตแฝธฯ‚ ฯ†ฮนฮปแฝฑฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€ฮฟฯ‚ แฝคฮฝ. ร€ propos de la vertu, qui est le bien le plus

grand et le plus agrรฉable voir Plu., Sol. 7. 2. ร€ propos de la vertu comme le seul bien divin ร  la

disposition de l'homme voir Plu., Arist. 6. 3-6 ฯ„แฝดฮฝ แผ€ฯฮตฯ„ฮฎฮฝ, แฝƒ ฮผฯŒฮฝฮฟฮฝ แผฯƒฯ„แฝถ ฯ„แฟถฮฝ ฮธฮตฮฏฯ‰ฮฝ แผ€ฮณฮฑฮธแฟถฮฝ แผฯ†'

แผกฮผแฟ–ฮฝ.

67 Plu., Ad princ. ind. 781A ; An seni resp. 786C.

68 Vd. Plu., Pyth. orac. 402A (ฯ„แฝธฮฝ ฮธฮตแฝธฮฝ แฝกฯ‚ ฮบฮฑฯฯ€แฟถฮฝ ฮดฮฟฯ„แฟ†ฯฮฑ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ€ฮฑฯ„ฯแฟทฮฟฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮณฮตฮฝฮญฯƒฮนฮฟฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ

ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฌฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€ฮฟฮฝ); Gen. Socr. 593A (ฯ„แฝธฮฝ ฮธฮตแฝธฮฝ ฮฟแฝ ฯ†ฮฏฮปฮฟฯฮฝฮนฮฝ แผ€ฮปฮปแฝฐ ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฌฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€ฮฟฮฝ ); Amat. 758A; An

seni resp. 786B ; Stoic. rep. 1051E, 1052B.

69 Voir Plu., An seni resp. 791C ฮปฮตฮนฯ„ฮฟฯ…ฯฮณฮฏฮฑ ฮณแฝฐฯ ฮฟแฝฮบ แผ”ฯƒฯ„ฮนฮฝ แผก ฯ€ฮฟฮปฮนฯ„ฮตฮฏฮฑ ..., แผ€ฮปฮปแฝฐ ฮฒฮฏฮฟฯ‚ แผกฮผฮญฯฮฟฯ… ฮบฮฑแฝถ

ฮบฮฟฮนฮฝฯ‰ฮฝฮนฮบฮฟแฟฆ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ€ฮฟฮปฮนฯ„ฮนฮบฮฟแฟฆ ฮถแฟดฮฟฯ… ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ€ฮตฯ†ฯ…ฮบฯŒฯ„ฮฟฯ‚ ... ฯ€ฮฟฮปฮนฯ„ฮนฮบแฟถฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฟฮบฮฌฮปฯ‰ฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฑฮฝฮธฯฯŽฯ€ฯ‰ฯ‚

ฮถแฟ†ฮฝ.

70 Voir F. F, 1996, p. 233: "la philanthrรดpia , dรจle ร  son รฉtymologie, est tournรฉe vers

l'extรฉrieur et se dilate jusqu'ร  embrasser l'humanitรฉ entiรจre".

71 Plu., Quaest. conv. VII 703B : ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฑฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€ฮฏฮฑฯ‚ ฮดฮนฮดฮฑฯƒฮบฮฑฮปฮฏฮฑ ฯ„แฝธ แผ”ฮธฮฟฯ‚ แผฯƒฯ„ฮฏฮฝ.

72 Plu., Per. 1. 1; Virt. mor. 451E; Frat. am.482B.

73 Plu., Quaest. conv. VII 703B ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฑฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€ฮฏฮฑฯ‚ ฮดฮนฮดฮฑฯƒฮบฮฑฮปฮฏฮฑ ฯ„แฝธ แผ”ฮธฮฟฯ‚ แผฯƒฯ„ฮฏฮฝ. Je crois qu'on

pourrait รฉtendre ร  la ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฑฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€ฮฏฮฑ ce qu'รฉcrit Plutarque ร  propos de la ฯ†ฮนฮปแฝทฮฑ ( Quaest. conv. IV

660A), c'est ร  dire qu'elle est แผฮฝ ฯ€ฮฟฮปฮปแฟท ฯ‡ฯฯŒฮฝแฟณ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮดฮน' แผ€ฯฮตฯ„แฟ†ฯ‚ แผฮปฯŽฯƒฮนฮผฮฟฮฝ.

74 Plu., Soll. anim. 960A (แผก ฮณแฝฐฯ ฯƒฯ…ฮฝฮฎฮธฮตฮนฮฑ ฮดฮตฮนฮฝแฝด ฯ„ฮฟแฟ–ฯ‚ ฮบฮฑฯ„แฝฐ ฮผฮนฮบฯแฝธฮฝ แผฮฝฮฟฮนฮบฮตฮนฮฟฯ…ฮผฮญฮฝฮฟฮนฯ‚ ฯ€ฮฌฮธฮตฯƒฮน

ฯ€ฯŒฯฯฯ‰ ฯ€ฯฮฟฮฑฮณฮฑฮณฮตแฟ–ฮฝ ฯ„แฝธฮฝ แผ„ฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€ฮฟฮฝ); Es. carn. I 996A (แฝ ฯ€ฯแฝธฯ‚ ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฑฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€ฮฏฮฑฮฝ แผฮธฮนฯƒฮผแฝธฯ‚ ฮฟแฝ ฮดฮฟฮบฮตแฟ–

ฮธฮฑฯ…ฮผฮฑฯƒฯ„แฝธฮฝ ฮตแผถฮฝฮฑฮน); Cat. Ma. 5. 5 (ฮผฮตฮปฮญฯ„ฮทฯ‚ แผ•ฮฝฮตฮบฮฑ ฯ„ฮฟแฟฆ ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฑฮฝฮธฯแฝฝฯ€ฮฟฯ…). Sur l'importance de la

entre eux (ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฑฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€ฯŒฯ„ฮฑฯ„ฮฑ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ€ฯแฟถฯ„ฮฑ ฮบฮฟฮนฮฝฯ‰ฮฝฮฎฮผฮฑฯ„ฮฑ ฯ€ฯแฝธฯ‚ แผ€ฮปฮปฮฎฮปฮฟฯ…ฯ‚)75 . Pour

รฉtablir ces liens le banquet est un lieu privilรฉgiรฉ76 : son but est moins de boire et

de jouir que de faire naรฎtre l'amitiรฉ et l'aection rรฉciproque (ฮผแฝด ฯ€ฯแฝธฯ‚ ฯ„แฝธ ฯ€ฮฏฮฝฮตฮนฮฝ

ฮบฮฑแฝถ แผกฮดฯ…ฯ€ฮฑฮธฮตแฟ–ฮฝ แผ€ฮปฮปแฝฐ ฯ€ฯแฝธฯ‚ ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฏฮฑฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ แผ€ฮณฮฌฯ€ฮทฯƒฮนฮฝ แผ€ฮปฮปฮฎฮปฯ‰ฮฝ ฯ€ฯฮฟฯ„ฯฮญฯ€ฮตฯ„ฮฑฮน)77 . En

eet, dans le Septem sapientium convivium 78 Plutarque arme que l'homme

judicieux (แฝ ฮฝฮฟแฟฆฮฝ แผ”ฯ‡ฯ‰ฮฝ) ne prend pas part ร  un banquet en se prรฉsentant

comme un vase ร  remplir, mais pour trouver du plaisir ร  la conversation et dans

le premier livre des Quaestiones convivales, il souligne le caractรจre รฉlitiste et

culturel du banquet, qui doit se tenir dans un climat de sobriรฉtรฉ et de retenue,

d'รฉquilibre et de mesure, en prรฉcisant รฉgalement l'objectif (ฯ„แฝธ ฯƒฯ…ฮผฯ€ฮฟฯ„ฮนฮบแฝธฮฝ

ฯ„แฝณฮปฮฟฯ‚) que l'on se propose d'atteindre. Comme activitรฉ (ฮดฮนฮฑฮณฯ‰ฮณแฝต) qui aboutit ร 

l'amitiรฉ (ฮตแผฐฯ‚ ฯ†ฮนฮปแฝทฮฑฮฝ ฯ„ฮตฮปฮตฯ…ฯ„แฟถฯƒฮฑ ) 79 grรขce au plaisir (ฮดฮน' แผกฮดฮฟฮฝแฟ†ฯ‚ ... แฝฯ€แฝธ ฯ‡แฝฑฯฮนฯ„ฮฟฯ‚)80

le banquet vise ร  entraรฎner une amรฉlioration du caractรจre81 et ร  consolider ou ร 

engendrer chez les participants la philia ( ฮตแผฐฯ‚ ฮดแฝฒ ฯƒฯ…ฮผฯ€ฯŒฯƒฮนฮฟฮฝ ฮฟแผต ฮณฮต ฮฝฮฟแฟฆฮฝ แผ”ฯ‡ฮฟฮฝฯ„ฮตฯ‚

แผ€ฯ†ฮนฮบฮฝฮฟแฟฆฮฝฯ„ฮฑฮน ฮบฯ„ฮทฯƒฯŒฮผฮตฮฝฮฟฮน ฯ†ฮฏฮปฮฟฯ…ฯ‚)82 . En eet, si le vin83, tel un feu, adoucit les

caractรจres et ore l'occasion d' รฉtablir des relations rรฉciproques d'amitiรฉ84 , c'est

cependant le ฮปแฝนฮณฮฟฯ‚ qui, grรขce ร  l'รฉducation des caractรจres (ฯ„แฝธ ฯ€ฮฑฮนฮดฮตแฝปฮตฮนฮฝ ฯ„แฝฐ แผคฮธฮท)

ฯƒฯ…ฮฝฮฎฮธฮตฮนฮฑ, qui est chose trรจs grande, voir Plu., Aud. 37F, 47 BC; Prof. virt. 79D; Tuend. san.

123C; Virt. mor. 443C; Coh. ira 459B; Garr. 511E (ฮผแฝณฮณฮฑ ฯ€ฯแฝธฯ‚ ฯ€แฝฑฮฝฯ„ฮฑ แฝ แผฮธฮนฯƒฮผแฝนฯ‚); Curios. 520D

(ฮผฮญฮณฮนฯƒฯ„ฮฟฮฝ ... ฯ€ฯแฝธฯ‚ ฯ„แฝดฮฝ ฯ„ฮฟแฟฆ ฯ€ฮฌฮธฮฟฯ…ฯ‚ แผ€ฯ€ฮฟฯ„ฯฮฟฯ€แฝดฮฝ แฝ แผฮธฮนฯƒฮผฯŒฯ‚); Gen. Socr. 584E; Quaest. conv. V 682C;

Soll. an. 959F. Plutarque toutefois ne surestime pas l'importance de la doctrine des Stoรฏciens

pour la prรฉfรฉrer au ฮปแฝนฮณฮฟฯ‚. Cf. Plu., Tranq. an. 466F-467A (ฮฟแฝ ฮณแฝฐฯ แผก ฯƒฯ…ฮฝฮฎฮธฮตฮนฮฑ ฯ€ฮฟฮนฮตแฟ– ... ฯ„แฝธฮฝ

แผ„ฯฮนฯƒฯ„ฮฟฮฝ ฮฒฮฏฮฟฮฝ แผกฮดแฝบฮฝ ..., แผ€ฮปฮปแฝฐ ฯ„แฝธ ฯ†ฯฮฟฮฝฮตแฟ–ฮฝ); Garr. 510CD; Exil. 602C.

75 Plu., Sept. sap. conv. 158C.

76 Sur le banquet dans son acception premiรจre de 'rรฉunion conviviale' qui suit le banquet

proprement dit et ร  propos du banquet comme l'un des รฉvรฉnements les plus singuliers de la

civilisation grecque, cf. M. M, 1989, pp. 94-5; P, 1998, p. 14 sqq.

77 Plu., Sept. sap. conv. 148AB; Quaest. conv. IV 660B (voir n. 86).

78 Plu., Sept. sap. conv. 147E oแฝ ฮณแฝฐฯ แฝกฯ‚ แผ€ฮณฮณฮตแฟ–ฮฟฮฝ แผฅฮบฮตฮน ฮบฮฟฮผฮฏฮถฯ‰ฮฝ แผ‘ฮฑฯ…ฯ„แฝธฮฝ แผฮผฯ€ฮปแฟ†ฯƒฮฑฮน ฯ€ฯแฝธฯ‚ ฯ„แฝธ

ฮดฮตแฟ–ฯ€ฮฝฮฟฮฝ แฝ ฮฝฮฟแฟฆฮฝ แผ”ฯ‡ฯ‰ฮฝ, แผ€ฮปฮปแฝฐ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯƒฯ€ฮฟฯ…ฮดฮฌฯƒฮฑฮน ฯ„ฮน ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ€ฮฑแฟ–ฮพฮฑฮน ฮบฮฑแฝถ แผ€ฮบฮฟแฟฆฯƒฮฑฮน ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮตแผฐฯ€ฮตแฟ–ฮฝ แฝงฮฝ แฝ ฮบฮฑฮนฯแฝธฯ‚

ฯ€ฮฑฯฮฑฮบฮฑฮปฮตแฟ– ฯ„ฮฟแฝบฯ‚ ฯƒฯ…ฮฝฯŒฮฝฯ„ฮฑฯ‚, ฮตแผฐ ฮผฮญฮปฮปฮฟฯ…ฯƒฮน ฮผฮตฯ„' แผ€ฮปฮปฮฎฮปฯ‰ฮฝ แผกฮดฮญฯ‰ฯ‚ แผ”ฯƒฮตฯƒฮธฮฑฮน.

79 Plu., Cat. Ma. 25. 4 ฯ„แฝดฮฝ ฮดแฝฒ ฯ„ฯฮฌฯ€ฮตฮถฮฑฮฝ แผฮฝ ฯ„ฮฟแฟ–ฯ‚ ฮผฮฌฮปฮนฯƒฯ„ฮฑ ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฟฯ€ฮฟฮนแฝธฮฝ แผกฮณฮตแฟ–ฯ„ฮฟ. Cf. Plu., Quaest.

conv. II 632E.

80 Plu., Quaest. conv. I 621C. Sur le rรดle que joue la table pour faire naรฎtre la philanthropie

voir Plu., quaest. conv. I 612D (ฯ„แฟท ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฟฯ€ฮฟฮนแฟท ฮปฮตฮณฮฟฮผฮญฮฝแฟณ ฯ„แฟ†ฯ‚ ฯ„ฯฮฑฯ€ฮญฮถฮทฯ‚), 618E, II 632E, IV 660A.

Sur la ฯ†ฮนฮปแฝฑฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€ฮฟฯ‚ ฯ„ฯแฝฑฯ€ฮตฮถฮฑ voir aussi Plu., Cons. ad uxor. 610A.

81 Plu., Quaest. conv. IV 660B, VII 712B: ฮณฮฝฯ‰ฮผฮฟฮปฮฟฮณฮฏฮฑฮน ฯ„ฮต ฯ‡ฯฮทฯƒฯ„ฮฑแฝถ ฮบฮฑแฝถ แผ€ฯ†ฮตฮปฮตแฟ–ฯ‚ แฝ‘ฯ€ฮฟฯฯฮญฮฟฯ…ฯƒฮฑฮน

ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ„แฝฐ ฯƒฮบฮปฮทฯฯŒฯ„ฮฑฯ„ฮฑ ฯ„แฟถฮฝ แผ ฮธแฟถฮฝ แฝฅฯƒฯ€ฮตฯ แผฮฝ ฯ€ฯ…ฯแฝถ ฯ„แฟท ฮฟแผดฮฝแฟณ ฮผฮฑฮปฮฌฯ„ฯ„ฮฟฯ…ฯƒฮน ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮบฮฌฮผฯ€ฯ„ฮฟฯ…ฯƒฮน ฯ€ฯแฝธฯ‚ ฯ„แฝธ

แผฯ€ฮนฮตฮนฮบฮญฯƒฯ„ฮตฯฮฟฮฝ.

82 Plu., Quaest. conv. IV 660A, I 621C (ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฏฮฑฯ‚ แผฯ€ฮฏฯ„ฮฑฯƒฮนฮฝ แผข ฮณฮญฮฝฮตฯƒฮนฮฝ ฮดฮน' แผกฮดฮฟฮฝแฟ†ฯ‚ แผฮฝฮตฯฮณฮฌฯƒฮฑฯƒฮธฮฑฮน

ฯ„ฮฟแฟ–ฯ‚ ฯ€ฮฑฯฮฟแฟฆฯƒฮนฮฝ). Sur la capacitรฉ qu'a le banquet de consolider de vieilles amitiรฉs et d'en crรฉer de

nouvelles cf. Plu., Quaest. conv. I 610 AB, 618E (ฯ€ฯแฝธฯ‚ ฮตแฝฮฝฮฟฮฏฮฑฯ‚ แผฯ€ฮฏฮดฮฟฯƒฮนฮฝ แผข ฮณฮญฮฝฮตฯƒฮนฮฝ), II 643E, IV

660B, 672E.

83 Sur le vin comme ฯ€ฮฟฯ„แฟถฮฝ แฝ ฯ†ฮตฮปฮนฮผฯŽฯ„ฮฑฯ„ฮฟฮฝ ... ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ†ฮฑฯฮผฮฌฮบฯ‰ฮฝ แผฅฮดฮนฯƒฯ„ฮฟฮฝ vd. Plu., Tuend. san.

132B; Quaest. conv. III 647A, 655E.

84 Plu., Sept. sap. conv. 156D (แฝ ฮ”ฮนฯŒฮฝฯ…ฯƒฮฟฯ‚ แฝฅฯƒฯ€ฮตฯ แผฮฝ ฯ€ฯ…ฯแฝถ ฯ„แฟท ฮฟแผดฮฝแฟณ ฮผฮฑฮปฮฌฯƒฯƒฯ‰ฮฝ ฯ„แฝฐ แผคฮธฮท ฮบฮฑแฝถ

แผ€ฮฝฯ…ฮณฯฮฑฮฏฮฝฯ‰ฮฝ แผ€ฯฯ‡ฮฎฮฝ ฯ„ฮนฮฝฮฑ ฯƒฯ…ฮณฮบฯฮฌฯƒฮตฯ‰ฯ‚ ฯ€ฯแฝธฯ‚ แผ€ฮปฮปฮฎฮปฮฟฯ…ฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฏฮฑฯ‚ แผฮฝฮดฮฏฮดฯ‰ฯƒฮนฮฝ) ; Quaest. conv. I

620DE (แฝ ฮณแฝฐฯ ฮฟแผถฮฝฮฟฯ‚ แผ„ฮพฮตฮน ฯ„แฝธ แผฆฮธฮฟฯ‚ ฮตแผฐฯ‚ ฯ„แฝธ ฮผฮญฯ„ฯฮนฮฟฮฝ ฮผฮฑฮปฮฑฮบฯŽฯ„ฮตฯฮฟฮฝ ฯ€ฮฟฮนแฟถฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ แผ€ฮฝฯ…ฮณฯฮฑฮฏฮฝฯ‰ฮฝ), IV

660B (ฯ„ฮฑแฟ–ฯ‚ ฮดแฝฒ ฯ†ฮนฮปฮนฮบฮฑแฟ–ฯ‚ ฮปฮฑฮฒฮฑแฟ–ฯ‚ แฝ ฮฟแผถฮฝฮฟฯ‚ แผฯ†แฝดฮฝ แผฮฝฮดฮฏฮดฯ‰ฯƒฮน), VII 712B. Cfr. Athen., V 185C: ฮดฮฟฮบฮตแฟ–

ฮณแฝฐฯ แผ”ฯ‡ฮตฮนฮฝ ฯ€ฯแฝธฯ‚ ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฏฮฑฮฝ ฯ„ฮน แฝ ฮฟแผถฮฝฮฟฯ‚ แผ‘ฮปฮบฯ…ฯƒฯ„ฮนฮบฯŒฮฝ.

271

La notion de philanthrลpia chez Plutarque: contexte social et sources philosophiques

et ร  la modรฉration des passions (ฯ€ฮฑฯฮทฮณฮฟฯฮตแฟ–ฮฝ ฯ„แฝฐ ฯ€แฝฑฮธฮท) engendre ce sentiment

d'aection qui nous lie l'un ร  l'autre (ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฟฯ†ฯฮฟฯƒฯฮฝฮทฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ... ฯƒฯ…ฮฝฮฎฮธฮตฮนฮฑฮฝ ฯ€ฯแฝธฯ‚

แผ€ฮปฮปฮฎฮปฮฟฯ…ฯ‚)85 , c'est-ร -dire la philanthrลpia 86. Celle-ci, tout comme le bien (ฯ„แฝธ

ฮบฮฑฮปแฝนฮฝ)87 , attire ร  soi de maniรจre active (ฯ€ฯฮฑฮบฯ„ฮนฮบแฟถฯ‚), elle pousse tout de suite ร 

l'action et, surtout, elle est capable de faรงonner le caractรจre (แผ ฮธฮฟฯ€ฮฟฮนฮฟแฟฆฮฝ )88 .

Dรฉterminer, ร  la lumiรจre de ce que nous avons รฉvoquรฉ, les sources

philosophiques de la doctrine plutarquienne de la philanthrลpia se rรฉvรจle une

entreprise assez dicile et encore moins sรปre, car la reprise de cet idรฉal, comme

nous l'avons vu, est – semble-t-il – moins le fruit d'une thรฉorie รฉlaborรฉe dans le

cadre d'une รฉcole de pensรฉe spรฉcique, que la rรฉponse personnelle et subjective

ร  des exigences sociales qui, ร  cette รฉpoque-lร , รฉtaient en train de s'enraciner

dans la conscience populaire89 . Ayant exclu l'inuence des รฉcoles de pensรฉe

modernes, la notion de philanthropie comme ฯ†ฮนฮปแฝทฮฑ ฯ€ฯแฝธฯ‚ ฯ€แฝฑฮฝฯ„ฮฑฯ‚ แผ€ฮฝฮธฯแฝฝฯ€ฮฟฯ…ฯ‚90 ,

dont le but est avant tout d'ฮตแฝฮตฯฮณฮตฯ„ฮตแฟ–ฮฝ, liรฉe ร  des vertus comme l'แผฮปฮตฯ…ฮธฮตฯฮนแฝนฯ„ฮทฯ‚,

la ฯ‡ฯฮทฯƒฯ„แฝนฯ„ฮทฯ‚ , l' แผฯ€ฮนฮตแฝทฮบฮตฮนฮฑ et l'ฮตแฝฮณฮฝฯ‰ฮผฮฟฯƒแฝปฮฝฮท, et assimilรฉe ร  la ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฟฯ†ฮนฮปแฝทฮฑ, ร  la

ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฟฮพฮตฮฝแฝทฮฑ et notamment ร  la ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฟฮบฮฑฮปแฝทฮฑ se rรฉvรจle une thรฉorie qui trouve

ses prรฉmisses dans l'EN d'Aristote (ฮฟแผฐฮบฮตแฟ–ฮฟฮฝ แผ…ฯ€ฮฑฯ‚ แผ„ฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€ฮฟฯ‚ แผ€ฮฝฮธฯฯŽฯ€แฟณ ฮบฮฑแฝถ

ฯ†ฮฏฮปฮฟฮฝ...)91 - mรชme si le Stagirite a recours ร  ce terme une fois seulement – et

trouve correspondance dans un texte pseudo-aristotรฉlicien, le De virtutibus et

vitiis92 aussi bien que dans la doctrine thรฉophrastienne de l' ฮฟแผฐฮบฮตฮนแฝนฯ„ฮทฯ‚ 93, qui est

diรฉrente de la doctrine stoรฏcienne de l' ฮฟแผฐฮบฮตแฝทฯ‰ฯƒฮนฯ‚ 94 .

De tout faรงon ce que l'analyse des textes plutarquiens fait apparaรฎtre de

maniรจre trรจs claire, c'est la conance d'un รฉducateur qui, en conit contre

les รฉcoles de pensรฉe modernes, croit encore ร  l'existence d'autres rapports

interpersonnels, sous-tendus par une grandeur d'รขme et non pas dictรฉs par

85 Plu., Sept. sap. conv. 156CD.

86 Plu., Quaest. conv. IV 660B (ฯ„แฝธ ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฌฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€ฮฟฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ แผ ฮธฮฟฯ€ฮฟฮนแฝธฮฝ แผฯ€แฝถ ฯ„แฝดฮฝ ฯˆฯ…ฯ‡แฝดฮฝ แผฮบ ฯ„ฮฟแฟฆ ฯƒฯŽฮผฮฑฯ„ฮฟฯ‚

แผฯ€ฮฟฯ‡ฮตฯ„ฮตฯฮตฮน ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯƒฯ…ฮฝฮดฮนฮฑฮดฮฏฮดฯ‰ฯƒฮนฮฝ). Vd. S.-T. T, 1990, p. 16: "e thought expressed in

this sentence is curious indeed: ‛Conversation channels and distributes by means of the wine its

kindliness and characterforming inuence from the body into the soul.' e assertion that wine

has a character-forming action is curious, stille more that this is produced in the body and must

be transported into the soul to be eective".

87 Plu., Ad princ. ind. 781A ฯ„แฝธ ฮบฮฑฮปแฝธฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ†ฮนฮปแฝฑฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€ฮฟฮฝ.

88 Plu., Per. 2. 4 ฯ„แฝธ ฮณแฝฐฯ ฮบฮฑฮปแฝธฮฝ แผฯ†' ฮฑแฝ‘ฯ„แฝธ ฯ€ฯฮฑฮบฯ„ฮนฮบแฟถฯ‚ ฮบฮนฮฝฮตแฟ– ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ€ฯฮฑฮบฯ„ฮนฮบแฝดฮฝ ฮตแฝฮธแฝบฯ‚ แฝฯฮผแฝดฮฝ

แผฮฝฯ„ฮฏฮธฮทฯƒฮนฮฝ, แผ ฮธฮฟฯ€ฮฟฮนฮฟแฟฆฮฝ. Cf. Plu., Quaest. conv. IV 660B.

89 Cf. J. D R, 1979, p. 293.

90 Stob., II 120, 20; 121, 22.

91 Arist., EN 1155a 20 -22.

92 [Arist.], VV. 1250b 33 (ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฑฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€แฝทฮฑ แผ€ฮบฮฟฮปฮฟฯ…ฮธฮตแฟ– ฯ„แฟ‡ แผฮปฮตฯ…ฮธฮตฯฮนแฝนฯ„ฮทฯ„ฮน), 1251b 33-36

(แผ€ฮบฮฟฮปฮฟฯ…ฮธฮตแฟ– ฮดแฝฒ ฯ„แฟ‡ แผ€ฯฮตฯ„แฟ‡ ฯ†ฮนฮปแฝฑฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€ฮฟฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ†ฮนฮปแฝนฮบฮฑฮปฮฟฮฝ).

93 phr., Frr. L 91, L 195-196 Fortenbaugh. Que Plutarque se soit inspirรฉ de la doctrine

de l'ฮฟแผฐฮบฮตฮนแฝนฯ„ฮทฯ‚ ฯ€ฯแฝธฯ‚ ฯ„ฮฟแฝบฯ‚ แผ€ฮฝฮธฯแฝฝฯ€ฮฟฯ…ฯ‚ du chef de l'รฉcole pรฉripatรฉticienne, รฉophraste, est une

hypothรจse qui est conrmรฉe, semble-t-il, aussi dans le deuxiรจme logos du De esu carnium. Voir G.

S, 1999, p. 75: "Teofrasto fonda la communio iuris, il patto giuridico tra uomo e animale,

sul concetto di ฮฟแผฐฮบฮตแฟ–ฮฟฮฝ, su un legame originario che lega tra loro i viventi". Voir Plu., Frat. am.

428B et 490E = phr., Frr. L 96 et L 98 Fortenbaugh.

94 Sur la doctrine de l'ฮฟแผฐฮบฮตแฝทฯ‰ฯƒฮนฯ‚ et de l'ฮฟแผฐฮบฮตฮนแฝนฯ„ฮทฯ‚ voir F. D, 1937, pp. 1-100 ; C. O.

B, 1955; S. G. P, 1971; P. M, 1973, p. 348; G. S, 1983.

la justice ou par l'utilitรฉ, convaincu que bien vivre signie aussi vivre avec un

sentiment d'amitiรฉ et de communautรฉ avec les autres95 .

bi b l i o g r a p h i e

B-M, V.  ., La science mรฉdicale antique. Nouveaux regards.

ร‰tudes rรฉunies en l'honneur de J. Jouanna, Paris, 2008.

B, C. O., "ฮŸแผฐฮบฮตแฝทฯ‰ฯƒฮนฯ‚ and ฮŸแผฐฮบฮตฮนแฝนฯ„ฮทฯ‚, eophrastus and Zeno on Nature in

Moral eory", Phronesis, 1 (1955) 123-45.

D C, D., Il demone di Socrate. I ritardi della punizione divina, Milano,

1982.

D, P. , Dione di Prusa. Un intellettuale greco nell'impero romano ,

Messina-Firenze, 1978.

D, F., "Die Oikeiosis-Lehre eophrasts", Philologus Supplementband

XXX (1937) 1-100.

F, M. C., "Sรณcrates e a Paideia falhada de Alcibรญades", in C. S 

. (eds.), ร‰tica e paideia em Plutarco, Coimbra, 2008, pp. 31-48.

F, F., Histoire et morale dans les Vies Parallรจles de Plutarque, Paris, 1996.

J, C. P., e Roman World of Dio Chrysostom, Harvard, 1978.

M J., H. M., "e concept of Philanthropia in Plutarch's Lives", AJPh,

82 (1961) 164-75.

M, M., Convivio, vol. I, Bari, 1989, pp. 94-95.

M, P., Der Aristotelismus bei den Griechen von Andronikos bis Alexander

von Aphrodisias, Band I, Berlin, 1973.

P, S. G., "Oikeiลsis", in A. A. L (ed.), Problems in Stoicism ,

London, 1971, pp. 114-49.

P, M., La Stoa. Traduit en italien par O. D G, II, Firenze,

19782 .

R F, J., "O doce afago da philanthropia", in C. S  .

(eds.), ร‰tica e paideia em Plutarco, Coimbra, 2008, pp.85-97.

_____"Demotikos e Demokratikos na paideia de Plutarco", in C. S  .

(eds.), ร‰tica e paideia em Plutarco, Coimbra, 2008, pp. 69-84.

R, J. de, La douceur dans la pensรฉe grecque, Paris, 1979.

S, G., Il cibarsi di carne, Napoli, 1999.

95 Plu., Adv. Col. 1108C : ฯ„แฝธ ฮด' ฮตแฝ– ฮถแฟ†ฮฝ แผฯƒฯ„ฮน ฮบฮฟฮนฮฝฯ‰ฮฝฮนฮบแฟถฯ‚ ฮถแฟ†ฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ†ฮนฮปฮนฮบแฟถฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯƒฯ‰ฯ†ฯฯŒฮฝฯ‰ฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ

ฮดฮนฮบฮฑฮฏฯ‰ฯ‚.

273

La notion de philanthrลpia chez Plutarque: contexte social et sources philosophiques

S, A. M., Plutarco. Conversazioni a tavola, I, (testo, traduzione e

commento), A. Napoli, 1998.

S, V. A., Involuzione politica e spirituale nell'impero del II secolo, Napoli,

1974.

S, G., "e Role of Oikeiosis in Stoic Ethics", OSAPh, 1 (1983) 145-

67.

T, S.-T., A Commentary on Plutarch's Table Talks, vol. II (Books

4-6), Gรถteborg, 1990.

T D R, S., "De vocis quae est ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฑฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€แฝทฮฑ signicatione atque

usu", Mnemosyne, 59 (1932) 271-306.

Z, K., Plutarco (trad. it.), Brescia, 1965.

275

Philanthropia as Sociability and Plutarch's Unsociable Heroes

pH i l a n T H r o p i a a s s o c i a b i l i T y a n d pl u T a r c h 's

u n s o c i a b l e h e r o e s

A G. N

University of Crete, Rethymno

Abstract

Although the words ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฑฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€ฮฏฮฑ and ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฌฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€ฮฟฯ‚ are pivotal terms of his ethical vocabulary,

Plutarch often attaches to these words meanings and nuances that appear to be ethically

indierent or neutral. One of these meanings is the sociability-nuance of philanthropia, which

seems to describe all sorts of rened modes of behaviour such as courtesy, aability, tactfulness,

friendliness, hospitality and the like. Plutarch appreciates and encourages these aspects of rened

conduct (mainly in the Moralia), for he believes that they conduce to good human relations and

promote social harmony. Yet, though some of his heroes (e.g., Phokion, Cato, Perikles) appear

to be rather unsociable, Plutarch, far from nding any fault with them, explicitly or implicitly

justies and even approves of their sternness and austerity. Sometimes because he is aware that

good manners and sociability, especially in the domain of politics, may be a deceptive faรงade that

often conceals crude ambition or devious schemes and machinations; other times because he

bows to the hero's moral excellence, which, under certain circumstances, seems to be somehow

incompatible with the usual manifestations of sociability.

According to Diogenes Laertios, Plato distinguished three kinds of

philanthropia: a) by way of salutations, i.e. by addressing everyone you meet on

the street and shaking hands with them, b) by way of helping everyone in need,

and c) by way of keeping an open house and oering dinner-parties. In other

words, philanthropia is manifested through salutations, through conferring

benets, and through oering dinners and promoting social intercourse1 .

Nobody recognizes Plato in this description, of course, since the four

occurrences of the words ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฑฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€ฮฏฮฑ and ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฌฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€ฮฟฯ‚ in the Platonic

corpus convey only the literal meaning of the words (love and lover of mankind),

which at most could be taken to underlie the second kind in Laertios' passage2 .

Plutarch would also have diculty, I think, in associating Plato with the three

kinds of philanthropia above, but for him Laertios' description would have

1 D. L. 3.98: ฮคแฟ†ฯ‚ ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฑฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€ฮฏฮฑฯ‚ แผฯƒฯ„แฝถฮฝ ฮตแผดฮดฮท ฯ„ฯฮฏฮฑ· แผ“ฮฝ ฮผแฝฒฮฝ ฮดฮนแฝฐ ฯ„แฟ†ฯ‚ ฯ€ฯฮฟฯƒฮทฮณฮฟฯฮฏฮฑฯ‚ ฮณฮนฮฝฯŒฮผฮตฮฝฮฟฮฝ, ฮฟแผทฮฟฮฝ

แผฮฝ ฮฟแผทฯ‚ ฯ„ฮนฮฝฮตฯ‚ ฯ„แฝธฮฝ แผฮฝฯ„ฯ…ฯ‡ฯŒฮฝฯ„ฮฑ ฯ€ฮฌฮฝฯ„ฮฑ ฯ€ฯฮฟฯƒฮฑฮณฮฟฯฮตฯฮฟฯ…ฯƒฮน ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ„แฝดฮฝ ฮดฮตฮพฮนแฝฐฮฝ แผฮผฮฒฮฌฮปฮปฮฟฮฝฯ„ฮตฯ‚ ฯ‡ฮฑฮนฯฮตฯ„ฮฏฮถฮฟฯ…ฯƒฮนฮฝ.

แผ„ฮปฮปฮฟ ฮตแผถฮดฮฟฯ‚, แฝ…ฯ„ฮฑฮฝ ฯ„ฮนฯ‚ ฮฒฮฟฮทฮธฮทฯ„ฮนฮบแฝธฯ‚ แพ– ฯ€ฮฑฮฝฯ„แฝถ ฯ„แฟท แผ€ฯ„ฯ…ฯ‡ฮฟแฟฆฮฝฯ„ฮน. แผ•ฯ„ฮตฯฮฟฮฝ ฮตแผถฮดฯŒฯ‚ แผฯƒฯ„ฮน ฯ„แฟ†ฯ‚ ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฑฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€ฮฏฮฑฯ‚ แผฮฝ

แพง ฯ„ฮนฮฝฮตฯ‚ ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฟฮดฮตฮนฯ€ฮฝฮนฯƒฯ„ฮฑฮฏ ฮตแผฐฯƒฮน. ฯ„แฟ†ฯ‚ แผ„ฯฮฑ ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฑฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€ฮฏฮฑฯ‚ ฯ„แฝธ ฮผฮญฮฝ แผฯƒฯ„ฮน ฮดฮนแฝฐ ฯ„ฮฟแฟฆ ฯ€ฯฮฟฯƒฮฑฮณฮฟฯฮตฯฮตฮนฮฝ, ฯ„แฝธ ฮดแฝฒ

ฮดฮนแฝฐ ฯ„ฮฟแฟฆ ฮตแฝฮตฯฮณฮตฯ„ฮตแฟ–ฮฝ, ฯ„แฝธ ฮดแฝฒ ฮดฮนแฝฐ ฯ„ฮฟแฟฆ แผ‘ฯƒฯ„ฮนแพถฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฟฯƒฯ…ฮฝฮฟฯ…ฯƒฮนฮฌฮถฮตฮนฮฝ. e above categorization is part

of the ฮ”ฮนฮฑฮนฯฮญฯƒฮตฮนฯ‚ ( Divisiones), the last section of D. L., book 3 (§§ 80-109), sometime attributed

to Aristotle (see V. R, 1971, p. 677).

2 Euthphr. 3D: แผผฯƒฯ‰ฯ‚ ฮณแฝฐฯ ฯƒแฝบ ฮผแฝฒฮฝ ฮดฮฟฮบฮตแฟ–ฯ‚ ฯƒฯ€ฮฌฮฝฮนฮฟฮฝ ฯƒฮตฮฑฯ…ฯ„แฝธฮฝ ฯ€ฮฑฯฮญฯ‡ฮตฮนฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮดฮนฮดฮฌฯƒฮบฮตฮนฮฝ ฮฟแฝฮบ

แผฮธฮญฮปฮตฮนฮฝ ฯ„แฝดฮฝ ฯƒฮตฮฑฯ…ฯ„ฮฟแฟฆ ฯƒฮฟฯ†ฮฏฮฑฮฝ· แผฮณแฝผ ฮดแฝฒ ฯ†ฮฟฮฒฮฟแฟฆฮผฮฑฮน ฮผแฝด แฝ‘ฯ€แฝธ ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฑฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€ฮฏฮฑฯ‚ ฮดฮฟฮบแฟถ ฮฑแฝฯ„ฮฟแฟ–ฯ‚ แฝ…ฯ„ฮนฯ€ฮตฯ แผ”ฯ‡ฯ‰

แผฮบฮบฮตฯ‡ฯ…ฮผฮญฮฝฯ‰ฯ‚ ฯ€ฮฑฮฝฯ„แฝถ แผ€ฮฝฮดฯแฝถ ฮปฮญฮณฮตฮนฮฝ, ฮฟแฝ ฮผฯŒฮฝฮฟฮฝ แผ„ฮฝฮตฯ… ฮผฮนฯƒฮธฮฟแฟฆ, แผ€ฮปฮปแฝฐ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ€ฯฮฟฯƒฯ„ฮนฮธฮตแฝถฯ‚ แผ‚ฮฝ แผกฮดฮญฯ‰ฯ‚ ฮตแผด ฯ„ฮฏฯ‚

ฮผฮฟฯ… แผฮธฮญฮปฮตฮน แผ€ฮบฮฟฯฮตฮนฮฝ. Symp. 189C-D: แผ”ฯƒฯ„ฮน ฮณแฝฐฯ ฮธฮตแฟถฮฝ ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฑฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€ฯŒฯ„ฮฑฯ„ฮฟฯ‚ (sc. แผœฯฯ‰ฯ‚), แผฯ€ฮฏฮบฮฟฯ…ฯฯŒฯ‚

ฯ„ฮต แฝขฮฝ ฯ„แฟถฮฝ แผ€ฮฝฮธฯฯŽฯ€ฯ‰ฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ แผฐฮฑฯ„ฯแฝธฯ‚ ฯ„ฮฟฯฯ„ฯ‰ฮฝ แฝงฮฝ แผฐฮฑฮธฮญฮฝฯ„ฯ‰ฮฝ ฮผฮตฮณฮฏฯƒฯ„ฮท ฮตแฝฮดฮฑฮนฮผฮฟฮฝฮฏฮฑ แผ‚ฮฝ ฯ„แฟท แผ€ฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€ฮตฮฏแฟณ

ฮณฮญฮฝฮตฮน ฮตแผดฮท. Lg. 713D: … ฮบฮฑแฝถ แฝ ฮธฮตแฝธฯ‚ ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฌฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€ฮฟฯ‚ แฝคฮฝ, ฯ„ฯŒฯ„ฮต ฮณฮญฮฝฮฟฯ‚ แผ„ฮผฮตฮนฮฝฮฟฮฝ แผกฮผแฟถฮฝ แผฯ†ฮฏฯƒฯ„ฮท ฯ„แฝธ

ฯ„แฟถฮฝ ฮดฮฑฮนฮผฯŒฮฝฯ‰ฮฝ. Def . 412E: ฮฆฮนฮปฮฑฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€ฮฏฮฑ แผ•ฮพฮนฯ‚ ฮตแฝฮฌฮณฯ‰ฮณฮฟฯ‚ แผคฮธฮฟฯ…ฯ‚ ฯ€ฯแฝธฯ‚ แผ€ฮฝฮธฯฯŽฯ€ฮฟฯ… ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฏฮฑฮฝ· แผ•ฮพฮนฯ‚

ฮตแฝฮตฯฮณฮตฯ„ฮนฮบแฝด แผ€ฮฝฮธฯฯŽฯ€ฯ‰ฮฝ· ฯ‡ฮฌฯฮนฯ„ฮฟฯ‚ ฯƒฯ‡ฮญฯƒฮนฯ‚· ฮผฮฝฮฎฮผฮท ฮผฮตฯ„' ฮตแฝฮตฯฮณฮตฯƒฮฏฮฑฯ‚.

276

Anastasios G. Nikolaidis

struck a familiar note. As a matter of fact, Plutarch's usage of philanthropia

and cognate words, pivotal terms of his ethical vocabulary, covers, as is well-

known, a much wider range of meanings and nuances than the three aforesaid

kinds3 ; more importantly, the concept of philanthropia in Plutarch is not simply

synonymous with sociability and its various ramications, as the rst and third

kind of Laertios' passage suggest, but perhaps constitutes the very kernel of his

moral outlook. One might aptly say that philanthropia for Plutarch is the lens

through which he sees, examines, judges and evaluates individuals and human

activities at large4 .

Nevertheless, there are many instances in his writings, both in Lives and

Moralia, where Plutarch employs the words ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฌฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€ฮฟฯ‚ and ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฑฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€ฮฏฮฑ

to describe nuances of sociability and all sorts of rened modes of behaviour,

such as courtesy, politeness, aability, tactfulness, discretion, friendliness,

hospitality, and so on. To put it otherwise, Plutarch uses these words in a

way that corresponds to Laertios' rst and third kind, thus endorsing and

recommending a philanthropia that, unlike the one of the second kind, seems

to be ethically indierent or neutral.

e rst kind (philanthropia through salutations) occurs mostly in the

Lives, where sociability is often a political device for gaining the favour of the

multitude. To this aspect I will return. e third kind (philanthropia through

dinner-parties and hospitality) is the sociability featuring equally in the Lives

and Moralia, and predominantly, perhaps, in the Table Talks. As for the second

kind (philanthropia through helping and benetting the needy), which carries

more pronounced ethical overtones and illustrates par excellence the moral

sense of philanthropia, it will not concern us here5 .

Before going to the Lives, I would like to discuss a few passages from the

Moralia, where the notion of sociability primarily occurs in the context of a

symposion; and for this aspect of philanthropia Plutarch's Table Talks oer an

excellent testimony. e man who, after a solitary meal, said: "today I ate; I did

3 See R. H, 1912, p. 25: "Plutarch hat…den Begri in den verschiedensten

Schattierungen verfolgt"; cf. also F. F, 1996, p. 234: "On ne peut qu'รชtre frappรฉ par

l'ampleur impressionnante de son champ d'action [sc. of philanthropia] dans les Vies".

4 Cf. also J. D R, 1979, p. 280: "La douceur est donc devenue un critรจre essentiel pour

juger un homme" (in Romilly's treatment 'douceur' mainly translates praotes, but also – almost to

the same extent – philanthropia). For the importance of philanthropia in P. see R. H, 1912,

pp. 23-32 (esp. p. 26: "Ich wรผรŸte nicht, was sich mehr eignete fรผr das Prinzip Plutarchischer

Moral in Leben und Lehre erklรคrt zu werden als eben die Philanthropie...die Summe aller

Tugenden"); B. B-I, 1972, p. 20 ("ein Zentralbegri"); F. F, 1996, pp. 233-36;

H. M. M J.; A. G. N, 2008, pp. XV-XVI; C. P, 1977, pp. 218

sqq., pp. 234-35; J. R F, 2008; J. D R, 1979, pp. 275-305, esp. 275-92;

K. Z, 19642 , pp. 306/943.

5 For some telling examples of this kind of philanthropia see Publ. 1.2, 4.5, Sol. 15.3, es .

36.4, Pel. 6.4-5, Marc. 20.1-2, Cleom. 32.5, Phoc. 10.7-8; see also Mor. 823A, 1051E, 1075E.

According to [Arist.], VV 1251b31 benecence belongs to virtue (แผ”ฯƒฯ„ฮน ฮดแฝฒ ฯ„แฟ†ฯ‚ แผ€ฯฮตฯ„แฟ†ฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ„แฝธ

ฮตแฝฮตฯฮณฮตฯ„ฮตแฟ–ฮฝ ฯ„ฮฟแฝบฯ‚ แผ€ฮพฮฏฮฟฯ…ฯ‚), and so philanthropia as benecence is one of the concomitants of virtue

(1251b34f.: แผ€ฮบฮฟฮปฮฟฯ…ฮธฮตแฟ– ฮดแฝฒ ฯ„แฟ‡ แผ€ฯฮตฯ„แฟ‡…ฮตแผถฮฝฮฑฮน ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ†ฮนฮปฯŒฮพฮตฮฝฮฟฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฌฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€ฮฟฮฝ…แผƒ ฮดแฝด ฯ€ฮฌฮฝฯ„ฮฑ ฯ„แฟถฮฝ

แผฯ€ฮฑฮนฮฝฮฟฯ…ฮผฮญฮฝฯ‰ฮฝ แผฯƒฯ„ฮฏ).

277

Philanthropia as Sociability and Plutarch's Unsociable Heroes

not have a dinner", is called ฯ‡ฮฑฯฮฏฮตฮนฯ‚ and ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฌฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€ฮฟฯ‚ 6, since, according to

Plutarch, our witty and sociable man implied that a dinner always wants some

friendly companionship for seasoning (697C: "ฮฒฮตฮฒฯฯ‰ฮบฮญฮฝฮฑฮน, ฮผฮท ฮดฮตฮดฮตฮนฯ€ฮฝฮทฮบฮญฮฝฮฑฮน

ฯƒฮฎฮผฮตฯฮฟฮฝ", แฝกฯ‚ ฯ„ฮฟแฟฆ ฮดฮตฮฏฯ€ฮฝฮฟฯ… ฮบฮฟฮนฮฝฯ‰ฮฝฮฏฮฑฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฟฯ†ฯฮฟฯƒฯฮฝฮทฮฝ แผฯ†ฮทฮดฯฮฝฮฟฯ…ฯƒฮฑฮฝ แผ€ฮตแฝถ

ฯ€ฮฟฮธฮฟแฟฆฮฝฯ„ฮฟฯ‚). In another Talk we are urged to emulate the philanthropia of the

old who, respecting companionship at large, held in honour not only those

who shared their hearth and roof, but also those who shared their meals7 . And

in the Banquet of the Seven Sages the hearth-re, the hearth itself, the wine

bowls and all entertainment and hospitality are described as ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฑฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€ฯŒฯ„ฮฑฯ„ฮฑ

ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ€ฯแฟถฯ„ฮฑ ฮบฮฟฮนฮฝฯ‰ฮฝฮฎฮผฮฑฯ„ฮฑ ฯ€ฯแฝธฯ‚ แผ€ฮปฮปฮฎฮปฮฟฯ…ฯ‚ (158C), due to the belief that it was

these things that rst brought people closer to each other. Hence, in another

essay, even outside the sympotic context, the dinner-table is called philanthropos

(610A)8 . And if the symposion is a sociable institution because it brings people

together, Dionysos, one of the symposion's presidents (the other one is Hunger),

is even more sociable (philanthropos), because it is wine that stops the fellow-

drinkers jostling one another like hungry dogs over the food, and establishes a

cheerful and friendly atmosphere among them9 . By the same token, speech (แฝ

ฮปฯŒฮณฮฟฯ‚), through which men come close and communicate among themselves,

is called แผฅฮดฮนฯƒฯ„ฮฟฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฑฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€ฯŒฯ„ฮฑฯ„ฮฟฮฝ ฯƒฯ…ฮผฮฒฯŒฮปฮฑฮนฮฟฮฝ (De garrul. 504E)10 .

e Table Talks throw light on the ramications of sociability too. In one

Talk, for example, philanthropia is synonymous with courtesy or tactfulness, since

we hear of the Syrian prince Philopappos, the archon of Athens in Plutarch's

time, who, being among the guests of a banquet, joined in the after-dinner

discussion out of courtesy and graciousness not less than because of his eagerness

to learn (628B: ฯ„แฝฐ ฮผแฝฒฮฝ ฮปฮญฮณฯ‰ฮฝ ฯ„แฝฐ ฮด' แผ€ฮบฮฟฯฯ‰ฮฝ ฮดฮนแฝฐ ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฑฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€ฮฏฮฑฮฝ ฮฟแฝฯ‡ แผงฯ„ฯ„ฮฟฮฝ แผข ฮดฮนแฝฐ

ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฟฮผฮฌฮธฮตฮนฮฑฮฝ). Similarly, the Persian king Artaxerxes was not only agreeable in

intercourse (Art. 4.4: แผกฮดฮฏฯ‰ ฮธ' แผ‘ฮฑฯ…ฯ„แฝธฮฝ ฯ€ฮฑฯฮตแฟ–ฯ‡ฮตฮฝ แผฮฝฯ„ฯ…ฮณฯ‡ฮฌฮฝฮตฯƒฮธฮฑฮน), but also tactful

and gracious in giving as well as in receiving gifts (ibidem:…ฮฟแฝฯ‡ แผงฯ„ฯ„ฮฟฮฝ ฯ„ฮฟแฟ–ฯ‚

ฮดฮนฮดฮฟแฟฆฯƒฮนฮฝ แผข ฯ„ฮฟแฟ–ฯ‚ ฮปฮฑฮผฮฒฮฌฮฝฮฟฯ…ฯƒฮนฮฝ ฯ†ฮฑฮนฮฝฯŒฮผฮตฮฝฮฟฯ‚ ฮตแฝ”ฯ‡ฮฑฯฮนฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฌฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€ฮฟฯ‚)11 . e

above cases suggest that the courtesy-nuance of philanthropia manifests itself

6 According to the pseudoplatonic Denitions , ฯ‡ฮฌฯฮนฯ‚ is an aspect of philanthropia (see n. 2

s.f.). Hence the two concepts are often paired together. Cf. Mor. 517C, 660A, Art. 4.4 (below),

Cat. Mi. 26.1 (p. 281), Sol. 2.1.

7 643D: ...แผ€ฮปฮปแฝฐ ฮผแพถฮปฮปฮฟฮฝ ฯ„แฝดฮฝ ฯ„แฟถฮฝ ฯ€ฮฑฮปฮฑฮนแฟถฮฝ ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฑฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€ฮฏฮฑฮฝ ฮถฮทฮปฮฟแฟฆฮฝ, ฮฟแฝ ฮผฯŒฮฝฮฟฮฝ แฝฮผฮตฯƒฯ„ฮฏฮฟฯ…ฯ‚

ฮฟแฝฮด' แฝฮผฯ‰ฯฮฟฯ†ฮฏฮฟฯ…ฯ‚ แผ€ฮปฮปแฝฐ ฮบฮฑแฝถ แฝฮผฮฟฯ‡ฮฟฮฏฮฝฮนฮบฮฑฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ แฝฮผฮฟฯƒฮนฯ€ฯฮฟฯ…ฯ‚ ฯ„แฟท ฯ€แพถฯƒฮฑฮฝ ฯƒฮญฮฒฮตฯƒฮธฮฑฮน ฮบฮฟฮนฮฝฯ‰ฮฝฮฏฮฑฮฝ แผฮฝ ฯ„ฮนฮผแฟ‡

ฯ„ฮนฮธฮตฮผฮญฮฝฯ‰ฮฝ.

8 For the connection of the dinner-table with the notion of sociability/hospitality cf. also

GGr. 19.2, where we hear of Cornelia, the mother of the Gracchi, that she was ฯ€ฮฟฮปฯฯ†ฮนฮปฮฟฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ

ฮดฮนแฝฐ ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฟฮพฮตฮฝฮฏฮฑฮฝ ฮตแฝฯ„ฯฮฌฯ€ฮตฮถฮฟฯ‚.

9 680B: ฮฟแฝ•ฯ„ฯ‰ฯ‚ แผกฮผแพถฯ‚ แผฮฝ แผ€ฯฯ‡แฟ‡ ฯƒฯ…ฮผฯ€ฮตฯ†ฮฟฯฮทฮผฮญฮฝฮฟฯ…ฯ‚ แฝ‘ฯ€แฝธ ฯ„ฮฟแฟฆ ฮปฮนฮผฮฟแฟฆ ฮบฯ…ฮฝฮทฮดแฝธฮฝ แผ„ฯฯ„ฮน ฯ€ฮฑฯฮฑฮปฮฑฮผฮฒฮฌฮฝฯ‰ฮฝ

แฝ ฮ›ฯ…ฮฑแฟ–ฮฟฯ‚ ฮธฮตแฝธฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮงฮฟฯฮตแฟ–ฮฟฯ‚ ฮตแผฐฯ‚ ฯ„ฮฌฮพฮนฮฝ แผฑฮปฮฑฯแฝฐฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฌฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€ฮฟฮฝ ฮบฮฑฮธฮฏฯƒฯ„ฮทฯƒฮนฮฝ. For the pairing of

philanthropos with hilaros see also 660C, Caes. 4.8 (p. 285), and Cleom. 13.3 (n. 38).

10 ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฌฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€ฮฟฯ‚ is again paired with แผกฮดแฝบฯ‚ in Mor. 762D, Ant. 25.3, Cat. Ma. 3.7 (p. 286

below), Art. 4.4 (below).

11 In Reg. Apophth. 172B Artaxerxes holds that accepting small gifts with graciousness and

goodwill is equally ฮฒฮฑฯƒฮนฮปฮนฮบแฝธฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฌฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€ฮฟฮฝ as giving large gifts. For another instance of

philanthropos being combined with basilikos, see Ages. 1.5 (n. 24).

278

Anastasios G. Nikolaidis

particularly – and more meaningfully – in the behaviour of someone superior

towards an inferior; something that occurs again in 617B, where Alkinoos, by

asking his son to rise and seating Odysseus beside himself, wins our praise; for

it is exquisitely polite and gracious (แผฯ€ฮนฮดฮญฮพฮนฮฟฮฝ แผฮผฮผฮตฮปแฟถฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฌฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€ฮฟฮฝ) to

seat a suppliant in the place of a loved one.

In another Talk we are warned that there should be limits even in hospitality.

For if one holds a dinner-party and invites every possible guest to his house as

though to some public show or recitation, his hospitality goes too far (678E:

แผ”ฯƒฯ„ฮน ฮณฮฌฯ ฯ„ฮนฯ‚ ฮฟแผถฮผฮฑฮน ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฑฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€ฮฏฮฑฯ‚ แผ€ฮบฯฮฑฯƒฮฏฮฑ, ฮผฮทฮดฮญฮฝฮฑ ฯ€ฮฑฯฮตฯฯ‡ฮฟฮผฮญฮฝฮทฯ‚ ฯ„แฟถฮฝ

ฯƒฯ…ฮผฯ€ฮฟฯ„แฟถฮฝ แผ€ฮปฮปแฝฐ ฯ€ฮฌฮฝฯ„ฮฑฯ‚ แผ‘ฮปฮบฮฟฯฯƒฮทฯ‚ แฝกฯ‚ แผฯ€แฝถ ฮธฮญฮฑฮฝ แผข แผ€ฮบฯฯŒฮฑฯƒฮนฮฝ.)12 ; on the contrary,

the younger Scipio was criticized in Rome because, when he entertained his

friends at the dedication of the temple of Herakles, he did not invite Mummius,

his colleague in oce. us, although Scipio was otherwise an admirable man,

the omission of so slight an act of courtesy brought upon him the reputation of

haughtiness (Praec. ger. reip. 816C: ฮผฮนฮบฯแฝธฮฝ ฮฟแฝ•ฯ„ฯ‰ ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฑฮฝฮธฯฯŽฯ€ฮตฯ…ฮผฮฑ ฯ€ฮฑฯฮฑฮปฮตฮนฯ†ฮธแฝฒฮฝ

แฝ‘ฯ€ฮตฯฮฟฯˆฮฏฮฑฯ‚ แผคฮฝฮตฮณฮบฮต ฮดฯŒฮพฮฑฮฝ).

See also 816D in the immediate sequel. For other instances of philanthropia

in the sense of courtesy or politeness cf. 513A, 517C, 645F, 749D, 762C, Alex .

58.8, Eum. 13,4, Oth. 1.1. See also Demetr. 22.1, where philanthropia conveys

– more precisely – the nuance of discretion or tactfulness. While Demetrios

was besieging Rhodes, the Rhodians captured the ship that carried bedding,

clothing and letters from his wife Phila and sent it to his enemy Ptolemy. us,

Plutarch comments, they did not imitate ฯ„แฝดฮฝ แผˆฮธฮทฮฝฮฑฮฏฯ‰ฮฝ ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฑฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€ฮฏฮฑฮฝ, who,

having captured Philip's letter-carriers during their war with him, read all the

letters except the one from Olympias, which, sealed as it was, they sent it back

to him. Occasionally, the various nuances mingle, as, for example, in 546E,

where philanthropia seems to denote all three kinds of Laertios' passage at the

same time. Some people, Plutarch shrewdly observes, are wrong to believe that

their self-glorication goes unnoticed when they report praises received from

others (…แฝ…ฯ„ฮฑฮฝ ฮฒฮฑฯƒฮนฮปฮญฯ‰ฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮฑแฝฯ„ฮฟฮบฯฮฑฯ„ฯŒฯฯ‰ฮฝ ฮดฮตฮพฮนฯŽฯƒฮตฮนฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ€ฯฮฟฯƒฮฑฮณฮฟฯฮตฯฯƒฮตฮนฯ‚

ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฟฯ†ฯฮฟฯƒฯฮฝฮฑฯ‚ แผ€ฯ€ฮฑฮณฮณฮญฮปฮปฯ‰ฯƒฮนฮฝ, แฝกฯ‚ ฮฟแฝฯ‡ ฮฑแฝ‘ฯ„แฟถฮฝ แผฯ€ฮฑฮฏฮฝฮฟฯ…ฯ‚, แผ€ฯ€ฮฟฮดฮตฮฏฮพฮตฮนฯ‚ ฮดแฝฒ ฯ„แฟ†ฯ‚

แผฮบฮตฮฏฮฝฯ‰ฮฝ แผฯ€ฮนฮตฮนฮบฮตฮฏฮฑฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฑฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€ฮฏฮฑฯ‚ ฮดฮนฮตฮพฮนฯŒฮฝฯ„ฮตฯ‚). For a similar combination

of Laertios' three kinds of philanthropia, cf. n. 23 below.

It is clear, therefore, that Plutarch attaches some importance to

sociability, and perhaps this is why he employs such a weighty ethical

term as philanthropia to express its various ramications. Especially in

the context of a symposion Plutarch appears to particularly favour and

recommend sociability, believing that these social gatherings did not simply

bring people together in a relaxed and cheerful atmosphere that might give

12 In De garrulitate P. transfers an example of excessive philanthropia found in Epicharmos

(ฮฟแฝ ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฌฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€ฮฟฯ‚ ฯ„ฯ… ฮณ' แผฯƒฯƒ', แผ”ฯ‡ฮตฮนฯ‚ ฮฝฯŒฯƒฮฟฮฝ· ฯ‡ฮฑฮฏฯฮตฮนฯ‚ ฮดฮนฮดฮฟฯฯ‚ – fr. 212 Kassel-Austin, PCG, v. I; and

for the liberality-nuance of philanthropia in P. see n. 25 below) to the idle talker (510C: …แผ”ฯ‡ฮตฮนฯ‚

ฮฝฯŒฯƒฮฟฮฝ· ฯ‡ฮฑฮฏฯฮตฮนฯ‚ ฮปฮฑฮปแฟถฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ†ฮปฯ…ฮฑฯแฟถฮฝ). More for this แผ€ฮบฯฮฑฯƒฮฏฮฑ ฮปฯŒฮณฮฟฯ… see H.-G. I,

1971, pp. 135-6.

279

Philanthropia as Sociability and Plutarch's Unsociable Heroes

rise to new or conrm and strengthen older friendships13 but, owing to the

sympotic etiquette, they could also eect that the guests (or at least some of

them) acquire desirable habits and practices, such as self-discipline and self-

restraint, polite manners, consideration for others and so forth14 . In other

words, sociability could be regarded as belonging to those so-called minor

virtues, on which Plutarch would often discourse, convinced that, through

ensuring "die Heilung der Seele", they also conduced to social harmony and

individual fullment15 .

Plutarch, agreeing with Aristotle (EN 1103a17: แผก ฮด' แผ ฮธฮนฮบแฝด [sc. แผ€ฯฮตฯ„แฝด] แผฮพ แผ”ฮธฮฟฯ…ฯ‚

ฯ€ฮตฯฮนฮณฮฏฮฝฮตฯ„ฮฑฮน, แฝ…ฮธฮตฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ„ฮฟแฝ”ฮฝฮฟฮผฮฑ แผ”ฯƒฯ‡ฮทฮบฮต ฮผฮนฮบฯแฝธฮฝ ฯ€ฮฑฯฮตฮณฮบฮปแฟ–ฮฝฮฟฮฝ แผ€ฯ€แฝธ ฯ„ฮฟแฟฆ แผ”ฮธฮฟฯ…ฯ‚.

Cf. also Plato, Lg. 792E), does not overlook the importance and power of

habituation in acquiring and practising virtue, as several of his moral essays

testify (cf. De virt. mor. 443C-D, De coh. ira 459B ., De garrul. 510D, 511E-F,

512D-F, 514E, De curios. 520D ., 521A-E, 522B, De vit. pud. 532C, De sera

551E, De esu carn. 996A-B). See also Ingenkamps's pertinent remarks on pp.

99-102 and 105-115). Cf. further Cat. Ma. 5.5:…แผ€ฮปฮป' ฮตแผฐ ฮดฮนแฝฐ ฮผฮทฮดแฝฒฮฝ แผ„ฮปฮปฮฟ,

ฮผฮตฮปฮญฯ„ฮทฯ‚ ฮฟแฝ•ฮฝฮตฮบฮฑ ฯ„ฮฟแฟฆ ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฑฮฝฮธฯฯŽฯ€ฮฟฯ… ฯ€ฯฮฟฮตฮธฮนฯƒฯ„ฮญฮฟฮฝ แผ‘ฮฑฯ…ฯ„แฝธฮฝ แผฮฝ ฯ„ฮฟฯฯ„ฮฟฮนฯ‚ [sc. ฮถแฟดฮฟฮนฯ‚]

ฯ€ฯแพถฮฟฮฝ ฮตแผถฮฝฮฑฮน ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮผฮตฮฏฮปฮนฯ‡ฮฟฮฝ. But the same relationship between habituation and

virtue seems to go back to Pythagoras and it is also highlighted by Zeno of

Elea. In De sollert. an. 959F we read that the Pythagoreans ฯ„แฝดฮฝ ฮตแผฐฯ‚ ฯ„แฝฐ ฮธฮทฯฮฏฮฑ

ฯ€ฯฮฑฯŒฯ„ฮทฯ„ฮฑ ฮผฮตฮปฮญฯ„ฮทฮฝ แผฯ€ฮฟฮนฮฎฯƒฮฑฮฝฯ„ฮฟ ฯ€ฯแฝธฯ‚ ฯ„แฝธ ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฌฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€ฮฟฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฟฮฏฮบฯ„ฮนฯฮผฮฟฮฝ. For

habituation (ฯƒฯ…ฮฝฮฎฮธฮตฮนฮฑ), by gradually familiarizing men with certain feelings,

is apt to lead them onward (ฮดฮตฮนฮฝแฝด ฯ„ฮฟแฟ–ฯ‚ ฮบฮฑฯ„แฝฐ ฮผฮนฮบฯแฝธฮฝ แผฮฝฮฟฮนฮบฮตฮนฮฟฯ…ฮผฮญฮฝฮฟฮนฯ‚ ฯ€ฮฌฮธฮตฯƒฮน

ฯ€ฯŒฯฯฯ‰ ฯ€ฯฮฟฮฑฮณฮฑฮณฮตแฟ–ฮฝ ฯ„แฝธฮฝ แผ„ฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€ฮฟฮฝ. Cf. also Mor. 91C, 729E, 996A-B). And

at Per. 5.3 we see that Zeno would urge those who called Perikles' gravity

(ฯƒฮตฮผฮฝฯŒฯ„ฮทฯ‚ ) thirst for reputation and arrogance to have a similar thirst for

reputation themselves, believing that even the mere assumption of a noble

demeanour might unconsciously produce some zeal for and habitual practice

of noble things (…แฝกฯ‚ ฯ„แฟ†ฯ‚ ฯ€ฯฮฟฯƒฯ€ฮฟฮนฮฎฯƒฮตฯ‰ฯ‚ ฮฑแฝฯ„แฟ†ฯ‚ ฯ„แฟถฮฝ ฮบฮฑฮปแฟถฮฝ แฝ‘ฯ€ฮฟฯ€ฮฟฮนฮฟฯฯƒฮทฯ‚ ฯ„ฮนฮฝแฝฐ

ฮปฮตฮปฮทฮธฯŒฯ„ฯ‰ฯ‚ ฮถแฟ†ฮปฮฟฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯƒฯ…ฮฝฮฎฮธฮตฮนฮฑฮฝ).

is is the impression one gets from observing the sociability-nuance of

philanthropia in Plutarch's Quaestiones Convivales and the other passages we

have discussed16 . But when one examines sociability and its manifestations

13 Cf. 660A, C, 697D-E. Friendship, after all, is "le but du banquet", as Billault rightly

remarks (2008, p. 582). Cf. also J. S, 1993, pp. 170-1.

14 Cf. J. S, 1993, pp. 375-6, esp. 376, where it is maintained that the ancient

symposia cultivated not simply the savoir-vivre, but "cet art de communiquer" and "l'art de vivre

ensemble". Cf. also p. 378.

15 e foibles which those minor virtues cure are masterly discussed by H.-G. I.

e same virtues was also the topic of an international symposium organized by Luc Van der

Stockt at Delphi in September 2004: "Virtues for the People: Plutarch and his Era on Desirable

Ethics". Its proceedings are to be published next year.

16 In some cases the sociability-nuance of philanthropia, especially in the form of a kind

gesture or behaviour, overlaps with the notion of friendliness, as, e.g., when Phokion thinks

that the Athenians should accept Philip's friendly policy and kindly overtures to them (Phoc .

16.5: ฯ„แฝดฮฝ ฮผแฝฒฮฝ แผ„ฮปฮปฮทฮฝ ฯ„ฮฟแฟฆ ฮฆฮนฮปฮฏฯ€ฯ€ฮฟฯ… ฯ€ฮฟฮปฮนฯ„ฮตฮฏฮฑฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฑฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€ฮฏฮฑฮฝ แพคฮตฯ„ฮฟ ฮดฮตแฟ–ฮฝ ฯ€ฯฮฟฯƒฮดฮญฯ‡ฮตฯƒฮธฮฑฮน). Cf.

280

Anastasios G. Nikolaidis

in connection with the moral status of several Plutarchean heroes, one

acquires a very dierent impression. Take Phokion and the younger Cato,

for example, perhaps the best paradigms of pure virtue, since Plutarch

does not simply admire the moral excellence of these men throughout

their respective Lives, but also avoids – almost completely – making the

slightest negative comment or remark concerning their character, especially

as regards the former. Phokion and Cato, however, were not at all sociable.

For example, although Phokion's nature was most gentle and most kind,

his countenance was so sullen that, with the exception of his intimates, it

discouraged everyone else from approaching and talking to him (Phoc. 5.1:

ฮคแฟท ฮด' แผคฮธฮตฮน ฯ€ฯฮฟฯƒฮทฮฝฮญฯƒฯ„ฮฑฯ„ฮฟฯ‚ แฝขฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฑฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€ฯŒฯ„ฮฑฯ„ฮฟฯ‚, แผ€ฯ€แฝธ ฯ„ฮฟแฟฆ ฯ€ฯฮฟฯƒฯŽฯ€ฮฟฯ…

ฮดฯ…ฯƒฮพฯฮผฮฒฮฟฮปฮฟฯ‚ แผฯ†ฮฑฮฏฮฝฮตฯ„ฮฟ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯƒฮบฯ…ฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€ฯŒฯ‚, แฝฅฯƒฯ„ฮต ฮผแฝด แฟฅแพณฮดฮฏฯ‰ฯ‚ แผ„ฮฝ ฯ„ฮนฮฝฮฑ ฮผฯŒฮฝฮฟฮฝ

แผฮฝฯ„ฯ…ฯ‡ฮตแฟ–ฮฝ ฮฑแฝฯ„แฟท ฯ„แฟถฮฝ แผ€ฯƒฯ…ฮฝฮฎฮธฯ‰ฮฝ). Accordingly, we never see Phokion as a

guest at a dinner-party; in fact, there is not even one mention of a dinner-

party in the entire Life of Phokion 17 .

Cato's countenance was similarly sullen and his manners stern18 . But unlike

Phokion, the Roman did participate in banquets and would drink heavily to

boot19 . However, as Plutarch is quick to clarify, this was not a proof of his

sociability (Plutarch employs neither ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฑฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€ฮฏฮฑ nor any of the usual words

describing the sympotic activity, atmosphere and attitudes, e.g., ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฟฯ†ฯฮฟฯƒฯฮฝฮท ,

แผกฮดฯฯ„ฮทฯ‚, ฮบฮฟฮนฮฝฯ‰ฮฝฮฏฮฑ etc.), but it only showed Cato's desire to converse with

philosophers, something that he could not do during the day, because of his

pressing public activities (Cat. Mi. 6.3:…ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮบฯ‰ฮปฯ…ฯŒฮผฮตฮฝฮฟฮฝ ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฟฮปฮฟฮณฮตแฟ–ฮฝ, ฮฝฯฮบฯ„ฯ‰ฯ

ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ€ฮฑฯแฝฐ ฯ€ฯŒฯ„ฮฟฮฝ ฯƒฯ…ฮณฮณฮฏฮฝฮตฯƒฮธฮฑฮน ฯ„ฮฟแฟ–ฯ‚ ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฟฯƒฯŒฯ†ฮฟฮนฯ‚)20 . Otherwise, Cato was not at

all sociable, whether in connection with drinking – parties or politics. is is

why Cicero openly blames Caesar's prevalence in Rome on Cato, because at a

critical moment for the city, the latter, although he had decided to stand for the

consulship, he did not try to win the favour of the people by kindly intercourse

with them (Cat. Mi. 50.2: …ฮฟแฝฮดแฝฒ แฝ‘ฯ€แฟ†ฮปฮธฮตฮฝ แฝฮผฮนฮปฮฏแพณ ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฑฮฝฮธฯฯŽฯ€แฟณ ฯ„แฝธฮฝ ฮดแฟ†ฮผฮฟฮฝ);

on the contrary, desiring to preserve the dignity of his manners rather than to

acquire the oce by making the usual salutations, he forbade even his friends

also Cam. 17.2, Crass. 18.2, Demetr. 37.1, Dio 16.1, Sull. 43.5, Pomp. 79.1, Ant. 18.2, De Herod.

malign. 866F.

17 See also 4.3: ฮฆฯ‰ฮบฮฏฯ‰ฮฝฮฑ ฮณแฝฐฯ ฮฟแฝ”ฯ„ฮต ฮณฮตฮปฮฌฯƒฮฑฮฝฯ„ฮฌ ฯ„ฮนฯ‚ ฮฟแฝ”ฯ„ฮต ฮบฮปฮฑฯฯƒฮฑฮฝฯ„ฮฑ แฟฅแพณฮดฮฏฯ‰ฯ‚ แผˆฮธฮทฮฝฮฑฮฏฯ‰ฮฝ ฮตแผถฮดฮตฮฝ,

ฮฟแฝฮด' แผฮฝ ฮฒฮฑฮปฮฑฮฝฮตฮฏแฟณ ฮดฮทฮผฮฟฯƒฮนฮตฯฮฟฮฝฯ„ฮน ฮปฮฟฯ…ฯƒฮฌฮผฮตฮฝฮฟฮฝ.

18 Cat. Mi. 1.3-6: ฮ›ฮญฮณฮตฯ„ฮฑฮน ฮดแฝฒ ฮšฮฌฯ„ฯ‰ฮฝ ฮตแฝฮธแฝบฯ‚ แผฮบ ฯ€ฮฑฮนฮดฮฏฮฟฯ… ฯ„แฟ‡ ฯ„ฮต ฯ†ฯ‰ฮฝแฟ‡ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ„แฟท ฯ€ฯฮฟฯƒฯŽฯ€แฟณ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ„ฮฑแฟ–ฯ‚

ฯ€ฮตฯแฝถ ฯ„แฝฐฯ‚ ฯ€ฮฑฮนฮดฮนแฝฐฯ‚ ฮดฮนฮฑฯ„ฯฮนฮฒฮฑแฟ–ฯ‚ แผฆฮธฮฟฯ‚ แฝ‘ฯ€ฮฟฯ†ฮฑฮฏฮฝฮตฮนฮฝ แผ„ฯ„ฯฮตฯ€ฯ„ฮฟฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ แผ€ฯ€ฮฑฮธแฝฒฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮฒฮญฮฒฮฑฮนฮฟฮฝ แผฮฝ ฯ€แพถฯƒฮนฮฝ….ฮบฮฑแฝถ

ฯ„ฮฟแฟ–ฯ‚ ฮบฮฟฮปฮฑฮบฮตฯฮฟฯ…ฯƒฮน ฯ„ฯฮฑฯ‡แฝบฯ‚ แฝขฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ€ฯฮฟฯƒฮฌฮฝฯ„ฮทฯ‚…แผฆฮฝ ฮดแฝฒ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ€ฯแฝธฯ‚ ฮณฮญฮปฯ‰ฯ„ฮฑ ฮบฮฟฮผฮนฮดแฟ‡ ฮดฯ…ฯƒฮบฮฏฮฝฮทฯ„ฮฟฯ‚, แผ„ฯ‡ฯฮน

ฮผฮตฮนฮดฮนฮฌฮผฮฑฯ„ฮฟฯ‚ ฯƒฯ€ฮฑฮฝฮฏฯ‰ฯ‚ ฯ„แฟท ฯ€ฯฮฟฯƒฯŽฯ€แฟณ ฮดฮนฮฑฯ‡ฮตฯŒฮผฮตฮฝฮฟฯ‚… (cf. previous note about Phokion). Contrary

to the sullen look of Phokion and Cato, that of Flamininus was a winsome one (Flam. 5.7: ฯ„แฝดฮฝ

แฝ„ฯˆฮนฮฝ ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฑฮฝฮธฯฯŽฯ€แฟณ).

19 is is conrmed by Martial 2.89 and Pliny, Epist. 3.12.2-3.

20 e philosophers with whom Cato would converse were the Stoics (Cato was in the circle

of the Stoic Antipatros of Tyros – cf. Cat. Mi. 4.2), to whose doctrines and general inuence

he especially owed his adherence to rigid justice (ibidem: ฯ„แฝธ ฯ€ฮตฯแฝถ ฯ„แฝดฮฝ ฮดฮนฮบฮฑฮนฮฟฯƒฯฮฝฮทฮฝ แผ€ฯ„ฮตฮฝแฝฒฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ

แผ„ฮบฮฑฮผฯ€ฯ„ฮฟฮฝ ฮตแผฐฯ‚ แผฯ€ฮนฮตฮฏฮบฮตฮนฮฑฮฝ แผข ฯ‡ฮฌฯฮนฮฝ). For Cato's relationship with Stoicism see D. B, 1969,

170-6) and cf. T. D, 1999, pp. 155-8.

281

Philanthropia as Sociability and Plutarch's Unsociable Heroes

to do the things by which the populace is courted and captivated; thus, he

failed to obtain the consulship21 .

Cat. Mi. 49.6:…แผ€ฮปฮป' แผฮฝ แผคฮธฮตฮน, ฯ„แฝธ ฯ„ฮฟแฟฆ ฮฒฮฏฮฟฯ… ฮผแพถฮปฮปฮฟฮฝ แผ€ฮพฮฏฯ‰ฮผฮฑ ฮฒฮฟฯ…ฮปฯŒฮผฮตฮฝฮฟฯ‚

ฯ†ฯ…ฮปฮฌฯƒฯƒฮตฮนฮฝ แผข ฯ€ฯฮฟฯƒฮปฮฑฮฒฮตแฟ–ฮฝ ฯ„แฝธ ฯ„แฟ†ฯ‚ แผ€ฯฯ‡แฟ†ฯ‚, ฯ€ฮฟฮนฮฟฯฮผฮตฮฝฮฟฯ‚ ฯ„แฝฐฯ‚ ฮดฮตฮพฮนฯŽฯƒฮตฮนฯ‚, ฮผฮฎฯ„ฮต ฯ„ฮฟแฝบฯ‚

ฯ†ฮฏฮปฮฟฯ…ฯ‚ แผฮฌฯƒฮฑฯ‚ ฮฟแผทฯ‚ แฝ„ฯ‡ฮปฮฟฯ‚ แผฮปฮฏฯƒฮบฮตฯ„ฮฑฮน ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮธฮตฯฮฑฯ€ฮตฯฮตฯ„ฮฑฮน ฯ€ฮฟฮนฮตแฟ–ฮฝ, แผ€ฯ€ฮญฯ„ฯ…ฯ‡ฮต ฯ„แฟ†ฯ‚ แผ€ฯฯ‡แฟ†ฯ‚.

Cato, however, was not always so rigid and inexible. As Romilly notes (p.

283 n.1), his proposal that the senate distribute grain to the populace as a

means to lure them away from Caesar who had taken refuge with them, was

an act of "douceur calculรฉe" (Cat. Mi. 26.1: ฯ†ฮฟฮฒฮทฮธฮตแฝถฯ‚ แผ”ฯ€ฮตฮนฯƒฮต ฯ„แฝดฮฝ ฮฒฮฟฯ…ฮปแฝดฮฝ

ฮฑฮฝฮฑฮปฮฑฮฒฮตแฟ–ฮฝ ฯ„แฝธฮฝ แผ„ฯ€ฮฟฯฮฟฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ แผ€ฮฝฮญฮผฮทฯ„ฮฟฮฝ แฝ„ฯ‡ฮปฮฟฮฝ ฮตแผฐฯ‚ ฯ„แฝธ ฯƒฮนฯ„ฮทฯฮญฯƒฮนฮฟฮฝ…ฯ€ฮตฯฮนฯ†ฮฑฮฝแฟถฯ‚ ฮดแฝฒ

ฯ„แฟ‡ ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฑฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€ฮฏแพณ ฯ„ฮฑฯฯ„แฟƒ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ‡ฮฌฯฮนฯ„ฮน ฯ„แฟ†ฯ‚ แผ€ฯ€ฮตฮนฮปแฟ†ฯ‚ แผฮบฮตฮฏฮฝฮทฯ‚ ฮดฮนฮฑฮปฯ…ฮธฮตฮฏฯƒฮทฯ‚). Similarly,

as Goar points out (p. 68), to avoid anarchy and civil bloodshed, Cato tempers

his rigidity and supports, contrary to his political principles, Pompey's sole

consulship in 52 B.C. (Cat. Mi. 47.2-4: ฯ„แฟท ฮผฮตฯ„ฯฮนฯ‰ฯ„ฮฌฯ„แฟณ ฯ„แฟถฮฝ ฯ€ฮฑฯฮฑฮฝฮฟฮผฮทฮผฮฌฯ„ฯ‰ฮฝ

ฯ‡ฯฮทฯƒฮฌฮผฮตฮฝฮฟฯ‚ แผฐฮฌฮผฮฑฯ„ฮน ฯ„แฟ†ฯ‚ ฯ„แฟถฮฝ ฮผฮตฮณฮฏฯƒฯ„ฯ‰ฮฝ ฮบฮฑฯ„ฮฑฯƒฯ„ฮฌฯƒฮตฯ‰ฯ‚…ฯƒฯ…ฮฝฮตฮฒฮฟฯฮปฮตฯ…ฯƒฮตฮฝ ฯ€แพถฯƒฮฑฮฝ

แผ€ฯฯ‡แฝดฮฝ แฝกฯ‚ แผ€ฮฝฮฑฯฯ‡ฮฏฮฑฯ‚ ฮบฯฮตฮฏฯ„ฯ„ฮฟฮฝฮฑ). e special treatment of his brother-in-law

Silanus (Cato prosecuted only Murena for having become consul through

bribery, but let alone his accomplice Silanus ฮดฮน' ฮฟแผฐฮบฮตฮนฯŒฯ„ฮทฯ„ฮฑ) is in fact a case

of mitigated severity and favouritism (Cat. Mi. 21.3-4). All this seems to tell

somewhat against Du 's opinion that Cato lacked Phokion's "ability to mix

sternness and gentleness" and was, therefore, "a failure" (p. 150). Goar rightly

maintains that, all things considered, Plutarch "does not seem to regard Cato as

a failure" (p. 69). Indeed, how can we regard Cato as a failure, even in political

terms, knowing that it was him and his virtues that delayed the collapse of the

Roman republic (ib. in connection with Phoc. 3.5)? True, by comparing the

ideal government with the curved course of the sun, Plutarch says that the

right statesman should be neither totally inexible and constantly opposed to

the people's desires nor yielding perforce to their whims and mistakes (Phoc .

2.6), but he nowhere says directly that Cato represented the inexible way of

government, though, admittedly, his political manners and methods resembled

it (but see above). True again, Cato is characterized แผ„ฯ„ฯฮตฯ€ฯ„ฮฟฯ‚ at Cat. Mi. 1.3,

but certainly not in a political context (see n. 18). Plutarch is not at all blind

to Cato's political blunders (see, e.g., Cat. Mi. 30-31), and indeed believes that

the ideal statesman should combine sterness with gentleness, a combination,

however, which he does nd in both Phokion and Cato. In the prologue to this

pair he tells us that the very similar virtues of these men demonstrate the great

similarity of their characters, แฝฅฯƒฯ€ฮตฯ แผดฯƒแฟณ ฮผฮญฯ„ฯแฟณ ฮผฮตฮผฮนฮณฮผฮญฮฝฮฟฯ… [sc. แผคฮธฮฟฯ…ฯ‚] ฯ€ฯแฝธฯ‚ ฯ„แฝธ

ฮฑแฝฯƒฯ„ฮทฯแฝธฮฝ ฯ„ฮฟแฟฆ ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฑฮฝฮธฯฯŽฯ€ฮฟฯ…… (Phoc. 3.8).

Somewhat similar was the case of Pompey and Crassus a few years earlier.

Owing to his dignied manners, Pompey would shun the crowds of the forum,

giving his assistance, if reluctantly, only to a few. Crassus, by contrast, by being

always at hand to oer his services and invariably easy to access, managed,

through his aability and kindness, to overpower Pompey's gravity.

21 Cato himself, however, had another explanation for his failure; see Cat. Mi. 50.3 and cf.

ch. 42 and 44.1.

282

Anastasios G. Nikolaidis

Crass. 7.3-4: …ฯ€ฮฟฮปฮปฮฌฮบฮนฯ‚ แผ ฮปฮฑฯ„ฯ„ฮฟแฟฆฯ„ฮฟ [sc. Pompey] ฯ„ฮฟแฟฆ ฮšฯฮฌฯƒฯƒฮฟฯ…, ฮดฮนแฝฐ ฯ„แฝธฮฝ แฝ„ฮณฮบฮฟฮฝ

ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ„แฝธ ฯ€ฯฯŒฯƒฯ‡ฮทฮผฮฑ ฯ„ฮฟแฟฆ ฮฒฮฏฮฟฯ… ฯ†ฮตฯฮณฯ‰ฮฝ ฯ„แฝฐ ฯ€ฮปฮฎฮธฮท, ฮบฮฑแฝถ แผ€ฮฝฮฑฮดฯ…ฯŒฮผฮตฮฝฮฟฯ‚ แผฮพ แผ€ฮณฮฟฯแพถฯ‚,

ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ„แฟถฮฝ ฮดฮตฮฟฮผฮญฮฝฯ‰ฮฝ แฝ€ฮปฮฏฮณฮฟฮนฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮผแฝด ฯ€ฮฌฮฝฯ… ฯ€ฯฮฟฮธฯฮผฯ‰ฯ‚ ฮฒฮฟฮทฮธแฟถฮฝ…แฝ ฮดแฝฒ ฮšฯฮฌฯƒฯƒฮฟฯ‚

แผฮฝฮดฮตฮปฮตฯ‡ฮญฯƒฯ„ฮตฯฮฟฮฝ ฯ„แฝธ ฯ‡ฯฮฎฯƒฮนฮผฮฟฮฝ แผ”ฯ‡ฯ‰ฮฝ, ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯƒฯ€ฮฌฮฝฮนฮฟฯ‚ ฮฟแฝฮบ แฝขฮฝ ฮฟแฝฮดแฝฒ ฮดฯ…ฯƒฯ€ฯฯŒฯƒฮฟฮดฮฟฯ‚,

แผ€ฮปฮป' แผฮฝ ฮผฮญฯƒฮฑฮนฯ‚ แผ€ฮตแฝถ ฯ„ฮฑแฟ–ฯ‚ ฯƒฯ€ฮฟฯ…ฮดฮฑแฟ–ฯ‚ แผ€ฮฝฮฑฯƒฯ„ฯฮตฯ†ฯŒฮผฮตฮฝฮฟฯ‚, ฯ„แฟท ฮบฮฟฮนฮฝแฟท ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฑฮฝฮธฯฯŽฯ€แฟณ

ฯ€ฮตฯฮนฮตฮณฮฏฮฝฮตฯ„ฮฟ ฯ„แฟ†ฯ‚ แผฮบฮตฮฏฮฝฮฟฯ… ฯƒฮตฮผฮฝฯŒฯ„ฮทฯ„ฮฟฯ‚. Cf. also earlier 3.4, where we again see that

Crassus was not at all overbearing or disdainful, but very condescending and

willing to plead for everyone who could not nd another advocate or had been

turned down by the advocate of his choice. us, ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮดฮนแฝฐ ฯ„ฮฟแฟฆฯ„ฮฟ ฮผแพถฮปฮปฮฟฮฝ แผคฯฮตฯƒฮบฮตฮฝ

แฝกฯ‚ แผฯ€ฮนฮผฮตฮปแฝดฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮฒฮฟฮทฮธฮทฯ„ฮนฮบฯŒฯ‚. By means of a similar conduct, Otho managed

to avoid envy too (Galb. 20.5: ฯ„แฟท ฮด' แผ€ฮฝฮตฯ€ฮนฯ†ฮธฯŒฮฝแฟณ ฯ€ฮตฯฮนแฟ†ฮฝ, ฯ€ฯฮฟแฟ–ฮบฮฑ ฯƒฯ…ฮผฯ€ฯฮฌฯ„ฯ„ฯ‰ฮฝ

ฯ€ฮฌฮฝฯ„ฮฑ ฯ„ฮฟแฟ–ฯ‚ ฮดฮตฮฟฮผฮญฮฝฮฟฮนฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ€ฮฑฯฮญฯ‡ฯ‰ฮฝ แผ‘ฮฑฯ…ฯ„แฝธฮฝ ฮตแฝฯ€ฯฮฟฯƒฮฎฮณฮฟฯฮฟฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฌฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€ฮฟฮฝ

แผ…ฯ€ฮฑฯƒฮน). As for the pairing of philanthropos with koinos (above Crass. 7.4), cf. also

Publ. 4.5 below and Phoc. 10.7. Nevertheless, Crassus' aability and helpfulness

above is not to be matched, pace H. M. Martin Jr. (p. 170), with Publicola's

philanthropia, despite the apparent similarity (Publ. 4.5: …แฝฅฯฮผฮทฯƒฮต ฯ€ฯแฝธฯ‚

ฯ„แฝธฮฝ ฮŸแฝฮฑฮปฮญฯฮนฮฟฮฝ, ฮผฮฌฮปฮนฯƒฯ„ฮฌ ฯ€ฯ‰ฯ‚ ฯ„ฮฟแฟ–ฯ‚ ฮบฮฟฮนฮฝฮฟแฟ–ฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฑฮฝฮธฯฯŽฯ€ฮฟฮนฯ‚ แผฯ€ฮฑฯ‡ฮธฮตแฝถฯ‚ ฯ„ฮฟแฟฆ

แผ€ฮฝฮดฯฯŒฯ‚, แฝ…ฯ„ฮน ฯ€แพถฯƒฮนฮฝ ฮตแฝฯ€ฯฯŒฯƒฮฟฮดฮฟฯ‚ แผฆฮฝ ฯ„ฮฟแฟ–ฯ‚ ฮดฮตฮฟฮผฮญฮฝฮฟฮนฯ‚, ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ„แฝดฮฝ ฮฟแผฐฮบฮฏฮฑฮฝ แผ€ฮฝฮตแฟณฮณฮผฮญฮฝฮทฮฝ

แผ€ฮตแฝถ ฯ€ฮฑฯฮตแฟ–ฯ‡ฮต, ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮปฯŒฮณฮฟฮฝ ฮฟแฝฮดฮตฮฝแฝธฯ‚ ฮฟแฝฮดแฝฒ ฯ‡ฯฮตฮฏฮฑฮฝ แผ€ฯ€ฮตฯฯฮฏฯ€ฯ„ฮตฮน ฯ„แฟถฮฝ ฯ„ฮฑฯ€ฮตฮนฮฝแฟถฮฝ); for,

unlike Publicola, an auent aristocrat, who used his eloquence แฝ€ฯฮธแฟถฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮผฮตฯ„แฝฐ

ฯ€ฮฑฯฯฮทฯƒฮฏฮฑฯ‚ แผ€ฮตแฝถ…แฝ‘ฯ€แฝฒฯ ฯ„แฟถฮฝ ฮดฮนฮบฮฑฮฏฯ‰ฮฝ, and his riches ฯ„ฮฟแฟ–ฯ‚ ฮดฮตฮฟฮผฮญฮฝฮฟฮนฯ‚ แผฮปฮตฯ…ฮธฮตฯฮฏฯ‰ฯ‚

ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฑฮฝฮธฯฯŽฯ€ฯ‰ฯ‚ แผฯ€ฮฑฯฮบแฟถฮฝ ( Publ. 1.2; and cf. 25.7), Crassus did not come

from a noble and wealthy family (see Crass. 1.1) and, once in the political arena,

he acted like a true demagogue (see n. 22).

Crassus was particularly popular with the Romans, because he would

indiscriminately and unaectedly clasp hands with the people on the street

and return everyone's greeting, however obscure or lowly, calling him by name

at that22 . Such conduct, which Plutarch characterizes as to… philanthropon

autou kai demotikon, clearly illustrates philanthropia through salutations, but a

bit earlier we see that Crassus was philanthropos also by means of his hospitality

(Crass. 3.1-2: ฮŸแฝ ฮผแฝดฮฝ แผ€ฮปฮปแฝฐ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ€ฮตฯแฝถ ฮพฮญฮฝฮฟฯ…ฯ‚ แผฆฮฝ ฯ†ฮนฮปฯŒฯ„ฮนฮผฮฟฯ‚ แฝ ฮšฯฮฌฯƒฯƒฮฟฯ‚· แผ€ฮฝฮญแฟณฮบฯ„ฮฟ

ฮณแฝฐฯ แผก ฮฟแผฐฮบฮฏฮฑ ฯ€แพถฯƒฮน…แผฮฝ ฮดแฝฒ ฯ„ฮฟแฟ–ฯ‚ ฮดฮตฮฏฯ€ฮฝฮฟฮนฯ‚ แผก ฮผแฝฒฮฝ ฮบฮปแฟ†ฯƒฮนฯ‚ แผฆฮฝ แฝกฯ‚ ฯ„แฝฐ ฯ€ฮฟฮปฮปแฝฐ ฮดฮทฮผฮฟฯ„ฮนฮบแฝด

ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮปฮฑฯŽฮดฮทฯ‚)23 . On the contrary, Nikias was, on the one hand, object of envy

because of his huge wealth and, on the other, unpopular because his own way

of life was neither philanthropon nor demotikon, but unsociable and aristocratic

22 Crass. 3.5: แผคฯฮตฯƒฮบฮต ฮดแฝฒ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ„แฝธ ฯ€ฮตฯแฝถ ฯ„แฝฐฯ‚ ฮดฮตฮพฮนฯŽฯƒฮตฮนฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ€ฯฮฟฯƒฮฑฮณฮฟฯฮตฯฯƒฮตฮนฯ‚ ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฌฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€ฮฟฮฝ

ฮฑแฝฯ„ฮฟแฟฆ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮดฮทฮผฮฟฯ„ฮนฮบฯŒฮฝ. ฮฟแฝฮดฮตฮฝแฝถ ฮณแฝฐฯ ฮฟแฝ•ฯ„ฯ‰ฯ‚ แผ€ฯ€ฮฎฮฝฯ„ฮทฯƒฮต แฟฌฯ‰ฮผฮฑฮฏฯ‰ฮฝ แผ€ฮดฯŒฮพแฟณ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ„ฮฑฯ€ฮตฮนฮฝแฟท ฮšฯฮฌฯƒฯƒฮฟฯ‚, แฝƒฮฝ

แผ€ฯƒฯ€ฮฑฯƒฮฌฮผฮตฮฝฮฟฮฝ ฮฟแฝฮบ แผ€ฮฝฯ„ฮนฯ€ฯฮฟฯƒฮทฮณฯŒฯฮตฯ…ฯƒฮตฮฝ แผฮพ แฝ€ฮฝฯŒฮผฮฑฯ„ฮฟฯ‚. For the close relationship of philanthropos

with demotikos see also Nic. 11.2 and Ages. 1.5 (n. 24), Cim-Luc. Comp. 1.5 (dรชmokratikos), and

Cat. Mi. 23,1 (p. 286 below).

23 Somewhat similar (but perhaps less calculated) was the philanthropia of Kimon and Lucullus

(cf. Cim. 3.3: แผก ฯ€ฮตฯแฝถ ฯ„แฝฐฯ‚ แฝ‘ฯ€ฮฟฮดฮฟฯ‡แฝฐฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ„แฝฐฯ‚ ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฑฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€ฮฏฮฑฯ‚ [ฯ„ฮฑฯฯ„ฮฑฯ‚] แฝ‘ฮณฯฯŒฯ„ฮทฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮดฮฑฯˆฮฏฮปฮตฮนฮฑ). And,

as in the case of Crassus above, Kimon's table was also dรชmokratikรช and philanthropos (Cim-Luc.

Comp. 1.5). On the other hand, if we take into account that Crassus was a diligent as well as

a powerful speaker, who promptly oered his advocacy to those who needed it (see Crass. 3.4

above), one might say that his conduct combined, seemingly at least, all 3 kinds of Laertios'

philanthropia (cf also 546E on p. 278).

283

Philanthropia as Sociability and Plutarch's Unsociable Heroes

instead24 . As has been said, Plutarch highly esteemed philanthropia, but he

admired neither the philanthropos/sociable Crassus nor Nikias who was

unsociable and, therefore, not philanthropos in this sense25 . However, between

the two, and from the moral point of view, he regarded Nikias as far superior

to Crassus (see Crass. 2.1-5, 6.8-9, 14.5). is is evident in the concluding

Synkrisis of this pair, where Crassus' character is described as abnormal and

incongruous, while his ways of amassing and squandering his money are

looked upon as emblematic of vice itself (Nic.-Crass. Comp. chs 1-2 and esp.

1.4…แฝฅฯƒฯ„ฮต ฮธฮฑฯ…ฮผฮฌฮถฮตฮนฮฝ ฮตแผด ฯ„ฮนฮฝฮฑ ฮปฮญฮปฮทฮธฮต ฯ„แฝธ ฯ„แฝดฮฝ ฮบฮฑฮบฮฏฮฑฮฝ แผ€ฮฝฯ‰ฮผฮฑฮปฮฏฮฑฮฝ ฮตแผถฮฝฮฑฮน ฯ„ฮนฮฝฮฑ

ฯ„ฯฯŒฯ€ฮฟฯ… ฮบฮฑแฝถ แผ€ฮฝฮฟฮผฮฟฮปฮฟฮณฮฏฮฑฮฝ, แฝฯแฟถฮฝฯ„ฮฑ ฯ„ฮฟแฝบฯ‚ ฮฑแผฐฯƒฯ‡ฯแฟถฯ‚ ฯƒฯ…ฮปฮปฮญฮณฮฟฮฝฯ„ฮฑฯ‚ ฮตแผถฯ„' แผ€ฯ‡ฯฮฎฯƒฯ„ฯ‰ฯ‚

แผฮบฯ‡ฮญฮฟฮฝฯ„ฮฑฯ‚).

Perikles is another exemplary Life; and of him we also hear that, once

he entered public life, he consistently declined all invitations to dinner or

similar social occasions. So, during his long political career he participated

in not one dinner-party as a guest (Per. 7.5: …ฮบฮปฮฎฯƒฮตฮนฯ‚ ฯ„ฮต ฮดฮตฮฏฯ€ฮฝฯ‰ฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ„แฝดฮฝ

ฯ„ฮฟฮนฮฑฯฯ„ฮทฮฝ แผ…ฯ€ฮฑฯƒฮฑฮฝ ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฟฯ†ฯฮฟฯƒฯฮฝฮทฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯƒฯ…ฮฝฮฎฮธฮตฮนฮฑฮฝ แผฮพฮญฮปฮนฯ€ฮต), except in his

nephew's wedding feast, which he did attend, but only until the libations were

made; for immediately afterwards he rose up and departed. In recognizing

that conviviality is apt to overpower any kind of pretentiousness, and that it is

very dicult for one to maintain an assumed gravity in the midst of familiar

intercourse (Per. 7.6: ฮดฮตฮนฮฝฮฑแฝถ ฮณแฝฐฯ ฮฑแผฑ ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฟฯ†ฯฮฟฯƒฯฮฝฮฑฮน ฯ€ฮฑฮฝฯ„แฝธฯ‚ แฝ„ฮณฮบฮฟฯ… ฯ€ฮตฯฮนฮณฮตฮฝฮญฯƒฮธฮฑฮน,

ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮดฯ…ฯƒฯ†ฯฮปฮฑฮบฯ„ฮฟฮฝ แผฮฝ ฯƒฯ…ฮฝฮทฮธฮตฮฏแพณ ฯ„แฝธ ฯ€ฯแฝธฯ‚ ฮดฯŒฮพฮฑฮฝ ฯƒฮตฮผฮฝฯŒฮฝ แผฯƒฯ„ฮน), Plutarch seems to

endorse Perikles' decision to keep away from dinner-parties.

In the immediate sequel, however, Plutarch contrasts Perikles' conduct with

that of truly virtuous men, whose goodness "fairest appears when most

appears" (Perrin's Loeb translation), and in whom nothing is so admirable

in the eyes of strangers as their daily life is in the eyes of their intimates26 .

From this one may gather that Plutarch denies the genuineness of Perikles'

gravity (and ultimately his virtue), which seems to be invigorated somehow

by his earlier observation that Perikles had decided to champion the poor

24 Nic. 11.2: ฯ„แฟ†ฯ‚ ฮดฮนฮฑฮฏฯ„ฮทฯ‚ ฯ„แฝธ ฮผแฝด ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฌฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€ฮฟฮฝ ฮผฮทฮดแฝฒ ฮดฮทฮผฮฟฯ„ฮนฮบฯŒฮฝ, แผ€ฮปฮป' แผ„ฮผฮนฮบฯ„ฮฟฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ แฝ€ฮปฮนฮณฮฑฯฯ‡ฮนฮบแฝธฮฝ

แผ€ฮปฮปฯŒฮบฮฟฯ„ฮฟฮฝ แผฮดฯŒฮบฮตฮน. See also 5.1-2 where we hear of Nikias that, due to his fear of slanderers,

ฮฟแฝ”ฯ„ฮต ฯƒฯ…ฮฝฮตฮดฮตฮฏฯ€ฮฝฮตฮน ฯ„ฮนฮฝแฝถ ฯ„แฟถฮฝ ฯ€ฮฟฮปฮนฯ„แฟถฮฝ…ฮฟแฝฮด' แฝ…ฮปฯ‰ฯ‚ แผฯƒฯ‡ฯŒฮปฮฑฮถฮต ฯ„ฮฑแฟ–ฯ‚ ฯ„ฮฟฮนฮฑฯฯ„ฮฑฮนฯ‚ ฮดฮนฮฑฯ„ฯฮนฮฒฮฑแฟ–ฯ‚. And when

free from public duties, ฮดฯ…ฯƒฯ€ฯฯŒฯƒฮฟฮดฮฟฯ‚ แผฆฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮดฯ…ฯƒฮญฮฝฯ„ฮตฯ…ฮบฯ„ฮฟฯ‚. Agesilaus, by contrast, thanks to

his public training as a common Spartan, acquired ฯ„แฟท ฯ†ฯฯƒฮตฮน ฮฒฮฑฯƒฮนฮปฮนฮบแฟท ฮบฮฑแฝถ แผกฮณฮตฮผฮฟฮฝฮนฮบแฟท…ฯ„แฝธ

ฮดฮทฮผฮฟฯ„ฮนฮบแฝธฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฌฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€ฮฟฮฝ (Ages. 1.5).

25 Although Nikias, owing to his huge wealth, gave money to a lot of people: to the base

(who could discredit him; see Nic. 5.1 previous note) out of cowardice; to the good (and those

deserving to receive) out of liberality (ฮดฮนแฝฐ ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฑฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€ฮฏฮฑฮฝ – Nic. 4.3). For the liberality-nuance

of philanthropia see also Ant. 1.1, Arat. 12.1, Di. 52.1, Cim. 10.6-7; and for the association of

philanthropia with liberality see also H. M. M J., 1961, pp. 173-4. Further, the two words

are paired together in Pel. 3.3 and Publ. 1.2. See moreover Mor. 333E-F, 510C (n. 12 above)

and 527A. Note, nally, that, according to [Arist.], VV 1250b33-34, philanthropia is one of the

concomitants of liberality (แผฮปฮตฯ…ฮธฮตฯฮนฯŒฯ„ฮทฯ‚), whereas, according to logic, it rather should be the

other way round.

26 Per . 7.6: ฯ„แฟ†ฯ‚ แผ€ฮปฮทฮธฮนฮฝแฟ†ฯ‚ ฮด' แผ€ฯฮตฯ„แฟ†ฯ‚ ฮบฮฌฮปฮปฮนฯƒฯ„ฮฑ ฯ†ฮฑฮฏฮฝฮตฯ„ฮฑฮน ฯ„แฝฐ ฮผฮฌฮปฮนฯƒฯ„ฮฑ ฯ†ฮฑฮนฮฝฯŒฮผฮตฮฝฮฑ, ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ„แฟถฮฝ

แผ€ฮณฮฑฮธแฟถฮฝ แผ€ฮฝฮดฯแฟถฮฝ ฮฟแฝฮดแฝฒฮฝ ฮฟแฝ•ฯ„ฯ‰ ฮธฮฑฯ…ฮผฮฌฯƒฮนฮฟฮฝ ฯ„ฮฟแฟ–ฯ‚ แผฮบฯ„แฝธฯ‚ แฝกฯ‚ แฝ ฮบฮฑฮธ' แผกฮผฮญฯฮฑฮฝ ฮฒฮฏฮฟฯ‚ ฯ„ฮฟแฟ–ฯ‚ ฯƒฯ…ฮฝฮฟแฟฆฯƒฮนฮฝ.

284

Anastasios G. Nikolaidis

and the many instead of the few and the rich, contrary to his own nature

which was anything but popular (Per. 7.3: …ฯ€ฮฑฯแฝฐ ฯ„แฝดฮฝ แผ‘ฮฑฯ…ฯ„ฮฟแฟฆ ฯ†ฯฯƒฮนฮฝ แผฅฮบฮนฯƒฯ„ฮฑ

ฮดฮทฮผฮฟฯ„ฮนฮบแฝดฮฝ ฮฟแฝ–ฯƒฮฑฮฝ). But when he mentions Ion's criticism of Perikles next to

his eulogy of Kimon27, he clearly disagrees with him (Per. 5.3: แผˆฮปฮป' แผผฯ‰ฮฝฮฑ

ฮผแฝฒฮฝ แฝฅฯƒฯ€ฮตฯ ฯ„ฯฮฑฮณฮนฮบแฝดฮฝ ฮดฮนฮดฮฑฯƒฮบฮฑฮปฮฏฮฑฮฝ แผ€ฮพฮนฮฟแฟฆฮฝฯ„ฮฑ ฯ„แฝดฮฝ แผ€ฯฮตฯ„แฝดฮฝ แผ”ฯ‡ฮตฮนฮฝ ฯ„ฮน ฯ€ฮฌฮฝฯ„ฯ‰ฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ

ฯƒฮฑฯ„ฯ…ฯฮนฮบแฝธฮฝ ฮผฮญฯฮฟฯ‚ แผแฟถฮผฮตฮฝ). And by subsequently appealing to what Zeno used

to say to Perikles' critics (p. 279 above), Plutarch appears to understand and

justify Perikles' conduct, regardless of his personal predilections (as a wealthy

aristocrat he was in favour of dinner-parties and similar social gatherings)

and, perhaps, his belief that Perikles betrayed an แผ”ฮปฮปฮตฮนฮผฮผฮฑ แผ€ฯฮตฯ„แฟ†ฯ‚ here; a

shortcoming, however, that Plutarch would ascribe to political necessity (แผฮบ…

ฯ€ฮฟฮปฮนฯ„ฮนฮบแฟ†ฯ‚ แผ€ฮฝฮฌฮณฮบฮทฯ‚), as he tells us in the prologue to the Life of Kimon (2.5).

Further, one could even argue that the supposed arrogance and haughtiness

of Perikles might have been an inuence of Anaxagoras, who was แฝ…ฮผฮฌฮปฮนฯƒฯ„ฮฑ

ฯ€ฮตฯฮนฮธฮตแฝถฯ‚ แฝ„ฮณฮบฮฟฮฝ ฮฑแฝฯ„แฟท…แฝ…ฮปฯ‰ฯ‚ ฯ„ฮต ฮผฮตฯ„ฮตฯ‰ฯฮฏฯƒฮฑฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯƒฯ…ฮฝฮตฮพฮฌฯฮฑฯ‚ ฯ„แฝธ แผ€ฮพฮฏฯ‰ฮผฮฑ ฯ„ฮฟแฟฆ

แผคฮธฮฟฯ…ฯ‚ (Per . 4.6; cf. also 5.1). For a somewhat similar inuence of the Stoic

Antipatros upon the younger Cato, see n. 20.

Half a century before Perikles, we nd the young emistokles declining

similar invitations to drinking-parties (em. 3.4: …ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ„ฮฟแฝบฯ‚ ฯ€ฯŒฯ„ฮฟฯ…ฯ‚

ฯ€ฮฑฯฮฑฮนฯ„ฮตแฟ–ฯƒฮธฮฑฮน ฯ„ฮฟแฝบฯ‚ ฯƒฯ…ฮฝฮฎฮธฮตฮนฯ‚). In his case, the reason for this change of life

was Miltiades' trophy, which so monopolized his thoughts and interests that

he could pay attention to nothing else; emistokles could not even sleep

on account of his eagerness and constant thinking of how he would surpass

Miltiades' success28 . Perikles' motive was not essentially dierent, since both

men aimed at the same target: to govern Athens29 . us, the conclusion drawn

from both cases is the same too: drinking-parties apparently impair rather

than advance the image of a public gure. No wonder, therefore, that we

eventually come to realize that, with the exception of Aemilius Paulus (cf.

Aem. 28.7-9, 38.6) and Scipio Africanus (p. 286 below), sociable par excellence

are those heroes who are regarded, whether by Plutarch himself or by several

modern critics, as negative paradigms, as examples to be avoided rather than

to be imitated; such heroes that is, as Antony, Crassus, Demetrios and, to some

extent, also Alkibiades, Lucullus and Sulla30 .

27 Per . 5.3: ฮผฮฟฮธฯ‰ฮฝฮนฮบฮฎฮฝ ฯ†ฮทฯƒฮน [sc. Ion] ฯ„แฝดฮฝ แฝฮผฮนฮปฮฏฮฑฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ แฝ‘ฯ€ฯŒฯ„ฯ…ฯ†ฮฟฮฝ ฮตแผถฮฝฮฑฮน ฯ„ฮฟแฟฆ ฮ ฮตฯฮนฮบฮปฮญฮฟฯ…ฯ‚,

ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ„ฮฑแฟ–ฯ‚ ฮผฮตฮณฮฑฮปฮฑฯ…ฯ‡ฮฏฮฑฮนฯ‚ ฮฑแฝบฯ„ฮฟแฟฆ ฯ€ฮฟฮปฮปแฝดฮฝ แฝ‘ฯ€ฮตฯฮฟฯˆฮฏฮฑฮฝ แผ€ฮฝฮฑฮผฮตฮผฮตแฟ–ฯ‡ฮธฮฑฮน ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ€ฮตฯฮนฯ†ฯฯŒฮฝฮทฯƒฮนฮฝ ฯ„แฟถฮฝ แผ„ฮปฮปฯ‰ฮฝ,

แผฯ€ฮฑฮนฮฝฮตแฟ– ฮดแฝฒ ฯ„แฝธ ฮšฮฏฮผฯ‰ฮฝฮฟฯ‚ แผฮผฮผฮตฮปแฝฒฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ แฝ‘ฮณฯแฝธฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮผฮตฮผฮฟฯ…ฯƒฯ‰ฮผฮญฮฝฮฟฮฝ แผฮฝ ฯ„ฮฑแฟ–ฯ‚ ฯ€ฮตฯฮนฯ†ฮฟฯฮฑแฟ–ฯ‚.

28 For a close examination of the Miltiades' trophy motif (literary function, didactic force,

political/ethical stimulus), see A. P J, 2008.

29 Unlike all others, emistokles believed that the Persian defeat at Marathon was not

the end of the war, but the beginning of even bigger struggles, แผฯ†' ฮฟแฝ“ฯ‚ แผ‘ฮฑฯ…ฯ„แฝธฮฝ แฝ‘ฯ€แฝฒฯ ฯ„แฟ†ฯ‚ แฝ…ฮปฮทฯ‚

แผ™ฮปฮปฮฌฮดฮฟฯ‚ แผคฮปฮตฮนฯ†ฮต… ฯ€ฯŒฯฯฯ‰ฮธฮตฮฝ แผคฮดฮท ฯ€ฯฮฟฯƒฮดฮฟฮบแฟถฮฝ ฯ„แฝธ ฮผฮญฮปฮปฮฟฮฝ ( em. 3.5). For Perikles' similar

foresight see Per. 8.7; and for his plan to govern Athens see chs 7 and 9.

30 Cf. Ant. 4.4-7, 9.5, 28; Demetr. 1.8, 2.3, 52.2-3; Alc. 16; Luc. 39-41, Sull. 2.5, 36.1-2,

41.5.

285

Philanthropia as Sociability and Plutarch's Unsociable Heroes

Time to conclude. ere is little doubt that Plutarch, as a wealthy Greek

aristocrat, was fond of dinner-parties. e symposion, after all, was traditionally

an aristocratic institution and as such also a tradition within Plutarch's own

family, as Quaestiones Convivales amply testify31 . At the same time, Plutarch's

moral outlook, fashioned partly on his own philanthropia in the literal sense

of the word32 , and partly on his peculiar practical spirit33, also inclined him

to be favourably disposed toward and endorse those social gatherings; for he

saw them not as occasions for a drinking-bout – this is very clear in his Table

Talks34 – but as splendid opportunities for sharing erudition35, practising self-

discipline, manifesting nesse, and, above all, tightening human relations with

the help of a relaxed and cheerful sympotic atmosphere. In the context of a

dinner-party, one should not only be on his guard against becoming drunk

or losing his temper and misbehaving, but should also reveal and exercise his

sociability at large. In other words, one ought to come out somehow of his

narrow self and prove his consideration for his fellows by showing, depending

on the particular circumstances, politeness, courtesy, tactfulness, aability,

friendliness and so on. For Plutarch, sociability and its ramications are not

negligible character-traits, but in fact aspects of a unied morality, if sociability

and its manifestations are genuine, or steps towards morality, if the sociability

is assumed (see p. 279 above).

On the other hand, Plutarch is also perfectly aware that these aspects

of rened conduct can be aected and articial. Especially in the context of

politics, sociability is usually a faรงade behind which may lurk crude political

ambition and a carefully studied design for winning popularity and establishing

one's inuence and power36 . We saw this kind of sociability in the case of

Crassus, and we see it again in the case of Caesar who was too ingratiating for

his age (Caes. 4.4: ฯ€ฮฟฮปฮปแฝด ฮดแฝฒ ฯ„แฟ†ฯ‚ ฯ€ฮตฯแฝถ ฯ„แฝฐฯ‚ ฮดฮตฮพฮนฯŽฯƒฮตฮนฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ แฝฮผฮนฮปฮฏฮฑฯ‚ ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฟฯ†ฯฮฟฯƒฯฮฝฮทฯ‚

ฮตแฝ”ฮฝฮฟฮนฮฑ ฯ€ฮฑฯแฝฐ ฯ„แฟถฮฝ ฮดฮทฮผฮฟฯ„แฟถฮฝ แผ€ฯ€ฮฎฮฝฯ„ฮฑ, ฮธฮตฯฮฑฯ€ฮตฯ…ฯ„ฮนฮบฮฟแฟฆ ฯ€ฮฑฯ' แผกฮปฮนฮบฮฏฮฑฮฝ แฝ„ฮฝฯ„ฮฟฯ‚). His

enemies believed, Plutarch tells us, that his increasing inuence would soon

vanish together with his resources, and so let it thrive without trying to check

it. Cicero, however, managed to see beneath the surface of Caesar's popular

policy and was the rst to discern and comprehend the powerful character

and the tyrannical purpose hidden under his kindly and cheerful exterior

(Caes . 4.8: ฯ„แฝดฮฝ แผฮฝ ฯ„แฟท ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฑฮฝฮธฯฯŽฯ€แฟณ ฮบฮฑแฝถ แผฑฮปฮฑฯแฟท ฮบฮตฮบฯฯ…ฮผฮผฮญฮฝฮทฮฝ ฮดฮตฮนฮฝฯŒฯ„ฮทฯ„ฮฑ ฯ„ฮฟแฟฆ

แผคฮธฮฟฯ…ฯ‚ ฮบฮฑฯ„ฮฑฮผฮฑฮธแฝผฮฝ…แผ”ฮปฮตฮณฮต [sc. Cicero] ฯ„ฮฟแฟ–ฯ‚…แผฯ€ฮนฮฒฮฟฯ…ฮปฮตฯฮผฮฑฯƒฮนฮฝ ฮฑฯ…ฯ„ฮฟแฟฆ ฮบฮฑแฝถ

31 Cf. also R. H. B, 1967, pp. 13-7.

32 Barrow aptly remarks that, though P.'s mind was not a rst-rate one, "it was a mind

essentially kindly, unwilling to think ill of anyone, tolerant, though shrewd in the judgement of

character" (p. 147). Cf. also R. H, 1912, A. G. N, 2008, and K. Z, 19642

(all in n. 4 above).

33 Cf. A. G. N, 1991, pp. 175-86.

34 C f. Talks 1.4, 3.9, 4 proem, 8 proem. Occasionally, however, some fellow-drinkers did get

drunk (see 620A, 645A-C, 715D).

35 Cf. S.-T. T, 1989, p. 14. Cf. also J. S, 1993, pp. 389-90.

36 Cf. J. D R, 1979, pp. 281-3. is sham philanthropia (ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฑฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€ฮฏฮฑ ฯ€ฯฮฟฯƒฯ€ฮฟฮฏฮทฯ„ฮฟฯ‚)

is a feature of injustice (adikia), according to [Arist.], VV 1251b3.

286

Anastasios G. Nikolaidis

ฯ€ฮฟฮปฮนฯ„ฮตฯฮผฮฑฯƒฮน ฯ„ฯ…ฯฮฑฮฝฮฝฮนฮบแฝดฮฝ แผฮฝฮฟฯแพถฮฝ ฮดฮนฮฌฮฝฮฟฮนฮฑฮฝ). Similarly, on the basis of Caesar's

lenient speech in the senate with regard to the Catilinarian conspiracy, the

younger Cato openly had accused him of trying to subvert the state ฯƒฯ‡ฮฎฮผฮฑฯ„ฮน

ฮดฮทฮผฮฟฯ„ฮนฮบแฟท ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮปฯŒฮณแฟณ ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฑฮฝฮธฯฯŽฯ€แฟณ ( Cat. Mi. 23.1)37 . In the case of Kleomenes,

by contrast, who would meet the various petitioners without mediators but

in person, conversing at length with those who needed his services and

devoting time cheerfully and kindly to them, we have no reason to question

the genuineness of the Spartan king's kindliness and sociability38 . Nor do we

need to suspect Scipio's philanthropia, who was agreeable in socializing with

friends at his leisure, without neglecting in the least matters of import related

to the preparation of his war with Hannibal.

Despite Cato's denunciations that in Sicily Scipio acted as a feast organizer

rather than as an army commander, the latter แผฮฝ ฯ„แฟ‡ ฯ€ฮฑฯฮฑฯƒฮบฮตฯ…แฟ‡ ฯ„ฮฟแฟฆ ฯ€ฮฟฮปฮญฮผฮฟฯ…

ฯ„แฝดฮฝ ฮฝฮฏฮบฮทฮฝ แผฯ€ฮนฮดฮตฮนฮพฮฌฮผฮตฮฝฮฟฯ‚ [to the tribunes who came from Rome to nd

out what was happening], ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ†ฮฑฮฝฮตแฝถฯ‚ แผกฮดแฝบฯ‚ ฮผแฝฒฮฝ แผฯ€แฝถ ฯƒฯ‡ฮฟฮปแฟ†ฯ‚ ฯƒฯ…ฮฝฮตแฟ–ฮฝฮฑฮน ฯ†ฮฏฮปฮฟฮนฯ‚,

ฮฟแฝฮดฮฑฮผแฟ‡ ฮดแฝฒ ฯ„แฟท ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฑฮฝฮธฯฯŽฯ€แฟณ ฯ„แฟ†ฯ‚ ฮดฮนฮฑฮฏฯ„ฮทฯ‚ ฮตแผฐฯ‚ ฯ„แฝฐ ฯƒฯ€ฮฟฯ…ฮดฮฑแฟ–ฮฑ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮผฮตฮณฮฌฮปฮฑ แฟฅแพดฮธฯ…ฮผฮฟฯ‚,

แผฮพฮญฯ€ฮปฮตฯ…ฯƒฮตฮฝ แผฯ€แฝถ ฯ„แฝธฮฝ ฯ€ฯŒฮปฮตฮผฮฟฮฝ ( Cat. Ma. 3.6-7). Demetrios also was, on the one

hand, แผฅฮดฮนฯƒฯ„ฮฟฯ‚…ฯƒฯ…ฮณฮณฮตฮฝฮญฯƒฮธฮฑฮน, ฯƒฯ‡ฮฟฮปฮฌฮถฯ‰ฮฝ ฯ„ฮต ฯ€ฮตฯแฝถ ฯ€ฯŒฯ„ฮฟฯ…ฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ„ฯฯ…ฯ†แฝฐฯ‚ and, on the

olther, most energetic, impetuous, persevering and ecient in action (Demetr.

2.3). Gaius Gracchus was another man who, ฯ€แพถฯƒฮนฮฝ แผฮฝฯ„ฯ…ฮณฯ‡ฮฌฮฝฯ‰ฮฝ ฮผฮตฯ„แฝฐ ฮตแฝฮบฮฟฮปฮฏฮฑฯ‚,

at the same time preserved ฯ„แฝธ ฯƒฮตฮผฮฝแฝธฮฝ แผฮฝ ฯ„แฟท ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฑฮฝฮธฯฯŽฯ€แฟณ (GGr. 6.4).

It follows then that, unlike Nikias and to some extent Pompey, Crassus,

Kleomenes and Scipio enjoyed popularity thanks to their philanthropia, namely,

by being aable and agreeable in their intercourse with people and by meeting

their needs39 .

Finally, reservations and warnings concern sociability even outside the

domain of politics. Earlier (p. 278), we saw a case of hospitality going too far;

and in De vitioso pudore we nd an example of courtesy going similarly too

far, since Plutarch admonishes us that social courtesy should not be carried

to the extent of destroying one's individuality. When, for instance, a citharode

sings badly at a friend's banquet, we must set aside the attering equation

"compliance equals politeness" (529D: ฮบฮฟฮปฮฑฮบฮตฯฮฟฯ…ฯƒฮฑ ฯ„แฝธฮฝ ฮตแฝฮดฯ…ฯƒฯŽฯ€ฮทฯ„ฮฟฮฝ แฝกฯ‚

37 Another example of pretended philanthropia (if momentarily in this case) can be seen

in the deceitful trick which Alkibiades played on the Spartan delegation in Athens during the

years of Nikias' peace. In front of the popular assembly Alkibiades asked the delegates ฯ€ฮฌฮฝฯ…

ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฑฮฝฮธฯฯŽฯ€ฯ‰ฯ‚ with what powers they had come, and when the Spartans answered exactly as

they had been instructed by Alkibiades himself, the latter assailed them ฮผฮตฯ„แฝฐ ฮบฯฮฑฯ…ฮณแฟ†ฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ แฝ€ฯฮณแฟ†ฯ‚,

แฝฅฯƒฯ€ฮตฯ ฮฟแฝบฮบ แผ€ฮดฮนฮบแฟถฮฝ, แผ€ฮปฮป' แผ€ฮดฮนฮบฮฟฯฮผฮตฮฝฮฟฯ‚, calling them faithless and unreliable (Alc. 14-7-12).

38 Cleom. 13.3: … ฮฟแฝฮด' แฝ‘ฯ€' แผ€ฮณฮณฮญฮปฯ‰ฮฝ แฝ„ฯ‡ฮปฮฟฯ… ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮธฯ…ฯฯ‰ฯแฟถฮฝ แผข ฮดฮนแฝฐ ฮณฯฮฑฮผฮผฮฑฯ„ฮญฯ‰ฮฝ ฯ‡ฯฮทฮผฮฑฯ„ฮฏฮถฮฟฮฝฯ„ฮฑ

ฯ‡ฮฑฮปฮตฯ€แฟถฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮผฯŒฮปฮนฯ‚, แผ€ฮปฮป' ฮฑแฝฯ„แฝธฮฝ แผฮฝ แผฑฮผฮฑฯ„ฮฏแฟณ ฯ„แฟท ฯ„ฯ…ฯ‡ฯŒฮฝฯ„ฮน ฯ€ฯแฝธฯ‚ ฯ„แฝฐฯ‚ ฮดฮตฮพฮนฯŽฯƒฮตฮนฯ‚ แผ€ฯ€ฮฑฮฝฯ„แฟถฮฝฯ„ฮฑ ฮบฮฑแฝถ

ฮดฮนฮฑฮปฮตฮณฯŒฮผฮตฮฝฮฟฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯƒฯ‡ฮฟฮปฮฌฮถฮฟฮฝฯ„ฮฑ ฯ„ฮฟแฟ–ฯ‚ ฯ‡ฯแฟ„ฮถฮฟฯ…ฯƒฮนฮฝ แผฑฮปฮฑฯแฟถฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฑฮฝฮธฯฯŽฯ€ฯ‰ฯ‚…

39 Note that P. employs the word แผ€ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฌฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€ฮฟฯ‚ (an hapax in his works) to describe the

Epicureans, who led a life แผ€ฮฝฮญฮพฮฟฮดฮฟฮฝ (secluded) ฮบฮฑแฝถ แผ€ฯ€ฮฟฮปฮฏฯ„ฮตฯ…ฯ„ฮฟฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ แผ€ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฌฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€ฮฟฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ

แผ€ฮฝฮตฮฝฮธฮฟฯ…ฯƒฮฏฮฑฯƒฯ„ฮฟฮฝ (with no enthusiasm, i.e. "untouched by any spark of the divine", according to

the brilliant translation of B. E  P.  L in Loeb – Non posse 1098D).

287

Philanthropia as Sociability and Plutarch's Unsociable Heroes

ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฌฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€ฮฟฮฝ) and, consequently, not feel compelled to join in the others'

applause and admiration, contrary to our own judgement (531B-C). ese

examples demonstrate that philanthropia for Plutarch is not a passive quality,

but always presupposes initiative and action on the part of the philanthropos . A

meek and submissive person, for instance, who is unable to do harm to anyone,

but at the same time apt to tolerate everything and, therefore, cannot ght or

simply resist baseness, is not philanthropos, because for Plutarch philanthropos

is only one who could also be not simply unkindly, but outright harsh on

his fellows when the latter act wrongfully; in other words, a philanthropos

ought to be also a misoponรชros, a hater of vice. is is why he puts us on our

guard against attery that calls prodigality "liberality", cowardice "caution",

stinginess "frugality", the irascible and overbearing "brave", the worthless and

meek "kindly"40 (cf. also 529D above).

It seems that philanthropia as a positive virtue must include the hatred of

wickedness, which is among the things we praise (De inv. et od. 537D: ฮบฮฑแฝถ

ฮณแฝฐฯ แผก ฮผฮนฯƒฮฟฯ€ฮฟฮฝฮทฯฮฏฮฑ ฯ„แฟถฮฝ แผฯ€ฮฑฮนฮฝฮฟฯ…ฮผฮญฮฝฯ‰ฮฝ แผฯƒฯ„ฮฏ). Plutarch, therefore, approves of

Timoleon's gentleness, however excessive, because it did not prevent him from

hating the base (Tim. 3.4: ฯ€ฯแพถฮฟฯ‚ ฮดฮนฮฑฯ†ฮตฯฯŒฮฝฯ„ฯ‰ฯ‚ แฝ…ฯƒฮฑ ฮผแฝด ฯƒฯ†ฯŒฮดฯฮฑ…ฮผฮนฯƒฮฟฯ€ฯŒฮฝฮทฯฮฟฯ‚).

On the contrary, he is not impressed by the gentleness of the Spartan King

Charilaos, but agrees with his royal colleague's remark: ฮ แฟถฯ‚ ฮด' แผ‚ฮฝ [ฮฟแฝฮบ] ฮตแผดฮท

ฮงฮฑฯฮฏฮปฮฑฮฟฯ‚ แผ€ฮฝแฝดฯ แผ€ฮณฮฑฮธแฝธฯ‚ แฝƒฯ‚ ฮฟแฝฮดแฝฒ ฯ„ฮฟแฟ–ฯ‚ ฯ€ฮฟฮฝฮทฯฮฟแฟ–ฯ‚ ฯ‡ฮฑฮปฮตฯ€ฯŒฯ‚ แผฯƒฯ„ฮน; (Lyc . 5.9; cf. also

Mor. 55E, 218B, 223E). According to the Peripatetic tradition, after all, justice

involves this hatred of wickedness (cf. [Arist.], VV 1250b 24: แผ€ฮบฮฟฮปฮฟฯ…ฮธฮตแฟ– ฮดแฝฒ ฯ„แฟ‡

ฮดฮนฮบฮฑฮนฮฟฯƒฯฮฝแฟƒ…ฮบฮฑแฝถ แผก ฮผฮนฯƒฮฟฯ€ฮฟฮฝฮทฯฮฏฮฑ), which is also one of the characteristics of

virtue itself (1251b 31: แผ”ฯƒฯ„ฮน ฮดแฝฒ ฯ„แฟ†ฯ‚ แผ€ฯฮตฯ„แฟ†ฯ‚…ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ„แฝธ ฯ†ฮนฮปฮตแฟ–ฮฝ ฯ„ฮฟแฝบฯ‚ แผ€ฮณฮฑฮธฮฟแฝบฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ„แฝธ

ฮผฮนฯƒฮตแฟ–ฮฝ ฯ„ฮฟแฝบฯ‚ ฯ†ฮฑฯฮปฮฟฯ…ฯ‚).

As in so many other things, Plutarch strikes again the middle course.

Despite his indisputable loyalty to Plato, in matters of practical ethics, the

practical Plutarch espouses the Aristotelian principle of the golden mean.

W o r k s c i T e d

B, R. H., Plutarch and his Times, London, 1967.

B, A., "Plutarque et la scรจne du banquet", in A. G. N (ed.),

2008, pp. 577-89.

B-I, B., Norm und Individualitรคt in den Biographien Plutarchs ,

Stuttgart, 1972.

40 De adul. et am. 56C: แผฮฝ ฮดแฝฒ ฯ„ฮฑแฟ–ฯ‚ ฮบฮฟฮปฮฑฮบฮตฮฏฮฑฮนฯ‚ แฝฯแพถฮฝ ฯ‡ฯแฝด ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ€ฮฑฯฮฑฯ†ฯ…ฮปฮฌฯ„ฯ„ฮตฮนฮฝ แผ€ฯƒฯ‰ฯ„ฮฏฮฑฮฝ ฮผแฝฒฮฝ

แผฮปฮตฯ…ฮธฮตฯฮนฯŒฯ„ฮทฯ„ฮฑ ฮบฮฑฮปฮฟฯ…ฮผฮญฮฝฮทฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮดฮตฮนฮปฮฏฮฑฮฝ แผ€ฯƒฯ†ฮฌฮปฮตฮนฮฑฮฝ…ฮผฮนฮบฯฮฟฮปฮฟฮณฮฏฮฑฮฝ ฮดแฝฒ ฯƒฯ‰ฯ†ฯฮฟฯƒฯฮฝฮทฮฝ… แผ€ฮฝฮดฯฮตแฟ–ฮฟฮฝ

ฮดแฝฒ ฯ„แฝธฮฝ แฝ€ฯฮณฮฏฮปฮฟฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ แฝ‘ฯ€ฮตฯฮฎฯ†ฮฑฮฝฮฟฮฝ, ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฌฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€ฮฟฮฝ ฮดแฝฒ ฯ„แฝธฮฝ ฮตแฝฯ„ฮตฮปแฟ† ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ„ฮฑฯ€ฮตฮนฮฝฯŒฮฝ.

288

Anastasios G. Nikolaidis

D, T., Plutarch's Lives. Exploring Virtue and Vice, Oxford, 1999.

F, F., Histoire et Morale dans les Vies Parallรจles de Plutarque, Paris,

1996.

G, R. J., e Legend of Cato Uticensis from the First Century B.C. to the Fifth

Century A.D., Bruxelles, 1987.

H, R., Plutarch, Leipzig, 1912.

I, H.-G., Plutarch's Schriften รผber die Heilung der Seele, Gรถttingen,

1971.

M J., H. M., "e Concept of philanthropia in Plutarch's Lives", AJP,

82 (1961) 164-75.

N, A. G., "Plutarch's Contradictions", C&M, 42 (1991) 153-86.

_____ "Introduction", in A. G. N (ed.), e Unity of Plutarch's Work.

Moralia emes in the Lives, Features of the Lives in the Moralia, Berlin/

New York, 2008, pp. XIII-XVII.

P, C., "Vocabulaire et mentalitรฉ dans les Moralia de Plutarque",

DHA, 3 (1977) 197-235.

P J, A., "El trofeo de Maratรณn: Adaptaciรณn y desarrollo de un

tรณpico รฉtico en Plutarco", in A. G. N (ed.), 2008, pp. 591-

600.

R F, J., "O doce afago da philanthropia", in C. S  .

(eds.), ร‰tica e Paideia em Plutarco, Coimbra, 2008, pp. 87-97.

D R, J., La douceur dans la pensรฉe grecque, Paris, 1979.

S, J., Plutarque, Paris, 1993.

T, S.-V., A Commentary of Plutarch's Table Talks, vol. 1, Gรถteborg,

1989.

Z, K., Ploutarchos von Chaironeia, Stuttgart, 2 1964/1949 (= RE 21.1

[1951], pp. 636-962).

289

รˆ il dio degli Stoici lantropo?

รˆ    S 

P V C

Universitร  di Salerno

Abstract

Many passages of Plutarch's De Stoicorum repugnantiis are devoted to the refutation of Stoic

beliefs about gods. Chrysippus' theological doctrine is qualied as 'extravagant', because of the

'extravagant' function the philosopher attributes to the gods: from them come only 'indierent'

things like health or wealth, but they do not provide men with the supreme virtue. What is

more, they usually provide bad men with more things than good men, and rich men with more

things than poor men. Zeus, the supreme god, the god of justice who has created the city of men

and gods, is thus unfair, cruel and ruthless. He creates the world but he destroys it by war. He

is by no means a philanthropist, and this conclusion, Plutarch asserts, is a contradictory topic

of Stoic doctrine.

"O Zeus, il piรน nobile degli dei immortali, dai molti nomi, sempre

onnipotente, / signore della natura, che governi ogni essere secondo

la legge, / salve! รˆ abitudine di tutti i mortali rivolgersi a te (…) /

Ti dedico il mio canto e sempre inneggerรฒ alla tua potenza. / A te

obbedisce tutto il cosmo che ruota intorno alla terra; / dovunque

lo conduci, ti si sommette volentieri, / perchรฉ tu hai nelle tue mani

invincibili uno strumento: / la folgore forcuta, infuocata, sempreviva.

/ Sotto il suo colpo tutti gli eventi naturali si compiono. / Con esso

tu regoli il Logos comune (…) che dovunque / si aggira (…) senza

di te, o dio, niente avviene sulla terra / (…) tranne i disegni che i

malvagi con le loro follie mettono in atto / (…). Cosรฌ, tu hai reso in

unitร , il bene e il male, / aermando un unico Logos eterno per tutte

le cose (…)" (Cleanth. apud Stob. Ecl. I 1, 12, p. 25, 3 = SVF I 537,

pp. 121-122 = p. 236 Radice).

L' Inno a Zeus di Cleante trova eco in un frammento di Crisippo,

allorquando egli denisce la natura di dio: "dio รจ un essere vivente immortale

(แผ€ฮธแฝฑฮฝฮฑฯ„ฮฟฮฝ ), razionale (ฮปฮฟฮณฮนฮบแฝนฮฝ), perfetto (ฯ„แฝณฮปฮตฮนฮฟฮฝ) ovvero intelligente nella

sua beatitudine (ฮฝฮฟฮตฯแฝธฮฝ แผฮฝ ฮตแฝฮดฮฑฮนฮผฮฟฮฝแฝทแพณ), esente da ogni male (ฮบฮฑฮบฮฟแฟฆ ฯ€ฮฑฮฝฯ„แฝธฯ‚

แผ€ฮฝฮตฯ€แฝทฮดฮตฮบฯ„ฮฟฮฝ), รจ la provvidenza del cosmo e delle cose che in esso vi sono

(ฯ€ฯฮฟฮฝฮฟฮทฯ„ฮนฮบแฝธฮฝ ฮบแฝนฯƒฮผฮฟฯ… ฯ„ฮต ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ„แฟถฮฝ แผฮฝ ฮบแฝนฯƒฮผแฟณ ) (...)" (D. L., VII 147 = SVF II

1021, p. 305 = p. 886 Radice).

Zeus รจ colui che dร  vita, รจ signore dell'etere in quanto Atena, dell'aria perchรฉ

รจ Era; a Zeus, dunque, appartiene ogni qualitร  trascendente ed immanente.

Ciรฒ appare una vistosa contraddizione a Plutarco, che si chiede in def. or. 29,

426B come possano gli Stoici considerare gli dei ovvero il dio alla stregua di

eventi atmosferici, privi di ogni libertร  ed autonomia, "rinserrati e inchiodati

alla loro corporeitร ", e che in de E ap. Delph. 19-20 aveva condiviso la posizione

di Ammonio, che attribuiva al dio un'eternitร  atemporale ed immobile (393A).

In tal modo erano evidenti il netto "riuto della sica stoica e la ripresa del tema

290

Paola Volpe Cacciatore

platonico della separazione tra essere e divenire, riformulata attraverso l'implicita

identicazione tra essere e dio e l'accentuazione del carattere divino"1 .

รˆ questo il problema che la ricerca losoca deve arontare (Chrysipp.

in Philon., de mun. I, p. 216 M. = SVF II 1010, p. 300 = p. 876 Radice), e

cioรจ se dio esiste e qual รจ la sua essenza. Pur avvertendo la dicoltร  di tale

dimostrazione, Crisippo, ricorrendo ad immagini di vita quotidiana, paragona

dio ad un artista e il mondo ad un'opera d'arte:

"(…) Chi, alla vista di una statua e di un quadro, non risale allo scultore e al

pittore? (…) E cosรฌ quando noi arriviamo in questa autentica megalopoli che

รจ il mondo, e vediamo valli e montagne lussureggianti di piante ed animali

e le correnti dei umi, di sorgenti lontane (…) e poi ancora il sole e la luna,

signori l'uno del giorno, l'altra della notte (…) non siamo forse autorizzati, anzi

costretti a farci un'idea di un padre creatore, e anche reggitore (แผกฮณฮตฮผแฝฝฮฝ)? E

infatti non esiste opera d'arte che si produca da sรฉ e il mondo รจ opera quanto

mai artistica: dunque, deve essere creato da un artece di somma sapienza e

perfezione".

Dio, dunque, esiste perchรฉ creatore e perchรฉ ha saputo fare cose superiori

all'intelligenza umana; circa poi la sua sostanza, dio รจ "pneuma dotato di

intelligenza, igneo, privo di una forma propria, ma che riesce a trasformarsi

in tutto ciรฒ che vuole, facendosi uguale ad ogni cosa" (Aet., Plac. I 6 = SVF II

1009, p. 299 = p. 874 Radice)2 .

รˆ evidente la prima dierenza tra gli Stoici e Plutarco, perchรฉ per i primi

dio รจ immanente alle cose di cui รจ padre, per il secondo รจ trascendente a quelle

stesse cose. "Quando Plutarco riassume la sua concezione della natura divina

con la formula ฮฟแฝ ฮณแฝฐฯ แผ„ฮฝฮฟฯ…ฮฝ ฮฟแฝฮด' แผ„ฯˆฯ…ฯ‡ฮฟฮฝ ฮฟแฝฮด' แผ€ฮฝฮธฯฯŽฯ€ฮฟฮนฯ‚ แฝ ฮธฮตแฝธฯ‚ แฝ‘ฯ€ฮฟฯ‡ฮตฮฏฯฮนฮฟฮฝ,

รจ il terzo termine che รจ essenziale e che condiziona, in certa maniera, gli altri

due: รจ perchรฉ dio non puรฒ essere "a portata di mano dell'uomo", per il fatto che

"non si mescola in nessun modo con noi" non piรน di quanto si comprometta

con il mondo, che la sua essenza non puรฒ essere materiale, nรฉ mortale come

nella sica stoica.

รˆ proprio qui, in denitiva, che sta il vero punto di rottura con il Portico,

secondo il quale, invece, la natura divina รจ diusa attraverso la totalitร  del

cosmo ed รจ inseparabile dalla materia che anima "3 . รˆ quanto Ammonio aveva

detto nel de E ap. Delph. circa il dio-essere immutabile, al quale Plutarco

contrapponeva "un altro dio o meglio un demone" al quale poter attribuire i

mutamenti di un cosmo sensibile. Si opponeva in tal modo al monismo stoico,

ripercorrendo in de Is. (370D-371A) le posizioni dei loso antichi – Eraclito,

1 F. F, 1995, p. 61.

2 Cf. SVF II 1075, p. 314 = p. 904 Radice; SVF II 1080, p. 316 = p. 908 Radice: "(…) il dio per

natura si riferisce a ciascuna cosa: Cerere alla terra, Nettuno al mare e poi altri dei ad altre realtร .

รˆ ravvisabile negli stoici e in Crisippo una volontร  chiara di tendere da un lato ad un sincretismo

religioso e dall'altro ad un monoteismo che non contrastasse con le credenze popolari" (Cf. D.

B, 2003, p. 492).

3 D. B, 2003, p. 515.

291

รˆ il dio degli Stoici lantropo?

Empedocle, i Pitagorici – no a giungere ad Anassagora, che distingue

Mente ed Innito, ad Aristotele che distingue Forma e Privazione ed, inne,

Platone, che "talora con espressioni vorrei dire velate e segretamente allusive,

dร  ai due principi contrapposti il nome di Identitร  e Diversitร . Ma nelle

Leggi, ormai vecchio, non si esprime piรน in maniera metaforica e simbolica,

bensรฌ in termini molto chiari: il cosmo, egli dice, non รจ mosso da un solo

spirito; probabilmente sono molti, e certamente non meno di due, lo spirito

che opera il bene e quello avversario che opera il male. Platone ammette

anche un terzo spirito, una natura intermedia che non รจ di per sรฉ priva di vita,

di pensiero, di movimento, come alcuni ritengono, ma deriva da entrambi i

principi suddetti (…)"4 .

La concezione plutarchea, che รจ – come dice Ferrari5 – originale, deriva

dalla lettura di un passo del libro X delle Leggi (896d-e) in cui "Platone accenna

in modo non del tutto chiaro a un'anima contrapposta all'anima buona, senza

perรฒ chiarire se si tratta di un principio cosmico o precosmico, o di che cosa.

Quest'anima rappresenta, per Plutarco, il fondamento dell'indeterminazione,

del disordine e, di conseguenza (per un platonico) del male"6 .

รˆ indubbio che il problema del male dovesse essere centrale nella

speculazione del losofo di Cheronea, ed egli lo risolve (de Is. 369A) opponendo

ad Osiride, il bene, Tifone, il male, ossia colui il quale tiranneggia imponendosi

con la forza. Si stabiliva cosรฌ un dualismo da lui aermato drasticamente; ma

allora รจ possibile spiegarlo in un contesto dove dio รจ causa di tutto il male?

Plutarco percorreva una terza via, quella della presenza dei demoni che

"possiedono una forza superiore a quella umana (…) ma l'elemento divino che

รจ in loro non si presenta mai puro e omogeneo, bensรฌ determinato sia dalle

caratteristiche intrinseche dello spirito, sia dalle attitudini sensoriali del corpo

e come tale passibile di percezioni piacevoli e dolorose" (de Is. 360E)7 .

Sono queste le premesse che animano la polemica antistoica di Plutarco

nei due opuscoli de Stoicorum repugnantiis e de communibus notitiis, nella parte in

cui egli tratta della teodicea e della teologia e che si potrebbe sintetizzare nella

domanda: "Si Deus est, unde malum?". รˆ questo l'interrogativo che si pongono

gli Stoici e che risolvono alla luce di un dio immanente alla natura e nella

convinzione che anche il male – al pari del bene – ha una sua giusticazione

in quanto esso si realizza secondo la ragione della natura e, per cosรฌ dire, si

realizza non inutilmente in rapporto al tutto, giacchรฉ non vi sarebbe, senza di

esso, neppure il bene" (Stoic. rep. 1050F - comm. not. 1065B).

4 Trad. it. di M. C, 1995.

5 F. F, 1995, p. 75. Cf. Ser. num. vind. 550D: "(…) anche la natura del tutto che era

priva di ordine, cominciรฒ a mutare e a diventare cosmo, grazie alla somiglianza e a una certa

partecipazione al complesso eidetico e alla virtรน che appartengono al divino (…)".

6 F. F, 1995, p. 61.

7 Il dualismo plutarcheo รจ espresso chiaramente anche in Def. or. 428B, dove si parla delle

due nature, una intellegibile e l'altra sensibile, e in Def. or. 428F, in cui si ricordano l'Uno e la

Diade indeterminata. Tale coppia di principi รจ ricondotta alla generazione del numero (429A);

cf. anche Plac. phil. 881E.

292

Paola Volpe Cacciatore

รˆ la stessa domanda che si poneva Seneca nel De providentia. Egli "evita

di spiegarne l'origine, la sua causa eciente (unde malum? ) concentrandosi

sulla causa nale (cur malum? ) (…). Da dio non puรฒ venire alcun male per gli

uomini, anzi egli ha allontanato da loro (precisamente, dai buoni) ogni male

(omnia mala ab illis removit – sc. Deus –, scelera et agitia et agitationes improbas et

avida consilia et libidinem caecam et alieno imminentem avaritiam [6,1])8 . L'unico

male per Seneca e per l'etica stoica รจ il male morale, tutto il resto rientra nella

categoria degli แผ€ฮดฮนแฝฑฯ†ฮฟฯฮฑ, ovvero "quelle cose che stanno a mezzo fra i beni e

i mali (…) <che> in eetti posseggono un pregio che invita alla scelta, oppure

un disvalore che invita al riuto, anche se non inuiscono sulla felicitร  della

vita" (Stob., ecl. II 79,1 W. = SVF III 118, p. 128 = p. 1024 Radice). In tale

denizione Plutarco evidenziava una contraddizione manifesta e aermava che

"ciรฒ che รจ suscettibile di un uso buono e cattivo, non รจ – a loro giudizio – nรฉ un

bene nรฉ un male. Della ricchezza, della salute e della vigoria sica tutti gli stolti

fanno un uso malvagio. E pertanto nessuno di questi puรฒ essere un bene" (Stoic.

rep. 1048C). Il discorso plutarcheo รจ dialetticamente incalzante, perchรฉ se tutti

sono in possesso degli แผ€ฮดฮนแฝฑฯ†ฮฟฯฮฑ 9 , l'unico elemento che distingue il buono dal

cattivo รจ la virtรน che, secondo Crisippo, non nasce senza la malvagitร  (comm. not.

1065C-D); e allora se gli dei possono donare la virtรน e non lo fanno, di certo

essi non possono considerarsi benevoli e allora – conclude Plutarco – "gli dei

non arrecano giovamento agli uomini piรน di quanto ricevano giovamento da

essi" (Stoic. rep. 1048E). Il male puรฒ essere connaturato nella divinitร ? Crisippo

risponde di sรฌ, sostenendo che male e bene non possono esistere se non in

connessione reciproca – come la luce non puรฒ esistere senza le tenebre – e che il

male stesso dร  al bene il suo signicato. Di certo un platonico come Plutarco non

poteva in alcun modo accogliere tale tesi, e neppure poteva accettare che uomini

potessero competere con gli dei o essere ritenuti pari a loro10 . Gli sembrava,

inoltre, oltremodo incredibile che mentre "il vignaiuolo elimina i tralci quando

i germogli sono piccoli e deboli (…) Zeus dopo che non solo ha permesso

per la sua trascuratezza che gli uomini divenissero adulti, ma anche li ha lui

stesso generati e cresciuti, li distrugge macchinando pretesti di rovina e morte"

(Stoic. rep. 1049C-D). Puรฒ allora considerarsi lantropo un dio di tal genere,

detto pure dio della giustizia e della pace? Un dio che รจ suscitatore di guerre

che non nascono dal bene, ma piuttosto dall'amore del piacere, dall'aviditร  del

possesso, dall'amore sfrenato della gloria e del potere. E allora, se รจ proprio

la divinitร  a causare le guerre, essa stessa รจ causa di malvagitร ! Ma Crisippo,

pur aermando ciรฒ, "nel II libro dell'opera Sugli dei <dice> che 'non รจ opinione

ragionevole che la divinitร  sia concausa delle azioni turpi; come infatti nรฉ la

8 N. L, 2008, p. 25.

9 Tra il bene e il male, tra il vizio e la virtรน, vi รจ tutta una regione nel mezzo, nella quale

si trovano i ni e il progresso. Gli แผ€ฮดฮนแฝฑฯ†ฮฟฯฮฑ sono tali solo in rapporto al bene e al male. In sรฉ

dieriscono gli uni dagli altri: alcuni sono neutri, altri sono preferiti e sono quelli che hanno

valore, altri ancora sono respinti e sono quelli che hanno disvalore (cf. D. L. VII 105 = SVF III

126, p. 30 = p. 1028 Radice).

10 Cf. M. P, 1967.

293

รˆ il dio degli Stoici lantropo?

legge potrebbe essere concausa della violazione della legge nรฉ gli dei dell'azione

empia rivolta contro di loro, cosรฌ รจ ragionevole che nemmeno di alcuna azione

moralmente turpe essi siano concausa'" (Stoic. rep. 1049D-E). Dunque – ribatte

Plutarco – nel momento stesso in cui esclude la corresponsabilitร  del male da

parte della divinitร , Crisippo ribadisce che tutto รจ da ascriversi a dio, lodando

al contrario i versi di Euripide "se gli dei fanno qualcosa di turpe non sono

dei" (fr. 286b, 7 Kn.) e "la parola piรน comoda tu hai detto, che si accusino gli

dei" (fr. 254, 2 Kn.). Il paradosso consiste nel fatto che "la malvagitร  non solo

si realizza conformemente alla ragione di Zeus, ma anche conformemente

alla ragione di Zeus viene punita" (Stoic. rep. 1050E)11 . E dunque, se il male รจ

condizione del bene, sembrerebbe allora quasi ovvio – ironizza Plutarco – che

non vi possa essere un Socrate senza Meleto, o un Pericle senza Cleone. Alla

luce di quanto detto da Crisippo – continua Plutarco – "la consunzione sica รจ

venuta all'uomo al ne della buona salute e la gotta al ne della celeritร " (Comm.

not. 1065C). E cosa dice di quel paragone con il riso suscitato dagli epigrammi

comici all'interno di una commedia "frutto piรน piacevole dell'eleganza e della

persuasivitร  di Crisippo"12 ?

Ma puรฒ il male considerarsi "un intermezzo piacevole e spiritoso e puรฒ

attribuirsi alla provvidenza il male cosรฌ come al poeta la composizione di

un'opera? E puรฒ considerarsi Provvidenza un dio che scatena le guerre, che

manda sulla cittร  disgrazie e catastro e che scatenรฒ la guerra di Troia per

"riassorbire" la massa eccessiva dell'umanitร ? Questo scrive <Crisippo> nel

terzo libro dell'opera Sugli dei: "Come le cittร  sovrabbondanti di popolazione

espellono nelle colonie la moltitudine eccedente e intraprendono guerre contro

qualcuno, cosรฌ dio suscita occasioni di distruzione". E adduce come testimoni

Euripide e coloro che aermano che la guerra di Troia scoppiรฒ per opera degli

dei al ne di diminuire la gran moltitudine degli uomini" (Stoic. rep. 1049A-

B)13 . Un dio allora – quello di Crisippo – che mentre appare verso gli uomini

benevolo e giusto, poi contro quegli stessi uomini commette azioni selvagge

e barbare degne dei Celti, senza considerare se essi siano buoni o malvagi.

Si trattava cioรจ di giusticare le condanne di Socrate e di Pitagora, le sorti di

Zenone e di Antifonte; si trattava di dare una spiegazione alle soerenze di

uomini illustri. E Crisippo la dร  nel libro III del ฮ ฮตฯแฝถ ฮฟแฝฯƒแฝทฮฑฯ‚, allorquando egli

parla di negligenze possibili nonostante la buona amministrazione del tutto

e dell'azione dei demoni malvagi. Ma non sono tali demoni creati da dio essi

che sono "superiori agli uomini per forza, ma giร  invischiati nel mondo dei

sensi e accessibili alla gioia e al dolore. Sono dei subalterni della divinitร , che li

impiega per agire direttamente sugli uomini"14 .

11 Il concetto รจ espresso pure, con qualche dierenza lessicale, in Comm. not. 1065.

12 "Come le commedie – egli dice – presentano versi capaci di suscitare il riso, i quali di per

sรฉ sono di nessun valore, ma aggiungono all'opera intera una qualche grazia, cosรฌ la malvagitร 

potrebbe essere biasimata presa a parte, ma non รจ senza utilitร  per il tutto" (Comm. not .

1065D).

13 Crisippo, per quanto riguarda la testimonianza euripidea, si riferiva ad Hel. 36-40, El .

1282-3 e Or. 1639-42.

14 M. P, 1967, p. 189.

294

Paola Volpe Cacciatore

Se รจ cosรฌ – come il losofo stoico dice – anche la malvagitร  dei demoni

non รจ da ascriversi a dio. รˆ allora veramente lantropo il dio degli Stoici, per

giunta limitato nel suo agire dall'ฮตแผฑฮผฮฑฯฮผแฝณฮฝฮท? La risposta del platonico Plutarco

non poteva che essere negativa, e degli Stoici sottolineava le contraddizioni

all'interno del loro pensiero, convinto com'era dell'esistenza degli dei, del loro

interesse per le sorti dell'umanitร  e della loro incorruttibilitร . "Quale divinitร  รจ

mai Zeus, intendo dire lo Zeus di Crisippo che punisce una realtร  la quale non

si realizza da sรฉ nรฉ senza utilitร ?" Secondo il discorso di Crisippo, infatti, "la

malvagitร  รจ assolutamente non biasimevole, Zeus invece deve essere biasimato,

sia che abbia prodotto, benchรฉ nociva, la malvagitร , sia che, pur avendola non

senza utilitร  introdotta, la punisca?" (Stoic. rep. 1051A). E allora รจ lantropo

il dio degli stoici, quel dio che Cleante cantava come il piรน nobile degli dei

immortali, ma che "ha reso in unitร  il bene e il male, aermando un unico

Logos eterno per tutte le cose"? Quel dio che invece "secondo Platone (…) ha

posto se stesso come paradigma di tutte le cose belle e concede la virtรน umana

che รจ in certo senso assimilazione a sรฉ, coloro che sono capaci di seguirlo" (s er.

num. vind. 550D); quel dio che รจ "puro ed eterno pensiero, anzi "pensiero di

pensiero" <e che con> la forza del suo pensiero genera e governa e denisce

tutti i moti dell'universo e i fenomeni, qui sulla terra e lassรน nei cieli. Il dio

dei loso รจ autรณmatos: si muove da sรฉ e muove tutto il resto"15 , ma perchรฉ

tutto tenda verso il Bene. "Oltre che nel proprio intimo l'uomo trova il bene

nel logos universale, nella comunitร  degli esseri razionali, senza la quale egli

non puรฒ esistere nรฉ manifestarsi sul piano morale conformemente alla propria

essenza"16 . Il bene – canta Cleante (Clem. Al., Protr. VI 72, p. 61 P. = SVF I 557,

p. 126 = p. 247 Radice) – "consiste in ciรฒ che รจ ben disposto, secondo giustizia,

santitร  e pietร ; / in quello che รจ padrone di sรฉ, giovevole, bello, conforme al

dovere, / austero, schietto e sempre propizio; / in quello che รจ senza paura,

che non ha nรฉ causa dolore, anzi che reca vantaggio./ E' l'utile, il gradito, il

sicuro, l'amico, / ciรฒ che รจ degno di stima e di grazia; รจ la coerenza,/ la gloria,

la modestia, la sollecitudine, l'amorevolezza, lo zelo (…)".

Restava comunque l'interrogativo: "si est Deus, unde malum?" E Plutarco

cosรฌ si chiedeva (Plac. phil. 881 C-D): "se esiste dio, grazie alla cui prudenza e

opera le cose umane sono amministrate, perchรฉ ai mali succedono i beni e ai

beni tutte le avversitร ?" cercando di dare a se stesso una risposta, ipotizzando

l'esistenza – come si รจ detto – di una แผ„ฮฝฮฟฯ…ฯ‚ ฯˆฯ…ฯ‡แฝต "perfettamente identica alla

necessitร  di Ti. 47e 5, 56c 5, all'apeiron di Phlb. 24a 6 sqq., al principio che

determina lo stravolgimento dell'ordine del cosmo, cioรจ "il desiderio connaturato"

15 C. S, 2007, p. 5 sqq. Una posizione diversa รจ manifestata da F. F, 1999, p. 70 sqq.,

che, in parziale dissenso con la tesi proposta da C. S, 1994, p. 146, non ritiene sucienti

e probanti le prove lologiche che attesterebbero la presenza in Platone di una "concezione delle

idee come 'pensieri di dio'" (p. 71). Un ulteriore argomento contro l'ipotesi della presenza in

Platone di un'idea ontologica di Bene come pensiero di dio รจ costituita, secondo Ferrari, dal

riuto all'interno del corpus della "teoria di origine aristotelica dell'autoriessivitร  del pensiero

divino" (ibidem).

16 M. P, 1967, p. 275.

295

รˆ il dio degli Stoici lantropo?

(ฯƒแฝปฮผฯ†ฯ…ฯ„ฮฟฯ‚ แผฯ€ฮนฮธฯ…ฮผแฝทฮฑ ) di Plt. 272e 5 (cf. an proc. 1014E-1015A)"17. Il cosmo –

egli dice in de Is. 370F – non รจ mosso da un'unica anima, ma probabilmente

da piรน, certamente da non meno di due; di queste una รจ produttrice di bene,

l'altra, opposta a questa, รจ creatrice di eetti opposti". Agli stoici contestava di

aver fatto di una divinitร  benevola l'unico principio del male e di aver fatto di

Zeus un dio 'a portata di mano'. Plutarco, al contrario, riteneva che il divino,

pur intervenendo nella storia umana e nella vita della natura, appartenesse "ad

una realtร  di ordine superiore, di cui nel mondo sensibile si possono cogliere

solo riessi e lampeggiamenti"18 , facendo sua la denizione di Pindaro (fr. 57

Snell-Maehler) di un dio "artista supremo", di un "dio sovrano e signore di

tutto, artece della giustizia, cui compete di misurare il tempo, il modo e la

misura della punizione di ogni singolo malvagio" (ser. num. vind. 550A).

ri f e r i m e n T i b i b l i o g r a f i c i

B , D., Plutarco e lo stoicismo (ed. it. a cura di A. B), Milano,

2003.

C, M. (ed.), Plutarco, Il tramonto degli oracoli, in Dialoghi delci, Milano,

1995.

F, F., Dio, idee e materia. La struttura del cosmo in Plutarco di Cheronea ,

Napoli, 1995.

_____"ฮ ฯแฝนฮฝฮฟฮนฮฑ platรณnica e ฮฝแฝนฮทฯƒฮนฯ‚ aristotelica: Plutarco e l'impossibilitร  di una

sintesi", in A. P J  . (ed.), Plutarco, Platรณn y Aristรณteles ,

Actas del V Congreso Internacional de la I.P.S., (Madrid-Cuenca, 4-7

de Mayo, 1999), Madrid, 1999, pp. 63-77.

L, N., (ed.), L. Annaei Senecae, Dialogorum liber I De providentia ,

Firenze, 2008.

P, M., La Stoa . Storia di un movimento spirituale, I-II (tr. it. di O. De

Gregorio, introd. di V. E. A, note di B. P), Firenze, 1967

[testo originale: Die Stoa. Geschichte einer geistigen Bewegung, I-II, con

aggiornamento di H. Dรถrrie, Gรถttingen, 19643 (1948-1949)].

S, C., Plutarchs Interpretation der Ideenlehre Platons, Mรผnster-

Hamburg, 1994.

S, C., "Il dio dei loso", Il pensiero. Rivista di losoa, XLVI n. 1 (2007) 5-11.

T , L., "Linguaggio del reale e linguaggio dell'immaginario nel De sera

numinis vindicta", in G. D'I  I. G (ed.), Strutture formali

dei Moralia di Plutarco. Atti del III Convegno plutarcheo (Palermo, 3-5

Maggio, 1989), Napoli, 1991, pp. 91-120.

17 F. F, 1995, p.75 sqq.

18 L. T, 1991, p. 103.

297

Harvesting the fruits of virtue: philia , eros and arete in Plutarch

ha r v e s T i n g T h e f r u i T s o f v i r T u e : p H i l i a , e r o S a n d a r e T e i n

pl u T a r c h

T B

University of Nottingham

Abstract

is essay examines Plutarch's manipulation of epithalamial imagery in the Amatorius in

conjunction with the motif of the discourse on love from Plato's Symposium. In particular, it

explores how the topos of "fruit", traditionally representing fertility in wedding poetry, is separated

from human reproduction by pederastic discourse and instead held to represent "virtue", the

fruit of philosophical friendship between men. Women are associated with an inferior "ower",

incapable of friendship or virtue. Yet Plutarch combines and develops these images to produce a

philosophy on love that is at once relevant to marriage and to philosophic discourse.

If Sappho was proud enough of her songs to write to a

rich lady,

"When you are dead, there you shall lie, and there will be

no memory of you, who have no share, in roses that the

Muses bear,"

will you not be able to have proud and splendid thoughts

of yourself, if you have a share not in the roses, but actually

in the fruit the Muses bear, and which they have lavished

upon those who admire education and philosophy?1

us writes Plutarch to Eurydice in the conclusion to the Coniugalia

Praecepta. At rst glance, this image seems only natural in the context of

a marriage – the occasion for this text. e topos of fruit and owers is a

commonplace in nuptial literature, dating back at least to Sappho's epithalamia.

It betokens sexuality and fecundity, and can be used as a metaphor for the loss

of the bride's virginity, as in frr. 105(a) and (b) V2 .

In Plutarch, it serves to bring full-circle his ring-composition in the

Coniugalia Praecepta3 : the epithalamial motif connects with the participle

ฯƒฯ…ฮฝฯ…ฮผฮตฮฝฮฑฮนฮฟแฟฆฮฝฯ„ฮฑ, "join the wedding song", in 138B. e Muses, popular gures

in the wedding songs of Sappho4 , in Plutarch's introduction lay the foundations

for the ฯ€ฮฑฮนฮดฮตแฝทฮฑ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฟฯƒฮฟฯ†แฝทฮฑ mentioned here, "ensuring the tunefulness of

marriage through discourse (ฮปแฝนฮณฮฟฯ…) and harmony and philosophy" (138C).

Finally, the "plucking" of virginity implied in the rst two precepts (the bride

should eat a quince, ฮผแฝตฮปฮฟฯ… ฮบฯ…ฮดฯ‰ฮฝแฝทฮฟฯ…, on the wedding night, so that the rst

ฯ‡แฝฑฯฮนฯ‚ of her mouth and voice should be sweet; in Boeotia the bride is crowned

1 Con. Praec. 145F-146A.

2 See R. H, 1983; R. D. G, 1989; E. C-T, 1990, esp. pp. 95-7;

T. B, 2008, pp. 15-27.

3 For ring-composition in the Con. Praec. and the Amat., see further L. G, 1962, p.

46. 4 E.g. fr . 103.8 V.

with asparagus because the sweetest fruit, แผฅฮดฮนฯƒฯ„ฮฟฮฝ ฮบฮฑฯฯ€แฝธฮฝ, comes from the

sharpest thorns; husbands who cannot put up with the bride's early quarrels

are like those who leave a bunch of grapes, ฯƒฯ„ฮฑฯ†ฯ…ฮปแฝดฮฝ, to others because the

rst one they plucked was tart, 138D-E) is transmuted to a positive image of

marital "harvest" or "bounty" in the last, suggesting a successful integration of

the bride into marriage, which is the long-term aim of this treatise.

ough Plutarch makes extensive use of the imagery of the Sapphic

epithalamium, however, he seems to reject Sappho's programme in his nal

remarks to Eurydice. e fruits of the Muses are represented as superior to

their owers; his project must in some way trump that of Sappho: how can

we reconcile this simultaneous integration and rejection of the poetess? In the

rest of this paper, I will argue that Plutarch's use of this epithalamial image is

complex and distinctive. His Muses are not just those of music and marriage,

but also of philosophy. In the Coniugalia Praecepta, he lays the foundations for

the development of that philosophy in the Amatorius. is is a very dierent

text, a debate about love more generally rather than precepts for a marriage,

but the use of certain themes and imagery from the Coniugalia Praecepta

suggests that our understanding of the latter text may be enhanced by the

former. Here Plutarch adapts Platonic motifs, especially the dialogue on love

from the Symposium, to another encomium of married love. In doing so, he

expounds a theory of แผ”ฯฯ‰ฯ‚ that is at once located in the marriage relationship

and at the same time, an appropriate subject for philosophic discourse.

To make sense of this motif, we must examine more closely his quotation

of Sappho. e rich woman with no share in the "roses of Pieria" is one with no

talent for poetry. But more than this, because of her lack, she will be forgotten,

ฮฟแฝฮดแฝณ ฯ„ฮนฯ‚ ฮผฮฝฮฑฮผฮฟฯƒแฝปฮฝฮฑ, after her death. is implies that, unlike Sappho, she

will have no share in the immortal ฮบฮปแฝณฮฟฯ‚ which results from poetry. e

owers of the Muses, then, represent poetic immortality (as may be evidenced

in the collections of anthologia, or the description of Sappho's poems as her

"immortal daughters")5 . What then, of their fruits? Perhaps they, too, represent

immortality – but of a superior kind. As well as love and marriage, Plutarch

develops the connection between ฮบฮฑฯฯ€แฝนฯ‚ and แผ€ฮธฮฑฮฝฮฑฯƒแฝทฮฑ in the Amatorius.

As in the Coniugalia Praecepta, marriage forms the occasion for this work

– in the immediate context, that of Bacchon and Ismenodora, which prompts

the dispute about love, but in the wider narrative frame, that of Plutarch and

his own wife, which occasions his presence in espiae for that dispute. e

festival-goers divide into two camps: those who abjure the love of women,

including Bacchon's แผฯฮฑฯƒฯ„แฝตฯ‚ Pisias and his friend Protogenes; and those who

embrace such love, including Plutarch, who referees the debate, Anthemion, the

youth's older cousin, who is in favour of the match, and Daphnaeus, Protogenes'

dialectical opponent. While the setting is overshadowed by nuptial elements,

aspects of the homerotic dialogue on love from Plato's Symposium intrude: the

ฯ€ฮตฯแฝถ แผœฯฯ‰ฯ„ฮฟฯ‚ ฮปแฝนฮณฮฟฯ…ฯ‚ (748F) which Flavianus commands Autoboulus to relate

5 AP 7.407, also 7.14, 17.

299

Harvesting the fruits of virtue: philia , eros and arete in Plutarch

recall the ฯ€ฮตฯแฝถ ฯ„แฟถฮฝ แผฯฯ‰ฯ„ฮนฮบแฟถฮฝ ฮปแฝนฮณฯ‰ฮฝ demanded of Apollodorus after Agathon's

ฯƒฯ…ฮฝฮดฮตแฝทฯ€ฮฝฮฟฮฝ (172b). Additional parallels to the Ilissus of Plato's Phaedrus have

been noted on many occasions6 , and this text, particularly through Plutarch's

allusion to the ascent of the soul, may even be a more important paradigm for

the Amatorius 7 . ese allusions are in turn played o against the role of ฮปแฝนฮณฮฟฯ‚

in the opening of the Coniugalia Praecepta 8 . A tension is created between the

marital and the philosophical9 .

As Frazier has noted, the dialogue is divided into three parts, each

representing a progression of thought towards Plutarch's eschatological, marital

แผ”ฯฯ‰ฯ‚10 . In the rst part of the discourse, Protogenes, a lover of boys, exploits

the abovementioned tension and attempts to dissociate ฮบฮฑฯฯ€แฝนฯ‚ from a nuptial

context. Denying that love or ฯ†ฮนฮปแฝทฮฑ has any connection with women, he takes a

position familiar from the Symposium: "Love, in fact, it is that attaches himself

to a young and talented soul and through friendship brings it to a state of

virtue" (ฮตแผฐฯ‚ แผ€ฯฮตฯ„แฝดฮฝ ฮดฮนแฝฐ ฯ†ฮนฮปแฝทฮฑฯ‚ ฯ„ฮตฮปฮตฯ…ฯ„แพท, 750D)11 . แผ˜ฯ€ฮนฮธฯ…ฮผแฝทฮฑ, desire for women,

is connected with the owers identied as inferior in the Coniugalia Praecepta:

แฝฅฯฮฑฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯƒแฝฝฮผฮฑฯ„ฮฟฯ‚12 . True love wants only to harvest the fruit: "Love, if he loses

the hope of inspiring friendship, has no wish to remain cultivating a decient

plant which has come to its prime (แฝฅฯแพณ), if the plant cannot yield the proper

fruit of character (ฮบฮฑฯฯ€แฝธฮฝ แผคฮธฮฟฯ…ฯ‚) to produce friendship and virtue" (750E). On

this model, the epithalamial image is divided, though in a dierent way to the

Coniugalia Praecepta: owers are associated with corporeal bloom, the female,

and inferior desire; fruit with the soul and character, the male, and superior

love. Only the latter is part of a relationship of ฯ†ฮนฮปแฝทฮฑ, which leads to แผ€ฯฮตฯ„แฝต .

6 Plu. Amat. 749A, cf. Pl. Phdr. 229a-b. H. M. M J., 1984, p. 86; A. B, 1999,

p. 205; J. M. R, 2001, p. 559.

7 J. M. R, 2001, p. 558; F. F, 2005/6, p. 64.

8 See also V. W , 1997, p. 170, on the union of Hermes and Aphrodite – or ฮปแฝนฮณฮฟฯ‚ and

แผ”ฯฯ‰ฯ‚ – in 138C-D.

9 I am grateful to F. Brenk for drawing my attention to this tension following the delivery

of this paper at the 8th IPS Congress. It arises not so much from the pederasts' subversion of

an epithalamial motif – indeed, ฮบฮฑฯฯ€แฝนฯ‚ had also been associated with the mental as well as the

physical at least since Pindar (O. 7.8, P. 2.74, N. 10.2) – but from the competing claims on this

image of both homosexual and heterosexual philosophy and education.

10 F. F, 2008, pp. IX-XII: the rst discussion starts from the question of whether

Bacchon should marry Ismenodora, and progresses through Plutarch's 'central intervention' on

the divinity and benets of Eros, to his apology and encomium of conjugal love in answer to

Zeuxippus.

11 While all Plato's dinner-guests accept pederasty as a higher form of love, Pausanias

separates แผ”ฯฯ‰ฯ‚ into "Common" (love for women, the body, and the unintelligent) and "Heavenly"

(love for intelligent boys), 180c-185c. To him, the granting of sexual favours (ฯ‡ฮฑฯแฝทฮถฮตฯƒฮธฮฑฮน, 185b)

should only be done for the sake of virtue. By the time of Plutarch's writing, the distinction

between the two loves is a rhetorical commonplace (cf. Luc., Amores 37, F. F, 2005/6, p.

80) and the impulse of pederasty towards virtue is typical of Stoic thought: SVF III 716-717.

12 แฝญฯฮฑ is often used metaphorically for the "spring-time" or "bloom" of youth, associated

with physical beauty: Mimn. 3.1, LSJ s.v. แฝฅฯฮฑ. It is specically associated by Plutarch with

แผ„ฮฝฮธฮฟฯ‚ at Alc . 4.1. Cf. also S. G, 1995, p. 174.

Protogenes claims a "philosophical" function for pederasty (751A), based on

women's incapacity for virtue13 . is attitude is common for the period – the

Stoic philosophers in particular held love to be ฮธแฝตฯฮฑ...แผ€ฯ„ฮตฮปฮฟแฟฆฯ‚ ฮผฮตฮฝ ฮตแฝฯ†ฮฟแฟฆฯ‚ ฮดแฝฒ

ฮผฮตฮนฯฮฑฮบแฝทฮฟฯ… ฯ€ฯแฝธฯ‚ แผ€ฯฮตฯ„แฝตฮฝ14 . But by insisting on such pedagogical pederasty and

aligning himself with the Stoics, he somewhat forsakes his claim to "Platonic"

capital – for this philosopher presented female capacity for virtue as equal to

that of men15 .

On the other side of the debate, Daphnaeus argues that Protogenes'

"harvest" is merely the forbidden fruit of pederasty: either it must be gathered

furtively, ฮณฮปฯ…ฮบฮตแฟ–' แฝ€ฯ€แฝฝฯฮฑ ฯ†แฝปฮปฮฑฮบฮฟฯ‚ แผฮบฮปฮตฮปฮฟฮนฯ€แฝนฯ„ฮฟฯ‚, which means it has nothing

to do with philosophical แผ”ฯฯ‰ฯ‚, or, if there is to be no sexual intercourse in it,

it is Eros without Aphrodite – an oxymoron (752A). Moreover, it denies the

legitimate use of any naturalistic imagery: it is a union contrary to nature, ฯ€ฮฑฯแฝฐ

ฯ†แฝปฯƒฮนฮฝ (751C). If the harvest is taken by force, it involves ฮฒแฝทฮฑ and ฮปฮตฮทฮปฮฑฯƒแฝทฮฑ;

if it happens by consent, it is weak and eeminate – there is no manly virtue

involved at all (751E)16 , and being without virtue, it is thus without fruit

(แผ„ฮบฮฑฯฯ€ฮฟฮฝ , 752B). ฮงแฝฑฯฮนฯ‚, the yielding of woman to man (another epithalamial

motif: ฯ‡แฝฑฯฮนฮตฮฝ, Sappho fr. 112.3 V), is instead held to be the beginning of

ฯ†ฮนฮปแฝทฮฑ (751E-F).

e tension is exacerbated, but not irreconcilably – for though Daphnaeus

rejects the pederastic ฮบฮฑฯฯ€แฝนฯ‚ and reclaims ฯ†ฮนฮปแฝทฮฑ for the female sex, he himself

does not specify the "fruit" of such a "natural" union. As Martin notes, "he

never goes so far as to actually claim that women are capable of แผ€ฯฮตฯ„แฝต " 17 , but

as Plutarch continues to develop his thought throughout the dialogue, he will

attempt to resolve the tension between the epithalamial and the philosophical18

(indeed, this part of the dialogue has been identied as "pre-philosophical" –

it is more rhetorical, and the true philosophical debate has not yet begun)19 .

Plutarch's encomium of Eros begins on the side of married love. e traditional

"fruit" of a marital union – children – are eulogised, and Ismenodora's capacity

for procreation is stressed (754C). In the next part of the dialogue, Aphrodite

is called ฮตแฝ”ฮบฮฑฯฯ€ฮฟฮฝ, as she is in the Coniugalia Praecepta (756E), suggesting

13 H. M. M J., 1984, p. 83; M. B. C, 1999, p. 291; J. M. R, 2001, p. 559.

14 De Comm. Not. 1073B. Marriage and family life were regarded by Stoics as the duty of the

sage to the state, and thus a dierent sphere: SVF I 270, cf. D. B, 1963, pp. 57, 60-61.

15 Pl. Men. 72a-73c, R. 451d-e, 455d-e, Lg. 804e-806c, 829c, but cf. Ti . 90e-91a, R. 605d-e,

Lg. 781a-b. "Socrates" also maintained the equality of male and female virtue in other texts: X.,

Smp. 2.9, D. L. 6.12, contra Arist. Pol. 1260a21. See also A. G. N, 1997, pp. 29-30.

16 M. F, 1986, p. 201; M. B. C, 1999, p. 293. S. S in S. B. P

(ed.), 1999, p. 89, locates this change from classical ideology in the need for perpetuation

of Hellenic identity (through reproduction) of Greek elites at the beginning of the Second

Sophistic, but contra C. P, 1999, p. 129.

17 H. M. M J., 1984, p. 83.

18 Plutarch briey resumes the question of women's virtue in 754A (ฮ ฮปฮฟแฟฆฯ„ฮฟฮฝ ฮดแฝฒ ฮณฯ…ฮฝฮฑฮนฮบแฝธฯ‚

ฮฑแผฑฯฮตแฟ–ฯƒฮธฮฑฮน ฮผแฝฒฮฝ ฯ€ฯแฝธ แผ€ฯฮตฯ„แฟ†ฯ‚ แผข ฮณแฝณฮฝฮฟฯ…ฯ‚ แผ€ฯ†ฮนฮปแฝนฯ„ฮนฮผฮฟฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ แผ€ฮฝฮตฮปฮตแฝปฮธฮตฯฮฟฮฝ...) and, in suggesting in the

last part of the dialogue that Eros is the source of all virtue (757F , esp. 761E), foregrounds its

applicability to women.

19 J. M. R, 2001, 561.

301

Harvesting the fruits of virtue: philia , eros and arete in Plutarch

the traditional function of sexuality in such a relationship. Eros must also

be present for this relationship to produce ฯ†ฮนฮปแฝทฮฑ, but this is not necessarily

problematic – the god is traditionally her follower, though Plutarch here

reverses their relationship20 . Indeed, he seems to be the deity who presides

when men ฯ€ฮฟฮธฮฟแฟฆฯƒฮน ฮดแฝฒ ฮณแฝฑฮผฮฟฯ… ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ†ฮนฮปแฝนฯ„ฮทฯ„ฮฟฯ‚ (757D).

Yet the metaphor of erotic cultivation is more often used as a model

for the education of the young through pederasty, and, even when Plutarch

supposedly applies it to marital แผ”ฯฯ‰ฯ‚, even he cannot overcome his Platonic

paradigm to develop the image beyond the education of boys: though divine

love is the guide and helper of marriage, he operates, as Russell states, via

the traditional analogies of boy-love: hunting the "fairest prey" (ฮบแฝฑฮปฮปฮนฯƒฯ„ฮฟฮฝ

ฮธแฝตฯฮฑฮผฮฑ), and shaping boys and youths "in the ripening and owering season"

(แฝฅฯแพณ ฮบฮฑแฝถ แผ„ฮฝฮธฮตฮน , 758E). Indeed, Eros is the god "whose care it is that a man

grows straight in the direction of virtue with no deviation or crushing of the

main stem of excellence" (757F-758A)21 . e tension remains, but Plutarch

does align the image of youth's ower, แฝฅฯฮฑ, with both the body and the soul

(แฝฅฯฮฑฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮบแฝฑฮปฮปฮฟฯ‚ แผ…ฮผฮฑ ฯƒแฝฝฮผฮฑฯ„ฮฟฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯˆฯ…ฯ‡แฟ†ฯ‚, 757E), thus mitigating Protogenes'

strict dichotomy of ower/body/female vs. fruit/soul/male.

e result of this alignment is itself expressed in terms of natural fertility, but

this goes beyond the wedding song. Eros is ฮฑแฝฮณแฝด ฮดแฝฒ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮธฮตฯฮผแฝนฯ„ฮทฯ‚ ฮณฮปฯ…ฮบฮตแฟ–ฮฑ ฮบฮฑแฝถ

ฮณแฝนฮฝฮนฮผฮฟฯ‚ (764B), a physician, saviour, and guide (indeed, the most philanthropic

of gods, 758A) who directs the soul to the Plain of Truth (764F-65A)22 . e

aid to memory which allows the lover to apprehend the true Beauty which

resides on this plain is to be found in pederasty: แผ”ฮฝ ฯ„ฮต ฯƒฯ‡แฝตฮผฮฑฯƒฮน ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ‡ฯแฝฝฮผฮฑฯƒฮน

ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮตแผดฮดฮตฯƒฮน ฮฝแฝณฯ‰ฮฝ แฝฅฯแพณ ฯƒฯ„แฝทฮปฮฒฮฟฮฝฯ„ฮฑ (765B)23 . e warmth generated in the true

lover by such a memory produces "sap", just as in a growing plant (ฯ†ฯ…ฯ„แฟท

ฮฒฮปฮฑฯƒฯ„แฝฑฮฝฮฟฮฝฯ„ฮน) which allows the development of ฮตแฝฯ€ฮตฮนฮธฮตแฝทฮฑฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฟฯ†ฯฮฟฯƒแฝปฮฝฮทฯ‚

(765C). Eros, in this model, is again the cultivator of the human "plant", which

leads to ฯ†ฮนฮปแฝทฮฑ.

While Plutarch's exposition is linguistically pederastic, he is keen to

reclaim this image for marriage in the third part of the dialogue, claiming

that the ฮตแผดฮดฯ‰ฮปฮฑ of both boys and women can enter the body of the lover and

produce "seed", as long as แผฆฮธฮฟฯ‚ combines with แฝฅฯฮฑ (766E-F). He goes further

20 Cf. Hes. . 201-2; compare Amat. 759E-F; F. F, 2005/6, p. 97, 2008, p. XXVII.

21 D. A. R, 1997, pp. 102-3: "ese two analogies are traditional. e lover and the

sophist are "hunters" of the young in Plato and Xenophon [e.g. Pl., Sph. 221-2, 231D, Lg. 831B,

X., Cyn. 13.9]; the analogy between education and growing plants is also conventional and

obvious; and the association between paederasty and education is Platonic".

22 Here Plutarch departs most obviously from the conversation of Plato's Symposium to

that of the Phaedrus : ฯ„แฝธ แผ€ฮปฮทฮธฮตแฝทฮฑฯ‚ ฯ€ฮตฮดแฝทฮฟฮฝ (248b). e motif of ascent of the soul is, however,

also present in Socrates' dialogue with Diotima (Symp. 211b-c), demonstrating Plutarch's

manipulation of a number of Platonic theories. See H. M. M J., 1984, p. 85; J. M. R,

2001, p. 558. J. O, 2004, p. 137, however, argues against scholarly opinion, especially that

of Cherniss, that Plutarch is "a Platonic interpreter manipulating the texts so as to make them

suit his own interests". Instead, he suggests that Plutarch was searching for doctrinal consistency

across dialogues (p. 155), which explains his mixing of theories.

23 See J. M. R, 2001, p. 572.

than Daphnaeus in reclaiming the physical "ower" for a positive usage: to

him, women are capable of virtue, and this is inseparable from beauty. "To be

sure they say that beauty is 'the ower of virtue' (แฝฅฯฮฑฮฝ "แผ„ฮฝฮธฮฟฯ‚ แผ€ฯฮตฯ„แฟ†ฯ‚" ฮตแผถฮฝฮฑฮน );

yet it would be absurd to deny that the female produces that ower or gives a

"presentation" of a 'natural bent for virtue'" (767B)24 . A woman's ower is not

just in her body, but, in the case of a "good" woman, also in her แผคฮธฮฟฯ‚ – the

character whose fruit, Protogenes insisted, produces ฯ†ฮนฮปแฝทฮฑ and แผ€ฯฮตฯ„แฝต in boys

and men25 .

Such encomium of female beauty, in the case of nuptial literature, may

inspire the แผ”ฯฯ‰ฯ‚ which allows the groom to consummate the marriage26 , and

Plutarch applies a novel twist to this traditional topos: consummation is itself

the beginning of ฯ†ฮนฮปแฝทฮฑ (769A), which is absent from "philosophical", pederastic

sex (768B)27 . We see a progression from the beauty of a good woman, the

"ower of virtue", to แผ”ฯฯ‰ฯ‚, leading to physical union, which inspires ฯ†ฮนฮปแฝทฮฑ and

the cultivation of the "fruit of virtue", แผ€ฯฮตฯ„แฝต, which in turn leads to beauty

(769B-D). Such a progression forms a never-ending cycle, in which fruit

follows ower, which in turn fertilises the human plant so that the ower

may bloom again. Neither seems to represent a "superior" metaphor, as they

continually supersede one another. e harvest of virginity and the harvest of

virtue are equated, though what is intended here is not the singular "reaping"

of the bride on the wedding night, but a long-term "cultivation", a lifetime's

progression or renewal (แผ€ฮฝฮฑฮฝฮตฮฟแฟฆฮฝฯ„ฮฑฮน) of ฯ†ฮนฮปแฝทฮฑ ( ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฟฯ†ฯฮฟฯƒแฝปฮฝแฟƒ, 769A)28 .

e idea of "progression" leads us back to the beginning of this paper: the

concept of the ower of immortality. For it is the bloom of youth, แฝฅฯฮฑ, by which

"Love gently excites our memory"; reminding us of the true and intelligible

Beauty that lies behind bodily forms (765B). e lover tests the beloved to

discover if they, too, can perceive this ideal Beauty, and if so, a communion of

แผ”ฯฯ‰ฯ‚ and ฯ†ฮนฮปแฝทฮฑ results, which refracts the memory of the lover to the Beauty

of the other world29 . e physical แฝฅฯฮฑ "iname[s] his spirit" in this life (766B),

24 is is itself a Stoic expression, ฮตแผถฮฝฮฑฮน ฮดแฝฒ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ„แฝดฮฝ แฝฅฯฮฑฮฝ แผ„ฮฝฮธฮฟฯ‚ แผ€ฯฮตฯ„แฟ†ฯ‚, SVF III 718A, and

shows Plutarch developing the contemporary theories put forward by Protogenes as well as

those of Daphnaeus earlier in the dialogue. See also G. N, 1997, p. 84, on also Mul.

Virt. 242F.

25 M. F, 1986, p. 161 argues that female possession of equal virtue is a Stoic

innovation; cf. S. G, 1995, p. 157: "[Plutarch], like Musonius, appears to allow a woman

in the name of shared virtue to demonstrate the qualities of a man: to andreion".

26 E.g. Men. Rh. 407.12-14.

27 Not only does Plato reject the physical consummation of love (e.g. Symp. 211b), but

consummation with the female leading to philosophic ฯ†ฮนฮปแฝทฮฑ is a Plutarchian innovation. See

M. B. C, 1999, p. 295; R. H, 1999, p. 117. In this way, Plutarch reconceptualises,

rather than remaining utterly faithful to, Plato; J. M. R, 2001, p. 559: he "oers a 'Platonic'

evaluation of the human experiences available to most of us, nit just to the self-conscious

followers of Diotima of the Symposium or to the philosophical lovers and kings of the Republic";

F. F, 2005/6, p. 64, 2008, p. XV.

28 A. G. N, 1997, p. 45 on the "general application" of the Solonian legislation on

frequency of sex (Sol. 20.4) in this context.

29 Amat. 765D: แฝ…ฯ€ฮฟฯ… ฮด' แผ‚ฮฝ แผ”ฯ‡ฯ‰ฯƒฮนฮฝ แผดฯ‡ฮฝฮฟฯ‚ ฯ„ฮน ฯ„ฮฟแฟฆ ฮธฮตแฝทฮฟฯ… ฮบฮฑแฝถ แผ€ฯ€ฮฟฯฯoแฝดฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ แฝฮผฮฟฮนแฝนฯ„ฮทฯ„ฮฑ

303

Harvesting the fruits of virtue: philia , eros and arete in Plutarch

but it is in the next that he progresses upwards and reaps the true benet:

"e true lover, when he has reached the other world and consorted with true

beauty in the holy way, grows wings and joins in the continual celebration of

his god's mysteries" (766C). e ฯ„แฝณฮปฮฟฯ‚ generally assumed for marriage has

taken on an eschatological form, appropriate to the แผ”ฯฮณฮฟฮฝ แผฑฮตฯแฝฝฯ„ฮตฯฮฟฮฝ (758B)

of the marriage-deity30 .

is is an intriguing development of both the Platonic and the epithalamial,

and may oer some resolution to the tension between them. Daphnaeus had

argued that marriage makes mankind immortal through reproduction in this

life (752A; we see the same formulation in Symp. 208); in the ascent of the

soul, we may think that Plutarch intends a Platonic progression and contrast

between the immortality granted by corporeal ospring and those which

result from "spiritual" pregnancy: ฯ„ฮตฮบแฝนฮฝฯ„ฮน ฮดแฝฒ แผ€ฯฮตฯ„แฝดฮฝ แผ€ฮปฮทฮธแฟ† ( Symp. 212a), or

assume, as does Wohl, that "philosophy becomes the child of this union"31 . But

Plutarch goes further than both these ideas and that of poetic immortality, to

suggest that true love, whose locus is marriage, oers immortality in the afterlife

(ฮผฮตฯ„แฝฐ ฯ„แฝดฮฝ ฯ„ฮตฮปฮตฯ…ฯ„แฝตฮฝ, 766B). e begetting of life is mentioned, certainly (769E,

770A), but it is after death that his philosophical lovers are expected to "reap"

the "harvest" of their philosophy. As in the Coniugalia Praecepta, the "ower"

and "fruit" of the epithalamium function as a metaphor for immortality, but

with a distinct dierence. In the earlier text, owers had represented poetic

immortality and fruit a superior, spiritual one, gained by the young wife

through philosophical intimacy with her husband32 . In the Amatorius, Plutarch

uses and develops this imagery in a dierent way.

In the Coniugalia Praecepta, Plutarch implied that the "fruits of the Muses"

were superior to their owers. e theory of pederasty represents this fruit as

virtue, the ethical product of a human plant cultivated by Eros. Taking its cue

from the contrast between "Heavenly" and "Common" love in the Symposium 33 ,

"virtuous" แผ”ฯฯ‰ฯ‚ for boys is contrasted with desire for women, based solely on the

physical ower of the body. But to those who support married love, this ower,

แฝฅฯฮฑ, is connected with both body and soul – thus, in the Amatorius, Plutarch

presents a far less dichotomised schema either than that of Protogenes, and

one that is also dierent from his own conclusion in the Coniugalia Praecepta .

As in the epithalamium, beauty combines with ฯ‡แฝฑฯฮนฯ‚ to situate แผ”ฯฯ‰ฯ‚ within

an idealised marriage relationship. is is held to produce ฯ†ฮนฮปแฝทฮฑ, which leads

to virtue, of which beauty is the ower. Plutarch struggles to combine the

ฯƒฮฑแฝทฮฝฮฟฯ…ฯƒฮฑฮฝ, แฝ‘ฯ†' แผกฮดฮฟฮฝแฟ†ฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮธฮฑแฝปฮผฮฑฯ„ฮฟฯ‚ แผฮฝฮธฮฟฯ…ฯƒฮนแฟถฮฝฯ„ฮตฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ€ฮตฯฮนแฝณฯ€ฮฟฮฝฯ„ฮตฯ‚, ฮตแฝฯ€ฮฑฮธฮฟแฟฆฯƒฮน ฯ„แฟ‡ ฮผฮฝแฝตฮผแฟƒ ฮบฮฑแฝถ

แผ€ฮฝฮฑฮปแฝฑฮผฯ€ฮฟฯ…ฯƒฮน ฯ€ฯแฝธฯ‚ แผฮบฮตแฟ–ฮฝฮฟ ฯ„แฝธ แผฯแฝฑฯƒฮผฮนฮฟฮฝ แผ€ฮปฮทฮธแฟถฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮผฮฑฮบแฝฑฯฮนฮฟฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ†แฝทฮปฮนฮฟฮฝ แผ…ฯ€ฮฑฯƒฮน ฮบฮฑแฝถ แผ€ฮณฮฑฯ€ฮทฯ„แฝนฮฝ.

30 See also 750C: แผฑฮตฯฯ‰ฯ„แฝณฯฮฑ ฮบฮฑฯ„แฝฑฮถฮตฯ…ฮพฮนฯ‚.

31 V. W, 1997, p. 184. is assumption is based on the ฮปแฝนฮณฯ‰ฮฝ ฯ‡ฯฮทฯƒฯ„แฟถฮฝ ฯƒฯ€แฝณฯฮผฮฑฯ„ฮฑ which

will prevent a wife who shares her husband's education from ฮบแฝปฮฟฯ…ฯƒฮน evil thoughts and feelings

(Con. Praec . 145D). Cf. Pl., Smp. 210a, in which the budding philosopher may ฮณฮตฮฝฮฝแพถฮฝ ฮปแฝนฮณฮฟฯ…ฯ‚

ฮบฮฑฮปฮฟแฝปฯ‚ in the body of a beautiful beloved.

32 I am grateful to the anonymous reviewer of this article for their comments on this point.

33 Cf. n. 11; M. F , 1986, p. 195.

philosophic with the epithalamial; nally he mixes and progresses beyond both

these and other Platonic elements to a philosophy of immortal love grounded

in mortal marriage. is philosophy is more developed in the Amatorius, setting

up the idea that fruit may supersede ower, only to show that both are part of

a continual cultivation of virtue within marriage. Within this philosophy, both

images form part of a progression towards immortality that is superior to that

oered by the "roses of Pieria" – not the preservation of song, but that of soul.

W o r k s c i T e d

B, D., 'Les Stoรฏciens et l'Amour', REG, 76 (1963) 55-63.

B, T., e Wedding Song in Greek Literature and Culture, PhD Diss.,

Nottingham, 2008.

B, A., "Le Dialogue sur l'amour de Plutarque et les Dialogues de Platon

sur l'amour", in A. P J  . (eds.), Plutarco, Platรณn y

Aristotรฉles. Actas del V Congresso Internacional de la I.P.S. (Madrid-

Cuenca, 4-7 de Mayo, 1999), Madrid, 1999.

C-T, E., Hymenaios und Epithalamion: das Hochzeitslied in

der frรผhgriechischen Lyrik, Stuttgart, 1990.

C, M. B., "Amatorius: Plutarch's Platonic Departure from the Peri

Gamou Literature", in A. P J  . (eds.) Plutarco, Platรณn

y Aristotรฉles. Actas del V Congresso Internacional de la I. P. S. (Madrid-

Cuenca, 4-7 de Mayo, 1999), Madrid, 1999, pp. 287-97.

F, M., e Care of Self: e History of Sexuality. vol. 3 (trans. R.

H), London, 1986.

F, F., "L'ร‰rotikos: un รฉloge du Dieu ร‰ros? Une relecture du dialogue de

Plutarque", Ploutarchos, 3 (2005/6), pp. 63-101.

_______ Plutarque, ร‰rotikos: Dialogue sur l'amour, Paris, 2008.

G, S., Foucault's Virginity: Ancient Erotic Fiction and the History of

Sexuality, Cambridge, 1995.

G, L., Plutarchs Gedanken รผber die Ehe, Zurich, 1962.

G, R. D., "In Praise of the Bride: Sappho fr. 105(A) L-P, Voigt",

TAPhA, 119 (1989) 55-61.

H, R., "Ancient Greek Wedding Songs: e Tradition of Praise", Journal

of Folklore Research, 20 (1983) 131-43.

H, R., "Practicing What You Preach: Plutarch's Sources and Treatment",

in S. B. P (ed.), 1999, pp. 116-27.

M J., H. M., "Plutarch, Plato and Eros", CB, 60 (1984) 82-8.

305

Harvesting the fruits of virtue: philia , eros and arete in Plutarch

N, A. G., "Plutarch on Women and Marriage", WS, 110 (1997) 27-

88.

O, J., "Plutarch's De anime procreatione in Timaeo: Manipulation or

Search for Consistency?", in P. A, H. B & M. W. F.

S (eds.), Philosophy, Science and Exegesis in Greek, Latin and Arabic

Commentaries, BICS Supplement 83.1 (2004) pp.137-62.

P, C., "Plutarch's Advice to the Bride and Groom: Traditional Wisdom

through a Philosophic Lens", in S. B. P (ed.), 1999, pp. 128-

37.

P, S. B. (ed.), Plutarch's Advice to the Bride and Groom and A

Consolation to His Wife: English Translations, Commentary,

Interpretive Essays, and Bibliography, Oxford, 1999.

R, J. M., "Plutarch's Amatorius: A Commentary on Plato's eories of

Love?", CQ, 51 (2001) 557-75.

R, D. A., "Plutarch, Amatorius 13-18", in J. M. M (ed.), Plutarch

and his Intellectual World: Essays on Plutarch, London, 1997, pp. 99-112.

W, V, "Scenes from a Marriage: Love and Logos in Plutarch's Coniugalia

Praecepta", Helios, 24 (1997) 170-92.

307

Eros em Plutarco e a apologia do amor conjugal

E  P      

M L S B

Universidade Nova de Lisboa

Abstract

Eros is a god who had several representations. Also his power on men and gods has been

referred to by several Greek authors. Plutarch was no exception and describes him as a god with

more power than any other. Gods like Hades, Aphrodite or Ares are nothing when compared

with the god of love.

In Amatorius, Plutarch presents us another aspect concerning love, which is not usual in

Classical Antiquity: the apology of conjugal love. e feeling inspired by Eros is not exclusive

of the man and heterosexual love is also inspired by this god. Plutarch praises women's virtues,

particularly their capacities of delity, tenderness and devotion. He also refers himself to the

relationship between husband and wife, as the "integral union", that relationship where, initially

love corresponds to some eervescence, which, in time, calms down, giving place to a great

stability.

ese aspects – the way how Plutarch sees Eros and his conception of conjugal love – are those

we intend to approach in this paper.

1. Antiguidade de Eros

Eros รฉ uma divindade bastante antiga, como รฉ comprovado pelo seu culto,

que teve como centros mais importantes Tรฉspias, Leuctros, Paros, Atenas,

Esparta, ร‰lide, Creta e Samos. Comprovado por autores como Plutarco e

Pausรขnias, entre outros, o seu culto recua a รฉpocas antiquรญssimas, nalguns casos

desconhecidas1 . Do mesmo modo, as referรชncias que lhe sรฃo feitas na literatura

conrmam a sua antiguidade. Se Homero o omite, atribuindo a Afrodite as

funรงรตes que posteriormente veremos dadas a este deus, jรก o mesmo nรฃo se pode

dizer de Hesรญodo, que a ele alude na Teogonia: "Antes de tudo existiu o Caos;

em seguida a Terra de largo peito, assento sempre seguro de todos os imortais,

que possuem o cimo do nevado Olimpo e o Tรกrtaro sombrio, no fundo da

terra de muitos caminhos; e Eros, o mais belo dos deuses imortais, aquele que

enfraquece os membros, aquele que, no peito de todos os deuses e de todos

os homens, domina o espรญrito e a vontade sรกbia"2 . Diversos poetas lhe fazem

referรชncia ao longo do tempo, quer para estabelecer a sua genealogia, quer para

se referirem ร s suas funรงรตes, ou ao sofrimento que รฉ capaz de provocar nos

outros. Nos lรญricos, por exemplo, aparece como divindade primordial, tal como

1 Nos casos de Tรฉspias, Leuctros ou Paros parece evidente pelos testemunhos que este culto

recua a รฉpocas remotas. Pausรขnias chega a referir que o seu culto em Paros – que nรฃo รฉ inferior ao

de Tรฉspias – parece ser um culto prรฉ-jรณnico, hipรณtese que nรฃo estรก completamente demonstrada,

visto que se baseia nalgumas moedas da cidade da รฉpoca de Adriano. Estas pretendiam reproduzir

o famoso Eros de Praxรญteles, apresentando um herma no qual o deus apoiava a perna direita, mas

que nรฃo se encontra na estรกtua. No entanto, รฉ possรญvel que este herma seja um vestรญgio de um

culto local arcaico, proveniente de uma รฉpoca em que o deus fosse representado desta forma, ou

como divindade ctรณnica.

2 Hesรญodo, Teogonia, vv. 116-122.

308

Maria Leonor Santa Bรกrbara

nos poetas trรกgicos3. No entanto, Eros comeรงa a surgir tambรฉm associado ao

amor e a Afrodite.

Embora tradicionalmente seja considerado lho de Afrodite, nem sempre

assim foi referido pelos poetas: para Alceu (fr. 327 Loeb) ele รฉ lho de รris

e de Zรฉro4 ; Safo (cf. Schol. Teรณcrito 13.1-2) refere-o como lho da Terra e

de รšrano; Simรณnides (Poetรฆ Melici Grรฆci, fr. 70) faz dele lho de Ares e de

Afrodite; Acusilau (cf. Schol. Teรณcrito 13.2) diz que รฉ lho da Noite e de ร‰ter;

Eurรญpides (Hipรณlito, vv. 530-534) apresenta-o como lho de Zeus; Sรณcrates,

baseando-se na narrativa de Diotima de Mantineia (Platรฃo, Banquete, 203

cd), arma tratar-se de uma divindade intermรฉdia, lho de Pรฉnia e Poros; em

Apolรณnio de Rodes (Argonautas, III. 26) o deus รฉ lho de Afrodite, embora

nรฃo lhe seja dado um pai. Aliรกs, saliente-se que esta liaรงรฃo, relativamente a

Afrodite, se verica principalmente a partir do sรฉculo III a.C., embora jรก antes

o deus surja ao serviรงo da deusa5 .

2. Representaรงรตes de Eros

Eros teve, ao longo do tempo, mรบltiplas representaรงรตes, que jรก

apresentรกmos noutro local6 . Divindade do amor, รฉ qualicado como ladrรฃo e

comparado com animais como a abelha, que embora pequena provoca feridas

lancinantes. A Antologia Palatina, sobretudo nos livros V e XII, dedicados

aos epigramas amorosos, estรก cheia destas referรชncias: Mosco refere-se-

lhe como escravo fugitivo de Afrodite7 , enquanto Diรณfanes de Mirina8 o

acusa de ser um triplo ladrรฃo, insolente, um indivรญduo que nรฃo dorme e estรก

sempre pronto a despojar os outros. Associada a estas representaรงรตes temos a

descriรงรฃo que Mosco faz dele, comparando-o com uma abelha9 . No entanto,

3 Cf. ร‰squilo, Danaides, fr. 44 Nauck. Aqui o deus origina a uniรฃo do Cรฉu e da Terra. Esta,

fecundada pela chuva, produz para os homens cereais e, para os rebanhos, erva. Ver tambรฉm

Sรณfocles, Antรญgona, vv. 781-800, onde Eros รฉ um poder abstracto que governa todos os seres

vivos sobre a terra, embora aqui seja tambรฉm confundido com o instinto sexual, encarnado

por Afrodite. De modo idรชntico, na cosmogonia รณrca, Eros terรก nascido do ovo primordial,

engendrado pela Noite. As duas metades deste ovo formam a Terra e o Cรฉu.

4 Referido por Plutarco, Erรณtico 765 e.

5 Como รฉ visรญvel na taรงa do pintor Leandro, c. 460 a.C.

6 Primeiro, na dissertaรงรฃo de mestrado, intitulada Eros na Antologia Grega, apresentada

ร  Faculdade de Letras de Universidade de Lisboa em 1987; posteriormente na comunicaรงรฃo

intitulada "Grandeza e pequenez nas representaรงรตes de Eros na literatura e na arte", apresentada

no IV Congresso da APEC, realizado na Universidade do Algarve, em 2004.

7 Cf. AP. IX. 440. Do mesmo modo, Sรกtiro (APl. 195), Mรฉcio (APl. 198) e Crinรกgoras (APl.

199) aludem ao deus como ladrรฃo de coraรงรตes e prisioneiro. Anthologie Grecque (texte รฉtabli et

traduit par P. Waltz), Paris, 1931-1974 (13 vols.).

8 C f. AP. V. 309. Cf. AP. IX. 616, onde o deus รฉ descrito como um ladrรฃo, que rouba as roupas

das Cรกrites enquanto estas se banham.

9 Cf. Mosco, XIX: "Certa vez, estando Eros, armado em ladrรฃo, a roubar cera dos cortiรงos,

uma abelha furiosa picou-lhe a ponta do dedo, arranhando-o. Porque estava aito, soprou a mรฃo,

feriu a terra com golpes, saltou e, mostrando a Afrodite a sua dor, queixou-se-lhe que a abelha

era um animal pequeno, mas que fazia feridas pungentes. Entรฃo a mรฃe riu-se: «O quรช? Nรฃo รฉs

tu igual ร s abelhas? Pequeno como รฉs, provocas feridas lancinantes.»."

309

Eros em Plutarco e a apologia do amor conjugal

tambรฉm o podemos encontrar a auxiliar os outros, como pastor, lavrador e

jardineiro10 , ou associado ร  natureza11 .

Foi, ainda, representado sob formas diversas: apesar de o identicarmos

com uma crianรงa travessa e alada, esta guraรงรฃo sรณ surge no sรฉc. III a.C. Antes

disso, ele รฉ um jovem que acompanha o cortejo de Afrodite e รฉ como jovem

que estรก no friso do Pรกrtenon.

3. Poder de Eros

Tal como sucede com a sua genealogia e as representaรงรตes, tambรฉm o

poder que esta divindade exerce sobre homens e deuses รฉ referido em inรบmeros

autores. A passagem de Hesรญodo acima referida testemunha esta ideia: anal, o

poeta jรก alude ao deus como uma entidade que domina os outros, embora aqui

o seu poder seja gerador. Muitos poetas o farรฃo tambรฉm, designadamente os

autores dos epigramas apresentados na secรงรฃo anterior.

Plutarco nรฃo foi excepรงรฃo, descrevendo-o como uma divindade com um

poder superior ao de qualquer outra. Hades, Afrodite ou Ares nada sรฃo ao pรฉ

do deus do amor. Sem o auxรญlio de Eros, Afrodite รฉ incapaz de inspirar um

sentimento profundo, mas somente uma relaรงรฃo carnal. ร‰ Eros que faz surgir

a afeiรงรฃo. Diz Plutarco12 que, sem Eros, o trabalho de Afrodite รฉ algo que se

vende por uma dracma. Daรญ que ninguรฉm corra qualquer risco por ele, se nรฃo

estiver apaixonado (ฮผแฝด แผฯแฟถฮฝ). Afrodite รฉ o prazer fรญsico, enquanto Eros รฉ o

amor e o desejo, ideia reforรงada pela seguinte armaรงรฃo: "Por isso, o prazer de

Afrodite รฉ frรกgil e inconstante, se nรฃo for inspirado por Eros."13

Alรฉm disso, embora haja homens capazes de partilhar com outros as suas

amantes e, atรฉ, as suas mulheres14 , nenhum amante (แผฯฮฑฯƒฯ„ฮฎฯ‚) faria o mesmo

com o seu amado (แผฯฯŒฮผฮตฮฝฮฟฯ‚), nem que fosse em troca das honras de Zeus.

Hades, por seu turno, cedeu ao impulso de Eros, como se vรช pelo exemplo

de Orfeu15 . Quanto a Ares, o que pode o seu valor guerreiro perante a forรงa do

10 Cf., respectivamente, AP. VII. 703, de Mirino, APl. 200, de Mosco, e APl. 202.

11 A este respeito rera-se a relaรงรฃo de Eros com os jardins, dormindo junto das rosas (APl.

338, de Juliano), ou ร  sombra dos plรกtanos (AP. IX. 627, de Mariano o Escoliasta); ou a sua

relaรงรฃo com os animais (em AP. IX. 221, Marco Argentรกrio descreve-o conduzindo um leรฃo pela

mรฃo, enquanto Pรกladas – APl. 207 – no-lo apresenta com um golnho numa das mรฃos.

12 Cf. Plutarco, Erรณtico 759 e.

13 Plutarco, Erรณtico 759 f: ฮŸแฝ•ฯ„ฯ‰ฯ‚ แผ€ฯƒฮธฮตฮฝแผกฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ แผฯˆฮฏฮบฮฟฯฯŒฯ‚ แผฯƒฯ„ฮนฮฝ แผก ฯ„แฟ†ฯ‚ แผˆฯ†ฯฮฟฮดฮฏฯ„ฮทฯ‚ ฯ‡ฮฌฯฮนฯ‚ แผœฯฯ‰ฯ‚

ฮผแฝด แผฯ€ฮนฯ€ฮฝฮตฯฯƒฮฑฮฝฯ„ฮฟฯ‚. Plutarque, ล’uvres Morales. X : Dialogue sur l'Amour (texte รฉtabli et traduit

par R. Flaceliรจre), Paris, 1980.

14 Cf. Plutarco, Erรณtico 759 f-760 b, onde encontramos as histรณrias de Gaba e de Faรบlo. O

primeiro ngia dormir para que Mecenas pudesse desfrutar da sua mulher, enquanto o segundo

vestiu a mulher de homem para que ela se pudesse encontrar com Filipe V, sem que o seu inimigo

Nicรณstrato se apercebesse do facto. Ambos pretendiam com isso obter algum benefรญcio.

15 Cf. Plutarco, Erรณtico 761 e-f, que nos apresenta, para alรฉm desta conhecido histรณria,

alguns exemplos bem conhecidos na literatura grega: Alceste, mulher cujo amor pelo marido

foi suciente para que Hades permitisse que Hรฉracles a levasse de volta a Admeto; Protesilau,

recรฉm-casado com Laodamia quando partiu para Trรณia, morto por Heitor ao desembarcar.

Hades autorizou-o a regressar do seu reino para se despedir da mulher, a quem ele dรก o conselho

de se suicidar para se juntar a ele (a este respeito, veja-se Luciano, Diรกlogo dos Mortos, 23).

310

Maria Leonor Santa Bรกrbara

Amor? Isto mesmo รฉ comprovado pelo exemplo de Cleรณmaco, que auxiliou os

habitantes de Cรกlcis na sua luta contra os de Erรฉtria16 . O seu valor guerreiro em

combate foi tanto maior, quanto sabia que o seu jovem amado estava a assistir

ao combate, lutando com ardor e assim desbaratando o inimigo. A sua histรณria

apresenta Eros como incentivo do espรญrito guerreiro entre indivรญduos que se

amam. 761 b รฉ uma alusรฃo explรญcita a Tebas e ao seu contingente especial,

constituรญdo por erastas e erรณmenos, que assim se incentivavam mutuamente

ao combate.

4. Eros e o amor conjugal

Plutarco apresenta-nos, no Erรณtico, um outro aspecto relativo ao amor,

pouco comum na Antiguidade: a apologia do amor conjugal. Convรฉm, contudo,

nรฃo esquecer que esta apologia รฉ feita num contexto em que se discute qual o

verdadeiro amor, no sentido de superior, melhor, mais puro: o dos jovens ou

o conjugal? Frequentemente รฉ o amor pelos jovens – associado a Eros – que

รฉ considerado superior, enquanto a relaรงรฃo com uma mulher รฉ considerada

simplesmente fรญsica, desprovida de um verdadeiro sentimento de afecto e

amizade e, como tal, associada a Afrodite. O objectivo de Plutarco รฉ demonstrar

que o sentimento inspirado por Eros nรฃo se limita ao sexo masculino, sendo o

amor heterossexual inspirado tambรฉm por este deus. Para isso, ele demonstra

a antiguidade e a importรขncia do deus, chamando a atenรงรฃo para todos os seus

benefรญcios, entre os quais o afecto sincero รฉ um dos mais importantes.

Simultaneamente, como que "reabilita" a mulher e as relaรงรตes heterossexuais:

em 753 f-754 a, defende que, se algumas mulheres se aproveitaram de certos

homens, isso deveu-se mais ร  fraqueza deles do que a defeito delas. As relaรงรตes

de homens pobres e apagados com mulheres ricas provam precisamente o

contrรกrio – eles conservaram a sua dignidade e foram respeitados por elas,

exercendo sobre elas uma autoridade misturada com afecto, armaรงรฃo que se

aproxima da cรฉlebre Epรญstola de S. Paulo aos Corรญntios.

Recordando Platรฃo17 , Plutarco arma que Eros preside ao แผฮฝฮธฮฟฯ…ฯƒฮนฮฑฯƒฮผฯŒฯ‚

(impulso vindo do exterior por acรงรฃo de um poder superior, que altera a

compreensรฃo e a razรฃo humanas e que รฉ produzido pelo facto de entrarmos

em comunicaรงรฃo, ou em participaรงรฃo, com um deus). Hรก vรกrios tipos de

แผฮฝฮธฮฟฯ…ฯƒฮนฮฑฯƒฮผฯŒฯ‚ (profรฉtico, bรกquico, poรฉtico e musical), mas nenhum tรฃo forte,

tรฃo duradouro, como o do Amor18 .

Eros รฉ uma divindade que proporciona grandes benefรญcios aos homens,

tanto aos amados, como aos que amam. A estes, concede o Amor coragem,

alegria, generosidade, liberalidade19 . Concede tambรฉm a capacidade de ver para

lรก da aparรชncia: aquele que ama vรช no objecto do seu amor qualidades de que

os outros nรฃo se apercebem.

16 Cf. Plutarco, Erรณtico 760 e-761 a.

17 Cf. Plutarco, Erรณtico 758 d-e.

18 Cf. Plutarco, Erรณtico 758 e-759 b.

19 Cf. Plutarco, Erรณtico 762 b ss..

311

Eros em Plutarco e a apologia do amor conjugal

Alรฉm disso, o seu poder รฉ tal que se sobrepรตe a todos, gerando uma uniรฃo

que tende para o divino e para o que hรก no mundo de mais belo20 .

Recuperando lendas egรญpcias que, a par do Amor vulgar e do celeste,

ainda admitem a existรชncia de um terceiro Amor – o sol21 –, Plutarco realรงa

a importรขncia do deus por comparaรงรฃo com Afrodite: o sol รฉ um calor doce e

fecundante que alimenta os corpos, dando-lhes luz e crescimento. Tal como o

sol, ao surgir por detrรกs das nuvens, รฉ mais ardente, tambรฉm a reconciliaรงรฃo dos

apaixonados, apรณs uma discussรฃo, รฉ mais viva e agradรกvel.

Mas isto nรฃo รฉ suciente. Plutarco retoma a doutrina dos รกtomos, de

Demรณcrito e de Epicuro: se pequenos corpos, formados ร  imagem do objecto

amado, saem dele, penetram no corpo do amante e estimulam a massa dos seus

รกtomos, pondo-os em movimento e produzindo esperma, nรฃo serรก possรญvel que

estes mesmos pequenos corpos possam emanar da mulher22 ? Alรฉm disso, nรฃo

possuirรฃo as mulheres virtude (แผ€ฯฮตฯ„ฮฎ ) 23 ?

Plutarco exalta a virtude das mulheres, especialmente as suas capacidades

de delidade, ternura e dedicaรงรฃo. Sรฃo estes sentimentos mรบtuos que sรฃo

necessรกrios no casamento24 e que preservam a relaรงรฃo e a delidade dos esposos,

a lealdade. Cama e Empona sรฃo excelentes exemplos desta delidade25 : a

primeira envenenou o assassino do marido e suicidou-se no mesmo momento,

na esperanรงa de se reencontrar com o marido; a segunda foi capaz de preservar

uma imagem de viรบva, enquanto mantinha secretamente a relaรงรฃo com o

marido, que todos julgavam morto. Chegou mesmo a levรก-lo, disfarรงado, para

Roma, na esperanรงa de obter para ele o perdรฃo do imperador, acabando por ser

mandada matar por este.

A relaรงรฃo fรญsica com uma mulher รฉ fonte de amizade, de partilha em

comum26 . Se a duraรงรฃo do prazer รฉ curta, jรก o sentimento que se desenvolve a

partir daรญ รฉ duradouro – afecto, amizade, conanรงa. Sรฃo estes sentimentos que

fazem com que a relaรงรฃo entre cรดnjuges seja "a uniรฃo integral", aquela relaรงรฃo

em que o amor gera incialmente efervescรชncia, que com o tempo se acalma,

dando lugar a grande estabilidade. Com efeito, รฉ a solidez desta relaรงรฃo que

permite a armaรงรฃo de Plutarco: "Pois no casamento, amar รฉ um bem maior

do que ser amado."27 .

bi b l i o g r a f i a c i T a d a

B, F., Eros Adolescent. La pรฉdรฉrastie dans la Grรจce antique, Paris, 1980.

20 Cf. Plutarco, Erรณtico 763 f.

21 Cf. Plutarco, Erรณtico 764 b ss..

22 Cf. Plutarco, Erรณtico 766 e.

23 Cf. Plutarco, Erรณtico 767 b.

24 Cf. Plutarco, Erรณtico 767 e.

25 Cf. Plutarco, Erรณtico, 768 b-d e 770 d-771c, respectivamente.

26 Cf. Plutarco, Erรณtico 769.

27 Plutarco, Erรณtico 769 d: ฮคแฝธ ฮณแฝฐฯ แผฯแพถฮฝ แผฮฝ ฮณฮฌฮผแฟณ ฯ„ฮฟแฟฆ แผฯแพถฯƒฮธฮฑฮน ฮผฮตแฟ–ฮถฮฟฮฝ แผ€ฮณฮฑฮธฯŒฮฝ แผฯƒฯ„ฮนฮฝ.

312

Maria Leonor Santa Bรกrbara

F, R., "Les ร‰picuriens et l'amour", REG, 67 (1954) 69-81.

_____ L'Amour en Grรจce, Paris, 1971.

SB, M.ยช L., Eros na Antologia Grega. Dissertaรงรฃo de mestrado

em Literatura Grega apresentada ร  Faculdade de Letras de Lisboa,

1987.

T, B. S., Eros. e myth of ancient Greek sexuality, Boulder/Oxford,

1997.

313

Krasis oinou diken. Amore coniugale e linguaggio del simposio nell'Amatorius di Plutarco.

kr a S i S o i n o u D i k e n . am o r e c o n i u g a l e e l i n g u a g g i o d e l

s i m p o s i o n e l l 'am a T o r i u S d i p l u T a r c o

R S

Universitร  di Salerno

Abstract

e ฮบฯแพถฯƒฮนฯ‚ metaphor of water and wine in a mixture of balanced proportion aimed at ensuring

a correct assumption of the drink, respectful of the rules of the convivium, is taken by Plutarch

from the world of the symposium and repeatedly applied in his Amatorius to the love between

husband and wife as a deep connection between their souls. us, the author expresses a concept

of eros coherent with the most genuine Hellenic cultural tradition: this way, eros is the projection

on a familiar basis of the ฯ†ฮนฮปแฝทฮฑ that society should rely on, even in politics, according to Plato's

point of view. Moreover, the vision of eros, as it emerges from the analyses conducted, seems to

respect the Aristotelian ethical principle of ฯ„แฝธ ฮผแฝณฯ„ฯฮนฮฟฮฝ.

Un'analisi del lessico e della complessa trama metaforica che

caratterizza l'Introduzione al IV libro delle Quaestiones convivales (659E-

660A) permette di sviluppare qualche riessione di ordine piรน generale

sul valore assunto nell'immaginario plutarcheo dal simposio e dalle sue

regole come modello di riferimento per altri ambiti della realtร  umana,

anche privati, quale potrebbe essere il rapporto coniugale; a questo scopo

di notevole interesse puรฒ risultare la lettura comparata di alcuni passi tratti

dall'Amatorius , dai Coniugalia praecepta e dal Septem sapientium convivium.

Plutarco1 sostiene nell'Introduzione che scopo del simposio, come della

1 แฝฎ ฮฃฯŒฯƒฯƒฮนฮต ฮฃฮตฮฝฮตฮบฮฏฯ‰ฮฝ, ฯ„ฮฟแฟฆ ฮ ฮฟฮปฯ…ฮฒฮฏฮฟฯ… ฮฃฮบฮทฯ€ฮฏฯ‰ฮฝฮน ฯ€ฮฑฯฮฑฮนฮฝฮฟแฟฆฮฝฯ„ฮฟฯ‚ แผˆฯ†ฯฮนฮบฮฑฮฝแฟท ฮผแฝด ฯ€ฯฯŒฯ„ฮตฯฮฟฮฝ แผฮพ

แผ€ฮณฮฟฯแพถฯ‚ แผ€ฯ€ฮตฮปฮธฮตแฟ–ฮฝ แผข ฯ†ฮฏฮปฮฟฮฝ ฯ„ฮนฮฝแฝฐ ฯ€ฮฟฮนฮฎฯƒฮฑฯƒฮธฮฑฮน ฯ„แฟถฮฝ ฯ€ฮฟฮปฮนฯ„แฟถฮฝ, ฯ†ฮฏฮปฮฟฮฝ ฮดฮตแฟ– ฮผแฝด ฯ€ฮนฮบฯแฟถฯ‚ ฮผฮทฮดแฝฒ ฯƒฮฟฯ†ฮนฯƒฯ„ฮนฮบแฟถฯ‚

แผ€ฮบฮฟฯฮตฮนฮฝ แผฮบฮตแฟ–ฮฝฮฟฮฝ ฯ„แฝธฮฝ แผ€ฮผฮตฯ„ฮฌฯ€ฯ„ฯ‰ฯ„ฮฟฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮฒฮญฮฒฮฑฮนฮฟฮฝ, แผ€ฮปฮปแฝฐ ฮบฮฟฮนฮฝแฟถฯ‚ ฯ„แฝธฮฝ ฮตแฝ”ฮฝฮฟฯ…ฮฝ· [...] ฮฆฮนฮปฮฏฮฑ ฮณแฝฐฯ แผฮฝ

ฯ‡ฯฯŒฮฝแฟณ ฯ€ฮฟฮปฮปแฟท ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮดฮน' แผ€ฯฮตฯ„แฟ†ฯ‚ แผฮปฯŽฯƒฮนฮผฮฟฮฝ· ฮตแฝ”ฮฝฮฟฮนฮฑ ฮดแฝฒ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ‡ฯฮตฮฏแพณ ฮบฮฑแฝถ แฝฮผฮนฮปฮฏแพณ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ€ฮฑฮนฮดฮนแพท ฯ€ฮฟฮปฮนฯ„ฮนฮบแฟถฮฝ

แผ€ฮฝฮดฯแฟถฮฝ แผฯ€ฮฌฮณฮตฯ„ฮฑฮน, ฮบฮฑฮนฯแฝธฮฝ ฮปฮฑฮฒฮฟแฟฆฯƒฮฑ ฯ€ฮตฮนฮธฮฟแฟฆฯ‚ ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฑฮฝฮธฯฯŽฯ€ฮฟฯ… ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ‡ฮฌฯฮนฯ„ฮฟฯ‚ ฯƒฯ…ฮฝฮตฯฮณฯŒฮฝ. แผˆฮปฮป' แฝ…ฯฮฑ ฯ„แฝธ

ฯ„แฟ†ฯ‚ ฯ€ฮฑฯฮฑฮนฮฝฮญฯƒฮตฯ‰ฯ‚, ฮตแผฐ ฮผแฝด ฮผฯŒฮฝฮฟฮฝ แผ”ฯ‡ฮตฮน ฮดฮตฮพฮนแฟถฯ‚ ฯ€ฯแฝธฯ‚ แผ€ฮณฮฟฯแฝฐฮฝ แผ€ฮปฮปแฝฐ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ€ฯแฝธฯ‚ ฯƒฯ…ฮผฯ€ฯŒฯƒฮนฮฟฮฝ· แฝฅฯƒฯ„ฮต ฮดฮตแฟ–ฮฝ

ฮผแฝด ฯ€ฯฯŒฯ„ฮตฯฮฟฮฝ แผ€ฮฝฮฑฮปฯฮตฮนฮฝ แผข ฮบฯ„ฮฎฯƒฮฑฯƒฮธฮฑฮฏ ฯ„ฮนฮฝฮฑ ฯ„แฟถฮฝ ฯƒฯ…ฮณฮบฮฑฯ„ฮฑฮบฮตฮนฮผฮญฮฝฯ‰ฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ€ฮฑฯฯŒฮฝฯ„ฯ‰ฮฝ ฮตแฝ”ฮฝฮฟฯ…ฮฝ แผ‘ฮฑฯ…ฯ„แฟท

ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ†ฮฏฮปฮฟฮฝ. Eแผฐฯ‚ แผ€ฮณฮฟฯแฝฐฮฝ ฮผแฝฒฮฝ ฮณแฝฐฯ แผฮผฮฒฮฌฮปฮปฮฟฯ…ฯƒฮน ฯ€ฯฮฑฮณฮผฮฌฯ„ฯ‰ฮฝ ฮตแผตฮฝฮตฮบฮตฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ‡ฯฮตฮนแฟถฮฝ แผ‘ฯ„ฮญฯฯ‰ฮฝ, ฮตแผฐฯ‚ ฮดแฝฒ

ฯƒฯ…ฮผฯ€ฯŒฯƒฮนฮฟฮฝ ฮฟแผต ฮณฮต ฮฝฮฟแฟฆฮฝ แผ”ฯ‡ฮฟฮฝฯ„ฮตฯ‚ แผ€ฯ†ฮนฮบฮฝฮฟแฟฆฮฝฯ„ฮฑฮน ฮบฯ„ฮทฯƒฯŒฮผฮตฮฝฮฟฮน ฯ†ฮฏฮปฮฟฯ…ฯ‚ […] ฮšฮฑแฝถ ฯ„ฮฟแฝฮฝฮฑฮฝฯ„ฮฏฮฟฮฝ แฝ ฯ„ฮฟฯฯ„ฮฟฯ…

ฯ€ฮฑฯฮฑฮผฮตฮปแฟถฮฝ แผ„ฯ‡ฮฑฯฮนฮฝ ฮฑแฝ‘ฯ„แฟท ฮบฮฑแฝถ แผ€ฯ„ฮตฮปแฟ† ฯ„แฝดฮฝ ฯƒฯ…ฮฝฮฟฯ…ฯƒฮฏฮฑฮฝ ฯ€ฮฟฮนฮตแฟ– ฮบฮฑแฝถ แผ„ฯ€ฮตฮนฯƒฮน ฯ„แฟ‡ ฮณฮฑฯƒฯ„ฯแฝถ ฯƒฯฮฝฮดฮตฮนฯ€ฮฝฮฟฯ‚ ฮฟแฝ ฯ„แฟ‡

ฯˆฯ…ฯ‡แฟ‡ ฮณฮตฮณฮฟฮฝฯŽฯ‚· แฝ ฮณแฝฐฯ ฯƒฯฮฝฮดฮตฮนฯ€ฮฝฮฟฯ‚ ฮฟแฝฮบ แฝ„ฯˆฮฟฯ… ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮฟแผดฮฝฮฟฯ… ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ„ฯฮฑฮณฮทฮผฮฌฯ„ฯ‰ฮฝ ฮผฯŒฮฝฮฟฮฝ, แผ€ฮปฮปแฝฐ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮปฯŒฮณฯ‰ฮฝ

ฮบฮฟฮนฮฝฯ‰ฮฝแฝธฯ‚ แผฅฮบฮตฮน ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ€ฮฑฮนฮดฮนแพถฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฟฯ†ฯฮฟฯƒฯฮฝฮทฯ‚ ฮตแผฐฯ‚ ฮตแฝ”ฮฝฮฟฮนฮฑฮฝ ฯ„ฮตฮปฮตฯ…ฯ„ฯŽฯƒฮทฯ‚ […] ฯ„ฮฑแฟ–ฯ‚ ฮดแฝฒ ฯ†ฮนฮปฮนฮบฮฑแฟ–ฯ‚

ฮปฮฑฮฒฮฑแฟ–ฯ‚ แฝ ฮฟแผถฮฝฮฟฯ‚ แผฯ†แฝดฮฝ แผฮฝฮดฮฏฮดฯ‰ฯƒฮน ฮผฮนฮณฮฝฯฮผฮตฮฝฮฟฯ‚ ฮปฯŒฮณแฟณ· ฮปฯŒฮณฮฟฯ‚ ฮณแฝฐฯ ฮฑแฝฯ„แฟท ฯ„แฝธ ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฌฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€ฮฟฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ แผ ฮธฮฟฯ€ฮฟฮนแฝธฮฝ

แผฯ€แฝถ ฯ„แฝดฮฝ ฯˆฯ…ฯ‡แฝดฮฝ แผฮบ ฯ„ฮฟแฟฆ ฯƒฯŽฮผฮฑฯ„ฮฟฯ‚ แผฯ€ฮฟฯ‡ฮตฯ„ฮตฯฮตฮน ฮบฮฑแฝถ แผฮฝฮดฮฏฮดฯ‰ฯƒฮนฮฝ· ฮตแผฐ ฮดแฝฒ ฮผฮฎ, ฯ€ฮปฮฑฮฝฯŽฮผฮตฮฝฮฟฯ‚ แผฮฝ ฯ„แฟท ฯƒฯŽฮผฮฑฯ„ฮน

ฯ€ฮปฮทฯƒฮผฮฟฮฝแฟ†ฯ‚ ฮฟแฝฮดแฝฒฮฝ ฯƒฯ€ฮฟฯ…ฮดฮฑฮนฯŒฯ„ฮตฯฮฟฮฝ ฯ€ฮฑฯฮญฯƒฯ‡ฮตฮฝ. แฝฮธฮตฮฝ แฝฅฯƒฯ€ฮตฯ แฝ ฮผฮฌฯฮผฮฑฯฮฟฯ‚, ฯ„ฮฟแฟฆ ฮดฮนฮฑฯ€ฯฯฮฟฯ… ฯƒฮนฮดฮฎฯฮฟฯ…

ฯ„แฟท ฮบฮฑฯ„ฮฑฯˆฯฯ‡ฮตฮนฮฝ ฯ„แฝดฮฝ แผ„ฮณฮฑฮฝ แฝ‘ฮณฯฯŒฯ„ฮทฯ„ฮฑ ฮบฮฑแฝถ แฟฅฯฯƒฮนฮฝ แผ€ฯ†ฮฑฮนฯแฟถฮฝ, ฮตแฝ”ฯ„ฮฟฮฝฮฟฮฝ ฯ€ฮฟฮนฮตแฟ– ฯ„แฝธ ฮผฮฑฮปฮฑฯƒฯƒฯŒฮผฮตฮฝฮฟฮฝ ฮฑแฝฯ„ฮฟแฟฆ

ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ„ฯ…ฯ€ฮฟฯฮผฮตฮฝฮฟฮฝ, ฮฟแฝ•ฯ„ฯ‰ฯ‚ แฝ ฯƒฯ…ฮผฯ€ฮฟฯ„ฮนฮบแฝธฯ‚ ฮปฯŒฮณฮฟฯ‚ ฮฟแฝฮบ แผแพท ฮดฮนฮฑฯ†ฮฟฯฮตแฟ–ฯƒฮธฮฑฮน ฯ€ฮฑฮฝฯ„ฮฌฯ€ฮฑฯƒฮนฮฝ แฝ‘ฯ€แฝธ ฯ„ฮฟแฟฆ ฮฟแผดฮฝฮฟฯ…

ฯ„ฮฟแฝบฯ‚ ฯ€ฮฏฮฝฮฟฮฝฯ„ฮฑฯ‚, แผ€ฮปฮป' แผฯ†ฮฏฯƒฯ„ฮทฯƒฮน ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ€ฮฟฮนฮตแฟ– ฯ„แฟ‡ แผ€ฮฝฮญฯƒฮตฮน ฯ„แฝธ แผฑฮปฮฑฯแฝธฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฌฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€ฮฟฮฝ แผฮณฮบฮญฯฮฑฯƒฯ„ฮฟฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ

ฮบฮตฯ‡ฮฑฯฮนฯƒฮผฮญฮฝฮฟฮฝ, แผ„ฮฝ ฯ„ฮนฯ‚ แผฮผฮผฮตฮปแฟถฯ‚ แผ…ฯ€ฯ„ฮทฯ„ฮฑฮน, ฮบฮฑฮธฮฌฯ€ฮตฯ ฯƒฯ†ฯฮฑฮณแฟ–ฮดฮน ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฏฮฑฯ‚ ฮตแฝฯ„ฯ…ฯ€ฯ‰ฯ„ฮฌฯ„ฯ‰ฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ แผฯ€ฮฑฮปแฟถฮฝ

ฮดฮนแฝฐ ฯ„แฝธฮฝ ฮฟแผถฮฝฮฟฮฝ แฝ„ฮฝฯ„ฯ‰ฮฝ. Il testo di riferimento รจ quello costituito da A. M. S (ed.), 2001, da

cui ci si allontana solo in alcuni punti: รจ stata infatti accolta la correzione แผฮฝฮดแฝทฮดฯ‰ฯƒฮนฮฝ proposta dal

Wilamowitz per ฯƒฯ…ฮฝฮดแฝทฮดฯ‰ฯƒฮนฮฝ dei codici contro ฯƒฯ…ฮฝฮดฮนฮฑฮดแฝทฮดฯ‰ฯƒฮนฮฝ dello Hubert; si รจ preferito inoltre

respingere l'aggiunta di ฯ„แฝธ dello Hubert dinanzi a ฮบฮตฯ‡ฮฑฯฮนฯƒฮผแฝณฮฝฮฟฮฝ e la correzione ฮตแฝฯ„ฯ…ฯ€แฝฝฯ„ฯ‰ฮฝ

Reiske per ฮตแฝฯ„ฯ…ฯ€ฯ‰ฯ„ฮฌฯ„ฯ‰ฮฝ dei codici; per le prime due divergenze cfr. S.-T. T, 1990,

frequentazione dell'agorร , รจ quello di procurarsi degli amici: chi partecipa al

simposio per scopi diversi rende dunque l'incontro privo di piacere (แผ„ฯ‡ฮฑฯฮนฯ‚)

e inutile (แผ€ฯ„ฮตฮปแฝตฯ‚ ) 2 . Il simposio รจ cosรฌ subito accomunato ad una esperienza

collettiva ‒ come potrebbe essere quella politica ‒ che va vissuta e trova

giusticazione nell'ambito dei rapporti della polis: al simposio, infatti, ci si

reca per saziare non solo il corpo, ma anche l'anima attraverso la condivisione

di discorsi (ฮปแฝนฮณฮฟฮน), momenti di divertimento piรน leggero (ฯ€ฮฑฮนฮดฮนฮฑแฝท) e cordiale

allegria (ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฟฯ†ฯฮฟฯƒแฝปฮฝฮท), il che produce benevolenza (ฮตแฝ”ฮฝฮฟฮนฮฑ ) 3 . Plutarco

distingue a questo punto tra i termini ฯ†ฮนฮปแฝทฮฑ ed ฮตแฝ”ฮฝฮฟฮนฮฑ: la prima si conquista

nel tempo e attraverso la virtรน (แผฮฝ ฯ‡ฯฯŒฮฝแฟณ ฯ€ฮฟฮปฮปแฟท ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮดฮน' แผ€ฯฮตฯ„แฟ†ฯ‚ ) 4 , mentre la

seconda nasce tra individui della stessa cittร  dalla consuetudine (ฯ‡ฯฮตแฝทฮฑ), dalla

frequentazione (แฝฮผฮนฮปแฝทฮฑ) e anche attraverso il divertimento (ฯ€ฮฑฮนฮดฮนแฝฑ), in virtรน

di quella capacitร , che ha la sua radice nella natura lantropica dell'uomo, di

attirare la simpatia e il rispetto degli altri con il fascino del proprio carattere

(ฯ€ฮตฮนฮธแฝผ ฯ†ฮนฮปแฝฑฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€ฮฟฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ‡แฝฑฯฮนฯ‚). Perchรฉ il simposio non si riduca ad una

volgare bevuta occorre perรฒ che al vino sia mescolato il ฮปแฝนฮณฮฟฯ‚, il quale dionde

nell'anima un'amorevole inclinazione verso il prossimo, mentre il vino da

solo vagherebbe nel corpo producendo solo un senso di sazietร  (ฯ€ฮปฮทฯƒฮผฮฟฮฝแฝต ) 5 .

Plutarco propone dunque un modello di simposio sobrio in cui si crei tra i

partecipanti un feeling soprattutto spirituale attraverso la condivisione di uno

stile di vita decoroso e del gusto per un divertimento sano ed equilibrato.

A questo punto Plutarco per chiarire il concetto introduce una similitudine

tratta dall'ambito dell'arte metallurgica: come il marmo raredda il ferro

incandescente e ne contrasta mollezza e uiditร  eccessive, rendendo plastica

quella parte che รจ soggetta ad ammorbidimento e si presta ad essere plasmata,

cosรฌ il ฮปแฝนฮณฮฟฯ‚ ฯƒฯ…ฮผฯ€ฮฟฯ„ฮนฮบแฝนฯ‚ impedisce che chi beve sia in balia degli eetti del

vino, ma con l'ammorbidimento che esso produce tiene sotto controllo e guida

la tendenza alla cordialitร  e all'amicizia6 rendendola temperata (แผฮณฮบแฝณฯฮฑฯƒฯ„ฮฟฮฝ) e

gradevole, come se proprio a causa del vino i partecipanti al simposio diventassero

piรน malleabili e morbidi al sigillo dell'amicizia (ฮบฮฑฮธฮฌฯ€ฮตฯ ฯƒฯ†ฯฮฑฮณแฟ–ฮดฮน ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฏฮฑฯ‚

ฮตแฝฯ„ฯ…ฯ€ฯ‰ฯ„ฮฌฯ„ฯ‰ฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ แผฯ€ฮฑฮปแฟถฮฝ ฮดฮนแฝฐ ฯ„แฝธฮฝ ฮฟแผถฮฝฮฟฮฝ แฝ„ฮฝฯ„ฯ‰ฮฝ)7 . Il linguaggio plutarcheo

pp. 16, 17 e per la terza cfr. infra, n. 7. Per tutte le citazioni dall'Amatorius il testo di riferimento

รจ quello di R. F, 1980 ora riedito in F. F, 2008. Le eventuali divergenze dal

testo del Flaceliรจre saranno indicate in nota.

2 Una celebrazione del ruolo dell'amico nell'ambito del simposio compare anche in Quaest.

conv. 697D.

3 Il concetto รจ ribadito piรน volte da Plutarco: cfr. Quaest. conv. 618E, 620C, 643A,

ma soprattutto 621C ฮดฮนฮฑฮณฯ‰ฮณแฝด ฮณฮฌฯ แผฯƒฯ„ฮนฮฝ แผฮฝ ฮฟแผดฮฝแฟณ ฯ„แฝธ ฯƒฯ…ฮผฯ€ฯŒฯƒฮนฮฟฮฝ ฮตแผฐฯ‚ ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฏฮฑฮฝ แฝ‘ฯ€แฝธ ฯ‡ฮฌฯฮนฯ„ฮฟฯ‚

ฯ„ฮตฮปฮตฯ…ฯ„แฟถฯƒฮฑ.

4 Cfr. Am. mult. 94A. Anche per Arist., EN VIII 1155 a 2-3 l'amicizia รจ legata alla virtรน; cfr.

pure EN VIII 1157 a 30-31.

5 Cfr. Ad. et. am. 66B; Quaest. conv. 613B, D; 614E.

6 Per il valore assunto dal termine ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฑฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€แฝทฮฑ nel corpus plutarcheo cfr. S.-T. T,

2007, pp. 187-91.

7 La lezione dei codici ฮตแฝฯ„ฯ…ฯ€แฝฝฯ„ฮฑฯ„ฮฟฮฝ potrebbe essere corretta in ฮตแฝฯ„ฯ…ฯ€ฯ‰ฯ„แฝฑฯ„ฯ‰ฮฝ ammettendo

un comune scambio ฯ‰>ฮฟ: cfr. F. T. G, 1976, pp. 275-7. La presenza di un superlativo al

posto del comparativo รจ giusticabile come un fenomeno di iperurbanismo, di cui si hanno altre

315

Krasis oinou diken. Amore coniugale e linguaggio del simposio nell'Amatorius di Plutarco.

slitta cosรฌ impercettibilmente da un piano semantico all'altro; anche se l'uso

del termine ฮตแฝ”ฯ„ฯ…ฯ€ฮฟฯ‚ prolunga la metafora del metallo, l'autore attinge anche al

lessico del simposio: infatti con l'aggettivo แผฮณฮบแฝณฯฮฑฯƒฯ„ฮฟฮฝ8 egli indica l'equilibrio

raggiunto attraverso l'intervento del ฮปแฝนฮณฮฟฯ‚; esso temperando nell'anima gli

eetti del vino che, se lasciato agire senza controllo, potrebbe indurre ad

atteggiamenti eccessivamente sfrenati, svolge la stessa funzione dell'acqua

che si mescola al vino per stemperarne la forza, secondo le convenzioni del

simposio ellenico9 .

Se nel contesto della performance (reale o ttizia)10 delle quaestiones era

giusticabile l'uso abbondante di metafore simposiali, la loro presenza in

opere di natura e struttura diverse รจ ancora piรน indicativa di come la categoria

del "simposio" potesse fornire un paradigma di comportamento applicabile

anche ad altri ambiti della vita quotidiana. Esse ricorrono ad esempio proprio

nell'Amatorius, il dialogo dedicato, com'รจ noto, alla denizione della ฯ†ฮนฮปแฝทฮฑ

nell'ambito matrimoniale11 . Se confrontiamo le aermazioni contenute

nell'Introduzione al IV libro delle Quaestiones convivales con le idee espresse

in piรน luoghi dell'Amatorius noteremo un forte parallelismo occultato per

via della dislocazione di tali concetti nel corso del dialogo, laddove nell'altro

testo essi vengono espressi in forma piรน didascalica e concentrati, si direbbe

in forma programmatica, all'inizio dell'opera. La nalitร  dell'amore, come del

simposio, รจ per Plutarco quella di procurarsi un'amicizia virtuosa12 , mentre chi

ama solo per soddisfare il bisogno di piacere sico prova la stessa sensazione

di sazietร  di chi si ubriaca bevendo vino puro13 ; la ฯƒฯ…ฮฝฮฟฯ…ฯƒแฝทฮฑ soprattutto se

coinvolge persone dello stesso sesso ed รจ quindi orientata verso la conquista

di un piacere momentaneo e puramente sico, senza avere come esito la

procreazione e la creazione di una famiglia, risulta nauseante e inutile14 . S e

dunque l'unione tra uomo e donna costituisce una ฯƒแฝปฮณฮบฯฮฑฯƒฮนฯ‚ 15 , quella di due

tracce nel corpus plutarcheo: cfr. G. G, 1988, pp. 73-5. Per la frequenza di metafore e

similitudini tratte dall'ambito dell'ars ferraria cfr. A. I. D, 1892, pp. 60-1.

8 S.-T. T, 1990, p. 17 accetta la correzione ฮตแฝฮบแฝณฯฮฑฯƒฯ„ฮฟฮฝ del Bernardakis contro

แผฮณฮบแฝณฯฮฑฯƒฯ„ฮฟฮฝ dei codici; l'aggettivo in eetti รจ un hapax, ma il verbo แผฮณฮบฮตฯแฝฑฮฝฮฝฯ…ฮผฮน รจ ampiamente

utilizzato, oltre che nel senso di "versare", anche in quello di "mescolare", solitamente in senso

gurato: cfr. ad esempio Lucianus, Am. 19 ฮบฮฟฮนฮฝแฝธฮฝ ฮฟแฝ–ฮฝ แผ€ฮผฯ†ฮฟฯ„ฮญฯแฟณ ฮณฮญฮฝฮตฮน ฯ€ฯŒฮธฮฟฮฝ แผฮณฮบฮตฯฮฑฯƒฮฑฮผฮญฮฝฮท.

9 Cfr. anche Quaest. conv. 657E.

10 Su questo tema cfr. F. P P, 1999.

11 Cfr. R. M.ยช A, 1990-1991; M. H. T. C. U P, 1995; A. G. N,

1997; R. J. G C, 1999; M. V S, 2003; J. B, 2008.

12 Amat. 750E: แผœฯฯ‰ฯ‚ ฮดแฝฒ [...] ฮฟแฝฮบ แผฮธฮญฮปฮตฮน ฯ€ฮฑฯฮฑฮผฮญฮฝฮตฮนฮฝ [...] ฮตแผฐ ฮบฮฑฯฯ€แฝธฮฝ แผคฮธฮฟฯ…ฯ‚ ฮฟแผฐฮบฮตแฟ–ฮฟฮฝ ฮตแผฐฯ‚ ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฏฮฑฮฝ

ฮบฮฑแฝถ แผ€ฯฮตฯ„แฝดฮฝ ฮฟแฝฮบ แผ€ฯ€ฮฟฮดฮฏฮดฯ‰ฯƒฮนฮฝ.

13 Amat. 752B: [...] แผœฯฯ‰ฯ‚ ฯ‡ฯ‰ฯแฝถฯ‚ แผˆฯ†ฯฮฟฮดฮฏฯ„ฮทฯ‚, แฝฅฯƒฯ€ฮตฯ ฮผฮญฮธฮท ฯ‡ฯ‰ฯแฝถฯ‚ ฮฟแผดฮฝฮฟฯ… ฯ€ฯแฝธฯ‚ ฯƒฯฮบฮนฮฝฮฟฮฝ ฯ€ฯŒฮผฮฑ

ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮบฯฮฏฮธฮนฮฝฮฟฮฝ, แผ„ฮบฮฑฯฯ€ฮฟฮฝ ฮฑแฝฯ„ฮฟแฟฆ ฮบฮฑแฝถ แผ€ฯ„ฮตฮปแฝฒฯ‚ ฯ„แฝธ ฯ„ฮฑฯฮฑฮบฯ„ฮนฮบฯŒฮฝ แผฯƒฯ„ฮน ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ€ฮปฮฎฯƒฮผฮนฮฟฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ แผฯˆฮฏฮบฮฟฯฮฟฮฝ.

14 Amat. 756E: แผ€ฮฝฮญฯฮฑฯƒฯ„ฮฟฯ‚ ฮณแฝฐฯ แฝฮผฮนฮปฮฏฮฑ ฮบฮฑฮธฮฌฯ€ฮตฯ ฯ€ฮตแฟ–ฮฝฮฑ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮดฮฏฯˆฮฑ ฯ€ฮปฮทฯƒฮผฮฟฮฝแฝดฮฝ แผ”ฯ‡ฮฟฯ…ฯƒฮฑ ฯ€ฮญฯฮฑฯ‚ ฮตแผฐฯ‚

ฮฟแฝฮธแฝฒฮฝ แผฮพฮนฮบฮฝฮตแฟ–ฯ„ฮฑฮน ฮบฮฑฮปฯŒฮฝ· แผ€ฮปฮป' แผก ฮธฮตแฝธฯ‚ แผœฯฯ‰ฯ„ฮน ฯ„แฝธฮฝ ฮบฯŒฯฮฟฮฝ แผ€ฯ†ฮฑฮนฯฮฟแฟฆฯƒฮฑ ฯ„แฟ†ฯ‚ แผกฮดฮฟฮฝแฟ†ฯ‚ ฯ†ฮนฮปฯŒฯ„ฮทฯ„ฮฑ ฯ€ฮฟฮนฮตแฟ–

ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯƒฯฮณฮบฯฮฑฯƒฮนฮฝ. Cfr. R. S, 2006, p. 89.

15 Sul valore di ฯƒแฝปฮณฮบฯฮฑฯƒฮนฯ‚ cfr. H. G, 2006, nn. 70 e 423; J. O, 2006, p.

228, n. 93; J. B, 2006/2007.

uomini viene al contrario denita แผ€ฮบฯฮฑฯƒแฝทฮฑ, "un miscuglio mal riuscito", dove

i due elementi risultano malamente uniti tra di loro in maniera violenta e

non veramente fusi insieme16 . Pertanto, come nel banchetto accanto al vino

bisogna dare spazio al ฮปแฝนฮณฮฟฯ‚, cosรฌ nell'amore ad Afrodite, che costituisce la

componente sica, deve unirsi Eros, la componente spirituale ed aettiva che

proietta gli individui interessati da questo sentimento nell'orizzonte di un

progetto che non รจ solo di coppia, ma si realizza completamente nello spazio

civico. Al contrario il soddisfacimento di un capriccio prodotto dalla pulsione

erotica tra due individui dello stesso sesso nisce per appiattirli entrambi sul

momento dell'incontro sico che, privo di ฯ€ฮตฮนฮธแฝฝ e ฯ‡แฝฑฯฮนฯ‚, risulta al contrario

frutto di violenza, sfrenato e sfrontato17 . La componente piรน furiosa puรฒ essere

invece eliminata con il saggio ragionamento e il pudore (ฯƒแฝฝฯ†ฯฯ‰ฮฝ ฮปฮฟฮณฮนฯƒฮผแฝนฯ‚

ฮผฮตฯ„' ฮฑแผฐฮดฮฟแฟฆฯ‚) che del fuoco della passione lasciano sussistere soltanto la luce

e il calore; in questo modo l'eros non รจ piรน un terremoto sconvolgente, ma

un meraviglioso ammorbidimento dell'anima che produce docilitร  e amabilitร 

(ฮตแฝฯ€แฝณฮธฮตฮนฮฑ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฟฯ†ฯฮฟฯƒแฝปฮฝฮท)18 . Come avviene anche nel simposio, sono dunque

seduzione (ฯ€ฮตฮนฮธแฝฝ) e grazia (ฯ‡แฝฑฯฮนฯ‚) le qualitร  femminili che ingenerano una

dolce soerenza nell'uomo, ma conquistano il suo aetto conducendolo alla

virtรน e all'amore19 ; infatti senza queste due componenti il rapporto รจ tenuto

insieme solo dalle briglie della vergogna e della paura20 .

16 Amat. 768E: ฯ„แฝดฮฝ ฮผแฝฒฮฝ ฯ€ฯแฝธฯ‚ แผ„ฯฯฮตฮฝ' แผ„ฯฯฮตฮฝฮฟฯ‚ แฝฮผฮนฮปฮฏฮฑฮฝ, ฮผแพถฮปฮปฮฟฮฝ ฮด' แผ€ฮบฯฮฑฯƒฮฏฮฑฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ แผฯ€ฮนฯ€ฮฎฮดฮทฯƒฮนฮฝ,

ฮตแผดฯ€ฮฟฮน ฯ„ฮนฯ‚ แผ‚ฮฝ. Nell'uso del termine แผ€ฮบฯฮฑฯƒแฝทฮฑ si potrebbe ammettere un voluto gioco di parole dal

momento che il greco conosce gli omogra แผ€ฮบฯแพฐฯƒแฝทฮฑ e แผ€ฮบฯแพฑฯƒแฝทฮฑ, che rispettivamente signicano

"cattiva mescolanza" e "incontinenza"; se con il primo si prolunga il riferimento al linguaggio

del simposio, con il secondo risulta evidente come agli occhi di Plutarco il rapporto non

fondato sull'amore sia segno di แผ€ฮบฯฮฑฯƒแฝทฮฑ, di intemperanza, propria di chi non รจ in possesso della

ฯƒฯ‰ฯ†ฯฮฟฯƒแฝปฮฝฮท; รจ il ฮปแฝนฮณฮฟฯ‚ allora che deve intervenire controllando l'แผฯ€ฮนฮธฯ…ฮผแฝทฮฑ e convogliandola

nell'orizzonte di comportamento ritenuto giusto dalla collettivitร .

17 Amat. 751D-E: แผฉ (sc . ฯ‡แฝฑฯฮนฯ‚) ฮด' แผ€ฯ€แฝธ ฯ„แฟถฮฝ แผ€ฯฯฮญฮฝฯ‰ฮฝ แผ€ฮบฯŒฮฝฯ„ฯ‰ฮฝ ฮผฮตฯ„แฝฐ ฮฒฮฏฮฑฯ‚ ฯ†ฮตฯฮฟฮผฮญฮฝฮท ฮบฮฑแฝถ

ฮปฮตฮทฮปฮฑฯƒฮฏฮฑฯ‚, แผ‚ฮฝ ฮด' แผ‘ฮบฮฟฯ…ฯƒฮฏฯ‰ฯ‚, ฯƒแฝบฮฝ ฮผฮฑฮปฮฑฮบฮฏแพณ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮธฮทฮปฯฯ„ฮทฯ„ฮน, "ฮฒฮฑฮฏฮฝฮตฯƒฮธฮฑฮน" ฮบฮฑฯ„แฝฐ ฮ ฮปฮฌฯ„ฯ‰ฮฝฮฑ "ฮฝฯŒฮผแฟณ

ฯ„ฮตฯ„ฯฮฌฯ€ฮฟฮดฮฟฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ€ฮฑฮนฮดฮฟฯƒฯ€ฮฟฯฮตแฟ–ฯƒฮธฮฑฮน" ฯ€ฮฑฯแฝฐ ฯ†ฯฯƒฮนฮฝ แผฮฝฮดฮนฮดฯŒฮฝฯ„ฯ‰ฮฝ, แผ„ฯ‡ฮฑฯฮนฯ‚ ฯ€ฮฑฮฝฯ„ฮฌฯ€ฮฑฯƒฮน ฮบฮฑแฝถ แผ€ฯƒฯ‡ฮฎฮผฯ‰ฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ

แผ€ฮฝฮฑฯ†ฯฯŒฮดฮนฯ„ฮฟฯ‚. Per questo testo in parte divergente da quello del Flaceliรจre cfr. R. S ,

2006, pp. 100-1, in part. n. 76. Per il valore assunto dal termine ฯ‡แฝฑฯฮนฯ‚ nell'opuscolo plutarcheo

cfr. M. F , 1984 (20079 ), pp. 205-9; A. V C & M. A. S ร,

2007.

18 Amat. 765C: แฝ…ฯƒฮฟฮน ฮดแฝฒ ฯƒฯŽฯ†ฯฮฟฮฝฮน ฮปฮฟฮณฮนฯƒฮผแฟท ฮผฮตฯ„' ฮฑแผฐฮดฮฟแฟฆฯ‚ ฮฟแผทฮฟฮฝ แผ€ฯ„ฮตฯ‡ฮฝแฟถฯ‚ ฯ€ฯ…ฯแฝธฯ‚ แผ€ฯ†ฮตแฟ–ฮปฮฟฮฝ ฯ„แฝธ

ฮผฮฑฮฝฮนฮบฯŒฮฝ, ฮฑแฝฮณแฝดฮฝ ฮดแฝฒ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ†แฟถฯ‚ แผ€ฯ€ฮญฮปฮนฯ€ฮฟฮฝ ฯ„แฟ‡ ฯˆฯ…ฯ‡แฟ‡ ฮผฮตฯ„แฝฐ ฮธฮตฯฮผฯŒฯ„ฮทฯ„ฮฟฯ‚, ฮฟแฝ ฯƒฮตฮนฯƒฮผฯŒฮฝ, แฝฅฯ‚ ฯ„ฮนฯ‚ ฮตแผถฯ€ฮต, ฮบฮนฮฝฮฟฯฯƒฮทฯ‚

แผฯ€แฝถ ฯƒฯ€ฮญฯฮผฮฑ ฮบฮฑฯ„' แฝ„ฮปฮนฯƒฮธฮฟฮฝ แผ€ฯ„ฯŒฮผฯ‰ฮฝ แฝ‘ฯ€แฝธ ฮปฮตฮนฯŒฯ„ฮทฯ„ฮฟฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮณฮฑฯฮณฮฑฮปฮนฯƒฮผฮฟแฟฆ ฮธฮปฮนฮฒฮฟฮผฮญฮฝฯ‰ฮฝ, ฮดฮนฮฌฯ‡ฯ…ฯƒฮนฮฝ ฮดแฝฒ

ฮธฮฑฯ…ฮผฮฑฯƒฯ„แฝดฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮณฯŒฮฝฮนฮผฮฟฮฝ [...] ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ€ฯŒฯฮฟฯ…ฯ‚ แผ€ฮฝฮฟฮฏฮณฮฟฯ…ฯƒฮฑฮฝ ฮตแฝฯ€ฮตฮนฮธฮตฮฏฮฑฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฟฯ†ฯฮฟฯƒฯฮฝฮทฯ‚.

19 Amat. 758B: ฮฟแฝฮดแฝฒฮฝ ฮณฮฌฯ แผฯƒฯ„ฮนฮฝ ฮฑแผฐฯƒฯ‡ฯแฝธฮฝ ฮฟแฝฮด' แผ€ฮฝฮฑฮณฮบฮฑแฟ–ฮฟฮฝ, แผ€ฮปฮปแฝฐ ฯ€ฮตฮนฮธแฝผ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ‡ฮฌฯฮนฯ‚ แผฮฝฮดฮนฮดฮฟแฟฆฯƒฮฑ

"ฯ€ฯŒฮฝฮฟฮฝ แผกฮดแฝบฮฝ" แฝกฯ‚ แผ€ฮปฮทฮธแฟถฯ‚ "ฮบฮฌฮผฮฑฯ„ฯŒฮฝ <ฯ„' ฮตแฝฮบฮฌฮผฮฑฯ„ฮฟฮฝ>" แฝ‘ฯ†ฮทฮณฮตแฟ–ฯ„ฮฑฮน ฯ€ฯแฝธฯ‚ แผ€ฯฮตฯ„แฝดฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฏฮฑฮฝ; cfr.

anche 769C: ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮณแฝฐฯ ฯ†ฮนฮปฯŒฯ„ฮตฮบฮฝฮฟฮน ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ†ฮฏฮปฮฑฮฝฮดฯฮฟฮน, ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ„แฝธ ฯƒฯ„ฮตฯฮบฯ„ฮนฮบแฝธฮฝ แฝ…ฮปฯ‰ฯ‚ แผฮฝ ฮฑแฝฯ„ฮฑแฟ–ฯ‚, แฝฅฯƒฯ€ฮตฯ

ฮตแฝฯ†ฯ…แฝดฯ‚ ฯ‡ฯŽฯฮฑ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮดฮตฮบฯ„ฮนฮบแฝด ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฏฮฑฯ‚, ฮฟแฝ”ฯ„ฮต ฯ€ฮตฮนฮธฮฟแฟฆฯ‚ ฮฟแฝ”ฯ„ฮต ฮงฮฑฯฮฏฯ„ฯ‰ฮฝ แผ„ฮผฮฟฮนฯฮฟฮฝ แฝ‘ฯ€ฯŒฮบฮตฮนฯ„ฮฑฮน. [...] แผก

ฯ†ฯฯƒฮนฯ‚ ฮณฯ…ฮฝฮฑฮนฮบแฝถ ฯ€ฮตฯฮนฮธฮตแฟ–ฯƒฮฑ ฯ‡ฮฌฯฮนฮฝ แฝ„ฯˆฮตฯ‰ฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ†ฯ‰ฮฝแฟ†ฯ‚ ฯ€ฮนฮธฮฑฮฝฯŒฯ„ฮทฯ„ฮฑ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮผฮฟฯฯ†แฟ†ฯ‚ แผฯ€ฮฑฮณฯ‰ฮณแฝธฮฝ ฮตแผถฮดฮฟฯ‚,

ฯ„แฟ‡ ฮผแฝฒฮฝ แผ€ฮบฮฟฮปฮฌฯƒฯ„แฟณ ฯ€ฯแฝธฯ‚ แผกฮดฮฟฮฝแฝดฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ แผ€ฯ€ฮฌฯ„ฮทฮฝ, ฯ„แฟ‡ ฮดแฝฒ ฯƒฯŽฯ†ฯฮฟฮฝฮน ฯ€ฯแฝธฯ‚ ฮตแฝ”ฮฝฮฟฮนฮฑฮฝ แผ€ฮฝฮดฯแฝธฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฏฮฑฮฝ

ฮผฮตฮณฮฌฮปฮฑ ฯƒฯ…ฮฝฮฎฯฮณฮทฯƒฮตฮฝ; 767D: ฯƒฯ„ฮญฯฮณฮตฯƒฮธฮฑฮน ฮดแฝฒ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯƒฯ„ฮญฯฮณฮตฮนฮฝ แผ‘ฮฝฮฏ ฮผฮฟฮน ฮดฮฟฮบฮตแฟ– ฮณฯฮฌฮผฮผฮฑฯ„ฮน ฯ„ฮฟแฟฆ ฯƒฯ„ฮญฮณฮตฮนฮฝ

ฯ€ฮฑฯฮฑฮปฮปฮฌฯ„ฯ„ฮฟฮฝ ฮตแฝฮธแฝบฯ‚ แผฮผฯ†ฮฑฮฏฮฝฮตฮนฮฝ ฯ„แฝดฮฝ แฝ‘ฯ€แฝธ ฯ‡ฯฯŒฮฝฮฟฯ… ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯƒฯ…ฮฝฮทฮธฮตฮฏฮฑฯ‚ แผ€ฮฝฮฌฮณฮบแฟƒ ฮผฮตฮผฮนฮณฮผฮญฮฝฮทฮฝ ฮตแฝ”ฮฝฮฟฮนฮฑฮฝ.

ฮงแฝฑฯฮนฯ‚ e ฯ‡ฯฮตแฝทฮฑ accompagnano la ฯ†ฮนฮปแฝทฮฑ in Ad. et am. 51B.

20 Amat. 752C: [...] แผ„ฮผฮฟฮนฯฮฟฮฝ แผฮฝฮธฮญฮฟฯ… ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฏฮฑฯ‚ ฮบฮฟฮนฮฝฯ‰ฮฝฮฏฮฑฮฝ, แผฃฮฝ ฯ„แฟ†ฯ‚ แผฯฯ‰ฯ„ฮนฮบแฟ†ฯ‚ ฯ€ฮตฮนฮธฮฟแฟฆฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ‡ฮฌฯฮนฯ„ฮฟฯ‚

317

Krasis oinou diken. Amore coniugale e linguaggio del simposio nell'Amatorius di Plutarco.

Se nell'Introduzione al IV libro delle Quaestiones convivales Plutarco

non sembra tanto interessato a stabilire una netta dierenza tra ฯ†ฮนฮปแฝทฮฑ ed

ฮตแฝ”ฮฝฮฟฮนฮฑ21 , rigettando la distinzione, che egli denisce sostica, di ฯ†แฝทฮปฮฟฯ‚

come แผ‘ฮบฮตแฝทฮฝฮฟฯ‚ แฝ แผ€ฮผฮตฯ„แฝฑฯ€ฯ„ฯ‰ฯ„ฮฟฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮฒแฝณฮฒฮฑฮนฮฟฯ‚ ed equiparandolo all'ฮตแฝ”ฮฝฮฟฯ…ฯ‚ ,

nell'Amatorius invece egli distingue tra i due sentimenti per sottolineare

con piรน forza la superioritร  del rapporto matrimoniale rispetto alle

relazioni omosessuali22 : se, infatti, l'amore contro natura tra i maschi

non rovina l'ฮตแฝ”ฮฝฮฟฮนฮฑ รจ, perรฒ, l'eros tra maschio e femmina a condurre alla

ฯ†ฮนฮปแฝทฮฑ attraverso la ฯ‡แฝฑฯฮนฯ‚23 ; le nozze sono inoltre una ฮบฮฟฮนฮฝฯ‰ฮฝแฝทฮฑ amorosa

che partecipa di una divina amicizia (แผ”ฮฝฮธฮตฮฟฯ‚ ฯ†ฮนฮปแฝทฮฑ, 752C). La ฯ†ฮนฮปแฝทฮฑ

appare dunque nell'opera una condizione piรน stabile, certa e consapevole

nei rapporti tra gli individui24 , in particolare tra quelli di sesso diverso,

laddove l'ฮตแฝ”ฮฝฮฟฮนฮฑ rappresenta lo stadio iniziale di quel rapporto, stadio a

cui รจ condannata a fermarsi la relazione tra persone dello stesso sesso25 .

Insomma se nell'ambito politico e sociale l'ฮตแฝ”ฮฝฮฟฮนฮฑ puรฒ essere identicata

grosso modo con la ฯ†ฮนฮปแฝทฮฑ, รจ in quello matrimoniale che la distinzione si

fa netta, perchรฉ funzionale al messaggio di fondo dell'opuscolo, che poco

spazio vuole lasciare all'esperienza omoerotica, relegata all'etร  giovanile

e destinata ad essere superata. Cosรฌ si moltiplicano nel testo plutarcheo

i riferimenti alla condizione di stabilitร  che caratterizza questa forma di

ฯ†ฮนฮปแฝทฮฑ26 , mentre l'eros omosessuale รจ instabile e insicuro27 . Come vedremo

tra breve, per esprimere il senso di precarietร  che accompagna una visione

distorta dell'eros Plutarco si serve dell'immagine ora della tempesta

invernale ora della mescolanza turbolenta di liquidi, mentre per l'amore

coniugale ricorre alla metafora marina della bonaccia e a quella della ฮบฯแพถฯƒฮนฯ‚

dei liquidi.

แผ€ฯ€ฮฟฮปฮนฯ€ฮฟฯฯƒฮทฯ‚ ฮผฮฟฮฝฮฟฮฝฮฟแฝบ ฮถฯ…ฮณฮฟแฟ–ฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ‡ฮฑฮปฮนฮฝฮฟแฟ–ฯ‚ แฝ‘ฯ€' ฮฑแผฐฯƒฯ‡ฯฮฝฮทฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ†ฯŒฮฒฮฟฯ… ฮผฮฌฮปฮฑ ฮผฯŒฮปฮนฯ‚ ฯƒฯ…ฮฝฮตฯ‡ฮฟฮผฮญฮฝฮทฮฝ

แฝฯแฟถฮผฮตฮฝ.

21 Per la denizione di ฮตแฝ”ฮฝฮฟฮนฮฑ cfr. Arist., EN IX 1166b 30; per la discussione su questi

due termini e sul loro valore cfr. S.-T. T, 2007, pp. 191-4; per il valore di ฮตแฝ”ฮฝฮฟฮนฮฑ

nell'ambito politico cfr. E. A, 2008. Sugli aspetti assunti dalla ฯ†ฮนฮปแฝทฮฑ nelle opere di

Plutarco cfr. J. C. F, 1974, pp. 434-41; J. G L, 1990; R. M.ยช A, 2002;

R. A M, 2005.

22 Su questo tema รจ possibile consultare un'ampia bibliograa: cfr. almeno M. F  ,

1984 ( 2007 9 ); J. C. C, 1999; M. B, 2000; S.-T. T, 2004/2005; B.

F, 2006, part. 252-68; G. D'I, 2007.

23 Amat. 751C-D: ฮตแผฐ ฮณแฝฐฯ แผก ฯ€ฮฑฯแฝฐ ฯ†ฯฯƒฮนฮฝ แฝฮผฮนฮปฮฏฮฑ ฯ€ฯแฝธฯ‚ แผ„ฯฯฮตฮฝฮฑฯ‚ ฮฟแฝฮบ แผ€ฮฝฮฑฮนฯฮตแฟ– ฯ„แฝดฮฝ แผฯฯ‰ฯ„ฮนฮบแฝดฮฝ

ฮตแฝ”ฮฝฮฟฮนฮฑฮฝ ฮฟแฝฮดแฝฒ ฮฒฮปฮฌฯ€ฯ„ฮตฮน, ฯ€ฮฟฮปแฝบ ฮผแพถฮปฮปฮฟฮฝ ฮตแผฐฮบฯŒฯ‚ แผฯƒฯ„ฮน ฯ„แฝธฮฝ ฮณฯ…ฮฝฮฑฮนฮบแฟถฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ แผ€ฮฝฮดฯแฟถฮฝ แผ”ฯฯ‰ฯ„ฮฑ ฯ„แฟ‡ ฯ†ฯฯƒฮตฮน

ฯ‡ฯฯŽฮผฮตฮฝฮฟฮฝ ฮตแผฐฯ‚ ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฏฮฑฮฝ ฮดฮนแฝฐ ฯ‡ฮฌฯฮนฯ„ฮฟฯ‚ แผฮพฮนฮบฮฝฮตแฟ–ฯƒฮธฮฑฮน.

24 Cfr. anche Am. mult. 97B. Plutarco doveva seguire in questo il pensiero di Arist., EN VIII

1157b 17-24.

25 Cfr. Arist., EN VIII 1155b 33-34; IX 1167a 6-8, 13-14.

26 Cfr. infra, n. 42.

27 Cfr. le osservazioni di Arist., EN VIII 1156 a 6-35; 1156 b 1-12, 17-18. Nell'Amatorius ,

del resto, proprio sul modello fornito da Aristotele, trova posto anche una vera e propria

classicazione delle forme di ฯ†ฮนฮปแฝทฮฑ (cap. 16, 758C-D).

Ad esempio, nei Coniug. praec. 142F-143A28 Plutarco sostiene che in natura

alcuni corpi sono costituiti di elementi distinti (แผฮบ ฮดฮนฮตฯƒฯ„ฯŽฯ„ฯ‰ฮฝ), altri di elementi

uniti insieme (แผฮบ ฯƒฯ…ฮฝฮฑฯ€ฯ„ฮฟฮผฮญฮฝฯ‰ฮฝ), mentre gli esseri viventi costituiscono una

unitร  naturale (แผกฮฝฯ‰ฮผฮญฮฝฮฑ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯƒฯ…ฮผฯ†ฯ…แฟ†); allo stesso modo il matrimonio fondato

sull'amore รจ un'unitร  naturale (ฯƒฯ‡ฮตฮดแฝธฮฝ ฮฟแฝ–ฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮณฮฌฮผฮฟฯ‚ แฝ ฮผแฝฒฮฝ ฯ„แฟถฮฝ แผฯฯŽฮฝฯ„ฯ‰ฮฝ

แผกฮฝฯ‰ฮผฮญฮฝฮฟฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯƒฯ…ฮผฯ†ฯ…ฮฎฯ‚ แผฯƒฯ„ฮนฮฝ), quello basato sull'interesse economico o sui

gli รจ un accostamento di elementi giustapposti (แผฮบ ฯƒฯ…ฮฝฮฑฯ€ฯ„ฮฟฮผฮญฮฝฯ‰ฮฝ), quello

di chi dorme nello stesso letto risulta di elementi distinti (แผฮบ ฮดฮนฮตฯƒฯ„ฯŽฯ„ฯ‰ฮฝ), e

l'esistenza di costoro puรฒ denirsi una coabitazione, non una vita in comune

(ฮฟแฝ ฯƒฯ…ฮผฮฒฮนฮฟแฟฆฮฝ ). Plutarco ritiene, infatti, che nel vero matrimonio, che รจ una

ฯƒฯ…ฮผฮฒแฝทฯ‰ฯƒฮนฯ‚29 , le due componenti costituiscano un'unitร  completa. Inne,

spostandosi dal piano sico a quello dei rapporti umani egli ritorna ad un

esempio tratto dalla realtร  naturale che serve a chiarire meglio il concetto di

matrimonio: "Come la mescolanza dei liquidi investe, secondo la teoria dei

naturalisti, ogni loro parte, allo stesso modo corpi, beni, amicizie e relazioni dei

coniugi devono realizzare tra di loro un perfetto amalgama"30 .

L'espressione ฮดฮน'แฝ…ฮปฯ‰ฮฝ ... ฮบฯแพถฯƒฮนฯ‚, che richiama letteralmente il concetto

stoico testimoniato da un lungo frammento del ฮ ฮตฯแฝถ ฮณแฝฑฮผฮฟฯ… di Antipatro di

Tarso31 , ricorre anche nel cap. 24 dell'Amatorius (769F), dove di nuovo l'autore

stabilisce un confronto tra il comportamento dei liquidi in natura e quello

della coppia matrimoniale: "Ma come se dei liquidi si mescolassero tra di loro,

28 ฮคแฟถฮฝ ฯƒฯ‰ฮผฮฌฯ„ฯ‰ฮฝ ฮฟแผฑ ฯ†ฮนฮปฯŒฯƒฮฟฯ†ฮฟฮน ฯ„แฝฐ ฮผแฝฒฮฝ แผฮบ ฮดฮนฮตฯƒฯ„ฯŽฯ„ฯ‰ฮฝ ฮปฮญฮณฮฟฯ…ฯƒฮนฮฝ ฮตแผถฮฝฮฑฮน ฮบฮฑฮธฮฌฯ€ฮตฯ ฯƒฯ„ฯŒฮปฮฟฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ

ฯƒฯ„ฯฮฑฯ„ฯŒฯ€ฮตฮดฮฟฮฝ, ฯ„แฝฐ ฮดแฝฒ แผฮบ ฯƒฯ…ฮฝฮฑฯ€ฯ„ฮฟฮผฮญฮฝฯ‰ฮฝ แฝกฯ‚ ฮฟแผฐฮบฮฏฮฑฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮฝฮฑแฟฆฮฝ, ฯ„แฝฐ ฮดแฝฒ แผกฮฝฯ‰ฮผฮญฮฝฮฑ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯƒฯ…ฮผฯ†ฯ…แฟ† ฮบฮฑฮธฮฌฯ€ฮตฯ

แผฯƒฯ„แฝถ ฯ„แฟถฮฝ ฮถแฟดฯ‰ฮฝ แผ•ฮบฮฑฯƒฯ„ฮฟฮฝ. ฯƒฯ‡ฮตฮดแฝธฮฝ ฮฟแฝ–ฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮณฮฌฮผฮฟฯ‚ แฝ ฮผแฝฒฮฝ ฯ„แฟถฮฝ แผฯฯŽฮฝฯ„ฯ‰ฮฝ แผกฮฝฯ‰ฮผฮญฮฝฮฟฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯƒฯ…ฮผฯ†ฯ…ฮฎฯ‚

แผฯƒฯ„ฮนฮฝ, แฝ ฮดแฝฒ ฯ„แฟถฮฝ ฮดฮนแฝฐ ฯ€ฯฮฟแฟ–ฮบฮฑฯ‚ แผข ฯ„ฮญฮบฮฝฮฑ ฮณฮฑฮผฮฟฯฮฝฯ„ฯ‰ฮฝ แผฮบ ฯƒฯ…ฮฝฮฑฯ€ฯ„ฮฟฮผฮญฮฝฯ‰ฮฝ, แฝ ฮดแฝฒ ฯ„แฟถฮฝ ฯƒฯ…ฮณฮบฮฑฮธฮตฯ…ฮดฯŒฮฝฯ„ฯ‰ฮฝ

แผฮบ ฮดฮนฮตฯƒฯ„ฯŽฯ„ฯ‰ฮฝ, ฮฟแฝ“ฯ‚ ฯƒฯ…ฮฝฮฟฮนฮบฮตแฟ–ฮฝ แผ„ฮฝ ฯ„ฮนฯ‚ แผ€ฮปฮปฮฎฮปฮฟฮนฯ‚, ฮฟแฝ ฯƒฯ…ฮผฮฒฮนฮฟแฟฆฮฝ ฮฝฮฟฮผฮฏฯƒฮตฮนฮต. ฮดฮตแฟ– ฮดฮญ, แฝฅฯƒฯ€ฮตฯ ฮฟแผฑ ฯ†ฯ…ฯƒฮนฮบฮฟแฝถ

ฯ„แฟถฮฝ แฝ‘ฮณฯแฟถฮฝ ฮปฮญฮณฮฟฯ…ฯƒฮน ฮดฮน' แฝ…ฮปฯ‰ฮฝ ฮณฮตฮฝฮญฯƒฮธฮฑฮน ฯ„แฝดฮฝ ฮบฯแพถฯƒฮนฮฝ, ฮฟแฝ•ฯ„ฯ‰ ฯ„แฟถฮฝ ฮณฮฑฮผฮฟฯฮฝฯ„ฯ‰ฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯƒฯŽฮผฮฑฯ„ฮฑ ฮบฮฑแฝถ

ฯ‡ฯฮฎฮผฮฑฯ„ฮฑ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ†ฮฏฮปฮฟฯ…ฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮฟแผฐฮบฮตฮฏฮฟฯ…ฯ‚ แผ€ฮฝฮฑฮผฮนฯ‡ฮธแฟ†ฮฝฮฑฮน ฮดฮน' แผ€ฮปฮปฮฎฮปฯ‰ฮฝ. Il testo di riferimento รจ quello di

G. M – A. T (edd.), 1990.

29 Cfr. Coniug. praec. 138D, 141B, 141D; Aet. Rom. 263E; fr. 157, ll. 5-6 S. Nell'

Amatorius l'autore usa il verbo ฯƒฯ…ฮณฮบฮฑฯ„ฮฑฮฒฮนแฝนฯ‰ (754A) accompagnato dall'espressione ฮผฮตฯ„' ฮตแฝฮฝฮฟแฝทฮฑฯ‚

ad indicare una convivenza basata sul sincero aetto reciproco, e ฯƒฯ…ฮณฮบฮฑฯ„ฮฑฮถแฝฑฯ‰ ( Amat. 749D) per

esprimere l'intenzione di Ismenodora di sposare Baccone e di convivere con lui. Per Arist., EN

VIII 1157b 7-19 il rapporto di ฯ†ฮนฮปแฝทฮฑ si rinsalda vivendo insieme (ฯƒฯ…ฮถแฟถฮฝฯ„ฮตฯ‚), mentre tra chi non

fa vita in comune (ฮผแฝด ฯƒฯ…ฮถแฟถฮฝฯ„ฮตฯ‚) si stabilisce solo un rapporto basato sull'ฮตแฝ”ฮฝฮฟฮนฮฑ.

30 Per la traduzione qui utilizzata cfr. G. M – A. T (eds.), 1990, pp. 85-7.

31 Cfr. SVF III 63 = pp. 254-257  A; la denizione che qui interessa รจ in particolare

a p. 255, ll.12-16 ฮฑแผฑ ฮผแฝฒฮฝ ฮณแฝฐฯ แผ„ฮปฮปฮฑฮน ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฏฮฑฮน แผข ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฟฯƒฯ„ฮฟฯฮณฮฏฮฑฮน แผฮฟฮฏฮบฮฑฯƒฮน ฯ„ฮฑแฟ–ฯ‚ ฯ„แฟถฮฝ แฝ€ฯƒฯ€ฯฮฏฯ‰ฮฝ แผค ฯ„ฮนฮฝฯ‰ฮฝ

แผ„ฮปฮปฯ‰ฮฝ ฯ€ฮฑฯฮฑฯ€ฮปฮทฯƒฮฏฯ‰ฮฝ ฮบฮฑฯ„แฝฐ ฯ„แฝฐฯ‚ ฯ€ฮฑฯฮฑฮธฮญฯƒฮตฮนฯ‚ ฮผฮฏฮพฮตฯƒฮนฮฝ, ฮฑแผฑ ฮด' แผ€ฮฝฮดฯแฝธฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮณฯ…ฮฝ̣ฮฑฮนฮบแฝธฯ‚ ฯ„ฮฑแฟ–ฯ‚ ฮดฮน' แฝ…ฮปฯ‰ฮฝ

ฮบฯฮฌฯƒฮตฯƒฮนฮฝ, แฝกฯ‚ ฮฟแผถฮฝฮฟฯ‚ แฝ•ฮดฮฑฯ„ฮน ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ„ฮฟแฟฆฯ„ฮฟ แผฯ€ฮนฮผฮญฮฝ<ฯ‰ฮฝ> ฮผฮฏฯƒฮณฮตฯ„ฮฑฮน ฮดฮน' แฝ…ฮปฯ‰ฮฝ: "Infatti, le altre forme di

amicizia o di tenerezza assomigliano a quei miscugli, come di fagioli o di altri legumi, i quali si

formano per aggiunta di elementi, invece l'amore fra l'uomo e la donna รจ una fusione totale come

quella del vino con l'acqua, dove questo permane, ma fondendosi completamente <con l'altra>"

(trad. in R. R (ed.), 2002, p. 1475). Gli stoici distinguevano in maniera molto sottile tra

mistione, commistione, connessione, mescolanza e fusione di corpi: cfr. SVF II 463-481. Per

la discussione sulla dipendenza da fonti stoiche delle tesi espresse da Plutarco nell'Amatorius ,

cfr. D. B, 2003 (1969), pp. 127-32; J. B, 2006/2007, pp. 5-6; per le idee stoiche

sul matrimonio cfr. D. B, 1963; I. R, 2000. Sulla letteratura ฯ€ฮตฯแฝถ ฮณแฝฑฮผฮฟฯ… cfr. A.

C, 1999.

319

Krasis oinou diken. Amore coniugale e linguaggio del simposio nell'Amatorius di Plutarco.

l'amore produce in principio un ribollire torbido e confuso, poi con il tempo

assestandosi e trovando un suo pacato equilibrio, raggiunge la condizione di

massima stabilitร . Siamo davvero di fronte alla cosiddetta 'unione completa',

quella degli amanti; mentre quell'unione che interessa quanti vivono in modi

diversi assomiglia agli scontri e agli intrecci degli atomi epicurei, perchรฉ subisce

collisioni e rimbalzi, ma non produce quella stessa unitร  di cui invece รจ artece

Amore quando costituisce una unione matrimoniale"32 .

L'immagine della mistione dei liquidi che all'inizio ribolle e poi trova il

suo equilibrio รจ coerente con quella piรน volte ricorrente della tempesta prodotta

da Eros: nel cap. 5 (751E) Plutarco aerma ad esempio che Solone era uscito

dalle tempeste degli amori maschili ed aveva assestato la propria vita nel porto

tranquillo del matrimonio e della losoa33 ; nel cap. 9 (754C) ricorda invece

che in un rapporto all'inizio ci sono tempeste, perchรฉ Eros si precipita sulle

anime come il vento su una nave senza pilota, ma quando i due imparano a

comandare e a obbedire reciprocamente, allora il matrimonio va in porto34 .

Ovviamente doveva agire sulla memoria di Plutarco l'immagine tradizionale

di Eros come forza violenta, il vento del famoso frammento di Sao 47 V.35 , di

cui egli si ricorderร  anche altrove nel testo36 e nel fr. 134 Sandbach37, mentre la

nave senza pilota potrebbe richiamare l'immagine platonica dell'anima che ha

come nocchiero il ฮฝฮฟแฟฆฯ‚ contenuta in Phdr. 247c38 .

32 แผˆฮปฮป' แฝฅฯƒฯ€ฮตฯ แฝ‘ฮณฯแฟถฮฝ ฯ€ฯแฝธฯ‚ แผ„ฮปฮปฮทฮปฮฑ ฯƒฯ…ฮผฯ€ฮตฯƒฯŒฮฝฯ„ฯ‰ฮฝ ฯ€ฮฟฮนฮตแฟ–ฮฝ ฯ„ฮนฮฝฮฑ ฮดฮฟฮบฮตแฟ– ฮถฮญฯƒฮนฮฝ แผฮฝ แผ€ฯฯ‡แฟ‡ ฮบฮฑแฝถ

ฯ„ฮฌฯฮฑฮพฮนฮฝ แฝ แผ”ฯฯ‰ฯ‚, ฮตแผถฯ„ฮฑ ฯ‡ฯฯŒฮฝแฟณ ฮบฮฑฯ„ฮฑฯƒฯ„แฝฐฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮบฮฑฮธฮฑฯฮธฮตแฝถฯ‚ ฯ„แฝดฮฝ ฮฒฮตฮฒฮฑฮนฮฟฯ„ฮฌฯ„ฮทฮฝ ฮดฮนฮฌฮธฮตฯƒฮนฮฝ ฯ€ฮฑฯฮญฯƒฯ‡ฮตฮฝ.

Aแฝ•ฯ„ฮท ฮณฮฌฯ แผฯƒฯ„ฮนฮฝ แฝกฯ‚ แผ€ฮปฮทฮธแฟถฯ‚ แผก ฮดฮน' แฝ…ฮปฯ‰ฮฝ ฮปฮตฮณฮฟฮผฮญฮฝฮท ฮบฯแพถฯƒฮนฯ‚, แผก ฯ„แฟถฮฝ แผฯฯŽฮฝฯ„ฯ‰ฮฝ· <แผก ฮดแฝฒ ฯ„แฟถฮฝ> แผ„ฮปฮปฯ‰ฯ‚

ฯƒฯ…ฮผฮฒฮนฮฟฯฮฝฯ„ฯ‰ฮฝ ฯ„ฮฑแฟ–ฯ‚ ฮบฮฑฯ„' แผ˜ฯ€ฮฏฮบฮฟฯ…ฯฮฟฮฝ แผฯ†ฮฑแฟ–ฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ€ฮตฯฮนฯ€ฮปฮฟฮบฮฑแฟ–ฯ‚ แผ”ฮฟฮนฮบฮต, ฯƒฯ…ฮณฮบฯฮฟฯฯƒฮตฮนฯ‚ ฮปฮฑฮผฮฒฮฌฮฝฮฟฯ…ฯƒฮฑ

ฮบฮฑแฝถ แผ€ฯ€ฮฟฯ€ฮทฮดฮฎฯƒฮตฮนฯ‚, แผ‘ฮฝฯŒฯ„ฮทฯ„ฮฑ ฮด' ฮฟแฝ ฯ€ฮฟฮนฮฟแฟฆฯƒฮฑ ฯ„ฮฟฮนฮฑฯฯ„ฮทฮฝ, ฮฟแผตฮฑฮฝ แผœฯฯ‰ฯ‚ ฯ€ฮฟฮนฮตแฟ– ฮณฮฑฮผฮนฮบแฟ†ฯ‚ ฮบฮฟฮนฮฝฯ‰ฮฝฮฏฮฑฯ‚

แผฯ€ฮนฮปฮฑฮฒฯŒฮผฮตฮฝฮฟฯ‚. La traduzione sopra riportata รจ mia.

33 […] แฝฅฯƒฯ€ฮตฯ แผฮบ ฮถฮฌฮปฮทฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ‡ฮตฮนฮผแฟถฮฝฮฟฯ‚ ฯ„แฟถฮฝ ฯ€ฮฑฮนฮดฮนฮบแฟถฮฝ แผฯฯŽฯ„ฯ‰ฮฝ แผ”ฮฝ ฯ„ฮนฮฝฮน ฮณฮฑฮปฮฎฮฝแฟƒ ฯ„แฟ‡ ฯ€ฮตฯแฝถ ฮณฮฌฮผฮฟฮฝ

ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฟฯƒฮฟฯ†ฮฏฮฑฮฝ ฮธฮญฮผฮตฮฝฮฟฯ‚ ฯ„แฝธฮฝ ฮฒฮฏฮฟฮฝ.

34 […] แผฮฝ แผ€ฯฯ‡แฟ‡ ฮดแฝฒ ฮบฯ…ฮผฮฑฮฏฮฝฮตฮน ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮถฯ…ฮณฮฟฮผฮฑฯ‡ฮตแฟ–, ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮผแพถฮปฮปฮฟฮฝ แผ‚ฮฝ แผœฯฯ‰ฯ‚ แผฮณฮณฮญฮฝฮทฯ„ฮฑฮน, ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮบฮฑฮธฮฌฯ€ฮตฯ

ฯ€ฮฝฮตแฟฆฮผฮฑ ฮบฯ…ฮฒฮตฯฮฝฮฎฯ„ฮฟฯ… ฮผแฝด ฯ€ฮฑฯฯŒฮฝฯ„ฮฟฯ‚ แผฯ„ฮฌฯฮฑฮพฮต ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯƒฯ…ฮฝฮญฯ‡ฮตฮต ฯ„แฝธฮฝ ฮณฮฌฮผฮฟฮฝ. Per l'uso metaforico

dell'immagine del vento e del mare in tempesta ad indicare una condizione di pericolo sico o

morale in Plutarco cfr. A. I. D, 1892, pp. 81-4, 132-5.

35 แผœฯฮฟฯ‚ ฮด' แผฯ„ฮฏฮฝฮฑฮพฮญ / ฮผฮฟฮน ฯ†ฯฮญฮฝฮฑฯ‚, แฝกฯ‚ แผ„ฮฝฮตฮผฮฟฯ‚ ฮบแฝฐฯ„ แฝ„ฯฮฟฯ‚ ฮดฯฯฯƒฮนฮฝ แผฮผฯ€ฮญฯ„ฯ‰ฮฝ che richiama Hom.,

Od. 5.368 e Hes., Op. 505-511; appare interessante che in entrambi i contesti la forza del vento

sia vista in azione sul mare; il modello esiodeo inoltre chiama in causa Borea, che secondo il

mito rapรฌ Oritia. Tale mito รจ rievocato da Platone in Phdr. 229b, nel contesto introduttivo che

contiene la famosa descrizione dell'Ilisso a cui Plutarco allude all'inizio dell'Amatorius (cfr. F.

E. B, 1995, 1110 = F. E. B, 1998, 51); questo riferimento mitico potrebbe anche

giusticare l'uso ricorrente nell'opera della metafora del vento per indicare l'azione di Eros. Su

questo topos cfr. anche Sapph., fr. 130 V.; Ibyc., fr. 286 D, vv. 9-13; Verg., A. IV 441 – 449.

36 Cfr. anche Amat. 759F: "แผ˜ฮปฮธแฝผฮฝ ฮด' แผฮพฮฑฯ€ฮฏฮฝฮทฯ‚ แผ„ฮฝฮตฮผฮฟฯ‚" ฯƒแฝบฮฝ แผ”ฯฯ‰ฯ„ฮน ฯ€ฮฟฮปฮปแฟท ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ€ฯŒฮธแฟณ ฯ„ฮฑแฝฯ„แฝธ

ฯ„ฮฟแฟฆฯ„ฮฟ ฯ„แฟถฮฝ ฮคฮฑฮฝฯ„ฮฌฮปฮฟฯ… ฮปฮตฮณฮฟฮผฮญฮฝฯ‰ฮฝ ฯ„ฮฑฮปฮฌฮฝฯ„ฯ‰ฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ„แฟ†ฯ‚ ฮฑแฝฯ„ฮฟแฟฆ แผ€ฯฯ‡แฟ†ฯ‚ แผ€ฮฝฯ„ฮฌฮพฮนฮฟฮฝ แผฯ€ฮฟฮฏฮทฯƒฮตฮฝ. ฮฟแฝ•ฯ„ฯ‰ฯ‚

แผ€ฯƒฮธฮตฮฝแฝดฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ แผฯˆฮฏฮบฮฟฯฯŒฯ‚ แผฯƒฯ„ฮนฮฝ แผก ฯ„แฟ†ฯ‚ แผˆฯ†ฯฮฟฮดฮฏฯ„ฮทฯ‚ ฯ‡ฮฌฯฮนฯ‚ แผœฯฯ‰ฯ„ฮฟฯ‚ ฮผแฝด แผฯ€ฮนฯ€ฮฝฮตฯฯƒฮฑฮฝฯ„ฮฟฯ‚.

37 ฮคแฟถฮฝ ฮœฮตฮฝฮฌฮฝฮดฯฮฟฯ… ฮดฯฮฑฮผฮฌฯ„ฯ‰ฮฝ แฝฮผฮฑฮปแฟถฯ‚ แผฯ€ฮฌฮฝฯ„ฯ‰ฮฝ แผ“ฮฝ ฯƒฯ…ฮฝฮตฮบฯ„ฮนฮบฯŒฮฝ แผฯƒฯ„ฮนฮฝ, แฝ แผ”ฯฯ‰ฯ‚, ฮฟแผทฮฟฮฝ ฯ€ฮฝฮตแฟฆฮผฮฑ

ฮบฮฟฮนฮฝแฝธฮฝ ฮดฮนฮฑฯ€ฮตฯ†ฯ…ฮบฯŽฯ‚. Il testo di riferimento per i frammenti qui come nei prossimi casi รจ quello

di F. H. S  , 1987, da cui ci si allontana nella conservazione del participio ฮดฮนฮฑฯ€ฮตฯ†ฯ…ฮบฯŽฯ‚

rispetto alla correzione ฮดฮนฮฑฯ€ฮตฯ†ฮฟฮนฯ„ฮทฮบฯŽฯ‚ del Bernardakis.

38 แผฉ ฮณแฝฐฯ แผ€ฯ‡ฯฯŽฮผฮฑฯ„ฯŒฯ‚ ฯ„ฮต ฮบฮฑแฝถ แผ€ฯƒฯ‡ฮทฮผฮฌฯ„ฮนฯƒฯ„ฮฟฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ แผ€ฮฝฮฑฯ†แฝดฯ‚ ฮฟแฝฯƒฮฏฮฑ แฝ„ฮฝฯ„ฯ‰ฯ‚ ฮฟแฝ–ฯƒฮฑ, ฯˆฯ…ฯ‡แฟ†ฯ‚ ฮบฯ…ฮฒฮตฯฮฝฮฎฯ„แฟƒ

ฮผฯŒฮฝแฟณ ฮธฮตฮฑฯ„แฝด ฮฝแฟท [...] ฯ„ฮฟแฟฆฯ„ฮฟฮฝ แผ”ฯ‡ฮตฮน ฯ„แฝธฮฝ ฯ„ฯŒฯ€ฮฟฮฝ.

L'idea della stabilitร  prodotta dall'amore coniugale rispetto al turbamento

e all'instabilitร  legati all'esperienza omosessuale fa tutt'uno nell'Amatorius con

l'esigenza di consolidare e stabilizzare la ฯ€แฝฑฯ„ฯฮนฮฟฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ€ฮฑฮปฮฑฮนแฝฐ ฯ€แฝทฯƒฯ„ฮนฯ‚39 , minacciata

da una visione materialistica ed atea del mondo e dei rapporti tra gli uomini,

che Plutarco sembra identicare con il pensiero epicureo40 , il che giustica il

passaggio dall'immagine dei liquidi mescolati confusamente all'urto caotico

degli atomi, che aveva fatto la sua comparsa nel ragionamento plutarcheo giร 

al cap. 19 (765C)41 . La tradizione, infatti, รจ per Plutarco la solida base che

sta a fondamento dell'ฮตแฝฯƒแฝณฮฒฮตฮนฮฑ, ma se essa viene turbata e scossa in qualche

suo punto, allora diventa instabile (แผฯ€ฮนฯƒฯ†ฮฑฮปแฟ†ฯ‚) e sospetta42 . In questo caso

รจ possibile ipotizzare che nell'uso dei verbi ฯ„ฮฑฯแฝฑฯ„ฯ„ฯ‰ e ฯƒฮฑฮปฮตแฝปฯ‰ all'immagine

della tempesta marina si sovrapponga quella del sisma prodotto dal pensiero

atomistico degli epicurei43 .

La denizione dell'unione coniugale come ฮบฯแพถฯƒฮนฯ‚ compare anche nel fr. 167

Sandbach (= Stob., IV 28.8, V, p. 678 H.), appartenente all'epistola ฯ€ฮตฯแฝถ ฯ†ฮนฮปแฝทฮฑฯ‚

di Plutarco e che recita: "ฮณฮฌฮผฮฟฯ‚ ฮณแฝฐฯ แผ€ฯ€แฝธ ฮผแฝฒฮฝ ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฏฮฑฯ‚ ฮดฮนฯ„ฯ„แฟ†ฯ‚ ฮบฯฮฌฯƒฮตฯ‰ฯ‚ ฮฒฮตฮปฯ„ฮฏฯ‰ฮฝ,

แผ‘ฯ„ฮญฯฯ‰ฯ‚ ฮดแฝฒ ฯƒฯ†ฮฑฮปฮตฯฯŒฯ‚" ("รˆ migliore il matrimonio che nasca dalla mescolanza

di una doppia amicizia, in caso diverso รจ fragile"44 ). La testimonianza permette

di ipotizzare che nella lettera sull'amicizia trovasse posto in qualche modo

anche la riessione sulla migliore forma di matrimonio, che, come si รจ visto,

nell'Amatorius era considerato l'espressione piรน nobile di una ฯ†ฮนฮปแฝทฮฑ conseguita

attraverso l'แผ€ฯฮตฯ„แฝต. Se l'aggettivo ฯƒฯ†ฮฑฮปฮตฯแฝนฯ‚ richiama l' แผฯ€ฮนฯƒฯ†ฮฑฮปแฝตฯ‚ di Amat.

756B, sottolineando di nuovo l'instabilitร  a livello individuale e sociale di un

ฮณแฝฑฮผฮฟฯ‚ che non si fondi sulla ฯ†ฮนฮปแฝทฮฑ, sulla base di un altro luogo dell'Amatorius

si potrebbe ipotizzare che con ฮบฯแพถฯƒฮนฯ‚ Plutarco volesse alludere qui come in

Amat. cap. 24 (769F) e in Coniug. praec. 143A, al modello oerto dalle giuste

porzioni di acqua e vino stabilite dalla tradizione del simposio45 .

Infatti nel cap. 7 (752E) Pisia, difensore dell'amore omosessuale,

criticando la scelta da parte di Ismenodora, piรน grande e piรน ricca, di sposare

l'ancora adolescente Baccone, sostiene che รจ invece accettabile il matrimonio

tra un giovane e una donna povera e di umili origini, perchรฉ questa unione

decreta la superioritร  del giovane come quando il vino si mescola all'acqua

(ฮผฮญฮณฮฑ ฮณฮฌฯ, แผ‚ฮฝ แผฮปฮฑฯ†ฯแพท ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮปฮนฯ„แฟ‡ ฮณฯ…ฮฝฮฑฮนฮบแฝถ ฮผฮตฮนฯฮฑฮบฮฏฮฟฯ… ฯƒฯ…ฮฝฮตฮปฮธฯŒฮฝฯ„ฮฟฯ‚ ฮตแผฐฯ‚ ฯ„ฮฑแฝฯ„แฝธฮฝ แผก

ฮบฯแพถฯƒฮนฯ‚ ฮฟแผดฮฝฮฟฯ… ฮดฮฏฮบฮทฮฝ แผฯ€ฮนฮบฯฮฑฯ„ฮฎฯƒแฟƒ). Il matrimonio appare come un amalgama di

39 Cfr. F. F, 1999; F. F, 2005; A. I. O V, 1991.

40 Cfr. su questo tema A. B, 1988; R. S, 2006; G. S, 2007.

41 Cfr. n. 18.

42 Amat. 756B: แผˆฯฮบฮตแฟ– ฮณแฝฐฯ แผก ฯ€ฮฌฯ„ฯฮนฮฟฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ€ฮฑฮปฮฑฮนแฝฐ ฯ€ฮฏฯƒฯ„ฮนฯ‚ [...] แผˆฮปฮป' แผ•ฮดฯฮฑ ฯ„ฮนฯ‚ ฮฑแฝ•ฯ„ฮท ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮฒฮฌฯƒฮนฯ‚

แฝ‘ฯ†ฮตฯƒฯ„แฟถฯƒฮฑ ฮบฮฟฮนฮฝแฝด ฯ€ฯแฝธฯ‚ ฮตแฝฯƒฮญฮฒฮตฮนฮฑฮฝ, แผแฝฐฮฝ แผฯ†' แผ‘ฮฝแฝธฯ‚ ฯ„ฮฑฯฮฌฯ„ฯ„ฮทฯ„ฮฑฮน ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯƒฮฑฮปฮตฯฮทฯ„ฮฑฮน ฯ„แฝธ ฮฒฮญฮฒฮฑฮนฮฟฮฝ ฮฑแฝฯ„แฟ†ฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ

ฮฝฮตฮฝฮฟฮผฮนฯƒฮผฮญฮฝฮฟฮฝ, แผฯ€ฮนฯƒฯ†ฮฑฮปแฝดฯ‚ ฮณฮฏฮฝฮตฯ„ฮฑฮน ฯ€แพถฯƒฮฑ ฮบฮฑแฝถ แฝ•ฯ€ฮฟฯ€ฯ„ฮฟฯ‚.

43 Cfr. R. S, 2006, p. 96, n. 57.

44 La traduzione del frammento รจ di R. G A, in AA.VV., Plutarco, I

frammenti, in corso di stampa.

45 Cfr. Quaest. conv. 657E. In Quaest. conv. 621 C-D Plutarco utilizza il paragone con il vino

mescolato all'acqua che ne stempera gli eccessi per ricordare che nel convivio occorre mescolare

insieme momenti seri ad altri piรน leggeri.

321

Krasis oinou diken. Amore coniugale e linguaggio del simposio nell'Amatorius di Plutarco.

acqua e vino in cui รจ naturalmente il vino, cioรจ l'elemento maschile, ad imporre

e a indirizzare la vita coniugale, pur nell'armonia dell'unione46 . Se l'opinione

di Pisia รจ contestata ampiamente dallo stesso Plutarco47 , che non vede nulla

di male in una coppia in cui la donna รจ molto piรน grande dell'uomo a patto

ovviamente che ci sia l'amore, la similitudine dell'unione matrimoniale con il

vino mescolato all'acqua doveva essere invece da lui accolta48 , anche perchรฉ

essa aveva un autorevole antecedente in un passo del IV libro delle Leggi di

Platone, 773c-d, che potrebbe essere individuato come testo di riferimento

per queste sue aermazioni: il losofo, infatti, osserva che bisogna evitare per

il bene della cittร  matrimoni tra persone dello stesso rango sociale anche se

"non รจ facile comprendere che una cittร  deve essere mescolata come se fosse

un cratere, dove il vino puro, appena versato, ribolle, ma una volta temperato

da un altro dio sobrio, realizza una bella unione e produce una bevanda buona

e moderata" (ฮฟแฝ ฮณแฝฐฯ แฟฅแพดฮดฮนฮฟฮฝ แผฮฝฮฝฮฟฮตแฟ–ฮฝ แฝ…ฯ„ฮน ฯ€ฯŒฮปฮนฮฝ ฮตแผถฮฝฮฑฮน ฮดฮตแฟ– ฮดฮฏฮบฮทฮฝ ฮบฯฮฑฯ„แฟ†ฯฮฟฯ‚

ฮบฮตฮบฯฮฑฮผฮญฮฝฮทฮฝ, ฮฟแฝ— ฮผฮฑฮนฮฝฯŒฮผฮตฮฝฮฟฯ‚ ฮผแฝฒฮฝ ฮฟแผถฮฝฮฟฯ‚ แผฮณฮบฮตฯ‡ฯ…ฮผฮญฮฝฮฟฯ‚ ฮถฮตแฟ–, ฮบฮฟฮปฮฑฮถฯŒฮผฮตฮฝฮฟฯ‚ ฮดแฝฒ แฝ‘ฯ€แฝธ

ฮฝฮฎฯ†ฮฟฮฝฯ„ฮฟฯ‚ แผ‘ฯ„ฮญฯฮฟฯ… ฮธฮตฮฟแฟฆ ฮบฮฑฮปแฝดฮฝ ฮบฮฟฮนฮฝฯ‰ฮฝฮฏฮฑฮฝ ฮปฮฑฮฒแฝผฮฝ แผ€ฮณฮฑฮธแฝธฮฝ ฯ€แฟถฮผฮฑ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮผฮญฯ„ฯฮนฮฟฮฝ

แผ€ฯ€ฮตฯฮณฮฌฮถฮตฯ„ฮฑฮน)49 . L'uso dell'espressione ฮดแฝทฮบฮทฮฝ ฮบฯฮฑฯ„แฟ†ฯฮฟฯ‚ sembra riecheggiata da

Plutarco in ฮฟแผดฮฝฮฟฯ… ฮดแฝทฮบฮทฮฝ50 mentre l'immagine del bollore iniziale e del successivo

equilibrio raggiunto nell'unione matrimoniale doveva essere presente alla sua

mente al cap. 24 (769F) dove egli denisce ฮถแฝณฯƒฮนฯ‚ il primo stadio dell'incontro

tra liquidi e dove la sequenza ฮณฮฑฮผฮนฮบแฟ†ฯ‚ ฮบฮฟฮนฮฝฯ‰ฮฝแฝทฮฑฯ‚ แผฯ€ฮนฮปฮฑฮฒแฝนฮผฮตฮฝฮฟฯ‚ sembra un

riecheggiamento del platonico ฮบฮฟฮนฮฝฯ‰ฮฝแฝทฮฑฮฝ ฮปฮฑฮฒฯŽฮฝ .

Al di lร  delle consonanze sul piano linguistico, proviamo ora a rileggere

le aermazioni contenute nel cap. 2451 alla luce di questo luogo delle Leggi :

l'ipotesto di riferimento piรน evidente รจ senza dubbio il Platone di Phdr. 251c52 ,

46 Malgrado si possa cogliere nell'Amatorius una visione per certi versi piรน moderna del

rapporto coniugale (cfr. P. W, 1999; C. P, 1999; S. P, 2002), รจ probabile

che Plutarco non si spingesse tanto lontano da ammettere addirittura l'uguaglianza dei due

individui nella coppia; sono numerose al contrario le tracce della volontร  da parte dell'autore

di sottolineare la superioritร  dell'elemento maschile, secondo un'ottica molto tradizionale; in

questo senso assume un certo rilievo il ridimensionamento a cui sembra sottoporre proprio

nell'Amatorius i culti di Iside, che al contrario attribuivano alla donna un ruolo addirittura

centrale nella coppia: cfr. R. S, 2007, p. 433, n. 43. Per l'idea che la donna deve

essere specchio dell'uomo cfr. M. R C, 2007. Cfr. anche infra, n. 48.

47 Cfr. Amat. 753C-754E.

48 Cfr. anche Coniug. praec. 142E. La ฮบฮฟฮนฮฝฯ‰ฮฝแฝทฮฑ del matrimonio si preserva attraverso l'aetto

che deve essere ricambiato reciprocamente (Coniug . praec. 140E). In Coniug. praec. 140F inne

si auspica anche la messa in comune del patrimonio; Plutarco in questa occasione fa di nuovo

riferimento alla mescolanza di acqua e vino: come nel banchetto acqua e vino producono un

miscuglio (ฮบฯแพถฮผฮฑ) che si continua a chiamare vino, cosรฌ il patrimonio ottenuto dall'unione dei

patrimoni di uomo e donna appartiene comunque al marito, anche se quello della donna dovesse

essere piรน sostanzioso.

49 La traduzione riportata รจ mia. A questo passo platonico si fa riferimento anche altrove nel

corpus plutarcheo: cfr. [Lib. ed.] 15A; An seni resp. 790F-791B; fr. 210 S.

50 Per l'uso avverbiale di ฮดแฝทฮบฮทฮฝ seguito dal genitivo cfr. B. W, 1994 (1895), p.

25. 51 Per il testo cfr. supra, n. 32.

52 ฮ–ฮตแฟ– ฯ„ฮต ฮบฮฑแฝถ แผ€ฮณฮฑฮฝฮฑฮบฯ„ฮตแฟ– ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮณฮฑฯฮณฮฑฮปฮฏฮถฮตฯ„ฮฑฮน ฯ†ฯฮฟฯ…ฯƒฮฑ ฯ„แฝฐ ฯ€ฯ„ฮตฯฮฌ. H. G, 2006, p. 139,

in cui si aerma che l'anima di recente iniziata alla veritร  quando sulla terra

incontra la bellezza in un primo momento ribolle (ฮถฮตแฟ–) per il prurito e l'irritazione

che essa produce mentre le fa spuntare quelle ali che la spingono verso l'alto. Il

linguaggio utilizzato da Plutarco risulta ancora una volta polisemico: i sostantivi

ฮถแฝณฯƒฮนฯ‚ e ฯ„แฝฑฯฮฑฮพฮนฯ‚ potrebbero alludere di nuovo all'ondeggiamento e all'instabilitร 

riattivando la metafora marina53 che abbiamo visto operante in Amat. 751E

e 754C o quella del terremoto di 765C; in medicina tuttavia essi indicano il

primo un'alterazione della temperatura corporea a causa di una malattia o lo

stato di agitazione dovuto all'ira54 e il secondo un'inammazione degli occhi55 ;

con ฯ„แฝฑฯฮฑฮพฮนฯ‚ poi l'autore voleva forse indicare anche lo stato di turbamento

psicologico in cui cade chi รจ vittima di Eros (il ฯ„แฝน ฮผฮฑฮฝฮนฮบแฝนฮฝ), che รจ considerato

un'inammazione, ฯ†ฮปฮตฮณฮผฮฟฮฝแฝต 56 , e una malattia, ฮฝแฝนฯƒฮฟฯ‚ 57; il topos dell'amore-

amma e dell'amore-malattia percorre del resto l'intero opuscolo ed รจ declinato

in tutte le sue varianti58 , non ultima quella relativa alla liquefazione dei metalli59 ,

che come si รจ visto รจ utilizzata da Plutarco in relazione al tema della ฯ†ฮนฮปแฝทฮฑ in

Quaest. conv. 659E-660C. Tuttavia nel contesto del cap. 24 la presenza di ฮถแฝณฯƒฮนฯ‚ ,

alla luce del passo delle Leggi sopra citato, avvalora l'ipotesi che i due liquidi

che si incontrano e si fondono siano proprio il vino e l'acqua, anche in virtรน

della presenza dell'espressione ฮบฯแพถฯƒฮนฯ‚ ฯ„แฟถฮฝ แฝ…ฮปฯ‰ฮฝ che, come si รจ giร  ricordato, in

ambiente stoico indicava una forma completa di fusione, un esempio della quale

era proprio la combinazione di acqua e vino. Plutarco del resto stabilisce una

n. 57, indica questo luogo platonico in riferimento ad Amat. 752A. Per i modelli platonici tenuti

presenti da Plutarco nella sua riessione sull'eros cfr. H. M, 1984; F. E. B, 1988 =

F. E. B, 1998, pp. 13-27; A. C, 1999; A. B, 1999; J. B, 1999; J.

M. R, 2001; P. G B, 2007, pp. 123-32; F. F, 2005/2006; F. F,

2008, pp. VII-XLVI.

53 Cfr. ad esempio Hdt., 7.188; Pl., Phd. 113a.

54 Cfr. Gal., Di. febr. II, in MedG, vol. VII, p. 283, l. 7 K; Hsch., Lex., vol. I, p. 255

S, glossa il sostantivo con ฮธฮตฯฮผแฝนฯ„ฮทฯ‚. Il verbo ฮถแฝณฯ‰ รจ utilizzato anche per indicare il

ribollire delle passioni: cfr. almeno S., O.C. 434; Pl., Cra. 419e, R. 440c; Arist., de An. 403A

31; AP 7. 385,7. Un'interessante testimonianza dell'uso del termine ฮถแฝณฯƒฮนฯ‚ in ambito amoroso

รจ inoltre fornita dall'epigramma d'apertura del V libro dell'Antologia Palatina, che raccoglie

appunto epigrammi erotici: l'anonimo autore sostiene di voler suscitare nei giovani un "saggio

ribollire del cuore" e per questo come inizio della sua opera prenderร  Eros, che appicca il fuoco

alle parole: ฮฮญฮฟฮนฯ‚ แผ€ฮฝฮฌฯ€ฯ„ฯ‰ฮฝ ฮบฮฑฯฮดฮฏฮฑฯ‚ ฯƒฮฟฯ†แฝดฮฝ ฮถฮญฯƒฮนฮฝ, / แผ€ฯฯ‡แฝดฮฝ แผœฯฯ‰ฯ„ฮฑ ฯ„แฟถฮฝ ฮปแฝนฮณฯ‰ฮฝ ฯ€ฮฟฮนฮฎฯƒฮฟฮผฮฑฮน ·/

ฯ€ฯ…ฯฯƒแฝธฮฝ ฮณแฝฐฯ ฮฟแฝ—ฯ„ฮฟฯ‚ แผฮพฮฑฮฝฮฌฯ€ฯ„ฮตฮน ฯ„ฮฟแฟ–ฯ‚ ฮปฯŒฮณฮฟฮนฯ‚.

55 Cfr. [Gal.], Intr., in MedG, vol. XIV, p. 768 K.

56 Cfr. fr. 137 S ฯƒฯ…ฯƒฯ„ฮญฮปฮปฮตฯ„ฮฑฮน ฮดแฝฒ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ†ฮปฮตฮณฮผฮฟฮฝแฝด แผฯ€ฮนฮธฯ…ฮผฮฏฮฑฯ‚ ฯ€ฮฑฯฮตฯ‡ฮฟฯฯƒฮทฯ‚ ฯ„ฯฮฑฯ‡แฝบ

ฮบฮฏฮฝฮทฮผฮฑ.

57 Cfr. fr. 135 S ฮฟแผฑ ฮผแฝฒฮฝ ฮณแฝฐฯ ฮฝฯŒฯƒฮฟฮฝ ฯ„แฝธฮฝ แผ”ฯฯ‰ฯ„ฮฑ ฮฟแผฑ ฮด' แผฯ€ฮนฮธฯ…ฮผฮฏฮฑฮฝ ฮฟแผฑ ฮดแฝฒ ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฏฮฑฮฝ ฮฟแผฑ ฮดแฝฒ

ฮผฮฑฮฝฮฏฮฑฮฝ ฮฟแผฑ ฮดแฝฒ ฮธฮตแฟ–ฯŒฮฝ ฯ„ฮน ฮบฮฏฮฝฮทฮผฮฑ ฯ„แฟ†ฯ‚ ฯˆฯ…ฯ‡แฟ†ฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮดฮฑฮนฮผฯŒฮฝฮนฮฟฮฝ, ฮฟแผฑ ฮด' แผ„ฮฝฯ„ฮนฮบฯฯ…ฯ‚ ฮธฮตแฝธฮฝ แผ€ฮฝฮฑฮณฮฟฯฮตฯฮฟฯ…ฯƒฮนฮฝ; cfr.

anche Amat. 755E. Per il rapporto amore - malattia cfr. M. C, 1976; per il carattere

ambivalente di eros nel pensiero plutarcheo cfr. J. O, 2006, pp. 208-20, in part. 219-20.

58 Per il fuoco d'amore cfr. Amat. 752D, 753A, 758D-759B, 759F, 762C, 764B-D, 765B-C,

766A-B, 767B, 767F; frr. 135, 137, 138 S; per l'amore ฮฝแฝนฯƒฮฟฯ‚ cfr. invece Amat. 755E.

Sul topos della amma d'amore cfr. almeno G. S, 2006. Per l'uso traslato di termini

aerenti ai campi semantici della malattia - sanitร  e del fuoco cfr. A. I. D, 1892,

rispettivamente pp. 10-4 e 138-41.

59 Cfr. Amat. 758C, 761C, 762C, 766A, 767E.

323

Krasis oinou diken. Amore coniugale e linguaggio del simposio nell'Amatorius di Plutarco.

stretta relazione tra ubriacatura e innamoramento sia in Quaest. conv. 622D60 ,

sia nello stesso Amatorius: infatti nel cap. 16, dopo aver elencato nelle orme

platoniche le varie forme di mania dovute a malattia, all'ispirazione poetica,

a Bacco e ad Ares, Plutarco cita quella erotica attribuendole degli attributi

dionisiaci61 . Occorre inne sottolineare come l'opposizione presente nel testo

platonico tra i participi ฮผฮฑฮนฮฝแฝนฮผฮตฮฝฮฟฯ‚ e ฮบฮฟฮปฮฑฮถแฝนฮผฮตฮฝฮฟฯ‚ in riferimento al vino62 sia

riproposta da Plutarco nell'Amatorius nell'opposizione tra una sessualitร  solo

istintuale e rivolta alla soddisfazione del piacere personale, che รจ considerata

ฯ€ฮฑฯแฝฑฮฝฮฟฮผฮฟฯ‚63 e che l'autore identica con l'amore omosessuale da lui relegato

all'etร  giovanile, e quella temperata dal ฮปแฝนฮณฮฟฯ‚, la forma piรน alta di ฯ†ฮนฮปแฝทฮฑ, in

quanto convoglia l'istinto e l'impulso sessuale maschile verso la procreazione

e la costruzione di una famiglia, segnando il passaggio dell'individuo alla

maturitร , che lo vede ora perfettamente e legittimamente inserito nell'intera

comunitร , di cui condivide da buon cittadino valori religiosi e culturali64 . Anche

in questo Plutarco doveva seguire il Platone del III libro delle Leggi (783a)

il quale sostiene che le tre แผ‘ฯ€ฮนฮธฯ…ฮผแฝทฮฑฮน del mangiare, del bere e del sesso vanno

indirizzate al meglio e contenute attraverso ฯ†แฝนฮฒฮฟฯ‚, ฮฝแฝนฮผฮฟฯ‚ e แผ€ฮปฮทฮธแฝดฯ‚ ฮปแฝนฮณฮฟฯ‚.

Una stretta relazione tra le funzioni di Afrodite e di Dioniso e quindi di

แผ”ฯฯ‰ฯ‚ e di ฮฟแผถฮฝฮฟฯ‚ รจ poi sottolineata da Plutarco nel Septem sapientium convivium,

156C-D65 : qui egli specica che Afrodite non รจ solo, come solitamente si

60 แผ˜ฮปฮญฯ‡ฮธฮท ฮดแฝฒ ฮบฮฑแฝถ แฝ…ฯ„ฮน ฯ„แฟท ฮผฮตฮธฯฮตฮนฮฝ ฯ„แฝธ แผฯแพถฮฝ แฝ…ฮผฮฟฮนฯŒฮฝ แผฯƒฯ„ฮนฮฝ.

61 Cfr. Amat. 759A: ฮปฮตฮฏฯ€ฮตฯ„ฮฑฮน ฮดแฝฒ ฯ„แฟ†ฯ‚ แผฮพฮฑฮปฮปฮฑฮณแฟ†ฯ‚ แผฮฝ แผ€ฮฝฮธฯฯŽฯ€แฟณ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ€ฮฑฯฮฑฯ„ฯฮฟฯ€แฟ†ฯ‚ ฮฟแฝฮบ แผ€ฮผฮฑฯ…ฯแฝธฮฝ

ฮฟแฝฮด' แผกฯƒฯ…ฯ‡ฮฑแฟ–ฮฟฮฝ, [...] ฮผฯŒฯฮนฮฟฮฝ [...] "ฮคฮฏ<ฯ‚ ฮบฮฑฮปฮปฮฏ>ฮบฮฑฯฯ€ฮฟฮฝ ฮธฯฯฯƒฮฟฮฝ แผ€ฮฝฮฑฯƒฮตฮฏฮตฮน ฮธฮตแฟถฮฝ" ฯ„แฝธฮฝ ฯ†ฮนฮปฮทฯ„ฮนฮบแฝธฮฝ

ฯ„ฮฟแฟฆฯ„ฮฟฮฝ ฯ€ฮตฯแฝถ ฯ€ฮฑแฟ–ฮดฮฑฯ‚ แผ€ฮณฮฑฮธฮฟแฝบฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯƒฯŽฯ†ฯฮฟฮฝฮฑฯ‚ ฮณฯ…ฮฝฮฑแฟ–ฮบฮฑฯ‚ แผฮฝฮธฮฟฯ…ฯƒฮนฮฑฯƒฮผแฝธฮฝ ฯ€ฮฟฮปแฝบ ฮดฯฮนฮผฯฯ„ฮฑฯ„ฮฟฮฝ แฝ„ฮฝฯ„ฮฑ

ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮธฮตฯฮผฯŒฯ„ฮฑฯ„ฮฟฮฝ;. Di una แผฯฯ‰ฯ„ฮนฮบแฝด ฮธฮตฯฮผฯŒฯ„ฮทฯ‚ Plutarco parla anche al cap. 18 (762D): cfr. su

questo tema L. V  S, 1992, pp. 110-7; R. C S, 1998; L. V 

S, 1999.

62 Cfr. anche Ath. XIV 613a-c. Per l'uso di ฮผฮฑฮนฮฝฯŒฮผฮตฮฝฮฟฯ‚ in riferimento al vino puro cfr.

anche E., Cyc. 617 e le osservazioni di A. M, 1996. L'anonimo autore del trattato Sul

sublime (32,7) considera il passo platonico di Lg. 773c-d un esempio tra gli altri degli eccessi

in cui poteva cadere il losofo che, nell'uso delle metafore, si dimostra cosรฌ "un poeta davvero

non sobrio".

63 Per il carattere "abnorme" dei rapporti vissuti solo sul piano sico e pericolosi per il corpo

sociale tutto, perchรฉ diondono il culto del piacere e del materialismo cfr. ad esempio Amat .

765B e le osservazioni di R. S, 2006, pp. 95-6.

64 Cfr. G. S, 2003, pp. 126-9; G. T, 2008, pp. 703-4; P. B D, 2007.

65 ฮŸแฝฮบฮฟแฟฆฮฝ ฮฟแฝฮดแฝฒ ฯ„แฟ†ฯ‚ แผˆฯ†ฯฮฟฮดฮฏฯ„ฮทฯ‚ แผ”ฯฮณฮฟฮฝ แผฯƒฯ„แฝถ ฯƒฯ…ฮฝฮฟฯ…ฯƒฮฏฮฑ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮผแฟ–ฮพฮนฯ‚, ฮฟแฝฮดแฝฒ ฯ„ฮฟแฟฆ ฮ”ฮนฮฟฮฝฯฯƒฮฟฯ… ฮผฮญฮธฮท

ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮฟแผถฮฝฮฟฯ‚, แผ€ฮปฮป' แผฃฮฝ แผฮผฯ€ฮฟฮนฮฟแฟฆฯƒฮน ฮดฮนแฝฐ ฯ„ฮฟฯฯ„ฯ‰ฮฝ ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฟฯ†ฯฮฟฯƒฯฮฝฮทฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ€ฯŒฮธฮฟฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ แฝฮผฮนฮปฮฏฮฑฮฝ แผกฮผแฟ–ฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ

ฯƒฯ…ฮฝฮฎฮธฮตฮนฮฑฮฝ ฯ€ฯแฝธฯ‚ แผ€ฮปฮปฮฎฮปฮฟฯ…ฯ‚· [...] แผ”ฯƒฯ„ฮน ฮดแฝฒ ฯ„แฟ†ฯ‚ ฮผแฝฒฮฝ ฯ€ฯแฝธฯ‚ ฮณฯ…ฮฝฮฑแฟ–ฮบฮฑฯ‚ แผ€ฮฝฮดฯแฟถฮฝ แฝฮผฮฟฯ†ฯฮฟฯƒฯฮฝฮทฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ

ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฏฮฑฯ‚ ฮดฮทฮผฮนฮฟฯ…ฯฮณแฝธฯ‚ แผก แผˆฯ†ฯฮฟฮดฮฏฯ„ฮท, ฯ„ฮฟแฟ–ฯ‚ ฯƒฯŽฮผฮฑฯƒฮนฮฝ แฝ‘ฯ†' แผกฮดฮฟฮฝแฟ†ฯ‚ แผ…ฮผฮฑ ฯƒฯ…ฮผฮผฮนฮณฮฝฯฮฟฯ…ฯƒฮฑ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯƒฯ…ฮฝฯ„ฮฎฮบฮฟฯ…ฯƒฮฑ

ฯ„แฝฐฯ‚ ฯˆฯ…ฯ‡ฮฌฯ‚· ฯ„ฮฟแฟ–ฯ‚ ฮดแฝฒ ฯ€ฮฟฮปฮปฮฟแฟ–ฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮผแฝด ฯ€ฮฌฮฝฯ… ฯƒฯ…ฮฝฮฎฮธฮตฯƒฮน ฮผฮทฮด' แผ„ฮณฮฑฮฝ ฮณฮฝฯ‰ฯฮฏฮผฮฟฮนฯ‚ แฝ ฮ”ฮนฯŒฮฝฯ…ฯƒฮฟฯ‚ แฝฅฯƒฯ€ฮตฯ แผฮฝ

ฯ€ฯ…ฯแฝถ ฯ„แฟท ฮฟแผดฮฝแฟณ ฮผฮฑฮปฮฌฯƒฯƒฯ‰ฮฝ ฯ„แฝฐ แผคฮธฮท ฮบฮฑแฝถ แผ€ฮฝฯ…ฮณฯฮฑฮฏฮฝฯ‰ฮฝ แผ€ฯฯ‡ฮฎฮฝ ฯ„ฮนฮฝฮฑ ฯƒฯ…ฮณฮบฯฮฌฯƒฮตฯ‰ฯ‚ ฯ€ฯแฝธฯ‚ แผ€ฮปฮปฮฎฮปฮฟฯ…ฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ

ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฏฮฑฯ‚ แผฮฝฮดฮฏฮดฯ‰ฯƒฮนฮฝ. [...] ฮฟแฝฮดแฝฒฮฝ แผ”ฯฮณฮฟฮฝ แผฯƒฯ„แฝถฮฝ ฮฟแผถฮผฮฑฮน ฮบฯฮปฮนฮบฮฟฯ‚ ฮฟแฝฮด' ฮฟแผฐฮฝฮฟฯ‡ฯŒฮทฯ‚, แผ€ฮปฮป' ฮฑแผฑ ฮœฮฟแฟฆฯƒฮฑฮน ฮบฮฑฮธฮฌฯ€ฮตฯ

ฮบฯฮฑฯ„แฟ†ฯฮฑ ฮฝฮทฯ†ฮฌฮปฮนฮฟฮฝ แผฮฝ ฮผฮญฯƒแฟณ ฯ€ฯฮฟฮธฮญฮผฮตฮฝฮฑฮน ฯ„แฝธฮฝ ฮปฯŒฮณฮฟฮฝ, แพง ฯ€ฮปฮตแฟ–ฯƒฯ„ฮฟฮฝ แผกฮดฮฟฮฝแฟ†ฯ‚ แผ…ฮผฮฑ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ€ฮฑฮนฮดฮนแพถฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ

ฯƒฯ€ฮฟฯ…ฮดแฟ†ฯ‚ แผ”ฮฝฮตฯƒฯ„ฮนฮฝ, แผฮณฮตฮฏฯฮฟฯ…ฯƒฮน ฯ„ฮฟฯฯ„แฟณ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮบฮฑฯ„ฮฌฯฮดฮฟฯ…ฯƒฮน ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮดฮนฮฑฯ‡ฮญฮฟฯ…ฯƒฮน ฯ„แฝดฮฝ ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฟฯ†ฯฮฟฯƒฯฮฝฮทฮฝ, แผแฟถฯƒฮฑฮน

ฯ„แฝฐ ฯ€ฮฟฮปฮปแฝฐ ฯ„แฝดฮฝ ฮฟแผฐฮฝฮฟฯ‡ฯŒฮทฮฝ แผ€ฯ„ฯฮญฮผฮฑ ฮบฮตแฟ–ฯƒฮธฮฑฮน "ฮบฯฮฑฯ„แฟ†ฯฮฟฯ‚ แฝ•ฯ€ฮตฯฮธฮตฮฝ", แฝ…ฯ€ฮตฯ แผ€ฯ€ฮทฮณฯŒฯฮตฯ…ฯƒฮตฮฝ แผฉฯƒฮฏฮฟฮดฮฟฯ‚ แผฮฝ

ฯ„ฮฟแฟ–ฯ‚ ฯ€ฮฏฮฝฮตฮนฮฝ ฮผแพถฮปฮปฮฟฮฝ แผข ฮดฮนฮฑฮปฮญฮณฮตฯƒฮธฮฑฮน ฮดฯ…ฮฝฮฑฮผฮญฮฝฮฟฮนฯ‚. Il testo di riferimento รจ quello di F. L C

(ed.), 1997.

intende, l'unione sessuale (ฯƒฯ…ฮฝฮฟฯ…ฯƒฮฏฮฑ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮผแฟ–ฮพฮนฯ‚) e Dioniso non รจ solo l'atto

di bere del vino (ฮผฮญฮธฮท ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮฟแผถฮฝฮฟฯ‚); essi sono al contrario qualcosa di piรน:

aetto (ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฟฯ†ฯฮฟฯƒฯฮฝฮท), desiderio (ฯ€แฝนฮธฮฟฯ‚), incontro (แฝฮผฮนฮปแฝทฮฑ) e frequentazione

(ฯƒฯ…ฮฝฮฎฮธฮตฮนฮฑ ฯ€ฯแฝธฯ‚ แผ€ฮปฮปฮฎฮปฮฟฯ…ฯ‚) che si realizzano rispettivamente attraverso l'unione

amorosa e il vino66 . Afrodite, infatti, รจ ฮดฮทฮผฮนฮฟฯ…ฯฮณแฝนฯ‚ di concordia (แฝฮผฮฟฯ†ฯฮฟฯƒฯฮฝฮท)

e amore (ฯ†ฮนฮปแฝทฮฑ) tra uomini e donne, in quanto unisce e fonde (ฯƒฯ…ฮผฮผฮนฮณฮฝฯฮฟฯ…ฯƒฮฑ

ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯƒฯ…ฮฝฯ„ฮฎฮบฮฟฯ…ฯƒฮฑ)67 le anime attraverso il piacere; Dioniso invece ammorbidisce

e inumidisce con il vino (ฮผฮฑฮปฮฌฯƒฯƒฯ‰ฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ แผ€ฮฝฯ…ฮณฯฮฑฮฏฮฝฯ‰ฮฝ) il carattere dei ฯ€ฮฟฮปฮปฮฟแฝท ,

producendo comunione (ฯƒแฝปฮณฮบฯฮฑฯƒฮนฯ‚ ) e amicizia (ฯ†ฮนฮปแฝทฮฑ) tra individui non legati

da particolari vincoli, ma da una certa conoscenza. Questa azione รจ inne

paragonata come al solito a quella della amma sui metalli, come suggerisce

anche l'uso dei verbi ฯƒฯ…ฮฝฯ„แฝตฮบฯ‰ e ฮผฮฑฮปแฝฑฯƒฯƒฯ‰ 68 .

Se i ฯ€ฮฟฮปฮปฮฟแฝท hanno bisogno del vino per stabilire un rapporto di amabile

aetto (ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฟฯ†ฯฮฟฯƒแฝปฮฝฮท) mentre la coppia dell'amore, ai saggi basta solo il ฮปแฝนฮณฮฟฯ‚

che le Muse orono loro come un cratere sobrio (ฮฝฮทฯ†แฝฑฮปฮนฮฟฯ‚), facendo sรฌ che

il mestolo rimanga inutilizzato sopra il cratere. Plutarco cita per suragare

la sua aermazione l'autoritร  di Hes., Op. 744, il quale sostiene appunto che

se non si รจ in grado di conversare, ma si pensa solo a bere, non si riesce a

tenere mai fermo il mestolo con cui si attingeva il vino dal cratere69 . Nel fr.

93 Sandbach egli fornisce perรฒ una interpretazione diversa della prescrizione

esiodea ora intesa nel senso che i saggi non antepongono l'interesse personale

a quello comune; il cratere, infatti, รจ disposto al centro della tavola, mentre i

commensali si servono attingendo ognuno singolarmente dal mestolo70 .

Questa seconda interpretazione del testo esiodeo se da un lato testimonia

la libertร  con cui il materiale antico veniva piegato da Plutarco alle esigenze del

suo ragionamento, รจ dall'altro coerente con la concezione della ฯ†ฮนฮปแฝทฮฑ e dell'แผ”ฯฯ‰ฯ‚

66 Si nota nel ragionamento plutarcheo la volontร  di interpretare il testo in chiave

moraleggiante.

67 Con ฯƒฯ…ฮผฮผฮนฮณฮฝแฝปฯ‰ si indica proprio l'unione sessuale; Ar., Av. 700 attribuisce questa

operazione ad Eros.

68 Il verbo ฯƒฯ…ฮฝฯ„แฝตฮบฯ‰ compare due volte nel discorso di Aristofane contenuto nel Simposio

platonico (192d – e) per indicare la condizione di completa compenetrazione delle anime che

gli amanti si augurano di raggiungere; che anche Platone stesse pensando alla fusione dei metalli

รจ testimoniato dal riferimento ad Efesto, il cui intervento gli innamorati auspicano per essere

saldati insieme completamente. Questa immagine ritorna in Amat. cap. 21 (767D-E) dove

ฯƒฯ…ฮฝฯ„แฝตฮบฯ‰ compare insieme a ฯƒฯ…ฮฝแฝฑฮณฯ‰ (cfr. il testo infra, n. 73) proprio sul modello platonico

sopra indicato; in Platone lo stesso verbo รจ accompagnato da ฯƒฯ…ฮผฯ†ฯ…ฯƒแฝฑฯ‰ e ฯƒฯ…ฮฝแฝณฯฯ‡ฮฟฮผฮฑฮน . I l

ricorso a termini composti con la preposizione ฯƒแฝปฮฝ, anche sul piano retorico, serve a Plutarco

per sottolineare la comunione spirituale che caratterizza la ฯ†ฮนฮปแฝทฮฑ e, in particolare, il rapporto

coniugale; per questi aspetti della tecnica retorica plutarchea cfr. R. G A,

2000. Per ฮผฮฑฮปแฝฑฯƒฯƒฯ‰ cfr. in Plutarco, Quaest. conv. 619A, 660C, 802B; anche questo verbo รจ

utilizzato in greco in riferimento all'ambito della metallurgia (cfr. Pl., R. 411b; Arist., Mete .

383a 31).

69 Il verso completo di Esiodo รจ ฮผฮทฮดฮญ ฯ€ฮฟฯ„' ฮฟแผฐฮฝฮฟฯ‡ฯŒฮทฮฝ ฯ„ฮนฮธฮญฮผฮตฮฝ ฮบฯฮทฯ„แฟ†ฯฮฟฯ‚ แฝ•ฯ€ฮตฯฮธฮตฮฝ.

70 ฮคฮฟฮนฮฟแฟฆฯ„ฮฟฮฝ ฮฟแฝ–ฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ„แฝธ แผฯ€ฮนฯ„ฮนฮธฮญฮฝฮฑฮน ฯ„แฟท ฮบฯฮฑฯ„แฟ†ฯฮน ฯ„แฝดฮฝ ฮฟแผฐฮฝฮฟฯ‡ฯŒฮทฮฝ ฯƒฯ…ฮผฮฒฮฟฮปฮนฮบแฝธฮฝ ฯ€ฮฑฮฏฮดฮตฯ…ฮผฮฑ· ฯ„ฮฟฯ…ฯ„ฮญฯƒฯ„ฮน

ฮผแฝด แผฯ€ฮฏฯ€ฯฮฟฯƒฮธฮตฮฝ แผ„ฮณฮตฮนฮฝ ฯ„ฮฟแฟฆ ฮบฮฟฮนฮฝฮฟแฟฆ ฯ„แฝธ แผดฮดฮนฮฟฮฝ. Per il ฮบฯฮฑฯ„แฟ†ฯ แผฮฝ ฮผแฝณฯƒแฟณ come ฯ€ฮทฮณแฝด ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฟฯ†ฯฮฟฯƒแฝปฮฝฮทฯ‚ ,

che รจ lo scopo del simposio, cfr. anche Plu., Alex. Magn. fort. 329C; Def. or. 421A; Quaest. conv.

615A-B, 643B.

325

Krasis oinou diken. Amore coniugale e linguaggio del simposio nell'Amatorius di Plutarco.

che emergono rispettivamente dall'Introduzione al IV libro delle Quaestiones

convivales e dall'Amatorius. In entrambi i testi, infatti, si sottolinea l'aspetto

comunitario e collettivo, e quindi di rilievo a livello sociale, del simposio da

un lato e dell'amore coniugale dall'altro71 ; le due esperienze vanno vissute non

in maniera egoistica e individualistica, ma nell'ottica della condivisione e della

ฮผฮตฯ„ฯฮนแฝนฯ„ฮทฯ‚72 : nel caso dell'amore coniugale Plutarco osserva, infatti, che nelle

prime fasi della vita in comune i due componenti della coppia distingueranno

tra "ciรฒ che รจ mio" e "ciรฒ che mio non รจ", ma poi condivideranno tutto e

diventeranno una sola anima, secondo il proverbio "tutto รจ comune tra gli

amici"73 .

Se nel Septem sapientium convivium รจ prerogativa solo del saggio quella

di realizzare la ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฟฯ†ฯฮฟฯƒแฝปฮฝฮท senza bisogno del vino, ma solo con le Muse,

cioรจ con il ฮปแฝนฮณฮฟฯ‚ 74 , nell'Amatorius Plutarco sembra superare questa posizione

eccessivamente intellettualistica e austera che parrebbe relegare il sapiente

in un mondo privo di piacere e riservare il vino ai ฯ€ฮฟฮปฮปฮฟแฝท che non sono in

grado di trarre benecio dal retto uso della ragione, per proporre una forma

piรน "umana" e piรน concreta di saggezza, in cui l'istinto non viene del tutto

cancellato o morticato, ma continua a sussistere e ad esprimersi, seppure

temperato dal ฮปแฝนฮณฮฟฯ‚ 75 ; la ฮบฮฟฮนฮฝฯ‰ฮฝแฝทฮฑ แผฯฯ‰ฯ„ฮนฮบแฝต risulta pertanto ora l'espressione

piรน alta di una formazione intellettuale e spirituale che non nega le passioni del

corpo, ma ne placa gli ardori con l'aiuto della ragione76 e della cultura, ovvero

del rispetto della tradizione e trova espressione in uno stile di vita equilibrato

e decoroso77 .

71 Cfr. anche G. T, 2008, pp. 713-6. Plutarco sembra condividere il pensiero di

Arist., EN VIII 1155 a 22-23, secondo cui la ฯ†ฮนฮปแฝทฮฑ tiene unite le cittร .

72 Cfr. Quaest. conv. 615A. Secondo Pl., R. 462c la concordia dello stato nasce proprio

quando i cittadini sono d'accordo nel dire "questo รจ mio, questo non รจ mio"; quando tale identitร 

di interessi viene meno si apre la strada pericolosa verso la discordia civile.

73 Amat. 767D: แฝฏฮน ฮด' แผ‚ฮฝ แผœฯฯ‰ฯ‚ แผฯ€ฮนฯƒฮบฮฎฯˆแฟƒ <ฯ„' แผ„ฯ†ฮฝฯ‰> ฮบฮฑแฝถ แผฯ€ฮนฯ€ฮฝฮตฯฯƒแฟƒ, ฯ€ฯแฟถฯ„ฮฟฮฝ ฮผแฝฒฮฝ แผฮบ ฯ„แฟ†ฯ‚

ฮ ฮปฮฑฯ„ฯ‰ฮฝฮนฮบแฟ†ฯ‚ ฯ€ฯŒฮปฮตฯ‰ฯ‚ "ฯ„แฝธ แผฮผแฝธฮฝ" แผ•ฮพฮตฮน ฮบฮฑแฝถ "ฯ„แฝธ ฮฟแฝฮบ แผฮผฯŒฮฝ"·ฮฟแฝ ฮณแฝฐฯ แผฯ€ฮปแฟถฯ‚ "ฮบฮฟฮนฮฝแฝฐ ฯ„แฝฐ ฯ†ฮฏฮปฯ‰ฮฝ" <ฮฟแฝฮด'

แผฯฯŽฮฝฯ„ฯ‰ฮฝ>, แผ€ฮปฮป' ฮฟแผณ ฯ„ฮฟแฟ–ฯ‚ ฯƒฯŽฮผฮฑฯƒฮนฮฝ แฝฯฮนฮถฯŒฮผฮตฮฝฮฟฮน ฯ„แฝฐฯ‚ ฯˆฯ…ฯ‡แฝฐฯ‚ ฮฒฮฏแพณ ฯƒฯ…ฮฝฮฌฮณฮฟฯ…ฯƒฮน ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯƒฯ…ฮฝฯ„ฮฎฮบฮฟฯ…ฯƒฮน, ฮผฮฎฯ„ฮต

ฮฒฮฟฯ…ฮปฯŒฮผฮตฮฝฮฟฮน ฮดฯ'ฮตแผถฮฝฮฑฮน ฮผฮฎฯ„ฮต ฮฝฮฟฮผฮฏฮถฮฟฮฝฯ„ฮตฯ‚. Cfr. anche Ad. et am. 65A; Frat. am. 490E. Il modello di

riferimento รจ Arist., EN VIII 1162a 23.

74 Per la svalutazione plutarchea del ruolo del vino nel percorso verso la losoa cfr. le

riessioni di M. D, 2007, pp. 49-50.

75 Il Septem sapientium convivium viene datato al decennio 80-90 d.C. da K. Z, 1965,

p. 294, mentre l'Amatorius per la complessitร  della sua struttura narrativa e per la profonditร  della

riessione รจ considerata un'opera della maturitร , se non addirittura una delle ultime composte

dall'autore (cfr. R. F, 1980, pp. 7-11; C. P. J, 1966, in part. p. 72, dove l'opuscolo

รจ datato agli anni successivi al 96 d.C.).

76 Cfr. anche Coniug. praec. 138F: [...] ฯ„แฝธฮฝ แผ€ฯ€แฝธ ฯƒแฝฝฮผฮฑฯ„ฮฟฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ แฝฅฯฮฑฯ‚ แฝ€ฮพแฝบฮฝ แผ”ฯฯ‰ฯ„ฮฑ ฯ„แฟถฮฝ ฮฝฮตฮฟฮณฮฌฮผฯ‰ฮฝ

แผ€ฮฝฮฑฯ†ฮปฮตฮณฯŒฮผฮตฮฝฮฟฮฝ ฮดฮตแฟ– ฮผแฝด ฮดฮนฮฑฯฮบแฟ† ฮผฮทฮดแฝฒ ฮฒฮญฮฒฮฑฮนฮฟฮฝ ฮฝฮฟฮผฮฏฮถฮตฮนฮฝ, แผ‚ฮฝ ฮผแฝด ฯ€ฮตฯแฝถ ฯ„แฝธ แผฆฮธฮฟฯ‚ แผฑฮดฯฯ…ฮธฮตแฝถฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ„ฮฟแฟฆ

ฯ†ฯฮฟฮฝฮฟแฟฆฮฝฯ„ฮฟฯ‚ แผฯˆแฝฑฮผฮตฮฝฮฟฯ‚ แผ”ฮผฯˆฯ…ฯ‡ฮฟฮฝ ฮปฮฌฮฒฮท ฮดฮนฮฌฮธฮตฯƒฮนฮฝ.

77 Plutarco polemizza con l'etica stoica, che predicava la svalutazione totale delle passioni,

mentre tendeva a rivalutare la ฮผฮตฯ„ฯฮนฮฟฯ€แฝฑฮธฮตฮนฮฑ peripatetica: su questi temi cfr. D. B, 2003 (1969),

pp. 359-72; F. B, 2005; F. F, 2008; sul concetto di "medietร " nel campo della morale

cfr. A. B, 2003; A. B, 2007, pp. 223-64. In particolare, per il ragionamento che

si รจ n qui svolto, risulta di un certo rilievo che in Virt. mor. 451C-D nel sostenere che quanti

temono le passioni non le eliminano del tutto, ma le moderano (ฮบฮตฯฮฑฮฝฮฝแฝปฮฟฯ…ฯƒฮน), proprio come

Il costante ricorso nei testi analizzati ad immagini tratte dall'ambito

simposiale e al lessico ad esso relativo non rientra soltanto nella piรน generale

tendenza di Plutarco a creare un linguaggio polisemico in cui lo slittamento

del signicato di un termine da un piano metaforico all'altro contribuisce ad

accrescere la densitร  concettuale della sua prosa. Al contrario, il riferimento

all'istituzione del simposio si fonda su solide basi ideologiche facilmente

condivisibili e per questo motivo di piรน facile impatto sui destinatari delle opere.

Pertanto nell'Amatorius l'immagine della ฮบฯแพถฯƒฮนฯ‚ di acqua e vino utilizzata per

rappresentare la riuscita unione matrimoniale tra uomo e donna, anche in virtรน

degli autorevoli modelli losoci di riferimento che si possono individuare in

controluce (platonici innanzitutto), poteva essere funzionale al messaggio che

Plutarco voleva veicolare nel segno di una complessiva difesa delle tradizioni

culturali e dei piรน genuini costumi ellenici. Infatti il simposio, che agli occhi dei

greci era da sempre il luogo in cui i desideri e le pulsioni naturali (il mangiare,

il bere, il sesso), attraverso le fasi di un rituale ormai codicato e riconosciuto

dall'intera societร 78 , subivano una decantazione in nome dell'ideale estetico

ed etico del ฯ„แฝธ ฮผแฝณฯ„ฯฮนฮฟฮฝ, veniva ad essere il termine di paragone piรน ecace a

rappresentare, anche sul piano formale, il giusto equilibrio tra corpo e spirito,

tra istinto e ragione, tra ฯ†ฯฯƒฮนฯ‚ e ฯ€ฮฑฮนฮดฮตฮฏฮฑ, che รจ in ultima analisi il modello di

vita proposto da Plutarco nel suo opuscolo e probabilmente nell'intero corpus

delle sue opere.

ri f e r i m e n T i b i b l i o g r a f i c i

A, R. M.ยช, "La Mujer, el Amor y el Matrimonio en la Obra de Plutarco",

Faventia, 12-13 (1990-1991) 307-25.

_____"La amistad segรบn Plutarco: los Moralia", in L. T (ed.), Scritti in

onore di Italo Gallo, Napoli, 2002, pp. 7-25.

A, E., "Eunoia bei Plutarch: von den Praecepta Gerendae Reipublicae zu

den Viten", in A. G. N (ed.), 2008, pp. 365-86.

A M, R., "La inuencia de la tradiciรณn clรกsica en la reexiรณn

de Plutarco sobre la amistad", in M. J  . (eds.), Plutarc a la

seva รจpoca: paideia i Societat. Actas del VIII Simposio Internacional de

la Sociedad Espaรฑola de Plutarquistas (Barcelona, 6-8 de Noviembre,

2003), Barcelona, 2005, pp. 185-90.

chi teme di ubriacarsi non rovescia il vino, Plutarco ricorra proprio alla similitudine con l'ambito

del simposio e al lessico relativo; in 452B inoltre osserva che se si estirpassero tutte le passioni

la ragione diventerebbe inerte come un nocchiero quando gli viene a mancare il vento; Plutarco

ricorre di nuovo alla similitudine tra le passioni e il vento, che, come si รจ visto, รจ utilizzata anche

nell'Amatorius.

78 Cfr. J. M, 1931; H. L, 19692 ; H. L, 2006, pp. 103-16; M. V, 1983;

L. E. R, 1983; F. L, 1989; P. S-P, 1987; O. M, 1989; O .

M, 20077 ; D. M, 2001; L. D B & S. B, 2002, p. 40.

327

Krasis oinou diken. Amore coniugale e linguaggio del simposio nell'Amatorius di Plutarco.

B, D., "Les Stoรฏciens et l'amour", REG, 76 (1963) 55-63.

_____ Plutarque et le Stoรฏcisme, Paris, 1969 (si cita dall'edizione italiana, D.

B., Plutarco e lo stoicismo, a cura di A. B, presentazione di R .

R, Milano, 2003).

B D, P., "Entre o casamento e a comunidade: imagens, modelos e

funรงรตes do afecto conjugal", in J.-M. N I & R. L L

(eds.), 2007, pp. 545-56.

B, A., "L'amore: Plutarco contro Epicuro", in I. G (ed.),

Aspetti dello stoicismo e dell'epicureismo in Plutarco. Atti del II convegno

di studi su Plutarco, (Ferrara, 2-3 Aprile, 1987), Ferrara, 1988, pp.

89-108.

B, F. , " Apatheia e metriopatheia in Plutarco", in A. C (ed.),

Plutarco e l'etร  ellenistica. Atti del Convegno Internazionale di Studi

(Firenze, 23-24 settembre 2004), Firenze, 2005, pp. 385-400.

B, A., "Aristotele pitagorico? La concezione della medietร  nel De

virtute morali di Plutarco", Rivista di losoa neoscolastica, 95 (2003)

3-36.

_____ "La teoria plutarchea della virtรน tra platonismo, pitagorismo e

aristotelismo", in P. V C & F. F (eds.), Plutarco

e la cultura della sua etร . Atti del X Convegno plutarcheo (Fisciano -

Paestum, 27-29 Ottobre, 2005), Napoli, 2007, pp. 223-64.

B, J.,"Plutarch on the Role of Eros in a Marriage", in A. G. N

(ed.), 2008, pp. 689-99.

B, A., "Le Dialogue sur l'Amour de Plutarque et les Dialogues de Platon

sur l'amour", in A. P J  . (eds.), 1999, pp. 201-13.

B, J., "Trois Eros? Comment Plutarque rรฉecrit Platon", in A. P

J  . (eds.), 1999, pp. 215-26.

_____"Le paradigme de la crase dans la pensรฉe de Plutarque", Ploutarchos, n.s.

4, (2006/2007) 3-17.

B, F. E., "Plutarch's Erotikos: e Drag Down Pulled Up", in M .

M  . (eds.), Plutarch. Robert Flaceliรจre. In Memoriam, ICS

13,2, Urbana, 1988, pp. 457-71 = F. E. B, 1998, pp. 13-27.

_____"e Boiotia of Plutarch's Erotikos beyond the shadow of Athens", in

A. C (ed.), Proceedings of the 2nd Meeting of the Society of

Boeotian Studies, Athens, 1995, pp. 1109-17 = F. E. B, 1998, pp.

50-8.

_____ Relighting the Souls. Studies in Plutarch, in Greek Literature, Religion, and

Philosophy, and in the New Testament Background, Stuttgart, 1998.

B, M., "El debate entre los dos amores en la literatura imperial", in M.

A R  . (eds.), Epieikeia. Studia Graeca in memoriam

Jesรบs Lens Tuero, Granada, 2000, pp. 53-73.

C S, R. , "El Amatorius de Plutarco y la locura amorosa", in

F. R. A – A. M (eds.), Actas del IX Congreso Espaรฑol de

Estudios Clรกsicos, vol. IV, Madrid, 1998, pp. 95-100.

C, J. C., "L'amore รจ un dardo. Le ragioni dell'omosessualitร  in

Aristotele e Plutarco", in A. P J . (eds.), 1999, pp.

567-82.

C, M. , La «malattia d'amore» dall'Antichitร  al Medioevo, Roma,

1976.

C, A., "Amatorius: Plutarch's platonic Departure from the Peri Gamou

Literature", in A. P J  . (eds.), 1999, pp. 288-97.

D'I, G., "Omosessualitร  e pederastia in Plutarco", in J.-M. N

I & R. L L (eds.), 2007, pp. 467-76.

D, M., Filosoa del vino, con una prefazione di G. G, Milano,

2007.

D B, L. B, S., Oinos. Il vino nella letteratura greca, Roma,

2002.

D, A. I., De comparationibus et metaphoris apud Plutarchum, Traiecti ad

Rhenum, 1892.

F, B., "Soziologisches und Sozialgeschichtliches zu Erotik, Liebe

und Geschlechterverhรคltnis", in H. G  . (eds.), 2006,

pp. 236-73.

F, F., "Moderatismo etico e controllo delle passioni in Plutarco", in G.

G (ed.), Le emozioni dei loso antichi, Catania, 2008, pp. 135-62.

F, R., (ed.), Plutarque. ล’uvres morales, tome X, Dialogue sur

l'amour, Paris, 1980, pp. 1-107 (il volume contiene anche le Amatoriae

Narrationes, a cura di M. C).

F, M., Le souci de soi. Histoire de la sexualitรฉ 3, Paris, 1984 (si cita

dall'edizione italiana, M. F., La cura di sรฉ. Storia della sessualitร  3, trad. di

L. G, Milano, 1985, 20079 ).

F, J. C., Philia. La notion d'amitiรฉ dans la philosophie antique, Paris, 1974.

F, F., "Platonisme et Patrios Pistis dans le Discours Central (chs. 13-20)

de l'ร‰rotikos", in A. P J  . (eds.), 1999, pp. 343-55.

_____"Gรถttlichkeit und Glaube. Personliche Gottesbeziehung im Spรคtwerk

Plutarchs", in R. H–L (ed.), Gott und die Gรถtter bei Plutarch.

Gรถtterbilder – Gottesbilder – Weltbilder, Berlin/New York, 2005, pp. 111-37.

329

Krasis oinou diken. Amore coniugale e linguaggio del simposio nell'Amatorius di Plutarco.

_____"L'ร‰rotikos : un รฉloge du Dieu ร‰ros", Ploutarchos, n.s. 3 (2005/2006) 63-

101.

_____ (ed.), Plutarque, ร‰rotikos. Dialogue sur l'amour, Paris, 2008.

G C, R. J., "Belleza y grandeza del amor conyugal", in J. G. M

C . (eds.), 1999, pp. 233-42.

G L, J. , "Relaciones personales en Moralia de Plutarco: familia,

amistad y amor", en A. P J – G.  C (eds.), Estudios

sobre Plutarco: obra y tradiciรณn, Mรกlaga, pp. 105-122.

G A, R., "Le parole dell'amicizia. Prassi retorica nel De

amicorum multitudine", in L. V  S (ed.), Rhetorical eory

and Praxis in Plutarch, Acta of the IVth International Congress of the

International Plutarch Society (Leuven, July 3-6, 1996), Louvain-

Namur, 2000, pp. 225-35.

G, G., "Problemi testuali nei Moralia I", in I. G (ed.), Sulla

tradizione manoscritta dei Moralia di Plutarco. Atti del Convegno

(Salerno, 4-5 Dicembre, 1986), Salerno, 1988.

G, F. T., A Grammar of the Greek Papyri of the Roman and Byzantine

Periods, vol. I: Phonology, Milano, 1976.

G B, P., "El amor en Plutarco: la necesaria correcciรณn platรณnica

de Platรณn", in J.-M.ยช N I & R. L L (eds.), 2007,

pp. 123-32.

G, H., "Einfรผhrung, Text, รœbersetzung und Anmerkungen", in H.

G  . (eds.), 2006, pp. 3-188.

G, H.  . (eds.), Plutarch. Dialog รผber die Liebe, Amatorius,

Tรผbingen, 2006.

J, C. P., "Towards a cronology of Plutarch's works", JRS, 56 (1966) 61-

74.

L , H., Sexual Life in Ancient Greece, London, 19692 .

_____L'amore al banchetto , in C. C (ed.), L'amore in Grecia, Roma/Bari,

2006.

L, F., L'immaginario del simposio greco, Roma/Bari, 1989 (ed. or. F.

L., Un ot d'images. Une esthรจtique du banquet grec, Paris, 1987).

L C, F. ( ed.), Plutarco, Il convito dei sette sapienti (introduzione, testo

critico, traduzione e commento), "Corpus Plutarchi Moralium, 26",

Napoli, 1997.

M, G. - T, A. (edd.), Plutarco, Precetti coniugali (introduzione,

testo critico, traduzione e commento), "Corpus Plutarchi Moralium, 6",

Napoli, 1990.

M J., H. M., "Plutarch, Plato and Eros", e Classical Bulletin, 60.4

(1984) 82-8.

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

1931.

M, A., "Euripide, Cycl. 608 ss.", QUCC n. s. 53. 2 (1996) 67-72.

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

Simposio espaรฑol sobre Plutarco (Cรกdiz, 14-16 de Mayo, 1998), Madrid,

1999.

M , O., Sympotika. e papers of a Symposium on the symposion, Oxford,

1989.

_____"L'uomo e le forme di socialitร ", in J. P. V (ed.), L'uomo greco ,

Roma/Bari, 1991, 20077 , pp. 219-56.

M, D., Il simposio nel suo sviluppo storico, Roma/Bari, 2001.

N I, J. M.a & L L, R. (eds.), El amor en Plutarco. Actas del

IX Simposio espaรฑol sobre Plutarco (28-30 Septiembre, 2006), Leรณn,

2007.

N, A. G. (ed.), e Unity of Plutarch's Work. Moralia emes in the

Lives, Features of the Lives in the Moralia, Berlin/New York, 2008.

_____ "Plutarch on Women and Marriage", WS, 11 (1997) 27-88.

O, J., "Eros in Plutarchs moralischer Psychologie", in H. G

 . (eds.), 2006, pp. 208-35.

O V, A. I., "El mundo divino, objeto de una disputa: Plutarco

y el epicureismo", in J. G L & E. C D (eds.),

Estudios sobre Plutarco: paisaje y naturaleza. Actas del III Simposio

Espaรฑol sobre Plutarco (Murcia, 1990), Madrid, 1991, pp. 79-87.

P, C., "Plutarch's Advice to the Bride and Groom: Traditional Wisdom

through a Philosophic Lens", in S. P (ed.), Plutarch's Advice to

the Bride and A Consolation to His Wife, New York, 1999, pp. 128-37.

P J, A.  . (eds.), Plutarco, Platรณn y Aristรณteles. Actas del V

Congreso Internacional de la I. P. S. (Madrid – Cuenca, 4-7 de Mayo,

1999), Madrid, 1999.

P , S., "Plutarch's Conversations on Love: Something Old, Something

New, Something Borrowed", in B. A  . (eds.), Noctes Atticae.

34 Articles on Graeco-Roman Antiquity and its Nachleben. Studies Presented

to Jorgen Mejer on his Sixtieth Birthday (March 18, 2002), Copenhagen,

2002, pp. 226-33

P P, F., "El Banquete de Plutarco: ccion literaria o realidad

historica?", in J. G. M C  . (eds.), 1999, pp. 379-92.

331

Krasis oinou diken. Amore coniugale e linguaggio del simposio nell'Amatorius di Plutarco.

R, R. (ed.), Stoici antichi. Tutti i frammenti, secondo la raccolta di H

 A, Milano, 2002.

R, I., "La tematica dei matrimoni nello stoicismo romano: alcune

osservazioni", Ilu. Revista de ciencias de los religiones, 5 (2000) 145-62.

R C, M., "La imagen de la esposa como espejo del marido en los

Deberes del matrimonio de Plutarco", in J.-M.ยช N I & R.

L L (eds.), 2007, pp. 575-81.

R , J. M., "Plutarch's Amatorius: a commentary on Plato's eories of Love?",

CQ, 51 (2001) 557-75.

R, L. E., "Il simposio greco arcaico e classico come spettacolo a se stesso",

Atti del VII Convegno di studio Spettacoli conviviali dall'antichitร  classica

alle corti italiane del '400, Viterbo, 1983, pp. 41-50.

S, F. H. (ed.), Plutarch's Moralia, vol. XV, Fragments, Cambridge,

Mass., London, 1987.

S, G., "Plutarco, l'epicureismo e l'amore. 'Citazioni' epicuree nelle

Quaestiones convivales e nell' Erotikรฒs di Plutarco", in J.- M.ยช N

I & R. L L (eds.), 2007, pp. 179-86.

S, R., "Polemiche antiepicuree nell'Amatorius di Plutarco e

nell'Euboico di Dione di Prusa", in AA.VV., Aspetti del mondo classico:

lettura ed interpretazione dei testi, Seminari in collaborazione con

l'A.I.C.C. – sede di Salerno, Napoli, 2006, pp. 81-126.

_____ "Afrodite e la luna in Plut. Amat. 764B-D", in J.-M.ยช N I &

R. L L (eds.), 2007, pp. 421-42.

S, A. M. (ed.), Plutarco, Conversazioni a tavola (libro quarto),

"Corpus Plutarchi Moralium, 34", Napoli, 2001.

S, G., Eros tiranno. Sessualitร  e sensualitร  nel mondo antico, Roma/Bari,

2003.

S-P, P., La citรฉ au banquet, Lyon, 1987.

S, G., "Il fuoco d'amore. Storia di un topos dalla poesia greca arcaica

al romanzo bizantino. Il successo del topos in Callimaco, Teocrito e

Apollonio Rodio", in Maia, n.s., III (2006), pp. 449-63.

T, S.-T., A commentary on Plutarch's Table Talks, vol. II (books 4-6),

Gรถtheborg, 1990.

_____"Plutarch's Views on Love", Ploutarchos, n.s. 2 (2004/2005) 107-122.

_____"Four terms of friendly emotion in Plutarch: ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฑฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€แฝทฮฑ , ฯ†ฮนฮปแฝทฮฑ , แผ”ฯฯ‰ฯ‚ ,

ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฟฯƒฯ„ฮฟฯฮณแฝทฮฑ", in J. M. N I & R. L L (eds.), 2007,

pp. 187-97.

332

Rosario Scannapieco

T, G., "Integrating Marriage and Homonoia", in A. G. N

(ed.), 2008, pp. 701-18.

U P, M. H. T. C., "A philia conjugal na obra de Plutarco", in A.

A. N  . (eds.), Eros e Philia na cultura grega. Actas de

Colรณquio Internacional, Lisboa, 1995, pp. 225-37.

V S, M., "Amor y matrimonio en el Erรณtico de Plutarco", in

J.-M.a N I (ed.), Lรณgos hellenikรณs. Homenaje al Prof. Gaspar

Morocho Gayo, Leรณn, 2003, pp. 441-54.

V  S , L., Twinkling and Twilight. Plutarch's reections on Literature,

Brussel, 1992.

_____"Plutarch on mania and its therapy", in J. G. M C .

(eds.), 1999, pp. 517-26.

V, M. (ed.), Poesia e simposio nella Grecia antica: guida storica e critica ,

Roma/Bari, 1983.

V C, A. & S ร, M. A., "El concepto de ฯ‡แฝฑฯฮนฯ‚

en el Erรณtico de Plutarco", in J.-M.ยช N I  R. L L

(eds.), 2007, pp. 83-91.

W, P., "Plutarch on Women", Symbol. Osl., 74 (1999) 163-83.

W, B., Die Sprache Plutarchs von Chaeronea und die

pseudoplutarchischen Schriften, Straubing, 1895, (si cita dall'edizione

italiana, B. W., La lingua di Plutarco di Cheronea e gli scritti pseudoplutarchei,

a cura di G. I, con una premessa di I. G, Napoli, 1994).

Z, K., Plutarco, ed. it. a cura di B. Z, trad. di M. R. Z

R, Brescia, 1965.

333

Tragedy and Philanthropia in the Lives of Demosthenes and Cicero

T r a g e d y a n d p H i l a n T H r o p i a

i n T h e li v e S o f De m o S T H e n e S a n D ci c e r o

M V

University of Oporto

Abstract

e concept of philanthropia is often associated with that of compassion and characterizes,

ideally, the relations between the powerful and those who are found to be in a situation of

fragility and impotence. e intention of this study is to show how, in the Lives of Demosthenes

and Cicero, this notion of philanthropia takes on a tragic tone, one which is reinforced by the

allusions to Sophocles's Antigone, a play which seems to serve as an ethical frame of reference

for the evaluation of the protagonists' ethos in crucial moments of their lives.

In using the term ฯ†ฮนฮปแฝฑฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€ฮฟฯ‚ to characterize the act that cost

Prometheus terrible divine punishment, Aeschylus, or whoever composed

the drama Prometheus Bound, dened the essence of the concept of

ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฑฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€แฝทฮฑ as a disinterested feeling of friendship, or love of men, born

of the compassion for man's situation of abandonment and weakness1 .

Prometheus's act, since it is also a gesture of rebellion against the gods,

valorizes the human race, not only because it impedes its destruction by

Zeus and makes the light of civilization possible, but principally because

his altruism and compassion confer a certain dignity upon mortals. Coming

from a divinity whose stature is dierent from that of the gods of Olympus,

philanthropia is not, in its mythical origin, a divine sentiment that humans

are obliged to imitate, or it would not invite punishment. But still it seems,

on the human plane, to be a fundamental condition for the transformation of

chaos into order, barbarity into civilization. is conception of philanthropia

as a mark of civilization is one of the meanings of the word and its cognates

in Plutarch, as we know. It is not, however, the only one, though it would

seem to me that this is one of the fundamental semantic vectors for the

comprehension of this concept2 . One other sense which the word takes on in

Plutarch and which is truly central in his moral and political thinking could

be translated as "kindness", "generosity" or even "clemency". In this sense it

has to do with the relationship between governors and the governed, with

the attitudes towards defeated enemies and towards those who are found

to be in a situation of fragility and powerlessness. In this particular sense,

the concept of philanthropia already had a long history in the Greek poetic

tradition, even though the use of the word before the Hellenistic period was

rare. is is a history that perhaps begins with the Homeric Poems, but whose

1 Cf. Pr. 240 sqq.

2 On the various meanings the word recovers in Plutarch, see H. M. M J., 1961;

S.-T. T, 2007; J. R. F, 2008. Another word which is central in Plutarch's

thought and sometimes has a similar meaning is praotes. Cf. H. M. M J., 1960 and J. 

R, 1979.

truly fertile period of exploration and development occurs in the tragedy of

the 5th century B.C.

Indeed, if it is in Prometheus Bound that the word, in its adjectival form

appears, as far as we know, for the rst time, there is no doubt that Sophoclean

tragedy presents us with a variety of characters whose attitudes and actions

can be translated as philanthropia, a feeling of understanding and kindness

to others. is feeling is ultimately based on the recognition of that which in

them carries the mark of the human condition and allows for a vision of the

other as close and similar. is philanthropia, this humanity, always associated

with the capacity for compassion, denes characters such as eseus in Oedipus

at Colonus, Neoptolemus in Philoctetes , Deianira in e Trachiniae, Ulysses in

Ajax, or, on the negative side, Creon of Oedipus at Colonus and Antigone.

e evocation of Greek tragedy in relation to this subject in Plutarch does

not derive from a simple association of ideas. Of course, we know that the

biographer knew the history of the tragedy well. is assumption rests upon

the various allusions and citations of passages, characters and playwrights

from Greek tragedy that we nd in his oeuvre, as well as from the tragic tone

in the narration of some of the Lives 3 . is fact that, in the rst instance,

attests to the importance of literary education in the Hellenistic paideia, is also

symptomatic of the prominence that the theatre still possessed in the cultural

life of the 1st century AD. And if the moralist Plutarch, inuenced by Plato,

does not acknowledge the educative role of tragedy and poetry in general

without reservations, the truth is that, parting company with the philosopher,

he does not reject the potential pedagogic quality of the emotions provoked

by dramatic works4 . From this we can arm that not only philosophy, but also

tragic poetry feed his ethical and moral convictions5 .

In the case of the Lives of Demosthenes and of Cicero, in addition to

presenting episodes that reect the closeness between the art of oratory and

3 Cf. P. de L, 1952. In spite of maintaining, in my view with some exaggeration, that

Plutarch reveals in his writings a reproving attitude toward tragedy, this author arms that "in

the Demetrius the allusions to drama are so persistent that the whole structure of the biography

appears to be conceived in terms of tragedy." Also J. M. M, 1988, speaks of a "tragic

atmosphere" in Life of Alexander and supports the notion that Plutarch "uses tragic coloring to

delineate the darker side of Alexander's character." See as well P. S, 2002.

4 e frequency with which the author employs the terms "tragic", "dramatic" and "theatrical"

in a negative way, in order to censor acts and attitudes of men, does not imply, contrary to what

Philip de Lacy thinks, a "condemnation of tragedy". It seems rather that these expressions would

have already taken on common forms for the translation of the hypocrisy of certain human acts,

and do not reveal any kind of aesthetic or moral value judgment in relation to tragedy as a form

of poetic expression. Indeed, we are dealing with classications that we still use in the same

semantic context without this indicating any kind of condemnation of the theatre.

5 Cf. P. C (2008). Not even in relation to the education of the young does Plutarch

reject the pedagogic value of poetry, as we know. In the treatise known as De audiendis poetis

(1a) the author declares that it is neither possible (ฮดฯ…ฮฝฮฑฯ„แฝนฮฝ) nor advantageous (แฝ ฯ†แฝณฮปฮนฮผฮฟฮฝ) to

keep the young from reading the poets. Rather he seeks to orient them with this type of reading,

defending (37b) the role of poetry as an introduction (ฯ€ฯฮฟฯ€ฮฑฮนฮดฮตฯ…ฮธฮตแฝทฯ‚) to philosophy. On this

treatise see J. L. B, 2001.

335

Tragedy and Philanthropia in the Lives of Demosthenes and Cicero

that of theatre6, the author also compares the world of theatre with life itself7 .

And the way in which he narrates the sequence of some important events

emphasizes a tragic sense, which cannot be disassociated from the tragedy of

the 5th century BC. ere is one play in particular which stands out, functioning

as a kind of frame of ethical reference for evaluating the behavior of the orators

in central moments of their lives and, more generally, as a consideration of the

moral order that the author engages in with respect to the attitudes of the

powerful vis-ร -vis the weaker. I am referring to Antigone by Sophocles, cited in

the narration of the circumstances surrounding the death of Demosthenes, and

in the Synkrisis, with respect to Cicero's performance as a statesman8 . Keeping

in mind the respective political and governmental responsibilities that both

orators had, in dierent degrees, during their lifetimes, the connection to a play

whose central conict turns upon questions related to the exercise of power,

the application of the law and the possible conicts between human and divine

laws seems natural. Indeed, it is not by chance that nearly all of the occurrences

of the word philanthropia and its cognates in these Lives refer precisely to

the eld of power and to how whoever exercises it treats his subjects9 . e

fact is that philanthropia represents an act of will and of freedom, on the part

of a person of superior social and political status who, for this reason, nds

himself in an advantageous position in relation to others. Likewise, it is for

this reason that philanthropia seems to be the human act par excellence, since

only the reason and the compassion of man are capable of dominating that

which by nature is still of an animal order: oppression, rage and the desire for

vengeance.

I will begin with an example that clearly illustrates the point, taken from

the Life of Demosthenes; without referring directly to the play, it nevertheless

allows us to establish a correlation between philanthropia, power and how

best to deal with a dead enemy. It is the passage when Plutarch criticizes the

unworthy reaction of the Athenians and of the orator himself to the death of

Philip of Macedon. He says the following (22. 2-4):

ฮตแฝฮธแฝบฯ‚ ฮฟแฝ–ฮฝ แผ”ฮธฯ…ฮฟฮฝ ฮตแฝฮฑฮณฮณแฝณฮปฮนฮฑ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯƒฯ„ฮตฯ†ฮฑฮฝฮฟแฟฆฮฝ แผฯˆฮทฯ†แฝทฯƒฮฑฮฝฯ„ฮฟ ฮ ฮฑฯ…ฯƒฮฑฮฝแฝทฮฑฮฝ, ฮบฮฑแฝถ

ฯ€ฯฮฟแฟ†ฮปฮธฮตฮฝ แฝ ฮ”ฮทฮผฮฟฯƒฮธแฝณฮฝฮทฯ‚ แผ”ฯ‡ฯ‰ฮฝ ฮปฮฑฮผฯ€ฯแฝธฮฝ แผฑฮผแฝฑฯ„ฮนฮฟฮฝ แผฯƒฯ„ฮตฯ†ฮฑฮฝฯ‰ฮผแฝณฮฝฮฟฯ‚, แผ‘ฮฒฮดแฝนฮผฮทฮฝ

แผกฮผแฝณฯฮฑฮฝ ฯ„แฟ†ฯ‚ ฮธฯ…ฮณฮฑฯ„ฯแฝธฯ‚ ฮฑแฝฯ„ฮฟแฟฆ ฯ„ฮตฮธฮฝฮทฮบฯ…แฝทฮฑฯ‚, แฝกฯ‚ ฮ‘แผฐฯƒฯ‡แฝทฮฝฮทฯ‚ ฯ†ฮทฯƒแฝท, ฮปฮฟฮนฮดฮฟฯแฟถฮฝ แผฯ€แฝถ

ฯ„ฮฟแฝปฯ„แฟณ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮบฮฑฯ„ฮทฮณฮฟฯแฟถฮฝ ฮฑแฝฯ„ฮฟแฟฆ ฮผฮนฯƒฮฟฯ„ฮตฮบฮฝแฝทฮฑฮฝ (…) แผฮณแฝผ ฮด' แฝกฯ‚ ฮผแฝฒฮฝ แผฯ€แฝถ ฮธฮฑฮฝแฝฑฯ„แฟณ

ฮฒฮฑฯƒฮนฮปแฝณฯ‰ฯ‚, แผกฮผแฝณฯฯ‰ฯ‚ ฮฟแฝ•ฯ„ฯ‰ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฑฮฝฮธฯแฝฝฯ€ฯ‰ฯ‚ แผฮฝ ฮฟแผทฯ‚ ฮตฯ…ฯ„แฝปฯ‡ฮทฯƒฮต ฯ‡ฯฮทฯƒฮฑฮผแฝณฮฝฮฟฯ…

ฯ€ฯ„ฮฑแฝทฯƒฮฑฯƒฮนฮฝ ฮฑแฝฯ„ฮฟแฟ–ฯ‚, ฯƒฯ„ฮตฯ†ฮฑฮฝฮทฯ†ฮฟฯฮตแฟ–ฮฝ ฮบฮฑฮปแฟถฯ‚ ฮตแผถฯ‡ฮต ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮธแฝปฮตฮนฮฝ, ฮฟแฝฮบ แผ‚ฮฝ ฮตแผดฯ€ฮฟฮนฮผฮน·

ฯ€ฯแฝธฯ‚ ฮณแฝฐฯ ฯ„แฟท ฮฝฮตฮผฮตฯƒฮทฯ„แฟท ฮบฮฑแฝถ แผ€ฮณฮตฮฝฮฝแฝณฯ‚, ฮถแฟถฮฝฯ„ฮฑ ฮผแฝฒฮฝ ฯ„ฮนฮผแพถฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ€ฮฟฮนฮตแฟ–ฯƒฮธฮฑฮน ฯ€ฮฟฮปแฝทฯ„ฮทฮฝ,

ฯ€ฮตฯƒแฝนฮฝฯ„ฮฟฯ‚ ฮด' แฝ‘ฯ†' แผ‘ฯ„แฝณฯฮฟฯ… ฮผแฝด ฯ†แฝณฯฮตฮนฮฝ ฯ„แฝดฮฝ ฯ‡ฮฑฯแฝฐฮฝ ฮผฮตฯ„ฯแฝทฯ‰ฯ‚, แผ€ฮปฮป' แผฯ€ฮนฯƒฮบฮนฯฯ„แพถฮฝ ฯ„แฟท

ฮฝฮตฮบฯแฟท ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ€ฮฑฮนฯ‰ฮฝแฝทฮถฮตฮนฮฝ, แฝฅฯƒฯ€ฮตฯ ฮฑแฝฯ„ฮฟแฝบฯ‚ แผ€ฮฝฮดฯฮฑฮณฮฑฮธแฝตฯƒฮฑฮฝฯ„ฮฑฯ‚.

6 Cf. Demosthenes 7; Cicero 5.

7 Cf. Demosthenes 22. 5.

8 is same play is cited in the Life of Phocion (1.5), though it is in order to reject the idea

contained in the verses cited.

9 e same thing happens for the same reason in the Lives of Alexander and Caesar.

At once, then, the Athenians proceeded to make thank-oerings for glad

tidings and voted a crown for Pausanias. And Demosthenes came forth in

public dressed in a splendid robe and wearing a garland on his head, although

his daughter had died only six days before, as Aeschines says, who rails at him

for this and denounces him as an unnatural father. (…) For my own part, I

cannot say that it was honourable in the Athenians to crown themselves with

garlands and oer sacrices to the gods on the death of a king who, in the midst

of his successes, had treated them so mildly and humanely in their reverses; for

besides provoking the indignation of the gods, it was also an ignoble thing to

honour him while he was alive and make him a citizen of Athens, but when he

had fallen by another's hand to set no bounds to their joy, nay, to leap, as it were,

upon the dead, and sing paeans of victory, as if they themselves had wrought a

deed of valour.10

In Plutarch's view, Philip had the renement and the nobility to deal

with the defeated with humanity (ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฑฮฝฮธฯแฝฝฯ€ฯ‰ฯ‚), while, on the contrary, the

Athenians did not react in the same way once they had learned of his death.

Yet, since death is the inexorable destiny of all men, it is the moment which

most calls for a sentiment of moderation and of respect, exposing to divine

ฮฝแฝณฮผฮตฯƒฮนฯ‚ those who neglect it. is lesson was already to be found in Homer11 ,

but the problem is, as we know, central in Sophocles's Antigone.

Let us move on to the references to the tragedy. e rst one is found in

the Life of Demosthenes, inserted into the description of the circumstances of

his death. e whole episode is narrated in a way that accentuates the dramatic

and even theatrical side of the last moments of his life. Indeed, the orator

is presented to us as the protagonist of a miniature play whose secondary

characters are completely erased before the force of the principal. Only he

has the right to speak in direct discourse, while the author controls, through

narration, the cues of the other participants. is little drama even contains

irony – typical of Sophoclean tragedy – which is apparent whether in the

words of the protagonist, or, mainly, in the reaction of the Macedonian soldiers

who, in their ignorance and impiety, laugh at what they consider to be the fear

and the cowardliness of their enemy. Let us look at the episode.

In order to avoid the cruelty of the Macedonian Antipater and a humiliating

death at the hands of his opponents, Demosthenes had taken refuge as a

suppliant in the Temple of Poseidon on Calauria. A leader of the Macedonian

soldiers, by the name of Archias, known as ฯ†ฯ…ฮณฮฑฮดฮฟฮธแฝตฯฮฑฯ‚ (28. 3) and of whom

it was said that he had been an actor of tragedies and teacher of the famous

actor Polus, was sent by Antipater to capture him. He tried to persuade the

orator to leave the temple, addressing him with aability (ฯ†ฮนฮปแฝฑฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€ฮฑ) and

promising reconciliation with Antipater. Plutarch tells us that Demosthenes,

10 English translations are adapted from the Loeb edition of Plutarch's Lives.

11 In the Odyssey (22. 412) Odysseus censures Eurycleia when she wants to let loose a

shout of exaltation at the death of the suitors, saying: ฮฟแฝฯ‡ แฝฯƒแฝทฮท ฮบฯ„ฮฑฮผแฝณฮฝฮฟฮนฯƒฮนฮฝ แผฯ€' แผ€ฮฝฮดฯแฝฑฯƒฮนฮฝ

ฮตแฝฯ‡ฮตฯ„แฝฑฮฑฯƒฮธฮฑฮน.

337

Tragedy and Philanthropia in the Lives of Demosthenes and Cicero

on the night before, had had a dream in which he had competed for a prize

against Archias in a theatrical performance12 . e result had not favored the

orator because, in spite of captivating the audience, he was beaten due to the

poverty of the props and the quality of the set. And because of this he rejects

the promises of reconciliation with the Macedonian general with these words

(29. 3):

แฝฆ แผˆฯฯ‡แฝทฮฑ, ฮฟแฝ”ฮธ' แฝ‘ฯ€ฮฟฮบฯฮนฮฝแฝนฮผฮตฮฝแฝนฯ‚ ฮผฮต ฯ€แฝฝฯ€ฮฟฯ„' แผ”ฯ€ฮตฮนฯƒฮฑฯ‚, ฮฟแฝ”ฯ„ฮต ฮฝแฟฆฮฝ ฯ€ฮตแฝทฯƒฮตฮนฯ‚

แผฯ€ฮฑฮณฮณฮตฮปฮปแฝนฮผฮตฮฝฮฟฯ‚.

"O Archias, you did never convince me by your acting, nor will you now

convince me by your promises."

Demosthenes unmasks the philanthropia exhibited by his pursuer because

it bets neither the situation nor the character of the personage: the truth

is that, on the one hand, the moment demanded real feeling, as apposed to

contrived feeling, and, on the other, the mask of philanthropia did not match

the cruel ethos of Archias13 . When Archias, however, reverts to his true

character and begins to threaten him, Demosthenes then decides to take up

the theatrical game. Now it is he himself who takes on the role of the actor:

making it seem that he is writing a letter to his friends, he instead actually

swallows the poison that he had hidden in the calamus and remains sitting,

his head covered, exactly like a character out of an Aeschylian tragedy. e

scene stands out through the detail given by the narration of the movements

of Demosthenes, and the way they are described is strengthened by the use

of the aorist tense, which emphasizes the sequence of actions (29.4). Seeing

him like this, the soldiers call him weak and cowardly, and Archias tries to

persuade him once again, to which Demosthenes, already feeling the eects of

the poison responds, looking at him (แผ€ฯ€ฮฟฮฒฮปแฝณฯˆฮฑฯ‚ )14 :

ฮฟแฝฮบ แผ‚ฮฝ ฯ†ฮธแฝฑฮฝฮฟฮนฯ‚ แผคฮดฮท ฯ„แฝธฮฝ แผฮบ ฯ„แฟ†ฯ‚ ฯ„ฯฮฑฮณแฟณฮดแฝทฮฑฯ‚ แฝ‘ฯ€ฮฟฮบฯฮนฮฝแฝนฮผฮตฮฝฮฟฯ‚ ฮšฯแฝณฮฟฮฝฯ„ฮฑ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ„แฝธ

ฯƒแฟถฮผฮฑ ฯ„ฮฟฯ…ฯ„แฝถ แฟฅแฝทฯ€ฯ„ฯ‰ฮฝ แผ„ฯ„ฮฑฯ†ฮฟฮฝ.

"You cannot be too soon now," he said, "in playing the part of Creon in the

tragedy and casting this body out without burial."

If previously it was hypocrisy that he had denounced, now it is the

sacrilegious character of Archias's attitude that the orator prefers to underline,

evoking the gure of Creon who, in Antigone, prohibits the burial of Polynices

12 e dream is also a recurrent motif in some tragedies which, as in this scene, inuences the

actions of the dramatis personae. About the dreams in Plutarch, see F. E. B, 1975.

13 e situation recalls the episode in Oedipus at Colonus in which Creon hides his intention

to take Oedipus against his will to ebes by using words of apparent friendship and compassion.

Like Oedipus, the blind man whose logoi possess the capacity to see everything, Demosthenes,

trained in the art of words, easily picks apart such falsity.

14 e scene is full of dramatic clues like this one.

and condemns the young daughter of Oedipus for disobeying his decree. With

this example Demosthenes censures Archias and, by extension, Antipater and

the whole Macedonian cause, for having chosen, in the theatre of life, to play

the role of Creon, the powerful character, insensible to another's suering and

incapable of dealing in a dignied manner with a fellow human being, even

when he is dead, all of which adds up to an act of oence to the gods themselves.

In a certain way, is also the gure of Antigone that arises here, adding to the

tragedy of the moment. In fact, Demosthenes demonstrates the same capacity

for self-determination and a sense of courage equal to the tragic heroine, by

escaping, through his own devices, the humiliation of a dishonorable and cruel

death. is attitude will be praised by the biographer in the synkrisis with

which the telling of these Parallel Lives concludes.

e tragic framing of this episode seems, then, to have been inspired by

what Plutarch knew about the reaction of Demosthenes himself. Knowing

Archias's theatrical heritage, from that he takes the ironical opportunity to

accuse him of hypocrisy and inhumanity – the exact antithesis of philanthropia .

But there is no doubt that Plutarch, taking advantage of the parallelism with

the Sophoclean play suggested by the orator, develops and exploits it, creating

a scenic context of great dramatic force.

e other episode that I refer to above occurs in the synkrisis as a way for

Plutarch to recall the action of Cicero as a statesman and the way in which he

exercised power. is is what he says (52. 2-3):

แฝƒ ฮดแฝฒ ฮดฮฟฮบฮตแฟ– ฮผแฝฑฮปฮนฯƒฯ„ฮฑ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮปแฝณฮณฮตฯ„ฮฑฮน ฯ„ฯแฝนฯ€ฮฟฮฝ แผ€ฮฝฮดฯแฝธฯ‚ แผฯ€ฮนฮดฮตฮนฮบฮฝแฝปฮฝฮฑฮน ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮฒฮฑฯƒฮฑฮฝแฝทฮถฮตฮนฮฝ,

แผฮพฮฟฯ…ฯƒแฝทฮฑ ฮบฮฑแฝถ แผ€ฯฯ‡แฝด ฯ€แพถฮฝ ฯ€แฝฑฮธฮฟฯ‚ ฮบฮนฮฝฮฟแฟฆฯƒฮฑ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ€แพถฯƒฮฑฮฝ แผ€ฯ€ฮฟฮบฮฑฮปแฝปฯ€ฯ„ฮฟฯ…ฯƒฮฑ ฮบฮฑฮบแฝทฮฑฮฝ,

ฮ”ฮทฮผฮฟฯƒฮธแฝณฮฝฮตฮน ฮผแฝฒฮฝ ฮฟแฝฯ‡ แฝ‘ฯ€แฟ†ฯฮพฮตฮฝ … ฮšฮนฮบแฝณฯฯ‰ฮฝ ฮดแฝฒ ฯ„ฮฑฮผแฝทฮฑฯ‚ ฮตแผฐฯ‚ ฮฃฮนฮบฮตฮปแฝทฮฑฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ แผ€ฮฝฮธแฝปฯ€ฮฑฯ„ฮฟฯ‚

ฮตแผฐฯ‚ ฮšฮนฮปฮนฮบแฝทฮฑฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮšฮฑฯ€ฯ€ฮฑฮดฮฟฮบแฝทฮฑฮฝ แผ€ฯ€ฮฟฯƒฯ„ฮฑฮปฮตแฝทฯ‚, … ฯ€ฮฟฮปฮปแฝดฮฝ ฮผแฝฒฮฝ แผฯ€แฝทฮดฮตฮนฮพฮนฮฝ แฝ‘ฯ€ฮตฯฮฟฯˆแฝทฮฑฯ‚

ฯ‡ฯฮทฮผแฝฑฯ„ฯ‰ฮฝ แผฯ€ฮฟฮนแฝตฯƒฮฑฯ„ฮฟ, ฯ€ฮฟฮปฮปแฝดฮฝ ฮดแฝฒ ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฑฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€แฝทฮฑฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ‡ฯฮทฯƒฯ„แฝนฯ„ฮทฯ„ฮฟฯ‚.

But what is thought and said most of all to reveal and test the character of a

man, namely power and authority, which rouses every passion and uncovers

every baseness, this Demosthenes did not have … whereas Cicero was sent

out as quaestor to Sicily, and as pro-consul to Cilicia and Cappadocia … and

gave many proofs of his contempt for wealth, and many of his humanity and

goodness.

is is not, of course, a direct reference to the Sophoclean play. Rather we

should note that it was a traditional thought attributed variously to some of the

Seven Sages15 . We may argue that it was perhaps this proverbial wisdom that

Plutarch had in mind, as the verbal forms ฮดฮฟฮบฮตแฟ– and ฮปแฝณฮณฮตฯ„ฮฑฮน seem to indicate.

But the idea that only the exercise of power completely reveals the character of

a man is not echoed simply as a short maxim but developed into an extension

15 Diogenes Laertius (1. 77), for example, attributes the maxim power shows a man ( แผ€ฯฯ‡แฝด

แผ„ฮฝฮดฯฮฑ ฮดฮตแฝทฮพฮตฮน) to Pittacus.

339

Tragedy and Philanthropia in the Lives of Demosthenes and Cicero

that recalls Antigone 175-177. From the reader's point of view and given the

previous reference to the tragedy, this is a logical association. In that play the

thought is expressed by Creon, a situation that constitutes one of the ironies

of the tragedy, since that is the opinion voiced through the character himself

to whom that idea justly applies16 . But, taken up at the end of the narration,

these words show us the kind of morality that can be extracted from the Lives

of Demosthenes and of Cicero as they touch upon the practice of politics: the

action of governing requires an exemplariness of character which is reected

in the absence of greed, in honesty and in philanthropia. Indeed, it is in his

capacity to treat the other, the weaker one, with compassion and benevolence

that the ethos of a powerful man truly manifest itself, or rather, that his humanity

emerges freeing itself in this way from the bestiality that would animalize him.

Bestiality is precisely the attitude that the biographer denounces in another

passage, when he refers to the agreement between Octavius Augustus, Mark

Antony and Lepidus that resulted in the death of Cicero. Plutarch's words

(46.6) are well aimed and remind us of certain of ucydides's words with

respect to the excesses committed during the Peloponnesian War:

ฮŸแฝ•ฯ„ฯ‰ฯ‚ แผฮพแฝณฯ€ฮตฯƒฮฟฮฝ แฝ‘ฯ€แฝธ ฮธฯ…ฮผฮฟแฟฆ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮปแฝปฯƒฯƒฮทฯ‚ ฯ„แฟถฮฝ แผ€ฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€แฝทฮฝฯ‰ฮฝ ฮปฮฟฮณฮนฯƒฮผแฟถฮฝ, ฮผแพถฮปฮปฮฟฮฝ

ฮด' แผ€ฯ€แฝณฮดฮตฮนฮพฮฑฮฝ แฝกฯ‚ ฮฟแฝฮดแฝฒฮฝ แผ€ฮฝฮธฯแฝฝฯ€ฮฟฯ… ฮธฮทฯแฝทฮฟฮฝ แผฯƒฯ„แฝถฮฝ แผ€ฮณฯฮนแฝฝฯ„ฮตฯฮฟฮฝ แผฮพฮฟฯ…ฯƒแฝทฮฑฮฝ ฯ€แฝฑฮธฮตฮน

ฯ€ฯฮฟฯƒฮปฮฑฮฒแฝนฮฝฯ„ฮฟฯ‚.

So far did anger and fury lead them to renounce their human sentiments,

or rather, they showed that no wild beast is more savage than man when his

passion is supplemented by power.

Philanthropia is, then, the complete antithesis of this: it is a rational

attitude that dominates unbridled and selsh passion, the ideal attitude of one

who governs, whose power does not manifest itself in the humiliation of the

weak, but in benevolence and clemency which are the signs of the nobility of

the soul.

But philanthropia is also a sense of compassion and of sympatheia based

on the recognition of a common destiny that aects all men. at is perhaps

why, at the end of the synkrisis, Plutarch appeals to the reader's humanity by

taking up the description of the death of Cicero in summary form. In fact,

this is hardly a dignied moment for evaluating the ethos of the orator. If

in certain traces of his personality, namely those which have to do with the

love of wealth, Cicero showed himself to be nobler than Demosthenes, his

end contrasts decisively with the dignity that Demosthenes showed before

inevitable death. Plutarch summarizes in brief but signicant and no less

dramatic brush strokes the sequence of events that led to the assassination of

Cicero in a context whose tragic tone derives less from the grandeur of the

personage than from the weakness of his character, as he ends of suering

16 Plutarch knows well this characteristic of Sophocles tragic style, to which he refers in De

audiendis poetis 27f.

340

Marta Vรกrzeas

a dishonorable death after various attempts at escape. is image of an old

man who desperately tries to escape death, without the courage to accept and

confront it is the image of the sum of human misery for which, as in tragedy,

Plutarch proposes the best possible response – that of compassion (ฮฟแผฐฮบฯ„แฝทฯƒฮฑฮน ),

which is, in the end, the basis of philanthropia .

W o r k s c i T e d :

B, J. L., "A formaรงรฃo do leitor em Plutarco: poesia, losoa e educaรงรฃo

em De audiendis poetis", in J. R. F (ed.), Actas do Congresso

Plutarco Educador da Europa, Porto, 2002, pp. 197-211.

B, F. E ., "e Dreams in Plutarch's Lives", Latomus, 34.2 (1975) 336-

49.

C, P., "I poeti tragici maestri di virtรน nelle opere di Plutarco", in J.

R. F  . (eds.), Philosophy in society: Virtues and Values in

Plutarch, Leuven-Coimbra, 2008, pp. 65-74.

F, J. R., "La douce caresse de la philanthropia", in J. R. F 

. (eds.), Philosophy in society: Virtues and Values in Plutarch, Leuven-

Coimbra, 2008, pp.99-105.

L, P. de, "Biography and Tragedy in Plutarch", AJPH, 73 (1952) 159-72.

M J., H. M., "e concept of Praotes in Plutarch's Lives", GRBS, 3

(1960) 65-73.

_____ "e Concept of Philanthropia in Plutarch's Lives", AJPh, 82 (1961)

164-75.

M, J. M., "Tragedy and Epic in Plutarch's Alexander", JHS, 108 (1988)

81-93.

R, J. de, La douceur dans la pensรฉe grecque, Paris, 1979.

S, P. , "Alexandre educador ou o impรฉrio da nitude", in J. R. Ferreira

(ed.), Actas do Congresso Plutarco Educador da Europa, Porto, 2002, pp.

93-102.

T, S  T. , "Four Terms of Friendly Emotion in Plutarch:

ฮฆฮนฮปฮฑฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€แฝทฮฑ, ฯ†ฮนฮปแฝทฮฑ , แผ”ฯฯ‰ฯ‚ , ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฟฯƒฯ„ฮฟฯฮณแฝทฮฑ", in J. M. N I  R.

L L (eds.), El Amor en Plutarco. Actas del IX Simposio espaรฑol

sobre Plutarco (28-30 Septiembre, 2006) Leรณn, 2007, pp. 187-97.

341

Amistad, Filantropรญa y Eros en la Paideia Plutarquea: la Vida de Catรณn el Viejo

am i s T a d , f i l a n T r o p รญ a y e r o S e n l a p a i D e i a p l u T a r q u e a :

l a vi D a D e ca T รณ n e l vi e j o 1

V M. R P

Universidad de Zaragoza

Abstract

e present contribution reviews some ethical and emotional criteria that underlie the Life

of Cato the Elder in order to determine the real meaning of the Plutarchan paideia . In that

sense, Plutarch shows that friendship, philanthropy and eros constitute (in praesentia aut in

absentia) a proper manner to describe Cato's personality and education, which must improve as

he becomes increasingly familiar with the above-mentioned Greek concepts. Finally, Plutarch

seems to maintain that the right use of these concepts has an eect on both the moral and the

political education of the statesman.

En el estado actual de la investigaciรณn plutarquea, podemos desprender

ciertas observaciones sobre el programa educativo del biรณgrafo. Efectivamente,

Plutarco presenta el inventario de categorรญas รฉticas al servicio de una

planicaciรณn didรกctica, de una paideia polรญtico-moral que revierta en benecio

del lector cuya instrucciรณn integral se pretende. Al respecto, Plutarco traza un

diseรฑo de morfologรญa retรณrica que, por expresarlo con tรฉrminos acuรฑados en

corrientes de hermenรฉutica literaria, se articula en torno a un triple eje: emisor,

mensaje y receptor. De este modo, el emisor (es decir, el biรณgrafo como autor)

exhibe una retรณrica moral o retรณrica de la virtud – expresado en palabras del

profesor Stadter – fomentada en el bagaje retรณrico-escolar del propio Plutarco2 ;

el mensaje (o sea, el personaje concretamente implicado) es sometido a una

moralizaciรณn literaria merced a la caracterizaciรณn que el hรฉroe biograado

experimenta con la educaciรณn recibida, con sus acciones y con el ejercicio de

la palabra; por รบltimo, el receptor (el lector destinatario de la obra) aprehende

el legado de una paideia ecaz, la cual contribuirรก a sellar la personalidad

de un ciudadano – futuro mandatario acaso – capaz, discretamente crรญtico y

cรณmodamente integrado en el sistema polรญtico.

A decir verdad, como ha explicado inteligentemente P. Stadter, el biรณgrafo

expone sus posiciones รฉtico-polรญticas ante un pรบblico de relaciones con el

poder frecuentemente estrechas3 : este factor y la comprometida situaciรณn

vivida en รฉpoca de Domiciano reclamaban, con Trajano, unos modos pรบblicos

de mesura, la prudencia del posibilismo histรณrico, un equilibrio en el fondo

y en la forma de hacer polรญtica. El caso es que los nuevos tiempos exigรญan

nuevas soluciones; y Plutarco, vocacionalmente adepto al platonismo medio,

propuso con sagacidad categorรญas doctrinales que conciliaran su adscripciรณn

losรณca y el pragmatismo recabado de la nueva polรญtica. Ello explica, a la

1 El presente artรญculo se ha beneciado del Proyecto HUM 2007-64772, nanciado por la

DGI espaรฑola.

2 P. A. S, 2000.

3 P. A. S, 2000, pp. 493-4.

342

Vicente M. Ramรณn Palerm

postre, que el biรณgrafo sugiera para el gobernante cabal las virtudes cardinales

de la แผ€ฮฝฮดฯฮตฮฏฮฑ, la ฯ†ฯฯŒฮฝฮทฯƒฮนฯ‚, la ฯƒฯ‰ฯ†ฯฮฟฯƒฯฮฝฮท y la ฮดฮนฮบฮฑฮนฮฟฯƒฯฮฝฮท, es decir el valor,

la sensatez, la prudencia y la justicia, criterios morales que ha estudiado

modรฉlicamente la profesora F. Frazier4 ; y explica tambiรฉn que estas virtudes

presenten su correlato en maneras suaves y atemperadas como la ฯ€ฯแพณฯŒฯ„ฮทฯ‚, la

ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฑฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€ฮฏฮฑ y la แผฯ€ฮนฮตฮฏฮบฮตฮนฮฑ, o sea la delicadeza, la lantropรญa humanitaria y la

generosidad prรกctica. En suma, he aquรญ la adecuaciรณn de la forma y el fondo en

las virtudes de los hรฉroes biograados, un principio axiomรกtico que conforma

la educaciรณn del buen estadista en la arquitectura de la paideia plutarquea y, de

paso, prescribe el ennoblecimiento รฉtico-polรญtico para el lector amigo5 .

Por mi parte, no insistirรฉ aquรญ en el papel, capital sin duda, que Plutarco

conere al sistema educativo en la promociรณn correcta del individuo6 . Quiero

decir que no procede demorarme en esas virtudes de fondo, por lo demรกs bien

reseรฑadas, que singularizan (in praesentia o in absentia) la instrucciรณn y condiciรณn

moral del mandatario correspondiente. Sin embargo, es momento de atenerme

a algunas de las virtudes formales que, bien imbricadas, deben complementar

y acompasar a las cardinales en la trayectoria de una personalidad denida

y paradigmรกtica, como emulaciรณn moral para las nuevas generaciones de

polรญticos. Permรญtaseme que lo exprese de este modo: si la educaciรณn acadรฉmica

y convencional se mueve en tres niveles operativos que, como queda dicho,

afectan al emisor-autor, al mensaje-personaje y al receptor-lector, nos las vemos

ahora con una educaciรณn sentimental y concerniente asimismo a los tres niveles

citados. Dicho en tรฉrminos modernos, la inteligencia emocional que tambiรฉn

deende Plutarco constituye una declaraciรณn programรกtica y persuasiva que

dene al autor, caracteriza al personaje y alecciona al lector sobre las bondades

de la misma en un doble sentido: como valor intrรญnsecamente รฉtico y como

instrumento de seducciรณn para el arte de la polรญtica. Por lo demรกs, estรก escrito

que, a juicio de Plutarco, el estadista de envergadura debe serlo, sรญ, y debe

parecerlo en el entramado de sus relaciones sociales o afectivas7 .

Pues bien, con el propรณsito de ilustrar el tema que nos ocupa, me ha

parecido conveniente traer a colaciรณn la gura de M. Catรณn, cuya vida traza

Plutarco en una combinaciรณn translรบcida y sutil de aspectos positivos y

negativos sobre la prosopografรญa del hรฉroe romano. Y es que, dada la tรฉcnica

compositiva que observamos, esta biografรญa merece una ponderaciรณn exquisita

en el quehacer literario de Plutarco8 . En efecto, una panorรกmica sobre la

estructura de la biografรญa revela incidencias de interรฉs, ya que la consideraciรณn

de las categorรญas รฉtico-emocionales en que nos hemos detenido (la amistad,

la lantropรญa, el eros) perlan con maestrรญa la semblanza de Catรณn y destilan

4 F. F, 1996, pp. 177 sqq.

5 T. D, 2007/2008, deende una lectura de las Vidas en clave losรณco-moral.

6 Cf. algunos trabajos recientes y signicativos sobre la cuestiรณn: A. P J, 2002;

T. D , 2005; S.-T. T, 2005.

7 Cf. A. P J, 2002.

8 M. B, 2000, p. 20 (y n. 28), indica sin ambages: "e life of the elder Cato certainly

ranks as one of Plutarch's best".

343

Amistad, Filantropรญa y Eros en la Paideia Plutarquea: la Vida de Catรณn el Viejo

las admoniciones pertinentes para las enseรฑanzas polรญtico-morales del lector.

Se da la circunstancia aรฑadida de que las observaciones sobre la educaciรณn

sentimental y la ductilidad de las maneras personales en Catรณn se adecuan

perfectamente a los pormenores de su educaciรณn convencional. Veรกmoslo con

un ejemplo singular: una tรณnica del relato plutarqueo consiste en deslizar la

interpretaciรณn de que Catรณn (cuya fama era proverbial en la conciencia colectiva

del hombre romano) limรณ las asperezas de su educaciรณn gracias a los contactos

que experimentรณ con el mundo y las letras de Grecia. Sobre el particular, resulta

atractivo el pasaje en que Plutarco reere el cambio de orientaciรณn intelectual

– en un proceso de mรญmesis – que observa nuestro personaje tras su encuentro

con el pitagรณrico Nearco (2, 3-6): "En la รฉpoca en que Fabio Mรกximo tomรณ la

ciudad de Tarento, Catรณn, aรบn muy joven, se hallaba en la campaรฑa bajo sus

รณrdenes. Allรญ trabรณ amistad con un tal Nearco, extranjero de la escuela de los

pitagรณricos, y se apresurรณ a participar de sus enseรฑanzas. Una vez que escuchรณ

a este hombre pronunciarse sobre los temas que ha tratado tambiรฉn Platรณn,

quien calica el placer como el mayor seรฑuelo del mal y el cuerpo como la

primera desgracia del alma, cuya liberaciรณn y puricaciรณn se logran mediante

la reexiรณn, que es lo que mรกs la aleja y la disocia de las sensaciones del cuerpo,

sintiรณ aรบn mรกs la inclinaciรณn por la austeridad y la continencia. Por lo demรกs,

se dice que comenzรณ demasiado tarde a instruirse en la cultura griega, que su

edad era ya muy avanzada cuando cogiรณ entre sus manos libros en griego y

que para el ejercicio de la retรณrica sacรณ algo de provecho de Tucรญdides, y mรกs

de Demรณstenes. No obstante, su prosa estรก bastante salpicada de proverbios e

historias de los griegos, y en sus mรกximas y sentencias hay muchas traducciones

literales del griego"9 . Como puede vericarse, este fragmento es de escogida

importancia: Catรณn, que hallรณ en las enseรฑanzas de Nearco ese espejo modรฉlico

para su cรณdigo รฉtico, puliรณ las imperfecciones de su instrucciรณn cultural – ya en

edad provecta – merced tambiรฉn a las letras griegas10 . A tenor de lo antedicho,

Plutarco contrapone virtudes y defectos en la instrucciรณn cultural de Catรณn; y

9 ฮฆฮฑฮฒฮฏฮฟฯ… ฮดแฝฒ ฮœฮฑฮพฮฏฮผฮฟฯ… ฯ„แฝดฮฝ ฮคฮฑฯฮฑฮฝฯ„ฮฏฮฝฯ‰ฮฝ ฯ€ฯŒฮปฮนฮฝ แผ‘ฮปฯŒฮฝฯ„ฮฟฯ‚ แผ”ฯ„ฯ…ฯ‡ฮต ฮผแฝฒฮฝ แฝ ฮšฮฌฯ„ฯ‰ฮฝ ฯƒฯ„ฯฮฑฯ„ฮตฯ…ฯŒฮผฮตฮฝฮฟฯ‚

แฝ‘ฯ€᾽ ฮฑแฝฯ„แฟท ฮบฮฟฮผฮนฮดแฟ‡ ฮผฮตฮนฯฮฌฮบฮนฮฟฮฝ แฝคฮฝ, ฮฮตฮฌฯฯ‡แฟณ ฮดฮญ ฯ„ฮนฮฝฮน ฯ„แฟถฮฝ ฮ ฯ…ฮธฮฑฮณฮฟฯฮนฮบแฟถฮฝ ฮพฮญฮฝแฟณ ฯ‡ฯฮทฯƒฮฌฮผฮตฮฝฮฟฯ‚

แผฯƒฯ€ฮฟฯฮดฮฑฯƒฮต ฯ„แฟถฮฝ ฮปฯŒฮณฯ‰ฮฝ ฮผฮตฯ„ฮฑฮปฮฑฮฒฮตแฟ–ฮฝ. แผˆฮบฮฟฯฯƒฮฑฯ‚ ฮดแฝฒ ฯ„ฮฑแฟฆฯ„ฮฑ ฮดฮนฮฑฮปฮตฮณฮฟฮผฮญฮฝฮฟฯ… ฯ„ฮฟแฟฆ แผ€ฮฝฮดฯฯŒฯ‚, ฮฟแผทฯ‚ ฮบฮญฯ‡ฯฮทฯ„ฮฑฮน

ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮ ฮปฮฌฯ„ฯ‰ฮฝ, ฯ„แฝดฮฝ ฮผแฝฒฮฝ แผกฮดฮฟฮฝแฝดฮฝ แผ€ฯ€ฮฟฮบฮฑฮปแฟถฮฝ ฮผฮญฮณฮนฯƒฯ„ฮฟฮฝ ฮบฮฑฮบฮฟแฟฆ ฮดฮญฮปฮตฮฑฯ, ฯƒฯ…ฮผฯ†ฮฟฯแฝฐฮฝ ฮดแฝฒ ฯ„แฟ‡ ฯˆฯ…ฯ‡แฟ‡ ฯ„แฝธ

ฯƒแฟถฮผฮฑ ฯ€ฯฯŽฯ„ฮทฮฝ, ฮปฯฯƒฮนฮฝ ฮดแฝฒ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮบฮฑฮธฮฑฯฮผแฝธฮฝ ฮฟแผทฯ‚ ฮผฮฌฮปฮนฯƒฯ„ฮฑ ฯ‡ฯ‰ฯฮฏฮถฮตฮน ฮบฮฑแฝถ แผ€ฯ†ฮฏฯƒฯ„ฮทฯƒฮนฮฝ ฮฑแฝ‘ฯ„แฝดฮฝ ฯ„แฟถฮฝ ฯ€ฮตฯแฝถ ฯ„แฝธ

ฯƒแฟถฮผฮฑ ฯ€ฮฑฮธฮทฮผฮฌฯ„ฯ‰ฮฝ ฮปฮฟฮณฮนฯƒฮผฮฟแฟ–ฯ‚ แผ”ฯ„ฮน ฮผแพถฮปฮปฮฟฮฝ แผ ฮณฮฌฯ€ฮทฯƒฮต ฯ„แฝธ ฮปฮนฯ„แฝธฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ„แฝดฮฝ แผฮณฮบฯฮฌฯ„ฮตฮนฮฑฮฝ. แผŒฮปฮปฯ‰ฯ‚ ฮดแฝฒ

ฯ€ฮฑฮนฮดฮตฮฏฮฑฯ‚ แผ™ฮปฮปฮทฮฝฮนฮบแฟ†ฯ‚ แฝ€ฯˆฮนฮผฮฑฮธแฝดฯ‚ ฮณฮตฮฝฮญฯƒฮธฮฑฮน ฮปฮญฮณฮตฯ„ฮฑฮน ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ€ฯŒฯฯฯ‰ ฯ€ฮฑฮฝฯ„ฮฌฯ€ฮฑฯƒฮนฮฝ แผกฮปฮนฮบฮฏฮฑฯ‚ แผฮปฮทฮปฮฑฮบแฝผฯ‚

แผ™ฮปฮปฮทฮฝฮนฮบแฝฐ ฮฒฮนฮฒฮปฮฏฮฑ ฮปฮฑฮฒแฝผฮฝ ฮตแผฐฯ‚ ฯ‡ฮตแฟ–ฯฮฑฯ‚ ฮฒฯฮฑฯ‡ฮญฮฑ ฮผแฝฒฮฝ แผ€ฯ€แฝธ ฮ˜ฮฟฯ…ฮบฯ…ฮดฮฏฮดฮฟฯ…, ฯ€ฮปฮตฮฏฮฟฮฝฮฑ ฮด᾽ แผ€ฯ€แฝธ ฮ”ฮทฮผฮฟฯƒฮธฮญฮฝฮฟฯ…ฯ‚

ฮตแผฐฯ‚ ฯ„แฝธ แฟฅฮทฯ„ฮฟฯฮนฮบแฝธฮฝ แฝ ฯ†ฮตฮปฮทฮธแฟ†ฮฝฮฑฮน. ฮคแฝฐ ฮผฮญฮฝฯ„ฮฟฮน ฯƒฯ…ฮณฮณฯฮฌฮผฮผฮฑฯ„ฮฑ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮดฯŒฮณฮผฮฑฯƒฮนฮฝ แผ™ฮปฮปฮทฮฝฮนฮบฮฟแฟ–ฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ แผฑฯƒฯ„ฮฟฯฮฏฮฑฮนฯ‚

แผฯ€ฮนฮตฮนฮบแฟถฯ‚ ฮดฮนฮฑฯ€ฮตฯ€ฮฟฮฏฮบฮนฮปฯ„ฮฑฮน· ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮผฮตฮธฮทฯฮผฮทฮฝฮตฯ…ฮผฮญฮฝฮฑ ฯ€ฮฟฮปฮปแฝฐ ฮบฮฑฯ„แฝฐ ฮปฮญฮพฮนฮฝ แผฮฝ ฯ„ฮฑแฟ–ฯ‚ ฮณฮฝฯ‰ฮผฮฟฮปฮฟฮณฮฏฮฑฮนฯ‚

ฯ„ฮญฯ„ฮฑฮบฯ„ฮฑฮน. La traducciรณn espaรฑola de los pasajes oportunos procede de L. C, 2003. El texto

griego proviene de R. F  E. C, Plutarque. Vies, V, Paris, 1969.

10 Cf. M. B, 2000, p. 24. Por lo demรกs, la aversiรณn por la cultura griega (que Plutarco

glosa en el capรญtulo 23) acompaรฑรณ a Catรณn durante buena parte de su vida; por ello, si bien se

mira, el pasaje citado redime parcialmente al personaje de su actitud. Para esta anotaciรณn y otras

implicaciones adicionales del fragmento referido, cf. V. R P, "Plutarco y la biografรญa

polรญtica en Grecia: aspectos de innovaciรณn en el gรฉnero", in AA.VV., La biografรญa como gรฉnero

literario: de la Antigรผedad al Renacimiento, Veleia (Anejos). (en prensa).

344

Vicente M. Ramรณn Palerm

la presencia del legado griego permite corregir ciertos deslices de la educaciรณn

convencional en el personaje. Pues bien, del mismo modo, Plutarco alterna

aspectos positivos y negativos en la educaciรณn sentimental de Catรณn; y dejarรก

entrever – con nitidez oscilante – que la adecuaciรณn del gobernante a esas

categorรญas formales, de seรฑalada impronta griega, contribuye a su perfecciรณn

รฉtica y al provecho de su actividad polรญtica. Asรญ ocurre, verbigracia, con los

pasajes en que Plutarco muestra (de manera explรญcita o implรญcita) las relaciones

que establece Catรณn con la amistad, la lantropรญa, el eros 11 . Y debo anticipar

que, en lรญneas generales, el resultado es como sigue: la amistad es divisa

fundamental y altamente positiva en el talante de Catรณn; en segundo lugar,

Catรณn parece escasamente proclive a una conducta lantrรณpica y, cuando

Plutarco menciona detalles al respecto, lo hace de una manera crรญticamente

reservada, negativa en puridad; en รบltima instancia, las actitudes erรณticas

presentan un curso cambiante en Catรณn y merecen el elogio cierto o la censura

severa, respectivamente, de Plutarco. A continuaciรณn, expongo los pasajes

representativos sobre las categorรญas correspondientes.

1. De la amistad

– 2, 3 (cf. supra): como ha sido observado, la amistad de Nearco proporciona

al joven Catรณn un contacto ennoblecedor en su trayectoria (ฮฮตฮฌฯฯ‡แฟณ ฮดฮญ ฯ„ฮนฮฝฮน

ฯ„แฟถฮฝ ฮ ฯ…ฮธฮฑฮณฮฟฯฮนฮบแฟถฮฝ ฮพฮญฮฝแฟณ ฯ‡ฯฮทฯƒฮฌฮผฮตฮฝฮฟฯ‚ แผฯƒฯ€ฮฟฯฮดฮฑฯƒฮต ฯ„แฟถฮฝ ฮปฯŒฮณฯ‰ฮฝ ฮผฮตฯ„ฮฑฮปฮฑฮฒฮตแฟ–ฮฝ).

Por aรฑadidura, no debemos soslayar la circunstancia de que el testimonio,

el cual transmite Cicerรณn (Sobre la vejez [4, 10; 12, 39]), puede responder a

un articio documental, ideado por Cicerรณn con intenciรณn propagandรญstica

y adaptado por Plutarco con un tono moralizante12 . Obviamente el tรฉrmino

implicado, ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฏฮฑ, no consta fehacientemente, pero el contenido amistoso

del pasaje resulta incontrovertible. Ademรกs, si admitimos que en Plutarco

menudea el denominado moralismo implรญcito – comรบn en el relato general

de las semblanzas – por oposiciรณn al moralismo explรญcito que sobresale en las

ฯƒฯ…ฮณฮบฯฮฏฯƒฮตฮนฯ‚13 , deberรก igualmente aceptarse la expresiรณn de virtudes formales

respectivamente implรญcitas o explรญcitas.

– 3, 1-4: "Habรญa un patricio, uno de los romanos mรกs inuyentes y

poderosos, de sorprendente capacidad para apreciar la virtud en el momento

11En general, sobre la tradiciรณn griega de las categorรญas que manejamos y la acepciรณn

genuina de las mismas en Plutarco, cf. S.-T. T, 2007. En todo caso, la utilizaciรณn de

los mencionados conceptos para nuestro trabajo debe entenderse lato sensu, razรณn por la que

hemos renunciado a la expresiรณn de los tรฉrminos en su versiรณn estrictamente griega.

12 Cf. J. M. G H, 2007, p. 68 n. 10. Por otra parte, debe subrayarse que el

testimonio sobre enemistad mรกs relevante en esta biografรญa es relativo a la gura de Escipiรณn

el Grande y diere de otras informaciones histรณrico-biogrรกcas. Escribe Plutarco (11, 1):

"Mientras Catรณn permanecรญa todavรญa en Hispania, Escipiรณn el Grande, que era su enemigo

(แผฯ‡ฮธฯฯŒฯ‚ ) y pretendรญa contrarrestar sus รฉxitos y asumir los asuntos de Hispania, consiguiรณ obtener

aquella provincia como sucesor suyo". Sin embargo, como documenta L. C, 2003, p. 108, n.

279), los datos que consignan Tito Livio (34, 43) y Nepote (Ca. 2, 2) discrepan del testimonio

plutarqueo; de hecho, niegan que Escipiรณn recibiera entonces la Hispania Citerior.

13 T. D, 2002, especialmente pp. 53 sqq.

345

Amistad, Filantropรญa y Eros en la Paideia Plutarquea: la Vida de Catรณn el Viejo

que brota y con buena disposiciรณn a alimentarla y encaminarla hacia la fama:

Valerio Flaco [...]; ...lo convenciรณ con sus consejos (i.e. a Catรณn) para que

se dedicara a la carrera polรญtica en Roma. Asรญ, pues, Catรณn se dirigiรณ allรญ y

enseguida se granjeรณ admiradores y amigos con sus discursos de defensa; y

mucha fue, ademรกs, la honra e inuencia que Valerio aรฑadiรณ a su persona. El

de tribuno militar fue el primer cargo que obtuvo, y mรกs tarde desempeรฑรณ el

de cuestor. A partir de entonces, gozando ya de luz propia y de popularidad,

hizo junto al propio Valerio la carrera hacia las mรกs altas magistraturas y llegรณ

a compartir con รฉl el consulado y, en otra ocasiรณn, la censura"14 .

– 10, 1: "Designado cรณnsul junto con Valerio Flaco, รญntimo amigo suyo,

recibiรณ la provincia que los romanos llaman Hispania Citerior. Allรญ, mientras

sometรญa a unos pueblos y se granjeaba la amistad de los otros con su diplomacia,

cayรณ sobre รฉl un gran ejรฉrcito de los bรกrbaros y corriรณ el riesgo de ser expulsado

deshonrosamente; por ello buscรณ atraerse la alianza con los vecinos celtรญberos"15 .

Como puede comprobarse, frente a lo que sucede frecuentemente en los

Moralia, los ejemplos en que la amistad comparece no adquieren ribetes de

moralizaciรณn explรญcita: son aquรญ aducidos para caracterizar implรญcitamente el

ethos del personaje y manifestar el rendimiento polรญtico que el ejercicio de la

amistad procura en quienes la cultivan.

2. De la lantropรญa

– 3, 7: "El caso es que Escipiรณn hizo ver en Roma los preparativos de la

guerra como anticipo de la victoria y se mostrรณ como alguien alegre durante el

tiempo libre que compartรญa con sus amigos, pero en modo alguno negligente

con los asuntos serios e importantes por llevar una vida muelle, con lo cual

pudo hacerse a la mar rumbo a la guerra"16 .

– 5, 5: "Y es que no se debe tratar a los seres animados como sandalias o

utensilios, que se tiran cuando estรกn rotos y desgastados por el uso, sino que

hay que proponerse ser afable y dulce con ellos, aunque sรณlo sea por el afรกn de

humanidad"17 .

14 แผฎฮฝ ฮดฮญ ฯ„ฮนฯ‚ แผ€ฮฝแฝดฯ ฮตแฝฯ€ฮฑฯ„ฯฮฏฮดฮทฯ‚ ฮผแฝฒฮฝ แผฮฝ ฯ„ฮฟแฟ–ฯ‚ ฮผฮฌฮปฮนฯƒฯ„ฮฑ ῾ฮกฯ‰ฮผฮฑฮฏฯ‰ฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮดฯ…ฮฝฮฑฯ„ฯŒฯ‚, แผ€ฯฮตฯ„แฝดฮฝ ฮดแฝฒ ฯ†ฯ…ฮฟฮผฮญฮฝฮทฮฝ

ฮผแฝฒฮฝ ฮฑแผฐฯƒฮธฮฌฮฝฮตฯƒฮธฮฑฮน ฮดฮตฮนฮฝฯŒฯ‚, ฮตแฝฮผฮตฮฝแฝดฯ‚ ฮดแฝฒ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮธฯฮญฯˆฮฑฮน ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ€ฯฮฟฮฑฮณฮฑฮณฮตแฟ–ฮฝ ฮตแผฐฯ‚ ฮดฯŒฮพฮฑฮฝ, ฮŸแฝฮฑฮปฮญฯฮนฮฟฯ‚ ฮฆฮปฮฌฮบฮบฮฟฯ‚

[…] …ฯ€ฯฮฟฮตฯ„ฯฮญฯˆฮฑฯ„ฮฟ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯƒฯ…ฮฝฮญฯ€ฮตฮนฯƒฮตฮฝ แผ…ฯˆฮฑฯƒฮธฮฑฮน ฯ„แฟ†ฯ‚ แผฮฝ ῾ฮกฯŽฮผแฟƒ ฯ€ฮฟฮปฮนฯ„ฮตฮฏฮฑฯ‚. ฮšฮฑฯ„ฮตฮปฮธแฝผฮฝ ฮฟแฝ–ฮฝ ฮตแฝฮธแฝบฯ‚

ฯ„ฮฟแฝบฯ‚ ฮผแฝฒฮฝ ฮฑแฝฯ„แฝธฯ‚ แผฮบฯ„แพถฯ„ฮฟ ฮธฮฑฯ…ฮผฮฑฯƒฯ„แฝฐฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ†ฮฏฮปฮฟฯ…ฯ‚ ฮดฮนแฝฐ ฯ„แฟถฮฝ ฯƒฯ…ฮฝฮทฮณฮฟฯฮนแฟถฮฝ, ฯ€ฮฟฮปฮปแฝดฮฝ ฮดแฝฒ ฯ„ฮฟแฟฆ ฮŸแฝฮฑฮปฮตฯฮฏฮฟฯ…

ฯ„ฮนฮผแฝดฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮดฯฮฝฮฑฮผฮนฮฝ ฮฑแฝฯ„แฟท ฯ€ฯฮฟฯƒฯ„ฮนฮธฮญฮฝฯ„ฮฟฯ‚ ฯ‡ฮนฮปฮนฮฑฯฯ‡ฮฏฮฑฯ‚ แผ”ฯ„ฯ…ฯ‡ฮต ฯ€ฯแฟถฯ„ฮฟฮฝ, ฮตแผถฯ„ฮฑ แผฯ„ฮฑฮผฮฏฮตฯ…ฯƒฮตฮฝ. แผ˜ฮบ ฯ„ฮฟฯฯ„ฮฟฯ…

ฮดแฝฒ ฮปฮฑฮผฯ€ฯแฝธฯ‚ แฝขฮฝ แผคฮดฮท ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ€ฮตฯฮนฯ†ฮฑฮฝแฝดฯ‚ ฮฑแฝฯ„แฟท ฯ„แฟท ฮŸแฝฮฑฮปฮตฯฮฏแฟณ ฯ€ฯแฝธฯ‚ ฯ„แฝฐฯ‚ ฮผฮตฮณฮฏฯƒฯ„ฮฑฯ‚ ฯƒฯ…ฮฝฮตฮพฮญฮดฯฮฑฮผฮตฮฝ แผ€ฯฯ‡ฮฌฯ‚,

แฝ•ฯ€ฮฑฯ„ฯŒฯ‚ ฯ„ฮต ฮผฮตฯ„᾽ แผฮบฮตฮฏฮฝฮฟฯ… ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ€ฮฌฮปฮนฮฝ ฯ„ฮนฮผฮทฯ„แฝดฯ‚ ฮณฮตฮฝฯŒฮผฮตฮฝฮฟฯ‚.

15 แฝฯ€ฮฑฯ„ฮฟฯ‚ ฮดแฝฒ ฮผฮตฯ„แฝฐ ฮฆฮปฮฌฮบฮบฮฟฯ… ฮŸแฝฮฑฮปฮตฯฮฏฮฟฯ… ฯ„ฮฟแฟฆ ฯ†ฮฏฮปฮฟฯ… ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯƒฯ…ฮฝฮฎฮธฮฟฯ…ฯ‚ แผ€ฯ€ฮฟฮดฮตฮนฯ‡ฮธฮตแฝถฯ‚ แผ”ฮปฮฑฯ‡ฮต ฯ„แฟถฮฝ

แผฯ€ฮฑฯฯ‡ฮนแฟถฮฝ แผฃฮฝ แผ˜ฮฝฯ„แฝธฯ‚ แผนฯƒฯ€ฮฑฮฝฮฏฮฑฮฝ ῾ฮกฯ‰ฮผฮฑแฟ–ฮฟฮน ฮบฮฑฮปฮฟแฟฆฯƒฮนฮฝ. แผ˜ฮฝฯ„ฮฑแฟฆฮธฮฑ ฮด᾽ ฮฑแฝฯ„แฟท ฯ„แฝฐ ฮผแฝฒฮฝ ฮบฮฑฯ„ฮฑฯƒฯ„ฯฮตฯ†ฮฟฮผฮญฮฝแฟณ

ฯ„แฟถฮฝ แผฮธฮฝแฟถฮฝ, ฯ„แฝฐ ฮด᾽ ฮฟแผฐฮบฮตฮนฮฟฯ…ฮผฮญฮฝแฟณ ฮดฮนแฝฐ ฮปฯŒฮณฯ‰ฮฝ ฯ€ฮฟฮปฮปแฝด ฯƒฯ„ฯฮฑฯ„ฮนแฝฐ ฯ„แฟถฮฝ ฮฒฮฑฯฮฒฮฌฯฯ‰ฮฝ แผฯ€ฮญฯ€ฮตฯƒฮต ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮบฮฏฮฝฮดฯ…ฮฝฮฟฯ‚

แผฆฮฝ ฮฑแผฐฯƒฯ‡ฯแฟถฯ‚ แผฮบฮฒฮนฮฑฯƒฮธแฟ†ฮฝฮฑฮน· ฮดฮนแฝธ ฯ„แฟถฮฝ แผฮณฮณแฝบฯ‚ ฮšฮตฮปฯ„ฮนฮฒฮฎฯฯ‰ฮฝ แผฯ€ฮตฮบฮฑฮปฮตแฟ–ฯ„ฮฟ ฯƒฯ…ฮผฮผฮฑฯ‡ฮฏฮฑฮฝ.

16 แฝ‰ ฮผแฝฒฮฝ ฮฟแฝ–ฮฝ ฮฃฮบฮนฯ€ฮฏฯ‰ฮฝ แผฮฝ ฯ„แฟ‡ ฯ€ฮฑฯฮฑฯƒฮบฮตฯ…แฟ‡ ฯ„ฮฟแฟฆ ฯ€ฮฟฮปฮญฮผฮฟฯ… ฯ„แฝดฮฝ ฮฝฮฏฮบฮทฮฝ แผฯ€ฮนฮดฮตฮนฮพฮฌฮผฮตฮฝฮฟฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ†ฮฑฮฝฮตแฝถฯ‚

แผกฮดแฝบฯ‚ ฮผแฝฒฮฝ แผฯ€แฝถ ฯƒฯ‡ฮฟฮปแฟ†ฯ‚ ฯƒฯ…ฮฝฮตแฟ–ฮฝฮฑฮน ฯ†ฮฏฮปฮฟฮนฯ‚, ฮฟแฝฮดฮฑฮผแฟ‡ ฮดแฝฒ ฯ„แฟท ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฑฮฝฮธฯฯŽฯ€แฟณ ฯ„แฟ†ฯ‚ ฮดฮนฮฑฮฏฯ„ฮทฯ‚ ฮตแผฐฯ‚ ฯ„แฝฐ ฯƒฯ€ฮฟฯ…ฮดฮฑแฟ–ฮฑ

ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮผฮตฮณฮฌฮปฮฑ แฟฅแพดฮธฯ…ฮผฮฟฯ‚, แผฮพฮญฯ€ฮปฮตฯ…ฯƒฮตฮฝ แผฯ€แฝถ ฯ„แฝธฮฝ ฯ€ฯŒฮปฮตฮผฮฟฮฝ.

17 ฮŸแฝ ฮณแฝฐฯ แฝกฯ‚ แฝ‘ฯ€ฮฟฮดฮฎฮผฮฑฯƒฮนฮฝ แผข ฯƒฮบฮตฯฮตฯƒฮน ฯ„ฮฟแฟ–ฯ‚ ฯˆฯ…ฯ‡แฝดฮฝ แผ”ฯ‡ฮฟฯ…ฯƒฮน ฯ‡ฯฮทฯƒฯ„ฮญฮฟฮฝ ฮบฮฟฯ€ฮญฮฝฯ„ฮฑ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮบฮฑฯ„ฮฑฯ„ฯฮนฮฒฮญฮฝฯ„ฮฑ

346

Vicente M. Ramรณn Palerm

– 22, 2: "Al punto, los jรณvenes mรกs amantes de las letras acudieron al

encuentro de estos hombres (i.e. lรณsofos), a quienes escuchaban con admiraciรณn.

Fue sobre todo el carisma de Carnรฉades, cuya autoridad era enorme y cuya

reputaciรณn no era menor que su autoridad, el que atrajo grandes auditorios

interesados por los asuntos humanos y el que, como un viento, barriรณ la ciudad

con sus ecos"18 .

Los tres pasajes aducidos presentan una importancia nada desdeรฑable,

pese a su aparente y tangencial relaciรณn con la gura de Catรณn19. En el primero

de ellos, se contraponen a la personalidad austera de Catรณn los modos de

Escipiรณn el Grande (rival y enemigo polรญtico del hรฉroe biograado), cuyo

talante desprendido y lantrรณpico con sus รญntimos no empece a la seriedad de

la actividad polรญtica que despliega. En el segundo fragmento, la sobriedad en

exceso cicatera de Catรณn (quien proponรญa desechar a los esclavos viejos por

inservibles [cf. 4,5; 5,1]) da paso a cierto comentario del queronense sobre la

necesidad de ser indulgente con los seres vivos, en tรฉrminos absolutos, siquiera

por razones humanitarias20 . En el tercer pasaje, los jรณvenes romanos, atraรญdos

por cuestiones de importancia para el ser humano, comparecen con interรฉs a

las conferencias de lรณsofos griegos en Roma; y ello contrasta con el carรกcter

desdeรฑoso de Catรณn en relaciรณn con la cultura griega y con los efectos de esta

sobre las generaciones mรกs jรณvenes. En sรญntesis, da la impresiรณn de que Plutarco

confronta las actitudes humanitarias y lantrรณpicas que personalmente defendรญa

para la comunidad grecorromana21 con la indiferencia llamativa de Catรณn

sobre el particular, lo cual parece encerrar una na crรญtica implรญcita al proceder

de nuestro personaje mediante una intenciรณn que rebasa, seguramente, el puro

desliz moral para alcanzar repercusiones de รญndole polรญtica.

3. Del eros

– 20, 1-4: "Fue tambiรฉn un buen padre, un marido honrado con su mujer

y un administrador no desdeรฑable [...]. Desposรณ a una mujer mรกs noble que

rica, pues creรญa que, aunque ambos tipos de mujeres eran serias y sensatas, las

de buen linaje se avergonzaban ante lo deshonroso y eran mรกs sumisas a sus

maridos en lo que ataรฑe a la virtud. Decรญa que un hombre que golpeaba a su

esposa o a su hijo ponรญa sus manos sobre los seres mรกs sagrados. Le parecรญa mรกs

ฯ„ฮฑแฟ–ฯ‚ แฝ‘ฯ€ฮตฯฮตฯƒฮฏฮฑฮนฯ‚ แผ€ฯ€ฮฟฯฯฮนฯ€ฯ„ฮฟแฟฆฮฝฯ„ฮฑฯ‚, แผ€ฮปฮป᾽ ฮตแผฐ ฮดฮนแฝฐ ฮผฮทฮดแฝฒฮฝ แผ„ฮปฮปฮฟ, ฮผฮตฮปฮญฯ„ฮทฯ‚ ฮฟแฝ•ฮฝฮตฮบฮฑ ฯ„ฮฟแฟฆ ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฑฮฝฮธฯฯŽฯ€ฮฟฯ…

ฯ€ฯฮฟฮตฮธฮนฯƒฯ„ฮญฮฟฮฝ แผ‘ฮฑฯ…ฯ„แฝธฮฝ แผฮฝ ฯ„ฮฟฯฯ„ฮฟฮนฯ‚ ฯ€ฯแพถฮฟฮฝ ฮตแผถฮฝฮฑฮน ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮผฮตฮฏฮปฮนฯ‡ฮฟฮฝ.

18 ฮ•แฝฮธแฝบฯ‚ ฮฟแฝ–ฮฝ ฮฟแผฑ ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฟฮปฮฟฮณฯŽฯ„ฮฑฯ„ฮฟฮน ฯ„แฟถฮฝ ฮฝฮตฮฑฮฝฮฏฯƒฮบฯ‰ฮฝ แผฯ€แฝถ ฯ„ฮฟแฝบฯ‚ แผ„ฮฝฮดฯฮฑฯ‚ แผตฮตฮฝฯ„ฮฟ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯƒฯ…ฮฝแฟ†ฯƒฮฑฮฝ

แผ€ฮบฯฮฟฯŽฮผฮตฮฝฮฟฮน ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮธฮฑฯ…ฮผฮฌฮถฮฟฮฝฯ„ฮตฯ‚ ฮฑแฝฯ„ฮฟฯฯ‚. ฮœฮฌฮปฮนฯƒฯ„ฮฑ ฮด᾽ แผก ฮšฮฑฯฮฝฮตฮฌฮดฮฟฯ… ฯ‡ฮฌฯฮนฯ‚, แผงฯ‚ <แผฆฮฝ> ฮดฯฮฝฮฑฮผฮฏฯ‚ ฯ„ฮต

ฯ€ฮปฮตฮฏฯƒฯ„ฮท ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮดฯŒฮพฮฑ ฯ„แฟ†ฯ‚ ฮดฯ…ฮฝฮฌฮผฮตฯ‰ฯ‚ ฮฟแฝฮบ แผ€ฯ€ฮฟฮดฮญฮฟฯ…ฯƒฮฑ, ฮผฮตฮณฮฌฮปฯ‰ฮฝ แผฯ€ฮนฮปฮฑฮฒฮฟฮผฮญฮฝฮท ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฑฮฝฮธฯฯŽฯ€ฯ‰ฮฝ

แผ€ฮบฯฮฟฮฑฯ„ฮทฯฮฏฯ‰ฮฝ แฝกฯ‚ ฯ€ฮฝฮตแฟฆฮผฮฑ ฯ„แฝดฮฝ ฯ€ฯŒฮปฮนฮฝ แผ ฯ‡แฟ†ฯ‚ แผฮฝฮญฯ€ฮปฮทฯƒฮต.

19 Para un comentario exhaustivo y provechoso de las implicaciones convenientes sobre los

pasajes citados (implicaciones de orientaciรณn รฉtico-polรญtica), remito al estudio de J. M.ยช C

que consta en el presente volumen ("Filantropรญa en la Vida de Catรณn el Viejo").

20 Esta circunstancia es asimismo detectable en los escritos zoopsicolรณgicos de Plutarco. Cf., en

general, la introducciรณn que proporciona G. S en L. I & G. S, 1999.

21 Cf. G. D'I, 2005, pp. 180-2.

347

Amistad, Filantropรญa y Eros en la Paideia Plutarquea: la Vida de Catรณn el Viejo

digno de alabanza ser un buen esposo que un gran senador. En efecto, Catรณn

no admiraba nada del antiguo Sรณcrates salvo el hecho de que, a pesar de tener

una mujer difรญcil y unos hijos necios, los tratara toda su vida con benevolencia

y dulzura. Nacido su hijo, no hubo para รฉl ninguna obligaciรณn, salvo las de

carรกcter pรบblico, que fuera tan perentoria que le impidiera ayudar a su mujer

mientras baรฑaba y envolvรญa en paรฑales a su hijo"22 .

– 24, 1: "Es evidente que...Catรณn no quedรณ libre de la venganza divina,

pues perdiรณ tanto a su esposa como a su hijo. Pero รฉl, que era de constituciรณn

robusta y se mantenรญa fuerte y vigoroso, resistiรณ durante muchรญsimo tiempo,

de modo que, aun siendo ya anciano, tenรญa con frecuencia contacto sexual con

alguna mujer y, en contra de lo que conviene a su edad, contrajo de nuevo

matrimonio..."23 .

– 6, 1-3 (ฯƒฯฮณฮบฯฮนฯƒฮนฯ‚): "El matrimonio del propio Catรณn, sin embargo,

impropio tanto de su honor como de su edad, infundiรณ a este respecto

sospechas importantes y serias. En efecto, el que un anciano de tanta edad y

con un hijo ya adulto...despose a la hija de un sirviente suyo...no estรก nada

bien. Tanto si lo hizo buscando placer como si fue por vengarse del asunto

con la hetera, la acciรณn y su motivo son por igual vergonzosos. El argumento

al que acudiรณ con tono irรณnico ante su hijo no era cierto, pues si hubiera

querido traer al mundo hijos tan nobles como รฉste, deberรญa haber reparado

en ello desde un principio y haber contraรญdo matrimonio legal en lugar de

contentarse con cohabitar con una mujer ilegรญtima y compartida mientras

pasรณ inadvertido y, una vez que fue descubierto, hacer suegro suyo a quien era

mรกs fรกcil de convencer, y no a aquel con quien hubiera resultado mรกs honroso

crear lazos familiares"24 .

Es perceptible que la indicaciรณn de los lances erรณtico-amorosos en la Vida de

Catรณn ofrece una perspectiva doble y palmariamente opuesta sobre la actitud del

22 ฮ“ฮญฮณฮฟฮฝฮต ฮดแฝฒ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ€ฮฑฯ„แฝดฯ แผ€ฮณฮฑฮธแฝธฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ€ฮตฯแฝถ ฮณฯ…ฮฝฮฑแฟ–ฮบฮฑ ฯ‡ฯฮทฯƒฯ„แฝธฯ‚ แผ€ฮฝแฝดฯ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ‡ฯฮทฮผฮฑฯ„ฮนฯƒฮผแฝดฯ‚ ฮฟแฝฮบ

ฮตแฝฮบฮฑฯ„ฮฑฯ†ฯฯŒฮฝฮทฯ„ฮฟฯ‚ […]. ฮ“ฯ…ฮฝฮฑแฟ–ฮบฮฑ ฮผแฝฒฮฝ ฮณแฝฐฯ ฮตแฝฮณฮตฮฝฮตฯƒฯ„ฮญฯฮฑฮฝ แผข ฯ€ฮปฮฟฯ…ฯƒฮนฯ‰ฯ„ฮญฯฮฑฮฝ แผ”ฮณฮทฮผฮตฮฝ, แผกฮณฮฟฯฮผฮตฮฝฮฟฯ‚

แฝฮผฮฟฮฏฯ‰ฯ‚ ฮผแฝฒฮฝ แผ€ฮผฯ†ฮฟฯ„ฮญฯฮฑฯ‚ แผ”ฯ‡ฮตฮนฮฝ ฮฒฮฌฯฮฟฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ†ฯฯŒฮฝฮทฮผฮฑ, ฯ„แฝฐฯ‚ ฮดแฝฒ ฮณฮตฮฝฮฝฮฑฮฏฮฑฯ‚ ฮฑแผฐฮดฮฟฯ…ฮผฮญฮฝฮฑฯ‚ ฯ„แฝฐ ฮฑแผฐฯƒฯ‡ฯแฝฐ

ฮผแพถฮปฮปฮฟฮฝ แฝ‘ฯ€ฮทฮบฯŒฮฟฯ…ฯ‚ ฮตแผถฮฝฮฑฮน ฯ€ฯแฝธฯ‚ ฯ„แฝฐ ฮบฮฑฮปแฝฐ ฯ„ฮฟแฟ–ฯ‚ ฮณฮตฮณฮฑฮผฮทฮบฯŒฯƒฮน. ฮคแฝธฮฝ ฮดแฝฒ ฯ„ฯฯ€ฯ„ฮฟฮฝฯ„ฮฑ ฮณฮฑฮผฮตฯ„แฝดฮฝ แผข ฯ€ฮฑแฟ–ฮดฮฑ ฯ„ฮฟแฟ–ฯ‚

แผฮณฮนฯ‰ฯ„ฮฌฯ„ฮฟฮนฯ‚ แผ”ฮปฮตฮณฮตฮฝ แผฑฮตฯฮฟแฟ–ฯ‚ ฯ€ฯฮฟฯƒฯ†ฮญฯฮตฮนฮฝ ฯ„แฝฐฯ‚ ฯ‡ฮตแฟ–ฯฮฑฯ‚. แผ˜ฮฝ แผฯ€ฮฑฮฏฮฝแฟณ ฮดแฝฒ ฮผฮตฮฏฮถฮฟฮฝฮน ฯ„ฮฏฮธฮตฯƒฮธฮฑฮน ฯ„แฝธ ฮณฮฑฮผฮญฯ„ฮทฮฝ

แผ€ฮณฮฑฮธแฝธฮฝ แผข ฯ„แฝธ ฮผฮญฮณฮฑฮฝ ฮตแผถฮฝฮฑฮน ฯƒฯ…ฮณฮบฮปฮทฯ„ฮนฮบฯŒฮฝ· แผฯ€ฮตแฝถ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮฃฯ‰ฮบฯฮฌฯ„ฮฟฯ…ฯ‚ ฮฟแฝฮดแฝฒฮฝ แผ„ฮปฮปฮฟ ฮธฮฑฯ…ฮผฮฌฮถฮตฮนฮฝ ฯ„ฮฟแฟฆ ฯ€ฮฑฮปฮฑฮนฮฟแฟฆ

ฯ€ฮปแฝดฮฝ แฝ…ฯ„ฮน ฮณฯ…ฮฝฮฑฮนฮบแฝถ ฯ‡ฮฑฮปฮตฯ€แฟ‡ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ€ฮฑฮนฯƒแฝถฮฝ แผ€ฯ€ฮฟฯ€ฮปฮฎฮบฯ„ฮฟฮนฯ‚ ฯ‡ฯฯŽฮผฮตฮฝฮฟฯ‚ แผฯ€ฮนฮตฮนฮบแฟถฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ€ฯแพดฯ‰ฯ‚ ฮดฮนฮตฯ„ฮญฮปฮตฯƒฮต.

ฮ“ฮตฮฝฮฟฮผฮญฮฝฮฟฯ… ฮดแฝฒ ฯ„ฮฟแฟฆ ฯ€ฮฑฮนฮดแฝธฯ‚ ฮฟแฝฮดแฝฒฮฝ แผฆฮฝ แผ”ฯฮณฮฟฮฝ ฮฟแฝ•ฯ„ฯ‰ฯ‚ แผ€ฮฝฮฑฮณฮบฮฑแฟ–ฮฟฮฝ, ฮตแผฐ ฮผฮฎ ฯ„ฮน ฮดฮทฮผฯŒฯƒฮนฮฟฮฝ, แฝกฯ‚ ฮผแฝด ฯ€ฮฑฯฮตแฟ–ฮฝฮฑฮน

ฯ„แฟ‡ ฮณฯ…ฮฝฮฑฮนฮบแฝถ ฮปฮฟฯ…ฮฟฯฯƒแฟƒ ฯ„แฝธ ฮฒฯฮญฯ†ฮฟฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯƒฯ€ฮฑฯฮณฮฑฮฝฮฟฯฯƒแฟƒ.

23 ฮšฮฑแฝถ…ฯ†ฮฑฮฏฮฝฮตฯ„ฮฑฮน ฮณฮตฮณฮฟฮฝแฝผฯ‚ ฮฟแฝฮบ แผ€ฮฝฮตฮผฮญฯƒฮทฯ„ฮฟฯ‚· ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮณแฝฐฯ ฯ„แฝดฮฝ ฮณฯ…ฮฝฮฑแฟ–ฮบฮฑ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ„แฝธฮฝ ฯ…แผฑแฝธฮฝ แผ€ฯ€ฮญฮฒฮฑฮปฮตฮฝ.

ฮ‘แฝฯ„แฝธฯ‚ ฮดแฝฒ ฯ„แฟท ฯƒฯŽฮผฮฑฯ„ฮน ฯ€ฯแฝธฯ‚ ฮตแฝฮตฮพฮฏฮฑฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ แฟฅฯŽฮผฮทฮฝ แผ€ฯƒฯ†ฮฑฮปแฟถฯ‚ ฯ€ฮตฯ€ฮทฮณแฝผฯ‚ แผฯ€แฝถ ฯ€ฮปฮตแฟ–ฯƒฯ„ฮฟฮฝ แผ€ฮฝฯ„ฮตแฟ–ฯ‡ฮตฮฝ, แฝฅฯƒฯ„ฮต

ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮณฯ…ฮฝฮฑฮนฮบแฝถ ฯ€ฯฮตฯƒฮฒฯฯ„ฮทฯ‚ แฝขฮฝ ฯƒฯ†ฯŒฮดฯฮฑ ฯ€ฮปฮทฯƒฮนฮฌฮถฮตฮนฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮณแฟ†ฮผฮฑฮน ฮณฮฌฮผฮฟฮฝ ฮฟแฝ ฮบฮฑฮธ᾽ แผกฮปฮนฮบฮฏฮฑฮฝ…

24 …ฮฑแฝฯ„ฮฟแฟฆ ฮดแฝฒ ฯ„ฮฟแฟฆ ฮšฮฌฯ„ฯ‰ฮฝฮฟฯ‚ แฝ ฯ€ฮฑฯ᾽ แผ€ฮพฮฏฮฑฮฝ แผ…ฮผฮฑ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ€ฮฑฯ᾽ แฝฅฯฮฑฮฝ ฮณฮฌฮผฮฟฯ‚ ฮฟแฝ ฮผฮนฮบฯแฝฐฮฝ ฮฟแฝฮดแฝฒ ฯ†ฮฑฯฮปฮทฮฝ

ฮตแผฐฯ‚ ฯ„ฮฟแฟฆฯ„ฮฟ ฮดฮนฮฑฮฒฮฟฮปแฝดฮฝ ฮบฮฑฯ„ฮตฯƒฮบฮญฮดฮฑฯƒฮต. ฮ ฯฮตฯƒฮฒฯฯ„ฮทฮฝ ฮณแฝฐฯ แผคฮดฮท ฯ„ฮฟฯƒฮฟแฟฆฯ„ฮฟฮฝ แผฮฝฮทฮปฮฏฮบแฟณ ฯ€ฮฑฮนฮดแฝถ…แผฯ€ฮนฮณแฟ†ฮผฮฑฮน

ฮบฯŒฯฮทฮฝ แฝ‘ฯ€ฮทฯฮญฯ„ฮฟฯ……ฮฟแฝฮดฮฑฮผแฟ‡ ฮบฮฑฮปฯŒฮฝ, แผ€ฮปฮป᾽ ฮตแผดฯ„ฮต ฯ€ฯแฝธฯ‚ แผกฮดฮฟฮฝแฝดฮฝ ฯ„ฮฑแฟฆฯ„᾽ แผ”ฯ€ฯฮฑฮพฮตฮฝ ฮตแผดฯ„᾽ แฝ€ฯฮณแฟ‡ ฮดฮนแฝฐ ฯ„แฝดฮฝ

แผ‘ฯ„ฮฑฮฏฯฮฑฮฝ แผ€ฮผฯ…ฮฝฯŒฮผฮตฮฝฮฟฯ‚ ฯ„แฝธฮฝ ฯ…แผฑฯŒฮฝ, ฮฑแผฐฯƒฯ‡ฯฮฝฮทฮฝ แผ”ฯ‡ฮตฮน ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ„แฝธ แผ”ฯฮณฮฟฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ แผก ฯ€ฯฯŒฯ†ฮฑฯƒฮนฯ‚.แพฏ ฮด᾽ ฮฑแฝฯ„แฝธฯ‚ แผฯ‡ฯฮฎฯƒฮฑฯ„ฮฟ

ฮปฯŒฮณแฟณ ฮบฮฑฯ„ฮตฮนฯฯ‰ฮฝฮตฯ…ฯŒฮผฮตฮฝฮฟฯ‚ ฯ„แฝธ ฮผฮตฮนฯฮฌฮบฮนฮฟฮฝ, ฮฟแฝฮบ แผฆฮฝ แผ€ฮปฮทฮธฮฎฯ‚. ฮ•แผฐ ฮณแฝฐฯ แผฮฒฮฟฯฮปฮตฯ„ฮฟ ฯ€ฮฑแฟ–ฮดฮฑฯ‚ แผ€ฮณฮฑฮธฮฟแฝบฯ‚

แฝฮผฮฟฮฏฯ‰ฯ‚ ฯ„ฮตฮบฮฝแฟถฯƒฮฑฮน, ฮณฮฌฮผฮฟฮฝ แผ”ฮดฮตฮน ฮปฮฑฮฒฮตแฟ–ฮฝ ฮณฮตฮฝฮฝฮฑแฟ–ฮฟฮฝ แผฮพ แผ€ฯฯ‡แฟ†ฯ‚ ฯƒฮบฮตฯˆฮฌฮผฮตฮฝฮฟฮฝ, ฮฟแฝฯ‡ แผ•ฯ‰ฯ‚ ฮผแฝฒฮฝ แผฮปฮฌฮฝฮธฮฑฮฝฮตฮฝ

แผ€ฮฝฮตฮณฮณฯแฟณ ฮณฯ…ฮฝฮฑฮนฮบแฝถ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮบฮฟฮนฮฝแฟ‡ ฯƒฯ…ฮณฮบฮฟฮนฮผฯŽฮผฮตฮฝฮฟฯ‚ แผ€ฮณฮฑฯ€แพถฮฝ, แผฯ€ฮตแฝถ ฮด᾽ แผฯ†ฯ‰ฯฮฌฮธฮท ฯ€ฮฟฮนฮฎฯƒฮฑฯƒฮธฮฑฮน ฯ€ฮตฮฝฮธฮตฯแฝธฮฝ แฝƒฮฝ

แฟฅแพถฯƒฯ„แพณ ฯ€ฮตฮฏฯƒฮตฮนฮฝ, ฮฟแฝฯ‡ แพง ฮบฮฌฮปฮปฮนฯƒฯ„ฮฑ ฮบฮทฮดฮตฯฯƒฮตฮนฮฝ แผ”ฮผฮตฮปฮปฮตฮฝ.

348

Vicente M. Ramรณn Palerm

estadista. Advertimos una caracterizaciรณn implรญcita en los dos primeros pasajes

que, en la ฯƒฯฮณฮบฯฮนฯƒฮนฯ‚ conclusiva, se resuelve del modo acostumbradamente

explรญcito por cuanto ataรฑe al segundo matrimonio del personaje. En efecto, el

primer pasaje muestra a un Catรณn amante de su esposa y corresponsable en la

unidad conyugal, un Catรณn que comparte las tareas paterno-liales y observa

una reciprocidad cotidiana en el curso de su relaciรณn marital. Plutarco se prodiga

en elogios sobre la gura de Catรณn, ya que el matrimonio se conduce a la manera

que el de Queronea deende en su Erรณtico, donde priman la concordia y la

responsabilidad domรฉstica de los esposos prรกcticamente en pie de igualdad25 .

No obstante, la opiniรณn de Plutarco se modica radicalmente en lo concerniente

al segundo matrimonio de Catรณn. Y es que Plutarco censura ahora tanto la

raticaciรณn del matrimonio per se (considerando la edad avanzada del mandatario)

cuanto las razones presuntas del mismo, acaso motivadas por el hecho de que

Catรณn mantenรญa relaciones sexuales, en su propia casa y de modo indisimulado,

con una concubina joven y de moralidad laxa; el caso es que la muchacha paseaba

por la casa impรบdicamente a la vista del propio hijo de Catรณn, lo cual tensa la

convivencia entre el padre, el hijo y la novia de este. Pues bien, Catรณn resuelve

de forma urgente concertar matrimonio con la hija de uno de sus esclavos para

zanjar el asunto y tal vez dar un golpe de autoridad paterna26 .

Para concluir: la moralizaciรณn implรญcita que menudea en la Vida de

Catรณn se ve motivada, en buena medida, por la destreza cultural y las virtudes

cardinales del personaje merced a su pericia y contactos tardรญos con la paideia

griega. De modo simรฉtrico, Plutarco desliza la concepciรณn de que las virtudes

formales, la educaciรณn sentimental, la inteligencia emocional de Catรณn se

hallan caracterizadas por la ausencia o presencia respectiva de categorรญas

inherentes, asimismo, al orbe heleno. He aquรญ una reexiรณn tamizada con

que Plutarco perla el talante de Catรณn, claro estรก; pero se trata tambiรฉn de

una reexiรณn con que el biรณgrafo trasciende la pura defensa de ciertos valores

afectivos-morales, anejos al personaje, para el ennoblecimiento del lector

y, en รบltima instancia, para el sustento de una paideia henchida de aristas

รฉtico-polรญticas al servicio del estadista incipiente en un mundo civilizador,

grecorromano, globalizado.

bi b l i o g r a f รญ a c i T a d a

B, M., "Anecdote and the Representation of Plutarch's Ethos", in L. V

D S (ed.), Rhetorical eory and Praxis in Plutarch. Acta of the

IV International Congress of the I.P.S. (Leuven, July 3-6), Louvain-

Namur, 2000, pp. 15-32.

25 Cf. las oportunas reexiones de M. V, 2003. Cf. asimismo J. B, 2008,

particularmente p. 698.

26 Cf. 24, 2-7, donde Plutarco reere los pormenores correspondientes sobre el asunto.

349

Amistad, Filantropรญa y Eros en la Paideia Plutarquea: la Vida de Catรณn el Viejo

B, J., "Plutarch on the Role of Eros in a Marriage", in A. G. N

(ed.), e Unity of Plutarch's Work. Moralia emes in the Lives, Features of

the Lives in the Moralia, Berlin-New York, 2008, pp. 689-99.

C, L., Plutarco. Vidas de Aristides y de Catรณn, Madrid, 2003.

D'I, G., "Filantropia, ellenocentrismo e polietnismo in Plutarco", in

A. P J  F.T (eds.), Historical and Biographical

Values of Plutarch's Works. Studies devoted to Professor Philip A. Stadter

by the International Plutarch Society, Mรกlaga-Logan, 2005, pp. 179-

96.

D, ., Plutarch's Lives. Exploring Virtue and Vice, Oxford, 2002.

_____"Education in Plutarch's emistokles", in M. J  . (eds.),

Plutarc a la seva รจpoca. Paideia i societat. Actas del VIII Simposio espaรฑol

sobre Plutarco, (Barcelona, 6-8 de Noviembre, 2003), Barcelona, 2005,

pp. 553-60.

_____"Plutarch's readers and the moralism of the Lives", Ploutarchos, n.s. 5

(2007/2008) 3-18.

F, R.  C, E., Plutarque. Vies, V, Paris, 1969.

F, F., Histoire et morale dans les Vies parallรจles de Plutarque, Paris,

1996.

G H, J. M., Plutarco. Vidas Paralelas. IV, Madrid, 2007.

I, L.  S, G., Plutarco. Il cibarsi di carne, Napoli, 1999.

P J, A., "Exemplum: the paradigmatic education of the ruler in

the Lives of Plutarch", in P. A. S  L. V  S (eds.),

Sage and Emperor. Plutarch, Greek Intellectuals, and Roman Power in the

Time of Trajan (98-117 A.D.), Louvain, 2002, pp. 105-14.

_____"La elocuencia como instrumento polรญtico en las Vidas paralelas", CFC,

12 (2002) 253-70.

R P, V., "Plutarco y la biografรญa polรญtica en Grecia: aspectos de

innovaciรณn en el gรฉnero", in AA.VV., La biografรญa como gรฉnero literario:

de la Antigรผedad al Renacimiento, Veleia (Anejos). (en prensa).

S, P. A., "e rhetoric of virtue in Plutarch's Lives", in L. V 

S (ed.), Rhetorical eory and Praxis in Plutarch. Acta of the IV

International Congress of the I.P.S. (Leuven, July 3-6), Louvain-Namur,

2000, pp. 493-510.

T, S.-T., "El programa de Plutarco para la conducta social", in M.

J  . (eds.), Plutarc a la seva รจpoca. Paideia i societat. Actas del

VIII Simposio espaรฑol sobre Plutarco (Barcelona, 6-8 de Noviembre,

2003), Barcelona, 2005, pp. 659-64.

350

Vicente M. Ramรณn Palerm

_____ "Four terms of friendly emotion in Plutarch: ฮฆฮนฮปฮฑฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€ฮฏฮฑ, ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฏฮฑ, แผ”ฯฯ‰ฯ‚,

ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฟฯƒฯ„ฮฟฯฮณฮฏฮฑ", in J. Mยช N  R. L (eds.), El amor en Plutarco.

Actas del IX Simposio espaรฑol sobre Plutarco (28-30 Septiembre,

2006), Leรณn, 2007, pp. 187-97.

V, M., "Amor y matrimonio en el Erรณtico de Plutarco", in J. M.ยช N

(ed.), Logos Hellenikรณs. Homenaje al Profesor Gaspar Morocho Gayo, Leรณ n,

2003, pp. 441-54.

351

Filantropรญa en la Vida de Catรณn el Viejo

fi l a n T r o p รญ a e n l a vi D a D e ca T รณ n e l vi e j o

J M. C M

Universidad de Sevilla

Abstract

In the Life of Cato Maior Plutarch looks at his main character with an attitude consisting of

admiration on one hand, of criticism and blame on the other. e concept of philanthropia

represents the key that opens the door to the criticism. Catos's lack of philanthropia is responsible

for his philotimia, his decient autarkeia and his want of sophrosyne. Even his political activity

undergoes the eects of this fundamental failure. is paper tries to explore how the structure

of the biography reects the importance that Plutarch assigns to the central aw of its

protagonist.

Resultarรญa problemรกtico incluir la Vida de Catรณn el Viejo entre las biografรญas

negativas. El modelo mรกs acabado de biografรญa negativa es probablemente la

Vida de Demetrio. Un presupuesto importante de esta obra lo constituye el

marco temรกtico que brindan las grandes naturalezas, las naturalezas dotadas

tanto para el bien como para el mal que por un error o una serie de elecciones

errรณneas concluyen en un nal desastroso1 . La teatralidad, entendida como

despliegue ostentoso y vacรญo, es otro de los ingredientes de la Vida de Demetrio2 .

Y por รบltimo la esterilidad, la ausencia de realizaciones o mensajes importantes

polรญticos o humanos, es otro componente que Plutarco subraya y parece

considerar denitorio de una existencia como la de Demetrio3 . Nada de esto

aparece en la Vida de Catรณn. Sin embargo, Plutarco alberga fuertes reservas

morales contra su protagonista, hasta tal punto que Catรณn el Viejo parece

situarse en un punto intermedio entre los personajes que en las Vidas Paralelas

aparecen como modelos a imitar y aquellos otros que destacan ante todo por

sus cualidades negativas.

Son dos los pasajes de la biografรญa que exponen con claridad y con cierto

detalle los defectos de la personalidad de Catรณn. Uno de ellos se sitรบa al inicio,

en los capรญtulos 4 y 5. Plutarco comienza aquรญ hablando de la tendencia a la

economรญa que despliega su protagonista en distintas facetas de su vida: en el

vestido, en la comida y la bebida, en las construcciones de su hacienda, en la

compra de esclavos. Catรณn creรญa, arma el biรณgrafo, que cuando los esclavos

envejecen hay que venderlos para no gastar alimento en seres inรบtiles. Aquรญ

Plutarco hace un alto: tratar asรญ a los esclavos, como si fueran animales, es

propio de un carรกcter rรญgido para el que la utilidad es el รบnico fundamento

1 Plutarco toca el tema de las grandes naturalezas (sobre el que teoriza en Ser. num. vind.

551D-552D) no sรณlo el proemio a las Vidas de Demetrio y Antonio ( Demetr. 1.7-8) sino tambiรฉn

en em. 2.7, Nic. 9.1, y Cor. 1.3. Se trata de un tema sobre el que disertan tanto Platรณn (el

pasaje canรณnico es R. 491d-492a; vรฉase tambiรฉn Hp. Mi. 376a) como Jenofonte (Mem. 4.1.4).

Tratamientos modernos de la cuestiรณn ofrecen O. A, 1989 y T. D, 1999.

2 Sobre la prominencia de los elementos teatrales en la Vida de Demetrio vรฉase O. A,

1989, pp. 78-82; J. M. C, 1999, pp. 142-3.

3 Vรฉase Demetr. 42.3. Comentario en J. M. C, 1999, pp. 143-4.

de las relaciones entre los hombres4. Nuestros buenos sentimientos, sin

embargo se extienden hasta el punto de tratar suave y benรฉvolamente incluso

a los animales. Con este comentario Plutarco abre una digresiรณn en la que

diserta sobre un tema reiterado en su obra y representativo de su personalidad

literaria, el afecto hacia los animales5 . Ya al nal, despuรฉs de comentar varios

ejemplos ilustrativos observa que no debe usarse a "quienes tienen alma" (ฯ„ฮฟแฟ–ฯ‚

ฯˆฯ…ฯ‡แฝดฮฝ แผ”ฯ‡ฮฟฯ…ฯƒฮน) como si fueran objetos; antes bien se ha de adoptar hacia

estos un comportamiento dulce y benigno, si no por otra razรณn para poner en

prรกctica los preceptos de la lantropรญa (ฮผฮตฮปแฝณฯ„ฮทฯ‚ ฮฟแฝ•ฮฝฮตฮบฮฑ ฯ„ฮฟแฟฆ ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฑฮฝฮธฯแฝฝฯ€ฮฟฯ…, 5.

5). El concepto de ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฑฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€แฝทฮฑ hace aquรญ una apariciรณn opaca y, digamos,

disimulada. En primer lugar se halla envuelto en el interior de una discusiรณn

que comienza hablando de la economรญa y dedica gran espacio al tema del

afecto hacia los animales. En segundo lugar solo lo leemos al nal, cuando la

digresiรณn estรก tocando a su n. Se le invoca, ademรกs, como รบltimo recurso con

el que justicar una determinada prรกctica (ฮตแผฐ ฮดฮนแฝฐ ฮผฮทฮดแฝฒฮฝ แผ„ฮปฮปฮฟ ฮผฮตฮปแฝณฯ„ฮทฯ‚ ฮฟแฝ•ฮฝฮตฮบฮฑ

ฯ„ฮฟแฟฆ ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฑฮฝฮธฯแฝฝฯ€ฮฟฯ… ...).

Plutarco asocia en otras ocasiones la liberalidad econรณmica, la falta de

avaricia y de preocupaciรณn ante el dinero con la ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฑฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€แฝทฮฑ. Solรณn, de familia

noble, gastรณ la fortuna de su padre en actos de lantropรญa y en mercedes6 .

Pelรณpidas, nacido en el seno de una casa opulenta, socorrรญa con sus riquezas

a cuantos lo necesitaban, y todos se acogรญan a su lantropรญa y liberalidad7 .

Catรณn es un homo novus cuya falta de la liberalidad en lo referente al dinero

y la riquezas acentรบan diversos pasajes de la biografรญa, incluido un lugar tan

prominente como la sรญncrisis8 . Ahora bien, al caracterizar esa faceta de su

personaje Plutarco, aparentemente, evita el tรฉrmino ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฑฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€แฝทฮฑ, tรฉrmino

que utiliza de manera dirรญase que marginal, casi como si lo escondiese.

El segundo de los pasajes que disertan con amplitud sobre los aspectos

negativos de Catรณn aparece en el tramo nal de la biografรญa. El capรญtulo 22

menciona la famosa embajada a Roma en la que participรณ el lรณsofo Carnรฉades.

Ante la expectaciรณn que el lรณsofo despierta entre la poblaciรณn romana, Catรณn

se muestra partidario de hacer que todos los lรณsofos sean conducidos fuera

de la ciudad9 . Tal reacciรณn se debiรณ ante todo a su hostilidad hacia la losofรญa y

la cultura griegas. Despuรฉs de brindar algunos ejemplos de este antihelenismo,

Plutarco consigna una predicciรณn de Catรณn, conforme a la cual el estado

romano serรญa destruido cuando las letras griegas penetrasen en sus ciudadanos.

Predicciรณn que el tiempo ha demostrado falsa, pues, comenta el biรณgrafo, la

supremacรญa de Roma ha coincidido con la implantaciรณn en el imperio de los

4 Cat. Ma. 5.1: ฮผฮทฮดแฝฒฮฝ แผ€ฮฝฮธฯแฝฝฯ€แฟณ ฯ€ฯแฝธฯ‚ แผ„ฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€ฮฟฮฝ ฮฟแผฐฮฟฮผแฝณฮฝฮฟฯ… ฮบฮฟฮนฮฝแฝฝฮฝฮทฮผฮฑ ฯ„แฟ†ฯ‚ ฯ‡ฯฮตแฝทฮฑฯ‚ ฯ€ฮปแฝณฮฟฮฝ

แฝ‘ฯ€แฝฑฯฯ‡ฮตฮนฮฝ.

5 Sobre el tema ouede hallarse informaciรณn y bibliografรญa actualizada en J. M. C

M, 2005 y M. T. C S, 2005.

6 Sol. 2.1: ฮตแผฐฯ‚ ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฑฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€แฝทฮฑฯ‚ ฯ„ฮนฮฝแฝฑฯ‚, แฝฅฯ‚ ฯ†ฮทฯƒฮนฮฝ แผฯฮผฮนฯ€ฯ€ฮฟฯ‚, ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ‡แฝฑฯฮนฯ„ฮฑฯ‚.

7 Pel. 3.3: แผฯ‡ฯแฟถฮฝฯ„ฮฟ ฯ„แฟ‡ ฯ€ฯแฝธฯ‚ ฮฑแฝฯ„ฮฟแฝบฯ‚ แผฮปฮตฯ…ฮธฮตฯฮนแฝนฯ„ฮทฯ„ฮน ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฑฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€แฝทแพณ.

8 Ademรกs del pasaje citado vรฉase Cat. Ma. 21; 31 (4).

9 Cat. Ma. 22.6: แผ”ฮณฮฝฯ‰ ฮผฮตฯ„' ฮตแฝฯ€ฯฮตฯ€ฮตแฝทฮฑฯ‚ แผ€ฯ€ฮฟฮดฮนฮฟฯ€ฮฟฮผฯ€แฝตฯƒฮฑฯƒฮธฮฑฮน ฯ„ฮฟแฝบฯ‚ ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฟฯƒแฝนฯ†ฮฟฯ…ฯ‚ ฯ€แฝฑฮฝฯ„ฮฑฯ‚ แผฮบ

ฯ„แฟ†ฯ‚ ฯ€แฝนฮปฮตฯ‰ฯ‚.

353

Filantropรญa en la Vida de Catรณn el Viejo

conocimientos y la cultura de Grecia. Un posicionamiento ante la cultura griega

como el que aquรญ se describe, constituye para Plutarco una falta mayor. Asรญ los

subraya el capรญtulo 24, cuya frase inicial presenta la muerte de la esposa y el

hijo de Catรณn como un castigo divino (ฮฝแฝณฮผฮตฯƒฮนฯ‚) sobrevenido a consecuencia

de la actitud antihelรฉnica del personaje. Los aspectos mรกs desfavorables de

su personalidad quedan al descubierto, ademรกs, en dos episodios que siguen.

Catรณn, una vez viudo, frecuenta a una prostituta (ฯ€ฮฑฮนฮดแฝทฯƒฮบแฟƒ) a la que lleva

a su casa. Cuando se encuentra con ella la joven esposa de su hijo tiene

lugar una situaciรณn embarazosa. A continuaciรณn Catรณn contrae su segundo

matrimonio con una joven de extracciรณn humilde, hija de uno de sus clientes.

Boda bochornosa que, segรบn se dice en la sรญncrisis, constituye materia para un

justicado reproche.

Tambiรฉn en este segundo pasaje negativo para el protagonista aparece el

tรฉrmino ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฑฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€แฝทฮฑ, pero, como sucedรญa en el pasaje anterior, su presencia es

subrepticia, de manera que casi pasa inadvertido. Al principio, cuando Plutarco

consigna el รฉxito que obtuvo Carnรฉades en Roma, aรฑade que sus conferencias

atraรญan audiencias amplias y llenas de simpatรญa (ฮผฮตฮณแฝฑฮปฯ‰ฮฝ [...] ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฑฮฝฮธฯแฝฝฯ€ฯ‰ฮฝ

แผ€ฮบฯฮฟฮฑฯ„ฮทฯแฝทฯ‰ฮฝ). El tรฉrmino da la impresiรณn de recoger aquรญ ese valor general

de afecto o empatรญa emocional con lo humano que estudios recientes le han

atribuido, un valor que, por lo demรกs, resulta caracterรญstico de la losofรญa vital

de Plutarco10 . Ahora bien, en el momento histรณrico en que escribe Plutarco,

ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฑฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€แฝทฮฑ puede haber sido un concepto cargado de connotaciones

polรญticas. En el panegรญrico que Plinio dedica a Trajano, el tรฉrmino humanitas ,

la ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฑฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€แฝทฮฑ griega, se usa reiteradamente: cualidad propia del hombre, no

del dios, la humanitas es una de las virtudes que distinguen al bonus princeps del

dominus e incluso es, se ha armado, la cualidad que fundamentalmente alaba

Plinio en Trajano11 . Si se admite que el panegรญrico de Plinio es exponente de un

cambio ideolรณgico que se produce cuando Trajano llega al trono; si se admite

asimismo que Plutarco, como Tรกcito o Diรณn Crisรณstomo, participa plenamente

de dicho cambio; si igualmente se acepta, como estudios recientes aseguran,

que las Vidas Paralelas sรณlo se pudieron gestar en el ambiente intelectual

propiciado por el ascenso de Trajano12 : si todo ello se admite no puede pensarse

que ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฑฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€แฝทฮฑ sea para Plutarco una palabra mรกs. Al contrario, debe ser, en

principio, un tรฉrmino destacado, portador de un fuerte colorido ideolรณgico.

En la sรญncrisis Plutarco atribuye el vergonzoso segundo matrimonio de

Catรณn a falta de ฯƒฯ‰ฯ†ฯฮฟฯƒแฝปฮฝฮท 13 . La parte narrativa que presenta dicho episodio

se abre con el tema del antihelenismo del protagonista, un antihelenismo que,

al unirse a la hostilidad hacia la losofรญa, hacia la medicina griega o hacia

10 Cf. A. G, 1997, p. 69; G. D'I, 2005, pp. 180-1; S.-T. T,

2007, pp.189-90.

11 Cf. P. A. S, 2002b, pp. 228-9. La bรบsqueda del tรฉrmino humanitas en el texto

electrรณnico del Panegรญrico proporciona siete entradas (2.7.2; 3.4.4; 4.7.1; 24.2.3; 47.3.2; 49.6.1;

71.5.3).

12 Vรฉase P. A. S, 2002a, p. 6; M. T. S, 2002, pp. 201-5; G. Z, 2002,

p. 194.

13 Cat. Ma. 33 (6).1.

guras emblemรกticas como Sรณcrates, produce una impresiรณn de rudeza y

ausencia de ฯ€ฮฑฮนฮดฮตแฝทฮฑ muy en sintonรญa con las circunstancias y motivaciones

actuantes en ese segundo matrimonio. Ahora bien, para Plutarco, la cultura,

y concretamente la losofรญa, son un ingrediente esencial del buen gobernante;

baste remitir a determinados pasajes del ad principem indoctum 14 . La postura

antilosรณca e inculta de Catรณn hace de รฉl, por tanto, un mal gobernante.

Plutarco no explicita esta conclusiรณn. Tampoco utiliza la ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฑฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€แฝทฮฑ para

descalicar de manera directa a su protagonista. Pero la actuaciรณn de รฉste se

contrapone a la de aquellas audiencias que escuchaban, llenas de ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฑฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€แฝทฮฑ ,

al lรณsofo Carnรฉades. Quizรกs no carezcan de intenciรณn las menciones de dos

tiranos, Pisรญstrato y Dionisio de Siracusa, insertas en el pasaje que relata el

segundo matrimonio de Catรณn15 .

El apego de Catรณn a las riquezas tambiรฉn aparece en la sรญncrisis, donde

se interpreta como el resultado de una deciente ฮฑแฝฯ„แฝฑฯฮบฮตฮนฮฑ 16 . La inclusiรณn

en un lugar tan destacada como este delata la importancia que reviste el tema

a los ojos del biรณgrafo. La avaricia, la ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฟฯ€ฮปฮฟฯ…ฯ„แฝทฮฑ, constituye para Plutarco

un grave defecto, segรบn muestran las observaciones contenidas en el tratado

de cupiditate divitiarum. Dejando aparte dichas observaciones, que ataรฑen

sobre todo a la vida privada, la carga negativa que supone al ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฟฯ€ฮปoฯ…ฯ„แฝทฮฑ

para el dirigente se indica reeja en dos pasajes de los precepta gerendae rei

publicae. Uno de ellos presenta la ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฟฯ€ฮปฮฟฯ…ฯ„แฝทฮฑ como un rasgo de Cleรณn, un

polรญtico muy censurado por Plutarco17 . El otro conecta la ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฟฯ€ฮปฮฟฯ…ฯ„แฝทฮฑ y la

ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฟฯ‡ฯฮทฮผฮฑฯ„แฝทฮฑ con los mayores desastres en la vida pรบblica18 . La avaricia, es,

igual que la falta de ฯƒฯ‰ฯ†ฮฟฯƒแฝปฮฝฮท, una lacra que colorea muy negativamente la

personalidad de Catรณn como polรญtico. Ambos defectos se mencionan en la

sรญncrisis, y los pasajes narrativos que los presentan y detallan hacen en ambos

casos una menciรณn explicรญta del concepto de ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฑฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€แฝทฮฑ.

Hay una tercera menciรณn explรญcita del concepto de ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฑฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€แฝทฮฑ en la

Vida de Catรณn. Durante la segundo guerra pรบnica Catรณn fue nombrado cuestor

bajo las รณrdenes de Escipiรณn Africano, cรณnsul a la sazรณn. Escipiรณn efectuaba

en Sicilia los preparativos necesarios para desembarcar en รfrica y Catรณn, al

observar la prodigalidad con que el cรณnsul gastaba los fondos pรบblicos y su

lujoso tren de vida, presenta una denuncia en Roma. Dos tribunos llegan de

Roma para vericar la exactitud de la denuncia. Escipiรณn entonces justica los

gastos con la perspectiva de la victoria y hace ver que si durante los momentos

de ocio comparte con sus amigos dulces experiencias, su dedicaciรณn a los

asuntos serios e importantes no queda mermada por ese rรฉgimen de vida

"lantrรณpico"19 . Aparentemente, tampoco aquรญ se percibe un uso polรญtico del

14 Vรฉase, por ejemplo, 779D; 780A; 781A

15 Pisรญstrato: 24.8; Dionisio: 24.11.

16 Cat. Ma. 31 (4).2-4.

17 Praec. ger. rei. 806F. Sobre la valoraciรณn que hace Plutarco de Cleรณn vรฉase G. J. D. A,

1982, p. 30.

18 Praec. ger. rei. 819E.

19 Cat. Ma.3.7 (ฯ†ฮฑฮฝฮตแฝถฯ‚ แผกฮดแฝบฯ‚ ฮผแฝฒฮฝ แผฯ€แฝถ ฯƒฯ‡ฮฟฮปแฟ†ฯ‚ ฯƒฯ…ฮฝฮตแฟ–ฮฝฮฑฮน ฯ†แฝทฮปฮฟฮนฯ‚, ฮฟแฝฮดฮฑฮผแฟ‡ ฮดแฝฒ ฯ„แฟท ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฑฮฝฮธฯแฝฝฯ€แฟณ

ฯ„แฟ†ฯ‚ ฮดฮนฮฑแฝทฯ„ฮทฯ‚ ฮตแผฐฯ‚ ฯ„แฝฐ ฯƒฯ€ฮฟฯ…ฮดฮฑแฟ–ฮฑ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮผฮตฮณแฝฑฮปฮฑ แฟฅแพดฮธฯ…ฮผฮฟฯ‚). Debe subrayarse que la noticia que aquรญ

355

Filantropรญa en la Vida de Catรณn el Viejo

concepto de ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฑฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€แฝทฮฑ, concepto que ademรกs, como ocurrรญa en la narraciรณn

de las conferencias de Carnรฉades, se atribuye al adversario de Catรณn, pero no

se niega a Catรณn mismo. Plutarco tampoco hace, de momento, comentario

alguno sobre este enfrentamiento con Escipiรณn. Pero en la sรญncrisis el episodio

es recordado y utilizado como argumento para una acusaciรณn de peso: con su

ataque a Escipiรณn Catรณn perjudica la guerra contra Anรญbal20 . Una vez mรกs

un pasaje marcado por la presencia aparentemente inocua del concepto de

ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฑฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€แฝทฮฑ da lugar a una condena severa del protagonista.

La Vida de Catรณn no es una biografรญa negativa. A Plutarco le habrรญa sido

muy difรญcil ennegrecer por completo la gura de este personaje, cuya memoria,

adornada con los perles de exemplum tradicional, habรญa pasado a ser todo

un paradigma de las virtudes romanas21 . Pero determinadas actuaciones del

protagonista de la biografรญa, y especialmente su antihelenismo, constituรญan una

mรกcula difรญcil de pasar por alto. De aquรญ que en su retrato convivan las notas

aprobatorias con fuertes reservas. Quizรกs la expresiรณn mรกs elocuente de esta

actitud matizada y ambivalente se da en el capรญtulo sexto, que comentando

el rigor desplegado por Catรณn como pretor en Cerdeรฑa arma que la

administraciรณn romana no fue nunca ni mรกs temida ni mรกs deseada 22. Plutarco,

en suma, se siente con la libertad suciente para emitir un juicio distanciado

que, sin ser negativo, tampoco ahorra las crรญticas. En este sentido la Vida de

Catรณn parece conrmar aquel punto de vista segรบn el cual la historia de la

repรบblica se convierte, con el advenimiento de Trajano, en historia antigua, es

decir, en un รกmbito lo sucientemente lejano como para permitir opiniones

ajenas a la disensiรณn polรญtica y, por tanto, libres y distanciadas23 : si no habรญa

contradicciรณn en presentar como hรฉroes tanto a Cรฉsar como a sus ejecutores,

tampoco lo habรญa en admirar a Catรณn y, al mismo tiempo, desautorizar sus

actuaciones.

Esa desautorizaciรณn actรบa, si la tesis aquรญ propuesta se admite, mediante

la incrustaciรณn en pasajes clave del tรฉrmino ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฑฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€แฝทฮฑ, que marca en el

ambiente ideolรณgico donde se encuadran las Vidas Paralelas una virtud polรญtica

imprescindible. Plutarco, por otra parte, emplea el tรฉrmino ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฑฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€แฝทฮฑ de

manera aparentemente casual, como si se pretendiera restarle importancia.

Ello puede atribuirse a la preferencia del biรณgrafo por una escritura de tono

bajo, que evita subrayar los puntos candentes de la actualidad y que busca

conferir a sus palabras un manto de intemporalidad24 . Cabe tambiรฉn formular

tal preferencia con otras palabras. La escritura de Plutarco conforma un texto

complejo y polisรฉmico en el que proliferan las alusiones, los guiรฑos al lector,

transmite Plutarco es posiblemente falsa, siendo su fuente de inspiraciรณn el conicto que

mantuvieron Escipiรณn y Catรณn a partir del 180: vรฉase A. A. A, 1978, pp.14-6.

20 Cat. Ma. 32 (5).4.

21 Sobre Catรณn como ejemplo de virtudes romanas vรฉase S. A, 1980. La misma autora

(pp. 95-8) habla de una "leyenda negra" (aunque de matices moderados) sobre Catรณn en cuyo

contexto sitรบa la crรญtica de Plutarco.

22 Cat. Ma. 6.4

23 J. G, 2002, p. 97

24 Vรฉase P. A. S, 2002b, pp. 236, 238; C. B. R. P, 2002, pp. 215, 222.

los sobreentendidos y las indicaciones oblicuas. Lo que parece casual puede

ser, en realidad, determinante, y una observaciรณn carente a primera vista de

importancia puede ser la clave sobre la que descansa una interpretaciรณn cargada

de consecuencias. Tal vez deban entenderse bajo esta รณptica las apariciones del

concepto de ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฑฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€แฝทฮฑ en la Vida de Catรณn el Viejo .

bi b l i o g r a f รญ a c i T a d a

A, G. J. D., Plutarch's Political ought, Amsterdam, 1982.

A, S., "Caton le Censeur, les fortunes d'une lรฉgende", Caesarodonum, 15

(1980) 71-107.

A, O., "Demetrio Poliorcete secondo Plutarco: Da una 'grande natura'

a 'grandi' vizi", in Vite parallele. Plutarco. Demetrio (introduzione,

traduzione e note di O. A.); Antonio (introduzione, traduzione e note di

R. S), Milano, 1989, pp. 35-93.

A, A. A., Cato the Censor, Oxford, 1978.

C, J. M., "La Vida de Demetrio como biografรญa negativa", in J. G.

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

VI Simposio Espaรฑol sobre Plutarco (Cรกdiz, 14-16 de Mayo, 1998),

Madrid, 1999, pp. 139-44.

C M, J.M., "La virtud de los animales en el Gryllus de Plutarco",

in J, M.  . (eds.), 2005, 265-272.

C S, M. T., "El Grilo y la sรกtira del humanismo en Maquiavelo

y Gelli", in J, M. . (eds.), 2005, 693-702.

D'I, G., "Filantropia, ellenocentrismo e polietnismo in Plutarco", in

A. P J F. T (eds.), Historical and Biographical

Values of Plutarch's Work. Studies Devoted to Professor Philip A. Stadter by

e International Plutarch Society, Mรกlaga – Logan, 2005, pp. 179-96.

D, T., "Plutarch, Plato and 'Great Natures'", in A. P J  .

(eds.), Plutarco, Platรณn y Aristรณteles. Actas del V Congreso Internacional

de la I. P. S. (Madrid-Cuenca, 4-7 de Mayo de 1999), Madrid, 1999, pp.

313-32.

G, J., "Felicitas Temporum and Plutarch's Choice of heroes", in P . A.

S  L. V  S (eds.), 2002, pp. 91-102.

G, A., Plutarchs' Pelopidas. A Historical and Philological Commentary,

Stuttgart und Leipzig, 1997.

J, M.  . (eds.), Plutarch a la seva รจpoca: paideia e societat. Actas del VII

Simposio Espaรฑol sobre Plutarco (Barcelona, 6-8 de Noviembre de 2003),

Barcelona, 2005.

357

Filantropรญa en la Vida de Catรณn el Viejo

P, C. B. R. , "Plutarch's Caesar: A Caesar for the Caesars?", in P. A.

S  L. V  S (eds.), 2002, pp. 213-26.

S, M.T., "Trajan's Rescript de bonis relegatorum and Plutarch's Ideal

Ruler", in P. A. S  L. V  S (eds.), 2002, pp. 201-

12.

S, P. A., "Introduction: Setting Plutarch in his Context", in P . A.

S  L. V  S (eds.), 2002a, pp. 2-26.

_____ "Plutarch and Trajanic Ideology", in P. A. S  L. V 

S, (eds.), 2002b, pp. 227-41.

_____  V  S, L. (eds.), Sage and Emperor. Plutarch, Greek

Intellectuals, and Roman Power in the Time of Trajan (98-117 A.D.),

Leuven, 2002.

T, S.-T., "Four Terms of Friendly Emotion in Plutarch:

ฮฆฮนฮปฮฑฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€แฝทฮฑ, ฯ†ฮนฮปแฝทฮฑ , แผ”ฯฯ‰ฯ‚ , ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฟฯƒฯ„ฯฮณแฝทฮฑ ", in J. M. N I  R.

L L (eds.), El Amor en Plutarco. Actas del IX Simposio espaรฑol

sobre Plutarco (28-30 de Septiembre, 2006), Leรณn, 2007, pp. 187-97.

Z, G., "Plutarch as Political eorist and Trajan: some reections", in

P. A. S  L. V  S (eds.), 2002, pp. 191-200.

359

O sentido de philanthropia nas biograas de Coriolano, Cรญcero e Catรฃo de รštica

o s e n T i d o d e p H i l a n T H r o p i a n a s b i o g r a f i a s d e co r i o l a n o ,

cรญ c e r o e ca T รฃ o d e รšT i c a

J J. S. P

Universidade da Madeira

Abstract

In this paper, we propose to identify the sense and context of philanthropia, one of the transversal

concepts of Greek culture, in the Roman biographies of Coriolanus, Cicero, and Cato Minor.

Our aim is to analyse the actions that Plutarch associates with philanthropia and the various

values attached to it. In restricting our research to Roman biographies we intend to evaluate the

sense of philanthropia in Plutarchan synkriseis and its cultural implications.

A interpretaรงรฃo do sentido de philanthropia nas biograas de Coriolano,

Cรญcero e Catรฃo de รštica tem o objectivo de avaliar o contexto em que Plutarco

usa o vocรกbulo e de vericar se รฉ possรญvel notar alguma diferenรงa semรขntica por

serem herรณis romanos. Tanto as Vidas Paralelas como os Tratados Morais parecem

indicar que, em geral, se procede a uma helenizaรงรฃo da identidade romana, como

acontece, por exemplo, nas Quaestiones Romanae 1 , ao nรญvel da religiรฃo.

A philanthropia, juntamente com outros valores, como a dikaiosyne ,

a praotes, a andreia, a phronesis, a sophrosyne, รฉ uma manifestaรงรฃo da paideia ,

que remete para a dimensรฃo moral, losรณca ou รฉtica do ser humano. Nessa

medida, a sionomia pode nรฃo revelar o ethos philanthropon, como Plutarco

refere na biograa de Fรณcion (5.1):

ฮคแฟท ฮด' แผคฮธฮตฮน ฯ€ฯฮฟฯƒฮทฮฝฮญฯƒฯ„ฮฑฯ„ฮฟฯ‚ แฝขฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฑฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€ฯŒฯ„ฮฑฯ„ฮฟฯ‚, แผ€ฯ€แฝธ ฯ„ฮฟแฟฆ ฯ€ฯฮฟฯ‚ฯŽฯ€ฮฟฯ…

ฮดฯ…ฯƒฮพฯฮผฮฒฮฟฮปฮฟฯ‚ แผฯ†ฮฑฮฏฮฝฮตฯ„ฮฟ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯƒฮบฯ…ฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€ฯŒฯ‚, แฝฅฯƒฯ„ฮต ฮผแฝด แฟฅแพณฮดฮฏฯ‰ฯ‚ แผ„ฮฝ ฯ„ฮนฮฝฮฑ ฮผฯŒฮฝฮฟฮฝ

แผฮฝฯ„ฯ…ฯ‡ฮตแฟ–ฮฝ ฮฑแฝฯ„แฟท ฯ„แฟถฮฝ แผ€ฯƒฯ…ฮฝฮฎฮธฯ‰ฮฝ.

Embora [Fรณcio] possuรญsse um carรกcter muito afรกvel e humano, pelo semblante

parecia ser tรฃo pouco sociรกvel e austero que dicilmente alguรฉm ia ao encontro

dele sozinho, a nรฃo ser que fosse seu familiar.

Apesar de a philanthropia dos herรณis se manifestar em vรกrias acรงรตes,

como adiante veremos, รฉ no รญntimo de cada indivรญduo e pelo controlo da parte

irracional da alma que, numa primeira fase, se consolida este valor. Nesse sentido,

a philanthropia, a praotes, a epieikeia ou a sophrosyne, por oposiรงรฃo ร  kakoetheia ,

surgem associadas a uma ideia de equilรญbrio, sociabilidade, indulgรชncia,

afabilidade e autodomรญnio2 . Filopรฉmen, "o รบltimo dos Gregos", tentou imitar a

inteligรชncia e a integridade de Epaminondas, mas nรฃo conseguiu, nas disputas

polรญticas, ser el ร  philanthropia, por causa da cรณlera (orge) e do seu carรกcter

belicoso (philonikia )3 . Desse modo, tomou duas medidas sintomรกticas de uma

1 E.g. 269A e 274E-F.

2 Cf. Cor. 21.1.

3 Cf. Phil. 3.1-2, 2.2-4, 13.8 e 17.5.

360

Joaquim J. S. Pinheiro

paideia deciente: a aboliรงรฃo da constituiรงรฃo de Licurgo e a substituiรงรฃo da

educaรงรฃo espartana pela aqueia4 . Tambรฉm a Coriolano faltava, por um lado, a

paideia grega e, por outro, a ฯ€ฯฮฑแฝนฯ„ฮทฯ‚ e a ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฑฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€แฝทฮฑ, duas virtudes essenciais

para a intervenรงรฃo na vida pรบblica, pois o seu ethos fundava-se, em especial, na

แฝ€ฯฮณแฝต e na ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฟฯ„ฮนฮผแฝทฮฑ, uma vez que desejava superar as suas prรณprias provas de

heroรญsmo e aumentar a sua fama5 . Para Plutarco, de facto, a philanthropia, tal

como outras virtudes, estรก directamente relacionada com a paideia, como se

depreende da apresentaรงรฃo sumรกria de Marcelo (Marc. 1.2-3):

แผฆฮฝ ฮณแฝฐฯ ฯ„แฟ‡ ฮผแฝฒฮฝ แผฮผฯ€ฮตฮนฯฮฏแพณ ฯ€ฮฟฮปฮตฮผฮนฮบฯŒฯ‚, ฯ„แฟท ฮดแฝฒ ฯƒฯŽฮผฮฑฯ„ฮน แฟฅฯ‰ฮผฮฑฮปฮญฮฟฯ‚, ฯ„แฟ‡ ฮดแฝฒ

ฯ‡ฮตฮนฯแฝถ ฯ€ฮปฮฎฮบฯ„ฮทฯ‚, ฯ„แฟ‡ ฮดแฝฒ ฯ†ฯฯƒฮตฮน ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฟฯ€ฯŒฮปฮตฮผฮฟฯ‚, ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ„ฮฟแฟฆฯ„ฮฟ ฮดแฝด ฯ€ฮฟฮปแฝบ ฯ„แฝธ ฮณฮฑแฟฆฯฮฟฮฝ

ฮบฮฑแฝถ แผ€ฮณฮญฯฯ‰ฯ‡ฮฟฮฝ แผฯ€ฮนฯ†ฮฑฮฏฮฝฯ‰ฮฝ แผฮฝ ฯ„ฮฟแฟ–ฯ‚ แผ€ฮณแฟถฯƒฮน· ฯ„แฟท ฮด' แผ„ฮปฮปแฟณ ฯ„ฯฯŒฯ€แฟณ ฯƒฯŽฯ†ฯฯ‰ฮฝ,

ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฌฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€ฮฟฯ‚, แผ™ฮปฮปฮทฮฝฮนฮบแฟ†ฯ‚ ฯ€ฮฑฮนฮดฮตฮฏฮฑฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮปฯŒฮณฯ‰ฮฝ แผ„ฯ‡ฯฮน ฯ„ฮฟแฟฆ ฯ„ฮนฮผแพถฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮธฮฑฯ…ฮผฮฌฮถฮตฮนฮฝ

ฯ„ฮฟแฝบฯ‚ ฮบฮฑฯ„ฮฟฯฮธฮฟแฟฆฮฝฯ„ฮฑฯ‚ แผฯฮฑฯƒฯ„ฮฎฯ‚, ฮฑแฝฯ„แฝธฯ‚ ฮด' แฝ‘ฯ€' แผ€ฯƒฯ‡ฮฟฮปฮนแฟถฮฝ แผฯ†' แฝ…ฯƒฮฟฮฝ แผฆฮฝ ฯ€ฯฯŒฮธฯ…ฮผฮฟฯ‚

แผ€ฯƒฮบแฟ†ฯƒฮฑฮน ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮผฮฑฮธฮตแฟ–ฮฝ ฮฟแฝฮบ แผฮพฮนฮบฯŒฮผฮตฮฝฮฟฯ‚.

Ele tinha, na verdade, experiรชncia na arte guerreira, um corpo vigoroso, mรฃos

lutadoras, uma natureza amante da guerra e, nos combates, demonstrava ser

muito autoritรกrio e dominador. Porรฉm, quanto ao resto, era moderado, humano,

amante da cultura e das letras gregas, a ponto de honrar e admirar os que se

dedicam a elas com รชxito, mas ele, por causa das suas ocupaรงรตes, nรฃo as consegue

exercitar e estudar tanto quanto desejaria.

Desta forma, a philanthropia faz parte da paideia e confunde-se com

ela. Se a paideia se sobrepรตe ร s fronteiras espaciais como traรงo distintivo do

homem, tambรฉm a philanthropia surge como uma qualidade que exerce grande

inuรชncia nas atitudes sociais e no desempenho da actividade polรญtica. Plutarco,

aliรกs, no tratado Praecepta gerendae reipublicae (823A-C), inclui a philanthropia

na lista das qualidades do polรญtico ideal:

แผ€ฮปฮปแฝฐ ฯ€ฯแฟถฯ„ฮฟฮฝ ฮผแฝฒฮฝ ฮตแฝฯ€ฯฮฟฯƒฮฎฮณฮฟฯฮฟฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮบฮฟฮนฮฝแฝธฯ‚ แฝขฮฝ ฯ€ฮตฮปฮฌฯƒฮฑฮน ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ€ฯฮฟฯƒฮตฮปฮธฮตแฟ–ฮฝ

แผ…ฯ€ฮฑฯƒฮนฮฝ, ฮฟแผฐฮบฮฏฮฑฮฝ ฯ„ฮต ฯ€ฮฑฯฮญฯ‡ฯ‰ฮฝ แผ„ฮบฮปฮตฮนฯƒฯ„ฮฟฮฝ แฝกฯ‚ ฮปฮนฮผฮญฮฝฮฑ ฯ†ฯฮพฮนฮผฮฟฮฝ แผ€ฮตแฝถ ฯ„ฮฟแฟ–ฯ‚ ฯ‡ฯแฟ„ฮถฮฟฯ…ฯƒฮน,

ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ„แฝธ ฮบฮทฮดฮตฮผฮฟฮฝฮนฮบแฝธฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฌฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€ฮฟฮฝ ฮฟแฝ ฯ‡ฯฮตฮฏฮฑฮนฯ‚ ฮฟแฝฮดแฝฒ ฯ€ฯฮฌฮพฮตฯƒฮน ฮผฯŒฮฝฮฟฮฝ แผ€ฮปฮปแฝฐ

ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ„แฟท ฯƒฯ…ฮฝฮฑฮปฮณฮตแฟ–ฮฝ ฯ€ฯ„ฮฑฮฏฮฟฯ…ฯƒฮน ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮบฮฑฯ„ฮฟฯฮธฮฟแฟฆฯƒฮน ฯƒฯ…ฮณฯ‡ฮฑฮฏฯฮตฮนฮฝ แผฯ€ฮนฮดฮตฮนฮบฮฝฯฮผฮตฮฝฮฟฯ‚·

Em primeiro lugar, [o homem de Estado] รฉ afรกvel e sociรกvel com todos os que

dele se aproximam e o consultam. Tem a casa aberta como um porto sempre

pronto a acolher os necessitados e demonstra a sua solicitude e humanidade

nรฃo apenas nos afazeres e acรงรตes mas tambรฉm ao partilhar a dor com os que

fracassam e ao congratular-se com os que alcanรงam รชxito.

4 Cf. Phil. 16.7-9. Para Polรญbio (21.32.3), esse foi um estratagema de Filopรฉmen para reduzir

o papel da Esparta. Por sua vez, Pausรขnias (8.51.3) refere que Filopรฉmen destruiu as muralhas de

Esparta e que proibiu os jovens espartanos de se exercitarem segundo as leis de Licurgo, mas que

o deviam fazer como os jovens aqueus. Seriam os Romanos a ter um papel importante, segundo

Plutarco e Pausรขnias, na readopรงรฃo da antiga constituiรงรฃo.

5 Cf. Cor. 4.3 e 15.4.

361

O sentido de philanthropia nas biograas de Coriolano, Cรญcero e Catรฃo de รštica

Temos, assim, um sentido fundamental de philanthropia: o relacionamento

interpessoal, ou seja, a sociabilidade com outros membros da comunidade ou com as

instituiรงรตes da cidade6 . ร‰ nesse contexto, sobretudo, que encontramos a maioria das

ocorrรชncias do vocรกbulo, como concluiu F. Frazier (1996) ao comparar philanthropos

com praos e epieikes , dois adjectivos de sentido similar. Ao longo dos tratados

polรญticos, por exemplo, o Queronense lembra recorrentemente a necessidade de

o polรญtico tratar os concidadรฃos com amabilidade e benevolรชncia, mesmo quando

nรฃo sรฃo amigos (816C). Nas Vitae , por sua vez, podemos enumerar como exemplo

de philanthropia : a forma bondosa como Teseu tratou os mais humildes, passando

estes a aproveitar o tรบmulo do herรณi fundador para local de refรบgio (es. 36.4); a

excessiva severidade usada por Catรฃo Censor com os escravos, levando o biรณgrafo

a aconselhar a prรกtica da philanthropia ( Cat. Ma. 5); o prรณprio Alcibรญades, um dos

herรณis de carรกcter mais ambรญguo, protagoniza uma sรฉrie de acรงรตes que atenuam os

seus defeitos, como a humanidade (philanthropia) que evidencia ao criar o lho que

teve da relaรงรฃo com uma concubina de Melos7 . Discernir as virtudes dos herรณis nem

sempre รฉ uma tarefa fรกcil, nรฃo sรณ por causa do uso no mesmo sintagma de duas ou

trรชs palavras quase sinรณnimas, um recurso estilรญstico muito frequente em Plutarco8 ,

mas tambรฉm porque as virtudes se manifestam, na prรกtica, de forma complexa, como

se refere na introduรงรฃo da biograa de Fรณcion, o par grego de Catรฃo de รštica9 :

ฯ„ฮฟฯฯ„ฯ‰ฮฝ ฮดแฝฒ ฯ„แฟถฮฝ แผ€ฮฝฮดฯแฟถฮฝ ฮฑแผฑ แผ€ฯฮตฯ„ฮฑแฝถ ฮผฮญฯ‡ฯฮน ฯ„แฟถฮฝ ฯ„ฮตฮปฮตฯ…ฯ„ฮฑฮฏฯ‰ฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ แผ€ฯ„ฯŒฮผฯ‰ฮฝ ฮดฮนฮฑฯ†ฮฟฯแฟถฮฝ

แผ•ฮฝฮฑ ฯ‡ฮฑฯฮฑฮบฯ„แฟ†ฯฮฑ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮผฮฟฯฯ†แฝดฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ‡ฯแฟถฮผฮฑ ฮบฮฟฮนฮฝแฝธฮฝ แผคฮธฮฟฯ…ฯ‚ แผฮณฮบฮตฮบฯฮฑฮผฮญฮฝฮฟฮฝ แผฮบฯ†ฮญฯฮฟฯ…ฯƒฮนฮฝ,

แฝฅฯƒฯ€ฮตฯ แผดฯƒแฟณ ฮผฮญฯ„ฯแฟณ ฮผฮตฮผฮตฮนฮณฮผฮญฮฝฮฟฯ… ฯ€ฯแฝธฯ‚ ฯ„แฝธ ฮฑแฝฯƒฯ„ฮทฯแฝธฮฝ ฯ„ฮฟแฟฆ ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฑฮฝฮธฯฯŽฯ€ฮฟฯ…, ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ€ฯแฝธฯ‚

ฯ„แฝธ แผ€ฯƒฯ†ฮฑฮปแฝฒฯ‚ ฯ„ฮฟแฟฆ แผ€ฮฝฮดฯฮตฮฏฮฟฯ…, ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ„แฟ†ฯ‚ แฝ‘ฯ€แฝฒฯ แผ„ฮปฮปฯ‰ฮฝ ฮผแฝฒฮฝ ฮบฮทฮดฮตฮผฮฟฮฝฮฏฮฑฯ‚, แฝ‘ฯ€แฝฒฯ ฮฑแฝฯ„แฟถฮฝ

ฮด' แผ€ฯ†ฮฟฮฒฮฏฮฑฯ‚, ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ€ฯแฝธฯ‚ ฮผแฝฒฮฝ ฯ„แฝธ ฮฑแผฐฯƒฯ‡ฯแฝธฮฝ ฮตแฝฮปฮฑฮฒฮตฮฏฮฑฯ‚, ฯ€ฯแฝธฯ‚ ฮดแฝฒ ฯ„แฝธ ฮดฮฏฮบฮฑฮนฮฟฮฝ ฮตแฝฯ„ฮฟฮฝฮฏฮฑฯ‚

ฯƒฯ…ฮฝฮทฯฮผฮฟฯƒฮผฮญฮฝฮทฯ‚ แฝฮผฮฟฮฏฯ‰ฯ‚· แฝฅฯƒฯ„ฮต ฮปฮตฯ€ฯ„ฮฟแฟฆ ฯ€ฮฌฮฝฯ… ฮปฯŒฮณฮฟฯ… ฮดฮตแฟ–ฯƒฮธฮฑฮน ฮบฮฑฮธฮฌฯ€ฮตฯ แฝ€ฯฮณฮฌฮฝฮฟฯ…

ฯ€ฯแฝธฯ‚ ฮดฮนฮฌฮบฯฮนฯƒฮนฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ แผ€ฮฝฮตฯฯฮตฯƒฮนฮฝ ฯ„แฟถฮฝ ฮดฮนฮฑฯ†ฮตฯฯŒฮฝฯ„ฯ‰ฮฝ.

As virtudes destes homens [Fรณcion e Catรฃo de รštica] mostram, atรฉ ร s รบltimas

e inseparรกveis diferenรงas, um sรณ carรกcter, aspecto e moral, formadas de uma

matiz comum, como se tivessem misturado em igual medida a austeridade e a

humanidade, a coragem e a prudรชncia, a solicitude pelos outros e a intrepidez

por eles prรณprios, a precauรงรฃo contra actos vis e o ardor, igualmente harmonioso,

pela justiรงa. Por conseguinte, รฉ necessรกrio usar, como instrumento, um discurso

extremamente subtil para separar e descobrir as diferenรงas.

Quanto ร  ocorrรชncia dos vocรกbulos ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฑฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€แฝทฮฑ , ฯ†ฮนฮปแฝฑฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€ฮฟฯ‚ (adj.) e

ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฑฮฝฮธฯแฝฝฯ€ฯ‰ฯ‚ (adv.) nas trรชs biograas que servem de base ao nosso estudo,

comeรงamos por fazer referรชncia a um elemento quantitativo: nos pares Fรณcion-

Catรฃo de รštica e Demรณstenes-Cรญcero , รฉ na biograa romana que esses vocรกbulos

6 P. C , Dictionnaire ร‰tymologique de la Langue Grecque, Paris, 1984, s.u. ฯ†แฝทฮปฮฟฯ‚ :

considera que mais do que uma relaรงรฃo sentimental exprime a pertenรงa a um grupo social.

7 Cf. Alc.16.5; esta acรงรฃo รฉ analisada em conjunto com o apoio que deu ร  terrรญvel carnicina

contra os Mรฉlios (16.6).

8 S.-T. T, 2000.

9 Phoc. 3.8; cf. Mul. Virt. 243C e Quaest. Conu. 732B.

362

Joaquim J. S. Pinheiro

se encontram com mais frequรชncia, enquanto no par Coriolano-Alcibรญades

as ocorrรชncias se repartem de forma equitativa (5). Logo, estes elementos

parecem conrmar a ideia de que as biograas romanas das Vidas Paralelas sรฃo

essenciais para a anรกlise de conceitos รฉticos, em especial os que pertencem ร 

tradiรงรฃo cultural helรฉnica, como รฉ o caso da philanthropia

A biograa de Coriolano comprova que existe uma relaรงรฃo entre paideia e

philanthropia. O Romano รฉ, segundo Plutarco, "testemunha para os que pensam

que a natureza, ainda que seja nobre e boa, se tiver uma educaรงรฃo insuciente,

produz muitos defeitos juntamente com qualidades, tal como acontece na

agricultura a um campo fรฉrtil que ca sem cultivo" (1.3) e, por este motivo a acรงรฃo

polรญtica de Coriolano caria marcada por diversos excessos, de tal modo que ao

longo da narrativa biogrรกca nenhuma das suas acรงรตes merece ser relacionada

com a philanthropia. Em 16.2, o adjectivo philanthropos surge associado ao preรงo

do trigo: แผฮปฯ€ฮฏฮถฯ‰ฮฝ แผ€ฮณฮฟฯแพท ฯ„ฮต ฯ‡ฯฮฎฯƒฮตฯƒฮธฮฑฮน ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฑฮฝฮธฯฯŽฯ€แฟณ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ€ฯฮฟแฟ–ฮบฮฑ ฯ„แฝฐฯ‚ ฮดฯ‰ฯฮตแฝฐฯ‚

ฮฝฮตฮผฮทฮธฮฎฯƒฮตฯƒฮธฮฑฮน ( [o povo] esperava comprar no mercado o grรฃo a um preรงo moderado

e receber de forma gratuita o trigo que tinha sido enviado como presente). Como se

vive uma enorme tensรฃo social na Vrbs , entre patrรญcios e plebeus, em dois casos o

mesmo adjectivo surge associado ร  politeia (17.7 e 19.3):

(…) แผ€ฮปฮปแฝฐ ฮบฮฑฮนฯแฝธฮฝ แผฯ€ฮนฯƒฯ†ฮฑฮปแฟ† ฮบฮฑแฝถ แฝ€ฮพแฝบฮฝ ฮตแฝฮณฮฝฯŽฮผฮฟฮฝฮฟฯ‚ ฯ€ฮฟฮปฮนฯ„ฮตฮฏฮฑฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฑฮฝฮธฯฯŽฯ€ฮฟฯ…

ฮดฮตฯŒฮผฮตฮฝฮฟฮฝ.

(…) mas o momento instรกvel e crรญtico requeria uma polรญtica prudente e

generosa.

ฮฟแผฑ ฮดแฝฒ ฯ€ฯฮตฯƒฮฒฯฯ„ฮฑฯ„ฮฟฮน ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮดฮทฮผฮฟฯ„ฮนฮบฯŽฯ„ฮฑฯ„ฮฟฮน ฯ„ฮฟแฝฮฝฮฑฮฝฯ„ฮฏฮฟฮฝ แผ ฮพฮฏฮฟฯ…ฮฝ ฮฟแฝ ฯ‡ฮฑฮปฮตฯ€แฝธฮฝ ฮฟแฝฮดแฝฒ

ฮฒฮฑฯฯฮฝ, แผ€ฮปฮปแฝฐ ฯ€ฯแพทฮฟฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฌฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€ฮฟฮฝ แฝ‘ฯ€แฝธ ฯ„แฟ†ฯ‚ แผฮพฮฟฯ…ฯƒฮฏฮฑฯ‚ แผ”ฯƒฮตฯƒฮธฮฑฮน ฯ„แฝธฮฝ ฮดแฟ†ฮผฮฟฮฝ·

Os senadores mais velhos e com mais sentimento democrรกtico julgavam que

o povo, com esta faculdade, nรฃo se tornaria violento e severo, mas afรกvel e

humano.

Em 30.7, os adjectivos epieikes e philanthropos (respectivamente, moderaรงรฃo

e cortesia) servem para qualicar o logos 10 dos embaixadores, enviados para

demover Coriolano do ataque a Roma. Pelo contrรกrio, Coriolano, novamente

movido pela orge, revela-se inexรญvel, impondo um limite de trinta dias aos

Romanos para cederem ร s pretensรตes dos Volscos. Passado o momento da

trรฉgua, conta Plutarco que รฉ o prรณprio Coriolano, curiosamente, que aconselha

os Romanos a serem mais moderados e benรฉvolos com os Volscos (31.6),

notando-se a repetiรงรฃo dos dois adjectivos usados antes para qualicar o

discurso dos embaixadores romanos.

Quanto a Cรญcero, alรฉm da curiosidade intelectual e do percurso polรญtico, isto รฉ,

a harmonizaรงรฃo da paideia com a politeia, Plutarco enfatiza a forma como o orador

10 Cf. Aem. 6.5 e Pyrrh. 18.6; em Phoc. 27.6, surge associada ร s condiรงรตes do acordo.

363

O sentido de philanthropia nas biograas de Coriolano, Cรญcero e Catรฃo de รštica

romano conseguiu ser รญntegro e justo11. Refere-se, aliรกs, que Cรญcero, relativamente

ao processo judicial de Manรญlio, exigiu que o rรฉu fosse tratado segundo o que

a lei permitia, pois ele prรณprio sempre havia tratado os rรฉus com benevolรชncia

(แผฯ€ฮนฮตฮนฮบแฟถฯ‚) e humanidade ( ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฑฮฝฮธฯแฝฝฯ€ฯ‰ฯ‚ )12 . ร‰, contudo, na synkrisis (3.4) que se

encontra talvez o texto mais elucidativo da philanthropia de Cรญcero:

ฯ€ฮฟฮปฮปแฝดฮฝ ฮผแฝฒฮฝ แผฯ€ฮฏฮดฮตฮนฮพฮนฮฝ แฝ‘ฯ€ฮตฯฮฟฯˆฮฏฮฑฯ‚ ฯ‡ฯฮทฮผฮฌฯ„ฯ‰ฮฝ แผฯ€ฮฟฮนฮฎฯƒฮฑฯ„ฮฟ, ฯ€ฮฟฮปฮปแฝดฮฝ ฮดแฝฒ

ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฑฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€ฮฏฮฑฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ‡ฯฮทฯƒฯ„ฯŒฯ„ฮทฯ„ฮฟฯ‚.

[Cรญcero] deu, por um lado, muitas provas do seu desprezo pelo dinheiro, e, por

outro, muitas da sua humanidade e bondade.

Ao longo da biograa, notamos o facto de a philanthropia surgir trรชs vezes

associada a Cรฉsar (21.5, 40.5 e 45.3), o que nรฃo causa qualquer estranheza, tendo

em conta que o mesmo sucede na prรณpria biograa de Cรฉsar (8.1) ou na de Catรฃo

de รštica (22.5 e 23.1), quando Plutarco narra os acontecimentos que envolvem

Catilina13 . Associada ao tom de um discurso ou ร  prรณpria acรงรฃo de Cรฉsar, a

philanthropia assume-se como um valioso instrumento de persuasรฃo polรญtica

(Caes. 13.4). Usando o mesmo recurso, conta Plutarco que Clรณdio persuade o

povo com ฮฝแฝนฮผฮฟฮนฯ‚ ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฑฮฝฮธฯแฝฝฯ€ฮฟฮนฯ‚ (30.1), de forma a colocar em perigo a situaรงรฃo

polรญtica de Cรญcero. Resta-nos mencionar o sintagma ฮบฮฑฯ„ฮฑฯ†ฯ…ฮณแฝดฮฝ ฯ†ฮนฮปแฝฑฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€ฮฟฮฝ

(47.7), realรงando-se o facto de o adjectivo philanthropos, com o sentido de

"agradรกvel" ou "tranquilo", qualicar o local de refรบgio de Cรญcero, em Gaeta.

O terceiro herรณi romano aqui tratado, o Uticense, รฉ descrito, por Plutarco,

como um homem แผ€ฯฮตฯ„แฟ†ฯ‚ แผฮฝฮธฮฟฯ…ฯƒฮนฮฑฯƒฮผฯŒฯ‚, แฝ‘ฯ€แฝฒฯ ฯ„แฟถฮฝ ฮบฮฑฮปแฟถฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮดฮนฮบฮฑฮฏฯ‰ฮฝ

แผ€ฮณฯ‰ฮฝฮนฮถฮฟฮผฮญฮฝฮทฯ‚ ( entusiasmado com a virtude e que luta pelo bem e pela justiรงa,

26.5). Apesar dessas qualidades, o Romano nรฃo se deixa vencer, como alguns

senadores, pela praotes e philanthropia, apรณs o discurso de Cรฉsar, atrรกs referido,

mas reage com orge e pathos (23.1), revelando, nesta ocasiรฃo, uma atitude

contrรกria ร  metriopatheia. Em trรชs ocasiรตes a philanthropia surge associada ร 

justiรงa (21.5, 21.10, 29.4), merecendo Catรฃo de รštica, segundo Plutarco, a

admiraรงรฃo da maioria dos cidadรฃos pela sua conduta humana (philanthropia)

e moderada (metriotes) no caso de Metelo, com quem Catรฃo teve diversos

confrontos polรญticos, em particular quando, em 62 a. C., os dois exerceram o

cargo de tribunos da plebe. Mais evidente ainda รฉ o elogio feito por Plutarco

apรณs o discurso proferido por Catรฃo (60.1):

(…) แผฆฯƒฮฑฮฝ ฮผแฝฒฮฝ ฮฟแผฑ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ„ฮฟแฟ–ฯ‚ ฮปฯŒฮณฮฟฮนฯ‚ แผ€ฮณฯŒฮผฮตฮฝฮฟฮน ฯ€ฯแฝธฯ‚ ฯ„แฝธ ฮธฮฑฯฯฮตแฟ–ฮฝ, ฮฟแผฑ ฮดแฝฒ ฯ€ฮปฮตแฟ–ฯƒฯ„ฮฟฮน ฯ€ฯแฝธฯ‚

ฯ„แฝธ แผ€ฮดฮตแฝฒฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮณฮตฮฝฮฝฮฑแฟ–ฮฟฮฝ ฮฑแฝฯ„ฮฟแฟฆ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฌฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€ฮฟฮฝ แฝ€ฮปฮฏฮณฮฟฯ… ฮดฮตแฟ–ฮฝ แผฮบฮปฮฑฮธฯŒฮผฮตฮฝฮฟฮน ฯ„แฟถฮฝ

ฯ€ฮฑฯฯŒฮฝฯ„ฯ‰ฮฝ, แฝกฯ‚ ฮผฯŒฮฝฮฟฮฝ แฝ„ฮฝฯ„ฮฑ ฯ„ฮฟแฟฆฯ„ฮฟฮฝ แผ€ฮฎฯ„ฯ„ฮทฯ„ฮฟฮฝ แผกฮณฮตฮผฯŒฮฝฮฑ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ€ฮฌฯƒฮทฯ‚ ฮบฯฮตฮฏฯ„ฯ„ฮฟฮฝฮฑ

ฯ„ฯฯ‡ฮทฯ‚, แผฮดฮญฮฟฮฝฯ„ฮฟ ฯ‡ฯแฟ†ฯƒฮธฮฑฮน ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯƒฯŽฮผฮฑฯƒฮนฮฝ ฮฑแฝฯ„แฟถฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ‡ฯฮฎฮผฮฑฯƒฮน ฮบฮฑแฝถ แฝ…ฯ€ฮปฮฟฮนฯ‚ (…)

11 Cf. ibidem. 8.2; em 36. 3-5, elogia-se a administraรงรฃo que Cรญcero fez dos bens.

12 Cf. ibidem. 9.6.

13 Sobre Plutarco e Catilina, vide C. B. R. P, 2002.

364

Joaquim J. S. Pinheiro

(…) com as palavras de Catรฃo, alguns recuperaram a conanรงa, mas a maior

parte, perante a audรกcia, a nobreza e a humanidade dele, depressa esqueceu o

momento presente e, considerando-o o รบnico chefe invencรญvel e mais forte do

que todo o tipo de vicissitude, pedia-lhe que usasse os seus corpos, os seus bens

e as suas armas (…).

ร‰ deste modo que se associa de forma directa a philanthropia a uma gura

importante da histรณria romana do sรฉculo I a. C., digno do nome de philosophos14

e que havia sido, como Plutarco, sacerdote de Apolo15 .

Este conjunto de ocorrรชncias prova que a philanthropia: primeiro, surge, na

maioria das vezes associada ร  paideia e ร  politeia; segundo, nรฃo sรณ caracteriza o ethos

dos herรณis, como tambรฉm, por exemplo, leis ou locais; e terceiro, รฉ um valor acessรญvel

ao Romanos16 . Plutarco nรฃo esconde, no entanto, que a philanthropia รฉ uma marca

do virtuosismo da Hรฉlade e, em particular, de Atenas, como se pode ler no nal da

biograa de Aristides17 : แผงฯ‚ ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฑฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€ฮฏฮฑฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ‡ฯฮทฯƒฯ„ฯŒฯ„ฮทฯ„ฮฟฯ‚ แผ”ฯ„ฮน ฯ€ฮฟฮปฮปแฝฐ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮบฮฑฮธ' แผกฮผแพถฯ‚

แผก ฯ€ฯŒฮปฮนฯ‚ แผฮบฯ†ฮญฯฮฟฯ…ฯƒฮฑ ฮดฮตฮฏฮณฮผฮฑฯ„ฮฑ ฮธฮฑฯ…ฮผฮฌฮถฮตฯ„ฮฑฮน ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮถฮทฮปฮฟแฟฆฯ„ฮฑฮน ฮดฮนฮบฮฑฮฏฯ‰ฯ‚ ( Ainda nos nossos

dias a cidade de Atenas oferece numerosos exemplos desta humanidade e benevolรชncia,

e, por causa disso, รฉ, com razรฃo, admirada e emulada); ou quando, na biograa de

Pelรณpidas18 , contrapรตe ร  habilidade guerreira e ร  conduta tirรขnica dos Espartano

a philanthropia ancestral dos Atenienses que trataram com respeito os Tebanos19 .

Rera-se que, na linha da partilha dos valores, jรก Dionรญsio de Halicarnasso (Ant.

Rom. 1.89.1) armara que Roma, a cidade grega, era a mais sociรกvel e humanitรกria

das cidades por ser refรบgio para bรกrbaros, fugitivos e vagabundos.

14 Cf. Cat. Ma. 27.7.

15 Cf. Cat. Mi. 4.1.

16 C f. Marc. 20.1: ฮคแฟถฮฝ ฮดแฝฒ แฟฌฯ‰ฮผฮฑฮฏฯ‰ฮฝ ฯ„ฮฟแฟ–ฯ‚ แผฮบฯ„แฝธฯ‚ แผ€ฮฝฮธฯฯŽฯ€ฮฟฮนฯ‚ ฮดฮตฮนฮฝแฟถฮฝ ฮผแฝฒฮฝ ฮตแผถฮฝฮฑฮน ฯ€ฯŒฮปฮตฮผฮฟฮฝ

ฮผฮตฯ„ฮฑฯ‡ฮตฮนฯฮฏฯƒฮฑฯƒฮธฮฑฮน ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ†ฮฟฮฒฮตฯแฟถฮฝ ฮตแผฐฯ‚ ฯ‡ฮตแฟ–ฯฮฑฯ‚ แผฮปฮธฮตแฟ–ฮฝ ฮฝฮฟฮผฮนฮถฮฟฮผฮญฮฝฯ‰ฮฝ, ฮตแฝฮณฮฝฯ‰ฮผฮฟฯƒฯฮฝฮทฯ‚ ฮดแฝฒ ฮบฮฑแฝถ

ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฑฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€ฮฏฮฑฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ แฝ…ฮปฯ‰ฯ‚ ฯ€ฮฟฮปฮนฯ„ฮนฮบแฟ†ฯ‚ แผ€ฯฮตฯ„แฟ†ฯ‚ แฝ‘ฯ€ฮฟฮดฮตฮฏฮณฮผฮฑฯ„ฮฑ ฮผแฝด ฮดฮตฮดฯ‰ฮบฯŒฯ„ฯ‰ฮฝ, ฯ€ฯแฟถฯ„ฮฟฯ‚ ฮดฮฟฮบฮตแฟ– ฯ„ฯŒฯ„ฮต

ฮœฮฌฯฮบฮตฮปฮปฮฟฯ‚ แฝ‘ฯ€ฮฟฮดฮตแฟ–ฮพฮฑฮน ฯ„ฮฟแฟ–ฯ‚ แผฮปฮปฮทฯƒฮน ฮดฮนฮบฮฑฮนฮฟฯ„ฮฌฯ„ฮฟฯ…ฯ‚ แฟฌฯ‰ฮผฮฑฮฏฮฟฯ…ฯ‚. Para os estrangeiros, os Romanos

eram considerados hรกbeis na conduรงรฃo da guerra e terrรญveis na luta, nรฃo tendo dado provas de

benevolรชncia, de humanidade e, em geral, de virtude polรญtica. Marcelo parece ter sido o primeiro a

mostrar aos Gregos que os Romanos eram particularmente justos.

17 Arist. 27.7.

18 Em Pel. 4.5 (ฮ›ฮฑฮบฮตฮดฮฑฮนฮผฮฟฮฝฮฏฮฟฮนฯ‚ แผ”ฯ„ฮน ฯ†ฮฏฮปฮฟฮนฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯƒฯ…ฮผฮผฮฌฯ‡ฮฟฮนฯ‚ ฮฟแฝ–ฯƒฮน ฯ€ฮตฮผฯ†ฮธฮตฮฏฯƒฮทฯ‚ แผฮบ ฮ˜ฮทฮฒแฟถฮฝ

ฮฒฮฟฮทฮธฮตฮฏฮฑฯ‚), depois de contar o conito de Mantineia, Plutarco introduz a mudanรงa de atitude

entre Lacedemรณnios e Tebanos; cf. Marc. 23.5.

19 Ibidem. 6.2; Vide Quaest. Conu. 720C e De E Delph. 384D-E, onde Atenas surge como a

cidade de maior nรญvel cultural, mas, por aquilo que escreve em Praec. Ger. Reip. 799C-D, a polis nรฃo

estรก isenta de defeitos, embora o texto nรฃo deixe de realรงar a philanthropia dos Atenienses: ฮฟแผทฮฟฮฝ

แฝ แผˆฮธฮทฮฝฮฑฮฏฯ‰ฮฝ ฮตแฝฮบฮฏฮฝฮทฯ„ฯŒฯ‚ แผฯƒฯ„ฮน ฯ€ฯแฝธฯ‚ แฝ€ฯฮณฮฎฮฝ, ฮตแฝฮผฮตฯ„ฮฌฮธฮตฯ„ฮฟฯ‚ ฯ€ฯแฝธฯ‚ แผ”ฮปฮตฮฟฮฝ, ฮผแพถฮปฮปฮฟฮฝ แฝ€ฮพฮญฯ‰ฯ‚ แฝ‘ฯ€ฮฟฮฝฮฟฮตแฟ–ฮฝ แผข

ฮดฮนฮดฮฌฯƒฮบฮตฯƒฮธฮฑฮน ฮบฮฑฮธ' แผกฯƒฯ…ฯ‡ฮฏฮฑฮฝ ฮฒฮฟฯ…ฮปฯŒฮผฮตฮฝฮฟฯ‚· แฝฅฯƒฯ€ฮตฯ ฯ„แฟถฮฝ แผ€ฮฝฮดฯแฟถฮฝ ฯ„ฮฟแฟ–ฯ‚ แผ€ฮดฯŒฮพฮฟฮนฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ„ฮฑฯ€ฮตฮนฮฝฮฟแฟ–ฯ‚ ฮฒฮฟฮทฮธฮตแฟ–ฮฝ

ฯ€ฯฮฟฮธฯ…ฮผฯŒฯ„ฮตฯฮฟฯ‚, ฮฟแฝ•ฯ„ฯ‰ ฯ„แฟถฮฝ ฮปฯŒฮณฯ‰ฮฝ ฯ„ฮฟแฝบฯ‚ ฯ€ฮฑฮนฮณฮฝฮนฯŽฮดฮตฮนฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮณฮตฮปฮฟฮฏฮฟฯ…ฯ‚ แผ€ฯƒฯ€ฮฌฮถฮตฯ„ฮฑฮน ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ€ฯฮฟฯ„ฮนฮผแพท· ฯ„ฮฟแฟ–ฯ‚

ฮผแฝฒฮฝ แผฯ€ฮฑฮนฮฝฮฟแฟฆฯƒฮนฮฝ ฮฑแฝฯ„แฝธฮฝ ฮผฮฌฮปฮนฯƒฯ„ฮฑ ฯ‡ฮฑฮฏฯฮตฮน, ฯ„ฮฟแฟ–ฯ‚ ฮดแฝฒ ฯƒฮบฯŽฯ€ฯ„ฮฟฯ…ฯƒฮนฮฝ แผฅฮบฮนฯƒฯ„ฮฑ ฮดฯ…ฯƒฯ‡ฮตฯฮฑฮฏฮฝฮตฮน· ฯ†ฮฟฮฒฮตฯฯŒฯ‚ แผฯƒฯ„ฮนฮฝ

แผ„ฯ‡ฯฮน ฯ„แฟถฮฝ แผ€ฯฯ‡ฯŒฮฝฯ„ฯ‰ฮฝ, ฮตแผถฯ„ฮฑ ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฌฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€ฮฟฯ‚ แผ„ฯ‡ฯฮน ฯ„แฟถฮฝ ฯ€ฮฟฮปฮตฮผฮฏฯ‰ฮฝ. Por exemplo, o povo Ateniense tem

uma inclinaรงรฃo para a cรณlera, que facilmente transforma em piedade, pois quer mais conjecturar de

imediato do que aprender com tranquilidade. Tal como considera muito benรฉvolo auxiliar os homens

desprezados e humildes, tambรฉm acolhe e prefere as palavras com humor e engraรงadas; regozija-se

principalmente com aqueles que o louvam, mas pouco se irrita com os que zombam dele; รฉ terrรญvel com

os seus governantes, mas revela-se humano atรฉ com os inimigos.

365

O sentido de philanthropia nas biograas de Coriolano, Cรญcero e Catรฃo de รštica

Na verdade, o sentido de philanthropia nas biograas espelha a visรฃo

poliรฉtnica e a prรณpria sociedade multicultural e cosmopolita da รฉpoca de

Plutarco. Esboรงando na estrutura paralela das Vitae uma crase cultural, sem

apagar as diferenรงas entre Gregos e Romanos20 , Plutarco, em vez de congurar

a philanthropia como um valor pan-helรฉnico, conforme surge em Isรณcrates ou

Xenofonte, procura tornar o seu sentido universal, abrangendo todos os que

sรฃo cidadรฃos do imperium, embora seja fundamental os Romanos cultivarem

a paideia helรฉnica. De fora cam os Bรกrbaros pela sua inclinaรงรฃo natural para

o vรญcio, a bestialidade ou para a superstiรงรฃo21 . Deste modo, o pepaideumenos ,

o homem novo da Segunda Sofรญstica, teria de ter capacidade de lideranรงa,

ser patriรณtico, รญntegro e justo, lutar pelo bem comum, sem perseguir riquezas

pessoais, e ter um carรกcter enformado por virtudes como a praotes, a epieikeia e

a philanthropia 22 , valores de raiz helรฉnica.

Para Plutarco, a aproximaรงรฃo entre as duas culturas, a grega e a romana,

poderia atingir-se mediante uma partilha de competรชncias "naturais", cabendo,

desse modo, ร  Grรฉcia contribuir com o esplendor e a humanidade da sua

paideia e ร  Vrbs com a sua capacidade governativa e engenho militar. Esta

proposta de compromisso civilizacional23 pode vericar-se, como vimos,

pela forma como a philanthropia surge associada aos herรณis plutarquianos,

tanto Gregos como Romanos, uma vez que ela adquire, ao mesmo tempo,

uma dimensรฃo individual e uma dimensรฃo colectiva ou social. Se, por um

lado, o homem se deve comprometer com a sua formaรงรฃo com o objectivo de

aperfeiรงoar a alma, os conhecimentos e o carรกcter, por outro, terรก de ser capaz

de transpor para a sociedade ou para a vida pรบblica a philanthropia. Assim, a

philanthropia plutarquiana รฉ muito mais do que um conceito abstracto, uma

vez que transmite, com algum pragmatismo, uma ideia de civilidade bastante

รบtil aos destinatรกrios das Vidas Paralelas e tambรฉm aos actuais leitores.

20 Desta opiniรฃo partilha S. G, 2002, p. 270: "It's rather that the boundaries

of Greekness and Romanness — as with all myths of cultural origin at the site of cultural

conict — prove all too permeable, all too intertwined. Establishing and preserving the value of

Greekness becomes not just the assertion of an identity but a set of questions about cultural self-

positioning". Para P. D, 1992, p. 4471: "l'unitร  della cultura antica nelle sue essenziali

e parallele componenti greca e romana รจ un punto di arriva, e non di partenza, della riessione

plutarchea"; por sua vez, para S.-T. T, 2005a, p. 438: "the coalescence of Greek and

Roman culture in the late Imperial period produced a sentiment of cultural unity in the Empire";

vide ainda S.-T. T, 2005b, pp. 659-64.

21 Cf. A. G. N, 1986, J. P C, 1997 e T. S, 1999.

22 F. F, 1996, 231 sqq., na esteira de J. de R, 1979, classica esta trรญade de

virtudes como "les trois vertus 'douces' traditionelles"; vide ainda H. M. M J., 1960, pp.

55-70.

23 H. M. M J., 1961 defendeu, apoiando-se na atitude lantrรณpica de Prometeu,

que, desde a sua origem, a philanthropia estรก conotada com a difusรฃo civilizacional entre os

Helenos. Por philanthropia, Plutarco traduz nรฃo sรณ uma atitude que tem implรญcito um sentido

de humanidade, mas tambรฉm actividades que sรฃo reexo de uma atitude civilizacional, como

o banho ou o tratamento do corpo (Lyc. 16.12), ou uma qualidade muito importante para o

polรญtico ganhar a conanรงa dos seus sรบbditos ou para enfrentar tempos de crise, como aqueles

que a Grรฉcia vivia.

366

Joaquim J. S. Pinheiro

bi b l i o g r a f i a c i T a d a

D, P., "La Formazione delle Coppie nelle 'Vite' plutarchee", ANRW ,

II.33.6 (1992) 4470-86.

F, F., Histoire et Morale dans les Vies parallรจles de Plutarque, Paris,

1996.

M J., H. M., "e concept of «praotes» in Plutarch's Lives", GRBS, 3

(1960) 65-73.

_____"e concept of Philanthropia in Plutarch's Lives", AJPh, 82.2 (1961)

164-75.

N, A. G., "ฮ•ฮ›ฮ›ฮ—ฮฮ™ฮšฮŸฮฃ – ฮ’ฮ‘ฮกฮ’ฮ‘ฮกฮ™ฮšฮŸฮฃ. Plutarch on Greek and

Barbarian Characteristics", WS, 99 (1986) 229-44.

P C, J., "La nociรณn de barbรกrie en las Vidas Paralelas de Plutarco

de Queronea", in C. S  . (eds.), Plutarco y la Historia.

Actas del V Simposio Espaรฑol sobre Plutarco (Zaragoza, 20-22 de

Junio, 1996), Zaragoza, 1997, pp. 367-78.

P, C. B. R., "Plutarch and Catiline", in , Plutarch and History,

London, 2002, pp. 45-63.

R, J. de, La douceur dans la pensรฉe grecque, Paris, 1979.

S, T., Plutarque et les barbares. La rhรฉtorique d'une image, Leuven/

Namur, 1999.

T, S.-T., "Plutarch's use of synonyms: a typical feature of his style",

in L. V D S (ed.), Rhetorical eory and Praxis in Plutarch.

Acta of IVth International Congress of the International Plutarch

Society (Leuven, July 3-6, 1996) Leuven, 2000, pp. 511-8.

_____ "Plutarch, amalgamator of Greece and Rome", in A. P J &

F. T (eds.), Valori Letterari delle Opere di Plutarco. Studi Oerti

al Professore Italo Gallo dall' International Plutarch Society, Mรกlaga/

Logan, 2005a, pp. 433-40.

_____ "El programa de Plutarco para la conducta social", in M. J  .

(eds.), Plutarc a la seva รจpoca: Paideia i societat. Actas del VIII Simposio

Internacional de la Sociedad Espaรฑola de Plutarquistas (Barcelona, 6-8

Noviembre, 2003), Barcelona, 2005b, pp. 659-64.

367

S 5

Quaestiones Convivales

369

Educating the Young ... over Wine?

E   ...   P, C

T,  F   

G R

Catholic University of Leuven

Abstract

Already in the Archaic period, the symposion was often connected with educational

purposes. Plato elaborated his own alternative (esp. in the first two books of the Laws ) ,

which in turn influenced later authors. This contribution deals with three such thinkers:

Plutarch, Calvenus Taurus, and Favorinus of Arles. All three realised that the context of

the symposion yielded interesting opportunities for the education of younger students. I

propose to examine their evaluation of their students, their attitude (and, in Plutarch's case,

self-characterisation) as a teacher, and their didactic approach.The evidence shows that

Plutarch and Taurus basically pursue the same philosophical purposes in their education

during dinner, by promoting independent and critical thinking, whereas Favorinus'

teaching activities are more in line with the brilliant self-display of the so-called 'Second

Sophistic'.

ฮฟแผถฮฝฮฟฯ‚, แฝฆ ฯ†แฝทฮปฮต ฯ€ฮฑแฟ–, ฮบฮฑแฝถ แผ€ฮปแฝฑฮธฮตฮฑ

Alcaeus, fr. 366

1. Wine and education: a strange alliance?

For most people, the Greek symposion probably does not call forth

associations with respectable education on a high level. One rather thinks

of bacchic dancing and mimes, skolia, relaxed conversation, laughter and

friendship, expensive ute-girls1 who may also have been hetairai, clowns,

acrobats, and jugglers, and in the rst place much wine and drunkenness2 .

Several of these elements were part and parcel of the symposion from the

very beginning, and once introduced, most of them remained popular until

late antiquity. is is not only conrmed in Old Comedy3 but also in many

passages from later symposium literature.

This, however, is only one side of the picture. Very early in the Greek

tradition, the banquet was also connected with educational purposes and

could be used as a tool for affirming and rehearsing elite values. In both

Crete and Sparta, young boys were in the Archaic period allowed to attend

the common meals of their fathers and to listen to their discussions of

political and military affairs4 . The Corpus Theognideum illustrates the same

tendency of teaching young boys like Cyrnus in the (pederastic?) context

of a symposion5 , and from Plato on, the educative aspect of the symposion

1 Cf. C. G. S, 1978.

2 See in general E. P, 1990, and (on the typical character of the แผ„ฮบฮปฮทฯ„ฮฟฯ‚ ) B . F,

1990.

3 See E. L. B, 1995.

4 J. N. B, 1990, pp. 136-7.

5 Cf. also W. R, 1995, pp. 109-11.

is discussed and justified from a philosophical point of view. It is well

known that Plato is usually rather critical of the contemporary practices at

drinking-parties6 , but in the first two books of his last work, the Laws , he

finally elaborates his own alternative, interpreting symposia as a training

in, and a secure test of, temperance (646c-650b) and emphasising the

close connection between ฯ€ฮฑฮนฮดฮตแฝทฮฑ and a well-ordered symposion which

is supervised by sober commanders7 . In a famous passage from a much

earlier dialogue, Plato already opposed the symposia of ordinary people

to those of cultivated and noble participants (ฮบฮฑฮปฮฟแฝถ ฮบแผ€ฮณฮฑฮธฮฟแฝถ ฯƒฯ…ฮผฯ€แฝนฯ„ฮฑฮน

ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ€ฮตฯ€ฮฑฮนฮดฮตฯ…ฮผแฝณฮฝฮฟฮน), arguing that flute-girls usually attend the former

banquets but remain absent from the latter, where the company is able

to entertain themselves with their own conversation (Prt. 347c-348a).

Well in line with this view, Eryximachus proposes, near the beginning of

Plato's Symposium, to bid farewell to the flute-girls and spend the time

together in conversation (176e). In Plutarch's Quaestiones convivales , the

Stoic Philip of Prusias8 perceptively points to the exceptional nature of

Agathon's banquet. The company consisted of a small number of learned

guests (cf. also 613D), so that "the surprising thing was not that the

flute-girl should be expelled from such a company, but that the party

was not so entertained and charmed as to forget both food and drink"

(710BC; transl. E. L. Minar, slightly modified). The conclusion seems

to be that even at more learned banquets some place could be given to

popular forms of entertainment, and indeed, Xenophon's Symposium also

contains both philosophical conversations and interludes during which a

Syracusan company diverts the guests with different performances. On

the other hand, when Xenophon depicts the banquets in the Cyropaedia as

remarkably sober and devoid of all customary entertainments, he appears

to speak normatively rather than descriptively9 .

In any case, the Greek tradition of the symposion soon showed a

double face. On the one hand, the banquet was a world of heavy drinking

and revelry, with all the risks of socially disruptive behaviour. On the

other hand, it helped to strengthen social ties and build community (by

creating and maintaining friendship and by educating the young towards

honourable moral behaviour). My focus on the latter aspect does not

necessarily betray my own preferences (which are irrelevant here) but

instead illustrates that of the authors who will be discussed. Let us begin,

then, with Plutarch.

6 See esp. the thorough discussion of M. T, 1990. Cf. on Plato's general attitude to

wine also P. B, 1951.

7 See Lg. 641b-d; 642a; 643a; 645c; 652a; 671a-674c.

8 On Philip of Prusias, see B. P, 1992, pp. 4869-70; S.-T. T, 1996, pp. 102-3;

cf. also D. B, 1969, pp. 254-60 on the contrast between Philip of Prusias and an anonymous

Stoic sophist in Quaest. conv. 710B-711D.

9 See D. L. G, 1993, pp. 150-4.

371

Educating the Young ... over Wine?

2. Plutarch of Chaeronea

Plutarch was no heavy drinker indeed10 , and even if he may occasionally

have been indulgent with the drinking of several of his heroes11 , he usually

advocates temperance and moderation12 . is implies that he was by no

means a rigid abstainer, and basically the same attitude he adopted towards

the customary forms of sympotic entertainment. He deems them pleasant

whenever present but refuses to attach great importance to them (cf., e.g.,

Quaest. conv. 629C) and just like Plato prefers to lay full emphasis on another

kind of entertainment, viz. that of erudite discussions. It is from such a pastime

that Plutarch's cultivated friends derive their highest pleasures. At Plutarch's

dinners, the burlesque clown has to give way to rened humour, the ute-girl

to lively conversations about music, and in general, sympotic entertainment

tends to coincide to an important extent with relaxed philosophical discussions.

e topics for conversation should be adapted to the specic context of the

symposion13 , to be sure, and the argumentative style should likewise reect

the sympotic atmosphere14 , but the high intellectual level of the company

suciently guarantees that the discussion never results in trivial platitudes or

vulgar bragging.

It is clear that such a context yields interesting opportunities for the

education of younger students. And young men do indeed participate in several

banquets which Plutarch describes (646A; 653B; 655EF; 676E; 692B; 704E).

On these occasions, the conversations also have an educative character, and

in that sense, they contain important information about Plutarch's educative

ideals and about his practical approach. We may catch a glimpse of the kind

of students Plutarch welcomes at his table and of the way in which he judges

them, and we may see dierent teachers at work, not in their school but in a

less formal context.

2.1. e students

In Plutarch's Quaestiones convivales, the young men are usually characterised

in a fairly negative way. First of all, they are easily impressionable. At a banquet

which the musician Erato organises in Athens, for instance, the participants

use garlands of roses instead of laurel, and when Ammonius begins to criticise

this, the young men are much embarrassed and quietly begin to take o their

10 ere is only one passage in the Quaestiones convivales where Plutarch mentions that the

party risked to degenerate into drunken behaviour (620A), but even in this case, the company

soon turned to intellectual discussions; see on the passage P. A. S, 1999, pp. 483-5.

11 Such as Cimon (cf. Cim. 4,3 and 15,3) and Cato the Younger (cf. Cat. Mi. 6,1-2); see H.

G. I, 1999.

12 See, e.g., S.-T. T, 1999, and A. G. N, 1999.

13 Accordingly, Plutarch prefers to deal with familiar and non technical issues (see esp.

Quaest. conv. 614D-615B), imitating the example of Xenophon (630A).

14 Here, Plato's Symposium is the model, combining as it does an easy argumentation with

concrete examples and myths (Quaest. conv. 614CD).

garlands (645D-646A). Plutarch immediately makes it clear that such a

reaction is unnecessary: Ammonius is just making fun of the company (645D:

แผฯ€แฝณฯƒฮบฯ‰ฯˆฮต) and merely introduces the issue for the sake of exercise and inquiry

(646A: ฮณฯ…ฮผฮฝฮฑฯƒแฝทฮฑฯ‚ แผ•ฮฝฮตฮบฮฑ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮถฮทฯ„แฝตฯƒฮตฯ‰ฯ‚). At a symposion of Plutarch's father,

likewise in Athens, the host raises the question of why sweet new wine is

least intoxicating (655EF). Again, most students are embarrassed, coming no

further than being baed by what they regard as paradoxical and incredible

(655F), although in this case two of them (Hagias and Aristaenetus) do

their best to provide a plausible explanation (655F-656A). When Lucanius

entertains Plutarch's friends in Corinth, nally, the discussion is about the

use of the pine as the victor's garland at the Isthmia. An unnamed professor

of rhetoric, well-known for his familiarity with literature, points out that the

ancients used celery rather than the pine and argues his point by means of a

whole series of quotations (676C-E). In this case, too, the young are impressed

by the rhetorician's great learning and wide reading (676E) and once again,

one of the older, learned participants (here the host himself ) has to intervene

in order to put things into perspective (676EF).

Secondly, young people are – unsurprisingly – still represented as

insuciently acquainted with ancient literature. We already saw how they were

impressed by the wealth of quotations adduced by the rhetorician (676E).

On another occasion, young men attacked Epicurus for having introduced

in his Symposium a discussion about the proper time for coition. In their view,

Epicurus gave evidence of extreme licentiousness by dealing with such a topic

in the presence of young men and at a banquet (653BC). Such a criticism,

however, is not merely cheap but even entirely unjustied, being based on utter

ignorance of the great literature of the past – both Xenophon's Symposium

(653C) and Zeno's Republic (653E) deal with similar topics – and on a careless

interpretation of Epicurus' position. Zopyrus thus undertakes the defence of

Epicurus and explains what the great philosopher of the Garden really wanted

to say (653C-E). As a result, the young men are reduced to silence and the

company goes on to discuss precisely this topic.

irdly, the young give evidence of radicalness, which may be connected

with their fresh enthusiasm for philosophy. When Philinus took some of

his students to a banquet of Philo the physician, one of them refused to eat

anything but bread (660D). is example is somewhat ambivalent, though,

for the student's behaviour is indirectly (and not without humour) attacked

by the host and no less indirectly defended by Plutarch and Philinus. e

young man's conduct shows a praiseworthy principled consistency, to be sure,

but also a rigid inexibility which hardly suits the sympotic conviviality and

may thus be regarded as ฯ€ฮฑฯแฝฐ ฮบฮฑฮนฯแฝนฮฝ. Elsewhere, such radicalness appears

in an even more negative light. At a dinner given by Aristion, the discussion

is initiated by Niger. Before reporting the latter's arguments, Plutarch gives

a short characterisation of the young man: he happens to have returned from

a brief course of instruction under a famous philosopher. e phrase ฯ‡ฯแฝนฮฝฮฟฮฝ

ฮฟแฝ ฯ€ฮฟฮปแฝปฮฝ (692B) already suggests that Niger's philosophical progress is at

373

Educating the Young ... over Wine?

best fairly limited and supercial and thus announces Plutarch's explicit

evaluation that the young man has not really comprehended his teacher's

doctrines. He has begun, however, to imitate his annoying behaviour by

continuously criticising and cross-examining the company. When he

launches his attack against the sumptuous preparations which Aristion

has made, combining a strongly moralising tone with would-be erudition15

(692C-E), we already know that his high-principled radicalness lacks any

fundamentum in re. No wonder, then, that the host easily succeeds in refuting

his young guest by correcting his mistakes, showing a much higher level of

erudition, and demonstrating that the attack is exaggerated and irrelevant

(692E-693E).

Finally, hardly anything is said about positive qualities, with one exception,

though: the learned company fully appreciates the young men's skill in nding

arguments (ฮตแฝ‘ฯฮทฯƒฮนฮปฮฟฮณแฝทฮฑฮฝ) (656A). Now ฮตแฝ‘ฯฮทฯƒฮนฮปฮฟฮณแฝทฮฑ is an ambiguous term

and it has more than once a negative connotation in Plutarch's works. Especially

the Stoics are often blamed for their sophistic ingenuities16 . In this context,

however, the word is obviously positive17 , for Plutarch goes on to praise the

fact that the young men looked for proper solutions instead of falling back on

more ready answers (656AB). Even this praise, however, remains somewhat

ambivalent, for the reader may easily conclude that the students' ฮตแฝ‘ฯฮทฯƒฮนฮปฮฟฮณแฝทฮฑ

was a dire necessity, rooted in their ignorance of well-known traditional

solutions.

e following general conclusions can be derived from the evidence

discussed so far. In Plutarch's Quaestiones convivales, the young men [1] usually

remain passive. ey often undergo the situation and occasionally become

themselves the topic of conversation rather than actively contributing to it. [2]

ey give ample evidence of their immaturity, both by their conduct and by their

words, and [3] they do not seem to be full members of the company. eir sincere

interest in philosophy and the intellectual and moral level which they have

already reached enables them to attend the conversations of Plutarch's learned

friends, to be sure, but they are never on a par with the older participants.

Plutarch's attitude towards the young students in the Quaestiones convivales ,

then, shows a curious mix of a condescending depreciation and a prudent

appreciation. Plutarch realised very well that his intellectual level, and that

of his erudite friends, far surpassed that of the immature and inexperienced

ฮฝแฝณฮฟฮน, and in spite of his friendly openness and stimulating remarks, this great

distance was never overcome.

It is interesting to compare this characterisation of the young students

with that of the ฯ€ฯฮฟฮบแฝนฯ€ฯ„ฯ‰ฮฝ ("the man who is making (moral) progress") in

15 According to D. B, 1969, pp. 252-4, several aspects of Niger's speech show that

he went to a Stoic teacher. M. C, 1969, p. 565 suggests the interesting possibility that

Niger's teacher was none other than Epictetus.

16 See De aud. poet. 31E; De comm. not. 1070E and 1072F; cf. also De Stoic. rep. 1033B. In all

these passages, the term ฮตแฝ‘ฯฮทฯƒฮนฮปฮฟฮณแฝทฮฑ undoubtedly has a negative connotation.

17 Cf. also Quaest. conv. 625C and 632B.

De profectibus in virtute. In this treatise, Plutarch lists a series of indications

of moral progress: the continuity of one's course, mildness (ฯ€ฯฮฑแฝนฯ„ฮทฯ‚ )18 and

lack of jealousy, authenticity, consistency, untroubled dreams, alleviation of

the passions, etc.19 . It is striking that not one of these positive indications

returns in the characterisation of the students in the Quaestiones convivales .

As far as I can see, there are only two interesting parallels. Near the end of

De profectibus in virtute, Plutarch argues that the presence of a certain self-

condence and self-knowledge can be regarded as a clear token of moral

progress. Accordingly, a man who has made such progress will no longer be

disturbed when a famous and prudent man suddenly appears, nor conceal

or change some personal detail (85BC), but will even in the presence of

good men be satised with his own condition. Diametrically opposed to

such a behaviour is that of the students who at the dinner of Erato were

embarrassed by Ammonius' attack against the use of ower-garlands and

began to take them o (646A). eir conduct obviously shows that they

have made only little progress and is opposed to that of Plutarch himself,

who is not confused at all but quietly and appropriately deals with the

situation.

Earlier in the treatise, Plutarch suggests that authenticity (ฯ„แฝธ ฯ€ฯแฝธฯ‚

แผ€ฮปแฝตฮธฮตฮนฮฑฮฝ) rather than outward display ( ฯ„แฝธ ฯ€ฯแฝธฯ‚ แผฯ€แฝทฮดฮตฮนฮพฮนฮฝ ) should be

considered as an indication of moral progress (80E). Whereas beginners are

over-bold, give themselves airs, and have a countenance full of disdain which

spares nobody, the ฯ€ฯฮฟฮบแฝนฯ€ฯ„ฮฟฮฝฯ„ฮตฯ‚ are less conceited and less concerned with

external details, and – what is especially interesting in our context – replace

their contempt for other people with biting self-criticism and mildness

towards others (81BC). If that is true, Niger can obviously be classied under

the group of mere beginners (692B-E), just like the young men who attacked

Epicurus (653B). In all of these cases, the students who are introduced in

the Quaestiones convivales are negative examples of moral progress. It is clear,

then, that a comparison with De profectibus in virtute fully conrms the above

conclusions and that the gure of the student in the Quaestiones convivales is

usually characterised in a fairly negative way.

2.2. e teachers

While the young students all have their own teachers at school, in the

context of the symposion, the older participants de facto function together

as one group of mutually supporting teachers. Each member of the learned

company can take the initiative in contributing directly to the instruction

of the young. e host frequently plays an important part in this process

by raising interesting questions and directing the discussions, but the

guests do not refrain from intervening either, adding new perspectives or

18 On the crucial importance of this virtue in Plutarch's work, see, e.g., H. M. M J.,

1960, and J. D R, 1979, pp. 275-307. On its limitations, see G. R, 2004a.

19 See G. R, 2005, pp. 220-363 for a systematic discussion of the whole treatise.

375

Educating the Young ... over Wine?

introducing other problems. In that sense, the whole conversation often has

an instructive aspect.

In the sympotic context, then, education turns out to be teamwork, and the

stimulating exchange of ideas is a win-win situation for teachers and students

alike. But this particular context even yields an additional advantage, in that

it enables the students to observe the conduct of their distinguished teachers

outside the school, in their private life20 . One should recall in this context the

paramount importance which Plutarch attaches to the dynamics of ฮผแฝทฮผฮทฯƒฮนฯ‚

in the educational process21 . It is well-known that this is one of the crucial

motivations behind the ambitious project of the Lives, which oer concrete

examples of illustrious men and their honourable accomplishments and thus

incite to careful reection and imitation (see esp. Per. 1,3-2,4 and Aem. 1,1).

In De profectibus in virtute, Plutarch likewise argues that active imitation

of good examples, even in small details, can be regarded as an indication of

moral progress. In this light, the young students who participate in the learned

banquets get a unique opportunity. ey can watch how their teachers behave

in their private life and fashion their own conduct after it. e teachers, on

the other hand, appear to function as paradigmatic models, and this aspect of

their role in the Quaestiones convivales is a telling example of Plutarch's self-

assurance as a teacher.

ere are two questions which need further examination in this section:

the kind of subjects which the teachers bring forward for discussion and

their didactic approach. As far as the former question is concerned, the great

variety of subjects immediately attracts notice. All kinds of problems are

discussed, with a slight preference for unusual questions (cf. 673A: ฮถฮทฯ„ฮตแฟ–ฮฝ

ฯ„ฮน ฯ„แฟถฮฝ ฯ€ฮตฯฮนฯ„ฯ„แฟถฮฝ). Not without reason, the Quaestiones convivales have been

linked with the genre of ฯ€ฯฮฟฮฒฮปแฝตฮผฮฑฯ„ฮฑ22 (a genre which often occurs in the

Corpus Plutarcheum23 ), and – equally important in this context – there can also

be established a connection with the genre of ฮถฮทฯ„แฝตฮผฮฑฯ„ฮฑ 24 (as exemplied in

the Quaestiones Platonicae , which are obviously rooted in Plutarch's teaching

activities). ese genres interrelate to an important extent, and distinctions are

even further blurred by the convivial context, in which education is merely one

of the aims (and perhaps not the most important), next to pleasant pastime

and creating and maintaining friendship.

e great variety of subjects reects the broad interests of the company

and their accurate observations of details, but also illustrates typical features

of the mature philosophical thinking of Plutarch's day, such as the continuous

concern to explore and elaborate traditional answers and the sincere attempt

20 at is, in a context in which they show their real selves; cf. Per. 7,5 and F. B. T,

1999, pp. 496-9.

21 See, e.g., L. V  S, 2005.

22 See, e.g., S.-T. T, 1989, p. 12; cf. also J. M, 1931, pp. 173-9.

23 e Quaestiones Romanae, the Quaestiones Graecae and the Quaestiones naturales are still

extant. e Lamprias catalogue also mentions a work ฮ ฮตฯแฝถ ฯ€ฯฮฟฮฒฮปฮทฮผแฝฑฯ„ฯ‰ฮฝ (n. 193); cf. further n.

119, 139, 149, 160, 161, and 167. See also G. W. M. H, 2000.

24 See esp. J. O, 1996, pp. 75-6.

to get a grip on even the most trivial details of reality through a rational

explanation of their causes. e company does not merely consist of Platonists

such as Plutarch and Ammonius, but also of adherents of the Peripatos

(e.g. Lamprias), Pythagoreans (e.g. Lucius), Stoics (e.g. Sarapion and Philip

of Prusias), and Epicureans (e.g. Boethus and Zopyrus). is philosophical

circle is further completed by physicians, poets, rhetoricians, grammarians,

mathematicians, and statesmen. Everyone brings along his own expertise

and deals with the questions from his own point of view25 . No doubt every

member of the company, however erudite he may be, can benet from

such a conversation26 . For the students, however, it provides a particularly

rich introduction to dierent domains of the contemporary scientic and

philosophical thinking27 .

e teachers' didactic approach, on the other hand, is fully adapted

to the sympotic context, rather than vice versa. Usually the learned

company does not seem to bear in mind that the conversation also serves

a pedagogical aim. ey just go on to entertain themselves through their

discussions. e young men can listen silently and attentively, and thus

learn a lot. Occasionally, however, the students are invited to make their

own contribution. In such cases – which remain fairly rare after all – their

self-motivation and independence is stimulated28 (646A; 656CD; 744C;

746B; cf. also 694D) and they get the opportunity to secure for themselves

a more important place in the company. For a while, the education process

appears to become a dialogue. Even at such moments, however, the distance

between students and teachers remains and the seeds of the dialogue never

reach maturity. e reason for this is not so much the teachers' disdain but

rather their friendly tact: the learned company fully takes into account the

less advanced level of the students. erefore Ammonius does not refute

Trypho's argument (648B) and later on generously promises to refrain

from replying to the solutions proposed by the young men (649A). It is

clear that such an attitude, while combining kindness with diplomacy, is

hardly conducive to real dialogue. Only twice are the students' contributions

explicitly praised as clever and plausible products of personal thinking

(656A and 719E). Se non รจ vero, รจ ben trovato. And twice indeed, one may

well remain sceptical about the value of their position, for in both cases, the

praise is immediately followed by instruction: the students are introduced

to traditional solutions which are well-known in the school but which they

25 Only the statesmen cannot take advantage of their political experience, since the subject

of politics is usually avoided in the sympotic discussions; cf. S.-T. T, 1995.

26 Passages such like Quaest. conv. 628D and 664D make it perfectly clear that the debates

are not merely an exercise for the young men alone.

27 It may be added in passing that this approach is also in line with Plutarch's sceptical

outlook (on which see J. O, 1998). Dierent views are often praised as plausible and

are more than once juxtaposed without clear hierarchy. e members all look for the truth,

without claiming to have reached denitive conclusions. Cf. L. V  S, 2000, pp. 94

and 97-8.

28 See in general G. R, 2004b, esp. pp. 101-14.

377

Educating the Young ... over Wine?

apparently overlooked or ignored. In that sense, the young men even here

fail to become full members of the group.

Similar conclusions, nally, hold for moral topics, which are also

discussed. As has been said above, the moral conduct of the company at the

banquet serves as a concrete model that is worthy of imitation. Furthermore,

the older participants sometimes bear in mind the specic situation and

needs of the young. When Olympichus, for instance, advocates complete

sexual continence, Soclarus intervenes, pointing to the presence of young

married men for whom such an advice is worthless (654C). Finally, if

need be, the students are rebuked for their moral shortcomings. When the

company occasionally forgets the decorum and joins in disgraceful dancing,

Lamprias wishes to rebuke the young men but hesitates because he does

not wish to appear as a severe schoolmaster (704C-E). When Callistratus

adds fuel to the re, however, he decides to intervene and elaborates on

the moral dangers which rhythmical music entails (705B-706C). is is a

beautiful piece of parrhesiastic admonition which still remains friendly and

tactful: through his indirect and theoretical approach, Lamprias perfectly

succeeds in avoiding direct attacks and disturbing the context of convivial

friendship, while at the same time managing to get his message across in an

unambiguous and clear way29 . In this case, too, the same tension between

tactful respect and patronising returns.

3. Calvenus Taurus

Basically the same approach returns in our sources about Calvenus

Taurus, an inuential Platonist in Athens whose oruit is placed by Eusebius

in 145 A.D. (Chron. 2161; p. 202 Helm)30 and whose lessons were attended

by Aulus Gellius. Gellius' work contains much interesting information about

Taurus' pedagogical convictions and ideals. Several passages from his Noctes

Atticae show a fairly negative portrait of the students, who in Taurus' view

are far inferior to their predecessors (1,9,1-11 and 7,10,1-5). Taurus himself,

on the other hand, appears as an erudite teacher who is well acquainted

with medicine (12,5,3 and 18,10,1-7), is respected by powerful politicians

(2,2,1)31 , and always welcomes opportunities for intellectual discussions

(12,5,5).

In the context of this contribution, however, it is especially important that

Taurus used to invite his students to dinner. Gellius tells how the students were

expected to bring topics for discussion as their own contribution to the dinner.

ese contributions were called ฯ„ฯฮฑฮณฮทฮผแฝฑฯ„ฮนฮฑ or "little sweetmeats" (7,13,12),

which may be understood both as a humorous allusion to the second book of

29 A beautiful parallel is to be found in De ad. et am. 70E (Ammonius' indirect rebuke of

one of his students).

30 Good studies of Taurus' life and philosophy include H. D, 1973; J. D, 1977,

pp. 237-47; M.-L. L, 1995. An edition of the fragments with commentary can be

found in A. G, 2002, pp. 221-376.

31 Cf. J. D, 2002, pp. 29-30.

Plato's Republic (372c and e, on the desserts of the 'healthy' and the 'fevered'

state) and as a tacit correction of this passage (replacing as it does even the most

simple desserts such as gs or beans with pleasant intellectual discussions32 ).

However that may be, it is clear that Taurus' symposia (at least those mentioned

by Gellius) are much more adapted to the specic intellectual condition of

students than Plutarch's. Whereas the young students usually remain silent

participants in Plutarch, they apparently play a much more important part at

Taurus' table.

We might expect, then, that the characterisation of the students which

we nd in Gellius is more positive too. is, however, is only partly true. Here

as well, the young men occasionally appear as immature, and their easy and

unjustied rejection of some subtle problems as empty sophisms (7,13,7)

recalls the cheap criticism of the young men against Epicurus in Plutarch's

Quaestiones convivales (653B)33 . But in general, Taurus seems to have taken

their arguments seriously, although an important caveat should be added

here, viz. the dierences of perspective in both sources: Plutarch wrote as a

teacher, Gellius as a student, and this, of course, in all likelihood inuenced

their presentation. We shall never know what Taurus really thought about the

contributions of his students nor how he behaved in a context comparable to

that of Plutarch's learned symposia.

Taurus' didactic approach is very similar to that of Plutarch. For just

like Plutarch, Taurus takes care to stimulate the independence and the self-

motivation of his students, and more than Plutarch, he succeeds in turning the

educational process into a real dialogue. His invitation to look for intriguing

(cf. 7,13,4: แผฮฝฮธฯ…ฮผฮทฮผแฝฑฯ„ฮนฮฑ [...] orentem vino animum lacessentia) problems is a

particularly interesting and accurate way of arousing wonder, which constitutes

the แผ€ฯฯ‡แฝต of philosophy, and like Plutarch, he does not hesitate to derive

himself topics for discussion from concrete events (17,8,3-9). Under Taurus'

supervision, the students as it were learn to philosophise. ey are allowed to

speak rst, whereupon Taurus intervenes in order to conrm their answer34

(17,8,11), to add supplementary information (17,8,11-15) and raise related

questions (17,8,16), or to emend their erroneous views by giving the relevant

philosophical background (7,13,7-11).

e general conclusion, then, is that Plutarch and Taurus were both

conscious of the rich opportunities which a symposion could provide for

educative purposes. e students have a more signicant role in Taurus'

approach, although this is no doubt connected with the specic context

(Taurus' symposia, unlike Plutarch's, were specically organised for students)

and perhaps with the judgement of Gellius. But both Plutarch and Taurus

32 us following Plato's own ideals of sympotic entertainment; cf. Prt. 347cd and Smp.

176e.

33 Cf. also the gure of the garrulous and boastful Stoic student in 1,2,3-6, who may serve

as the counterpart of Niger in Plutarch, Quaest. conv. 692B-E.

34 Even if he probably disagreed with several aspects of the proposed solution; cf. M.-L.

L, 1995, p. 158.

379

Educating the Young ... over Wine?

try to stimulate basically the same philosophical attitude by encouraging

independent thinking35 .

4. Favorinus of Arles

A completely dierent case is that of Favorinus, who knew Plutarch

personally36 and participated in at least one symposion where Plutarch was

present as well (Quaest. conv. 734E-735C). But Favorinus also organised

symposia himself, and two of these were attended by Gellius37 . During these

dinners, so Gellius tells us, a slave usually read a book. On one such occasion,

Favorinus makes a critical remark which immediately closes the debate, even

before it has begun (3,19,1-5). e other case is even more illustrative. When in

a Latin poem the term Iapyx occurred, the company asks Favorinus to explain

this name and add supplementary information about the names of the other

winds (2,22,2). Favorinus replies with a torrent of words, going on and on ad

nauseam. His speech is a beautiful sample of his encyclopedic erudition38 , to

be sure, but also shows ex cathedra teaching which leaves no place at all for any

dialogue. e process is entirely monological, and the students can only remain

passive and admire the brilliant speaker in silence. ey are never encouraged

to think for themselves or adopt an independent and critical position.

It is interesting to note that Favorinus himself seems to realise that his

contribution was not entirely comme il faut. At the end of his lengthy speech,

he admits that "for one to do all the talking at a large dinner-party is neither

decent nor becoming" (2,22,26: in convivio autem frequenti loqui solum unum

neque honestum est [...] neque commodum; transl. J. C. Rolfe). ese words most

strikingly reveal Favorinus' principal concern. His avowal is by no means rooted

in an educative reex but in his insight that a dinner is not the appropriate

place to give a speech such like that. His intervention is much more in line

with the epideictic speeches characteristic of the so-called 'Second Sophistic',

which require another audience and another context. He does not attempt to

stimulate independent thinking but wants to impress the audience through

his erudition and through the literary embellishment of his words. In that

sense, Gellius' reference to Favorinus' elegantia verborum and to his beautiful

style (2,22,27) is far from pointless. For Taurus, this would have been of minor

importance (17,20,5-6), but for Favorinus, it was essential. It is clear, then, that

35 One may well wonder whether Taurus read Plutarch's Quaestiones convivales and drew

inspiration from the work for his didactic approach, or whether the similarities should rather be

traced back to the Platonic philosophical tradition which they both share. For Taurus' general

appreciation of Plutarch (cf. 1,26,4: Plutarchus noster, vir doctissimus ac prudentissimus), see, e.g.,

J. D, 1977, p. 237; M.-L. L, 1995, pp. 227-8.

36 On the philosophical connections between both, see, e.g., J. O, 1997.

37 On Gellius' importance as a source for Favorinus, see M.-L. L, 1997; S. M.

B, 2001; cf. also B. B, 1973 and M. P, 1973.

38 Favorinus was the author of a ฮ ฮฑฮฝฯ„ฮฟฮดฮฑฯ€แฝด ฯƒฯ„ฮฟฯแฝทฮฑ, a miscellaneous work in 24 books which

gives evidence of his encyclopedic interests; see further A. B, 1993, pp. 568-70 and L.

H-S, 1988, pp. 81-3.

Favorinus' education is aimed at a dierent ideal. Unlike Plutarch and Taurus,

he does not wish to educate mature Platonic philosophers, but self-conscious,

erudite, and virtuoso speakers such like himself.

5. Conclusion

e above evidence clearly shows that the symposion did not necessarily

coincide with drunken revelry in the intellectual circles of the rst and second

century A.D. It was especially regarded and appreciated as a pleasant pastime

which tightened the bonds of friendship, but at the same time, it yielded rich

opportunities for the education of younger men. In the convivial context, these

educative purposes sometimes came to the fore (viz. in the banquets which

Taurus organised for his students), and sometimes merely played a secondary part

in a broader context (as in Plutarch's Quaestiones convivales). In all of the above

discussed cases, however, the sympotic conduct of both teachers and students

gives evidence of the triumphant victory of rened culture over rened wine.

W o r k s c i T e d

B, D., Plutarque et le stoรฏcisme, Paris, 1969.

B, B., "Aulus Gellius and his Circle", AClas, 16 (1973) 103-7.

B, A., "Favorino di Arelate", ANRW II, 34, 1, Berlin – New York,

1993, pp. 556-81.

B, S. M., "Homo fandi dulcissimus: e Role of Favorinus in the Attic Nights

of Aulus Gellius", AJPh, 122 (2001) 87-106.

B, E. L., "Wine in Old Comedy", in O. M & M. T (eds.),

In vino veritas, London, 1995, pp. 113-25.

B, P., "Platon et le vin", BAGB, 4 (1951) 3-19.

B, J. N., "Adolescents, Symposion, and Pederasty", in O. M (ed.),

Sympotica. A Symposium on the Symposion, Oxford, 1990, pp. 135-48.

C, M., "Plutarque et ร‰pictรจte", in Actes du VIIIe Congrรจs de l'Association

Guillaume Budรฉ (Paris, 5-10 Avril, 1968), Paris, 1969, pp. 560-6.

D R, J., La douceur dans la pensรฉe grecque, Paris, 1979.

D, J., e Middle Platonists. A Study of Platonism 80 B.C. to A.D. 220,

London, 1977.

_____"e Social Role of the Philosopher in the Second Century C.E.: Some

Remarks", in P. A. S & L. V  S (eds.), Sage and

Emperor. Plutarch, Greek Intellectuals, and Roman Power in the Time of

Trajan (98-117A.D.), Leuven, 2002, pp. 29-40.

381

Educating the Young ... over Wine?

D, H., "L. Kalbenos Tauros. Das Persรถnlichkeitsbild eines platonischen

Philosophen um die Mitte des 2. Jahrh. n. Chr.", Kairos, 15 (1973) 24-

35 [repr. in I, Platonica minora, Mรผnchen, 1976, pp. 310-23].

F, B., "Entertainers at the Symposion: e Akletoi in the Archaic Period",

in O. M (ed.), Sympotica. A Symposium on the Symposion, Oxford,

1990, pp. 185-95.

G, D. L., Xenophon's Cyropaedia. Style, Genre, and Literary Technique,

Oxford, 1993.

G, A., Filoso medioplatonici del II secolo D.C. Testimonianze e frammenti.

Gaio, Albino, Lucio, Nicostrato, Tauro, Severo, Arpocrazione. Edizione,

traduzione e commento, Napoli, 2002.

H, G. W. M., "Problems with the Genre of Problems: Plutarch's

Literary Innovations", CPh, 95 (2000) 193-99.

H-S, L., Aulus Gellius, London, 1988.

I, H. G., "ฮŸแฝ ฯˆแฝณฮณฮตฯ„ฮฑฮน ฯ„แฝธ ฯ€แฝทฮฝฮตฮนฮฝ. Wie Plutarch den รผbermรครŸigen

WeingenuรŸ beurteile", in J. G. M C  . (eds.), Plutarco,

Dioniso y el vino. Actas del VI Simposio espaรฑol sobre Plutarco (Cรกdiz,

14-16 de Mayo, 1998), Madrid, 1999, pp. 277-90.

L, M.-L., Der Platoniker Tauros in der Darstellung des Aulus Gellius,

Leiden/New York/Kรถln, 1995.

_____"Favorinus von Arelate. Aulus Gellius รผber seinen Lehrer", in B. C

 . (eds.), Vir bonus dicendi peritus. Festschrift fรผr Alfons Weische zum

65. Geburtstag, Wiesbaden, 1997, pp. 233-43.

M J., H. M., "e Concept of Praotes in Plutarch's Lives", GRBS, 3

(1960) 65-73.

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

1931.

N, A. G., "Plutarch's Attitude to Wine", in J. G. M C

 . (eds.), Plutarco, Dioniso y el vino. Actas del VI Simposio espaรฑol

sobre Plutarco (Cรกdiz, 14-16 de Mayo, 1998), Madrid, 1999, pp. 337-

48.

O, J., "ฮ–ฮทฯ„แฝตฮผฮฑฯ„ฮฑ: Structure et argumentation dans les Quaestiones

Platonicae", in J. A. F D F. P P

(eds.), Estudios sobre Plutarco: Aspectos formales. Actas del IV Simposio

Espaรฑol sobre Plutarco (Salamanca, 26 a 28, Mayo, 1994), Salamanca,

1996, pp. 71-83.

_____ "Favorinus versus Epictetus on the Philosophical Heritage of Plutarch.

A Debate on Epistemology", in J. M. M (ed.), Plutarch and his

Intellectual World. Essays on Plutarch, London, 1997, pp. 17-39.

_____ In Search of the Truth. Academic Tendencies in Middle Platonism, Brussel,

1998.

P, E., "Outlines of a Morphology of Sympotic Entertainment", in O.

M (ed.), Sympotica. A Symposium on the Symposion, Oxford, 1990,

pp. 177-84.

P, M., "Gellio e la scuola di Favorino", ASNP, 3 (1973) 837-60.

P, B., "Prosopographie des amis de Plutarque", ANRW II, 33, 6, Berlin/

New York, 1992, pp. 4831-93.

R, G., "Plutarch on Self and Others", AncSoc, 34 (2004) 245-73 [=

2004a].

_____"From Stick to Reasoning. Plutarch on the Communication between

Teacher and Pupil", WS, 117 (2004) 93-114 [=2004b].

_____On the Path to Virtue. e Stoic Doctrine of Moral Progress and its Reception

in (Middle-)Platonism, Leuven, 2005.

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

T (eds.), In vino veritas, London, 1995, pp. 106-12.

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

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

VI Simposio Espaรฑol sobre Plutarco (Cรกdiz, 14-16 de Mayo, 1998),

Madrid, 1999, pp. 481-90.

S, C. G., "An Evening with the Flute-Girls", PP, 33 (1978) 401-10.

T, M., " Logos Sympotikos: Patterns of the Irrational in Philosophical

Drinking: Plato Outside the Symposium", in O. M (ed.),

Sympotica. A Symposium on the Symposion , Oxford, 1990, pp. 238-

60.

T, S.-T., A Commentary on Plutarch's Table Talks, vol. I, Gรถteborg,

1989.

_____"La politica nelle Questioni conviviali", in I. G  B.S

(eds.), Teoria e prassi politica nelle opere di Plutarco. Atti del V Convegno

plutarcheo (Certosa di Pontignano, 7-9 Giugno, 1993), Napoli, 1995,

pp. 433-7.

_____ A Commentary on Plutarch's Table Talks. Vol. III (Books 7-9), Gรถteborg,

1996.

_____ "Dionysus Moderated and Calmed: Plutarch on the Convivial Wine",

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

del VI Simposio espaรฑol sobre Plutarco (Cรกdiz, 14-16 de Mayo, 1998),

Madrid, 1999, pp. 57-69.

383

Educating the Young ... over Wine?

T, F. B., "Everything to do with Dionysus: Banquets in Plutarch's

Lives", in J. G. M C  . (eds.), Plutarco, Dioniso y el vino.

Actas del VI Simposio espaรฑol sobre Plutarco (Cรกdiz, 14-16 de Mayo,

1998), Madrid, 1999, pp. 491-9.

V  S, L., "Aspects of the Ethics and Poetics of the Dialogue

in the Corpus Plutarcheum", in I. G C. M (eds.), I

generi letterari in Plutarco. Atti del VIII Convegno plutarcheo (Pisa, 2-4

Giugno, 1999), Napoli, 2000, pp. 93-116.

_____"e Sting of Ambition: Plutarchan Reections on Mimetical

Behaviour", in M. J  . (eds.), Plutarc a la seva รจpoca: Paideia

i societat. Actas del VIII Simposio Espaรฑol sobre Plutarco (Barcelona,

6-8 de Noviembre, 2003), Barcelona, 2005, pp. 139-44.

385

e symposium in Plutarch's Table Talk VII, 9 - VIII, Proem and Maximus of Tyre's Oration XXII

"v i n o u s b a b b l i n g "

Th e s y m p o s i u m i n pl u T a r c h 's T a b l e Ta l k vii, 9 – viii,

pr o e m (714a – 717a) a n d ma x i m u s o f T y r e 's or a T i o n xxii

J L

Research Foundation – Flanders

Catholic University of Leuven

Abstract

In his Table-Talk (VII, 714A – VIII, 717A), Plutarch introduces a theme which also occurs

in Maximus of Tyre's Oration XXII 'On proper entertainment', viz. the Persian habit to discuss

important subjects over wine. Both authors consider this matter in the context of a wider moral-

philosophical reection on the appropriate way of dealing with deliberation, drinking and

drunkenness, but each of them comes to a dierent appreciation, which seems quite indicative

for their position throughout their wider oeuvre: whereas Plutarch seems to attribute high value

to the custom of the symposium and even uses it as an inspiring setting for his Table Talk ,

Maximus often associates it with attery and immoderate drunkenness, which entails a real

threat for the virtuous man. By comparing these two authors' opinion on the symposium, this

paper enlarges the understanding of the Plutarchan symposium within its Greek and Roman

context, and highlights the philosophically and socially distinctive position of both authors vis-

ร -vis their contemporary audience.

0. e status of the symposium in Plutarch's Table Talk and elsewhere

in his oeuvre still provokes fruitful scholarly discussion. Was the Plutarchan

symposium the description of an actual social ritual in the รฉlite society of his

day or merely a literary ction?1 To what extent should his banquets be read

as a normative example? How is the philosophical tradition interwoven with

Plutarch's view on symposia? How much independence did he allow himself

(or did his public allow him) in his dialogue with this authorized tradition?

Of course, Plutarch's Table Talk and his other works are but one source for

a reconstruction of the actual ritual of the symposium in the Roman Empire,

and they might contain some rather misleading information, for it cannot be

taken for granted that Plutarch aimed at presenting an objective image of a

drinking party in his day. A confrontation with other authors might help to

gain a better understanding of the symposium in and outside Plutarch's milieu .

is paper will compare the connotations of the word 'symposium' in Plutarch's

oeuvre and in that of Maximus of Tyre2 , a philosophical orator of the second

1 See e.g. J. M, 1931, pp. 177 sqq. (Plutarch's ฯƒฯ…ฮผฯ€ฮฟฯƒฮนฮฑฮบแฝฑ as a ctional literary

framework); J. C. R, 1992, p. 232: "Plutarch blurs the line between articially constructed

symposia and actual drinking parties not only by referring to the symposia of Xenophon

and Plato as if they actually happened, but by literary rendering actual entertainments"; M.

V, 2000, passim, esp. p. 225 (Plutarch's symposium as a mainly antiquarian summary of

philosophical and symposiastic themes) and F. P P, 1999 (the historicity of

some symposiastic aspects in Plutarch's Table Talk).

2 Since a more stylistic comparison between Plutarch and Maximus has already been

made by P. V C, 2000, I will focus on a thematic comparison and only analyse

Plutarch's and Maximus' rhetorical strategies if they underline a thematic point of view.

century AD, who probably delivered his speeches in Rome as an introduction

to philosophy for young students3 . Maximus did not write as extensively on

symposia as Plutarch did, but that does not mean that his description of the

symposium does not present an authentic testimony on drinking parties in

the Imperial era. On the contrary, since Maximus seemed to have less interest

in the philosophical, elevated value of the drinking parties (cf. infra), the

symposia described in his texts might be closer to the actual drinking parties

of his contemporaries.

1. In the fourth paragraph of his twenty-second Oration 'On Proper

Entertainment', Maximus expresses his disgust at the symposiastic behaviour

of the Aenianes, whose banquets are characterized by a burlesque form of

role-playing, including even simulated ghting scenes. Maximus, commenting

that this is a highly unconvivial spectacle, far prefers the Persian symposium,

where important subjects are usually discussed over a moderate amount of

wine, as described in Herodotus' Histories4 . e main reason for Maximus'

approval is the fact that the Persians had a "rule restraining drunkenness", which

"simultaneously roused their virtues", because it withheld the participants from

"inaming [their contentiousness] beyond what was needed" (22, 4, e; translation:

M. B. Trapp). at Maximus is opposed to heavy drinking and drunkenness

during the discussion of important matters also appears from the comparison

between drunkards and sober demagogues in the Athenian assembly, who

have an unrestrained (and, to Maximus, pernicious) license of speech. Here

is another major element to be encountered in Maximus' appreciation of

the symposium, his rejection of free speech which is provoked by a certain

amount of wine. ese two aspects, the abhorrence of unrestrained drinking

and the rejection of parrhesia, are of major importance for the understanding

of Maximus' position in contrast to Plutarch's.

Plutarch, for his part, introduces the topic of the Persian symposium in

a dierent context. In his Table Talk, Glaucias, one of the dinner guests, tries

to prove that discussing important matters over wine was no less a Persian

than a Greek custom (VII, 9; 714A-C). is conclusion provokes the question

3 See G. L. K, 1982, pp. 113-114 and M. B. T, 1997, pp. xx-xxii.

4 Hdt. I, 133.3. It is very likely that Maximus also had some passages (esp. 2.2.1-2.3.1

and 8.8.10) of Xenophon's Cyropaedia in mind while referring to this custom (just as Plutarch

probably did). It is in fact noteworthy in this context that the most outstanding feature of the

Cyropaedia's parties is their unusual sobriety (see D. L. G, 1993, pp. 132-91, esp. p. 150).

is, however, does not mean that Maximus is not advancing his own opinion about symposia

in this passage as well as in other parts of his work, since the same can be said about Maximus

as D. L. G, 1993, p. 154 suggests about Xenophon: "... the omissions and restrictions of

the Cyropaedia's symposia, as well as their uniformity in tone, must have been deliberately

planned by Xenophon, for he was acquainted with very dierent types of symposia, both actual

and literary." Just like Xenophon, Maximus knew a large corpus of practices and canonical

texts from which he could pick the most appropriate ones to bring his own point of view

home. Besides, he explicitly arms his own approval of the Persian practice, without any literal

reference to a traditional authority. erefore, I think, it can hardly be doubted that Maximus is

communicating his own opinion on symposia to his audience here.

387

e symposium in Plutarch's Table Talk VII, 9 - VIII, Proem and Maximus of Tyre's Oration XXII

whether it was a good custom to discuss such matters at a drinking-party

(VII, 10; 714D-716C). In answer to that, a brother of Plutarch's, although

warning against possible excesses at table, utters a positive appreciation of

typical symposiastic activities. He leans particularly on the argument that

the drinking of wine at a party elicits free speech, and, combined with that,

truthful discussions among the participants (715F)5 . In the Proem to Book

VIII of his Table Talk (716D-717A), Plutarch continues to reect on this

subject, arguing that especially philosophical6 topics should be dealt with

over wine, for otherwise a party ends in an unstructured stream of 'vinous

babbling'. Using the Persian example as a starting point then, and placing

philosophical discussion at the centre of the symposium, Plutarch creates a

normative example of a proper drinking-party, which he situates in the context

of the Greco-Roman symposium.

is rst comparison has already brought to light an important dierence

between the two philosophers. Maximus, on the one hand, makes no particular

eort to promote the symposium, and minimizes its privileged position in moral

and philosophical instruction. To his mind, the symposium can be a justied

institution only if the core elements which are characteristic for a symposiastic

party – the abundant food tables, the heavy drinking, cheap entertainment,

etcetera – are banned or restrained. Since there is no rule limiting the use of

alcohol in the Greco-Roman world, Maximus chooses his example in Persia

without, however, wanting to extend this example to real prescriptions for

Greek and Roman symposiacs. One may well wonder whether Maximus does

not consider the symposia of his time rather redundant happenings which

provide no additive educational contribution for his students in philosophy.

Plutarch, on the other hand, does not only point at the possible excesses

which occur at symposia, but also actualizes the Persian custom described by

Herodotus to his own contemporary drinking groups which he introduces as

exemplary for other convivial companies.

2. When I now relate these opinions on Greek symposia to the more

general views of the two authors, a remarkable consistency in both opinions

and agendas comes to the surface. Maximus tends to associate symposia with

attery7 , wrong decision-making8, silly enjoyment of pleasure9, misplaced

5 On parrhesia in the context of the (Greek) symposia, see W. R, 1995, esp. pp.

108-9.

6 As S.-T. T, 1995 and 1999, p. 68 convincingly suggests, the political aspect

in Plutarch's Table Talk as well as in other symposiastic works seems quite absent in favour of

the philosophical discussion. Also the passages under consideration here "sono piuttosto temi

conviviali, 'simpotici'" (1995, p. 343).

7 Max., Or., 14, 7, f on the atterers of a certain Callias, who was ridiculed by Eupolis at

the theatre.

8 Ibid., 3, 7, d oers a comparison between the accusers of Socrates and drunken

symposiacs.

9 Ibid., 25, 6, a.

luxury10 , and unacceptable behaviour11. e only place where he considers the

symposium as a possibly virtuous institution is the aforementioned passage

where he talks about the Persian custom. In any other case, he implicitly advises

his students against attending convivial activities, which entail a real threat for

the virtuous man. is latter aspect appears clearly in this simile between the

symposium and the stimuli of the senses:

แฝญฯƒฯ€ฮตฯ ฮฟแฝ–ฮฝ แผฮฝ ฯƒฯ…ฮผฯ€ฮฟฯƒฮฏแฟณ ฮผฮตฯƒฯ„แฟท ฮบฮฝฮฏฯƒฮทฯ‚ ฯ€ฮฟฮปฮปแฟ†ฯ‚, ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮฟแผดฮฝฮฟฯ… ฯ‡ฮตฮฟฮผฮญฮฝฮฟฯ…, ฮบฮฑแฝถ

ฮฑแฝฮปแฟถฮฝ แผคฮพฮฟฯ…, ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯƒฯ…ฯฮฏฮณฮณฯ‰ฮฝ, ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯˆฮฑฮปฮผฮฌฯ„ฯ‰ฮฝ, ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮธฯ…ฮผฮนฮฑฮผฮฌฯ„ฯ‰ฮฝ, †ฮฑฮฝฮดฯแฝธฯ‚ แผ‚ฮฝ ฮตแผดฮท

ฮบฮฑฯฯ„ฮตฯฮฟแฟฆ ฯƒฯ…ฮฝฮฑฮณฮตฮฏฯฮฑฮฝฯ„ฮฟฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯƒฯ…ฯƒฯ„ฮตฮฏฮปฮฑฮฝฯ„ฮฟฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ„แฝฐฯ‚ ฮฑแผฐฯƒฮธฮฎฯƒฮตฮนฯ‚ แผ€ฯ€ฮฟฯƒฯ„ฯฮญฯ†ฮฟฮฝฯ„ฮฟฯ‚,

ฮฝฮทฯ†ฮฌฮปฮนฮฟฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮบฯŒฯƒฮผฮนฮฟฮฝ† 12· ฮฟแฝ•ฯ„ฯ‰ฯ‚ แผ€ฮผฮญฮปฮตฮน ฮบฮฑแฝถ แผฮฝ ฯ„แฟ‡ ฯ„แฟถฮฝ ฮฑแผฐฯƒฮธฮฎฯƒฮตฯ‰ฮฝ ฯ€ฮฟฮปฯ…ฯ†ฯ‰ฮฝฮฏแพณ

ฯ‡ฮฑฮปฮตฯ€แฝธฮฝ ฮตแฝ‘ฯฮตแฟ–ฮฝ ฮฝฮฎฯ†ฮฟฮฝฯ„ฮฑ ฮฝฮฟแฟฆฮฝ, ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮดฯ…ฮฝฮฌฮผฮตฮฝฮฟฮฝ ฯ€ฯฮฟฯƒฮฒฮปฮญฯ€ฮตฮนฮฝ ฯ„ฮฟแฟ–ฯ‚ ฮฑแฝ‘ฯ„ฮฟแฟฆ

ฮธฮตฮฌฮผฮฑฯƒฮนฮฝ. (Max., O r. 11. 7g)

erefore, just as at a symposium, as rich savours ll the air, and the wine is

poured, and utes and pipes and lyres play, and incense burns, it would take a

strong-willed man to stay sober and disciplined – a man capable of taking a

grip on himself and chastening himself and diverting his own proper objects.

(Transl. M.B. Trapp)

In this passage, the virtuous man receives no moral instruction to deal with

a symposium. He must simply be armed against its vices by his own mental

strength, and it is his own responsibility to stay sober in the face of all these

malicious seductions. As the potential optative clause suggests, the appearance

of a virtuous man at a drinking-party is just a ctitious illustrative supposition.

is utterance implicitly advises the students who truly want to become wise

and virtuous to stay away from, rather than to indulge in, such gatherings

as the symposia. Maximus' own position on the symposiastic environment is

further illustrated by the following passage:

ฮšฮฑฮฏ ฯ„ฮนฯ‚ แผคฮดฮท แผฐฮฑฯ„ฯแฝธฯ‚ ฮตแฝฮผฮฎฯ‡ฮฑฮฝฮฟฯ‚ แผ€ฮฝฮตฮบฮญฯฮฑฯƒฮตฮฝ ฮฒฯฮฑฯ‡ฮตแฟ–ฮฑฮฝ แผกฮดฮฟฮฝแฝดฮฝ ฯ„แฟท แผ€ฮปฮณฮตฮนฮฝแฟท ฯ„แฟ†ฯ‚

แผฐฮฌฯƒฮตฯ‰ฯ‚· ฯ€ฮฟฯฮนฯƒฯ„แฝดฯ‚ ฮดแฝฒ แผกฮดฮฟฮฝแฟ†ฯ‚, ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ€ฮฑฮฝฯ„ฮฟฮฏฮฑฯ‚ แผกฮดฮฟฮฝแฟ†ฯ‚, ฮฟแฝ”ฯ„ฮต แฝ แผˆฯƒฮบฮปฮทฯ€ฮนฯŒฯ‚, ฮฟแฝ”ฯ„ฮต ฮฟแผฑ

แผˆฯƒฮบฮปฮทฯ€ฮนฮฌฮดฮฑฮน, แผ€ฮปฮป' แฝ€ฯˆฮฟฯ€ฮฟฮนแฟถฮฝ ฯ„แฝธ แผ”ฯฮณฮฟฮฝ. (...) แผˆฮปฮปแฝฐ ฯ„ฮฟแฝบฯ‚ ฮผแฝฒฮฝ แฝ€ฯˆฮฟฯ€ฮฟฮนฮฟแฝบฯ‚ ฯ„ฮฟฯฯ„ฮฟฯ…ฯ‚

ฯ„ฮฟแฟ–ฯ‚ ฯƒฯ…ฮผฯ€ฮฟฯƒฮฏฮฟฮนฯ‚ แผแฟถฮผฮตฮฝ, ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮณฮฑฯƒฯ„ฯแฝธฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ แผ€ฮบฮฟแฟ†ฯ‚ แฝ‘ฯ€ฮทฯฮญฯ„ฮฑฯ‚ ฯ€ฮฟฮฝฮทฯฮฟฯฯ‚· แผกฮผแฟ–ฮฝ ฮดแฝฒ ฮดฮตแฟ–

ฮปฯŒฮณฮฟฯ… แฝ€ฯฮธฮฟแฟฆ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮดฮนฮฑฮฝฮตฯƒฯ„ฮทฮบฯŒฯ„ฮฟฯ‚. (Max., Or., 25. 5h-6a)

Many a resourceful doctor has before now tempered the bitterness of his cure

with a small admixture of something sweeter; but neither Asclepius nor the

Asclepiadae are indiscriminate purveyors of pleasure – that is the work of

caterers. (...) Let us leave these contenders to their symposia, like the miserable

servants of belly and ear that they are. What we need is a style of utterance that

stands straight and tall. (Transl. M.B. Trapp)

10 Max., Or. 30, 3, e on king †Aeetes†.

11 Ibid., 39, 4, a on Alcibiades.

12 is passage is indeed a locus desperatus, but the general content seems clear.

389

e symposium in Plutarch's Table Talk VII, 9 - VIII, Proem and Maximus of Tyre's Oration XXII

rough his use of the ฮผแฝณฮฝ-ฮดแฝณ-construction, Maximus opposes himself

and his pupils to cooks who provide 'idle' food at the symposia (this combined

with the negative 'idle' connotation of แฝ€ฯˆฮฟฯ€ฮฟฮนแฝทฮฑ in Plato's Gorgias 13 ). By this

statement, Maximus leaves no doubt that his educational program must be

organized away from the burlesque symposia, where mere care for the stomach

prevails over philosophical discussion and knowledge.

e same admonitory statements occur in Plutarch's oeuvre as well, but with

a dierent undertone. Like Maximus, Plutarch also warns about moral vices at

symposia like (pseudo-philosophical) talkativeness14 , but he does not aim as much

at keeping people away from these parties as he tries to show the right conduct

that must be displayed when one enters a convivial gathering. Plutarch's attitude

is characterized by a tension between a realistic, sometimes excessive image of

convivial parties and a highly normative portrayal which ts his own agenda. Even

if most of the people at a party behave badly, the virtuous man does not need to

stay away from it. He must rather face this gathering in a morally elevated way:

ฮŸแผทฮฟฮฝ แผฮฝ ฯƒฯ…ฮผฯ€ฮฟฯƒฮฏแฟณ ฯ†ฮฏฮปฮฟฯ… ฮบฮนฮธฮฑฯแฟณฮดแฝธฯ‚ ฮฑแผดฮดฮตฮน ฮบฮฑฮบแฟถฯ‚ แผข ฯ€ฮฟฮปฮปฮฟแฟฆ ฮบฯ‰ฮผแฟณฮดแฝธฯ‚

แผฯ‰ฮฝฮทฮผฮญฮฝฮฟฯ‚ แผฯ€ฮนฯ„ฯฮฏฮฒฮตฮน ฮœฮญฮฝฮฑฮฝฮดฯฮฟฮฝ, ฮฟแผฑ ฮดแฝฒ ฯ€ฮฟฮปฮปฮฟแฝถ ฮบฯฮฟฯ„ฮฟแฟฆฯƒฮน ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮธฮฑฯ…ฮผฮฌฮถฮฟฯ…ฯƒฮนฮฝ·

ฮฟแฝฮดแฝฒฮฝ ฮฟแผถฮผฮฑฮน ฯ‡ฮฑฮปฮตฯ€แฝธฮฝ ฮฟแฝฮดแฝฒ ฮดฯฯƒฮบฮฟฮปฮฟฮฝ แผ€ฮบฮฟฯฮตฮนฮฝ ฯƒฮนฯ‰ฯ€แฟ‡ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮผแฝด ฯ€ฮฑฯแฝฐ ฯ„แฝธ ฯ†ฮฑฮนฮฝฯŒฮผฮตฮฝฮฟฮฝ

แผ€ฮฝฮตฮปฮตฯ…ฮธฮญฯฯ‰ฯ‚ แผฯ€ฮฑฮนฮฝฮตแฟ–ฮฝ. (Plu., De vit. pud. 531B-C)

us at a friend's banquet a citharode sings badly or a comic actor got for a great

price murders Menander, and the crowd applauds and admires. Here I think it

no hard or grievous matter to listen in silence and refrain from insincere and

unmanly applause. (Transl. e Loeb Classical Library)

e very fact that Plutarch prescribes what one should or should not do at a

drinking-party illustrates that he does not consider the symposium as a morally

indierent and hedonistic gathering where anything goes, but as an institution

where one can train one's moral and mental strength. In Plutarch's view, the

occurrence of vicious persons at a drinking-party does not exclude guidelines

for the right symposiastic conduct, as is the case in Maximus' oeuvre. Besides

the portrayal of some excesses, which indicates that Plutarch is not blind to the

dangers which the attendance of a symposium might imply, the positive value

of the symposiastic institution is often highlighted as well, not only evidently

in Plutarch's so-called symposiastic works (the Table Talk and the Dinner of the

Seven Sages), but also in the rest of his oeuvre. Ample illustrations can be found

of Plutarch's benevolent appreciation of the symposium, which is distinguished

alternately by its appropriateness15 , its philosophical and poetical value16, and

its capability to illustrate a man's modesty17 . Plutarch thus conrms a virtuous

13 Pl., Grg., 462 sqq.; 521d-522a for แฝ€ฯˆฮฟฯ€ฮฟฮนแฝทฮฑ as a form of ฮบฮฟฮปฮฑฮบฮตแฝทฮฑ. Cf. M . B. T , 1997,

p. 211 n. 17.

14 Plu., De prof. in virt., 80A; De gar., 502F; 514C.

15 I, Lyc. , 25, 2; Aem., 28, 5; Reg. et imp. apophth., 198B.

16 I, De ad. et am., 68B; De Pyth. or., 405F; Non posse, 1095C-E.

17 I, Dion, 13, 2; De cup. div., 527B; De coh. ira, 461D.

man's ability to surmount the vicious kind of behaviour at drinking-parties,

and makes the symposium a fruitful place where one can give evidence of one's

exemplary character and enjoy moral and philosophical instruction.

3. After this brief survey of the connotations of the symposium in

Maximus' and Plutarch's works, I return to the passage in the Table Talk in

which Plutarch discusses the appropriate way of dealing with deliberation,

drinking, and drunkenness at a symposium. In his introduction to the eighth

Book, he makes the following statement:

ฮคแฝดฮฝ ฮณฮฟแฟฆฮฝ ฮผฮญฮธฮทฮฝ ฮฟแผฑ ฮปฮฟฮนฮดฮฟฯฮฟแฟฆฮฝฯ„ฮตฯ‚ ฯ†ฮนฮปฯŒฯƒฮฟฯ†ฮฟฮน ฮปฮฎฯฮทฯƒฮนฮฝ ฯ€ฮฌฯฮฟฮนฮฝฮฟฮฝ แผ€ฯ€ฮฟฮบฮฑฮปฮฟแฟฆฯƒฮนฮฝ·

ฯ„แฝธ ฮดแฝฒ ฮปฮทฯฮตแฟ–ฮฝ ฮฟแฝฮดฮญฮฝ แผฯƒฯ„ฮนฮฝ แผ€ฮปฮป' แผข ฮปฯŒฮณแฟณ ฮบฮตฮฝแฟท ฯ‡ฯแฟ†ฯƒฮธฮฑฮน ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ†ฮปฯ…ฮฑฯฯŽฮดฮตฮน· ฮปฮฑฮปฮนแพถฯ‚

ฮด' แผ€ฯ„ฮฌฮบฯ„ฮฟฯ… ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ†ฮปฯ…ฮฑฯฮฏฮฑฯ‚ ฮตแผฐฯ‚ แผ„ฮบฯฮฑฯ„ฮฟฮฝ แผฮผฯ€ฮตฯƒฮฟฯฯƒฮทฯ‚ แฝ•ฮฒฯฮนฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ€ฮฑฯฮฟฮนฮฝฮฏฮฑ ฯ„ฮญฮปฮฟฯ‚

แผ€ฮผฮฟฯ…ฯƒฯŒฯ„ฮฑฯ„ฮฟฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ แผ€ฯ‡ฮฑฯฮนฯƒฯ„ฯŒฯ„ฮฑฯ„ฮฟฮฝ. (Plu., Quaest. conv., 716F)

At any rate, those philosophers who wish to give indulgence in wine a bad

name dene it as "vinous babbling," and babbling means, precisely, engaging

in empty and frivolous conversation. e outcome of undisciplined chatter and

frivolity, when it reaches the extreme of intemperance, is violence and drunken

behaviour – an outcome wholly inconsistent with culture and renement.

(Transl. e Loeb Classical Library)

One of this type of mentioned philosophers who adopt a radically

hostile position towards the symposium seems to be Maximus of Tyre.

Since, according to Maximus, the outcome of such a gathering is nothing

but immoral behaviour, a true philosopher should ban the attendance of

symposia from his life, following only the so-called non-excessive and

philosophical way to real knowledge and understanding. Plutarch, however,

chooses another approach:

... ฮปฯŒฮณแฟณ ฯ„ฮต ฮดฮตแฟ– ฯ‡ฯแฟ†ฯƒฮธฮฑฮน ฯ€ฮฑฯแฝฐ ฯ€ฯŒฯ„ฮฟฮฝ ฮธฮตฯ‰ฯฮฏฮฑฮฝ ฯ„ฮนฮฝแฝฐ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮผฮฟแฟฆฯƒฮฑฮฝ แผ”ฯ‡ฮฟฮฝฯ„ฮน ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮปฯŒฮณฮฟฯ…

ฯ„ฮฟฮนฮฟฯฯ„ฮฟฯ… ฯ„แฟ‡ ฮผฮญฮธแฟƒ ฯ€ฮฑฯฯŒฮฝฯ„ฮฟฯ‚ แผ€ฯ€ฮฟฮบฯฯฯ€ฯ„ฮตฯ„ฮฑฮน ฯ„แฝธ แผ„ฮณฯฮนฮฟฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮผฮฑฮฝฮนฮบฯŒฮฝ, แฝ‘ฯ€แฝธ ฯ„แฟถฮฝ

ฮœฮฟฯ…ฯƒแฟถฮฝ ฮตแฝฮผฮตฮฝแฟถฯ‚ ฮบฮฑฯ„ฮตฯ‡ฯŒฮผฮตฮฝฮฟฮฝ. (Plu., Quaest. conv., 717A)

... when drinking we ought to engage in conversation that has something

speculative, some instruction in it, and that when conversation like this

accompanies indulgence in wine the wild and manic element is hidden away,

benevolently restrained by the Muses. (Transl. e Loeb Classical Library)

As is indicated in the passage, Plutarch, using a generally imperative

tone (cf. ฮดฮตแฟ– ฯ‡ฯแฟ†ฯƒฮธฮฑฮน), focuses not on symposiastic vices here, but on the

normative and exemplary function which a symposium should full.

4. Besides the philosophical aspirations of these two authors, there is

also the question of the social embedding of their discourses. How should

Maximus' and Plutarch's appreciation of the symposium be understood against

391

e symposium in Plutarch's Table Talk VII, 9 - VIII, Proem and Maximus of Tyre's Oration XXII

the social background of the Imperial era? Drinking, after all, is in many

societies primarily a social practice18 .

Celebrating parties and consuming alcohol can be a means for

consolidating social power, as was the case in the aristocratic origin of the

Greek symposium19 , but they can also constitute a value scale on their own,

which does not necessarily correspond to the 'natural' hierarchy in society20 .

It was, in other words, of major importance for the upper class not to let

their drinking habits undermine their distinctive position vis-ร -vis the lower

classes21 . erefore, apart from their philosophical concerns, both Plutarch's

and Maximus' texts can be read as a societal response to this potential threat to

the รฉlite dominance over other social groups.

Ingenkamp has proposed the interesting hypothesis that Plutarch's attitude

towards drinking and getting drunk was heavily inuenced by the social practice

of his รฉlite society22 . To my mind, Plutarch must indeed have felt the pressure of

his contemporary audience, who might have enjoyed rather abundant symposia,

but he reacted against this tendency by morally elevating the institution of the

symposium through an explicitly normative discourse. A socio-anthropological

reading of Plutarch's texts would reveal that, by introducing philosophy as the

main aspect of his symposia, the Chaeronian made sure that his รฉlite public would

still distinguish itself from the mob, even while celebrating drinking parties.

e Tyrian, for his part, considered it safer for the รฉlites to avoid the abundant

symposia – unless, of course, the abundance was restrained, as was the case among

the Persians –, for these symposia might not only corrupt the moral virtues of his

listeners, but also blur their social distinction as รฉlites towards 'inferior' people.

5. Does Plutarch's Table Talk then oer a realistic portrait of the symposium,

or is it merely a literary utopia? Some passages in Plutarch and the comparison

with Maximus' Orations in any case show that, for Greek and Roman people,

there was no evident link between symposiastic activities and morally high-

standard behaviour23 . If Plutarch's image of the symposium in his Table Talk as

18 M. D, 1987, p. 4.

19 For the 'ritual' function of the symposium and its role in the creation of a social order, see

O. M, 1990, pp. 3 sqq.; cf. A. M. S, 1999, pp. 7-13.

20 See O. M, 1995, pp. 4 sqq. Cf. M. D, 1987, p. 8: "Drinks also act as markers

of personal identity and of boundaries of inclusion and exclusion." Here she is referring to a

study of G. M, 1987, which deles the social power of drinking for working men on the

docks in Newfoundland, Canada, where a man's transition from outsider to insider depends

more heavily on his drinking habits and 'skills' than on his commitment to and talent for his

job.21 On the importance for a member of the รฉlite to distinguish himself from the ordinary

people on various (cultural) levels, see P. B, 1979. On the idea of equality among the

participants in a convivium in the Early Empire, see J. D'A, 1990, esp. p. 313 for Plutarch's

Table Talk. One should however bear in mind that the drinking companions at the Plutarchan

symposium are already members of the social รฉlite, which obviously inuences our interpretation

of the argument in favour of แฝทฯƒแฝนฯ„ฮทฯ‚ among the participants.

22 H. G. I, 1999.

23 is conclusion corresponds well with A. G. N, 1999, pp. 342-3: "Perhaps, all

well as in other works does in fact correspond to real customs among the Greeks,

it was, I think, at the very most a rare and idealizing interpretation by small

groups of cultivated men, who were inspired by the great tradition of symposia

as described by canonical philosophers, in the rst place Plato and Xenophon24 .

To conclude then, it seems fair to state that Maximus and Plutarch both

serve their own philosophical and social agendas. Both testify to the possible

dangers interwoven with the symposia, but each of them comes to a dierent

appreciation. Whereas Maximus turns his back on these so-called pernicious

kinds of gatherings, Plutarch, on the other hand, by situating philosophical

discussion at the very heart of the symposium, wants to revalue this institution

and make it an outstanding place where the virtuous man can give evidence of

his qualities and enjoy an elevated status.

W o r k s c i T e d

B, P., La distinction: critique social du jugement, Paris, 1979.

D'A, J., "e Roman Convivium and the Idea of Equality", in O. M

(ed.), 1990, pp. 308-20.

D, M. (ed.), Constructive Drinking. Perspective on Drink from Anthro-

pology, Cambridge, 1987.

_____"A Distinctive Anthropological Perspective", in M. D (ed.),

1987, pp. 3-15.

G, D. L., Xenophon's Cyropaedia: Style, Genre, and Literary Technique,

Oxford, 1993.

I, H. G., "ฮŸแฝ ฯˆแฝณฮณฮตฯ„ฮฑฮน ฯ„แฝธ ฯ€แฝทฮฝฮตฮนฮฝ. Wie Plutarch den รผbermรคฮฒigen

Weingenuฮฒ beurteilte", in J. G. M C  . (eds.), 1999, pp.

277-90.

K, G. L., "On Maximus of Tyre: Zetemata (I)", ClAnt, 1 (1982) 87-

121.

M, G., "Longshore Drinking, Economic Security and Union Politics in

Newfoundland", in M. D (ed.), 1987, pp. 91-102.

would agree with Plutarch that every self-respecting and orderly man should avoid getting

drunk. Yet, judging once more from the extant literary symposia, from Plato and Xenophon

to Athenaeus and Lucian, to say nothing about sympotic representations in art, few people in

antiquity, I think, would attend a banquet in order to seek instructions or moral edication".

24 See M. V, 2000, p. 223: "La scuola losoca ha un proprio modello di simposio,

dierente da quello del resto degli uomini, non edonistico ma creativo." One should, however,

not underestimate the time-gap between Plutarch's time and that of Plato. On the relation

between Plutarch's symposium and the tradition, A. M. S, 1999, p. 127 argues that

"il simposio plutarcheo ha le sue regole, ma sono diverse da quelle che valevano nell'etร  classica:

esse rispecchiano il cambiamento delle convinzioni e delle coscienze, ora piรบ aperte e tolleranti,

ora piรบ intransigenti ed austere."

393

e symposium in Plutarch's Table Talk VII, 9 - VIII, Proem and Maximus of Tyre's Oration XXII

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

1931.

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

espaรฑol sobre Plutarco (Cรกdiz, 14-16 de Mayo, 1998), Madrid, 1999.

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

_____"Sympotic History", in O. M (ed.), 1990, pp. 3-13.

_____ " Histories of Pleasure", in O. M  M. T (eds.), 1995, pp.

3-16.

_____ T, M. (eds.), In vino veritas, Oxford, 1995.

N, A. G., "Plutarch's Attitude to Wine", in J. G. M C 

. (eds.), 1999, pp. 337-48.

P P, F., "El banquete de Plutarco: ¿Ficciรณn literaria o realidad

histรณrica?", in J. G. M C  . (eds.), 1999, pp. 379-92.

R, J. C., "Rethinking the History of the Literary Symposium", ICS, 17

(1992) 213-44.

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

T (eds.), 1995, pp. 106-12.

S, A. M., Plutarco, Conversazioni a tavola. Libro primo (introduzione,

testo critico, traduzione e commento), Napoli, 1999.

T, S.-T., "La politica nelle questioni conviviali", in I. G  B.

S (eds.), Teoria e prassi politica nelle opere di Plutarco. Atti del

V Convegno plutarcheo (Certosa di Pontignano, 7-9 Giugno, 1993),

Napoli, 1995, pp. 433-7.

_____ A Commentary on Plutarch's Table Talks, vol. III (Books 7-9), Gรถteborg,

1996.

_____"Dionysus Moderated and Calmed: Plutarch on the Convivial Wine",

in J. G. M C  . (eds.), 1999, pp. 57-69.

T, M. B., Maximus of Tyre: e Philosophical Orations (translated, with an

introduction and notes), Oxford, 1997.

V, M., "Plutarco e il 'genere simposio'", in I. G  C. M

(eds.), I generi letterari in Plutarco. Atti del VIII Convegno plutarcheo

(Pisa, 2-4 Giugno, 1999), Napoli, 2000, pp. 217-29.

V C, P., "Plutarco e Massimo Tirio: procedimenti retorici

e technica formale", in L. V  S (ed.), Rhetorical eory

and Praxis in Plutarch. Acta of the IVth International Congress of

the International Plutarch Society (Leuven, July 3-6, 1996), Leuven,

Namur, 2000, pp. 527-32.

395

e Role of Reality in Plutarch's Quaestiones Convivales

Th e r o l e o f r e a l i T y i n p l u T a r c h ' s Qu a e S T i o n e S co n v i v a l e S

F B. T

Utah State University, Logan

Abstract

In his Quaestiones Convivales, Plutarch is, if not the rst, one of the rst to fuse the genres of

problem-collection with more traditional symposiastic literature. Later works like Athenaeus'

Deipnosophistae and parts of Aulus Gellius' Noctes Atticae show that the hybrid remained a popular

one. is is surely at least partially a function of the lively nature of the Quaestiones themselves.

Is another part of the attraction the opportunity to look through a window at Plutarch, his

private life, and family? If so, does it matter whether or not these dinner parties actually took

place? Yes and no, depending on the reader's viewpoint. e literal reality of the dinner parties

is a tactic, part of the arsenal of techniques with which Plutarch will lead us to a greater reality

that is much more meaningful.

e QC open with an address to Sossius Senecio, in which Plutarch tells

us what he means to do in these essays, and why he has written them, or

written them down:

"…to consign to utter oblivion all that occurs at a drinking-party is not

only opposed to what we call the friend-making character of the dining-

table, but also has the most famous of the philosophers to bear witness

against it, – Plato, Xenophon, Aristotle, Speusippus, Epicurus, Prytanis,

Hieronymus, and Dio of the Academy, who all considered the recording of

conversations held at table a task worth some eort,– and since, moreover,

you thought that I ought to collect such talk as suits our purpose from

among the learned discussions in which I have often participated in various

places both at home in your company and among us in Greece, with table

and goblet before us, I have applied myself to the task and now send you

three of the books, each containing ten questions which we have discussed"

(Mor . 612E ).

Of the authors Plutarch lists above, we have only the symposia by Plato

and Xenophon to which we can compare the QC. ere are obviously many

similarities, including the use of historical gures for the participants, and

the philosophic nature of the debate, but the QC are much more varied in

content and setting. Symposiastic authors after Plutarch, notably Athenaeus

and Aulus Gellius, continue Plutarch's general format of miscellaneous and

learned discussion over the dinner-table, but conne the conversation to one

night's dinner. Since he wrote only a century after Plutarch, and since he cites

over 1,000 dierent authors, it seems odd that Athenaeus cites Plutarch of

Chaeronea only once, in a passage about a doctor who avoided intoxication by

consuming bitter almonds before a symposium (II 52). e fact that there is

no other specic mention of Chaeronean Plutarch has led to the suggestion

that this passage was not by Athenaeus, but interpolated (Olson, vol. 1, x-xi).

It may be that the Plutarch of Alexandria who is one of the dinner guests

is, in fact, a reference, or even compliment, to Plutarch of Chaeronea. is

kind of correlation may be true of other Deipnosophists also, like Ulpian (for

the jurist Ulpian of Tyre), Philadelphus of Ptolemais (for the Egyptian king

Ptolemy Philadelphus), or the philosopher Democritus of Nicomedia (for the

philosopher Democritus of Abdera). Since either, neither, or both of those

things could be true, it is sucient here to establish the generic link between

some writings of Plutarch and Athenaeus.

Aulus Gellius, writing in the latter third of the second c. CE, was quite

familiar with Plutarch's works. He cites Plutarch numerous times, referring

to at least four dierent works, including the QC. In fact, his very rst essay

discusses a lost Plutarchan treatise "on the mental and physical endowment

and achievements of Hercules while he was among men" (NA 1.1.) In

his introduction, Gellius makes it clear that he is using a similar system

to Plutarch's own notebooks, or hypomnemata1 , and in fact this is how he

explains the character of the Attic Nights and where they got their name:

"For whenever I had taken in hand any Greek or Latin book, or had heard

anything worth remembering I used to jot down whatever took my fancy,

of any and every kind, without any denite plan or order; and such notes I

would lay away as an aid to my memory, like a kind of literary storehouse,

so that when the need arose of a word or a subject which I chanced for

the moment to have forgotten, and the books from which I had taken it

were not at hand, I could readily nd and procure it... And since, as I have

said, I began to amuse myself by assembling these notes during the long

winter nights which I spent on a country-place in the land of Attica, I have

therefore given them the title of Attic Nights" (Praef. 4). So in fact, Gellius

has a lot more in common with Plutarch in terms of methodology than their

mutual authorship of symposiastic literature.

eir very nature makes the QC challenging to describe, or categorize

any further than this. Once past the basic "nine books, ten questions" format

Plutarch himself describes, there is no obvious pattern. All nine books contain

some dialogues that are linked dramatically2 . Some books begin with very long

questions, the longest in the book (I, II, IV), but others' longest question is #7

(V) or #6 (VII). e books themselves are of dierent lengths (IV and IX are

missing questions #4 and 5, respectively). Yet it is clear there must be some kind

of structure. Plutarch goes to so much trouble to describe the well-made dinner

party as something that has little obvious, but much concealed structure3 that

it is counterintuitive to assume that there is NOT a similar structure to this

work. We do not have to agree with Gellius' statement that symposiastic or

convivial literature authors valued quantity above quality (solam copiam , praef.

1 On Plutarch's notebooks, see De Tranq. An (Mor. 464F with V  S, 575-79.

2 I 2-3; II 4-5, 8-9; III 1-2, 3-5, 7-9; IV 4-6; V 5-6, 8-9; VII 7-8, 9-10; VIII 1-2, 7-8; all

of Book IX).

3 Mor. 614A: "the height of sagacity is to talk philosophy without seeming to do so…"

397

e Role of Reality in Plutarch's Quaestiones Convivales

11), accumulating material indiscriminately (sine cura discriminis) to observe

that whatever this structure might be, it is not easily detected.

Harrison has suggested that in the QC, Plutarch is not only experimenting

with superimposition of the symposiastic form, but in some places is

constructing an actual parody, and that an underlying armature, or structure,

is in place: "Beyond expanding its scope so that it could encompass all the

dierent genres of quaestiones, Plutarch brought an episodic structure to the

symposium, which allowed the reader to take up and put down his convivial

reminiscences at will and browse through them rather like a collection of poems

or fables instead of a work whose argument had to be followed sequentially"

(197). Gellius, at any rate, would not agree, rather observing that reading such

works brings on fatigue before the reader actually encounters anything worth

reading (NA Praef. 11). True or not, it would be very dicult to prove such a

theory, but it is easy to agree with the suspicion that the QC are unlikely to

be organized completely randomly, even though the subject matter is wide-

ranging and unpredictable.

For it certainly is both. Many essays deal with every-day, human behavior,

and have an almost medical cast. "Why Old Men Read Best at a Distance"

(QC 1.84 ), for instance, is evidently a problem of very long standing. "Why

Women Do Not Eat the Middle Part of Lettuce" (QC 4.10) is less of a concern

these days. "Why Noises Are Better Heard in the Night than the Day" (QC

8.3), "Why in Autumn Men Have Better Stomachs than in Other Seasons of

the Year" (QC 2.2), and "Which Is the Fittest Time for a Man to Know His

Wife?" (QC 3.6) are other examples. Some essays are at-out invitations to

debate, such as "What Is Plato's Meaning, When He Says at God Always

Plays the Geometer?" (QC 8.2), "Whether the Sea or Land Aords Better

Food?" (QC 4.4), "Which of Venus's Hands Diomedes Wounded?" (QC 9.4),

or "Whether the Jews Abstained from Swine's Flesh Because ey Worshiped

at Creature, or Because ey Had an Antipathy Against It?" (QC 4.5). Other

essays, predictably, cover party management. "at one should guard especially

against the pleasures derived from degenerate music, and how to do so", which

describes with horror a situation where "music can inebriate, more eectively

than any wine, those who drink it in as it comes, with no restraint. For the

guests were no longer content to shout and clap from their places, but nally

most of them leapt up and joined in the dancing with movements disgraceful

for a gentleman, though quite in keeping with that kind of rhythm and melody"

(QC 7.4). ere is quite a lot about dancing in the QC, as one would expect, as

well as much valuable information about parties in general–seating, discussion

topics, wine and its eects. Some problems appear to be common to all times:

"Concerning ose Guests at Are Called Shadows, and Whether Being

Invited by Some to Go to Another's House, ey Ought to Go; and When,

and to Whom" (QC 7.6); others less so, i.e. "Whether it Is Fitting to Wear

Chaplets of Flowers at Table" (QC 3.1) or "Whether Flute-girls Are to Be

4 References to the QC henceforth will take the form of book and question number.

Allowed at a Feast" (QC 7.7). And there are many scientic questions, such

as "Why Fresh Water Washes Clothes Better than Salt?" (QC 1.9), "Which

Was First the Bird or the Egg?" (QC 2.3) , "Whether Ivy Is of a Hot or Cold

Nature?" (QC 3.2), and "What Is the Reason at Hunger Is Allayed by

Drinking, but irst Increased by Eating?" (QC 6.3).

e diculty in discerning an over-arching structure and the disparity

among the various essays may be one reason why an important aspect of

scholarly discussion about Plutarch's QC has centered on "authenticity," that is

whether or not something is or is not literally true5 . is debate assumes that

whether or not these dinners took place where, when, and with whom Plutarch

describes is crucial to understanding the QC: as Teodorsson puts it, "Whether

his model works were symposiac dialogues or not, Plutarch's contribution

to the symposiac genre is obvious. is is due specically to the element of

authenticity…is element is essential to the work6 ". To be fair, Teodorsson

does not suggest that Plutarch staged these dinner parties in order to mine

the party chatter, nor that he had these dinner-talks recorded, but rather that

as he wrote later in life, he remembered them, sometimes even the particular

themes. In fact, this is what Plutarch tells us himself:

that he wrote these conversations down sporadically, as each came to mind,

evidently expecting readers to view these conversations as invented saying

"Nor must my readers be surprised, if though addressing myself to you, I have

introduced some of your own past conversation also; for indeed if the getting

of knowledge does not insure that one remembers it, frequently the same end

is attained by recollection as by learning" (QC 2. Intro).

But focusing on the literal reality of the banquets, possibly, is to miss a

much larger point. Early in the QC, the grammatikos Marcus invites debate

on Neanthes' Sagas of the State. Fellow banqueter Milo wants to establish the

truth of a particular anecdote in the work before commencing discussion.

Philopappus says the veracity of the anecdote is not an issue "because the

discussion will provide occasion for practice, even if it provides nothing else

useful" (QC 1.10). e reality described by Plutarch at the dinner parties is just

as real for his purposes as a video recording. To insist on "authenticity" or truth

as an important lens through which to view the QC is to fail to distinguish the

subtle dierences between and among history, biography, and autobiography.

What the QC present us with is something a little in between: what at least

conveys the texture of what MIGHT have happened, COULD have happened,

and periodically HAD in fact happened. For Plutarch's purposes, this is really

all the same thing. He seems to refer to this in Solon (27.1):

"at Solon should discourse with Croesus, some think not agreeable with

chronology; but I cannot reject so famous and well-attested a narrative, and,

5 S.-T. T, vol. 1, 12-13 a good background to this discussion.

6 S.-T. T, vol. I, 13.

399

e Role of Reality in Plutarch's Quaestiones Convivales

what is more, so agreeable to Solon's temper, and so worthy his wisdom and

greatness of mind, because, forsooth, it does not agree with some chronological

canons, which thousands have endeavoured to regulate, and yet, to this day,

could never bring their diering opinions to any agreement".

But Pelling is surely right not to put too much weight on this 7: "It is simply

that the boundary between truth and falsehood was less important than that

between acceptable and unacceptable fabrication, between things which were

'true enough' and things which were not. Acceptable rewriting will not mislead

the reader seriously, indeed readers will grasp more of the important reality if

they accept what Plutarch writes than if they do not. Truth matters; but it can

sometimes be bent a little" (156).

As far as we know, we do not see at-out fantasy in the QC, and clearly

Plutarch cannot stray too far from reality, particularly in terms of the other

symposiasts. Philopappus, for instance, was a Roman consul during Trajan's

reign. L. Mestrius Florus, the man who obtained Plutarch's Roman citizenship

for him, and Sossius Senecio, another Roman consular to whom some of the

Parallel Lives and Moralia are dedicated8 , also make appearances in the QC.

We hear about and from many of Plutarch's relatives, like his father, sons, and

father-in-law9 . Some of the banquets take place in Rome, but many are hosted

in Chaeronea, providing opportunity for local details on politics, landmarks,

and religious festivals. However, in this process, it is dangerous to draw too

many or too rm conclusions about Plutarch himself, or his life and family,

despite their frequent participation in this essay. Too much inter, or meta, or

subtextuality can lead to overreading.

One example of the sort of problem that can arise from mining Plutarch's

work for autobiographical elements centers on the answer to the question of

why Plutarch resided in Chaeronea, instead of Rome, or at least Athens. At

rst glance this is straightforward: Plutarch says he chose to stay there because

it was such a small town that even one absent citizen would be noticed (Dem .

2). Although this is a charming sentiment, it is a little disingenuous to be

accepted at face value. Perhaps rst and second century CE Athens was a

little too Roman for Plutarch, whether that meant expensive, bureaucratic,

crowded, impersonal, dangerous, or a combination of the above. Plutarch may

not have liked big cities, Rome in particular; he believed that living in a big

city was not necessary for living a virtuous and happy life; he did not wish to

compete in the international arena any more than was unavoidable through his

local political work and his friendship with Roman ocials, perhaps because

of a kind of apprehensive caution that should not be called by as strong a

term as fear. In light of his lack of condence in his Latin, he could not make

use of the library and intellectual resources that would make the expense and

stress of life in Rome "worthwhile". Perhaps his natural diplomacy preferred

7 C. B. P, 1990, pp. 143-44, pp. 156-162.

8 eseus, Demosthenes, Dion; Quomodo quis suos in virtute sentiat profectus.

9 See J and P on the various historical personages in Plutarch's writings.

to accentuate the positive aspect of life in Chaeronea rather than deplore

the negative aspects of hyperurban life. It is therefore inadequate to accept

Plutarch's own descriptions of people and events without further scrutiny, and

dangerous to construct evidentiary houses on sand10 .

Yet the characterizations of Plutarch's relatives are vivid, and imply

a certain familiarity on the part of his readers, a familiarity conrmed by

details. Lamprias, Plutarch's brother or uncle, is said to have spoken up in his

"customarily loud voice" (QC 1.2); his grandfather Lamprias "was his most

ingenious and eloquent self when drinking, and it was his habit to say that,

much as incense is volatilized by heat, so was he by wine" (QC 1.5). Later one

Xenocles of Delphi "as usual" began to tease Plutarch's brother (QC 2.2). He

refers to the festival Pithoigia, where the new wine is dedicated, saying that

"My father had celebrated the ritual, as was his custom" (QC 3.7). Plutarch

denitely emphasizes the repetitive and familiar, lulling us into participating

as invited eavesdroppers. Are these relatives real? Yes. Is their speech and

behavior in the QC typical? Yes. Did the dinner party conversation happen as

reported? Maybe.

And in the end, does authenticity matter? If the characters of Plutarch's

QC were anonymous, and the banquets declared to be fabrications, we would

be dealing with Plutarch's candidly stated own thoughts and ideas, not a free-

owing, evolving, democratically-shaped discussion. But that is not the case.

e QC are populated by known personages, and Plutarch's statement to

Sossius Senecio that he is responding to Sossius' own suggestion in collecting

the conversations cannot be complete invention. Plutarch certainly wants us

to respond to real people and their real thoughts. To that extent, it matters

that banquets certainly took place, and the symposiasts surely at times were

together. But as intermediator, Plutarch himself is as much a part of the QC as

the banquets and conversations spare from which they originated. His choice,

organization, and presentation of anecdotes, individuals, and language, as well

as some kind of very subtle structure, give us a greater, or enhanced reality

than that of the actual banquets. He is in a way the editor of our experience of

these banquets, and indispensable to that experience. e QC do not need to

be authentic to be real and true.

W o r k s c i T e d

D, T. E., "How Lives Begin", in A.G. N (ed.), e Unity of

Plutarch's Work. 'Moralia' emes in the 'Lives', Features of the 'Lives' in

the 'Moralia'. Acta of the VII International Congress of the International

Plutarch Society, Rethymno, 2005. Millennium Studies vol 19, Berlin,

2008, pp. 187-207.

10 F. B . T, 2002, pp. 140-41; see now Z, A: "It will emerge from the

argument that what we tend to look upon as staple facts about Plutarch's writing career are

guarded moves in the game of identity-negotiation" (103).

401

e Role of Reality in Plutarch's Quaestiones Convivales

H, G.W.M., "Problems with the genre of problems: Plutarch's literary

innovations", CPh, 95 (2000) 193-99.

J, C.P., "Prosopographical Notes on the Second Sophistic", GRBS, 21

(1980) 373-80.

M, J., "Plutarch's Dinner of the Seven Wise Men and Its Place in

Symposion Literature", in J. M (ed.), Plutarch and His Intellectual

World, London, 1997, pp. 119-40.

O, D., Athenaeus . e Learned Banqueters. Vols. I and II, Cambridge,

2006.

P, C., "Truth and Fiction in Plutarch's Lives", in Antonine Literature ,

D.A. R (ed.), Oxford, 1990, pp. 19-52; repr. in Plutarch and

History, London, New York, 2000, pp. 143-170.

P, B., "Prosopographie des amis de Plutarque", in ANRW II,33,6, W.

H & H. T (eds.), Berlin, New York, 1992, pp. 4831-93.

T, S.-T., A Commentary on Plutarch's Table Talk, vols. I-III,

Gothenburg.

T, F.B., "Plutarch and Roman(ized) Athens", in E.N. O

(ed)., Greek Romans or Roman Greeks?, Aarhus, 2002, pp. 136-41.

V  S, L., "A Plutarchan Hypomnema on Self-Love", AJPh, 120

(1999), 575-599.

Z, A., "King of his Castle: Plutarch, Demosthenes 1-2", PCPhS, 52

(2006) 102-27.

403

Dancing with Plutarch: dance and dance theory in Plutarch's Table Talk

D  P

da n c e a n d d a n c e T h e o r y i n p l u T a r c h ' s Ta b l e T a l k

C A. M  J

University of Coimbra

Abstract

e aim of this paper is to analyze Plutarch's discussion of the dierent kinds of ancient dance

and their meaning in the Table Talk. Besides a large section from Book 9 (question 15), all of

it concerning the parts of dance and their relation to poetry, we focus on those other moments

where dierent rhythms of dance are discussed. Looking beyond the Plutarchan material, we

search for the implications of this subject in terms of philanthropia and moderation, concepts

extremely important in all nine books of the Table Talk.

e ancient symposium was a strictly staged social event at which members

of the male elite drank, talked and enjoyed themselves, in a variety of ways. As

for this last element, the convivial one, the various semiotic sources that have

been preserved – mostly literature and painting1 – are clear on the importance

given to many other elements besides eating and drinking. Music and poetry,

inseparable arts, were a constant presence in ancient banquets, and the same

should apply to dance.

As far as literature is concerned, there are many fragments from poems

composed to be performed at banquets, at least from the middle of the seventh

century BC onwards2 . It is in the Odyssey (8. 72-95) that we nd what is probably

the oldest western description of an aristocratic symposium, given by Alcinoos

to Odysseus upon the latter's arrival3 . In this passage we are presented with an

aoidos singing the very beginnings of the Trojan War, which moves Odysseus

to tears. But it is perhaps Herodotus (6. 129.6-19) who gives us the rst proof

that banqueters not only enjoyed the dancer's art but also danced themselves,

inspired by the wine and the artists' constant encouragement.

ฯ€ฯฮฟฯŠฮฟฯฯƒฮทฯ‚ ฮดแฝฒ ฯ„แฟ†ฯ‚ ฯ€ฯŒฯƒฮนฮฟฯ‚ ฮบฮฑฯ„ฮญฯ‡ฯ‰ฮฝ ฯ€ฮฟฮปฮปแฝธฮฝ ฯ„ฮฟแฝบฯ‚ แผ„ฮปฮปฮฟฯ…ฯ‚ แฝ แผนฯ€ฯ€ฮฟฮบฮปฮตฮฏฮดฮทฯ‚

แผฮบฮญฮปฮตฯ…ฯƒฮญฮฝ ฮฟแผฑ ฯ„แฝธฮฝ ฮฑแฝฮปฮทฯ„แฝดฮฝ ฮฑแฝฮปแฟ†ฯƒฮฑฮน แผฮผฮผฮตฮปฮตฮฏฮฑฮฝ· ฯ€ฮตฮนฮธฮฟฮผฮญฮฝฮฟฯ… ฮดแฝฒ ฯ„ฮฟแฟฆ ฮฑแฝฮปฮทฯ„ฮญฯ‰

แฝ€ฯฯ‡ฮฎฯƒฮฑฯ„ฮฟ. ฮบฮฑฮฏ ฮบฯ‰ฯ‚ แผ‘ฯ‰ฯ…ฯ„แฟท ฮผแฝฒฮฝ แผ€ฯฮตฯƒฯ„แฟถฯ‚ แฝ€ฯฯ‡ฮญฮตฯ„ฮฟ, แฝ ฮšฮปฮตฮนฯƒฮธฮญฮฝฮทฯ‚ ฮดแฝฒ แฝฯฮญฯ‰ฮฝ

แฝ…ฮปฮฟฮฝ ฯ„แฝธ ฯ€ฯแฟ†ฮณฮผฮฑ แฝ‘ฯ€แฝนฯ€ฯ„ฮตฯ…ฮต. ฮผฮตฯ„แฝฐ ฮดแฝฒ แผฯ€ฮนฯƒฯ‡แฝผฮฝ แฝ แผนฯ€ฯ€ฮฟฮบฮปฮตฮฏฮดฮทฯ‚ ฯ‡ฯฯŒฮฝฮฟฮฝ แผฮบฮญฮปฮตฯ…ฯƒฮญ

ฯ„ฮนฮฝฮฑ ฯ„ฯฮฌฯ€ฮตฮถฮฑฮฝ แผฯƒฮตฮฝฮตแฟ–ฮบฮฑฮน, แผฯƒฮตฮปฮธฮฟฯฯƒฮทฯ‚ ฮดแฝฒ ฯ„แฟ†ฯ‚ ฯ„ฯฮฑฯ€ฮญฮถฮทฯ‚ ฯ€ฯแฟถฯ„ฮฑ ฮผแฝฒฮฝ แผฯ€' ฮฑแฝฯ„แฟ†ฯ‚

แฝ€ฯฯ‡ฮฎฯƒฮฑฯ„ฮฟ ฮ›ฮฑฮบฯ‰ฮฝฮนฮบแฝฐ ฯƒฯ‡ฮทฮผฮฌฯ„ฮนฮฑ, ฮผฮตฯ„แฝฐ ฮดแฝฒ แผ„ฮปฮปฮฑ แผˆฯ„ฯ„ฮนฮบฮฌ, ฯ„แฝธ ฯ„ฯฮฏฯ„ฮฟฮฝ ฮดแฝฒ ฯ„แฝดฮฝ

ฮบฮตฯ†ฮฑฮปแฝดฮฝ แผฯฮตฮฏฯƒฮฑฯ‚ แผฯ€แฝถ ฯ„แฝดฮฝ ฯ„ฯฮฌฯ€ฮตฮถฮฑฮฝ ฯ„ฮฟแฟ–ฯƒฮน ฯƒฮบฮญฮปฮตฯƒฮนฮฝ แผฯ‡ฮตฮนฯฮฟฮฝฯŒฮผฮทฯƒฮต. ฮšฮปฮตฮนฯƒฮธฮญฮฝฮทฯ‚

ฮดแฝฒ ฯ„แฝฐ ฮผแฝฒฮฝ ฯ€ฯแฟถฯ„ฮฑ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ„แฝฐ ฮดฮตฯฯ„ฮตฯฮฑ แฝ€ฯฯ‡ฮตฮฟฮผฮญฮฝฮฟฯ… แผ€ฯ€ฮฟฯƒฯ„ฯ…ฮณฮญฯ‰ฮฝ ฮณฮฑฮผฮฒฯแฝธฮฝ แผ„ฮฝ ฮฟแผฑ แผ”ฯ„ฮน

1 W. J. H, 2000, p. 6 denes and analyzes three dierent groups of testimony

about the Greek symposium: sympotic poetry, vase-painting and archaeological remains from

the banquet rooms themselves.

2 On sympotic lyric, see W. J. H, 1997. E. L. B, 1986, p. 34 views the

symposium as a privileged space for elegiac recitation, taking it as the beginning of the festive

event itself.

3 Nevertheless, the word used for banquet in this text is ฮดฮฑแฝทฯ‚, not ฯƒฯ…ฮผฯ€แฝนฯƒฮนฮฟฮฝ.

404

Carlos A. Martins de Jesus

ฮณฮตฮฝฮญฯƒฮธฮฑฮน แผนฯ€ฯ€ฮฟฮบฮปฮตฮฏฮดฮตฮฑ ฮดฮนแฝฐ ฯ„ฮฎฮฝ ฯ„ฮต แฝ„ฯฯ‡ฮทฯƒฮนฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ„แฝดฮฝ แผ€ฮฝฮฑฮนฮดฮตฮฏฮทฮฝ ฮบฮฑฯ„ฮตแฟ–ฯ‡ฮตฮฝ แผ‘ฯ‰ฯ…ฯ„ฯŒฮฝ,

ฮฟแฝ ฮฒฮฟฯ…ฮปฯŒฮผฮตฮฝฮฟฯ‚ แผฮบฯฮฑฮณแฟ†ฮฝฮฑฮน แผฯ‚ ฮฑแฝฯ„ฯŒฮฝ·4

As they sat late drinking, Hippoclides, now far outdoing the rest, bade the ute-

player play him music, and when the ute-player so did, he began to dance; and

he pleased himself marvellous well with this dancing; but Cleisthenes saw the

whole business with much disfavour. After a while, Hippoclides bade a table be

brought; when it came he danced on it Laconian rst and then Attic gures;

last of all he rested his head on the table and made gestures with his legs in

the air. Now Cleisthenes at the rst and the second bout of dancing could no

more bear to think of Hippoclides as his son-in-law, for his dancing and his

shamelessness; yet he had held himself in check, not willing to vent his wrath

on Hippoclides5.

In this passage, we read about the wedding-banquet oered by Cleisthenes

to those who want to marry his daughter. One of them, Hippoclides, asks a

ute-player girl to join him in a tragic dance (แผฮผฮผแฝณฮปฮตฮนฮฑ) and, as a table is

brought into the room, he dances on it some warrior-style Laconic steps and

poses followed by (more comic) Attic ones. What is more, the sort of dance

preferred at banquets is already the pantomimic one, as it will be in Plutarch's

Table Talk. Also, in Herodotus' view, moderation is a priceless value to be taken

into consideration at banquets. At the very last, Cleisthenes therefore refuses

Hippoclides as a candidate for his daughter's hand, for he had been excessive

in his performance. Relating to an earlier form of social arrangement – an

aristocratic one – both examples may be no more than ancestors of the kind

of symposium we nd in Plutarch's Table Talk, still being an example of spaces

of convivium in witch poetry, music and dance also played an important role.

In other words, they are not supposed to be wise-men reunions, since the

beginning thought to be a space of scientic and philosophical discussion,

even if they actually enrich the elite banqueters with the gift of wisdom.

Before looking at sympotic poetry in more detail, let us point to yet another

literary banquet, namely the one described in Xenophon's Symposium (2. 15-

23). At some point, a boy begins to dance (แผฮบ ฯ„ฮฟฯฯ„ฮฟฯ… แฝ ฯ€ฮฑแฟ–ฯ‚ แฝ ฯฯ‡ฮฎฯƒฮฑฯ„ฮฟ) and

the banqueters, including Socrates, try to imitate him in a humorous scene. In

this text – which Plutarch should have known very well – dance is only taken

as an exercise (ฮบฮฑฮปแฟถฯ‚ ฮณฯ…ฮผฮฝฮฌฮถฮตฮน ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ„แฝฐ แผฮผแฝฐ แฝ€ฯฯ‡ฮฎฮผฮฑฯ„ฮฑ) rather than as the object

of deeper philosophical discussion, if only because Socrates admits that he is

not a skilful dancer himself.

Beyond this, several poems from the Anacreontea, an anthology put

together from the second century BC to the seventh AD, express perfectly the

space given to dance in the post-meal program of the banquet. For instance,

poem 43 is a ne illustration of the joyful environment that should be usual

at banquets:

4 H. B. R, Herodoti Historiae , vol. II. Leipzig, 1997.

5 All translations are those of the Loeb Classical Library.

405

Dancing with Plutarch: dance and dance theory in Plutarch's Table Talk

ฮฃฯ„ฮตฯ†ฮฌฮฝฮฟฯ…ฯ‚ ฮผแฝฒฮฝ ฮบฯฮฟฯ„ฮฌฯ†ฮฟฮนฯƒฮน

แฟฅฮฟฮดฮฏฮฝฮฟฯ…ฯ‚ ฯƒฯ…ฮฝฮฑฯฮผฯŒฯƒฮฑฮฝฯ„ฮตฯ‚

ฮผฮตฮธฯฯ‰ฮผฮตฮฝ แผฮฒฯแฝฐ ฮณฮตฮปแฟถฮฝฯ„ฮตฯ‚.

แฝ‘ฯ€แฝธ ฮฒฮฑฯฮฒฮฏฯ„ฯ‰ฮน ฮดแฝฒ ฮบฮฟฯฯฮฑ

ฮบฮฑฯ„ฮฑฮบฮฏฯƒฯƒฮฟฮนฯƒฮน ฮฒฯฮญฮผฮฟฮฝฯ„ฮฑฯ‚

ฯ€ฮปฮฟฮบฮฌฮผฮฟฮนฯ‚ ฯ†ฮญฯฮฟฯ…ฯƒฮฑ ฮธฯฯฯƒฮฟฯ…ฯ‚

ฯ‡ฮปฮนฮดฮฑฮฝฯŒฯƒฯ†ฯ…ฯฮฟฯ‚ ฯ‡ฮฟฯฮตฯฮตฮน·

แผฮฒฯฮฟฯ‡ฮฑฮฏฯ„ฮฑฯ‚ ฮด' แผ…ฮผฮฑ ฮบฮฟแฟฆฯฮฟฯ‚

ฯƒฯ„ฮฟฮผฮฌฯ„ฯ‰ฮฝ แผฮดแฝบ ฯ€ฮฝฮตฯŒฮฝฯ„ฯ‰ฮฝ

ฮบฮฑฯ„แฝฐ ฯ€ฮทฮบฯ„ฮฏฮดฯ‰ฮฝ แผ€ฮธฯฯฮตฮน

ฯ€ฯฮฟฯ‡ฮญฯ‰ฮฝ ฮปฮฏฮณฮตฮนฮฑฮฝ แฝ€ฮผฯ†ฮฌฮฝ.

แฝ ฮด' แผœฯฯ‰ฯ‚ แฝ ฯ‡ฯฯ…ฯƒฮฟฯ‡ฮฑฮฏฯ„ฮฑฯ‚

ฮผฮตฯ„แฝฐ ฯ„ฮฟแฟฆ ฮบฮฑฮปฮฟแฟฆ ฮ›ฯ…ฮฑฮฏฮฟฯ…

ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ„แฟ†ฯ‚ ฮบฮฑฮปแฟ†ฯ‚ ฮšฯ…ฮธฮฎฯฮทฯ‚

ฯ„แฝธฮฝ แผฯ€ฮฎฯฮฑฯ„ฮฟฮฝ ฮณฮตฯฮฑฮนฮฟแฟ–ฯ‚

ฮบแฟถฮผฮฟฮฝ ฮผฮญฯ„ฮตฮนฯƒฮน ฯ‡ฮฑฮฏฯฯ‰ฮฝ6.

Let us fasten garlands of roses on our brows and get drunk, laughing gently.

Let a gorgeous-ankled girl dance to the lyre carrying the thyrsus with its rich

ivy tresses. With her let a boy, soft-haired and with sweet-smelling mouth, play

the lyre, pouring forth a clear song. And golden-haired Love with beautiful

Lyaeus and beautiful Cythere will join happily in the revel that old men nd

delightful.

No concern is shown here for moderation or good behavior. In fact, this

idea is absent from the entire Anacreontic collection. Nevertheless, thanks to

his own art and that of his imitators, Anacreon has become a real symbol of

sympotic poetry; for the banquet is the special context of most of these poems,

a space where Eros, wine, music and dance among drinking men with garlands

around their heads are very important elements.

Equally rich testimony is given by Greek vase-painting. Besides

their frequent use at the banquet, they usually show sympotic scenes, both

mythological ones and episodes from daily life7 . Moreover, the physical rooms

where the event took place were often decorated with sympotic motifs. e

most widely known one is probably the so-called Swimmer Tomb Room in

Paestum, which was indeed a dining room. On its four walls we see the guests,

servants and even a komos with a ute-player girl and other artists that could

in fact perform some dance steps8 .

e relevance of this evidence on the Greek symposium to Plutarch is

that all the sympotic descriptions that he created (or recreated, we cannot be

6 To quote the Anacreontea, we use the text of M. L. W , Carmina Anacreontea, Leipzig,

1984. Numbers 2, 15, 38, 40, 42, 47 and 59 of the collection also mention dance in a sympotic

environment.

7 For three examples, clearly related to banquets, see L. B. L, 1964, pp. 119-20.

8 In the Roman period, too, the walls of banquet rooms were painted with sympotic motifs,

as in the case of the Triclinium House in Pompeii. See K. M. D. D, 2003, pp. 52-60

and plates I-III.

406

Carlos A. Martins de Jesus

sure) in the nine books of his Table Talk are consciously Greek. Inspired by the

banquets of wise men portrayed by Plato, Xenophon and others that have not

come down to us – yet very dierent from those archaic symposia we nd in the

Homeric poems –, the Plutarchan convivium is designed to imitate Greek ways

of drinking, eating and enjoying entertainment. In a joyful party environment,

where philosophy is mixed with more trivial issues, singing and dancing would

have been part of the post-meal program. Nevertheless, nowhere in the book

do we nd any detailed description of a dance performance, except maybe

the allusion to a dance contest in Book 9 (question 15), to which we shall

soon return. Just like the rest of the speakers, Plutarch is more interested in

discussing which dance styles are more appropriate to the wise men's banquets,

recurring all the time to the opinion of those Greek authors who dealt with

the subject, most notably Plato and Xenophon.

e subject of dance appears rst in Book 1 of the Table Talk (614D-E), at

a moment when the discussion focuses on the philosophic argumentation most

suitable to a banquet. e dance is then used in the following metaphor:

แฝฅฯƒฯ€ฮตฯ ฮณแฝฐฯ ฯ„แฝฐ ฯƒฯŽฮผฮฑฯ„ฮฑ ฯ€ฮนฮฝฯŒฮฝฯ„ฯ‰ฮฝ ฮดฮน' แฝ€ฯฯ‡ฮฎฯƒฮตฯ‰ฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ‡ฮฟฯฮตฮฏฮฑฯ‚ ฮฝฮตฮฝฯŒฮผฮนฯƒฯ„ฮฑฮน

ฯƒฮฑฮปฮตฯฮตฮนฮฝ, แผ‚ฮฝ ฮด' แฝฯ€ฮปฮฟฮผฮฑฯ‡ฮตแฟ–ฮฝ แผ€ฮฝฮฑฯƒฯ„ฮฌฮฝฯ„ฮฑฯ‚ แผข ฮดฮนฯƒฮบฮตฯฮตฮนฮฝ แผ€ฮฝฮฑฮณฮบฮฌฮถฯ‰ฮผฮตฮฝ ฮฑแฝฯ„ฮฟฯฯ‚, ฮฟแฝ

ฮผฯŒฮฝฮฟฮฝ แผ€ฯ„ฮตฯฯ€แฝฒฯ‚ แผ€ฮปฮปแฝฐ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮฒฮปฮฑฮฒฮตฯแฝธฮฝ แผ”ฯƒฯ„ฮฑฮน ฯ„แฝธ ฯƒฯ…ฮผฯ€ฯŒฯƒฮนฮฟฮฝ, ฮฟแฝ•ฯ„ฯ‰ ฯ„แฝฐฯ‚ ฯˆฯ…ฯ‡แฝฐฯ‚ ฮฑแผฑ ฮผแฝฒฮฝ

แผฮปฮฑฯ†ฯฮฑแฝถ ฮถฮทฯ„ฮฎฯƒฮตฮนฯ‚ แผฮผฮผฮตฮปแฟถฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ แฝ ฯ†ฮตฮปฮฏฮผฯ‰ฯ‚ ฮบฮนฮฝฮฟแฟฆฯƒฮนฮฝ [...]9.

For just as the bodies of men who are drinking are accustomed to sway in

time with pantomimic and choral dancing, but if we compel them to get up

and exercise in heavy armour or throw the discus, they will nd the party not

only unpleasant but even harmful, just so their spirits are harmoniously and

protably stirred by subjects of inquiry that are easy to handle...

e metaphor serves to prove how frequently dance was a part of banquets,

because it is only this frequency that allows it to be used as an example of

something common. Going one step further, we may see how moderation,

in relation to dance, is Plutarch's major concern. It must not be allowed to

confuse or even distract the company from the path of reason, thus preventing

the event from becoming "not only unpleasant but even harmful" (ฮฟแฝ ฮผฯŒฮฝฮฟฮฝ

แผ€ฯ„ฮตฯฯ€แฝฒฯ‚ แผ€ฮปฮปแฝฐ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮฒฮปฮฑฮฒฮตฯแฝธฮฝ), just like philosophy, which is not supposed to

compromise the good mood, by being too serious or too deep.

Further on in Book 7 (705A), in a discussion of good and bad music,

dance is again a subject of conversation. It is cited as a parallel when Calistratus

distinguishes between pleasures of the body and those of the soul:

ฮฟแฝฮดแฝฒฮฝ ฮฟแฝ–ฮฝ แฝฯแฟถ ฯ„แฝฐฯ‚ ฯ„ฮฟฮนฮฑฯฯ„ฮฑฯ‚ แผกฮดฮฟฮฝแฝฐฯ‚ แผดฮดฮนฮฟฮฝ แผฯ‡ฮฟฯฯƒฮฑฯ‚, <แผข> แฝ…ฯ„ฮน ฮผฯŒฮฝฮฑฮน ฯ„แฟ†ฯ‚ ฯˆฯ…ฯ‡แฟ†ฯ‚

ฮตแผฐฯƒฮนฮฝ, ฮฑแผฑ ฮด' แผ„ฮปฮปฮฑฮน ฯ„ฮฟแฟฆ ฯƒฯŽฮผฮฑฯ„ฮฟฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ€ฮตฯแฝถ ฯ„แฝธ ฯƒแฟถฮผฮฑ ฮบฮฑฯ„ฮฑฮปฮฎฮณฮฟฯ…ฯƒฮนฮฝ· ฮผฮญฮปฮฟฯ‚ ฮดแฝฒ ฮบฮฑแฝถ

แฟฅฯ…ฮธฮผแฝธฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ แฝ„ฯฯ‡ฮทฯƒฮนฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ แพ ฮดแฝด ฯ€ฮฑฯฮฑฮผฮตฮนฯˆฮฌฮผฮตฮฝฮฑฮน ฯ„แฝดฮฝ ฮฑแผดฯƒฮธฮทฯƒฮนฮฝ แผฮฝ ฯ„แฟท ฯ‡ฮฑฮฏฯฮฟฮฝฯ„ฮน

ฯ„แฟ†ฯ‚ ฯˆฯ…ฯ‡แฟ†ฯ‚ แผ€ฯ€ฮตฯฮตฮฏฮดฮฟฮฝฯ„ฮฑฮน ฯ„แฝธ แผฯ€ฮนฯ„ฮตฯฯ€แฝฒฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮณฮฑฯฮณฮฑฮปฮฏฮถฮฟฮฝ. แฝ…ฮธฮตฮฝ ฮฟแฝฮดฮตฮผฮฏฮฑ ฯ„แฟถฮฝ

9 For the Greek text of the Table Talk, we use C. H, Plutarchus. Moralia, IV, Leipzig,

1971.

407

Dancing with Plutarch: dance and dance theory in Plutarch's Table Talk

ฯ„ฮฟฮนฮฟฯฯ„ฯ‰ฮฝ แผกฮดฮฟฮฝแฟถฮฝ แผ€ฯ€ฯŒฮบฯฯ…ฯ†ฯŒฯ‚ แผฯƒฯ„ฮนฮฝ ฮฟแฝฮดแฝฒ ฯƒฮบฯŒฯ„ฮฟฯ…ฯ‚ ฮดฮตฮฟฮผฮญฮฝฮท ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ„แฟถฮฝ ฯ„ฮฟฮฏฯ‡ฯ‰ฮฝ

'ฯ€ฮตฯฮนฮธฮตฯŒฮฝฯ„ฯ‰ฮฝ', แฝกฯ‚ ฮฟแผฑ ฮšฯ…ฯฮทฮฝฮฑฯŠฮบฮฟแฝถ ฮปฮญฮณฮฟฯ…ฯƒฮนฮฝ, แผ€ฮปฮปแฝฐ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯƒฯ„ฮฌฮดฮนฮฑ ฯ„ฮฑฯฯ„ฮฑฮนฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ

ฮธฮญฮฑฯ„ฯฮฑ ฯ€ฮฟฮนฮตแฟ–ฯ„ฮฑฮน, ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ„แฝธ ฮผฮตฯ„แฝฐ ฯ€ฮฟฮปฮปแฟถฮฝ ฮธฮตฮฌฯƒฮฑฯƒฮธฮฑฮฏ ฯ„ฮน ฮบฮฑแฝถ แผ€ฮบฮฟแฟฆฯƒฮฑฮน แผฯ€ฮนฯ„ฮตฯฯ€ฮญฯƒฯ„ฮตฯฯŒฮฝ

แผฯƒฯ„ฮน ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯƒฮตฮผฮฝฯŒฯ„ฮตฯฮฟฮฝ, ฮฟแฝฮบ แผ€ฮบฯฮฑฯƒฮฏฮฑฯ‚ ฮดฮฎฯ€ฮฟฯ… ฮบฮฑแฝถ แผกฮดฯ…ฯ€ฮฑฮธฮตฮฏฮฑฯ‚ แผ€ฮปฮป' แผฮปฮตฯ…ฮธฮตฯฮฏฮฟฯ…

ฮดฮนฮฑฯ„ฯฮนฮฒแฟ†ฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ แผ€ฯƒฯ„ฮตฮฏฮฑฯ‚ ฮผฮฌฯฯ„ฯ…ฯฮฑฯ‚ แผกฮผแฟถฮฝ แฝ…ฯ„ฮน ฯ€ฮปฮตฮฏฯƒฯ„ฮฟฯ…ฯ‚ ฮปฮฑฮผฮฒฮฑฮฝฯŒฮฝฯ„ฯ‰ฮฝ.

I do not see that pleasures of this sort have anything special about them, except

that they alone have to do with the mind, whereas the rest are pleasures of the

body and reach and end in the body. Melody, however, and rhythm and dance and

song go on past sense-perception and nd a basis for their pleasing and enticing

quality in the mind's faculty of enjoyment. us none of the pleasures of this kind

is secret or requires darkness or walls 'running round' (as the Cyrenaics say), but

stadia are even built for them, and theatres; and to witness a spectacle of sight

or sound in a large company is considered more enjoyable and more impressive

because we are associating as many persons as possible with ourselves, surely not

in incontinence and sensuality, but in a liberal and civilized pastime.

While the so-called bodily pleasures are given by the sensory organs of

perception, the pleasures of the soul are given by sight and hearing, being

far beyond the sensual stage of knowledge, as well as free from excess. is

is why dance and music are included in this last group. Lamprias does not

agree, thinking that the pleasures of the soul have a truly charming power

that undermines both reason and good judgment, leading a man to excess

(แผ€ฮบฯฮฑฯƒฮฏฮฑ ) and loss of reason (แผ„ฮณฮฝฮฟฮนฮฑ).

Having proved the need for a moderate enjoyment of pleasures, in banquets

as in all human life, in the eight question of Book 7 (711E-F), Plutarch goes

on to discuss precisely what kind of amusement is welcome at a banquet. With

this issue, we enter the straight eld of ฯƒฯ…ฮผฯ€ฮฟฯ„ฮนฮบแฝฑ (discussion about the banquet

itself), which is dierent from ฯƒฯ…ฮผฯ€ฮฟฯƒฮนฮฑฮบแฝฑ (discussion about several subjects, only

in the context of a banquet), an expression that gives the title to the entire work.

ฯ€ฯฯŽฯ„ฮทฮฝ <ฯ„แฝดฮฝ> ฯ„ฯฮฑฮณแฟณฮดฮฏฮฑฮฝ, แฝกฯ‚ ฮฟแฝ ฯ€ฮฌฮฝฯ… ฯ„ฮน ฯƒฯ…ฮผฯ€ฮฟฯ„ฮนฮบแฝธฮฝ แผ€ฮปฮปแฝฐ ฯƒฮตฮผฮฝฯŒฯ„ฮตฯฮฟฮฝ

ฮฒฮฟแฟถฯƒฮฑฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯƒฮบฮตฯ…ฯ‰ฯฮฟฯ…ฮผฮญฮฝฮทฮฝ ฯ€ฯฮฑฮณฮผฮฌฯ„ฯ‰ฮฝ แฝ‘ฯ€ฮฟฮบฯฮฏฯƒฮตฮนฯ‚ ฯ€ฮฌฮธฮฟฯ‚ แผฯ‡ฯŒฮฝฯ„ฯ‰ฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ

ฮฟแผถฮบฯ„ฮฟฮฝ. แผ€ฯ€ฮฟฯ€ฮญฮผฯ€ฯ‰ ฮดแฝฒ ฯ„แฟ†ฯ‚ แฝ€ฯฯ‡ฮฎฯƒฮตฯ‰ฯ‚ ฯ„แฝดฮฝ ฮ ฯ…ฮปฮฌฮดฮตฮนฮฟฮฝ, แฝ€ฮณฮบฯŽฮดฮท ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ€ฮฑฮธฮทฯ„ฮนฮบแฝดฮฝ

ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ€ฮฟฮปฯ…ฯ€ฯฯŒฯƒฯ‰ฯ€ฮฟฮฝ ฮฟแฝ–ฯƒฮฑฮฝ· ฮฑแผฐฮดฮฟแฟ– ฮดแฝฒ ฯ„แฟถฮฝ แผฮณฮบฯ‰ฮผฮฏฯ‰ฮฝ แผฮบฮตฮฏฮฝฯ‰ฮฝ, แผƒ ฮฃฯ‰ฮบฯฮฌฯ„ฮทฯ‚ ฯ€ฮตฯแฝถ

แฝ€ฯฯ‡ฮฎฯƒฮตฯ‰ฯ‚ ฮดฮนแฟ†ฮปฮธฮต, ฮดฮญฯ‡ฮฟฮผฮฑฮน ฯ„แฝดฮฝ ฮ’ฮฑฮธฯฮปฮปฮตฮนฮฟฮฝ ฮฑแฝฯ„ฯŒฮธฮตฮฝ ฯ€ฮญฮถฮฑฮฝ ฯ„ฮฟแฟฆ ฮบฯŒฯฮดฮฑฮบฮฟฯ‚

แผฯ€ฯ„ฮฟฮผฮญฮฝฮทฮฝ, แผจฯ‡ฮฟแฟฆฯ‚ แผค ฯ„ฮนฮฝฮฟฯ‚ ฮ ฮฑฮฝแฝธฯ‚ แผข ฮฃฮฑฯ„ฯฯฮฟฯ… ฯƒแฝบฮฝ แผœฯฯ‰ฯ„ฮน ฮบฯ‰ฮผฮฌฮถฮฟฮฝฯ„ฮฟฯ‚

แฝ‘ฯ€ฯŒฯฯ‡ฮทฮผฮฌ ฯ„ฮน ฮดฮนฮฑฯ„ฮนฮธฮตฮผฮญฮฝฮทฮฝ.

First of all, tragedy: it is not at all appropriate to a party, with its majestic elocution

and its elaborated representation of events that are moving and sorrowful. As

for dances, I should disqualify the Pylladic, as pretentious and emotional and

requiring a large cast; but out of respect for Socrates' well-known praise of the

dance, I will accept the Bathyllic. It is a straightforward unaccompanied dance,

verging on the kordax, and presents a danced interpretation of Echo or some

Pan or Satyr reveling with Eros.

408

Carlos A. Martins de Jesus

Diogenianus intends to exclude tragic performances from the banquet for

not being suitable to it (ฮฟแฝ ฯ€ฮฌฮฝฯ… ฯ„ฮน ฯƒฯ…ฮผฯ€ฮฟฯ„ฮนฮบแฝธฮฝ), which is to say, for not being

convenient to the good mood of the event – the same point that had been

made about philosophy before. is is a strongly Platonic way of thinking10 ,

which is also present elsewhere in Plutarch's works11 . Talking about dance,

he then excludes the so-called Pylladic dance, yet accepts the Bathyllic one,

a local rhythm which he describes as being very similar to the Greek kordax .

As for Pylades (1st century BC), we know that he was from Cilicia and that he

introduced important changes to tragic pantomime, making it more exuberant

and emotional by means of a sophisticated choreography and a larger number

of characters12 . Suetonius (Aug. 45. 4) actually says that Pylades, along with

Bathyllus, gave a new shape to Roman pantomime, with both men becoming

the founders of the so-called "Italic dance"13 . Athenaeus (20d-e), the richest

and most comprehensive source we have about both artists' style, talks about

Pylladic dance in a strikingly similar way. us, we may conclude that he and

Plutarch followed the same sources, perhaps Seleucus and Aristonicus, who

are the ones identied by Athenaeus himself. As for Bathyllic dance, it is

described as being very similar to the Greek kordax, as it is in Plutarch, but

mixed with satirical elements:

ฯ„แฟ†ฯ‚ ฮดแฝฒ ฮบฮฑฯ„แฝฐ ฯ„ฮฟแฟฆฯ„ฮฟฮฝ แฝ€ฯฯ‡ฮฎฯƒฮตฯ‰ฯ‚ ฯ„แฟ†ฯ‚ ฯ„ฯฮฑฮณฮนฮบแฟ†ฯ‚ ฮบฮฑฮปฮฟฯ…ฮผฮญฮฝฮทฯ‚ ฯ€ฯแฟถฯ„ฮฟฯ‚ ฮตแผฐฯƒฮทฮณฮทฯ„แฝดฯ‚

ฮณฮญฮณฮฟฮฝฮต ฮ’ฮฌฮธฯ…ฮปฮปฮฟฯ‚ แฝ แผˆฮปฮตฮพฮฑฮฝฮดฯฮตฯฯ‚, แฝ…ฮฝ ฯ†ฮทฯƒฮน ฯ€ฮฑฮฝฯ„ฮฟฮผฮฏฮผฮฟฯ…ฯ‚ แฝ€ฯฯ‡ฮฎฯƒฮฑฯƒฮธฮฑฮน ฮฃฮญฮปฮตฯ…ฮบฮฟฯ‚.

ฯ„ฮฟแฟฆฯ„ฮฟฮฝ ฯ„แฝธฮฝ ฮ’ฮฌฮธฯ…ฮปฮปฯŒฮฝ ฯ†ฮทฯƒฮนฮฝ แผˆฯฮนฯƒฯ„ฯŒฮฝฮนฮบฮฟฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮ ฯ…ฮปฮฌฮดฮทฮฝ, ฮฟแฝ— แผฯƒฯ„ฮน ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯƒฯฮณฮณฯฮฑฮผฮผฮฑ

ฯ€ฮตฯแฝถ แฝ€ฯฯ‡ฮฎฯƒฮตฯ‰ฯ‚, ฯ„แฝดฮฝ แผธฯ„ฮฑฮปฮนฮบแฝดฮฝ แฝ„ฯฯ‡ฮทฯƒฮนฮฝ ฯƒฯ…ฯƒฯ„ฮฎฯƒฮฑฯƒฮธฮฑฮน แผฮบ ฯ„แฟ†ฯ‚ ฮบฯ‰ฮผฮนฮบแฟ†ฯ‚, แผฃ แผฮบฮฑฮปฮตแฟ–ฯ„ฮฟ

ฮบฯŒฯฮดฮฑฮพ, ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ„แฟ†ฯ‚ ฯ„ฯฮฑฮณฮนฮบแฟ†ฯ‚, แผฃ แผฮบฮฑฮปฮตแฟ–ฯ„ฮฟ แผฮผฮผฮญฮปฮตฮนฮฑ, ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ„แฟ†ฯ‚ ฯƒฮฑฯ„ฯ…ฯฮนฮบแฟ†ฯ‚, แผฃ แผฮปฮญฮณฮตฯ„ฮฟ

ฯƒฮฏฮบฮนฮฝฮฝฮนฯ‚ (ฮดฮนแฝธ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮฟแผฑ ฯƒฮฌฯ„ฯ…ฯฮฟฮน ฯƒฮนฮบฮนฮฝฮฝฮนฯƒฯ„ฮฑฮฏ), แผงฯ‚ ฮตแฝ‘ฯฮตฯ„แฝดฯ‚ ฮฃฮฏฮบฮนฮฝฮฝฯŒฯ‚ ฯ„ฮนฯ‚ ฮฒฮฌฯฮฒฮฑฯฮฟฯ‚. ฮฟแผณ

ฮดฮญ ฯ†ฮฑฯƒฮนฮฝ แฝ…ฯ„ฮน ฮšฯแฝดฯ‚ แผฆฮฝ แฝ ฮฃฮฏฮบฮนฮฝฮฝฮฟฯ‚. แผฆฮฝ ฮดแฝฒ แผก ฮ ฯ…ฮปฮฌฮดฮฟฯ… แฝ„ฯฯ‡ฮทฯƒฮนฯ‚ แฝ€ฮณฮบฯŽฮดฮทฯ‚ ฯ€ฮฑฮธฮทฯ„ฮนฮบฮฎ

ฯ„ฮต ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ€ฮฟฮปฯ…ฯ€ฯฯŒฯƒฯ‰ฯ€ฮฟฯ‚, แผก ฮดแฝฒ ฮ’ฮฑฮธฯฮปฮปฮตฮนฮฟฯ‚ แผฑฮปฮฑฯฯ‰ฯ„ฮญฯฮฑ· ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮณแฝฐฯ แฝ‘ฯ€ฯŒฯฯ‡ฮทฮผฮฌ ฯ„ฮน

ฯ„ฮฟแฟฆฯ„ฮฟฮฝ ฮดฮนฮฑฯ„ฮฏฮธฮตฯƒฮธฮฑฮน.14

Now the rst to introduce this "tragic dancing", as it was called, was Bathyllus

of Alexandria, who, as Seleucus says, danced in pantomime. Aristonicus says

that this Bathyllus, together with Pylades, who wrote a treatise on dancing,

developed the Italian style of dance out of the comic ing called the cordax ,

the tragic measures called emmeleia, and the satyr rout called sicinis (whence

the satyrs are also called sicinnistae), the inventor of which was a barbarian

named Sicinnus. But others say Sicinnus was a Cretan. Now Pylades' dancing

was solemn, expressing passion and variety of character, whereas Bathyllus' was

more jolly; in fact he composed a kind of hyporcheme.

10 See Pl., Cra. 408c; Grg. 502b; Smp. 194b; Lg. 659 a-c, 700d – 701b, 876f.

11 Quaest. conv. 724D; De facie 926C; De aud. 41f.

12 Two epigrams from the Greek Anthology are very encomiastic about Pylades' art: 9. 248

and 16. 290.

13 On this issue, see E. J. J, 1981.

14 e Athenaeus' text is quoted from C. B. G, Athenaeus. e Deipnosophists , 7 vols.,

Cambridge, Mass., 1927-1941.

409

Dancing with Plutarch: dance and dance theory in Plutarch's Table Talk

Athenaeus makes a clear distinction between both artists' style, especially

in relation to their tone –the rst more pathetic, the second more joyful –, and

that is also the reason why Plutarch seems to distinguish them, rejecting one

and accepting the other. e explanation for this is perhaps to be found in

Athenaeus' text when he says that Bathyllus' dance is แผฑฮปฮฑฯฯ‰ฯ„ฮญฯฮฑ ("more jolly")

– a quality that must be taken into consideration, according to Plutarch's

morality, along with at least two others, decency and moderation. In fact, we

know that Pylades became famous for the mimic adaptation of mythical-tragic

histories15 , and it should not be forgotten that Diogenianus himself, earlier

in the text, had already excluded tragedy from banquets (771E). Moreover,

the very same Diogenianus is clear about the fact that he only accepts the

Bathyllic dance "out of respect for Socrates' well-known praise of the dance".

is seems to be an obvious reference to Xenophon's text (Smp. 2. 16-19),

where, nevertheless, only the good eects of the dance on the body, as a

physical exercise, are at issue, whereas no reference at all is made to the moral

implications that are Plutarch's almost exclusive concern.

It seems certain at any rate that, when we talk about dance in the Table

Talk, we are actually talking about pantomime, that dramatic way of expression

without words, where only body movements, poses and the characters' outlook,

along with music and maybe some non-verbal sounds, are the means to

perform mythological or daily-life episodes16 . Signicantly, it is the same art

that is deeply analyzed in Book 9, in the very last question of the work, which

is all dedicated to the parts of the dance and its relation to poetry. e context

that provokes the discussion is simple: a dance performance of the Pyrrhic

oered to the guests after dinner, in which Lamprias, Plutarch's brother, was

appointed, along with the trainer, to be the judge, on the strength of his past

record of excellence as a dancer17 . It is important to observe that this style

also ts into the pantomimic group of dances, which has been discussed at

length. In fact, it was originally the mimic dance representation of a ght,

performed by armed dancers, which was in itself a good form of entertainment

and exercise for the soldiers18 . A fragment from Aristoxenus of Tarentum (4th

century BC), a Peripatetic philosopher who wrote about music and rhythm,

denes how the Pyrrhic must have been in its origins (fr. 103 Wehrli = cit.

Athen. 630c):

15 Take, for example, his performance of Hercules Furens, as reported by Macrobius (Sat. 2. 7.

12-19). On the subjects of pantomimic representation see E. J. Jory 2008, pp. 157-168.

16 From the wealth of recent scholarly work on pantomime, see I. L-R, 2007,

R. W, 2008 and E. H & R. W, 2008.

17 e text is clear about the fact that it was a competition for boys (ฯ„ฮฟแฟ–ฯ‚ ฯ€ฮฑฮนฯƒแฝถ ฮฝฮนฮบฮทฯ„แฝตฯฮนฮฟฮฝ

แฝ€ฯฯ‡แฝตฯƒฮตฯ‰ฯ‚). According to some scholars, this forces us to conclude that Lamprias, too, at the

aforementioned banquet, must have been a boy (perhaps even a young boy). For this reason,

S.-T. T, 1989, 3, p. 375, thinks that this sympotic reunion must have taken place in

AD 66/67. Nevertheless, we still think it is a forced conclusion to assume that, being appointed

as judge, Lamprias should be a ฯ€ฮฑแฟ–ฯ‚ or a ฮผฮตฮนฯฮฌฮบฮนฮฟฮฝ at the time of the banquet.

18 X., An. 6.1.5-13 alludes to this function of the Pyrrhic dance.

410

Carlos A. Martins de Jesus

(...) ฯ„ฯฮตแฟ–ฯ‚ ฮด' ฮตแผฐฯƒแฝถ ฯ„แฟ†ฯ‚ ฯƒฮบฮทฮฝฮนฮบแฟ†ฯ‚ ฯ€ฮฟฮนฮฎฯƒฮตฯ‰ฯ‚ แฝ€ฯฯ‡ฮฎฯƒฮตฮนฯ‚, ฯ„ฯฮฑฮณฮนฮบแฝด ฮบฯ‰ฮผฮนฮบแฝด

ฯƒฮฑฯ„ฯ…ฯฮนฮบฮฎ. แฝฮผฮฟฮฏฯ‰ฯ‚ ฮดแฝฒ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ„แฟ†ฯ‚ ฮปฯ…ฯฮนฮบแฟ†ฯ‚ ฯ€ฮฟฮนฮฎฯƒฮตฯ‰ฯ‚ ฯ„ฯฮตแฟ–ฯ‚, ฯ€ฯ…ฯฯฮฏฯ‡ฮท ฮณฯ…ฮผฮฝฮฟฯ€ฮฑฮนฮดฮนฮบแฝด

แฝ‘ฯ€ฮฟฯฯ‡ฮทฮผฮฑฯ„ฮนฮบฮฎ. ฮบฮฑฮฏ แผฯƒฯ„ฮนฮฝ แฝฮผฮฟฮฏฮฑ แผก ฮผแฝฒฮฝ ฯ€ฯ…ฯฯฮฏฯ‡ฮท ฯ„แฟ‡ ฯƒฮฑฯ„ฯ…ฯฮนฮบแฟ‡, แผ€ฮผฯ†ฯŒฯ„ฮตฯฮฑฮน ฮณแฝฐฯ

ฮดฮนแฝฐ ฯ„ฮฌฯ‡ฮฟฯ…ฯ‚. ฯ€ฮฟฮปฮตฮผฮนฮบแฝด ฮดแฝฒ ฮดฮฟฮบฮตแฟ– ฮตแผถฮฝฮฑฮน แผก ฯ€ฯ…ฯฯฮฏฯ‡ฮท. แผ”ฮฝฮฟฯ€ฮปฮฟฮน ฮณแฝฐฯ ฮฑแฝฯ„แฝดฮฝ ฯ€ฮฑแฟ–ฮดฮตฯ‚

แฝ€ฯฯ‡ฮฟแฟฆฮฝฯ„ฮฑฮน. ฯ„ฮฌฯ‡ฮฟฯ…ฯ‚ ฮดแฝฒ ฮดฮตแฟ– ฯ„แฟท ฯ€ฮฟฮปฮญฮผแฟณ ฮตแผฐฯ‚ ฯ„แฝธ ฮดฮนฯŽฮบฮตฮนฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮตแผฐฯ‚ ฯ„แฝธ แผกฯ„ฯ„ฯ‰ฮผฮญฮฝฮฟฯ…ฯ‚

"ฯ†ฮตฯฮณฮตฮนฮฝ ฮผฮทฮดแฝฒ ฮผฮญฮฝฮตฮนฮฝ ฮผฮทฮด' ฮฑแผฐฮดฮตแฟ–ฯƒฮธฮฑฮน ฮบฮฑฮบฮฟแฝบฯ‚ ฮตแผถฮฝฮฑฮน...

... three are the dances of scenic poetry: tragic, comic and satirical. Also three

are the lyric ones: pyrrhic, gymnastic and that of hyporchemae. Just like the

Pyrrhic is the satirical, they are both based on basic steps. In fact, boys dance

it armed. In war it is necessary to be fast in pursuit but also, for those who are

defeated, to run and never stop or feel ashamed for being cowards.

Apparently, the dance gradually lost its warrior meaning. is seems to

be implicit in the paragraph from the Table Talk we are discussing, where the

winners are even given a cake as a prize. Nevertheless, it would still be an

important part of the athletes' training in ght schools, especially at Sparta.

As for the rest of the Greek world, however, it should have become mostly

a Dionysiac dance. is is suggested by Athenaeus 631a-b, perhaps the best

testimony we have about what dance must have been like in Plutarch's times:

แผก ฮดแฝฒ ฯ€ฯ…ฯฯฮฏฯ‡ฮท ฯ€ฮฑฯแฝฐ ฮผแฝฒฮฝ ฯ„ฮฟแฟ–ฯ‚ แผ„ฮปฮปฮฟฮนฯ‚ แผฮปฮปฮทฯƒฮนฮฝ ฮฟแฝฮบ แผ”ฯ„ฮน ฯ€ฮฑฯฮฑฮผฮญฮฝฮตฮน· แผฮบฮปฮนฯ€ฮฟฯฯƒฮทฯ‚

ฮดแฝฒ ฮฑแฝฯ„แฟ†ฯ‚ ฯƒฯ…ฮผฮฒฮญฮฒฮทฮบฮต ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ„ฮฟแฝบฯ‚ ฯ€ฮฟฮปฮญฮผฮฟฯ…ฯ‚ ฮบฮฑฯ„ฮฑฮปฯ…ฮธแฟ†ฮฝฮฑฮน. ฯ€ฮฑฯแฝฐ ฮผฯŒฮฝฮฟฮนฯ‚ ฮดแฝฒ

ฮ›ฮฑฮบฮตฮดฮฑฮนฮผฮฟฮฝฮฏฮฟฮนฯ‚ ฮดฮนฮฑฮผฮญฮฝฮตฮน ฯ€ฯฮฟฮณฯฮผฮฝฮฑฯƒฮผฮฑ ฮฟแฝ–ฯƒฮฑ ฯ„ฮฟแฟฆ ฯ€ฮฟฮปฮญฮผฮฟฯ…· แผฮบฮผฮฑฮฝฮธฮฌฮฝฮฟฯ…ฯƒฮฏ ฯ„ฮต

ฯ€ฮฌฮฝฯ„ฮตฯ‚ แผฮฝ ฯ„แฟ‡ ฮฃฯ€ฮฌฯฯ„แฟƒ แผ€ฯ€แฝธ ฯ€ฮญฮฝฯ„ฮต แผฯ„แฟถฮฝ ฯ€ฯ…ฯฯฮนฯ‡ฮฏฮถฮตฮนฮฝ. แผก ฮดแฝฒ ฮบฮฑฮธ' แผกฮผแพถฯ‚ ฯ€ฯ…ฯฯฮฏฯ‡ฮท

ฮ”ฮนฮฟฮฝฯ…ฯƒฮนฮฑฮบฮฎ ฯ„ฮนฯ‚ ฮตแผถฮฝฮฑฮน ฮดฮฟฮบฮตแฟ–, แผฯ€ฮนฮตฮนฮบฮตฯƒฯ„ฮญฯฮฑ ฮฟแฝ–ฯƒฮฑ ฯ„แฟ†ฯ‚ แผ€ฯฯ‡ฮฑฮฏฮฑฯ‚. แผ”ฯ‡ฮฟฯ…ฯƒฮน ฮณแฝฐฯ ฮฟแผฑ

แฝ€ฯฯ‡ฮฟฯฮผฮตฮฝฮฟฮน ฮธฯฯฯƒฮฟฯ…ฯ‚ แผ€ฮฝฯ„แฝถ ฮดฮฟฯฮฌฯ„ฯ‰ฮฝ, ฯ€ฯฮฟฮฏฮตฮฝฯ„ฮฑฮน ฮดแฝฒ แผฯ€' แผ€ฮปฮปฮฎฮปฮฟฯ…ฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮฝฮฌฯฮธฮทฮบฮฑฯ‚

ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮปฮฑฮผฯ€ฮฌฮดฮฑฯ‚ ฯ†ฮญฯฮฟฯ…ฯƒฮนฮฝ แฝ€ฯฯ‡ฮฟแฟฆฮฝฯ„ฮฑฮฏ ฯ„ฮต ฯ„แฝฐ ฯ€ฮตฯแฝถ ฯ„แฝธฮฝ ฮ”ฮนฯŒฮฝฯ…ฯƒฮฟฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ [ฯ„แฝฐ ฯ€ฮตฯแฝถ] ฯ„ฮฟแฝบฯ‚

แผธฮฝฮดฮฟแฝบฯ‚ แผ”ฯ„ฮน ฯ„ฮต ฯ„แฝฐ ฯ€ฮตฯแฝถ ฯ„แฝธฮฝ ฮ ฮตฮฝฮธฮญฮฑ.

e pyrrichรช, however, no longer survives among other Greeks, and coincidently

with its decline the wars stopped. But among the Spartans alone it still persists

as a preparatory drill for war; further, all males in Sparta, from ve years of

age on, learn thoroughly how to dance the pyrrichรช. e pyrrichรช of our times

is rather Dionysiac in character and is more respectable than the ancient kind.

For the dancers carry Bacchic wands in place of spears, they hurl also at one

another stalks of fennel, they carry torches, and dance the story of Dionysus

and India, or again the story of Pentheus.

Athenaeus' text proves that the Pyrrhic was still a mimic dance,

representing at that time not the battles of men, but rather the histories of

the gods, especially those related to the Dionysiac cult. And it was in this new

disguise – which is only thematic – that the Romans received it.

Ammonius, whose intersemiotic theory of dance occupies the remainder

of the book, advocates its analysis in three dierent but still complementary

stages, which prove once more that the issue under discussion is pantomime.

411

Dancing with Plutarch: dance and dance theory in Plutarch's Table Talk

ey are ฯ†ฮฟฯแฝฑ , ฯƒฯ‡แฟ†ฮผฮฑ and ฮดฮตแฟ–ฮพฮนฯ‚, tentatively to be translated as "phrase"

("movement", or even "coordination"), "gure" (or "pose") and "indication"

(747B-C)19 :

แผœฯ†ฮท ฮดแฝฒ ฯ„ฯฮฏ' ฮตแผถฮฝฮฑฮน, ฯ„แฝดฮฝ ฯ†ฮฟฯแฝฐฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ„แฝธ ฯƒฯ‡แฟ†ฮผฮฑ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ„แฝดฮฝ ฮดฮตแฟ–ฮพฮนฮฝ. 'แผก ฮณแฝฐฯ แฝ„ฯฯ‡ฮทฯƒฮนฯ‚

แผ”ฮบ ฯ„ฮต ฮบฮนฮฝฮฎฯƒฮตฯ‰ฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯƒฯ‡ฮญฯƒฮตฯ‰ฮฝ ฯƒฯ…ฮฝฮญฯƒฯ„ฮทฮบฮตฮฝ, แฝกฯ‚ ฯ„แฝธ ฮผฮญฮปฮฟฯ‚ ฯ„แฟถฮฝ ฯ†ฮธฯŒฮณฮณฯ‰ฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ

ฯ„แฟถฮฝ ฮดฮนฮฑฯƒฯ„ฮทฮผฮฌฯ„ฯ‰ฮฝ· แผฮฝฯ„ฮฑแฟฆฮธฮฑ ฮด' ฮฑแผฑ ฮผฮฟฮฝฮฑแฝถ ฯ€ฮญฯฮฑฯ„ฮฑ ฯ„แฟถฮฝ ฮบฮนฮฝฮฎฯƒฮตฯŽฮฝ ฮตแผฐฯƒฮนฮฝ. ฯ†ฮฟฯแฝฐฯ‚

ฮผแฝฒฮฝ ฮฟแฝ–ฮฝ ฯ„แฝฐฯ‚ ฮบฮนฮฝฮฎฯƒฮตฮนฯ‚ แฝ€ฮฝฮฟฮผฮฌฮถฮฟฯ…ฯƒฮน, ฯƒฯ‡ฮฎฮผฮฑฯ„ฮฑ ฮดแฝฒ <ฯ„แฝฐฯ‚> ฯƒฯ‡ฮญฯƒฮตฮนฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮดฮนฮฑฮธฮญฯƒฮตฮนฯ‚,

ฮตแผฐฯ‚ แผƒฯ‚ ฯ†ฮตฯฯŒฮผฮตฮฝฮฑฮน ฯ„ฮตฮปฮตฯ…ฯ„แฟถฯƒฮนฮฝ ฮฑแผฑ ฮบฮนฮฝฮฎฯƒฮตฮนฯ‚, แฝ…ฯ„ฮฑฮฝ แผˆฯ€ฯŒฮปฮปฯ‰ฮฝฮฟฯ‚ แผข ฮ ฮฑฮฝแฝธฯ‚ แผค ฯ„ฮนฮฝฮฟฯ‚

ฮ’ฮฌฮบฯ‡ฮทฯ‚ ฯƒฯ‡แฟ†ฮผฮฑ ฮดฮนฮฑฮธฮญฮฝฯ„ฮตฯ‚ แผฯ€แฝถ ฯ„ฮฟแฟฆ ฯƒฯŽฮผฮฑฯ„ฮฟฯ‚ ฮณฯฮฑฯ†ฮนฮบแฟถฯ‚ ฯ„ฮฟแฟ–ฯ‚ ฮตแผดฮดฮตฯƒฮนฮฝ แผฯ€ฮนฮผฮญฮฝฯ‰ฯƒฮน.

ฯ„แฝธ ฮดแฝฒ ฯ„ฯฮฏฯ„ฮฟฮฝ, แผก ฮดฮตแฟ–ฮพฮนฯ‚, ฮฟแฝ ฮผฮนฮผฮทฯ„ฮนฮบฯŒฮฝ แผฯƒฯ„ฮนฮฝ, แผ€ฮปฮปแฝฐ ฮดฮทฮปฯ‰ฯ„ฮนฮบแฝธฮฝ แผ€ฮปฮทฮธแฟถฯ‚ ฯ„แฟถฮฝ

แฝ‘ฯ€ฮฟฮบฮตฮนฮผฮญฮฝฯ‰ฮฝ·

[which] he said were three in number: the phrase, the pose, and pointing.

"Dancing", he explained, "consists of movements and positions, as melody of

its notes and intervals. In the case of dancing the rests are the terminating

points of the movements. Now they call the movements 'phrases', while 'poses'

is the same of the representational positions to which the movements lead

and in which they end, as when dancers compose their bodies in the attitude

of Apollo or Pan or a Bacchant, and then retain that aspect like gures in

a picture. e third element, pointing, is something that does not copy the

subject-matter, but actually shows it to us.

Just like the poet uses onomatopoeia and metaphors to represent

reality, the dancer may use movement and pose to mime any situation or even

narrative. As for ฮดฮตแฟ–ฮพฮนฯ‚, which is said to be a non-mimetic concept of dance

(ฮฟแฝ ฮผฮนฮผฮทฯ„ฮนฮบฯŒฮฝ แผฯƒฯ„ฮนฮฝ ), some additional considerations are called for. Indeed,

Plato did not distinguish between movement and pose, always taking dance

as the art of representing speech visually (Lg. 816), as did Aristotle (Poet.

1447a 24). As L. B. Lawer (1954, pp. 155-157) pointed out, when studying

the uses of ฮดฮตแฟ–ฮพฮนฯ‚ and other words of the same root, they always have some

mimetic sense. is leads us to agree with S.-T. Teodorsson (1983, 3, p. 379),

when he says that "Plutarch's source may have been a treatise written by a

musician or a rhetorician of Peripatetic outlook, who tried to describe dancing

as an expressive for parallel to speech and analysable into basically the same

elements as speech, as well as those of music".

Still, one may ask how we are to read ฮดฮตแฟ–ฮพฮนฯ‚ in this very special context.

It seems that Ammonius views dancing as a way either to imitate things, by

means of a static pose or movements, or simply to point at them, by indicating

them to the spectator, the latter corresponding to the aforementioned non-

mimetic concept of dance. Let us give an example: a dancer can imitate the

pose or the movements of an animal – let us say, a swan – or simply point at a

statue of the very same creature close to him.

Bearing this in mind, one can now understand that the discussion is

focused entirely on Pyrrhic dance, only in its non-warrior version, rather

19 A thorough study of these concepts is made by L. B. L, 1954.

412

Carlos A. Martins de Jesus

the later Dionysiac one. Moreover, the initial reference to the Pyrrhic dance

performed by Lamprias no longer appears to be a simple digression, as some

scholars have argued20 .

Indeed, that triple comparison between dance, poetry and painting

is what moves Ammonius to quote one of the most famous of Simonides'

ancient apophthegmata (6th century BC), according to which that poet would

have been the rst to establish the parallel between poetry and music. In the

following words Plutarch quotes that detail of the poet's tradition (De glor.

Athen. 346F)21 :

ฯ€ฮปแฝดฮฝ แฝ ฮฃฮนฮผฯ‰ฮฝฮฏฮดฮทฯ‚ ฯ„แฝดฮฝ ฮผแฝฒฮฝ ฮถฯ‰ฮณฯฮฑฯ†ฮฏฮฑฮฝ ฯ€ฮฟฮฏฮทฯƒฮนฮฝ ฯƒฮนฯ‰ฯ€แฟถฯƒฮฑฮฝ ฯ€ฯฮฟฯƒฮฑฮณฮฟฯฮตฯฮตฮน, ฯ„แฝดฮฝ

ฮดแฝฒ ฯ€ฮฟฮฏฮทฯƒฮนฮฝ ฮถฯ‰ฮณฯฮฑฯ†ฮฏฮฑฮฝ ฮปฮฑฮปฮฟแฟฆฯƒฮฑฮฝ. แผƒฯ‚ ฮณแฝฐฯ ฮฟแผฑ ฮถฯ‰ฮณฯฮฌฯ†ฮฟฮน ฯ€ฯฮฌฮพฮตฮนฯ‚ แฝกฯ‚ ฮณฮนฮฝฮฟฮผฮญฮฝฮฑฯ‚

ฮดฮตฮนฮบฮฝฯฮฟฯ…ฯƒฮน, ฯ„ฮฑฯฯ„ฮฑฯ‚ ฮฟแผฑ ฮปฯŒฮณฮฟฮน ฮณฮตฮณฮตฮฝฮทฮผฮญฮฝฮฑฯ‚ ฮดฮนฮทฮณฮฟแฟฆฮฝฯ„ฮฑฮน ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯƒฯ…ฮณฮณฯฮฌฯ†ฮฟฯ…ฯƒฮนฮฝ.

Simonides, however, calls painting inarticulate poetry and poetry articulate

painting: for the action which painters portray as taking place at the moment

literature narrates and records after they have taken place.

And here is how Ammonius intends to deny it in the Table Talk

(748A-B):

ฮบฮฑแฝถ แฝ…ฮปฯ‰ฯ‚' แผ”ฯ†ฮท 'ฮผฮตฯ„ฮฑฮธฮตฯ„ฮญฮฟฮฝ ฯ„แฝธ ฮฃฮนฮผฯ‰ฮฝฮฏฮดฮตฮนฮฟฮฝ แผ€ฯ€แฝธ ฯ„แฟ†ฯ‚ ฮถฯ‰ฮณฯฮฑฯ†ฮฏฮฑฯ‚ แผฯ€แฝถ ฯ„แฝดฮฝ แฝ„ฯฯ‡ฮทฯƒฮนฮฝ·

<ฯ„ฮฑแฝปฯ„ฮทฮฝ ฮณแฝฐฯ แฝ€ฯฮธแฟถฯ‚ แผ”ฯƒฯ„ฮน ฮปแฝณฮณฮตฮนฮฝ ฯ€ฮฟแฝทฮทฯƒฮนฮฝ> ฯƒฮนฯ‰ฯ€แฟถฯƒฮฑฮฝ, ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ†ฮธฮตฮณฮณฮฟฮผฮญฮฝฮทฮฝ แฝ„ฯฯ‡ฮทฯƒฮนฮฝ

[ฮดแฝฒ] ฯ€ฮฌฮปฮนฮฝ ฯ„แฝดฮฝ ฯ€ฮฟฮฏฮทฯƒฮนฮฝ· † แฝ…ฮธฮตฮฝ ฮตแผถฯ€ฮตฮฝ ฮฟแฝ”ฯ„ฮต ฮณฯฮฑฯ†ฮนฮบแฝดฮฝ ฮตแผถฮฝฮฑฮน ฯ€ฮฟฮนฮทฯ„ฮนฮบแฟ†ฯ‚ ฮฟแฝ”ฯ„ฮต

ฯ€ฮฟฮนฮทฯ„ฮนฮบแฝดฮฝ ฮณฯฮฑฯ†<ฮนฮบ>แฟ†ฯ‚, ฮฟแฝฮดแฝฒ ฯ‡ฯแฟถฮฝฯ„ฮฑฮน ฯ„แฝธ ฯ€ฮฑฯฮฌฯ€ฮฑฮฝ แผ€ฮปฮปฮฎฮปฮฑฮนฯ‚· แฝ€ฯฯ‡ฮทฯƒฯ„ฮนฮบแฟ‡ ฮดแฝฒ ฮบฮฑแฝถ

ฯ€ฮฟฮนฮทฯ„ฮนฮบแฟ‡ ฮบฮฟฮนฮฝฯ‰ฮฝฮฏฮฑ ฯ€แพถฯƒฮฑ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮผฮญฮธฮตฮพฮนฯ‚ แผ€ฮปฮปฮฎฮปฯ‰ฮฝ แผฯƒฯ„ฮฏ, ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮผฮฌฮปฮนฯƒฯ„ฮฑ [ฮผฮนฮผฮฟฯฮผฮตฮฝฮฑฮน]

ฯ€ฮตฯแฝถ <ฯ„แฝธ> ฯ„แฟถฮฝ แฝ‘ฯ€ฮฟฯฯ‡ฮทฮผฮฌฯ„ฯ‰ฮฝ ฮณฮญฮฝฮฟฯ‚ แผ“ฮฝ แผ”ฯฮณฮฟฮฝ แผ€ฮผฯ†ฯŒฯ„ฮตฯฮฑฮน ฯ„แฝดฮฝ ฮดฮนแฝฐ ฯ„แฟถฮฝ ฯƒฯ‡ฮทฮผฮฌฯ„ฯ‰ฮฝ

ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ„แฟถฮฝ แฝ€ฮฝฮฟฮผฮฌฯ„ฯ‰ฮฝ ฮผฮฏฮผฮทฯƒฮนฮฝ แผ€ฯ€ฮฟฯ„ฮตฮปฮฟแฟฆฯƒฮน.

In short, one can transfer Simonides' saying from painting to dancing, <rightly

calling dance> silent poetry and poetry articulate dance. ere seems to be

nothing of painting in poetry or of poetry in painting, nor does either art make

any use whatsoever of the other, whereas dancing and poetry are fully associated

and the one involves the other. Particularly it is so when they combine in that

type of composition called hyporchema, in which the two arts taken together

eect a single work, a representation by means of poses and words.

Poetry and dance are indeed a kind of imitation of reality. e very best

poetical genre to accomplish this is the hyporchema, a performance based on

the songs and dances of a chorus that, according to its ancient characterization,

should have gathered around some god's altar, at the time when the victims

were sacriced22 . e dance gures (ฯƒฯ‡แฝตฮผฮฑฯ„ฮฑ) stand for the words (or names,

20 According to S.-T. T, 1989, 3, p. 374, for example, "at the beginning of the talk

the pyrrhic dance is mentioned as an introduction, while the subsequent speech delivered by

Ammonius (...) concerns above all the contemporary pantomime."

21 e same apophthegma is mentioned in De aud. 17F and De ad. et am. 58B.

22 On the hyporchema see A. M. D, 1950.

413

Dancing with Plutarch: dance and dance theory in Plutarch's Table Talk

แฝ€ฮฝแฝนฮผฮฑฯ„ฮฑ) in poetry, similar elements from two dierent semiotic codes serving

the same purpose – ฮผแฝทฮผฮทฯƒฮนฯ‚ ฮฒแฝทฮฟฯ… .

Some conclusions may nally be drawn from this analysis of dance in the

Table Talk. First of all, it was a regular part in both private and social banquets,

which Plutarch represents – at least in a literary sense – in the Greek way.

en, as it is impossible to trace exactly which were Plutarch's sources on this

issue – in which he seems to be far from Plato and Aristotle –, the discussion

focused mostly on pantomime, the most famous style in those days. It is in

fact this style that allows us to conduct an intersemiotic study in the Table

Talk, taking in parallel dance, poetry and painting and looking at what they

have in common – the fact that they all are ฮผแฝทฮผฮทฯƒฮนฯ‚ ฮฒแฝทฮฟฯ… or, to use Aristotle's

words, ฮผแฝทฮผฮทฯƒฮนฯ‚ ฯ€ฯแฝฑฮพฮตฯ‰ฯ‚. e dance conceived by Plutarch must be understood

in a dramatic sense, being close to the performance of a play; and that is why

Aristotle's theories on tragedy are so important to understand his point of

view. Above all this, as a guiding idea, stands the supreme ideal of moderation,

which does not allow excesses or deviations, a pregnant concept in all the

banquets (re)created by Plutarch.

One question is still worth asking: why does Plutarch choose to end an

entire philosophical work like the Table Talk on such a frivolous issue as is

dance theory23 ? Maybe because it is not a frivolous issue at all, as it may seem

at rst sight. It appears that dance is an intermediate discipline, a kind of

study and practice not for actual philosophers or philosophy students, but still

capable of providing a discussion mostly based on Plato's theories on body and

soul, besides being an issue perfectly suitable to the sympotic environment.

On this, one should remember Plutarch's own words in Coniugalia Praecepta

(145C):

ฮฑแผฐฯƒฯ‡ฯ…ฮฝฮธฮฎฯƒฮตฯ„ฮฑฮน ฮณแฝฐฯ แฝ€ฯฯ‡ฮตแฟ–ฯƒฮธฮฑฮน ฮณฯ…ฮฝแฝด ฮณฮตฯ‰ฮผฮตฯ„ฯฮตแฟ–ฮฝ ฮผฮฑฮฝฮธฮฌฮฝฮฟฯ…ฯƒฮฑ, ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ†ฮฑฯฮผฮฌฮบฯ‰ฮฝ

แผฯ€แฟณฮดแฝฐฯ‚ ฮฟแฝ ฯ€ฯฮฟฯ‚ฮดฮญฮพฮตฯ„ฮฑฮน ฯ„ฮฟแฟ–ฯ‚ ฮ ฮปฮฌฯ„ฯ‰ฮฝฮฟฯ‚ แผฯ€แพณฮดฮฟฮผฮญฮฝฮท ฮปฯŒฮณฮฟฮนฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ„ฮฟแฟ–ฯ‚

ฮžฮตฮฝฮฟฯ†แฟถฮฝฯ„ฮฟฯ‚.

For a woman studying geometry will be ashamed to be a dancer, and she will

not swallow any beliefs in magic charms while she is under the charm of Plato's

or Xenophon's words.

If dancing is not a deep philosophical issue, dance theory can certainly be

one, based as it is mostly on ethics and morality24 . Although Plutarch seems to

refuse to give his Table Talk a very complex end, he chooses to give it one that

is still capable of launching the discussion of deep philosophical questions that

are traceable through the entire work.

23 We would like to thank Professor Philip Stadter, who posed us this very same question

after the presentation of this paper.

24 I. L-R, 2008, pp. 285-313 focuses on the ethical and moral role of pantomime,

asking – in the very title of her paper – "Was pantomime 'good to think with' in the ancient

world?".

414

Carlos A. Martins de Jesus

W o r k s c i T e d

B, E. L., "Early Greek elegy, symposium and public festival", JHS, 106

(1986) 13-35.

D, A. M., "Stasimon and hyporcheme", Eranos, 48 (1950) 14-20.

D, K. M. D., e Roman banquet. Aspects of conviviality. Cambridge,

2003.

H, W. J., "Elegie en sumposion", Akroterion, 41.2 (1997) 4-22.

_______"Aspects of the ancient Greek symposion", Akroterion, 45 (2000)

6-26.

J, E. J., "e literary evidence for the beginnings of Imperial pantomime",

BICS, 28 (1981) 147-61.

_______"e pantomime dancer and his libretto", in H, E.  W, R.

(eds.), New directions in ancient pantomime. Oxford, 2008, pp. 157-68.

L-R, I., Silent Eloquence. Lucian and pantomime dancing. London,

2007.

_______"Was pantomime 'good to think with' in the ancient world", in H,

E. W, R. (eds.), New directions in ancient pantomime. Oxford,

2008, pp. 285-313.

L, L. B., "Phora, schema, deixis in the Greek dance", TAPhA, 85 (1954)

148-58.

T, S.-T., A commentary on Plutarch's Table Talk (3 vols.), Gรถteborg,

1989.

W, R., Demons and Dancers. Performance in Late Antiquity. Cambridge/

Mass., 2008.

415

e omnipresence of philosophy in Plutarch's Quaestiones Convivales

Th e o m n i p r e s e n c e o f p h i l o s o p h y i n p l u T a r c h ' s

Qu a e S T i o n e S co n v i v a l e S 1

R L

University of Coimbra

Abstract

In the following paper I attempt to clarify in which way philosophy is present in the Quaestiones

Convivales. I leave aside the role that this work plays as an anthology of Ancient Philosophy

and focus on two other aspects that seem to be decisive for an understanding of its architecture:

philosophy as a discussion subject, and, more important, as a structural force in this collection

of talks. Taking into account the traditional division of Ancient Philosophy in three branches –

logic, ethics and physics –, I try to show that there are very clear connections between them and

those two vectors of analysis: philosophy as a subject of discussing is strictly related with physics,

and philosophy as a structural force depends on ethics and logic.

1. Philosophy in the Symposium

As a code of rituals and symbols of interaction, commensality is a practice

that follows Man from time immemorial. Initially found in military, religious and

political contexts, and later simply practised as a form of social conduct, human

interaction around a table was governed by certain rules and procedures that

determined the gathering's development2 . Even in Homer one can nd examples

of this kind of reunion, which did not have the specic structure that we know

from the archaic and classical periods (namely the division between deipnon and

symposion), like the Achaean embassy to Achilles in Iliad Book 9 or Odysseus'

arrival at the palace of Alcinous in Odyssey Book 7. In both of them, as in other

examples of the same type, the conversation focuses on the intentions of the man

who arrives from outside the gathering3 , and for that reason can be seen to be

strictly related to hospitality rituals. After this phase, the sympotic descriptions

left by the archaic poets show us an atmosphere of feasting and amusement, in

which a primary role was given to the cultivation and dissemination of sung

poetry and other forms of music, to ethnographic narratives, and to praise or

blame. Briey, the symposium was a space of amusement, cultural dissemination

and remembrance of an heroic past4 . Still in a context of fun, but already in the

classical period, one of the most complete descriptions of a symposium is oered

by Aristophanes in his Wasps, in which there are many conversations, but all of

them in a jesting context (vv. 1175-1206), culminating in mutual insults and

several acts of violence by the drunken symposiasts (vv. 1300-1325).

In all of the above-mentioned examples, the importance of ฮปแฝนฮณฮฟฯ‚ in

the symposium is obvious. However, this ฮปแฝนฮณฮฟฯ‚ has a sense of "conversation"

1 I wish to thank Manuel Trรถster for his precious help with the English version of this paper

and also for his suggestions that helped me to improve it.

2 Apud O. M, 1990, p. 6.

3 Cf. E. L. B, 1993, p. 357.

4 Apud W. R, 1990, pp. 231-2 (Cf. E. L. B, 1993, pp. 358-66).

and not yet of "dialogue"; it refers to "speaking" and not "discussing", far less,

following Plato, "discussing dialectically"; for the main goal of those gatherings

was amusement, and not investigation.

It is not very clear how the transition between the ฮปแฝนฮณฮฟฯ‚ of "speaking" and

the ฮปแฝนฮณฮฟฯ‚ of "discussing" occurred, or, in other words, how the philosophical

symposium came into being, because the works that seem to have been the rst

of this kind did not survive5 . According to a fragment from Aristotle (fr. 72 Rose),

the rst author of a philosophical Symposium was Alexamenos of Styra or Teos,

and Diogenes Laertius (3.48) says that the rst were Zeno and Protagoras. So it

is safer to say that was Plato who initiated the philosophical symposium tradition.

It is true that we can not determine whether Plato's Symposium was written before

Xenophon's, but, even if it was not, Xenophon says in the beginning of his work

that it is a collection of amusing conversations (1.1) and not of philosophical

discussions. Besides that, Plato's role in the establishment of the philosophical

symposium is not conned to his Symposium: he talks about the rules and

requirements of this kind of work in other dialogues too. In the Protagoras ,

Socrates clearly distinguishes two kinds of symposia: those of common and vulgar

men (ฯ†ฮฑแฝปฮปฮฟฮน ฮบฮฑแฝถ แผ€ฮณฮฟฯฮฑแฟ–ฮฟฮน ), where the sounds of the ute-girl rules, and those of

the ฮบฮฑฮปฮฟแฝถ ฮบแผ€ฮณฮฑฮธฮฟแฝท, during which everyone talks and listens in an organized way,

even if they drink too much wine (347c-e). Likewise, in Plato's Symposium , the

decision to dismiss the ute-girl in order that the gathering may be given over to

discussion indicates that the symposium should be taken up with ฮปแฝนฮณฮฟฮน instead

of jokes and amusements, and become a philosophical symposium – a feast of

speeches, as Plato says many times (e.g. Grg. 447a; R. 352b, 354a-b; Ti . 20c). As

for the purpose of those discussions, Socrates makes himself quite clear: it is to

make trial of the truth and of the speakers themselves (Prt. 348a).

2. e Quaestiones Convivales6 as a philosophical symposium

us, we must raise the following question concerning the set of symposia

that Plutarch presents in the QC: is it like that of Aristophanes' Wasps or is

it closer to Plato's conception? As we shall see, the answer is quite obvious,

because, besides the fact that the QC are almost universally recognised to be a

philosophical symposium7 – or a set of symposia –, the text itself gives us much

evidence that validates this conclusion.

In the very beginning of this work, Plutarch frames the set of symposia

that he is about to present to Sosius in a tradition of other authors that did

the same before him, like, among others, Plato and Xenophon (612E)8 . us,

he assumes from the start that the QC belong to a group of works with a

philosophical orientation; besides that, the very rst question is precisely about

5 On the origins of the philosophical symposium, see M. V  , 2000, pp. 219-22.

6 From now on, the Quaestiones Convivales will be referred as QC.

7 See F. K, 2007, pp. 650, 653; L. R, 2002, p. 109.

8 Although vast, the list remains incomplete. On this problem, see M. V , 2000, p. 222;

S.-T. T, 1989, p. 12.

417

e omnipresence of philosophy in Plutarch's Quaestiones Convivales

the presence of philosophy in the symposia. us, by noting so clearly this

aliation with such a tradition, the reader will obviously expect to nd in

the following pages a set of conversations about serious – even philosophical

– matters and not a collection of jokes or other amusing activities, as in the

archaic symposia or the one described in the Wasps. Later, in the Prooemium

to Book VI, Plutarch conrms this aliation by insisting on the necessity of

writing down all that was said during the banquet, leaving aside everything

related to its material side, like the dishes or drinks that were consumed, just

like Xenophon and Plato had done (686 D).

On the other hand, these conversations, in order to follow their

philosophical legacy, will have to be governed by the rules of proper conversation

held by educated people; otherwise it would become the record of a symposium

of the ฯ†ฮฑแฝปฮปฮฟฮน ฮบฮฑแฝถ แผ€ฮณฮฟฯฮฑแฟ–ฮฟฮน. But we must ask ourselves what kind of ฮปแฝนฮณฮฟฯ‚

this is: the "saying" one, or the "discussing" one? When, in the Proemium to

Book I, Plutarch makes use of the examples of other authors of symposia and

says that the task of writing down the conversations held while one drinks

is worthy and that, on the other hand, it is wise to forget the improprieties

(612D4: ฯ„แฟถฮฝ ฯ€ฮปฮทฮผฮผฮตฮปฮทฮธแฝณฮฝฯ„ฯ‰ฮฝ) committed during the gathering, he is not

very explicit about the content of those talks. But, to say that what is improper

must be forgotten and, at the same time, assuming that something must be

written down implies that the things that deserve to be remembered should

be something proper.

According to L. Van der Stockt, the QC follow a model of conversation

among polite and moderate men based on the ethical criteria of ฯ†ฮนฮปแฝทฮฑ ,

ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฑฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€ฮฏฮฑ, ฮตแฝ”ฮฝฮฟฮนฮฑ, and ฮบฮฟฮนฮฝฯ‰ฮฝฮฏฮฑ9 . For this reason, it is very rare to nd

someone exceeding the limits imposed by these values10 . Hence, we must infer

that these parts of the symposia that Plutarch wanted to transmit to posterity

through writing have some kind of normative codication as far as concerns

the conversation rules. Besides, the main goal of the symposium itself was to

cultivate those criteria which govern conversation and, even though there is

some room left for certain useful amusements (711A), it is quite clear that

there is a supremacy of ฮปแฝนฮณฮฟฯ‚ to the disadvantage of the spirit of fun that we

nd in archaic symposia; for the pleasures generated during the symposium

will be taken from conversation (713C1: ฯ„แฝฐฯ‚ แผกฮดฮฟฮฝแฝฑฯ‚ แผฮบ ฮปฯŒฮณฮฟฯ… ฮปฮฑฮผฮฒฮฌฮฝฮตฮนฮฝ ).

In truth, throughout the QC there are few references to other ludic activities;

for this work is, in a general way, a set of conversations that occurred during

symposia, and the meaning of a symposium is to share not only meat and

drink but also conversations, which leads to friendship (660B).

Returning to the distinction established by Plato in the Protagoras between

the symposium of the ฯ†ฮฑแฝปฮปฮฟฮน ฮบฮฑแฝถ แผ€ฮณฮฟฯฮฑแฟ–ฮฟฮน and that of the ฮบฮฑฮปฮฟแฝถ ฮบแผ€ฮณฮฑฮธฮฟแฝท, it

is very curious to note that, in the Septem Sapientium Convivium, Mnesiphilus

says that the character of the men Periander had gathered exempted wine

9 L. V  S, 2000, p. 94.

10 See L. V  S, 2000, pp. 93-4; F. M G, 1987, pp. 11-2.

from the symposium on the grounds that conversation, the highest pleasure

of a symposium as it combines earnestness and amusement, was already

there like in a ฮบฯฮฑฯ„ฮฎฯ which all of them could share (156D10-12: ฮบฮฑฮธฮฌฯ€ฮตฯ

ฮบฯฮฑฯ„แฟ†ฯฮฑ ฮฝฮทฯ†ฮฌฮปฮนฮฟฮฝ แผฮฝ ฮผฮญฯƒแฟณ ฯ€ฯฮฟฮธฮญฮผฮตฮฝฮฑฮน ฯ„แฝธฮฝ ฮปฯŒฮณฮฟฮฝ, แพง ฯ€ฮปฮตแฟ–ฯƒฯ„ฮฟฮฝ แผกฮดฮฟฮฝแฟ†ฯ‚

แผ…ฮผฮฑ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ€ฮฑฮนฮดฮนแพถฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯƒฯ€ฮฟฯ…ฮดแฟ†ฯ‚ แผ”ฮฝฮตฯƒฯ„ฮนฮฝ). But in the QC, the character of the

symposiasts is much more diversied, since they gather philosophers, doctors

or even farmers at the same table11 , and, consequently, conversation must

be introduced by some means. Maintaining the ฮบฯฮฑฯ„ฮฎฯ metaphor, Plutarch

establishes a connection between wine and conversation, conceiving them as

ingredients of a sort of blend that will raise or increase the main ethical criteria

that govern the symposium: as Dionysus is the Loosener, for he unleashes

the tongue (613C1-2: แฝ ฮ”ฮนฯŒฮฝฯ…ฯƒฮฟฯ‚ ฮ›ฯฯƒฮนฯŒฯ‚ แผฯƒฯ„ฮน ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮ›ฯ…ฮฑแฟ–ฮฟฯ‚, ฮผฮฌฮปฮนฯƒฯ„ฮฑ ฮดแฝฒ ฯ„แฟ†ฯ‚

ฮณฮปฯŽฯ„ฯ„ฮทฯ‚ แผ€ฯ†ฮฑฮนฯฮตแฟ–ฯ„ฮฑฮน), wine must circulate in the body through conversation

and, blended with it, will take it from the body to the soul (660B11-12: แผฯ€แฝถ

ฯ„แฝดฮฝ ฯˆฯ…ฯ‡แฝดฮฝ แผฮบ ฯ„ฮฟแฟฆ ฯƒฯŽฮผฮฑฯ„ฮฟฯ‚ แผฯ€ฮฟฯ‡ฮตฯ„ฮตฯฮตฮน), rousing man's rational part, giving

birth to ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฑฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€ฮฏฮฑ, and tying the bonds of friendship. But, on the other

hand, if wine circulates throughout the body without any mediation, it will

not produce anything but repletion (660C1-2: ฮตแผฐ ฮดแฝฒ ฮผฮฎ, ฯ€ฮปฮฑฮฝฯŽฮผฮตฮฝฮฟฯ‚ แผฮฝ ฯ„แฟท

ฯƒฯŽฮผฮฑฯ„ฮน ฯ€ฮปฮทฯƒฮผฮฟฮฝแฟ†ฯ‚ ฮฟแฝฮดแฝฒฮฝ ฯƒฯ€ฮฟฯ…ฮดฮฑฮนฯŒฯ„ฮตฯฮฟฮฝ ฯ€ฮฑฯฮญฯƒฯ‡ฮตฮฝ). e same is to say that

wine must be ruled by ฮปแฝนฮณฮฟฯ‚ and, conversely, wine will generate ฮปแฝนฮณฮฟฯ‚. Because

of this strict correlation and interdependence between wine and conversation,

whose equilibrium will determine the symposium's course, both of them must

stand at the same level; in order to maintain the convivial spirit in harmony,

conversation, like wine, must be within one's reach, as if it were in a ฮบฯฮฑฯ„ฮฎฯ.

But, more than vain and pointless talk, the concept of conversation in

the QC is very close to philosophical discussion: Plutarch says that, instead

of bringing into the symposium activities that would turn themselves into

obstacles to entertainment more than into entertainment itself, they should

amuse themselves with philosophy and conversation (713D5: ฮดฮนแฝฐ ฮปฯŒฮณฮฟฯ… ฮบฮฑแฝถ

ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฟฯƒฮฟฯ†ฮฏฮฑฯ‚). By putting both at the same level (even syntactically they are

strictly connected), it is obvious that the conversations will necessarily be

philosophical. Consequently, one may expect that the symposiasts will dene

themselves as philosophers and their activity as performative philosophy12 . In

certain sections this is quite evident, particularly when Plutarch refers to some

young men as symposiasts that were "philosophizing" with them (655F1: ฯ„ฮฟแฟ–ฯ‚

ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฟฯƒฮฟฯ†ฮฟแฟฆฯƒฮน ฮผฮตฮนฯฮฑฮบฮฏฮฟฮนฯ‚ ฮผฮตฮธ' แผกฮผแฟถฮฝ), or, even more clearly, when he says that

the conversations held in the days before were philosophical questions and

discourses (686C4-5: ฯ€ฯฮฟฮฒฮปฮทฮผฮฌฯ„ฯ‰ฮฝ ฮดแฝฒ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮปฯŒฮณฯ‰ฮฝ ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฟฯƒฯŒฯ†ฯ‰ฮฝ).

e very rst question of the QC introduces the discussion on the use

of philosophy during the symposium (ฮ•แผฐ ฮดฮตแฟ– ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฟฯƒฮฟฯ†ฮตแฟ–ฮฝ ฯ€ฮฑฯแฝฐ ฯ€ฯŒฯ„ฮฟฮฝ). We

may surely say that its position is not accidental; for it represents a sort of

general guideline according to which the conversations will be held and, at a

narrative level, they will be displayed in writing. At the same time, it establishes

11 On the diversity of the participants of the QC, see F. K, 2007, p. 653.

12 See F. K, 2007, pp. 659-.

419

e omnipresence of philosophy in Plutarch's Quaestiones Convivales

the set of principles which philosophy must obey whenever it is a subject of

conversation. Unlike the Persians, who, according to Plutarch, used to keep

philosophy far away from the symposium and preferred instead activities more

compatible with drinking like dances or mimes (613A), they will accept it in

their symposium, but with some restrictions.

As regards the kind of problems to be dealt with, in order to keep intact

the main ethical criteria that govern the symposium, the investigations must

be relaxed and the questions must be familiar (614D5-6: ฮตแผถฮฝฮฑฮน ฮดแฝฒ ฮดฮตแฟ– ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮฑแฝฯ„แฝฐฯ‚

ฯ„แฝฐฯ‚ ฮถฮทฯ„ฮฎฯƒฮตฮนฯ‚ แฝ‘ฮณฯฮฟฯ„ฮญฯฮฑฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮณฮฝฯŽฯฮนฮผฮฑ ฯ„แฝฐ ฯ€ฯฮฟฮฒฮปฮฎฮผฮฑฯ„ฮฑ), and as for the method

of pursuing those questions, the discussion must be driven by persuasive

discourse rather than by the violence of demonstrations (614C8-9: ฮดฮนแฝฐ ฯ„ฮฟแฟฆ

ฯ€ฮนฮธฮฑฮฝฮฟแฟฆ ฮผแพถฮปฮปฮฟฮฝ แผข ฮฒฮนฮฑฯƒฯ„ฮนฮบฮฟแฟฆ ฯ„แฟถฮฝ แผ€ฯ€ฮฟฮดฮตฮฏฮพฮตฯ‰ฮฝ แผ„ฮณฮฟฯ…ฯƒฮน ฯ„แฝธฮฝ ฮปฯŒฮณฮฟฮฝ).

2.1 Philosophy as a conversation subject (physics)

Many of the questions in the QC are designed to solve philosophical

issues. Nevertheless, the range of the investigations is generally restricted to

natural philosophy; for the diversity of the participants does not allow the

discussion of complicated problems, and, for that reason, the emphasis is

mainly on physics. Human nature is one of the most recurrent topics, to which

Plutarch dedicates several questions, particularly as far as concerns psychology

(Problรชmata 3.6; 8.10), physiology (Problรชmata 2.2; 4.10; 7.1; 8.8; 9.10), the

origins or causes of illnesses (Problรชmata 6.8; 8.9) and the way human beings

deal with sensations and aections (Problรชmata 1.8; 3.4; 5.1; 6.1-3; 7.3,5; 8.3).

On the other hand, since wine is a very important element in the organization

of a symposium and since the QC also deal with questions related to this

matter, there are also many questions that focus on the relation between man

and wine, most notably its eects (Problรชmata 1.6-7; 3.3, 7-9; 3.5). Apart from

human nature, there also discussions about other dimensions of the natural

world, particularly questions related to animals (Problรชmata 2.3, 7-9; 3.10; 4.4;

6.10; 8.8), plants (Problรชmata 2.6; 3.2; 4.2; 5.9; 6.10), the elements (Problรชmata

1.9; 6.4-6), and also to astronomy (Problรชmata 4.7; 9.9). As for the sources that

the participants use to develop their argumentation, although there are dozens

of quotations of the principal Aristotelian scientic doctrines, mainly from

the Problรชmata, which at that time were attributed to him, and, generally, from

the Peripatetic tradition, one must be cautious in saying that Plutarch follows

them in the QC for two major reasons. First, there are very few situations

in which the conclusion of the discussion matches the Aristotelian axiom

(659D; 696D; 702B), for the most part these 'quotations' are used either to

get a discussion started (650A; 652A; 656B-D; 690C,F; 704F; 720D; 734E;

735C), or, less frequently, they are simply refuted (627A-D; 694D; 724D).

Second, in some respects Plutarch clearly follows the Platonic tradition, as in

the aforementioned characterization of the human aections and sensations,

which is strictly connected with the theories established by Plato in the

Timaeus (43c-.; 78e-).

In a general way, the preponderance of physical aspects as a conversation

subject establishes the QC as a piece of philosophical investigation by means

of encyclopaedic knowledge – a sort of ฯ€ฮฟฮปฯ…ฮผฮฌฮธฮตฮนฮฑ 13 . On the other hand, the

observations on natural philosophy are designed to deny some common-sense

beliefs, and put forward theories based on scientic knowledge: the cause of

problems in navigation is not the sh called remora, but the deterioration of

the ship's keel (Problรชma 2.7); trues are not generated by thunderbolts that

penetrate the soil, but by the nature of the water that falls with them (Problรชma

4.2)14 ; Mithridates was called Dionysus not for drinking too much wine, but

because he too had been hit by lightning when he was a child (Problรชma 1.6).

2.2 Philosophy as a structural force (ethics and logic)

As I pointed out before, Plutarch refers to some participants as young

symposiasts that are philosophizing with them. us, besides discussing

philosophy, the organizers of the symposium also seek to initiate the younger

participants into these arts of investigating the truth of things. is clearly

shows, on the one hand, the pedagogical purpose of the symposium, a matrix

also present in the Platonic conception of the symposium15 , and, on the other

hand, a particular concern about the integration of those younger members in

the dynamics of the symposium and, hence, in the philosophical method.

However, conceiving that the conversations held in the QC have a

philosophical foundation and accepting as a structural principle that those

conversations must be within the range of every participant raises an inevitable

แผ€ฯ€ฮฟฯฮฏฮฑ. Among so many speakers with so many distinct characters, there will

always be some that do not share the same passion for philosophical questions

or that simply do not have the capacity to follow the investigations. Blending

these two aspects may put at stake some of the primary ethical criteria that

regulate the symposium. How does Plutarch solve this problem? e answer

is quite simple. He takes advantage of the heterogeneity of the convivial set to

create a sort of unity through dierence, just like in a symphony, where many

instruments coexist in perfect harmony, each one with a dierent sound and a

dierent nature. In Plutarch's own words, coexistence in the symposium will

be like human language, which, although it is composed of dissonant sounds –

mute consonants and sonant vowels –, is natural and spontaneously harmonious

(613E2-4: แฝฅฯƒฯ€ฮตฯ แผ„ฯ†ฯ‰ฮฝฮฑ ฮณฯฮฌฮผฮผฮฑฯ„ฮฑ ฯ†ฯ‰ฮฝฮทฮญฮฝฯ„ฯ‰ฮฝ (…) ฮฟแฝ ฯ€ฮฑฮฝฯ„ฮตฮปแฟถฯ‚ แผ€ฮฝฮฌฯฮธฯฮฟฯ…

ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯƒฯ…ฮฝฮญฯƒฮตฯ‰ฯ‚ ฮบฮฟฮนฮฝฯ‰ฮฝฮฎฯƒฮฟฯ…ฯƒฮนฮฝ). And, so that he can full that dicult task of

tuning in the dierences among the speakers, Plutarch proposes to eliminate

conversations of "wranglers" and "thimble-riggers" (614E2-4: 'แผฯฮนฮดฮฑฮฝฯ„ฮญฯ‰ฮฝ' ฮดแฝฒ

ฮบฮฑฯ„แฝฐ ฮ”ฮทฮผฯŒฮบฯฮนฯ„ฮฟฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ 'แผฑฮผฮฑฮฝฯ„ฮตฮปฮนฮบฯ„ฮญฯ‰ฮฝ' ฮปฯŒฮณฮฟฯ…ฯ‚ แผ€ฯ†ฮตฯ„ฮญฮฟฮฝ), and to prevent the

gathering from being carried away to a contest proper to sophists or similar

to those that occur in the streets (713F2-4: แผ€ฮณแฟถฮฝฮฑ ฯƒฮฟฯ†ฮนฯƒฯ„ฮนฮบแฝธฮฝ แผฮบฯ†ฮตฯฮฟฮผฮญฮฝฮทฯ‚

13 Apud G. S, 1949, p. 321.

14 On this particular issue, see in this volume the contribution by A. S.

15 See Pl., Lg. 671a.

421

e omnipresence of philosophy in Plutarch's Quaestiones Convivales

แผฯ€ฮนฮปฮฑฮผฮฒฮฌฮฝฮตฯƒฮธฮฑฮน ฮบฮฑแฝถ † ฯ€ฯแฝธฯ‚ แผ€ฮณแฟถฮฝฮฑฯ‚ แผฮบฮบฮปฮทฯƒฮนฮฑฯƒฯ„ฮนฮบฮฟแฝบฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ แผ€ฮณฮฟฯฮฑฮฏฮฟฯ…ฯ‚). is is

to say that they must investigate accessible and worthy problems and that they

must not waste their time with useless riddles, that may embarrass some of

those present. Likewise, the rhetorical level must be simple, so that everyone

can understand what people are talking about. is is absolutely synchronized

with Plutarch's rhetorical conception, which favours a simple form of speech;

for the main concern is that the message can be understood16 . For this reason,

they should follow Plato's example, embracing men with exempla and mythical

narratives (614D4: ฯ€ฮฑฯฮฑฮดฮตฮฏฮณฮผฮฑฯƒฮน ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮผฯ…ฮธฮฟฮปฮฟฮณฮฏฮฑฮนฯ‚ ฯ€ฯฮฟฯƒฮฌฮณฮตฯ„ฮฑฮน ฯ„ฮฟแฝบฯ‚ แผ„ฮฝฮดฯฮฑฯ‚)

instead of driving them through pure demonstrations.

By proposing a lighter version of philosophy to occupy the symposium,

Plutarch seems to pull it down to a lower rank, so that it may be accessible even to

those that are not ฮบฮฑฮปฮฟแฝถ ฮบแผ€ฮณฮฑฮธฮฟแฝท. However, conceiving it in purely Stoic terms as

an art of life (613B5: ฯ„ฮญฯ‡ฮฝฮทฮฝ ฯ€ฮตฯแฝถ ฮฒฮฏฮฟฮฝ), he shows that his primary purpose is to

use it in a very pragmatic way, which is a far cry from the metaphysical exercises

of his master Plato. Closer to Socrates, whose philosophical system depended

upon the set of actions he performed, yet connected to the Stoic ideal, Plutarch

detaches philosophy from its metaphysical pedestal and brings it to the real world,

so that it may reproduce at a praxiological level what it establishes theoretically,

revealing its ability to conrm in actions what it teaches in words (613C7-8:

ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฟฯƒฮฟฯ†ฮฏฮฑฮฝ แฝกฯ‚ แผ”ฯฮณแฟณ ฮฒฮตฮฒฮฑฮนฮฟแฟฆฮฝ แผƒ ฮดฮนฮดฮฌฯƒฮบฮตฮน ฮปฯŒฮณแฟณ ฮผแฝด ฮดฯ…ฮฝฮฑฮผฮญฮฝฮทฮฝ). Bearing in

mind that this denition is put forward precisely in the same sentence in which

it is said that wine unleashes the tongue, and with both notions being clearly

connected, we may easily conclude that, on the one hand, it is wine that allows

that ฮปแฝนฮณฮฟฯ‚ turn into แผ”ฯฮณฮฟฮฝ, and, on the other hand, it is that same philosophical

ฮปแฝนฮณฮฟฯ‚ that rules the consumption of wine, thus keeping the ethical criteria of

ฯ†ฮนฮปแฝทฮฑ, ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฑฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€ฮฏฮฑ, ฮตแฝ”ฮฝฮฟฮนฮฑ, and ฮบฮฟฮนฮฝฯ‰ฮฝฮฏฮฑ. Here and elsewhere in the Moralia,

philosophy is a medicine for the soul and its cultivation erases stupidity (แผ„ฮฝฮฟฮนฮฑ ),

derangement (ฯ€ฮฑฯฮฑฯ†ฯฮฟฯƒฯฮฝฮท) and lack of education (แผ€ฯ€ฮฑฮนฮดฮตฯ…ฯƒฮฏฮฑ )17 , which

contaminate the ideal state of the symposium.

us, drawn nearer to the ฮบฮฑฮปฮฟแฝถ ฮบแผ€ฮณฮฑฮธฮฟแฝท through wine, the symposiasts

will then be able to handle the kind of questions that those ฮบฮฑฮปฮฟแฝถ ฮบแผ€ฮณฮฑฮธฮฟแฝท

handled in their symposia: philosophical questions. is does not mean that

the QC are a work of pure philosophy (like a treatise), but, as we shall see, the

goal to which they aspire is purely philosophical. e very denomination of each

book section – ฯ€ฯฯŒฮฒฮปฮทฮผฮฑ – shows that the main challenge that the symposiasts

are willing to take up is to surpass each one of those obstacles by means of

logical reasoning, each one of them demanding an investigation method that

will solve the puzzle and, consequently, nd its cause. As Plutarch says, it is at

the point where the explanation of a cause fails that one begins to be puzzled,

or, in other words, to philosophize (680C9-D2: แฝ…ฯ€ฮฟฯ… ฮณแฝฐฯ แฝ ฯ„แฟ†ฯ‚ ฮฑแผฐฯ„ฮฏฮฑฯ‚ แผฯ€ฮนฮปฮตฮฏฯ€ฮตฮน

ฮปฯŒฮณฮฟฯ‚, แผฮบฮตแฟ–ฮธฮตฮฝ แผ„ฯฯ‡ฮตฯ„ฮฑฮน ฯ„แฝธ แผ€ฯ€ฮฟฯฮตแฟ–ฮฝ, ฯ„ฮฟฯ…ฯ„ฮญฯƒฯ„ฮน ฯ„แฝธ ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฟฯƒฮฟฯ†ฮตแฟ–ฮฝ). Consequently, the

purpose of the conversations held in the QC, whether or not their subject matter

16 Apud G. M, 1991, pp. 295-6, 313.

17 Apud F. B, 1999, p. 27.

is philosophy (physics, as we have seen), is to determine the causes (ฮฑแผฐฯ„ฮฏฮฑฮน) of

a certain problem by means of an investigation (ฮถฮฎฯ„ฮทฯƒฮนฯ‚ )18 – in truth, there are,

throughout the QC, dozens of occurrences of the words ฮถฮฎฯ„ฮทฯƒฮนฯ‚ 19 and ฮฑแผฐฯ„ฮฏฮฑ 20 ;

many times, the latter is part of a ฯ€ฯแฝนฮฒฮปฮทฮผฮฑ title (Problรชmata 5.3, 6, 9; 6.1, 4, 5,

6, 8, 10; 9.2, 7, 9); besides that, most of these titles begin with similar expressions

like ฮดฮนแฝฐ ฯ„แฝท or ฮตแผฐ, presenting a condition that needs conrmation). is clearly

shows the omnipresence of this spirit of philosophical search.

Of course, this does not mean that a unanimous conclusion must result from

every discussion; on the contrary, the purpose is to have conversations, about

philosophical questions or otherwise, that allow the symposiasts to exercise the

faculty of thinking in a group setting, of discussing dialectically. When, at a certain

point, the participants take into consideration the veracity of certain questions,

more precisely, whether they ought to discuss what may not be true (628B),

Marcus, the grammarian, relates the story of Democritus, who, even when he

realized that, after all, the cucumber that he was eating was sweet because his

maid had left it inside a honey pot, even so he decided to investigate the cause

of that sweetness as if it was related to the place where it had grown, as he had

thought in the rst place (628C-D). Like Democritus, they should assume that

the conclusion itself must not determine their investigation, for the discussion,

if nothing more useful, will allow them to practise (628D4-5: แผฮณฮณฯ…ฮผฮฝฮฌฯƒฮฑฯƒฮธฮฑฮน

ฮณฮฌฯ, ฮตแผฐ ฮผฮทฮดแฝฒฮฝ แผ„ฮปฮปฮฟ ฯ‡ฯฮฎฯƒฮนฮผฮฟฮฝ, แฝ ฮปฯŒฮณฮฟฯ‚ ฯ€ฮฑฯฮญฮพฮตฮน). In its general insight, the QC

display a scientic spirit very similar to the one that pervaded Plato's Academy21 ;

on this particular issue, that relation is quite obvious. According to a fragment

of Epicrates (fr. 11 Edmonds), Plato gathered his new students in the gymnasia

of the Academy to observe and dene every element of the natural world; but,

when they tried to dene a pumpkin, many problems arose, since this object

belonged to more than one category. In spite of that, Plato told them to try

again, because the purpose was to practice the method of dening an object,

more than to establish a denition itself.

3. Conclusions

Concluding this brief investigation, we now may ask: in what way is

philosophy omnipresent in the QC? I think the answer depends on three

dierent factors.

First, the structure of this work is framed according to the three branches of

18 Apud L. V  S, 2000, p. 96.

19 612E13; 614D6, E1; 619B2; 628B10, D1; 636A7; 646A8; 651A2; 664D6; 667E1; 673C9;

675E10; 683C2; 700C3, E4, F5; 701A4; 713F2; 714D5; 725A3; 726C9; 747B6.

20 617E9; 618D4; 619B9; 624A8; 625A7, F5; 626F3; 627A4; 628B9, C6, D1; 635B4,

D4, F3; 639D8; 640C3; 641C7, 10, D10; 642A5; 649D4, E5; 650A5, 10; 656C5, D4; 657F4;

658C12; 664C7, D7, 12; 665D3, E1, 8; 666A5, D9, E4; 670A6, B5; 673C9; 676A11; 677C3;

678F1; 679C7; 680C5, 9, F2-3; 682F3; 689C8, E10; 690F5; 691C8; 693B9; 694B11; 696E8, F4;

699E4; 700C9, D4, 11; 701A3, E6; 702B10; 704E12; 722D2; 725A3, B5; 728E7; 729A10, E5;

730B7; 731A2, D2, 6; 732A2; 733D3; 734E4; 737E4; 740B2, D8; 741B10; 744C4; 745D3.

21 Apud L. V  S, 2000, pp. 97-8.

423

e omnipresence of philosophy in Plutarch's Quaestiones Convivales

ancient philosophy22. Physics constitutes a major percentage of the conversation

subjects treated in the Problรชmata . Analyzing it from a global perspective, the

aprioristic system that Plutarch proposes tries to display the main aspects of the

human being and its relation with the sensible world while, at the same time,

denying common-sense opinions about these questions. After all, this is the

major concern of a work about natural philosophy. Ethics allows the participants

to talk about many questions (philosophical or otherwise) according to a model

of a regulated relationship, which, on the one hand, enables every symposiast to

participate in the discussion and, on the other hand , generates and augments the

main ethical criteria of the symposium. As for logic, it provides the instruments

to discuss the various matters proposed throughout the Problรชmata , allowing

the investigations to be ruled by a dialectical metastructure that puts the

argumentative level of the conversation very near to that one of the Academy.

Consequently, those who are learning may interact with those who know

philosophy and thereby learn the means of achieving the truth more than the

truth itself – for instance, Plutarch's brother Lamprias deduced Hieronymus'

theory of vision, even though he did not know his book (626A).

Second, this omnipresence gains even more consistency through the

unitary correlation that the three branches achieve together; for they are

strictly connected and depend upon one another. It would not be possible

to discuss questions of natural philosophy without the means provided by

argumentative logic; nor would it be possible to talk about any philosophical

question whatsoever if the ethical code had not been established. Instead of

separating three branches of philosophy, the structure of the QC is thus framed

according to their interconnection and interdependence.

ird, if we ought to consider the symposia that Plutarch describes as a

sample of human interaction, as I think we should, the denition of philosophy

as a ฯ„ฮญฯ‡ฮฝฮท ฯ€ฮตฯแฝถ ฮฒฮฏฮฟฮฝ acquires a deeper sense. In other words, if life, considered

as human performance, is, or must be, regulated, guided and understood

through philosophy, the symposium, being a sample of life, will consequently

display the same relation with philosophy.

W o r k s c i T e d

B, F., "Plutarco fra Platonismo e Aristotelismo: la Filosoa como

ฯ€ฮฑฮนฮดฮตแฝทฮฑ dell'Anima", in A. P J  . (eds.), Plutarco, Platรณn

y Aristรณteles. Actas del V Congreso Internacional de la I.P.S. (Madrid-

Cuenca, 4-7 de Mayo, 1999), Madrid, 1999, pp. 25-43.

B, E. L., "Greek Table-Talk before Plato", Rhetorica, XI.4 (Autumn 1993)

355-71.

K, F., "Portraits of the Philosopher: Plutarch's Self-Presentation in the

22 is tripartion is also adopted in the QC (744D9-10: แผฮฝ ฮดแฝฒ ฯ„แฟท ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฟฯƒฯŒฯ†แฟณ ฯ„แฝธ ฮปฮฟฮณฮนฮบแฝธฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ

ฯ„แฝธ แผ ฮธฮนฮบแฝธฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ„แฝธ ฯ†ฯ…ฯƒฮนฮบฯŒฮฝ).

424

Rodolfo Lopes

Quaestiones Convivales", CQ , 57.2 (2007) 650-67.

M G, F., Plutarco. Obras Morales y de Costumbres (Moralia) IV

(Charlas de Sobremesa ), Madrid, 1987.

M, G., "Strutture Retoriche e Colloquiali nelle Quaestiones Convivales",

in G. D'I I. G (eds.), Strutture Formali dei Moralia di

Plutarco. Atti del III Convegno Plutarcheo (Palermo, 3-5 Maggio,

1989), Napoli, 1991, pp. 295-313.

M, O., "Sympotic History", in O. M (ed.), Sympotica: a Symposium

on Symposion, Oxford, 1990, pp. 3-13.

R, L., Philosophes entre Mots et Mets. Plutarque, Lucien et Athรฉnรฉe autour

de la Table de Platon, Grenoble, 2002.

R, W., "Mnemosyne in the Symposion", in O. M (ed.), Sympotica: a

Symposium on Symposion, Oxford, 1990, pp. 230-7.

S, G., "Les Questions de Table et la Philosophie Religieuse de Plutarque",

REG, 62 (1949) 320-27.

T, S.-T., A Commentary on Plutarch's Table-Talks, I, Gรถteborg,

1989.

V  S, L., "Aspects of the Ethics and Poetics of the Dialogue in

the Corpus Plutarcheum", in I. G  C. M (eds.), I Generi

Letterari in Plutarco. Atti del VIII Convegno Plutarcheo (Pisa, 2-4

Giugno, 1999), Napoli, 2000, pp. 93-116.

V, M., "Plutarco e il 'Genere Simposio'", in I. G  C. M

(eds.), I Generi Letterari in Plutarco. Atti del VIII Convegno Plutarcheo

(Pisa, 2-4 Giugno, 1999), Napoli, 2000, pp. 217-29.

425

Evocative contexts of women in Plutarch's Quaestiones Convivales

"A      " E

    P' Qu a e S T i o n e S co n v i v a l e S 1

ร R C. R

University of Coimbra

Abstract

Goddesses, women poets, matronae, lascivious autists or concubines, those are Plutarch's

women. e references to women in Plutarch's Quaestiones Conuiuales are spread all over the

work and occur in a variety of contexts: mythical justication, intimate hygiene, support of

men, the role of mother or simply that of woman. us, in this vast gallery presented by the

scholar from Chaeronea, the trivial humane gures will be highlighted with the aim to unveil

the importance of women and their place in the social sphere. erefore, the image of the female

projected in the Quaestiones will be crossed with the dominant view in Graeco-Roman society.

e space that Plutarch devotes to women and to all things related to them

– education, social behaviour, the functioning of their body – in the whole of his

work is unusual2 . Moreover, it is remarkable how the scholar from Chaeronea

stands up in their defence, not only as human beings, but also as women, not

reducing them to weak and useless beings, but exalting them as a natural and

cultural force, like noble people that should be dignied from a social and

individual point of view, as long as they remain in an inferior sphere.

In fact, the sheer number of works in the Moralia dedicated to the situation

of women shows Plutarch's interest in this subject, a real testimony to the

history of the female condition: in the Consolatio ad uxorem, the author tries

to attenuate his wife's pain for the loss of her daughter; the works Mulierum

Virtutes and De Iside et Osiride are dedicated to Clea, a Delphic priestess and

cultured women with whom Plutarch discusses religious and philosophical

issues3 ; we also have a lot to learn from the Lacaenarum apophthegmata, as from

Amatorius and Coniugalia Praecepta, where Plutarch accords to marriage an

erotic and sacred dimension4 .

1 I am grateful to Professor J. Ribeiro Ferreira for commenting on an earlier version of this

paper, and to Professor Manuel Trรถster, who helped to improve the English text.

2 For an exhaustive study on Plutarch's attitude to women and marriage see A. G. N,

1997. See also F. L C, 1981 for an analysis of the descriptions of women in the Vitae.

3 Cf . F. F, 2006/2007, p. 51. is is how Plutarch opens the work Bravery of Women

(242E-F): "Regarding the virtues of women, Clea, I do not hold the same opinion as ucydides.

For he declares that the best woman is she about whom there is the least talk among persons

outside regarding either censure or commendation, (…). But to my mind Gorgias appears to

display better taste in advising that not the form but the fame of a woman should be known to

many." In the treatise Coniugalia Praecepta, Plutarch mentions the female education issue and

its potential impact on the future of young girls, a precept that is most relevant to the present

(see Moralia 145C sqq). As F. F, 2006/2007, p. 56 concluded: "Si ร  l'รฉpoque classique, il

nous donne peu d'anecdotes montrant des lles (…), cela n'est plus le cas lors de la pรฉriode

de la domination romaine sur le monde mรฉditerranรฉen oรน l'auteur dรฉcrit des scรจnes de la vie

quotidienne reprรฉsentant des llettes, soit que cela lui tienne particuliรจrement ร  cล“ur, soit qu'un

changement ait eectivement eu lieu dans la sociรฉtรฉ."

4 Cf. Moralia 139C-D, 142D-E, 754D, 767D-E, 769F-770A.

426

รlia Rosa C. Rodrigues

However, even if the recreated banquets in Quaestiones Conuiuales did not

accept the presence of women, it is a recurrent subject in several contexts, as

we will see. is is what we will try to do in this paper: analyse specically

the treatment of women in Quaestiones Conuiuales in their various evocative

contexts.

A. Nikolaidis (1997, p. 97), following in the footsteps of Verniรจre5 , views

Plutarch as the precursor of "feminism", as a believer in women's innate

abilities, both defending and praising the benets of female education, the

most precious of her jewels. Plutarch himself was an example of this conviction,

since he admitted women to his own school in Chaeronea6 :

For a woman studying geometry will be ashamed to be a dancer, and she will

not swallow any beliefs in magic charms while she is under the charm of Plato's

or Xenophon's words. And if anybody professes power to pull down the moon

from the sky, she will laugh at the ignorance and stupidity of women who

believe these things (…) (145c-sqq)7

In the Banquet of Seven Sages, Plutarch allows the presence of Cleobulina,

a twelve-year-old girl, and Melissa, Periandro's wife. ey were indeed present

during the meal (148CD, 150D, 154B) but left when the men started drinking

more (155 E), and therefore they did not take part in the discussion8 . However,

this would not happen again in the dialogue, at least under the same conditions,

5 See Y. V, "Plutarque et les femmes", Anc. W. 25 (1994), p. 165 apud A. G.

N, 1997, p. 88, a feminist point of view also shared by R. F, a theoretician

of feminism in antiquity. See idem, L'Amour en Grรจce, Paris, 1971, passim; Le Fรฉminisme dans

l'ancienne Athรจnes, Paris, 1971, passim. e exhaustive study of F. L C, 1981, as well as the

studies by P. S P and G. S, 1991 (apud K. B, 1997, p. 73) and K .

B, 1997 contested this feminist interpretation, thinking that Plutarch conserves the

ideal of female inferiority: "Accepting her supposedly natural inferiority, a woman was herself

accepted as morally equal and allowed to give proof of virtue and magnanimity" (idem, p. 90).

6 Cf. Moralia 138C. Nevertheless, Plutarch's attention to the woman's philosophic education

is not new. is subject had been already proposed by Plato in his Republic (451-457) and refused

by Aristotle in Politics (1264b). In the Hellenistic period, some philosophical schools granted

access to women, like Epicureanism, Cynism and Neo-Pythagorism. e Roman Musonius

Rufus, following in the footsteps of Stoic tradition, accepts the natural equality between man

and woman and holds that anyone should have dierent privileges (frgs. 3 e 4 Hense). However,

in spite of defending equal access to education, he never admits the same in politics (frg. 4). See

F. de O, 1992, p. 97, 100. As I. R M, 2005 says: "En denitiva, todas

estas mujeres, con Hipatia a la cabeza, supieron ganarse un lugar destacado en el pensamiento

griego, donde aportaron su grano de arena, aunque, en ocasiones, sรณlo conozcamos sus nombres

y apenas nada de sus doctrinas, salvo por algunas breves referencias de sus discรญpulos." (p. 122).

e Cynic movement (about IV BC-V AD) had a famous member, Hipparchia (. 336-333

BC), a woman scholar from race that was a pupil of Crates of ebes, besides being her

husband and having followed him everywhere.

7 All translations are those of the Loeb Classical Library.

8 With regard to this complex gure, D. F. L, 2002 concluded: "Por รบltimo, Cleobulina

contribui, tambรฉm, para transformar o espaรงo do banquete numa cosmรณpolis dos vรกrios tipos de

sapiรชncia: ela representaria, assim, uma sabedoria mais simples, permeada de intuiรงรฃo polรญtica e

de humanidade, conforme se depreende as palavras que Tales profere a respeito dela." (p. 91).

427

Evocative contexts of women in Plutarch's Quaestiones Convivales

since the women that took part in the banquet were only ute-players or hetairai,

branded women in a moral sense9 . Nevertheless, this episode shows, as F. Facq

(2006/2007, p. 44) notes, that young Greek girls were not resigned to gynoecium

but had contact with the male sphere: "chez Plutarque, les lles sont importantes

aux yeux de leur pรจre mais elles revรชtent aussi un caractรจre particulier pour les

รฉtrangers qui connaissent cet attachement: elles ont mรชme un rรดle" (p. 46)10 .

e access of women to this kind of male private events was dierent

in Greek and Roman culture11 , as well as the meaning of the banquet itself,

named comissatio in Rome12 . e cultural dierence becomes more manifest in

the Imperial period, when it became common to see Roman women reclined

with men13 . E. Fantham and M. Roller14 mention this kind of behaviour,

characteristic of the new conscience of gender roles, motivated by equally

new social and moral dynamics15 . On the other hand, the Greek banquet did

not accept the access of women to this space, a cultural aspect witnessed by

Cornelius Nepos16 :

Many actions are seemly according to our code which the Greeks look upon as

shameful. For instance, what Roman would blush to take his wife to a dinner-

9 Cf. F. L C, 1981, pp. 149-65.

10 Cf. Moralia (198A) and F. L C, 1981, pp. 85-95.

11 On the legal, social and family condition of Athenian women see: F. L C, 1981,

pp. 11-5; A. C & A. K, 1993; D. C, 1989; R. O R, 1986?; S.

P, 1975; J. P. G, 1980. With regard to the situation of Roman women, see F. L

C, 1981, pp. 21-5; K. M. D. D, 2003, pp. 22-3.

12 See R. C T, 2005; A. D C, 1986?; M. R, 2003; O. M ,

1990. As a matter of fact – as noted by K. M. D. D, 2003, p. 20 – the comissatio did not

have the same relevance for the Romans that the Greek symposion had for Plutarch's people.

13 As M. R, 2003, p. 400 noted: "Representations of women's conviviality become more

plentiful in Augustan and imperial texts. ese representations conrm that a woman's dining

posture – at least in elite male company- expresses her sexuality, but they show considerable

ambivalence about the consequences of such expression". See also in the same study, 2003, p. 402

(n. 58) and p. 403, who mentions some situations that reveal the licentiousness that characterize

the conuiuia. Cf. Plu., Mor. 759F-60, Suet., Aug. 69.1 and Cal. 25.1, 36.2, Sen., Const. 18.2.

14 See E. F  ., 1995, pp. 280-93 and M. R, 2003, p. 400.

15 Note that the parties organized exclusively for women would be characterized by the very

same kind of activities that men had in banquets, like the festival of Demeter, for example. See

J. B , 1998 whose study oers a new look at female sociability, which was not restricted

to the gynoecium but rather created a large number of contexts in which women could interact

with men: "e evidence makes it clear that women were active in commensal activities, both

inside classical Athens and certainly outside. is survey of the variety of Greek women's

drinking and dining activities emphasizes the need to include women more centrally in histories

of commensality and sociality in the ancient Greek world." (p. 161).

16 See Vitae, Praef. 6-7: Contra ea pleraque nostris moribus sunt decora, quae apud illos

turpia putantur. Quem enim Romanorum pudet uxorem ducere in conuiuium? Aut cuius

non mater familias primum locum tenet aedium atque in celebritate uersatur? Quod multo

t aliter in Graecia. Nam neque in conuiuium adhibetur nisi propinquorum, neque sedet nisi

in interiore parte aedium, quae gynaeconitis appellatur; quo nemo accedit nisi propinqua

cognatione coniunctus. On the literary and iconographic representation of Roman woman in

the rst century see the chapter of E. F's study, 1995, pp. 280-93: "e "New Woman":

representation and reality."

428

รlia Rosa C. Rodrigues

party? ... But it is very dierent in Greece; for there a woman is not admitted

to a dinner-party, unless relatives only are present and she keeps to the more

retired part of the house called "the women's apartment" to which no man has

access (…)

Cicero too (In Verrem 2.1.26.66) quotes an episode which took place in

an ut Graeco more biberetur ("drunk in the Greek way") banquet, when Rubrius

asked Philodamus, a Greek himself, to invite his daughter to the banquet17 :

"Tell me, Philodamus, why not send for your daughter to come in and see

us?" e respectable and elderly father received the rascal's suggestion with

astonished silence. As Rubrius persisted, he replied, in order to say something,

that it was not the Greek custom for women to be present at a men's dinner-

party.

As a matter of fact, it is Plutarch who ascribes to Cato the Elder (8. 4)

the saying that "all other men rule their wives; we rule all other men, and our

wives rule us" (em. 18.7). Roman women enjoyed a superior social condition

when compared to the Greek world18 , where the life of women was associated

with the gynoecium and the preservation of their own oikos, being therefore far

from male activity. As a Greek, Plutarch does not allow women to join these

banquets, a position well expressed in Book I (Quaest. Conv. 613A), when the

guests discuss whether it is convenient to have philosophical discussions at the

table once the wine makes serious argumentation impossible:

<แผฮณแฝผ> ฮด' ฮตแผถฯ€ฮฟฮฝ 'แผ€ฮปฮปแฝฐ ฮณแฝฐฯ ฮตแผฐฯƒฮฏฮฝ, แฝฆ แผ‘ฯ„ฮฑแฟ–ฯฮต, ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ€ฮฌฮฝฯ… ฮณฮต ฯƒฮตฮผฮฝแฟถฯ‚ ฮบฮฑฯ„ฮตฮนฯฯ‰ฮฝฮตฯ…ฯŒฮผฮตฮฝฮฟฮน

ฮปฮญฮณฮฟฯ…ฯƒฮน ฮผแฝด ฮดฮตแฟ–ฮฝ แฝฅฯƒฯ€ฮตฯ ฮฟแผฐฮบฮฟฮดฮญฯƒฯ€ฮฟฮนฮฝฮฑฮฝ แผฮฝ ฮฟแผดฮฝแฟณ ฯ†ฮธฮญฮณฮณฮตฯƒฮธฮฑฮน ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฟฯƒฮฟฯ†ฮฏฮฑฮฝ,

ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ„ฮฟแฝบฯ‚ ฮ ฮญฯฯƒฮฑฯ‚ แฝ€ฯฮธแฟถฯ‚ ฯ†ฮฑฯƒฮน ฮผแฝด ฯ„ฮฑแฟ–ฯ‚ ฮณฮฑฮผฮตฯ„ฮฑแฟ–ฯ‚ แผ€ฮปฮปแฝฐ ฯ„ฮฑแฟ–ฯ‚ ฯ€ฮฑฮปฮปฮฑฮบฮฏฯƒฮน

ฯƒฯ…ฮผฮผฮตฮธฯฯƒฮบฮตฯƒฮธฮฑฮน ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯƒฯ…ฮฝฮฟฯฯ‡ฮตแฟ–ฯƒฮธฮฑฮน· ฯ„ฮฑแฝฯ„แฝธ ฮดแฝด ฮบฮฑแฝถ แผกฮผแพถฯ‚ แผ€ฮพฮนฮฟแฟฆฯƒฮน ฯ€ฮฟฮนฮตแฟ–ฮฝ ฮตแผฐฯ‚ ฯ„แฝฐ

ฯƒฯ…ฮผฯ€ฯŒฯƒฮนฮฑ ฯ„แฝดฮฝ ฮผฮฟฯ…ฯƒฮนฮบแฝดฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ„แฝดฮฝ แฝ‘ฯ€ฮฟฮบฯฮนฯ„ฮนฮบแฝดฮฝ แผฯ€ฮตฮนฯƒฮฌฮณฮฟฮฝฯ„ฮฑฯ‚ ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฟฯƒฮฟฯ†ฮฏฮฑฮฝ ฮดแฝฒ ฮผแฝด

ฮบฮนฮฝฮฟแฟฆฮฝฯ„ฮฑฯ‚ (…)19

And I replied, "Certainly there are, my friend, and the pretext they very

solemnly employ is that philosophy should no more have a part in conversation

over wine than should the matron of the house. ey commend the Persians for

17 Note that iconography does not always conrm this vision. ere are, in fact, Greek

monuments with representations of respectable women participating in mixed banquets.

However, as K. M. D. D, 2003, p. 22 noted, this kind of representation corresponds to

an older iconography where the gures are identied as heroes or gods. ere are also funerary

representations where the woman appears sitting in the chair or at the end of the bed where the

man, the husband, is reclined. is kind of iconography has a more conservative character due

to its funerary specicity. See also M. R, 2003.

18 In regard to women's place in Rome, see A. Del C, 1986?. As R. C T,

2005, observes: "Podrรญamos decir grรกcamente que, en tรฉrminos generales, los espacios de poder

que las mujeres ocupan en Roma son una prolongaciรณn del รกmbito familiar y privado (…)" (p.

125). Cf. n. 10. See also K. B, 1997.

19 For the Greek text of the Table-Talks, we use C. H, Plutarchus. Moralia, IV, Leipzig,

1971.

429

Evocative contexts of women in Plutarch's Quaestiones Convivales

doing their drinking and dancing with their mistresses rather than with their

wives; this they think we ought to imitate by introducing music and theatricals

into our drinking-parties, and not disturb philosophy.

e ฮฟแผฐฮบฮฟฮดแฝณฯƒฯ€ฮฟฮนฮฝฮฑฮฝ mentioned in the text should be some kind of

housekeeper, maybe a slave for taking care of the house and the children; that

is why the host's wife was not supposed to take a seat in the symposium, always

eating with the youngest ones20 . It is still interesting that Plutarch ascribes to

the barbarians what we all know to be also a Greek custom: the participation

of concubines and hetairai – both slaves and even young foreign girls –, along

with music and pantomime21 .

e very same issue is discussed in Book VII of Quaestiones Conuiuales

(710B) by a sophist, who dismissed the ute-player girls that animated the

banquet, judging that their presence compromised the ฮบฮฟฮนฮฝฯ‰ฮฝแฝทฮฑ ฯ„แฟถฮฝ ฮปแฝนฮณฯ‰ฮฝ

by absorbing all men's attention:

ฮ ฮตฯแฝถ แผ€ฮบฯฮฟฮฑฮผฮฌฯ„ฯ‰ฮฝ แผฮฝ ฮงฮฑฮนฯฯ‰ฮฝฮตฮฏแพณ ฮปฯŒฮณฮฟฮน ฯ€ฮฑฯแฝฐ ฯ€ฯŒฯ„ฮฟฮฝ แผฮณฮญฮฝฮฟฮฝฯ„ฮฟ ฮ”ฮนฮฟฮณฮตฮฝฮนฮฑฮฝฮฟแฟฆ

ฯ„ฮฟแฟฆ ฮ ฮตฯฮณฮฑฮผฮทฮฝฮฟแฟฆ ฯ€ฮฑฯฯŒฮฝฯ„ฮฟฯ‚, ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ€ฯฮฌฮณฮผฮฑฯ„' ฮตแผดฯ‡ฮฟฮผฮตฮฝ แผ€ฮผฯ…ฮฝฯŒฮผฮตฮฝฮฟฮน ฮฒฮฑฮธฯ…ฯ€ฯŽฮณฯ‰ฮฝฮฑ

<ฯƒฮฟฯ†ฮนฯƒฯ„แฝดฮฝ> แผ€ฯ€แฝธ ฯ„แฟ†ฯ‚ ฮฃฯ„ฮฟแพถฯ‚, แฝƒฯ‚ แผฯ€ฮฎฮณฮฑฮณฮตฮฝ ฯ„แฝธฮฝ ฮ ฮปฮฌฯ„ฯ‰ฮฝฮฑ22 ฮบฮฑฯ„ฮทฮณฮฟฯฮฟแฟฆฮฝฯ„ฮฑ ฯ„แฟถฮฝ

ฮฑแฝฮปฮทฯ„ฯฮฏฯƒฮน ฯ‡ฯฯ‰ฮผฮญฮฝฯ‰ฮฝ ฯ€ฮฑฯ' ฮฟแผถฮฝฮฟฮฝ, แผ€ฮปฮปฮฎฮปฮฟฮนฯ‚ ฮดแฝฒ ฯƒฯ…ฮณฮณฮฏฮฝฮตฯƒฮธฮฑฮน ฮดฮนแฝฐ ฮปฯŒฮณฮฟฯ… ฮผแฝด

ฮดฯ…ฮฝฮฑฮผฮญฮฝฯ‰ฮฝ.

When I gave a dinner party, in Chaeronea, for Diogenianus of Pergamum,

there was some discussion of types of entertainment, and we had considerable

diculty in beating o the attack of a long-bearded sophist of the Stoic

persuasion, who brought up Plato's indictment of people who listen to ute-

girls over their wine because they are unable to entertain themselves by

conversation.

e "woman dressing up for the banquet" had some moral characteristics

and a sui generis style: "gold brooches", "nely wrought earrings" and "Aphrodite's

magic band", a symbol of seduction. All these separated her from the married

woman, who was forced to follow a distinct model (Quaest. Conv. 693C):

ฮผฮญฯ‡ฯฮน ฯ„ฮฟฯฯ„ฯ‰ฮฝ แผฯ€ฮนฮผฮญฮปฮตฮนฮฑ [ฮบฮฑแฝถ] ฮบฮฑฮธฮฑฯฮนฯŒฯ„ฮทฯ„ฯŒฯ‚ แผฯƒฯ„ฮนฮฝ· แฝ…ฯ„ฮฑฮฝ ฮดแฝฒ ฯ„แฝฐฯ‚ ฯ‡ฯฯ…ฯƒแพถฯ‚

ฯ€ฮตฯฯŒฮฝฮฑฯ‚ แผ€ฮฝฮฑฮปฮฑฮผฮฒฮฌฮฝแฟƒ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ„แฝฐ ฮดฮนฮทฮบฯฮนฮฒฯ‰ฮผฮญฮฝฮฑ ฯ„ฮญฯ‡ฮฝแฟƒ แผฮปฮปฯŒฮฒฮนฮฑ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ„ฮตฮปฮตฯ…ฯ„แฟถฯƒฮฑ

ฯ„แฟ†ฯ‚ ฯ€ฮตฯแฝถ ฯ„แฝธฮฝ ฮบฮตฯƒฯ„แฝธฮฝ แผ…ฯ€ฯ„ฮทฯ„ฮฑฮน ฮณฮฟฮทฯ„ฮตฮฏฮฑฯ‚, ฯ€ฮตฯฮนฮตฯฮณฮฏฮฑ ฯ„แฝธ ฯ‡ฯแฟ†ฮผฮฑ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮปฮฑฮผฯ…ฯฮฏฮฑ ฮผแฝด

ฯ€ฯฮญฯ€ฮฟฯ…ฯƒฮฑ ฮณฮฑฮผฮตฯ„แฟ‡ ฮณฮญฮณฮฟฮฝฮตฮฝ. ฮฟแฝฮบฮฟแฟฆฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ„แฝธฮฝ ฮฟแผถฮฝฮฟฮฝ ฮฟแผฑ ฮผแฝฒฮฝ แผ€ฮปฯŒฮฑฮนฯ‚ ฯ‡ฯฯ‰ฯ„ฮฏฮถฮฟฮฝฯ„ฮตฯ‚ แผข

ฮบฮนฮฝฮฝฮฑฮผฯŽฮผฮฟฮนฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮบฯฯŒฮบฮฟฮนฯ‚ แผฯ†ฮทฮดฯฮฝฮฟฮฝฯ„ฮตฯ‚ แฝฅฯƒฯ€ฮตฯ ฮณฯ…ฮฝฮฑแฟ–ฮบฮฑ ฮบฮฑฮปฮปฯ‰ฯ€ฮฏฮถฮฟฯ…ฯƒฮนฮฝ ฮตแผฐฯ‚ ฯ„แฝฐ

ฯƒฯ…ฮผฯ€ฯŒฯƒฮนฮฑ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ€ฯฮฟฮฑฮณฯ‰ฮณฮตฯฮฟฯ…ฯƒฮนฮฝ·

So far she is showing concern for cleanliness, but when she picks up those

gold brooches and nely wrought earrings, and, lastly turns to the witchery of

20 See F. M G, 1987, p.49 n.11.

21 Plutarch refers to the same custom with regard to the Persian kings in Coniugalia Praecepta

140 b. See more about "music and theatricals" in Quaestiones Convivales 711E-F, 747C.

22 See Prot. 347 c and Mor. 176e.

430

รlia Rosa C. Rodrigues

Aphrodite's magic band23, it is plainly a case of overdoing things and a wanton

conduct unbecoming to a wife. Even so, those who color wine with aloes or

sweeten it with cinnamon or saron are adorning it like a woman's face in

preparation for a gay party, and are acting as a kind of pander;

Excessive luxury and female style of dress were, as we all know, a very

polemical issue, being actually legally prohibited in Syracuse24 . It may be

interesting to note that Lucian of Samosata (125-180 AD), in his work De

domo (7-15) also presents an ideal female decency very similar to the one

outlined by Ariston, Plutarch's guest:

but only in such degree as would suce a modest and beautiful woman to

set o her beauty – a delicate chain round her neck, a light ring on her nger,

pendants in her ears, a buckle, a band that connes the luxuriance of her hair

and adds as much to her good looks as purple border adds to a gown.

Being a social educator and caring for the preservation of traditional

values, Plutarch stands for a noble image of the woman and for family values.

In Book I of Quaestiones Conuiuales (619D), when discussing "Why the place at

banquets called the consul's acquired honor", he draws the model of a consul's

political presentation; he is not valuable only by himself, but also on account

of those who are related to him, both paying him social respect and giving him

the guarantee of his own status, at least during the banquet.

ฯ„แฟถฮฝ <ฮดแฝฒ> ฯƒฯ…ฮฝฮญฮณฮณฮนฯƒฯ„ฮฑ ฯ„ฯŒฯ€ฯ‰ฮฝ แฝ ฮผแฝฒฮฝ [ฮณแฝฐฯ] แฝ‘ฯ€' ฮฑแฝฯ„แฝธฮฝ แผข ฮณฯ…ฮฝฮฑฮนฮบแฝธฯ‚ แผข ฯ€ฮฑฮฏฮดฯ‰ฮฝ แผฯƒฯ„ฮฏฮฝ,

แฝ ฮด' แฝ‘ฯ€แฝฒฯ ฮฑแฝฯ„แฝธฮฝ ฮตแผฐฮบฯŒฯ„ฯ‰ฯ‚ ฯ„แฟท ฮผฮฌฮปฮนฯƒฯ„ฮฑ ฯ„ฮนฮผฯ‰ฮผฮญฮฝแฟณ ฯ„แฟถฮฝ ฮบฮตฮบฮปฮทฮผฮญฮฝฯ‰ฮฝ แผ€ฯ€ฮตฮดฯŒฮธฮท, แผตฮฝ'

แผฮณฮณแฝบฯ‚ แพ– ฯ„ฮฟแฟฆ แผ‘ฯƒฯ„ฮนแฟถฮฝฯ„ฮฟฯ‚.

And of the places nearest him the one which is below him belongs either to his

wife or his children, while the one above him was given properly enough to the

guest of honor in order that he might be near his host.

On the other hand, if a governor's political dignity requires the presence of

his family, as a symbol of individual and social stability, the same is demanded

of women, who are not supposed to take a seat in public meals without their

husbands, where both men and women are present:

แผ”ฯ„ฮน ฯ€ฮฟฮปฮปแฝฐ ฯ„แฟถฮฝ ฮณฮฑฮผฮนฮบแฟถฮฝ แผข ฯ„แฝฐ ฯ€ฮปฮตแฟ–ฯƒฯ„ฮฑ ฮดฯแพถ ฯ„ฮฑฮน ฮดฮนแฝฐ ฮณฯ…ฮฝฮฑฮนฮบแฟถฮฝ· แฝ…ฯ€ฮฟฯ… ฮดแฝฒ ฮณฯ…ฮฝฮฑแฟ–ฮบฮตฯ‚

ฯ€ฮฌฯฮตฮนฯƒฮน, ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ„ฮฟแฝบฯ‚ แผ„ฮฝฮดฯฮฑฯ‚ แผ€ฮฝฮฑฮณฮบฮฑแฟ–ฯŒฮฝ แผฯƒฯ„ฮนฯ€ฮฑฯฮฑฮปฮฑฮผฮฒฮฌฮฝฮตฯƒฮธฮฑฮน.

Besides, many or most of the activities relating to a wedding are in the hands of

women, and where women are present it is necessary that their husbands also

should be included. (667B)25

23 It corresponds to the magic band that Aphrodite oered to Hera (Il. 14. 214).

24 Phylarchus apud Athen. 512 B. Plutarch also emphasizes this censure in Moralia 142B.

25 e scholar from Chaeronea gives the same advice to Eurydice in Coniugalia Praecepta

139D: ฯ„แฝดฮฝ ฮดแฝฒ ฯƒฯŽฯ†ฯฮฟฮฝฮฑ ฮณฯ…ฮฝฮฑแฟ–ฮบฮฑ ฮดฮตแฟ– ฯ„ฮฟแฝฮฝฮฑฮฝฯ„ฮฏฮฟฮฝ แฝฯแพถฯƒฮธฮฑฮน ฮผฮฌฮปฮนฯƒฯ„ฮฑ ฮผฮตฯ„แฝฐ ฯ„ฮฟแฟฆ แผ€ฮฝฮดฯแฝธฯ‚ ฮฟแฝ–ฯƒฮฑฮฝ,

431

Evocative contexts of women in Plutarch's Quaestiones Convivales

Nevertheless, Plutarch goes even further. Indeed, besides establishing

a family stereotype for appearances in public26 , he also interferes with the

private sphere. Here is an example: if a man comes more sexually inspired

from a banquet, "bringing a garland and his own body perfumed" (654E),

he is supposed to lie down with his own wife and not with any concubine27 .

However, he must do it during the night, because it would be very

uncomfortable to take his wife out of the gynoecium just to full his wants

แผ€ฮปฮตฮบฯ„ฯฯ…แฝนฮฝฮฟฯ‚ ("like a cock"). at is to say that the male spaces are dierent

from the female ones, but respect must be reciprocal28 . e scholar from

Chaeronea treats this theme at greater length in the Coniugalia Praecepta ,

a wedding present to his married friends Eurydice and Pollianus, a treatise

that M. Foucault (1984, p.192) considered a key text of a new morality of

marriage29 . is attitude may have emerged around the rst century AD and

manifests a change of the view of marriage due to the new status of women,

as we will see further on:

ฮคแฟถฮฝ ฯƒฯ‰ฮผฮฌฯ„ฯ‰ฮฝ ฮฟแผฑ ฯ†ฮนฮปฯŒฯƒฮฟฯ†ฮฟฮน ฯ„แฝฐ ฮผแฝฒฮฝ แผฮบ ฮดฮนฮตฯƒฯ„ฯŽฯ„ฯ‰ฮฝ ฮปฮญฮณฮฟฯ…ฯƒฮนฮฝ ฮตแผถฮฝฮฑฮน ฮบฮฑฮธฮฌฯ€ฮตฯ

ฯƒฯ„ฯŒฮปฮฟฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯƒฯ„ฯฮฑฯ„ฯŒฯ€ฮตฮดฮฟฮฝ, ฯ„แฝฐ ฮด' แผฮบ ฯƒฯ…ฮฝฮฑฯ€ฯ„ฮฟฮผฮญฮฝฯ‰ฮฝ แฝกฯ‚ ฮฟแผฐฮบฮฏฮฑฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮฝฮฑแฟฆฮฝ, ฯ„แฝฐ

ฮด'แผกฮฝฯ‰ฮผฮญฮฝฮฑ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯƒฯ…ฮผฯ†ฯ…แฟ† ฮบฮฑฮธฮฌฯ€ฮตฯ แผฯƒฯ„แฝถ ฯ„แฟถฮฝ ฮถแฟดฯ‰ฮฝ แผ•ฮบฮฑฯƒฯ„ฮฟฮฝ. ฯƒฯ‡ฮตฮดแฝธฮฝ ฮฟแฝ–ฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ

ฮณฮฌฮผฮฟฯ‚ แฝ ฮผแฝฒฮฝ ฯ„แฟถฮฝ แผฯฯŽฮฝฯ„ฯ‰ฮฝ แผกฮฝฯ‰ฮผฮญฮฝฮฟฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯƒฯ…ฮผฯ†ฯ…ฮฎฯ‚ แผฯƒฯ„ฮนฮฝ (...) (Mor. 142F)

ฮฟแผฐฮบฮฟฯ…ฯฮตแฟ–ฮฝ ฮดแฝฒ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮบฯฯฯ€ฯ„ฮตฯƒฮธฮฑฮน ฮผแฝด ฯ€ฮฑฯฯŒฮฝฯ„ฮฟฯ‚, "a virtuous woman ought to be most visible in her

husband's company, and to stay in the house and hide herself when he is away".

26 Note the well-known image used by the Stoic Antipater of Tarsus (frg. 3.63.11.16 von

Arnim), as expressed in Amatorius 769F: "e same is true for lovers; (…) for this truly is what is

called 'integral amalgamation' [แฝ…ฮปฯ‰ฮฝ ฮบฯแพถฯƒฮนฯ‚] that of a married couple who love each other". K.

B, 1997, pp. 73-4 commented this passage, noting that the complete union suggested

by this metaphor is illusory, since the mixture between wine and water is always called "wine",

showing that a hierarchy within the marriage still persists. Cf. Mor. 142F. See "Plutarch on

marriage: the element of communality" and "Plutarch on marriage: reciprocity, the secret for a

happy wedlock" in A. G. N, 1997, pp. 51-7, 63-76, as well as F. L C, 1981, pp.

25-38.

27 We can nd the very same advice in Plato's Leges (VIII, 839a-b): "at was precisely the

reason why I stated that in reference to his law I know of a device for making a natural use of

reproductive intercourse and, on the other hand, by abstaining from every female eld in which

you would not desire the seed to spring up. (…) For, in the rst place, it follows the dictates of

nature, and it serves to keep men from sexual rage and frenzy and all kinds of fornication, and

from all excess in meats and drinks, and it ensures in husbands fondness for their own wives".

28 Note that Plutarch (Coniugalia Praecepta 144C-D) advises, however, the woman to accept

that the man can choose to have sexual relations with a slave woman, because that would be

a mark of respect for his wedded wife: "If therefore a man in private life, who is incontinent

and dissolute in regard to his pleasures, commits some peccadillo with a paramour or a maid-

servant, his wedded wife ought not to be indignant or angry, but she should reason that it is

respect for her which leads him to share his debauchery, licentiousness, and wantonness with

another woman." Plutarch also refers to the example of the Persians kings mentioned in note

21 above.

29 For an analysis of Foucault's view of Plutarch's Coniugalia Praecepta, see C. P,

1992.

432

รlia Rosa C. Rodrigues

Philosophers30 say of bodies that some are composed of separate elements, as

a eet or an army, others of elements joined together, as a house or a ship, and

still others form together an intimate union as is the case with every living

creature. In about the same way, the marriage of a couple in love with each

other is an intimate union.

Actually, we also nd this new marital morality in other contemporary

Stoic texts, for example, Antipater's Peri Gamou (Stobaeus, IV), some

passages of Musonius Rufus (Stobaeus III, 6.23, IV. 22.20) and Hierocles

(Stobaeus IV. 22. 21)31 about this subject. However, as Cynthia Patterson

(1992, p. 4714) noted, although this attitude may sound new, it may also

reect the popular discourse about marriage: "(…) it seems to me that

Plutarch's advice is grounded in and reects traditional, popular and

pragmatic marital concern, and would strike a common chord in readers

both Roman and Greek".

Elaborating on the subject of female ethics in the social and private spheres,

the philosopher discusses the constitution of the woman's body, which is, from

our point of view, actually a reection of the idealistic social construction of

the female and female psychology. In order to conrm this, we may look at the

adjectives used by Plutarch in order to describe the woman's body functions

when comparing both the elders' and the women's bodies: while the former is

"dry", "rough" and "hard", the latter is "moist", "smooth" and "soft", qualities

that go far beyond the physiological assumption and somehow reect a gender

construction, a female stereotype32 (Quaest. Conv. 650 A-B):

แผ”ฯ†ฮท ฯ„ฮฟฮฏฮฝฯ…ฮฝ แฝ <ฮฃฯฮปฮปฮฑฯ‚> ฮธฮฑฯ„ฮญฯแฟณ ฮธฮฌฯ„ฮตฯฮฟฮฝ แผฮผฯ†ฮฑฮฏฮฝฮตฯƒฮธฮฑฮน· ฮบแผ‚ฮฝ ฮตแผฐ ฯ€ฮตฯแฝถ ฯ„แฟถฮฝ

ฮณฯ…ฮฝฮฑฮนฮบแฟถฮฝ แฝ€ฯฮธแฟถฯ‚ ฯ„แฝดฮฝ ฮฑแผฐฯ„ฮฏฮฑฮฝ ฮปฮฌฮฒฮฟฮนฮผฮตฮฝ, ฮฟแฝฮบ แผ”ฯ„ฮน ฯ€ฮฟฮปฮปฮฟแฟฆ ฮปฯŒฮณฮฟฯ… ฮดฮตฮฎฯƒฮตฯƒฮธฮฑฮน

ฯ€ฮตฯแฝถ ฯ„แฟถฮฝ ฮณฮตฯฯŒฮฝฯ„ฯ‰ฮฝ· แผฮฝฮฑฮฝฯ„ฮฏฮฑฯ‚ ฮณแฝฐฯ ฮตแผถฮฝฮฑฮน ฮผฮฌฮปฮนฯƒฯ„ฮฑ ฯ„แฝฐฯ‚ ฯ†ฯฯƒฮตฮนฯ‚ ฯ„แฟ‡ ฮธ' แฝ‘ฮณฯฯŒฯ„ฮทฯ„ฮน

ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮพฮทฯฯŒฯ„ฮทฯ„ฮน <ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮปฮตฮนฯŒฯ„ฮทฯ„ฮน> ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ„ฯฮฑฯ‡ฯฯ„ฮทฯ„ฮน ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮผฮฑฮปฮฑฮบฯŒฯ„ฮทฯ„ฮน ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯƒฮบฮปฮทฯฯŒฯ„ฮทฯ„ฮน.

'ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ„ฮฟแฟฆฯ„'' แผ”ฯ†ฮท 'ฮปฮฑฮผฮฒฮฌฮฝฯ‰ ฮบฮฑฯ„แฝฐ ฯ„แฟถฮฝ ฮณฯ…ฮฝฮฑฮนฮบแฟถฮฝ ฯ€ฯแฟถฯ„ฮฟฮฝ, แฝ…ฯ„ฮน ฯ„แฝดฮฝ ฮบฯแพถฯƒฮนฮฝ แฝ‘ฮณฯแฝฐฮฝ

แผ”ฯ‡ฮฟฯ…ฯƒฮนฮฝ, แผฃ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ„แฝดฮฝ แผฯ€ฮฑฮปฯŒฯ„ฮทฯ„ฮฑ ฯ„แฟ†ฯ‚ ฯƒฮฑฯฮบแฝธฯ‚ แผฮผฮผฮตฮผฮนฮณฮผฮญฮฝฮท ฯ€ฮฑฯฮญฯ‡ฮตฮน ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ„แฝธ ฯƒฯ„ฮฏฮปฮฒฮฟฮฝ

แผฯ€แฝถ ฮปฮตฮนฯŒฯ„ฮทฯ„ฮน ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ„แฝฐฯ‚ ฮบฮฑฮธฮฌฯฯƒฮตฮนฯ‚·

Sulla replied that one part of the problem threw light upon the other. If we

should rightly determine the cause where women are concerned, there would

be no further need of much speculation where old men are concerned, for their

natures are very emphatically opposites: moist and dry, smooth and rough, soft

30 Plutarch is referring to Stoic philosophers, see De Defectu Oraculorum 426a.

31 See M. F , 1982, p.174 and his analysis of Stoic texts about marriage in the same

study, pp. 177-216. e same author also refers to Seneca, Epictectus and some Pythagoric

texts.

32 Actually, this comparison is also found in Aristotle (fr. 107 Rose), according to Athen. 429

C and Geop. VII 34.2. Moreover, we nd the same characterisation at Ps-Arist. Probl. 880a 13.

ere are two main sources in Greek Literature that make explicit reference to female anatomy

or physiology: the Hippocratic Corpus and Aristotle's History of Animals , Parts of Animals and

Generation of Animals. See L. D-J, 1991, pp. 111-37. On this subject see also S.-T.

T, 1989, p. 327.

433

Evocative contexts of women in Plutarch's Quaestiones Convivales

and hard. "e rst thing about women", he continued, "I take to be this, that

they possess a moist temperament which, being a component of the female, is

responsible for her delicate, sleek, smooth esh, and for her menses.

Plutarch discusses another subject related to female physiology again in

Book III (650 F): "Whether women are colder in temperament than men or

hotter". Only earth is "moist" (แฝ‘ฮณฯฯŒฯ„ฮทฯ„ฮน) as women, both being promises of

live and the support of mankind, as is said by Plato about all rational or animal

female beings (Quaest. Conv. 638 A):

ฮฟแฝ ฮณแฝฐฯ ฮณแฟ†' ฯ†ฮทฯƒแฝถฮฝ แฝ ฮ ฮปฮฌฯ„ฯ‰ฮฝ 'ฮณฯ…ฮฝฮฑแฟ–ฮบฮฑ, ฮณแฟ†ฮฝ ฮดแฝฒ ฮณฯ…ฮฝแฝด ฮผฮนฮผฮตแฟ–ฯ„ฮฑฮน' ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ„แฟถฮฝ แผ„ฮปฮปฯ‰ฮฝ

ฮธฮทฮปฮญฯ‰ฮฝ แผ•ฮบฮฑฯƒฯ„ฮฟฮฝ.

'For earth does not imitate woman,' says Plato (Mx. 238 A), 'but woman earth,'

as indeed does each of the other females.

Indeed, as Plato insists, "earth does not imitate woman, but woman earth",

meaning that both are able to reproduce. A linguistic sign of this theory is the

adjective ฮธแฟ†ฮปฯ…ฯ‚; for it may be translated as either "female" or "fertile", being

anyway usually more related to the female gender (Il. 8.7; 19.97; Hdt. 3.109,

X. Mem. 2.1.4). Let us attend to the following quotation from Book II (640

E-F):

ฮผแฝด ฮบฯฮฑฯ„ฮตแฟ–ฯƒฮธฮฑฮน ฮผฮทฮดแฝฒ ฮผฮตฯ„ฮฑฮฒฮฌฮปฮปฮตฮนฮฝ. แผ”ฯ„ฮน ฮด' ฮตแผถฯ€ฮตฮฝ 'ฮฟแฝฮบ แผ„ฮดฮทฮปฮฟฮฝ แฝ…ฯ„ฮน ฮดฮตแฟ– ฯ€ฯแฝธฯ‚ ฯ„แฝธ

แผฮผฯ†ฯ…ฯ„ฮตฯ…ฯŒฮผฮตฮฝฮฟฮฝ ฯ‡ฯŽฯฮฑฯ‚ ฮปฯŒฮณฮฟฮฝ แผ”ฯ‡ฮตฮนฮฝ ฯ„แฝธ ฮดฮตฮพฯŒฮผฮตฮฝฮฟฮฝ· ฯ„แฝดฮฝ ฮดแฝฒ ฯ‡ฯŽฯฮฑฮฝ ฮดฮตแฟ– ฮธฮฎฮปฮตฮนฮฑฮฝ

แผ”ฯ‡ฮตฮนฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮณฯŒฮฝฮนฮผฮฟฮฝ· แฝ…ฮธฮตฮฝ ฯ„แฝฐ ฯ€ฮฟฮปฯ…ฮบฮฑฯฯ€ฯŒฯ„ฮฑฯ„ฮฑ ฯ„แฟถฮฝ ฯ†ฯ…ฯ„แฟถฮฝ ... แผฮบฮปฮตฮณฯŒฮผฮตฮฝฮฟฮน

ฯ€ฮฑฯฮฑฯ€ฮทฮณฮฝฯฮฟฯ…ฯƒฮนฮฝ, แฝฅฯƒฯ€ฮตฯ ฮณฯ…ฮฝฮฑฮนฮพแฝถฮฝ <ฯ€ฮฟฮปฯ…>ฮณฮฑฮปฮฑฮบฯ„ฮฟฯฯƒฮฑฮนฯ‚ แผ•ฯ„ฮตฯฮฑ <ฮฒฯฮญฯ†ฮท>

ฯ€ฯฮฟฯƒฮฒฮฌฮปฮปฮฟฮฝฯ„ฮตฯ‚.

"Further", he continued, "it is quite clear that the stock to be grafted fulls the

function of soil for the scion; soil and stock must be fertile and productive33 ,

and so they select the most fruitful of plants and insert the scions in them,

much like putting infants out to nurse with women who have abundant

milk.

eir similar qualities are proved in the text, for ฯ€ฮฟฮปฯ…ฮบฮฑฯฯ€แฝนฯ„ฮฑฯ„ฮฑ ("the

most fruitful of plants") are compared to ฮณฯ…ฮฝฮฑฮนฮพแฝถฮฝ < ฯ€ฮฟฮปฯ…>ฮณฮฑฮปฮฑฮบฯ„ฮฟแฝปฯƒฮฑฮนฯ‚

("women who have abundant milk"). Again we may conrm the Platonic

theory of women as an imitation of earth.

As A. G. Nikolaidis (1997, p. 28) suggests, this Plutarchan "feminism"

must have been strongly inspired by the Roman matrona's status, far

superior to that of the Greek woman34 ; and the same should have

33 Lac. 4-7 T: แผฮผฮฒฮฟฮปแฝฑฯƒฮนฮฝ Hubert, "for grafts", or the like ฯ€ฯฮฟฯƒฮตฮบฮปฮตฮณแฝนฮผฮตฮฝฮฑ Bernardakis.

34 K. B, 1997, p. 90 draws the same conclusion: "In this area, as so often, Plutarch

adopts a Roman ideal; his heroines are essentially Roman matrons, strong and virtuous, even

434

รlia Rosa C. Rodrigues

happened in the social and family spheres, where women "enjoyed a

dignity and independence at least equal if not superior to those claimed by

contemporary feminists"35 .

e truth is that the analysis of the woman's evocations in Quaestiones

Conuiuales comes to justify Plutarch's avantgarde thoughts in relation to the

female place in the family, an institution to be preserved in society. As a matter

of fact, as noted by J. Burton (1998, p. 149), a new horizon of opportunities

for women had begun to develop as early as the Hellenistic period, given the

questioning of the ideal of the citizen-soldier after the gradual disintegration of

the polis, which had mostly determined the erased image of the Greek woman.

e marriage contracts change – protecting also the woman –, the chance of

having property and being elected to political oce, along with increasing

economic power, all together came to build a new gender conscience, as S.

Blundell points out36 :

But in general it can be said that there was an erosion of the asymmetry

between the sexes during the Hellenistic Age, and a consequent improvement

in the status of women. In the political arena, the most spectacular advance was

made by the women of the Hellenistic royal families. (1999, p. 199)

In relation to literary tradition, Plutarch is therefore actually an

innovator, not accepting an old misogynic tradition supported by Hesiod

(Th. 590-612), Homer (Od. 11. 426-34), Semonides or Euripides, excluding

only Socrates, Plato, the Cynic philosophers37 and the Stoics – including the

Roman Musonius Rufus – who admitted the equality of both genders38 . As

for Plutarch, he builds the image of a woman full of ethical and intellectual

when dressed in the traditional Greek peplos ."

35 Vide J. C, 1956, p. 98.

36 e same scholar also refers to a papyrus from Egypt that reveals that, during this period,

women could buy and sell, such as happened in Greek cities, where inscriptions refer to women

as having property and owning slaves. In Sparta, moreover, there are many cases of women that

accumulate great riches. See , 1999, p. 199. On the female condition in the Hellenistic period

see the chapter "e Hellenistic Period: women in a cosmopolitan world" in E. F 

. (eds.), 1995, pp. 136-81. See also L. F, 1989, p. 31 on women's property in Classical

Athens and, for a most extensive treatment of the subject, D. S, 1979.

37 Cf. n. 5 and L. P, 1975, p. 24. See Diogenes Laรซrtius (6, 12) on Antisthenes, an early

Cynic, and on his pupil Diogenes (6, 72), as well as the passages on Crates (Plut., Mor. 141 E)

and his wife Hipparchia (D. L., 6, 96). Apud L. P, 1975, pp. 40, 91, 113, 116.

38 See A. G. N, 1997, p. 29; C. P, 1989, p. 4720 has come to a similar

conclusion about the Coniugalia Praecepta: "But what is unusual (within at least the Greek

literary tradition) is his enunciation of the ideals of marriage in an essentially positive form".

Note the famous passage of Politics (1260a 6), where Aristotle compares the woman to a slave on

account of her weak nature, condemned to obey to a male, who is distinguished by intellectual

skills: "for the soul by nature contains a part that rules and a part that is ruled, to which we

assign dierent virtues, that is, the virtue of the rational and that of the irrational. It is clear then

the case is the same also with the other instances of ruler and ruled. Hence there are by nature

various classes of rulers and ruled. For the free rules the slave, the male the female (…)". See

also 54b 13, 59a 39, 60a 9.

435

Evocative contexts of women in Plutarch's Quaestiones Convivales

arete, still not allowed to access the masculine circles of power – as K.

Blomquist, 1997 showed39 – or conviviality, as we can conclude from his

attitude of keeping women away from the symposion and philosophical

discussions.

In fact, he does not completely avoid the former popular tradition of

the image of women in the private and social circle saying, for example,

that "where [women] are present it is necessary that their husbands also

should be included" (Quaest. Conv. 667B). Thus, if in the texts on marital

ethics40 , conjugal intimacy and feminine education Plutarch actually

follows the Stoic and Cynic traditions, admitting the equality of women,

he does not abandon the norm of traditionalist behavior in the public

sphere.

As for the banquets, the presence of women is still not allowed – for these

reunions are made (or described) in the Greek way, because Greek is also his

point of view.

W o r k s c i T e d

B, K., "From Olympias to Aretaphila" in J. M (ed.), Plutarch

and His Intellectual World, London, 1997, pp. 73-97.

B, S., Women in Ancient Greece, London, 1999.

B, J., "Women's commensality in the ancient Greek world", G&R, 45

(1998) 143-65.

C, A. & K, A. (eds.), Images of Women in Antiquity. London,

1993.

C, J., Daily Life in Ancient Rome. London.

C, D., "Seclusion, Separation, and the Status of Women in Classical

Athens", G&R, 36 (1989) 3-15.

C T, R., "Espacios de poder de las mujeres en Roma", in J. M.ยช

N I (ed.), Estudios sobre la mujer en la cultura griega y latina ,

Leรณn, 2005, pp.193-215.

D-J, L., "e Cultural Construct of the Female Body", in S. P

(ed.), Women's History & Ancient History, Chapel Hill/London, 1991, pp.

111-37.

39 Blomquist analyses some cases of Plutarch's women that were very close to politics, either

by supporting men – Octavia, Aretaphila, Pompeia Plotina – or by manipulating them – Aspasia,

Cleopatra, and Olympias – and concluded: "Women are not wicked or morally depraved unless

they transgress the rules of their sex and strive to achieve privileges reserved for men. Women

are capable of courageous deance of tyrants and external enemies – but after their exploits, they

are to renounce all power."(p. 89)

40 Cf. n. 25.

436

รlia Rosa C. Rodrigues

D C, A., "El sistema legislativo como elemento fundamental para el

desarrollo femenino en el mundo romano", in E. M. G G

(ed.), Actas de las V Jornadas de investigaciรณn interdisciplinaria La mujer

en el mundo antiguo, Madrid, 1986?, pp. 183-94

D, K. M. D., e Roman Banquet. Images of Conviviality, Cambridge,

2003.

F, F., "Les lles chez Plutarque", Ploutarchos, n.s. 4 (2006/2007) 41-56.

F, E.  ., Women in the Classical World: Image and Text, Oxford,

1995.

F, M., Histoire de la Sexualitรฉ. II. L'usage des plaisirs; III. Le souci de soi,

Paris, 1984.

F, L., "Household, Gender and Property in Classical Athens", CQ, 39

(1989) 22-44.

G, J. P., "Law, Custom and Myth: Aspects of the Social Position of

Women in Classical Athens", JHS, 100 (1980) 38-59.

J, S. R. & M, S. (eds.), Women and Slaves in Greco-Roman

Culture. Dierential Equations, London, 2001.

L, A. & M, L., Making Silence Speak. Women's Voices in Greek

Literature and Society. Princeton, 2001.

L C, F., Plutarque et les femmes dans les Vies Parallรจles, Paris, 1981.

L, D. F., "Legislaรงรฃo relativa ร s mulheres na Vita Solonis de Plutarco", in

J. R F (ed.), Actas do Congresso Plutarco Educador da

Europa, Porto, 2002, pp. 81-91.

M G, F. , Obras Morales y de Costumbres. IV Charlas de Sobremesa .

Madrid, 1987.

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

N, A., "Plutarch on Women and Marriage", WS, 110 (1997) 27-88.

O R, R., "Anotaciones sobre la representaciรณn de la mujer en

Grecia", in E. M. G G (ed.), Actas de las Jornadas de

Investigaciรณn Interdisciplinaria La mujer en el mundo antiguo, Madrid,

1986, pp. 123-205.

O, F. de, "O pensamento de Musรณnio Rufo", Mรกthesis 1 (1992) 89-

107.

P, L., Les cyniques grecs. Fragments et tรฉmoignages, Ottawa, 1975.

P, C., "Plutarch's Advice on Marriage: Traditional Wisdom through

a Philosophic Lens", ANRW 2.33.6, Berlin/New York, 1992, pp. 4709-

23.

437

Evocative contexts of women in Plutarch's Quaestiones Convivales

P, S., Goddesses, Whores, Wives and Slaves, New York, 1975.

R, M., "Horizontal women: posture and sex in the Roman convivium",

AJPh, 124 (2003) 377-422.

S, D., Economic Rights of Women in Ancient Greece, Edinburgh, 1979.

439

Trues and underbolts (Plu., Quaest. conv. 4.2, 1-2)

T r u f f l e s a n d T h u n d e r b o l T s (p l u ., Qu a e S T . c o n v . 4.2 , 1-2)

A S

University of Perugia

Abstract

In the rst part of a chapter of his Quaestiones convivales (4.2,1-2) Plutarch seeks to explain

the popular belief according to which trues are produced through the agency of thunder by

linking their appearance with the physical phenomena accompanying thunder and lightning.

is can be regarded as an example of the attempt – common in Hellenistic and Roman times

– to save popular beliefs through scientic, philosophical, or allegorical interpretations, as the

Stoics had done in the case of divination.

In the second problem of the fourth book of the ฮฃฯ…ฮผฯ€ฮฟฯƒฮนฮฑฮบฮฌ, or Quaestiones

convivales, Plutarch treats two dierent matters concerning lightning and

thunderbolts, the rst of which is paralleled in several ancient writers1 and will be

the object of the present inquiry – namely, the belief connecting the appearance

and growth of trues with thundering. e title of the problem, as formulated

by Plutarch, shows that he is more concerned with explaining the reason for

the rise of this popular belief than with establishing the real connection, if any,

between trues and thunderbolts: "Why trues seem to be born through the

agency of thunder": ฮดฮนแฝฐ ฯ„ฮฏ ฯ„แฝฐ แฝ•ฮดฮฝฮฑ ฯ„แฟ‡ ฮฒฯฮฟฮฝฯ„แฟ‡ ฮดฮฟฮบฮตแฟ– ฮณฮฏฮฝฮตฯƒฮธฮฑฮน2.

e location of the banquet during which the question was raised is

particularly apt: the city of Elis, where Agemachos, the host, served his guests

trues of extraordinary size3 . at Elis, in the Peloponnese, was renowned for

its trues is indeed conrmed by eophrastus and Pliny4 .

e appearance of the trues at the banquet is greeted by one of the

diners with an ironical allusion, duly underlined by Plutarch, to the popular

belief connecting trues and thunder: "someone said with a smile: 'these

trues are indeed worthy of the thundering we recently had', thus scorning

those who connect the birth of trues with thundering"5 .

is already poses a problem, because according to both eophrastus and

Pliny6 trues were believed to owe their origin to the autumn thunderstorms,

1 phr., Fr. 400A Fortenbaugh (= Athen. 62A-C); Plin., Nat.19.37 (clearly drawing

on eophrastus); cf. Apollon. Mir. 47, p. 140, 258-259 Giannini. For eophrastus cf. O.

R, 1940, col. 1444. At phr., HP 1.6.5 the correction ฮบฮตฯฮฑฯฮฝฮนฮฟฮฝ was proposed for

the transmitted ฮบฯฮฌฮฝฮนฮฟฮฝ (which, however, must probably be corrected to ฮณฮตฯฮฌฮฝฮนฮฟฮฝ).

2 e second question is similarly introduced in the title: ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮดฮนแฝฐ ฯ„ฮฏ ฯ„ฮฟแฝบฯ‚ ฮบฮฑฮธฮตฯฮดฮฟฮฝฯ„ฮฑฯ‚

ฮฟแผดฮฟฮฝฯ„ฮฑฮน ฮผแฝด ฮบฮตฯฮฑฯ…ฮฝฮฟแฟฆฯƒฮธฮฑฮน.

3 Plu., Quaest. conv. 4.2,1, 664B แฝ•ฮดฮฝฮฑ ฯ€ฮฑฮผฮผฮตฮณฮญฮธฮท ฮดฮตฮนฯ€ฮฝฮฟแฟฆฯƒฮนฮฝ แผกฮผแฟ–ฮฝ แผˆฮณฮญฮผฮฑฯ‡ฮฟฯ‚ ฯ€ฮฑฯฮญฮธฮทฮบฮตฮฝ แผฮฝ

แผฌฮปฮนฮดฮน.

4 Cf. Plin., Nat. 19.37 Asiae nobilissima circa Lampsacum et Alopeconnesum, Graeciae vero circa

Elim, derived from phr. Fr. 400A (= Athen. 62C).

5 Plu., Quaest. conv. 4.2,1, 664B แผ”ฯ†ฮท ฯ„ฮนฯ‚ แฝ‘ฯ€ฮฟฮผฮตฮนฮดฮนฮฌฯƒฮฑฯ‚ 'แผ„ฮพฮนฮฌ ฮณฮต ฯ„แฟถฮฝ ฮฒฯฮฟฮฝฯ„แฟถฮฝ ฯ„แฟถฮฝ แผ”ฮฝฮฑฮณฯ‡ฮฟฯ‚

ฮณฮตฮฝฮฟฮผฮญฮฝฯ‰ฮฝ', แฝกฯ‚ ฮดแฝด ฮบฮฑฯ„ฮฑฮณฮตฮปแฟถฮฝ ฯ„แฟถฮฝ ฮปฮตฮณฯŒฮฝฯ„ฯ‰ฮฝ ฯ„แฝฐ แฝ•ฮดฮฝฮฑ ฯ„แฝดฮฝ ฮณฮญฮฝฮตฯƒฮนฮฝ แผฮบ ฮฒฯฮฟฮฝฯ„แฟ†ฯ‚ ฮปฮฑฮผฮฒฮฌฮฝฮตฮนฮฝ. A.

S, 1950, col. 1383, wrongly attributes this remark to Agemachos himself.

6 phr., Fr. 400A (= Athen. 62B) แฝ…ฯ„ฮฑฮฝ แฝ•ฮดฮฑฯ„ฮฑ ฮผฮตฯ„ฮฟฯ€ฯ‰ฯฮนฮฝแฝฐ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮฒฯฮฟฮฝฯ„ฮฑแฝถ ฮณแฝทฮฝฯ‰ฮฝฯ„ฮฑฮน ฯƒฮบฮปฮทฯฮฑแฝถ

but both writers, as well as Discorides, concur in stating that the best time

for the gathering and consumption of trues is spring7 . e words Plutarch

attributes to this guest, however, clearly show that the way he refers to this

belief makes no provision for an interval between the birth of the true and its

readiness for consumption, since he mentions recent thunderstorms (แผ”ฮฝฮฑฮณฯ‡ฮฟฯ‚

ฮณฮตฮฝฮฟฮผฮญฮฝฯ‰ฮฝ). is may remind us of a detail connected with the paradoxical

nature of trues, as reported by Pliny, who declares himself to be in doubt

whether they grow or attain their size immediately at birth8 ; and eophrastus,

as quoted by Athenaeus, even seems to take it for granted that trues, like

other things created in the earth, are produced instantaneously at their full size9

– a statement that appears to be at odds with their alleged birth in autumn and

readiness for consumption in spring. Unfortunately the season during which

Agemachos' banquet took place is not specied, but a parallel to the way the

popular belief is alluded to by this character of Plutarch's is found in Juvenal, who

places in spring both the thundering originating trues and the consumption

of the latter as a delicacy10 . is, however, might be a simplication due to

the desire to give particular emphasis to the striking connection popular belief

posited between thunder and the appearance of trues.

A second opinion is then reported by Plutarch in oratio obliqua, but it is

presumably to be understood as put forward at the time by some other guests

of Agemachos', as shown by the tense employed: "there were some who said"

etc.11 . According to them thunder produces clefts in the earth, thus guiding

true seekers – which gave rise to the belief that thunder creates trues,

rather than simply revealing them. is opinion is itself in line with the title

of the problem, which, as we saw, is mainly concerned with the origin of the

popular belief, but it unambiguously stresses that the latter is mistaken, and

its supporters appear to be overly careful to distinguish themselves from the

uneducated mass: ฮฟแผฑ ฯ€ฮฟฮปฮปฮฟฮฏ 12 .

It is then Agemachos' turn to express his opinion; he defends the popular

belief by referring to the numerous inexplicable phenomena connected with

lightning and thunderbolts – aptly described by him as ฮดฮนฮฟฯƒฮทฮผฮฏฮฑฮน – and urging

his hearers not to dismiss as impossible what merely appears paradoxical. In

this attitude of the host we recognize the spirit of the principle later stated by

Mestrius Florus in the ฮฃฯ…ฮผฯ€ฮฟฯƒฮนฮฑฮบฮฌ: one should not lightly reject traditional

ฯ„แฝนฯ„ฮต ฮณแฝทฮฝฮตฯƒฮธฮฑฮน, ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮผแพถฮปฮปฮฟฮฝ แฝ…ฯ„ฮฑฮฝ ฮฑแผฑ ฮฒฯฮฟฮฝฯ„ฮฑแฝท ~ Plin., Nat.19.37 cum fuerint imbres autumnales et

tonitrua crebra tunc nasci et maxime tonitribus.

7 phr., Fr. 400A (=Athen.62B) ฯ„แฝดฮฝ ฮดแฝฒ ฯ‡ฯฮตแฝทฮฑฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ„แฝดฮฝ แผ€ฮบฮผแฝดฮฝ แผ”ฯ‡ฮตฮนฮฝ ฯ„ฮฟแฟฆ แผฆฯฮฟฯ‚; Plin., Nat.

19. 37tenerrima autem verno esse; Dsc. 2.145 แผ”ฮฑฯฮฟฯ‚ แฝ€ฯฯ…ฯ„ฯ„ฮฟฮผแฝณฮฝฮท.

8 Plin., Nat.19.34 crescant anne vitium id terrae… ea protinus globetur magnitudine, qua

futurum est… non facile arbitror intellegi posse.

9 phr., Fr. 400A (= Athen. 62A) แผก ฯ„แฟถฮฝ แผฮณฮณฮตฮฟฯ„แฝนฮบฯ‰ฮฝ ฯ„ฮฟแฝปฯ„ฯ‰ฮฝ ฮณแฝณฮฝฮตฯƒฮนฯ‚ แผ…ฮผฮฑ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ†แฝปฯƒฮนฯ‚ .

10 Juv., 5.116-118 tradentur tubera, si ver / tunc erit et facient optata tonitrua cenas / maiores.

11 Plu., Quaest. conv. 4.2,1, 664B แผฆฯƒฮฑฮฝ ฮฟแฝ–ฮฝ ฮฟแผฑ ฯ†ฮฌฯƒฮบฮฟฮฝฯ„ฮตฯ‚ ฮบฯ„ฮป. If this referred generically to a

current idea, we would probably have the present tense: ฯ„ฮนฮฝแฝณฯ‚ ฯ†ฮฑฯƒฮน, or something similar.

12 Plu., Quaest. conv. 4.2,1, 664BC แผฮบ ฮดแฝฒ ฯ„ฮฟฯฯ„ฯ‰ฮฝ ฮดฯŒฮพฮฑฮฝ แผฮณฮณฮตฮฝฮญฯƒฮธฮฑฮน ฯ„ฮฟแฟ–ฯ‚ ฯ€ฮฟฮปฮปฮฟแฟ–ฯ‚ แฝ…ฯ„ฮน ฯ„แฝธ

แฝ•ฮดฮฝฮฟฮฝ ฮฑแผฑ ฮฒฯฮฟฮฝฯ„ฮฑแฝถ ฮณฮตฮฝฮฝแฟถฯƒฮน, ฮฟแฝ ฮดฮตฮนฮบฮฝฯฮฟฯ…ฯƒฮน.

441

Trues and underbolts (Plu., Quaest. conv. 4.2, 1-2)

views when we are not able to ascertain the causes of inexplicable phenomena,

though these are to be sought by resorting to logic13 . On the other hand,

Agemachos is playing his role as a host, in that, as he says at the end of his

speech, his goal is to spur the discussion, as a polite way to have his guests

contribute their share to the delicacy they are being served14 , and thus ensure

the success of the banquet.

Finally, Plutarch himself enters the discussion. His position favors an

explanation reconciling the popular belief with more scientic views, but

nevertheless, as he remarks himself, it is closely connected with Agemachos'

speech15 . e latter had in fact hinted at the fertilizing power attributed

by farmers to rain accompanied by thunderstorms16 . It should not escape

us, however, that Agemachos had simply referred to the farmers' empirical

recognition of the fact, whereas Plutarch endeavors to give it a scientic

foundation.

e way he does so is of the highest interest. He starts by stating that

the fertilizing power of thunderstorm rain is due to the presence of heat in

the rain-water17 . He goes immediately on to say, however, that the purest and

most violent portion of the re present in the rain clouds is released in the

form of lightning, whereas the heavier and steamier portion warms up the

cloud18 . What we should emphasize here is the fact that Plutarch presents

thunder and lightning as mere signs of the appearance of trues, not as agents

in any way. It is in fact the fertilizing heat produced in thunderstorm rain by

the heavier particles of re remaining in the clouds that is responsible for the

growth of trues, whereas lightning is merely the re which is immediately

released, and has no role in the process. e latter, however, can only take

place when particles of re are present in the clouds, and is therefore regularly

accompanied by thunder and lightning.

Plutarch continues his speech by stressing the paradoxical nature of the

true, with remarks paralleled in other writers. Trues are a sort of disease

of the earth in the form of sickly outgrowths19 ; they have no roots20; they

cannot be born without water21 . e latter is of course a common observation

13 Cf. Plu., Quaest. conv. 5.7,1, 680CD; also Conv. sept. sap. 20, 163D.

14 Plu., Quaest. conv. 4.2,1, 664D ฯ„ฮฑแฟฆฯ„ฮฑ…แผ€ฮดฮฟฮปฮตฯƒฯ‡แฟถ ฯ€ฮฑฯฮฑฮบฮฑฮปแฟถฮฝ แฝ‘ฮผแพถฯ‚ แผฯ€แฝถ ฯ„แฝดฮฝ ฮถฮฎฯ„ฮทฯƒฮนฮฝ ฯ„แฟ†ฯ‚

ฮฑแผฐฯ„ฮฏฮฑฯ‚, แผตฮฝฮฑ ฮผแฝด ฯ€ฮนฮบฯแฝธฯ‚ ฮณฮญฮฝฯ‰ฮผฮฑฮน ฯƒฯ…ฮผฮฒฮฟฮปแฝฐฯ‚ ฯ„แฟถฮฝ แฝ•ฮดฮฝฯ‰ฮฝ ฯ€ฯฮฑฯƒฯƒฯŒฮผฮตฮฝฮฟฯ‚.

15 Plu., Quaest. conv. 4.2,2, 664D ฮฑแฝฯ„แฝธฮฝ ฮฟแฝ–ฮฝ แผ”ฯ†ฮทฮฝ ฯ„ฯฯŒฯ€ฮฟฮฝ ฯ„ฮนฮฝแฝฐ ฯ„แฟท ฮปฯŒฮณแฟณ ฮดฮตฮพฮนแฝฐฮฝ แฝ€ฯฮญฮณฮตฮนฮฝ ฯ„แฝธฮฝ

แผˆฮณฮญฮผฮฑฯ‡ฮฟฮฝ.

16 Plu.,Quaes.conv. 4.2,1, 664D ฯ„แฝฐ ฮด' แผ€ฯƒฯ„ฯฮฑฯ€ฮฑแฟ–ฮฑ ฯ„แฟถฮฝ แฝ‘ฮดฮฌฯ„ฯ‰ฮฝ ฮตแฝฮฑฮปฮดแฟ† ฮบฮฑฮปฮฟแฟฆฯƒฮนฮฝ ฮฟแผฑ ฮณฮตฯ‰ฯฮณฮฟแฝถ

ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮฝฮฟฮผฮฏฮถฮฟฯ…ฯƒฮนฮฝ.

17 Plu.,Quaest. conv. 4.2,2, 664D ฮฑแผฐฯ„ฮฏฮฑ ฮด' แผก ฯ„แฟ†ฯ‚ ฮธฮตฯฮผฯŒฯ„ฮทฯ„ฮฟฯ‚ แผ€ฮฝฮฌฮผฮนฮพฮนฯ‚.

18 Plu., Quaest. conv. 4.2,2, 664DE ฯ„แฝธ ฮผแฝฒฮฝ ฮณแฝฐฯ แฝ€ฮพแฝบ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮบฮฑฮธฮฑฯแฝธฮฝ ฯ„ฮฟแฟฆ ฯ€ฯ…ฯแฝธฯ‚ แผ„ฯ€ฮตฮนฯƒฮนฮฝ แผ€ฯƒฯ„ฯฮฑฯ€แฝด

ฮณฮตฮฝฯŒฮผฮตฮฝฮฟฯ‚, ฯ„แฝธ ฮด' แผฮผฮฒฯฮนฮธแฝฒฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ€ฮฝฮตฯ…ฮผฮฑฯ„แฟถฮดฮตฯ‚ แผฮฝฮตฮนฮปฮฟฯฮผฮตฮฝฮฟฮฝ ฯ„แฟท ฮฝฮญฯ†ฮตฮน ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯƒฯ…ฮผฮผฮตฯ„ฮฑฮฒฮฌฮปฮปฮฟฮฝ

แผฮพฮฑฮนฯฮตแฟ– ฯ„แฝดฮฝ ฯˆฯ…ฯ‡ฯฯŒฯ„ฮทฯ„ฮฑ.

19 Plu., Quaest. conv. 4.2,2, 664F; 665A ฯ„แฟ†ฯ‚ ฮณแฟ†ฯ‚ ... ฯ€ฮฑฮธฮฟฯฯƒฮทฯ‚ ฯ„ฮน ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮผฮตฯ„ฮฑฮฒฮฑฮปฮปฮฟฯฯƒฮทฯ‚ . Cf .

Plin., Nat. 19.34 vitium… terrae; 19.33 terrae callum.

20 Plu., Quaest. conv. 4.2.2, 665A แผ„ฯฯฮนฮถฮฟฮฝ; cf. Plin., Nat.19.33. According to Dsc. 2.145, by

contrast, the true itself is a root.

21 Plu., Quaest. conv. 4.2,2, 664F ฮฟแฝฮด' แผ„ฮฝฮตฯ… แฝ•ฮดฮฑฯ„ฮฟฯ‚ แผ”ฯ‡ฮตฮน ฯ„แฝดฮฝ ฮณฮญฮฝฮตฯƒฮนฮฝ; cf. phr., Fr.400A (=

referring to all mushrooms22, and eophrastus and Pliny emphasize this detail

in connection with trues by coupling rain and thunder as their producing

factors23 . For this reason several scholars have maintained that the horti tuber

created by water (quod creavit unda) in a poem in Petronius' Satyrica 24 should

be taken to refer to a true. e word tuber does refer very often to the true

in Latin, in particular when it is accompanied by the genitive terrae. e

Italian word for true, "tartufo", descends from a Latin rustic form, *territufer,

equivalent to the classic terrae tuber. But tuber can refer to other underground

bulbs and also to visible outgrowths as well. I have argued elsewhere25 that in

Petronius' poem, in which the tuber is actually created by water, it does not refer

to a true, but to a gourd, which, according to Gargilius Martialis, is nothing

but curdled water: aqua coagulata 26 .

Plutarch ends his speech with a further reference to Agemachos' words,

by emphasizing the godly and often inexplicable nature of the phenomena

connected with thunder and lightning, which his host, as we have seen, had

described as ฮดฮนฮฟฯƒฮทฮผฮฏฮฑฮน 27 .

If we now keep in mind that Plutarch's explanation makes provision both

for thunder and lightning as a sign of the phenomenon under discussion and

for the physical agency of the heat remaining in thunderstorm rain after the

purest particles of re have been released in the form of lightning, we may

conclude that his speech is a ne specimen of the general attempt – common

in Hellenistic and Roman times – to save popular beliefs through scientic,

philosophical, or allegorical interpretations.

Stoicism, for example, considered many forms of folkloric tradition to

reect the original, authentic imprint of the universal logos, which became

adulterated in later times and/or in social strata more exposed to the debasing

inuence of a civilization that increasingly moved away from nature and reason,

as the Stoics understood them. As far as language is concerned, for example,

even such a bitter opponent of archaism, at the literary level, as Seneca must

recognize that the most authentic form of expression is found either in ancient

authors or in turns of the spoken language handed down even among the

uneducated, independently of the mainstream cultural and literary tradition.

I have treated these matters in detail elsewhere, and there is no need to dwell

on them here28 .

Athen. 62B); Plin., Nat. 19.37.

22 Cf. e.g. Pl., St.773; Plin., Nat. 22.100.

23 Cf. above, note 6.

24 Petr. 109.10.3- 4 rotundo / horti tubere quod creavit unda.

25 A. S , 2006.

26 Garg. Mart. med. ex oler. et pom. 6, p. 140, 6-9 Rose = 6.1-3, p. 9 Maire veteres medici de

cucurbita ita senserunt, ut eam aquam dicerent coagulatam. Galenus umidae putat virtutis et frigidae,

idque ex eo probat quod in cibo sumpta... bibendi desideria non excitat.

27 Plu., Quaest. conv. 4.2, 2, 665A ฮดฮนแฝธ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮผฮฌฮปฮนฯƒฯ„ฮฑ ฯ„ฮฟแฟ–ฯ‚ ฯ€ฮฌฮธฮตฯƒฮน ฯ„ฮฟฯฯ„ฮฟฮนฯ‚ ฮดฯŒฮพฮฑ ฮธฮตฮนฯŒฯ„ฮทฯ„ฮฟฯ‚

ฯ€ฯฯŒฯƒฮตฯƒฯ„ฮน.

28 For the original closeness of language to reality and its gradual adulteration cf. A. S,

1988, pp. 25-32, 37-43; for Seneca's recognition of the closeness of ancient authors and popular

443

Trues and underbolts (Plu., Quaest. conv. 4.2, 1-2)

Another area of folkloric tradition in which the Stoics – or most of them

– recognized the original imprint of their all-pervading logos were the myths

concerning the gods, handed down from the remotest antiquity and transmitted,

though often adulterated, by poetry. is idea is easily recognizable in the

handbook bearing the title Summary of Greek eology written in the I century

A.D. by Annaeus Cornutus, who was probably a freedman of Seneca's brother

Annaeus Mela, though Seneca himself did not share his attitude.is matter too

has been analyzed in detail elsewhere, and needs only a brief reference here29 .

But the area in which the Stoics tried hardest to reconcile popular traditions

with their own philosophy was of course divination. is form of prediction of

the future was theoretically founded on the doctrine of ฯƒฯ…ฮผฯ€ฮฌฮธฮตฮนฮฑ, the mutual

connection and reciprocal inuence of all natural phenomena, stemming from

the basic ideas of ฯ€ฯฯŒฮฝฮฟฮนฮฑ ("providence") and ฮตแผฑฮผฮฑฯฮผฮญฮฝฮท ("fate", conceived as

an uninterrupted chain of causes), but the need to save the pre-philosophical

folkloric traditions connected with divination forced the Stoics to assume a link

between the facts traditionally considered as signs and the ensuing phenomena

considered to be announced by them – which restricted them to an empirical

observation admitting of no experimental test or rational ascertainment of causal

sequences. Already Zeno, and later Chrysippus and Posidonius, had to found

divination (ฮผฮฑฮฝฯ„ฮนฮบฮฎ) on empirical events or results (ฮดฮนฮฌ ฯ„ฮนฮฝฮฑฯ‚ แผฮบฮฒฮฌฯƒฮตฮนฯ‚ )30 .

In the orthodox Stoic conception there were of course no fortuitous

events: as Quintus, Cicero's brother, makes it clear in the latter's De divinatione,

man is reduced to the observation of signs only because he cannot grasp the

complete chain of the ฮตแผฑฮผฮฑฯฮผฮญฮฝฮท 31 . Reconciling this dogmatic position with

the empirical procedure just outlined was no easy task. Posidonius, however,

tried at least to shift the problem by allocating to divination the task to inquire,

if not the causes of an event, at least the signs of the causes32 . is brings us back

to Plutarch's explanation of the relationship linking trues and thunderbolts,

with the latter – as we have seen – playing the role of signs of the real cause;

but it also places us on a level dierent from divination, and rather belonging

to the realm of conjectural science. Posidonius, however, made a gallant, if ill-

fated, attempt to reconcile the latter with divination.

In Cicero's De divinatione 33 Quintus, at the beginning of his speech and

of the rst book, quotes no less than ve times his brother's Prognostica 34 , the

spoken language to reality and reason cf. A. S, 2000, pp. 228-31.

29 Cf., among the most recent scholarship, G. W. M, 1989; F. B, 2003; P. C,

2003; C. T, 2003; and the commentary of I. R, 2003. ese works, as well as several

others, have been discussed, and new approaches attempted, in A. S  , 2003-2004, pp.

341-67.

30 D. L. 7.149 (cf. SVF I 174; II 1191; Posid. F 7 + 27 E.-K.; 258; 371a .).

31 Cic., Div. 1.127; cf. 1.9 earum rerum quae fortuitae putantur.

32 Cic., Div. 1.127 etsi causas ipsas non cernunt, signa tamen causarum et notas cernunt.

33 I have treated the matter touched on here in A. S , 2005, also discussing, among

others, the interpretations given by A. S. P, 1973, S. T, 20016 , and J. K - T ,

2004.

34 Cic., Div. 1.13; 1.14; 1.15 (thrice).

translation in Latin hexameters of the nal part of Aratos' poem, dealing with

weather forecasts, that is with a conjectural science basing its predictions on

rational and reasonable deductions founded on signs physically homogeneous

with the results expected: meteorology; and medicine is also mentioned in

the same context35 . e sixth quotation, closely following upon the previous

ve, however, comes from a dierent poem by Cicero, the De consulatu,

and amounts to a shift from meteorological to divinatory signs: the omens

portending Catilina's conspiracy, as listed by the Muse Urania in a long

speech36 . Quintus can do so because he posits an anity between divination

and conjectural sciences, even though he recognizes them as dierent: age ea,

quae quamquam ex alio genere sunt, tamen divinationi sunt similiora, videamus37 .

At the end of the book and of Quintus' speech, though more conjectural arts

and sciences – namely politics, medicine again, navigation, and agriculture –

have been mentioned as distinct from divination38 , the dierence between the

two appears to be as good as obliterated; and it is exactly at this point that

Posidonius' name occurs39 .

In the following book, in which Cicero takes up the discussion in order

to explode the very idea of divination, he roundly denies the anity between

the latter and conjectural sciences posited by his brother: dissimile totum are

his peremptory words40 . Conjectural arts and sciences dier from divination in

that they are based on regular sequences between homogeneous phenomena,

rather than on relationships arbitrarily established or taken for granted

between disparate events linked by no rationally recognizable causal bonds, as

is the case with divination.

But though the evidence provided by Cicero's De divinatione clearly shows

that Posidonius did posit an anity between conjectural arts and sciences and

divination, an interesting testimony overlooked by both Edelstein-Kidd and

eiler41 enables us to sketch a more nuanced picture of his position. I am

referring to a chapter in Iamblichus' De mysteriis42 whose contacts with Cicero's

De divinatione are absolutely evident, down to close verbal parallels, while the

Posidonian imprint, and even such Stoic terms as ฯƒฯ…ฮผฯ€ฮฑฮธฮฎฯ‚ and ฯ€ฯฯŒฮฝฮฟฮนฮฑ ,

are still clearly recognizable beneath the radically dierent conception of

divination promoted by Iamblichus43 . We learn from this text that Posidonius

considered the conjectural arts and sciences (navigation and medicine are

mentioned) to provide conditional predictions based on signs that are

35 Cic., Div. 1.13.

36 Cic., Div. 1.17-22 (= de consul. fr. II Soubiran).

37 Cic., Div. 1.13.

38 Cic., Div. 1.111-112.

39 Cic., Div. 1.130. Cf. Posidon. F 110 E.-K.; 378 .

40 Cic., Div. 2.47. Here Posidonius is also mentioned, but in reference to his natural

researches, not to his theories on divination.

41 eiler does refer to this text (Iamb. Myst. 3.26) in his commentary (W. T, 1982,

pp. 297-9; cf. W. T, 1930, pp. 136-9), but does not include it in Posidonius' fragments.

42 Iamb. Myst. 3.26, pp. 135-6 Des Places.

43 Cf. note 33, A. S , 2005, pp. 256-8.

445

Trues and underbolts (Plu., Quaest. conv. 4.2, 1-2)

reasonable and probable, but not absolutely certain, whereas those oered by

divination possess unconditional validity; but we also nd the conrmation of

the anity posited between the former and the latter by Quintus in Cicero's

De divinatione44 .

It should not escape us that in this connection Posidonius includes in

the conjectural arts and sciences any insight drawn from natural phenomena

concerning any aspect of reality (ฮตแผด ฯ„ฮนฮฝฮฑ แผฮบ ฯ†ฯฯƒฮตฯ‰ฯ‚ แผฯ€ฮนฮฒฮฟฮปแฝดฮฝ ฮตแผฐฯ‚ ฯ„แฝฐ แฝ„ฮฝฯ„ฮฑ

ฯ€ฮฑฯฮตฮนฮปฮฎฯ†ฮฑฮผฮตฮฝ) – which perfectly ts the connection established by Plutarch

between lightning as perceptible sign and a phenomenon otherwise concealed:

the growth of trues, though these are actually produced by a dierent, if

related, cause. Shortly before45 Posidonius had proposed two dierent

explanations of the relationship established between the behavior of some

animals and impending meteorological changes: the rst posited a direct

consentaneity between these animals and parts or aspects of the cosmos as

a whole – ฯƒฯ…ฮผฯ€แฝฑฮธฮตฮนฮฑ in the most general sense; the second assumed that

they were endowed with a special sharpness of perception – in other words,

it appealed to a causal link that could be rationally grasped and to a physical

anity between the sign and the event, which could provide a reasonable

foundation for this type of meteorological lore. Plutarch's explanation of the

relationship between trues and thunderbolts, while refusing to discredit the

folkloric tradition, shows a similar eort to account for it in a rational and

reasonable way. He diers from Posidonius in that he does not aim to endorse

the popular belief as such, but rather to explain its origin. e meaning of the

title we have hinted at in the beginning is now absolutely clear: "Why trues

seem to be born through the agency of thunder". And of course Plutarch would

not, as the Stoics did, extend this attitude to all the traditional superstitions

connected with divination.

W o r k s c i T e d

B, F., "Anneo Cornuto nelle Saturae e nella Vita Persi", in I. G

& G. M (eds.), Gli Annei. Una famiglia nella storia e nella cultura

di Roma imperiale. Atti del Convegno Internazionale di Milano-Pavia

(2-6 Maggio, 2000), Como, 2003, pp. 185-210.

C, P., "Lucio Anneo Cornuto esegeta di Virgilio", in I. G &

G. M (eds.), Gli Annei. Una famiglia nella storia e nella cultura

di Roma imperiale. Atti del Convegno Internazionale di Milano-Pavia

(2-6 Maggio, 2000), Como, 2003, pp. 211-44.

K-T, J., Cicรฉron, De la divination, Paris, 2004.

44 Iamb. Myst. 3.26, p. 136 Des Places ฮฟแฝ ฮดฮตแฟ–, ฮตแผด ฯ„ฮนฮฝฮฑ แผฮบ ฯ†แฝปฯƒฮตฯ‰ฯ‚ แผฯ€ฮนฮฒฮฟฮปแฝดฮฝ ฮตแผฐฯ‚ ฯ„แฝฐ แฝ„ฮฝฯ„ฮฑ

ฯ€ฮฑฯฮตฮนฮปแฝตฯ†ฮฑฮผฮตฮฝ แผข ฯ„ฮฟแฟฆ ฮผแฝณฮปฮปฮฟฮฝฯ„ฮฟฯ‚ แผฯ€ฮฑฯ†แฝตฮฝ, แผฮณฮบฯแฝทฮฝฮตฮนฮฝ ฯ„ฮฑแฝปฯ„ฮทฮฝ แฝกฯ‚ ฮผฮฑฮฝฯ„ฮนฮบแฝดฮฝ ฯ€ฯแฝนฮณฮฝฯ‰ฯƒฮนฮฝ· แผ€ฮปฮป'

แฝฮผฮฟแฝทฮฑ ฮผแฝณฮฝ แผฯƒฯ„ฮน ฮผฮฑฮฝฯ„ฮนฮบแฟ‡. (cf. Cic., Div. 1.13, quoted above, in the text).

45 Iamb. Myst. 3.26, p. 136 Des Places.

446

Aldo Setaioli

M, G. W., "Cornutus and Stoic Allegoresis: A Preliminary Report",

ANRW, II 36, 6 (1989) 2014-65.

P, A. S., M. Tulli Ciceronis De divinatione libri duo, Darmstadt, 1973 (rst

published, 1920-1923).

R, I., Anneo Cornuto. Compendio di teologia greca (Testo greco a fronte,

saggio introduttivo e integrativo, traduz. e apparati), Milano, 2003.

R, O., "eophrastus", RE, Suppl. VII (1940) 1354-562.

S , A., Seneca e i Greci. Citazioni e traduzioni nelle opere losoche ,

Bologna, 1988.

____ Facundus Seneca. Aspetti della lingua e dell'ideologia senecana, Bologna,

2000.

____"Interpretazioni stoiche ed epicuree in Servio e la tradizione dell'esegesi

losoca del mito e dei poeti a Roma (Cornuto, Seneca, Filodemo)",

IJCT, 10 (2003-2004) 335-76; 11 (2004-2005) 3-46.

____"Le fragment II Soubiran du De consulatu de Cicรฉron, le De diuinatione

et leur lecture par Virgile", in J. K-T (ed.), Signe et prรฉdiction

dans l'antiquitรฉ. Actes du Colloque International de Crรฉteil et de Paris

(22-24 Mai, 2003), Saint-ร‰tienne, 2005, pp. 241-63.

____ "Vegetables and Bald Heads (Petr. Sat. 109.10.3-4)", Prometheus, 32

(2006) 233-44.

S, A., "Pilze", RE, 40 (1950) cols. 1372-86.

T, W., Die Vorbereitung des Neuplatonismus, Berlin, 1930.

____ Posidonius, Die Fragmente. II. Erlรคuterungen, Berlin/New York, 1982.

T, S., Marco Tullio Cicerone, Della divinazione, Milano, 20016 .

T, C., "Cornuto, Seneca, i poeti e gli dรจi", in I. G & G. M

(eds.), Gli Annei. Una famiglia nella storia e nella cultura di Roma imperiale.

Atti del Convegno Internazionale di Milano-Pavia (2-6 Maggio, 2000),

Como, 2003, pp. 167-84.

447

Astrometeorologรญa e inuencia lunar en las Quaestiones Convivales de Plutarco

as T r o m e T e o r o l o g รญ a e i n f l u e n c i a l u n a r

e n l a s Qu a e S T i o n e S co n v i v a l e S d e p l u T a r c o

A P J

Universidad de Mรกlaga

Abstract

Among the scarce references to ancient astrology in Plutarch's works, we must pay attention

to questions of astrometeorology. Such references, limited to the Sun and the Moon, concern

popular beliefs on the inuence of both stars on plants and animals. In this paper I analyse

some passages from the Quaestiones convivales where Plutarch echoes those beliefs concerning

the eects of the Moon and the Sun on the nature and physiology of the beings of this world.

Similar astrometeorological prescriptions are also found in astrological texts, such as lunaria

from late antiquity and the Middle Ages.

1

Aunque no hay datos seguros sobre la actitud particular de Plutarco frente

a la astrologรญa y la proporcionalmente escasa atenciรณn que presta en sus obras

conservadas apunta a que tenรญa especial interรฉs por ella, contamos con algunas

evidencias de que no era del todo ajeno a estas prรกcticas adivinatorias. Sin duda

los aciertos de algunos astrรณlogos famosos, sobre todo de aquellos vinculados

con las altas esferas de la sociedad romana, favoreciรณ en รฉl cierta curiosidad

respetuosa por sus mรฉtodos, que a veces incluso da pie a una sorpresiva

admiraciรณn ante sus resultados. ร‰sa es la razรณn y el tenor de la digresiรณn

de Plutarco en la Vida de Rรณmulo sobre Tarrucio, el amigo de Varrรณn, y su

determinaciรณn astrolรณgica de la fecha de la fundaciรณn de Roma; o, si es cierta

nuestra reciente propuesta de un fragmento de la Vida de Tiberio en Malalas1 ,

debiรณ atraerle la personalidad de Trasilo, el famoso astrรณlogo de Tiberio. Por otra

parte, en la noticia del encuentro de Sila con los caldeos y las predicciones de

รฉstos sobre su futuro hay curiosidad, pero no el escepticismo que esperarรญamos

de un platรณnico a propรณsito de esas predicciones2 . En otros casos, la actitud

negativa hacia la astrologรญa u otras creencias astrales ha de entenderse mรกs

como indignaciรณn del moralista polรญtico por el comportamiento irracional de

los grandes responsables de la historia (como el general de Sila Octavio o el

propio Nicias) ante estas supersticiones, que como un rechazo radical contra

los mรฉtodos de la que pudiรฉramos llamar "astrologรญa cientรญca"; o, como en

Crass. 29.4, para marcar algรบn rasgo del personaje; aquรญ se trata de Casio que

responde a los guรญas, cuando le aconsejan esperar antes de partir a Siria que la

luna abandone Escorpio, que mรกs teme a Sagitario. En algunos pasajes Plutarco

alude a dogmas o doctrinas propias de la astrologรญa, como la clasicaciรณn moral

de los planetas (De Iside 370D), la referencia a las exaltaciones y depresiones de

รฉstos y sus consecuencias astrolรณgicas (en Sept. sap. conv. 149A) o la referencia

1 A. P J, 2007/2008, pp. 91-8.

2 Sull. 5.5 y 37.6.

a la interpretaciรณn alegรณrica de la conjunciรณn Marte-Venus (en De poetis

audiendis 4.19E-F) sin que haya ningรบn posicionamiento especial por parte

del Queronense ante estas doctrinas (en el รบltimo caso su ironรญa va mรกs contra

el mรฉtodo, que contra el tipo de alegorรญa en cuestiรณn)3 .

Por otra parte, en cambio, en las obras de Plutarco se encuentran alusiones

a otras cuestiones no tan estrictamente astrolรณgicas, pero que conciernen a la

inuencia de los astros y evidencian la curiosidad entre cientรญca y complaciente

de Plutarco por los efectos astrometeorolรณgicos del sol y sobre todo de la luna

y su incidencia en los procesos fรญsicos, biolรณgicos e incluso psicolรณgicos de los

seres que habitan el mundo sublunar. Se trata de ese tipo de inuencias, entre

explicables y materia de supersticiรณn, que Tolomeo esgrimirรก en su Tetrabiblos

para defender la posibilidad cientรญca de la astrologรญa4 . Plutarco se interesa

por estas cuestiones, como hemos dicho siempre en relaciรณn con el Sol y la

Luna, en diversas obras; algunas son muy especializadas, de carรกcter cientรญco

o de historia de las ideas religiosas, como De facie in orbe Lunae y De Iside et

Osiride; pero en otras la explicaciรณn astrometeorolรณgica estรก al servicio de los

personajes de sus diรกlogos. Asรญ, en las Quaestiones Convivales, entre seriedad,

ironรญa y desenfado, Plutarco deja ver sus posiciones no del todo crรญticas sobre

supersticiones que รฉl mismo trata de integrar en el pensamiento cientรญco de

su รฉpoca; algunas de ellas cuentan ya con una tradiciรณn previa en los autores

de cuestiones naturales y otras sirven como material para distintas obras

plutarqueas, como el Comentario a los Trabajos y Dรญas, las Quaestiones Romanae

y las Quaestiones Naturales 5 .

2

En cuanto a las Quaestiones Convivales que ahora centran nuestra atenciรณn,

lamentablemente no se han conservado algunos diรกlogos donde, a juzgar por

los tรญtulos, se afrontaban problemas astronรณmicos (por ejemplo, la IX 10,

sobre la duraciรณn de los eclipses) o relacionados con el calendario y con sus

implicaciones astrolรณgicas (como la IV 7, sobre la semana planetaria).

Tan sรณlo en dos pasajes se mencionan con cierto detalle o se discuten

estos temas en clave de astrometeorologรญa; una es la cuestiรณn IV 5, donde, para

explicar por quรฉ los judรญos no comen cerdo, Calรญstrato recuerda las asociaciones

egipcias del topo con la luna y del leรณn con el sol; la otra es la cuestiรณn III 10,

en que el propio Plutarco se posiciona ante la evidente inuencia de la Luna

en nuestro mundo.

El tema de este diรกlogo es el de la putrefaciรณn de la carne a la luz de la

luna, planteado por Eutidemo de Sunion, antriรณn del banquete; conesa con

3 Para la compatibilidad de algunos conceptos astrolรณgicos con la curiosidad intelectual de

Plutarco, remito a mi artรญculo, 1992 y P. V C, 2005.

4 Ptol., Tetr. 1.2.

5 Por ejemplo, Quaest. nat. 24, 917F-918A, sobre la humedad que deja caer sobre la tierra la

luna como causa de que los cazadores encuentren con mayor dicultad las huellas cuando hay

plenilunio.

449

Astrometeorologรญa e inuencia lunar en las Quaestiones Convivales de Plutarco

jactancia a sus invitados que disponรญa de un jabalรญ mayor que el que ahora sirve

como mesa, pero que se echรณ a perder a causa de la luz de la luna. Este hecho

sirve para que los comensales, en particular el mรฉdico Mosquiรณn y Plutarco,

reexionen sobre los motivos de ese efecto producido por la luna. Mosquiรณn

lo atribuye al calor suave de nuestro satรฉlite, ya que "si es suave y tranquilo,

remueve las partes hรบmedas e impide (la conservaciรณn), mientras que si es

ardiente, ocurre lo contrario, que reseca las carnes"6 . Plutarco no comparte esta

explicaciรณn en su totalidad, pues en verano se pudren las carnes mรกs que en

invierno y el calor del sol es mรกs suave en รฉste que en aquรฉl. Por ello, la razรณn

no estรก en el grado del calor, sino en su cualidad, que sea seco o hรบmedo. La

constataciรณn de que la luz o el calor procedente de la luna son distintos de los

que vienen del sol (658E) y que esa diferencia estรก en su humedad, permitirรก a

Plutarco someter a los aparentes principios de la ciencia una serie de creencias

populares sobre la acciรณn lunar en la tierra cuyo fundamento pertenece al

รกmbito de la experiencia, la religiรณn y las supersticiones.

En primer lugar y segรบn leemos en los tratados mรฉdicos, poco sospechosos

de irracionalidad, la naturaleza hรบmeda de la luna explica efectos negativos y

positivos sobre la naturaleza humana.

Positiva es la relaciรณn que se establece entre el astro y la siologรญa femenina.

En el diรกlogo que comentamos, en concreto, Plutarco asume el efecto favorable

para los partos de la luna llena: "se dice que tambiรฉn ayuda a un buen parto,

cuando es llena, pues por la relajaciรณn de los lรญquidos hace mรกs suaves los

dolores"7 . La literatura losรณca y mรฉdica se hace eco tambiรฉn de esta inuencia,

que atribuye al principio de simpatรญa (relaciรณn de los procesos de crecimiento

y decrecimiento con las fases de la luna), o, como Plutarco en este pasaje, a la

naturaleza fรญsica del astro, que propicia la fecundidad8 ; nuestro exรฉgeta seรฑala

el reejo literario de esa creencia llevado de su curiosidad mรญtico-religiosa y

de su aciรณn a las etimologรญas. De modo que, para ilustrar con la literatura

los argumentos de la ciencia y de la razรณn, recurre a asociaciones simbรณlicas

complementarias y teolรณgicas, como la identicaciรณn de la Luna con Hera/

Juno, Lucina, que le hace ejercer las mismas funciones de estas diosas9 ( Quaest.

Rom. 282C: ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮฝฮฟฮผแฝทฮถฮฟฯ…ฯƒฮนฮฝ แผฮฝ ฯ„ฮฑแฟ–ฯ‚ ฮปฮฟฯ‡ฮตแฝทฮฑฮนฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ แฝ ฮดแฟ–ฯƒฮน ฮฒฮฟฮทฮธฮตแฟ–ฮฝ, แฝฅฯƒฯ€ฮตฯ ฮบฮฑแฝถ

ฯƒฮตฮปแฝตฮฝฮทฮฝ, ῾ฮดฮนแฝฐ ฮบฯ…แฝฑฮฝฮตฮฟฮฝ ฯ€แฝนฮปฮฟฮฝ แผ„ฯƒฯ„ฯฯ‰ฮฝ ฮดฮนแฝฑ ฯ„᾿ แฝ ฮบฯ…ฯ„แฝนฮบฮฟฮนฮฟ ฯƒฮตฮปแฝฑฮฝฮฑฯ‚·᾿ ฮตแฝฯ„ฮฟฮบฮตแฟ–ฮฝ

ฮณแฝฐฯ แผฮฝ ฯ„ฮฑแฟ–ฯ‚ ฯ€ฮฑฮฝฯƒฮตฮปแฝตฮฝฮฟฮนฯ‚ ฮผแฝฑฮปฮนฯƒฯ„ฮฑ ฮดฮฟฮบฮฟแฟฆฯƒฮน); o con รrtemis-Locheia e Ilitรญa:

แฝ…ฮธฮตฮฝ ฮฟแผถฮผฮฑฮน ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ„แฝดฮฝ ῎ฮ‘ฯฯ„ฮตฮผฮนฮฝ ฮ›ฮฟฯ‡ฮตแฝทฮฑฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮ•แผฐฮปฮตแฝทฮธฯ…ฮนฮฑฮฝ, ฮฟแฝฮบ ฮฟแฝ–ฯƒฮฑฮฝ แผ‘ฯ„แฝณฯฮฑฮฝ แผข

ฯ„แฝดฮฝ ฯƒฮตฮปแฝตฮฝฮทฮฝ, แฝ ฮฝฮฟฮผแฝฑฯƒฮธฮฑฮน. ฮคฮนฮผแฝนฮธฮตฮฟฯ‚ ฮด᾿แผ„ฮฝฯ„ฮนฮบฯแฝปฯ‚ ฯ†ฮทฯƒฮนฮฝ ῾ฮดฮนแฝฐ ฮบฯ…แฝฑฮฝฮตฮฟฮฝ ฯ€แฝนฮปฮฟฮฝ

แผ„ฯƒฯ„ฯฯ‰ฮฝ,/ ฮดฮนแฝฑ ฯ„᾿ แฝ ฮบฯ…ฯ„แฝนฮบฮฟฮนฮฟ ฯƒฮตฮปแฝฑฮฝฮฑฯ‚ (658F-659A)10 . En este sentido merece

6 Quaest. conv. 658B: ฮธฮตฯฮผฮฑฯƒฮฏฮฑฮฝ ฮดแฝฒ ฯ€แพถฯƒฮฑฮฝ, แผ‚ฮฝ ฮผแฝฒฮฝ แพ– ฮผฮฑฮปฮฑฮบแฝด ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ€ฯฮฑฮตแฟ–ฮฑ, ฮบฮนฮฝฮตแฟ–ฮฝ ฯ„แฝฐ แฝ‘ฮณฯแฝฐ ฮบฮฑแฝถ

† ฮบฯ‰ฮปฯฮตฮนฮฝ, แผ‚ฮฝ ฮด' แพ– ฯ€ฯ…ฯฯŽฮดฮทฯ‚, ฯ„ฮฟแฝฮฝฮฑฮฝฯ„ฮฏฮฟฮฝ แผ€ฯ€ฮนฯƒฯ‡ฮฝฮฑฮฏฮฝฮตฮนฮฝ ฯ„แฝฐฯ‚ ฯƒฮฌฯฮบฮฑฯ‚.

7 Quaest. conv. 658F: ฮปแฝณฮณฮตฯ„ฮฑฮน ฮดแฝฒ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ€ฯแฝธฯ‚ ฮตแฝฯ„ฮฟฮบแฝทฮฑฮฝ ฯƒฯ…ฮฝฮตฯฮณฮตแฟ–ฮฝ, แฝ…ฯ„ฮฑฮฝ แพ– ฮดฮนฯ‡แฝนฮผฮทฮฝฮฟฯ‚, แผ€ฮฝแฝณฯƒฮตฮน

ฯ„แฟถฮฝ แฝ‘ฮณฯแฟถฮฝ ฮผฮฑฮปฮฑฮบฯ‰ฯ„แฝณฯฮฑฯ‚ ฯ€ฮฑฯแฝณฯ‡ฮฟฯ…ฯƒฮฑ ฯ„แฝฐฯ‚ แฝ ฮดแฟ–ฮฝฮฑฯ‚.

8 La relaciรณn entre la luna y el embarazo y el parto cuenta con el aval en la literatura greco-

romana de autores como Aristรณteles, Crisipo, Ciceron, Varrรณn y Sรฉneca (para los textos, cf. C.

P, 1973, pp. 89-91).

9 Sobre el tema en la literatura romana, vรฉase S. L, 1979, pp. 167-74.

10 Tambiรฉn en Quaest. Rom. 282C, con la misma cita de Timoteo. Sobre la identicaciรณn

seรฑalarse el gusto de Plutarco por repetir (aquรญ, en De facie y en Quaest. nat.

24. 918A) el verso de Alcmรกn en que hace al rocรญo (῎ฮ•ฯฯƒฮฑ) hijo de Zeus y de

la divina Selene, una asociaciรณn que ฯ€ฮฑฮฝฯ„ฮฑฯ‡แฝนฮธฮตฮฝ ฮผฮฑฯฯ„ฯ…ฯฮตแฟ–ฯ„ฮฑฮน ฯ„แฝธ ฯ„แฟ†ฯ‚ ฯƒฮตฮปแฝตฮฝฮทฯ‚

ฯ†แฟถฯ‚ แผ€ฮฝฯ…ฮณฯฮฑฮฝฯ„ฮนฮบแฝดฮฝ <แผ”ฯ‡ฮฟฮฝ> ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮผฮฑฮปฮฑฮบฯ„ฮนฮบแฝดฮฝ ฮดแฝปฮฝฮฑฮผฮนฮฝ.

Constatamos con la curiosidad que suscita el gusto socrรกtico de Plutarco

por bajar al terreno de la vida cotidiana y aprovechar sus tรณpicos para acercar

sus argumentos a los contertulios, que, en los demรกs ejemplos de este diรกlogo,

Plutarco somete a razรณn actitudes supersticiosas ante la luna de diferentes

profesiones. En 658E se trata de las nodrizas. El texto, tal como lo han

transmitido los manuscritos (ฮดฮนแฝธ ฯ„แฝฐ ฮผแฝฒฮฝ ฮฝแฝตฯ€ฮนฮฑ ฯ€ฮฑฮฝฯ„แฝฑฯ€ฮฑฯƒฮนฮฝ ฮฑแผฑ ฯ„แฝทฯ„ฮธฮฑฮน ฮดฮตฮนฮบฮฝแฝปฮฝฮฑฮน

ฯ„แฝดฮฝ ฯƒฮตฮปแฝตฮฝฮทฮฝ ฯ†ฯ…ฮปแฝฑฯ„ฯ„ฮฟฮฝฯ„ฮฑฮน· ฯ€ฮปแฝตฯฮท ฮณแฝฐฯ แฝ‘ฮณฯแฝนฯ„ฮทฯ„ฮฟฯ‚ แฝ„ฮฝฯ„ฮฑ, ฮบฮฑฮธแฝฑฯ€ฮตฯ ฯ„แฝฐ ฯ‡ฮปฯ‰ฯแฝฐ

ฯ„แฟถฮฝ ฮพแฝปฮปฯ‰ฮฝ, ฯƒฯ€แพถฯ„ฮฑฮน ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮดฮนฮฑฯƒฯ„ฯแฝณฯ†ฮตฯ„ฮฑฮน), no se ha entendido por los editores que,

desde la ediciรณn de Basilea, corrigen el complemento ฯ„แฝดฮฝ ฯƒฮตฮปแฝตฮฝฮทฮฝ del verbo

ฮดฮตฮนฮบฮฝแฝปฮฝฮฑฮน. Esa ediciรณn, en efecto, lo hace aรฑadiendo delante del acusativo la

preposiciรณn ฯ€ฯแฝนฯ‚ (adiciรณn aceptada por Hubert, en la ediciรณn teubneriana),

mientras que Teodorsson en su comentario11 y Chirico en su ediciรณn del Corpus

Plutarchi Moralium12 preeren la correcciรณn de Turnebus ฯ„แฟ‡ ฯƒฮตฮปแฝตฮฝแฟƒ, menos

problemรกtica desde el punto de vista paleogrรกco. En cuanto al sentido, las dos

modicaciones coinciden en que las nodrizas evitan exponer los niรฑos a la luz

de la luna. En esa direcciรณn va tambiรฉn en parte – sรณlo en parte – la adaptaciรณn

del texto plutarqueo por Macrobio en Saturnalia 7.16, 24, donde dice asรญ:

hinc et nutrices pueros fellantes operimentis obtegunt, cum sub luna praeterunt, ne

plenos per aetatem naturalis umoris amplius lunare lumen umectet et sicut ligna

adhuc virore umida accepto calore curvantur, ita et illorum membra contorqueat

umoris adiecto.

Pero lo cierto es que el texto de Macrobio, en su primera parte, que es

la problemรกtica, tampoco sigue el que proponen los editores de Plutarco

con la literalidad acostumbrada en el resto de su adaptaciรณn. No vemos en รฉl

ningรบn verbo "indicare" (que traduzca ฮดฮตฮนฮบฮฝแฝปฮฝฮฑฮน) y aรฑade otros detalles que no

encontramos en Plutarco, como, por ejemplo, el adjetivo fellantes, o la actitud de

cubrir a los niรฑos para evitar que les llegue la luz de la luna, operimentis obtegunt,

o la precisiรณn del momento en que tiene lugar el riesgo de esa exposiciรณn, cum

sub luna praeterunt. Con estas alteraciones el texto de Macrobio no es nada

ambiguo y su sentido es el mismo que en el texto modicado de Plutarco,

si es que traducimos ฮดฮตฮนฮบฮฝแฝปฮฝฮฑฮน por "exponer"; pero este sentido del verbo

como rรฉgimen de la luna es mรกs extraรฑo que si lo fuera de personas, como, por

ejemplo, en otro pasaje de Plutarco (682B: แฝฅฯƒฯ„ฮต ฮผแฝด ฮดฮตฮนฮบฮฝแฝปฮฝฮฑฮน ฯ„แฝฐฯ‚ ฮณฯ…ฮฝฮฑแฟ–ฮบฮฑฯ‚

ฮฑแฝฯ„ฮฟแฟ–ฯ‚ ฯ„แฝฐ ฯ€ฮฑฮนฮดแฝทฮฑ ฮผฮทฮดแฝฒ ฯ€ฮฟฮปแฝบฮฝ แผแพถฮฝ ฯ‡ฯแฝนฮฝฮฟฮฝ แฝ‘ฯ€แฝธ ฯ„แฟถฮฝ ฯ„ฮฟฮนฮฟแฝปฯ„ฯ‰ฮฝ ฮบฮฑฯ„ฮฑฮฒฮปแฝณฯ€ฮตฯƒฮธฮฑฮน);

es fรกcil pensar que, aunque el texto de Plutarco presentara un acusativo, un

autor latino como Macrobio pudo por error o lapsus entenderlo como dativo;

รrtemis-Ilitรญa, vรฉase Fr. 157.5 (ฮ ฮตฯแฝถ ฯ„แฟถฮฝ แผฮฝ ฯ€ฮปฮฑฯ„ฮฑแฝทฮฑฮนฯ‚ ฮดฮฑฮนฮดแฝฑฮปฯ‰ฮฝ).

11 S.-T. T, 1989, pp. 386-7.

12 I. C, 2001, p. 192.

451

Astrometeorologรญa e inuencia lunar en las Quaestiones Convivales de Plutarco

y tambiรฉn que, para eliminar el carรกcter general de ese comportamiento de

las nodrizas, lo contextualizara, reriรฉndose a situaciones en que รฉstas debรญan

andar de noche con los niรฑos.

Pero, si mantenemos la lectura de T, cabe la posibilidad, y รฉsa es ahora

nuestra propuesta, de entender que Plutarco lo que hace es buscar una

explicaciรณn cientรญca para un gesto habitual y supersticioso de las nodrizas

del que, por desgracia, no hemos encontrado ejemplos paralelos en el mundo

antiguo, aunque sรญ en otros contextos culturales. Interpretando ฯ„แฝฐ ฮฝแฝตฯ€ฮนฮฑ como

sujeto de ฮดฮตฮนฮบฮฝแฝปฮฝฮฑฮน el sentido podrรญa ser que "las nodrizas no dejan de ningรบn

modo que los niรฑos seรฑalen la luna". En efecto, en algunos lugares se impide a

los niรฑos (o evitan los adultos) mirar o seรฑalar (con el dedo) la luna creciente y

la luna llena13 , bien porque ello trae mala suerte14, produce enfermedades de la

vista15 , o (en el caso de las mujeres embarazadas y los bebรฉs16) para evitar (por

el principio de simpatรญa imitativa) que los niรฑos tengan "cara de luna"; en otros,

el acto de seรฑalar con el dedo la luna es parte de rituales mรกgicos.

En cualquier caso, la explicaciรณn que da Plutarco es el efecto de la humedad

de la luz lunar que produce espasmos en los niรฑos por la disoluciรณn de sus

humores17 . El ejemplo se presenta como un hecho de experiencia popular

(avalado por el compor tamiento de las nodrizas), en los mismos tรฉrminos

en que ya se habรญa referido a ello antes Aristรณteles, que lo reere a la luna

llena18 . Fruto de la experiencia popular es de igual modo el conocimiento de

los efectos que produce la luz de la luna en quienes se quedan dormidos a la

intemperie por la noche: ฯ„ฮฟแฝบฯ‚ ฮดแฝฒ ฮบฮฑฯ„ฮฑฮบฮฟฮนฮผฮทฮธแฝณฮฝฯ„ฮฑฯ‚ แผฮฝ ฮฑแฝฮณแฟ‡ ฯƒฮตฮปแฝตฮฝฮทฯ‚ ฮผแฝนฮปฮนฯ‚

แผฮพฮฑฮฝฮนฯƒฯ„ฮฑฮผแฝณฮฝฮฟฯ…ฯ‚ ฮฟแผทฮฟฮฝ แผฮผฯ€ฮปแฝตฮบฯ„ฮฟฯ…ฯ‚ ฯ„ฮฑแฟ–ฯ‚ ฮฑแผฐฯƒฮธแฝตฯƒฮตฯƒฮน ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮฝฮฑฯฮบแฝฝฮดฮตฮนฯ‚ แฝฯแฟถฮผฮตฮฝ·

แผก ฮณแฝฐฯ แฝ‘ฮณฯแฝนฯ„ฮทฯ‚ แฝ‘ฯ€แฝธ ฯ„แฟ†ฯ‚ ฯƒฮตฮปแฝตฮฝฮทฯ‚ ฮดฮนฮฑฯ‡ฮตฮฟฮผแฝณฮฝฮท ฮฒฮฑฯแฝปฮฝฮตฮน ฯ„แฝฐ ฯƒแฝฝฮผฮฑฯ„ฮฑ (Quaest.

conv. 658F). Ese embotamiento de los sentidos, semejante al del vino, y los

espasmos que produce en las personas asรญ expuestas, se ha puesto en relaciรณn

y acertadamente con los procesos epilรฉpticos, frecuentes durante el sueรฑo19 .

13 Cf. H. B-S, "Finger", Handwรถrterbuch der deutschen Aberglauben (= HAD),

Berlin, 1927 (repr. 2000), II, col. 1483.

14 Cf. H. H, "BeiรŸen, BiรŸ", HDA, Berlin, 1927 (repr. 2000), I, col. 1020.

15 Cf. S. S, "Augenkrankheiten", HDA, Berlin, 1927 (repr. 2000), I, col. 715, y F.

E, "Branntwein", Idem, col. 1501.

16 De hecho, en Plin., Nat. 7,42, leemos que la luna es peligrosa para embarazadas y niรฑos.

Cf. B. K,"Kind", HDA, Berlin, 1927 (repr. 2000), IV, cols. 1318, 1320.

17 La tendencia a la disoluciรณn de los humores corporales por causa de la humedad de la luna

en los dos primeros cuartos, un principio que utilizarรก Plutarco en sus explicaciones relativas

a la carne y las plantas, se contempla tambiรฉn en los consejos de los astrรณlogos a propรณsito

de la inuencia de este astro. Asรญ lo vemos, por ejemplo, en el Fructus atribuido a Tolomeo,

cuya mรกxima 56 dice asรญ: แผ˜ฮฝ ฯ„แฟท ฯ€ฯแฝฝฯ„แฟณ ฯ„แฟ†ฯ‚ ฯƒฮตฮปแฝตฮฝฮทฯ‚ ฯ„ฮตฯ„ฯฮฑฮณแฝฝฮฝแฟณ แผฮบฯแฝณฮฟฯ…ฯƒฮนฮฝ ฮฟแผฑ แฝ‘ฮณฯแฝนฯ„ฮทฯ„ฮตฯ‚ ฯ„แฟถฮฝ

ฯƒฯ‰ฮผแฝฑฯ„ฯ‰ฮฝ ฮผแฝณฯ‡ฯฮน ฯ„ฮฟแฟฆ ฮดฮตฯ…ฯ„แฝณฯฮฟฯ…, แผฮฝ ฮดแฝฒ ฯ„ฮฟแฟ–ฯ‚ ฮปฮฟฮนฯ€ฮฟแฟ–ฯ‚ แผฮปฮฑฯ„ฯ„ฮฟแฟฆฮฝฯ„ฮฑฮน.

18 HA 7.12, 588a: ฮ•แผดฯ‰ฮธฮต ฮดแฝฒ ฯ„แฝฐ ฯ€ฮฑฮนฮดแฝทฮฑ ฯ„แฝฐ ฯ€ฮปฮตแฟ–ฯƒฯ„ฮฑ ฯƒฯ€ฮฑฯƒฮผฮฟแฝบฯ‚ แผฯ€ฮนฮปฮฑฮผฮฒแฝฑฮฝฮตฮนฮฝ, ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮผแพถฮปฮปฮฟฮฝ ฯ„แฝฐ

ฮตแฝฯ„ฯฮฑฯ†แฝณฯƒฯ„ฮตฯฮฑ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮณแฝฑฮปฮฑฮบฯ„ฮน ฯ‡ฯแฝฝฮผฮตฮฝฮฑ ฯ€ฮปฮตแฝทฮฟฮนฮฝ แผข ฯ€ฮฑฯ‡ฯ…ฯ„แฝณฯแฟณ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ„แฝทฯ„ฮธฮฑฮนฯ‚ ฮตแฝฯƒแฝฑฯฮบฮฟฮนฯ‚. … ฮšฮฑแฝถ แผฮฝ ฯ„ฮฑแฟ–ฯ‚

ฯ€ฮฑฮฝฯƒฮตฮปแฝตฮฝฮฟฮนฯ‚ ฮดแฝฒ ฮผแพถฮปฮปฮฟฮฝ ฯ€ฮฟฮฝฮฟแฟฆฯƒฮนฮฝ. ᾿ฮ•ฯ€ฮนฮบแฝทฮฝฮดฯ…ฮฝฮฟฮฝ ฮดแฝฒ ฮบฮฑแฝถ แฝ…ฯƒฮฟฮนฯ‚ ฯ„แฟถฮฝ ฯ€ฮฑฮนฮดแฝทฯ‰ฮฝ ฮฟแผฑ ฯƒฯ€ฮฑฯƒฮผฮฟแฝถ แผฮบ ฯ„ฮฟแฟฆ

ฮฝแฝฝฯ„ฮฟฯ… แผ„ฯฯ‡ฮฟฮฝฯ„ฮฑฮน. Cf. C. P, 1970, pp. 132-3.

19 Idem, pp. 387-8. Que la humedad embota los sentidos (vista y oรญdo) se dice en De def. orac.

432F. Sobre el efecto de pesadez producido en el alma por la humedad, cf. De ser. num. vind.

566A.

Pues bien, que la Luna causa la epilepsia era una idea generalizada en el

mundo antiguo y en concreto en los estratos populares, que defendรญan de esas

inuencias a los niรฑos con amuletos lunares. La supersticiรณn ha entrado en los

textos astrolรณgicos y mรฉdicos, que consideran efectivamente la epilepsia y los

procesos espasmรณdicos una mala inuencia de la luna20 .

La relaciรณn de la luna con los partos es otra creencia popular, arraigada por

la experiencia, que tiene que ver con la asociaciรณn entre la siologรญa femenina

(los ciclos menstruales) y el mes lunar y que se mantuvo en la literatura mรฉdica

hasta Sorano. La humedad como explicaciรณn para la procreaciรณn de varones

y hembras en el plenilunio que leemos en otros lugares21 y para el curso de

los embarazos y la facilidad en el parto22 , le viene a Plutarco sin duda de esos

รกmbitos cientรญcos y de la losofรญa. En el texto que comentamos, con una

terminologรญa muy prรณxima a la de los estoicos, estรก convencido de que la

humedad relaja los ujos de la mujer y hace los partos mรกs suaves. Como

aquรญ (ฮปแฝณฮณฮตฯ„ฮฑฮน ฮดแฝฒ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ€ฯแฝธฯ‚ ฮตแฝฯ„ฮฟฮบแฝทฮฑฮฝ ฯƒฯ…ฮฝฮตฯฮณฮตแฟ–ฮฝ) tambiรฉn en De facie 25 (939F)

atribuye a la luna todas aquellas inuencias que se deben a la humedad y no a

la sequedad, incluyendo entre ellas las ฮตแฝฯ„ฮฟฮบแฝทฮฑฮน ฮณฯ…ฮฝฮฑฮนฮบแฟถฮฝ. La identicaciรณn

de la luna con รrtemis Locheia y con Ilitรญa viene, pues, al caso; pero no debe

ser casual que tambiรฉn en este caso tengamos un eco del mismo tรณpico en De

facie, donde la identicaciรณn concreta sus funciones como integradora (Ilitรญa

= แผฃ ฯƒฯ…ฮฝฯ„แฝทฮธฮทฯƒฮน ) y disgregadora ( รrtemis = แผฃ ฮดฮนฮฑฮนฯฮตแฟ– ). A la simpatรญa imitativa

pertenece en cambio la relaciรณn que Calรญstrato establece en Quaest. conv. 4.5

(670B) entre el nacimiento del topo y la luna nueva y entre el decrecimiento

de su hรญgado y el menguante, un tema รฉste de la inuencia de la luna sobre los

animales que estaba presente en la paradoxografรญa y que no es ajeno a nuestro

autor, pues vuelve a รฉl en De Iside, siempre con referencia a los egipcios.

Por รบltimo, veamos los efectos sobre los seres inanimados. Aquรญ la

inuencia astrometeorolรณgica es doctrina mรกs asentada por la tradiciรณn

grecorromana. De hecho, es la relaciรณn entre la madera y la fase lunar en

que se corta la que sirve de fundamento para explicar el problema planteado

20 Cf. S.-T. T, 1989, p. 387, con citas de Retorio, Manetรณn, Galeno, Plauto.

Aรฑadimos Heph. Astrol., II 16.3 y el anรณnimo De planetarum patrociniis (CCAG , VII, p. 99:

ฯƒฮทฮผฮฑแฝทฮฝฮตฮน ฮดแฝฒ ฯ„แฝฐฯ‚ แผฯ€ฮนฮปฮทฯˆแฝทฮฑฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ„แฝฐ แฝ…ฮผฮฟฮนฮฑ ฯ€แฝฑฮธฮท). Vรฉase sobre los testimonios griegos C. P,

o.c., pp. 91-4, que apuesta por una vinculaciรณn entre la luna y la enfermedad a partir de la รฉpoca

helenรญstica, como consecuencia precisamente de la entrada de la astrologรญa. (p. 91). De ahรญ los

tรฉrminos ฯƒฮตฮปฮทฮฝฮนแฝฑฮถฮฟฮฝฯ„ฮตฯ‚ , lunatici para designar a los epilรฉpticos. Mรกs referencias en el artรญculo

del Pauly Wissowa, "Selene", col. 1139.

21 Fr. 105. El escoliasta hace verdaderos equilibrios para explicar por quรฉ el diecisรฉis es

bueno para engendrar varones y no hembras (Hesรญodo no habla de "engendrar", sino de "parir"),

cuando se dice que el viento del norte (seco) es bueno para engendrar varones, mientras que el

del sur (hรบmedo) lo es para las mujeres. Vide sobre la realidad de estas creencias en el mundo

griego, C. P, o. c., pp. 88-9 y en el romano, S. L, o. c., pp.76 sqq.

22 La humedad de la naturaleza de las mujeres, los niรฑos y los jรณvenes, frente a los hombres

y los viejos es algo asumido cientรญcamente por Plutarco. En Quaest. conv. 650C se explica por

ello la mayor facilidad de emborracharse los viejos (frio y seco) que las mujeres, cuya humedad

resta efecto al vino.

453

Astrometeorologรญa e inuencia lunar en las Quaestiones Convivales de Plutarco

por Eutidemo23. En efecto, como de nuevo en De facie donde se atribuyen a

la luna las ฮผฮฑฮปฮฑฮบแฝนฯ„ฮทฯ„ฮตฯ‚ ฮพแฝปฮปฯ‰ฮฝ , tambiรฉn aquรญ la humedad de su luz explica

que la madera se pudra si es cortada en creciente o plenilunio; un hecho

constatado ya por autores anteriores, como Teofrasto (H.P. 5.1, 3: ฮบฮตฮปฮตแฝปฮฟฯ…ฯƒฮน

ฮดแฝฒ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮดฮตฮดฯ…ฮบฯ…แฝทฮฑฯ‚ ฯ„แฟ†ฯ‚ ฯƒฮตฮปแฝตฮฝฮทฯ‚ ฯ„แฝณฮผฮฝฮตฮนฮฝ แฝกฯ‚ ฯƒฮบฮปฮทฯฮฟฯ„แฝณฯฯ‰ฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ แผ€ฯƒฮฑฯ€ฮตฯƒฯ„แฝณฯฯ‰ฮฝ

ฮณฮนฮฝฮฟฮผแฝณฮฝฯ‰ฮฝ. แผฯ€ฮตแฝถ ฮดแฝฒ ฮฑแผฑ ฯ€แฝณฯˆฮตฮนฯ‚ ฯ„แฟถฮฝ ฮบฮฑฯฯ€แฟถฮฝ ฯ€ฮฑฯฮฑฮปฮปแฝฑฯ„ฯ„ฮฟฯ…ฯƒฮน, ฮดแฟ†ฮปฮฟฮฝ แฝ…ฯ„ฮน ฮบฮฑแฝถ

ฮฑแผฑ แผ€ฮบฮผฮฑแฝถ ฯ€ฯแฝธฯ‚ ฯ„แฝดฮฝ ฯ„ฮฟฮผแฝดฮฝ ฯ€ฮฑฯฮฑฮปฮปแฝฑฯ„ฯ„ฮฟฯ…ฯƒฮนฮฝ), Catรณn (37.3) y Cicerรณn, que

extiende la prohibiciรณn a la luna menguante (De div. II 33-34)24 . Plutarco

se hace eco de estas opiniones tanto en el Comentario a los Dรญas 25 como en

Quaest. conv. donde ahora lo hace recurriendo a otro campo profesional, el

de los carpinteros, cuando habla de que รฉstos rechazan la madera cortada

bajo esas condiciones: ฮณแฝทฮฝฮตฯ„ฮฑฮน ฮดแฝฒ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ€ฮตฯแฝถ ฯ„แฝฐ แผ„ฯˆฯ…ฯ‡ฮฑ ฯ„แฟถฮฝ ฯƒฯ‰ฮผแฝฑฯ„ฯ‰ฮฝ แผฯ€แฝทฮดฮทฮปฮฟฯ‚

แผก ฯ„แฟ†ฯ‚ ฯƒฮตฮปแฝตฮฝฮทฯ‚ ฮดแฝปฮฝฮฑฮผฮนฯ‚· ฯ„แฟถฮฝ ฯ„ฮต ฮณแฝฐฯ ฮพแฝปฮปฯ‰ฮฝ ฯ„แฝฐ ฯ„ฮตฮผฮฝแฝนฮผฮตฮฝฮฑ ฯ„ฮฑแฟ–ฯ‚ ฯ€ฮฑฮฝฯƒฮตฮปแฝตฮฝฮฟฮนฯ‚

แผ€ฯ€ฮฟฮฒแฝฑฮปฮปฮฟฯ…ฯƒฮนฮฝ ฮฟแผฑ ฯ„แฝณฮบฯ„ฮฟฮฝฮตฯ‚ แฝกฯ‚ แผฯ€ฮฑฮปแฝฐ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮผฯ…ฮดแฟถฮฝฯ„ฮฑ ฯ„ฮฑฯ‡แฝณฯ‰ฯ‚ ฮดฮน᾿ แฝ‘ฮณฯแฝนฯ„ฮทฯ„ฮฑ,…

(659A). La creencia no es inusual en Plutarco, pues estaba muy arraigada

(y aรบn lo sigue estando) entre los campesinos. Columela coincide en esta

apreciaciรณn cuando dice que el menguante es el mejor momento para cortar la

madera destinada a la construcciรณn, asรญ como para otros usos y concreta como

รฉpoca mรกs recomendable los dรญas del veinte al treinta26 . Esta prescripciรณn se

ha incorporado a las listas de los lunarios de la antigรผedad tardรญa y de la Edad

Media. Asรญ en uno medieval, que debe mucho a Melampo, se prescribe que

el dรญa 15 (luna llena) no es bueno para cortar madera27 . Tambiรฉn la alusiรณn

al efecto de la luna en la harina (que al fermentar se hincha) es objeto de

una explicaciรณn cientรญca para otra creencia profesional (en este caso el de

los panaderos o pasteleros) posiblemente fundamentada en el principio de

simpatรญa imitativa (la masa del pan crece con la luna llena); de nuevo aquรญ se

atribuye el fenรณmeno a la humedad, que favorece la fermentaciรณn, entendida

23 Vรฉase, a propรณsito de este pasaje, A. C, 2005, pp. 67-74.

24 Vide S.-T. T, 1989, pp. 388-9. La inuencia negativa del plenilunio (o del

creciente segรบn Macrobio) en la madera tiene otros testimonios posteriores como Athen., 7,

276DE y Macr., Sat. 7.16.15-34, utilizados para claricar la comprensiรณn del texto plutarqueo

por A. C, a.c., pp. 70 sqq.

25 Fr. 61.

26 Ag r. XI, 2, 11 : Sed utraque melius unt luna decrescente ab vicesima usque in tricesimam,

quoniam omnis materia sic caesa iudicatur carie non infestari. Para otros testimonios (Plinio, Catรณn,

Varrรณn) en los que se recomienda cortar los รกrboles en fase menguante o nueva, vid. C. P,

o.c., pp. 131-2 y S. L, o.c., pp. 55-8. Cf. Plu., Fr. 109: แผก ฮณแฝฐฯ ฮฑแฝฯ„แฝด ฯ„แฟ†ฯ‚ แฝฅฯฮฑฯ‚ ฮตแฝ”ฮบฮฑฮนฯฮฟฯ‚

ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮผฮทฮฝแฝธฯ‚ แผก แผ‘ฯ€ฯ„ฮฑฮบฮฑฮนฮดฮตฮบแฝฑฯ„ฮท ฯ‡ฯแฝตฯƒฮนฮผฮฟฯ‚, แฝ…ฯ„ฮต ฯ„แฝธ ฮผแฝฒฮฝ ฯ†แฟถฯ‚ ฯ„แฟ†ฯ‚ ฯƒฮตฮปแฝตฮฝฮทฯ‚ ฯ€ฯแฝนฯƒฮธฮตฯƒฮนฮฝ ฮฟแฝฮบแฝณฯ„᾿ แผ”ฯ‡ฮตฮน

ฯ€ฮฑฮฝฯƒฮตฮปแฝตฮฝฮฟฯ… ฮณฮตฮณฮฟฮฝฯ…แฝทฮฑฯ‚, แผ”ฮฝฮนฮบฮผฮฑ ฮดแฝฒ ฯ€แฟถฯ‚ แผฯƒฯ„ฮน ฯ„แฝฐ ฮพแฝปฮปฮฑ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮดฮนแฝฐ แผฮปฮฑฯ„ฯ„แฝฝฯƒฮตฯ‰ฯ‚ ฯ„ฮฟแฟฆ ฯ†ฯ‰ฯ„แฝธฯ‚ แผฮปฮฑฯ„ฯ„ฮฟแฟฆฯ„ฮฑฮน

ฯ„แฝธ แฝ‘ฮณฯแฝธฮฝ แผ€ฯ†᾿ฮฟแฝ— ฯƒฯ…ฮผฮฒฮฑแฝทฮฝฮตฮนฮฝ ฮตแผดฯ‰ฮธฮตฮฝ แผก ฯƒแฟ†ฯˆฮนฯ‚. Que la humedad pudre la madera es evidente y se

expresa en muchos lugares: Quaest. conv. 636D (apariciรณn de gusanos por la pudredumbre de

la humedad).

27 CCAG, XI1 (1932), p. 141: ฮ‘แฝ•ฯ„ฮท แผก แผกฮผแฝณฯฮฑ ฮตแผฐฯ‚ ฯ€แฝฑฮฝฯ„ฮฑ ฯ€ฮฑฯฮฑฯ„ฮทฯแฝตฯƒฮนฮผฮฟฯ‚· ฮผแฝด... ฮพแฝปฮปฮฑ ฮบแฝนฯ€ฯ„ฮตฮนฮฝ,

ฮพแฝปฮปฮฑ ฮดแฝฒ แผฯ€ฮนฯ„แฝตฮดฮตฮนฮฑ ฯ€ฯแฝธฯ‚ ฮฟแผฐฮบแฝทฮฑฮฝ ฮผแฝด ฮธแฝณฯƒแฟƒฯ‚. El mismo dรญa en CCAG IV (1903), p. 143: แฝ ฮบแฝนฯ€ฯ„ฯ‰ฮฝ

ฮพแฝปฮปฮฑ ฮบฮนฮฝฮดฯ…ฮฝฮตแฝปฯƒฮตฮน. Como Columela, Plinio, NH 18.321, aconseja las labores de corte, entre

otras, en luna menguante: Omnia, quae caeduntur, carpuntur, tondentur, innocentius decrescente

luna quam crescente unt.

como putrefaciรณn de la harina28; por รบltimo, de la vida profesional de los

campesinos recoge la prescripciรณn de retirar el trigo de la era antes de que

vuelva a aparecer la creciente (659A); pues el grano que se retira durante

el plenilunio (แผ€ฮบฮผแฟ‡ ฯ„แฟ†ฯ‚ ฯƒฮตฮปแฝตฮฝฮทฯ‚) no se seca bien y se rompe durante la

molienda, como aclara Angelo Casanova29 .

Como vemos, Plutarco reduce al mismo principio explicativo, la humedad

que viene de la luna, supersticiones de distintos estratos sociales. Y, dado que

la luna nueva no tiene efectos humectantes, asรญ queda tambiรฉn justicada la

recomendaciรณn hesiรณdica de que se abra el vino cuando hay luna nueva30 ;

aunque, en este caso (y permรญtasenos la licencia de apartarnos del marco de

las Quaestiones Convivales) otra vez Plutarco hace extensivo su cรณdigo fรญsico

de explicaciones a una creencia popular que obedece a razones de otro tipo.

Sabemos, en efecto, que entre los campesinos se aconsejaba tener cuidado de

que, al abrir los cรกntaros de vino, no le llegara la luz, ni del sol ni de la luna, ya

que se podรญa agriar. Es por ese motivo y no por la humedad del plenilunio por

lo que se recomendaba abrirlos con luna nueva31 .

bi b l i o g r a f รญ a c i T a d a

B, J. & C, F., Les Mages hellรฉnisรฉs, II, Paris, 1973 (1ยช ed. 1938).

C, A., "Plutarco, Quaest. conv. III, 659A: gli inussi della luna", in

A. P J & F. T (eds.), Valori letterari delle Opere di

Plutarco. Studi oerti al Professore Italo Gallo, Mรกlaga - Logan, 2005, pp.

67-74.

C, I., Plutarco. Conversazioni a tavola. Libro terzo, Napoli, 2001.

L, S., Recherches sur la Lune, Leiden, 1979.

P J, A., "Trasilo y Tiberio. ¿Un fragmento de la Vita Tiberii de

Plutarco?", Ploutarchos, n.s., 5 (2007/2008) 91-8.

_____ "Alle frontiere della scienza. Plutarco e l'astrologia", in I. G (ed.),

Plutarco e le scienze, Genova, 1992, pp. 297-309.

28 Quaest. conv. 659D: ฮปแฝณฮณฮฟฯ…ฯƒฮน ฮดแฝฒ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ„แผ„ฮปฮตฯ…ฯฮฟฮฝ แผฮฝ ฯ„ฮฑแฟ–ฯ‚ ฯ€ฮฑฮฝฯƒฮตฮปแฝตฮฝฮฟฮนฯ‚ ฮถฯ…ฮผฮฟแฟฆฯƒฮธฮฑฮน ฮฒแฝณฮปฯ„ฮนฮฟฮฝ·

แผก ฮณแฝฐฯ ฮถแฝปฮผฯ‰ฯƒฮนฯ‚ แฝ€ฮปแฝทฮณฮฟฮฝ แผ€ฯ€ฮฟฮดฮตแฟ– ฯƒแฟ†ฯˆฮนฯ‚ ฮตแผถฮฝฮฑฮน· ฮบแผ‚ฮฝ แผ€ฯ€ฮฟฮฒแฝฑฮปแฟƒ ฯ„แฝธ ฮผแฝณฯ„ฯฮฟฮฝ, แผฯ€แฝถ ฯ„แฝดฮฝ ฮฑแฝฯ„แฝดฮฝ ฯ†ฮธฮฟฯแฝฐฮฝ

แผ€ฯฮฑฮนฮฟแฟฆฯƒฮฑ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮปฮตฯ€ฯ„แฝปฮฝฮฟฯ…ฯƒฮฑ ฯ„แฝธ ฯ†แฝปฯฮฑฮผฮฑ ฯ€ฯฮฟแฝตฮณฮฑฮณฮตฮฝ.

29 A. c., pp. 72-3.

30 Fr. 111: ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ„แฝธ ฯ€ฮตฯแฝถ ฯ„แฝดฮฝ แผ„ฮฝฮฟฮนฮพฮนฮฝ ฮดแฝฒ ฯ„ฮฟแฟฆ ฯ€แฝทฮธฮฟฯ… ฯ†ฯ…ฯƒฮนฮบแฟถฯ‚ ฮตแผดฯฮทฮบฮต. ฮœแฝฑฮปฮนฯƒฯ„ฮฑ ฮณแฝฑฯ ฯ†ฮฑฯƒฮน ฯ€ฮตฯแฝถ ฯ„แฝฐฯ‚

ฯ€ฮฑฮฝฯƒฮตฮปแฝตฮฝฮฟฯ…ฯ‚ แผฮพแฝทฯƒฯ„ฮฑฯƒฮธฮฑฮน ฯ„แฝธฮฝ ฮฟแผถฮฝฮฟฮฝ ฮดฮนแฝฐ ฯ„แฝดฮฝ แผ€ฯ€แฝธ ฯ„แฟ†ฯ‚ ฯƒฮตฮปแฝตฮฝฮทฯ‚ แฝ‘ฮณฯแฝฐฮฝ ฮธแฝณฯฮผฮทฮฝ, แฝฅฯƒฯ„᾿ ฮตแผฐฮบแฝนฯ„ฯ‰ฯ‚ แฝ…ฯ„ฮฑฮฝ

แผฅฮบฮนฯƒฯ„ฮฑ ฯ„ฮฟแฟฆฯ„ฮฟ ฯ€ฯฮฟฮฒแฝฑฮปแฟƒ ฮบฮตฮปฮตแฝปฮตฮน ฯ„แฝธฮฝ ฯ€แฝทฮธฮฟฮฝ แผ€ฮฝฮฟแฝทฮณฮตฮนฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ„ฮฟแฟฆ ฮฟแผดฮฝฮฟฯ… ฯ€ฮตแฟ–ฯฮฑฮฝ ฮปฮฑฮผฮฒแฝฑฮฝฮตฮนฮฝ.

31 Geop.7.5, recomendaciรณn atribuida a Zoroastro (cf. J. B  F. C, 1973 (1ยช ed.

1938), p. 189 y C. P, o.c. l, p. 102): ฮงฯแฝด แผ€ฮฝฮฟแฝทฮณฮตฮนฮฝ ฯ„ฮฟแฝบฯ‚ ฯ€แฝทฮธฮฟฯ…ฯ‚, ฯ€ฮฑฯฮฑฯ†ฯ… ฮปฮฑฯ„ฯ„ฮฟ ฮผแฝณ ฮฝฮฟฯ…ฯ‚ ฯ„แฝดฮฝ

ฯ„แฟถฮฝ แผ„ฯƒฯ„ฯฯ‰ฮฝ แผฯ€ฮนฯ„ฮฟฮปแฝตฮฝ· ฯ„แฝนฯ„ฮต ฮณแฝฐฯ ฮบแฝทฮฝฮทฯƒฮนฯ‚ ฮณแฝทฮฝฮตฯ„ฮฑฮน ฯ„ฮฟแฟฆ ฮฟแผดฮฝฮฟฯ…, ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮฟแฝ ฯ‡ฯแฝด ฯ„แฝธฮฝ ฮฟแผถฮฝฮฟฮฝ ฯˆฮทฮปฮฑฯแพถฮฝ. …3

ฮตแผฐ ฮดแฝฒ แผฮฝ ฮฝฯ…ฮบฯ„แฝท, ฯ„แฟ†ฯ‚ ฯ‡ฯฮตแฝทฮฑฯ‚ ฯ€ฮฟฮปฮปแฝฑฮบฮนฯ‚ ฮบฮฑฮปฮฟแฝปฯƒฮทฯ‚, แผ€ฮฝฮฟแฝทฮณฮตฮนฮฝ ฮผแฝณฮปฮปฮตฮนฯ‚ ฯ„แฝธฮฝ ฯ€แฝทฮธฮฟฮฝ, แผฯ€ฮนฯƒฮบฮฟฯ€ฮตแฟ–ฮฝ ฯ‡ฯแฝด ฯ„แฟท

ฯ†ฯ‰ฯ„แฝถ ฯ„แฟ†ฯ‚ ฯƒฮตฮปแฝตฮฝฮทฯ‚.

455

Astrometeorologรญa e inuencia lunar en las Quaestiones Convivales de Plutarco

P, C., La Lune dans la pensรฉe grecque, Bruxelles, 1973.

T, S.-T., A Commentary on Plutarch's Table Talks , I, Gรถteborg,

1989.

V C, P., "Gli animali dello Zodiaco nell'opera di Plutarco", in J.

B (ed.), Les Grecs de l'Antiquitรฉ et les animaux. Le cas remarquable

de Plutarque, Lille, 2005, pp. 189-96.

S 6

Convivium Septem Sapientium

459

El Banquete de los Siete Sabios de Plutarco y los temas de sabidurรญa prรกctica

el ba n Q u e T e D e l o S Si e T e Sa b i o S d e pl u T a r c o

y l o s T e m a s d e s a b i d u r รญ a p r รก c T i c a 1

J V T

Universidad de Zaragoza

Abstract

e aim of this article is to study why Plutarch makes use of the literary tradition of symposia to

place the legend of the Seven Sages. Instead of that we should expect, given the hold of Plato

over his work, Plutarch relegates philosophical argument to a type of dialogue focusing on

aspects of practical wisdom. In our opinion, the explanation of this apparent contrast must be

analyzed from a double and complementary perspective: rst, by considering the protagonists of

that ctitious meeting, the Seven Wise Men, the paradigm of archaic wisdom, which combined

both practical and intellectual learning; second, as a result, the suitability of form and content to

a symposiac framework deeply rooted in the literary tradition, just as it is attested by the early

patterns of the fourth century BC: Xenophon and Plato.

1. Plutarco sitรบa la leyenda de los Siete Sabios dentro de la tradiciรณn de

Banquetes2 . Sin embargo, en contra lo que cabrรญa esperar, dado el ascendiente

del maestro Platรณn sobre el de Queronea3 , en dicho encuentro legendario

nuestro autor subordina la argumentaciรณn losรณca a un tipo de diรกlogo en el

que predomina la atenciรณn a aspectos de sabidurรญa prรกctica4 . En efecto, aunque

se enmarca dentro del gรฉnero literario del symposion 5 , el contenido de la obra

parece acercarse mรกs a la colecciรณn de saberes y conocimientos de la versiรณn

de Jenofonte o de los Deipnosostas de Ateneo, que a la discusiรณn losรณca

de Platรณn6 . Ello, unido a otras particularidades de la obra, como que la lista

de los Sabios no se corresponda con la del diรกlogo Sobre la E de Delfos, llevรณ a

la crรญtica dieciochesca y decimonรณnica a dudar de su adscripciรณn a Plutarco,

liaciรณn generalmente admitida desde la auctoritas de Wilamowitz7 . Y es que,

1 La realizaciรณn de este trabajo ha tenido lugar en el marco del Proyecto de Investigaciรณn

HUM 2007-64772, auspiciado por la Direcciรณn General de Investigaciรณn (Ministerio de

Educaciรณn).

2 Al respecto, fueron canรณnicos los trabajos de U. von W, 1890, G. H, 1893,

en particular, pp. 4-24, y el mรกs reciente B. S, 1966, pp. 115-8.

3 Sin embargo, para J. M, 1997, p. 121, "Given such Platonic authority, it is hardly

surprising that Plutarch decided to attempt a variation on the theme, and the result is the

Dinner of the Seven Wise Men".

4 Como se desprende, en particular, de su comparaciรณn con las Quaestiones Convivales (para

J. M, 1997, p. 120, junto a Ateneo, ejemplos de "prescriptive symposion literature"). Mas,

con F. R A, 1996, p. 137, las vemos mรกs prรณximas a los Problรฉmata syssytikรก de

Aristรณteles y no en relaciรณn directa con los Banquetes, pues carecen de una "intenciรณn dramรกtica".

Como indica Gallardo, 1972, p. 188, en nuestra pieza asistimos a un tipo literario muy afรญn al

clรกsico. Para mรกs informaciรณn vid. S.-T. T, 1996, en particular, pp. 39-47, y la revisiรณn

plutarquea de E. S   T, 2005.

5 Al respecto, cf. C. M O & J. G L, 1986, p. 209 sqq., con referencias

a las propuestas de J. D, 1985, pp. 7-35, y D. E. A, 1972, pp. 51-60.

6 Sobre esta cuestiรณn vid. nuestra revisiรณn en J. V T, 2007, pp. 29-47.

7 U. von W, 1890, 196-7. Sobre la autorรญa vรฉase la revisiรณn de C. M O

como ya pudimos apreciar en el anterior Simposio plutarqueo8 en la synkrisis

del tratamiento de la gura de Solรณn en el Bios y en el Banquete, el tipo de

forma y contenidos literarios escogido por el de Queronea determinan el uso

de la tradiciรณn9 .

En nuestra opiniรณn, la explicaciรณn a este aparente contraste ha de

buscarse desde una perspectiva complementaria: los propios protagonistas del

cticio encuentro, los Siete Sabios, paradigma del ideal arcaico de sabidurรญa,

que combina sabidurรญa prรกctica e intelectual10 ; en segundo lugar, y como

consecuencia, la adecuaciรณn de contenido y forma a un marco simposiaco de

honda raigambre en la tradiciรณn literaria11 .

2. En la misma lรญnea apuntada sobre las dudas de la autenticidad, se ha

insistido en las dicultades estructurales de interpretaciรณn de la pieza12 , las

& J. G L, 1986, pp. 210-2.

8 Cf. J. V T, 2008, pp. 501-14.

9 Para M.-L. P, 1956, p. 409, Plutarco "sembri considerare il lato pratico ed operante

della sapienza dei Savi. Ciรฒ รจ indizio dell'uso di una fonte peripatetica", que podrรญa ser Dicearco,

quien en su ฮ’ฮฏฮฟฮน ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฟฯƒฯŒฯ†ฯ‰ฮฝ habrรญa jado el perl de los Sabios como expertos en la prรกctica

polรญtica (segรบn la informaciรณn de D. L. I 40, Dicearco deniรณ a los sabios no como sofoรญ ni

lรณsofoi sino synetoรญ y nomothetikoรญ). Mรกs adelante (pp. 410-1), aรฑade la impronta de Hermipo y

su ฮ ฮตฯแฝถ ฯ„แฟถฮฝ ฯƒฮฟฯ†แฟถฮฝ en la elaboraciรณn de material didรกctico con nes retรณricos. En la misma lรญnea

se pronuncia G. J. D. A, 1977, p. 28: "Plutarch will have known (a substantial part of)

this literature; he will also have been inuenced by it, and have made use of it, when he decide

to describe a simposium of the Seven Wise Men".

10 Asรญ, R. P. M, 1993, p. 119, dene a los Sabios como "practical men, political advisers

or tyrants", y A. B, 2002, p. 94, cataloga el opรบsculo como "une sorte d'apologie de la

sagesse grecque".

11 En efecto, aunque ya en el siglo V a.C. tenemos referencias a travรฉs de los sostas (Critias F 4

D elogia el simposio espartano), el gรฉnero simposiaco como tal conoce los primeros antecedentes

en el siglo IV. No cabe duda de la inuencia de Platรณn (cf. J. M, 1997, p. 120: "a very well-

established genre, dominated by Plato's Symposium"). Sin embargo, el testimonio de Jenofonte

resulta aquรญ imprescindible para comprender la adaptaciรณn de una amplia tradiciรณn de dichos

en nuevas formas conversacionales en el รกmbito de la prosa de instrucciรณn: en Memorables (cf.

V. J . G, 1998, pp. 159-77, cap. IX, "e tradition of instructional literature"), en la tradiciรณn

de anรฉcdotas de hombres sabios del Hierรณn ( V. J. G, 1986, p. 115 sqq.), con Simรณnides como

el primero de ellos, y en el Banquete de corte socrรกtico, obra que tiene su origen, en palabras de

V. J. G, 1992, p. 74, "as a literary genre in the adaptation, development and transformation

of a wider collection of stories about what the wise men of old said and did at their symposia".

En este sentido, D. L. G, 1993, pp. 132-91, estudiando "e Symposia of the Cyropaedia",

demuestra el perfecto conocimiento del autor del marco literario simposiaco, adaptado al mundo

persa (vid., asimismo, M.-P. N, 2006, p. 144). No sorprende, por tanto, como apreciara G. J.

D. A, 1977, p. 32 y 1982, p. 62, la familiaridad de Plutarco con el Banquete de Jenofonte

(cf. Praec. 823).

12 Asรญ, por ejemplo, J. M, 1997, p. 122, atribuye su diversidad al carรกcter conversacional:

"the structure is very delicately hinged together and takes some time to perceive". Sin embargo,

ya J. D, 1985, p. 178, observaba que "tout le plan du Banquet rรฉpond au schรฉma suivi

par Platon: le prรฉambule dramatique, la premiรจre partie morcelรฉe en un dialogue fait de courtes

rรฉpliques, la seconde partie, constituรฉe d'exposรฉs plus substantiels, cette conclusion abrupte

enn, qui donne l'impression que bien des questions restent en suspens et que l'auteur fuit

devant une conclusion". Sugerente, tambiรฉn, resulta la idea de F. R A, 1996,

p. 129, quien observa una estructura en anillo delimitada por la tradiciรณn antitirรกnica expuesta

por Tales del comienzo y la intervenciรณn nal de Anacarsis desplazando a Periandro por haber

461

El Banquete de los Siete Sabios de Plutarco y los temas de sabidurรญa prรกctica

cuales, en nuestra opiniรณn, no resuelve la propuesta de Aune13, con frecuencia

citada. Asรญ, el diรกlogo, siguiendo en ello el modelo platรณnico, comienza

sรบbitamente, en medio de una conversaciรณn entre Diocles y Nicarco14 . Un

diรกlogo epistolar que nos avisa de un carรกcter pedagรณgico-moralizante15

imprescindible para la comprensiรณn de la obra, en el que Plutarco, a travรฉs

de Diocles, adopta, desde el principio, como el viejo y sabio maestro, el papel

de intermediario entre los sabios y su propio discรญpulo Nicarco16 : "แผฯ€ฮตแฝถ ฯƒฯ‡ฮฟฮปฮฎ

ฯ„ฮต ฯ€ฮฌฯฮตฯƒฯ„ฮน ฯ€ฮฟฮปฮปแฝด ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ„แฝธ ฮณแฟ†ฯฮฑฯ‚ ฮฟแฝฮบ แผ€ฮพฮนฯŒฯ€ฮนฯƒฯ„ฮฟฮฝ แผฮณฮณฯ…ฮฎฯƒฮฑฯƒฮธฮฑฮน ฯ„แฝดฮฝ แผ€ฮฝฮฑฮฒฮฟฮปแฝดฮฝ

ฯ„ฮฟแฟฆ ฮปฯŒฮณฮฟฯ…, ฯ€ฯฮฟฮธฯ…ฮผฮฟฯ…ฮผฮญฮฝฮฟฮนฯ‚ แฝ‘ฮผแฟ–ฮฝ แผ€ฯ€' แผ€ฯฯ‡แฟ†ฯ‚ แผ…ฯ€ฮฑฮฝฯ„ฮฑ ฮดฮนฮทฮณฮฎฯƒฮฟฮผฮฑฮน" (146C).

A continuaciรณn, el relato del paseo del narrador Diocles con Tales, que nos

retrotrae al de los participantes del Banquete de Jenofonte o al de Sรณcrates y

Fedro en el diรกlogo homรณnimo de Platรณn, da comienzo a la acciรณn argumental

ya encaminada.

2.1. Los siguientes pasajes, que coinciden con los momentos iniciales

del banquete17 , dan ya la pauta temรกtica de la obra, jalonada por anรฉcdotas

que ponen de relieve la competencia de los Sabios en toda suerte de saberes

prรกcticos (p. ej. la mediciรณn de la pirรกmide por Tales, citada en 147A). Dichas

habilidades se hacen patentes mediante el relato de anรฉcdotas con un tono

de buen humor18 , propio de todo banquete, como cuando Diocles (147C)

ejercido la tiranรญa.

13 D. E. A, 1972, pp. 56-8, divide la pieza en: I. "Prooรญmion" histรณrico (cap. 1); II.

Composiciรณn narrativa introductoria (caps. 2-5); III. El "sympรณsion": conversaciรณn principal

(caps. 6-21). Tal esquema nos parece insuciente para una comprensiรณn global en el marco del

gรฉnero al que pertenece.

14 Al margen de posibles resonancias (cf. J. D, 1985, p. 179), son nombres cticios,

muy habituales en la รฉpoca: M. D. G, 1972, p. 182. Mรกs provechoso nos parece detectar

el posible alterego del autor en la gura de Diocles.

15 En este sentido, A. B, 2002, p. 101, habla de una obra "relativement scolaire", si bien,

con E. S   T, 2005, p. 474, no compartimos el juicio que aรฑade de que el autor

"ne s'est pas particuliรจrement illustrรฉ dans la reprise et l'adaptation des รฉlรฉments traditionnels

de la syllogรจ".

16 El diรกlogo-simposio y su funciรณn al servicio de la paideia, previsto por el fundador de la

Academia, seguรญan vigentes: cf. E. S   T, 2005, pp. 480-1.

17 A travรฉs de Tales (147D-148B), Plutarco ilustra su concepto simposial – cf. Quaest. Conv.

686D –, basado en 3 principios: 1. adecuada preparaciรณn – de los nobles a los que se dirige la

"carta" de Nicarco – para el banquete, porque "es mรกs difรญcil encontrar el adorno conveniente al

carรกcter, que el adorno superuo e inรบtil para el cuerpo". Introduce comparaciones alusivas al mal

comensal que "es capaz de destruir y estropear" el mejor vino, comida o canto, considerando las

consecuencias negativas de "cuando la insolencia o el enfado han surgido por causa del vino". 2.

"el aceptar compartir el banquete con unos comensales elegidos al azar es propio de un hombre

poco inteligente", y, por ello, Quilรณn no aceptรณ la invitaciรณn hasta conocer los nombres de cada

uno de los invitados. 3. la costumbre egipcia de colocar una momia junto a los comensales

(citada por Hdt. II 78), que "aporta alguna ventaja, si impulsa a los comensales no a la bebida y al

placer, sino a la amistad y al afecto mutuo y los exhorta a no hacer una vida, que es muy corta por

el tiempo, larga por sus malas acciones", es el cierre paradigmรกtico de su concepto de simposio.

De hecho, Plutarco sigue el modelo jenofonteo en el que las etapas del banquete real marcan la

pauta de la conversaciรณn (cf. J. M, 1931, p. 259, n. 2; J. M, 1997, p. 129).

18 Ciertamente, la combinaciรณn de un tono serio con otro cรณmico es la atmรณsfera caracterรญstica

desde Jenofonte (cf. J. M, 1931, pp. 1-32; J. M, 1997, p. 122). Asรญ, D. L. G,

recuerda la anรฉcdota del muchacho que tiraba piedras a un perro y, habiรฉndole

dado a la suegra, exclamรณ "Tampoco asรญ estรก mal" (cf. De tranq. anim. 467C),

en el fondo, una alegorรญa del buen gobernante que sabe cambiar el paso: ฮดฮนแฝธ

ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮฃฯŒฮปฯ‰ฮฝฮฑ ฯƒฮฟฯ†ฯŽฯ„ฮฑฯ„ฮฟฮฝ แผกฮณฮทฯƒฮฌฮผฮทฮฝ ฮฟแฝ ฮดฮตฮพฮฌฮผฮตฮฝฮฟฮฝ ฯ„ฯ…ฯฮฑฮฝฮฝฮตแฟ–ฮฝ (149C-D). Muy

divertida tambiรฉn es la que narra el prodigio de una crรญa de yegua, mitad

humana y mitad รฉquido, presagio de la ruina de la familia de Periandro, y

que Tales interpreta menospreciando los ritos puricadores de Diocles: "mi

consejo es que no emplees a hombres tan jรณvenes para guardar a los caballos, o

proporciรณnales mujeres" (149E).

En 148D aparece en escena – pues mucho hay de teatro en los banquetes

literarios – Eumetis o Cleobulina19 , por ser hija de Cleรณbulo de Lindos, pero

tambiรฉn por su proverbial "sagacidad para los enigmas y su sabidurรญa". Junto

a ella20 , otro invitado especial a tan selecto grupo es Esopo, paradigma de la

sabidurรญa popular21 , cuyas fรกbulas serรกn el contrapunto a las intervenciones de

los Sabios.

El banquete ya estรก en marcha con los personajes precisos, mientras los

Sabios ฯƒฮฟฯ†แฟถฮฝ ฮบแผ€ฮณฮฑฮธแฟถฮฝ แผ€ฮฝฮดฯแฟถฮฝ (150C) hacen gala de una moderaciรณn muy

del gusto de nuestro sacerdote de Apolo, y que estรก en consonancia con el

buen gobierno sobre el que se va a conversar tras terminar la comida (1ยช fase

del banquete).

2.2. Entre los capรญtulos 6-12 se aborda el tema del gobierno del Estado,

recordando al legendario faraรณn Amasis, no a travรฉs de acciones concretas

sino de su capacidad para resolver enigmas, como cuando pide ayuda a Bรญas

para resolver la prueba del rey etรญope (151B-E), que le prometiรณ que, si se

bebรญa todo el mar, se quedarรญa con la isla Elefantina, a lo que Bรญas le aconseja

responder que primero "contuviera los rรญos que van a parar al ocรฉano". La

conclusiรณn es que las enseรฑanzas de los Sabios forman al buen gobernante.

Tras la intervenciรณn de Solรณn (cap. 7, 151F-D), conoceremos la prueba a la

que, a modo de rรฉplica (152E), somete Amasis al rey etรญope, y cuyo "mensaje

1993, p. 136, identica el ฯƒฯ€ฮฟฯ…ฮดฮฑฮนฮฟฮณฮญฮปฮฟฮนฮฟฮฝ como un principio propio del gรฉnero, "in fact,

particularly associated with Socratic symposia in ancient times".

19 Con D. F. L, 2005, p. 349, podemos entrever tambiรฉn una propuesta didรกctica en la

inclusiรณn de este personaje femenino, un tanto sorprendente en el ambiente masculino de la

tradiciรณn simposรญaca: "Cleobulina contribui, tambรฉm, para transformar o espaรงo do banquete

numa cosmรณpolis dos vรกrios tipos de sapiรชncia: ela representaria, assim, uma sabedoria mais

simples, permeada de intuiรงรฃo polรญtica e humanidade". J. M, 1997, p. 134, apunta que

la escena "it provides a healthy diet of philosophical and political thought leavened with lively

characterization and picturesque setting which the conversation, sometimes with undertones of

irony and sadness, brings vividly to life".

20 La presencia simultรกnea de Cleobulina y Esopo no es casual. Asรญ, cuando Cleodoro siente

ofendida su virilidad por la presencia de รฉsta (153E-154C), Esopo deende su asistencia. Vid. la

interpretaciรณn de D. F. L, 2005, p. 349: "ao colocar-se ao lado de Cleobulina, estรก tambรฉm a

defender a mesma sabedoria popular que ele prรณprio representa".

21 J. M, 1931, p. 58, compara el papel de Esopo con el de Aristรณfanes en el Banquete

de Platรณn, en su condiciรณn de representantes de una cultura mรกs popular que otros participantes.

Por su parte, S. J, 1997, pp. 49-52, observa que el autor se sirve del personaje de

Esopo para introducir a travรฉs de sus fรกbulas las respuestas que le interesaban de los Sabios.

463

El Banquete de los Siete Sabios de Plutarco y los temas de sabidurรญa prรกctica

lamentable" (sic, แผ€ฯ‡ฮฝฯ…ฮผฮญฮฝฮท ฯƒฮบฯ…ฯ„ฮฌฮปฮท; cf. Archil. 185 W) corrige Tales22 ,

siguiendo su juego de preguntas y respuestas que culmina en: "ฮคฮฏ แฟฅแพทฯƒฯ„ฮฟฮฝ; " " ฯ„แฝธ

ฮบฮฑฯ„แฝฐ ฯ†ฯฯƒฮนฮฝ, แผฯ€ฮตแฝถ ฯ€ฯแฝธฯ‚ แผกฮดฮฟฮฝฮฌฯ‚ ฮณฮต ฯ€ฮฟฮปฮปฮฌฮบฮนฯ‚ แผ€ฯ€ฮฑฮณฮฟฯฮตฯฮฟฯ…ฯƒฮนฮฝ" (153C-D). Frente

al aparente alejamiento del Banquete del maestro Platรณn visto por algunos, el

eco de su pensamiento comienza a atisbarse en esta declaraciรณn de principios

plutarqueos.

Sin embargo, esta suerte de recopilaciรณn de saberes no estarรญa completa sin

contar con Hesรญodo23 , a quien Plutarco introduce (cap. 10) en certamen con

Lesques, autor de la Pequeรฑa Ilรญada, y no con Homero, obteniendo el de Ascra

el trรญpode de la victoria en los funerales de Andamante. La autoridad de sus

poemas se equipara a la de los enigmas que se plantean en la conversaciรณn.

2.3. Agotado el tema del gobierno del Estado, Diocles introduce el del

gobierno de la casa (cap. 12): "ฮฒฮฑฯƒฮนฮปฮตฮฏฮฑฯ‚ ฮผแฝฒฮฝ ฮณแฝฐฯ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ€ฯŒฮปฮตฮนฯ‚ แฝ€ฮปฮฏฮณฮฟฮน ฮบฯ…ฮฒฮตฯฮฝแฟถฯƒฮนฮฝ,

แผ‘ฯƒฯ„ฮฏฮฑฯ‚ ฮดแฝฒ ฯ€แพถฯƒฮนฮฝ แผกฮผแฟ–ฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮฟแผดฮบฮฟฯ… ฮผฮญฯ„ฮตฯƒฯ„ฮน" (154F). De la secuencia de respuestas

de los presentes24 , destacamos la de Quilรณn, a travรฉs del cual el autor conecta el

gobierno de la casa con el polรญtico. ร‰ste ilustra su faceta polรญtica con la respuesta

que dio Licurgo a alguien que le aconsejaba establecer una democracia en su

ciudad y al que contestรณ "primero establece en tu casa una democracia".

El nal del turno de respuestas sirve a Plutarco para retardar la narraciรณn

e introducir el tema de la bebida25 en el banquete (cap. 13), que deja clara su

22 La coincidencia con la Vida de Tales de D. L. I 35 demuestra, para A. B, 2002, p.

96, la gran dependencia de este relato de las fuentes antiguas, especialmente en lo referente a

sentencias y apotegmas. Sin embargo, con C. M O & J. G L, 1986, p.

241 n. 96, quizรกs no sean palabras reales de Tales sino un reejo del pensamiento platรณnico y

neoplatรณnico.

23 Ciertamente, como apunta V. J. G, 1998, p. 160 – siguiendo a M. L. W, 1978

–, Trabajos y dรญas debe ser considerada el primer testimonio de una tradiciรณn de "wisdom

literature", de honda raigambre oriental, en la que se instalarรก la tradiciรณn sapiencial de los Sabios.

Posteriormente, la propia poesรญa de sus representantes constituye el vehรญculo de propagaciรณn de

su ideario ( J. V T, 2008, p. 506), hasta llegar al siglo IV en el que la escuela socrรกtica

– A. B, 2002, p. 99, habla de "reprise du genre littรฉraire du logos oikonomikos"– habrรญa

jugado un papel destacado en el paso al รกmbito de la prosa del pensamiento prรกctico (como las

ฯ‡ฯฮตแฟ–ฮฑฮน de Aristipo, contemporรกneo de Sรณcrates, citado por D. L. 2.48 y 86). Esta larga tradiciรณn

gnomolรณgica queda congurada denitivamente en รฉpoca helenรญstica, a partir de sentencias

y apotegmas atribuidos a los Sabios, de los que es deudor el polรญgrafo de Queronea (cf. A.

B, 2002, p. 102: "le matรฉriel gnomologique et apophtegmatique utilisรฉ par Plutarque

constituerait mรชme, pour ainsi dire, l'armature du dialogue"). En denitiva, como propone R.

P. M, 1993, p. 123, "e "sympotic" strain in the stories of the Seven Sages (as in the tale

of their banqueting together) would not, then, be a recent invention, but a relic of a much older

context", por lo que el Banquete plutarqueo serรญa "an expression of a continuing tradition, not

just Plutarch's innovation", sin menoscabo de su aportaciรณn personal.

24 Cada uno de los contertulios responde de acuerdo con su perl: Esopo con la fรกbula de

la zorra y la pantera que ilustra la belleza interior "de los que habitan una casa honrada y feliz";

Solรณn propugna que la adquisiciรณn de riquezas sea sin mediar injusticia y que sean gastadas con

mesura; Bรญas habla del respeto a las leyes dentro y fuera de casa; Tales preere la casa que permite

disfrutar del mayor descanso; Cleรณbulo alaba al dueรฑo que tiene mรกs gente que lo quiera que lo

tema; y para Pรญtaco la ideal es la que no necesita nada superuo ni carece de lo necesario.

25 Las consecuencias de la ingesta excesiva de vino es un tema recurrente en la tradiciรณn: en

el Banquete de Jenofonte, con el personaje del bufรณn Filipo (1.11-16), y en el de Platรณn, al que

voluntad de adscripciรณn al gรฉnero al marcar el tiempo interno del banquete (cf.

cap. 5). Los consejos al respecto de Hesรญodo y Homero vuelven a convertir a la

รฉpica en fuente de sabidurรญa.

Tras este parรฉntesis, entre los caps. 14 y 16, se retoma en detalle la

discusiรณn sobre el gobierno de la casa26 . Los temas se suceden perfectamente

engarzados: abre Quersias (157A) planteando la cuestiรณn de la medida de

la propiedad adecuada para cada individuo, ideal imposible para Cleรณbulo,

quien, en conversaciรณn con el mรฉdico Cleodoro, lo compara con la dosis de

los medicamentos: "Tambiรฉn tรบ […] a tus enfermos no les recetas lo mismo a

todos, sino a cada uno lo que le conviene". Ello sirve para introducir el tema de

la dieta, para el cual Solรณn alude como autoridad a la "dieta de Epimรฉnides",

si bien nalmente preere a Hesรญodo, presente a lo largo de todo el tratado,

pero con un protagonismo especial en estos pรกrrafos en los que es reconocida

su competencia แฝกฯ‚ ฮดแฟ†ฮปฯŒฯ‚ แผฯƒฯ„ฮนฮฝ ฮฟแฝฮบ แผ€ฮผฮตฮปแฟถฯ‚ ฮฟแฝฮด' แผ€ฯ€ฮตฮฏฯฯ‰ฯ‚ ฯ€ฮตฯแฝถ ฮดฮนฮฑฮฏฯ„ฮทฯ‚ 27 . Es

รฉste un pasaje decisivo para entender este tratado, tan extraรฑo para algunos

crรญticos, porque nos estรก ofreciendo las claves del pensamiento de Plutarco,

aquรญ mรกs dรฉlco que nunca. Establecida la primacรญa de Hesรญodo, Cleodoro

inviste a Esopo, el octavo Sabio, como discรญpulo de aquรฉl "con mรกs derecho que

Epimรฉnides"28 , y se atribuye al fabulista "el origen de esa hermosa y variada

sabidurรญa" (158B), lo que demuestra la conciencia de una tradiciรณn sapiencial

por parte del autor.

No obstante, a lo largo de los capรญtulos 15 y 16, el tema del rรฉgimen de

vida va a adquirir una nueva dimensiรณn que pone de relieve la clara conexiรณn

concurre Alcibรญades en lamentable estado (212b sqq.). Cf. J. V T, 2007, p. 33.

26 Como indica A. B, 2002, p. 99, "Le thรจme de l'ฮฟแผฐฮบฮฟฮฝฮฟฮผฮฏฮฑ permet ainsi ร  Plutarque

d'รฉvoquer le rapport entre gouvernement de la citรฉ et gestion domestique". No obstante, la

presencia de estos contenidos adquiere una especial relevancia desde el punto de vista literario,

pues se atribuye a la tradiciรณn socrรกtica la atenciรณn a estos temas: cf. F. R, 1990. Ello

reforzarรญa la idea de quienes, como D. M, 2001, p. 89, intuyen el inujo socrรกtico sobre

el simposio: "Il ruolo del socratismo nel ripensamento globale della vita รจ decisivo. E poichรฉ

il socratismo segna la nascita della losoa in senso stretto, in quanto riessione sistematica

sui principi dell'essere, del conoscere e del dover essere (perciรฒ, della realtร , della conoscenza

e della morale), รจ chiaro che proprio la riessione dell'ambiente socratico decide il destino di

una pratica sociale che al socratismo certo preesisteva, ma che quella cultura losoca ha scelto

come luogo privilegiato di comunicazione". Los รบltimos aรฑos del siglo V y primeras dรฉcadas

del IV serรญan los de la maduraciรณn de la consideraciรณn losรณca de esta prรกctica social. A este

respecto J. M, 1931, p. 124, relativiza la inuencia de Sรณcrates, quien "provides a sort

of endpoint". Pese a admitir el modelo socrรกtico en la vinculaciรณn del diรกlogo a Delfos, en su

temรกtica polรญtica y en la presencia de fรกbulas esรณpicas, concluye que รฉstas fueron marginales

dentro de su actividad.

27 Y es que, en efecto, en Hesรญodo, se encuentra ya una detallada guรญa, aquรญ reproducida

(158A-B), sobre el rรฉgimen de comidas (Trabajos 559 sqq.), la mezcla del vino (Trabajos 592-5),

el valor del agua (Trabajos 735-741), del baรฑo (Trabajos 753), sobre las mujeres (Trabajos 373-5

y 699-705), el tiempo propicio para la relaciรณn sexual (Trabajos 735-6 y 812) y el modo como se

han de sentar los reciรฉn nacidos (Trabajos 750-2). Cf. C. M O & J. G L,

1986, p. 257.

28 La comรบn utilizaciรณn por parte de Esopo (4 y 4a P) de la fรกbula del halcรณn y el

ruiseรฑor, que relatara Hesรญodo (Trabajos 203 sqq.), es para Cleodoro el argumento de peso a

favor del fabulista.

465

El Banquete de los Siete Sabios de Plutarco y los temas de sabidurรญa prรกctica

para Plutarco entre sociedad e individuo, destinatario de su ฯ€ฮฑฮนฮดฮตฮฏฮฑ. Inquirido

Solรณn por Cleodoro sobre su modelo, y respondiendo aquรฉl que "de los bienes

mayores y mรกs importantes, el segundo es necesitar muy poco alimento" y,

el primero, "ฯ„แฝธ ฮผฮทฮด' แฝ…ฮปฯ‰ฯ‚ ฯ„ฯฮฟฯ†แฟ†ฯ‚ ฮดฮตแฟ–ฯƒฮธฮฑฮน", la rรฉplica casi airada del mรฉdico

introduce principios propios del estoicismo29 sobre la condiciรณn humana, cuya

vida "se consume en una serie de trabajos", la mayorรญa de los cuales los provoca

"แผก ฯ„แฟ†ฯ‚ ฯ„ฯฮฟฯ†แฟ†ฯ‚ ฯ‡ฯฮตฮฏฮฑ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ€ฮฑฯฮฑฯƒฮบฮตฯ…แฝด ฯ„แฝฐฯ‚ ฯ€ฮปฮตฮฏฯƒฯ„ฮฑฯ‚ ฯ€ฮฑฯฮฑฮบฮฑฮปฮตแฟ–" (158D-E). Mas

la necesidad constituye el principio de nuestra civilizaciรณn: el hambre nos llevรณ

a la invenciรณn de la agricultura, รฉsta a las artes y ocios, de รฉstos se pasรณ a las

honras a los dioses y el respeto a los dioses nos llevรณ a practicar los placeres de

Afrodita en la intimidad de la noche y no al aire libre como bestias. En suma,

"el que no necesita alimento tampoco necesita el cuerpo y eso serรญa no tener

necesidad de sรญ mismo" (159A). La respuesta de Solรณn30 , que ocupa todo el cap.

16, frente a la defensa de las ฯ„ฮญฯ‡ฮฝฮฑฮน que ha llevado a cabo el iatros Cleodoro,

sirve a Plutarco para realizar una declaraciรณn de principios religioso-losรณca,

que se apoya en el prestigio de Solรณn31 , quien ocupa el primer asiento por saber

y edad32 . En efecto, comenzando con planteamientos รณrcos, que postulan la

impureza de la carne y, por ende, la prohibiciรณn de su ingesta, Solรณn considera

la alimentaciรณn como un signo de esclavitud del ser humano: la รบnica salida es

llegar a ser ฮฑแฝฯ„ฮฌฯฮบฮท ฮบฮฑแฝถ แผ€ฯ€ฯฮฟฯƒฮดฮตแพถ (159C). En consecuencia, enlazando con un

pensamiento neoplatรณnico, el alma esta encerrada siempre en el cuerpo, แฝฅฯƒฯ€ฮตฯ

แผฮฝ ฮผฯ…ฮปแฟถฮฝฮน ฯ„แฟท ฯƒฯŽฮผฮฑฯ„ฮน ฯ„แฝดฮฝ ฯˆฯ…ฯ‡แฝดฮฝ แผฮณฮบฮตฮบฮฑฮปฯ…ฮผฮผฮญฮฝฮทฮฝ แผ€ฮตแฝถ ฯ€ฮตฯแฝถ ฯ„แฝดฮฝ ฯ„แฟ†ฯ‚ ฯ„ฯฮฟฯ†แฟ†ฯ‚

ฯ‡ฯฮตฮฏฮฑฮฝ ฮบฯ…ฮบฮปฮฟแฟฆฯƒฮฑฮฝ (159D).

A partir de aquรญ, Plutarco hace patente su casi devota delidad al

pensamiento de Platรณn, como cuando Solรณn prosigue diciendo "por falta de

conocimiento de las cosas bellas, nos contentamos con una vida basada en

las obligaciones" (160C), lo cual, sin duda, desdice a quienes quisieron ver un

alejamiento del Banquete de Platรณn33 . En denitiva, concluye el primero de

29 Cf. C. M O & J. G L, 1986, p. 259 n. 164.

30 M. D. G, 1972, p. 186, considera que el discurso de Solรณn estรก inspirado en el de

Sรณcrates en el Fedรณn 64a-67b de Platรณn.

31 En dicha consideraciรณn sigue la opiniรณn de su venerado maestro Platรณn, quien a travรฉs de

Critias (Ti. 20d), habรญa calicado a Solรณn como "el mรกs sabio de los Siete": cf. J. V T,

2008, p. 505. G. J. D. A, 1977, p. 29, empero, se sorprende de que Plutarco "father his

platonizing ideas on the Seven Sages, especially on Solon, who as a rule were considered to be

the prominent representatives of a more practical and pedestrian wisdom".

32 Asรญ lo relata en 151E, cuando Quilรณn dice "que era justo que Solรณn comenzara la

disertaciรณn, no sรณlo porque aventajaba a todos por la edad y estaba casualmente sentado el

primero, sino porque ejercรญa el poder mรกs elevado y perfecto por haberles dado a los atenienses

sus leyes": vid. J. V T, 2008, p. 512.

33 No cabe duda de que las palabras de Solรณn nos traen resonancias de la intervenciรณn

de la enigmรกtica Diรณtima (209e-212a) en el Banquete platรณnico, en uno de los episodios mรกs

renombrados en el que se describen los pasos necesarios para alcanzar el ideal de perfecciรณn

de belleza, ฯ„แฝธ ฮบฮฑฮปฯŒฮฝ – ฯ„แฝฐ ฮบฮฑฮปฮฌ ฮณฮฝแฟท ฮฑแฝฯ„แฝธ ฯ„ฮตฮปฮตฯ…ฯ„แฟถฮฝ แฝƒ แผ”ฯƒฯ„ฮน ฮบฮฑฮปฯŒฮฝ (211c) – y, a travรฉs de รฉl, la

excelencia verdadera – ฯ„ฮตฮบฯŒฮฝฯ„ฮน ฮดแฝฒ แผ€ฯฮตฯ„แฝดฮฝ แผ€ฮปฮทฮธแฟ† (212a). Es cierto que ya no cabe, como en aquรฉl,

el elogio del amor homosexual como modelo de perfecciรณn, pero es que el de Queronea no hace

sino seguir algo que ya se habรญa anticipado en la obra homรณnima de Jenofonte (una comparaciรณn

entre ambos testimonios puede encontrarse en J. V T, 2007, pp. 35 sqq.), en la que los

los Sabios, el alma alimenta el cuerpo con esfuerzo y dedicaciรณn pero, si fuera

liberada de esta servidumbre, vivirรญa "ฮตแผฐฯ‚ ฮฑแฝ‘ฯ„แฝดฮฝ แฝฯแฟถฯƒฮฑ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ„แฝดฮฝ แผ€ฮปฮฎฮธฮตฮนฮฑฮฝ,

ฮฟแฝฮดฮตฮฝแฝธฯ‚ ฯ€ฮตฯฮนฯƒฯ€แฟถฮฝฯ„ฮฟฯ‚ ฮฟแฝฮด' แผ€ฯ€ฮฌฮณฮฟฮฝฯ„ฮฟฯ‚." (160C), concepto que es la base del

pensamiento de Platรณn34 . No obstante, por si nos cabe alguna duda de su sentido

รบltimo, Diocles-Plutarco vuelve al eje argumental: "ฮคแฝฐ ฮผแฝฒฮฝ ฮฟแฝ–ฮฝ แฟฅฮทฮธฮญฮฝฯ„ฮฑ ฯ€ฮตฯแฝถ

ฯ„ฯฮฟฯ†แฟ†ฯ‚, แฝฆ ฮฮฏฮบฮฑฯฯ‡ฮต, ฯ„ฮฑแฟฆฯ„' แผฆฮฝ".

2.4. Como el Alcibรญades del Banquete de Platรณn o el empresario siracusano

que llega con su compaรฑรญa de actores en el de Jenofonte, la irrupciรณn sรบbita de

Gorgo35 , el hermano de Periandro que entra "cuando todavรญa estaba hablando

Solรณn", rompe el hilo argumental y, a travรฉs de una larga intervenciรณn (caps.

17-20), a caballo entre el relato verรญdico y el mito36 (como el del antropoide en

Platรณn o el mimo sobre los amores de Dioniso y Ariadna representado en el

de Jenofonte), introduce la leyenda etiolรณgica del mรบsico Ariรณn37 , que ilustra

los principios de la Providencia divina que rigen el gobierno del Universo38 ,

principios que nuestro autor resume en la mรกxima dรฉlca por excelencia39 ,

"nada en demasรญa", puesta en boca de Quilรณn. Esta mรกxima da pie, en el capรญtulo

nal, a una animada discusiรณn en la que se entremezcla la devociรณn a Delfos40 ,

misterios del amor que conducen a la perfecciรณn, se realizan a travรฉs del amor heterosexual y

conyugal (1.10). Esta es, de hecho, la tesis principal del trabajo de J. M, 1997, pp. 126-

34: "its deliberate omission of homosexual themes and its substitution of heterosexuality into

the traditional symposion context" (p. 134).

34 Cf. A. B, 2002, pp. 98-9.

35 J. M, 1997, p. 131, subraya que "the arrival of Gorgos structurally resembles de

arrival of Alcibiades in Plato in that it changes the direction of discussion". La del empresario

siracusano que va a representar el mimo de Dioniso y Ariadna en el de Jenofonte tiene la misma

funciรณn estructural, lo cual implica un rasgo de gรฉnero y no una mera imitaciรณn: cf. J. V

T, 2007, p. 35.

36 M. D. G, 1972, p. 186, habla de "las pรกginas mรกs elevadas de toda la obra" y

subraya que Plutarco sigue "la tรฉcnica platรณnica del diรกlogo, segรบn la cual se introduce un mito

lleno de belleza y poesรญa y de รฉl se sacan conclusiones fundamentales". Y no sรณlo en el de Platรณn.

Debe destacarse que hay una adecuaciรณn argumental al contexto simposiaco: a Ariรณn se atribuye

la invenciรณn del ditirambo, asociado al culto dionisรญaco, y el mimo representado en el jenofonteo

versa sobre los amores de Dioniso y Ariadna.

37 Sobre el mito de Ariรณn, J. M, 1997, p. 131, opina que "not arbitrary chosen, but

sum up some of the most important themes of the dialogue, including the theme of love".

En nuestra opiniรณn, la tendencia de su estudio a reducir al tema amoroso el signicado de la

obra, con ser importante, hace que se le escape el profundo sentido dรฉlco de un mito que,

con A. B, 2002, p. 101, "devait faire parties du patrimoine delphique ร  la disposition de

Plutarque".

38 Como apunta M. D. G, 1972, p. 187, la armaciรณn de Anacarsis, ฯˆฯ…ฯ‡แฟ†ฯ‚ ฮณแฝฐฯ

แฝ„ฯฮณฮฑฮฝฮฟฮฝ ฯ„แฝธ ฯƒแฟถฮผฮฑ, ฮธฮตฮฟแฟฆ ฮด᾽ แผก ฯˆฯ…ฯ‡ฮฎ (163E), es la culminaciรณn de toda la losofรญa platรณnica. Cf. F.

R A, 1996, p. 129: "en denitiva, lo que se hace es pasar del gobierno de los

hombres al gobierno de Dios: todo estรก calculado".

39 En este sentido, seguimos a A. B, 2002, p. 97, cuando arma que "Il n'y a pas de

grande surprise ร  ce que la prรชte d'Apollon eut recours aux maximes delphiques", que una larga

tradiciรณn habรญa asociado a los Siete Sabios (cf. Demetrio, FGrHist 228 F 114; Diodoro IX

10.1-4).

40 Suscribimos las palabras de E. S   T, 2005, p. 474, para quien la tradiciรณn

de los Siete Sabios tiene una indiscutible impronta dรฉlca – que tambiรฉn explicarรญa la presencia

de Esopo –, "aunque luego se ha convertido en un bien "mostrenco" de las sucesivas etapas de

467

El Banquete de los Siete Sabios de Plutarco y los temas de sabidurรญa prรกctica

el signicado de sus mรกximas, la autoridad sapiencial de los Sabios ligados a

ellas y el vรญnculo de las fรกbulas de Esopo con esta tradiciรณn(164B), culminando

la narraciรณn en el destino al que el autor nos querรญa llevar: la renacida autoridad

del santuario de Apolo. En este contexto, los juegos literarios sobre otras

mรกximas y anรฉcdotas dรฉlcas llevan a los comensales a la noche, referencia

temporal que conrma la atenciรณn al canon simposiaco, aquรญ (164D) a travรฉs

de la cita erudita del verso homรฉrico41 :

ฮฝแฝบฮพ ฮด' แผคฮดฮท ฯ„ฮตฮปฮญฮธฮตฮน· แผ€ฮณฮฑฮธแฝธฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮฝฯ…ฮบฯ„แฝถ ฯ€ฮนฮธฮญฯƒฮธฮฑฮน.

(Il . 7.282 y 293)

3. Llegados al nal de la obra, es, pues, el momento de establecer las

conclusiones a las que el propio autor nos ha llevado:

– La obra no es una recopilaciรณn inconexa de anรฉcdotas sino que muestra

un esquema claro en el que los temas de sabidurรญa prรกctica, propios de los

protagonistas, actรบan como elemento aglutinador. Asรญ, se pasa del buen

gobierno42 del Estado al buen gobierno de la casa, de รฉste al buen gobierno/

cuidado del cuerpo, del cuerpo al alma y de esta a Dios, con su sede en Delfos

y sus principios apolรญneos resumidos en la mรกxima: nada en demasรญa43 . En

consecuencia, dado el carรกcter prรกctico de las mรกximas dรฉlcas, el Banquete de

los Siete Sabios no podรญa seguir al pie de la letra el modelo de Platรณn y sรญ otros

referentes mรกs cercanos a la tradiciรณn sapiencial.

– Del mismo modo, con mayor claridad que en cualquier otra de sus obras

dialรณgicas o de temรกtica socrรกtico-platรณnica, el Banquete plutarqueo se enmarca

claramente en el esquema de dicho gรฉnero literario44 . El diรกlogo simposiaco,

la cultura griega". Por ello, no comparte la idea de A. B, 2002, p. 102), de que la leyenda

estรฉ desprovista de su sentido inicial, "sino que mรกs bien lo veo recuperado, en cuanto a la

reivindicaciรณn apolรญnea y religiosa que preside esta obra, sobre todo a partir de la entrada en

escena de Gorgo, el hijo de Periandro, y el relato del rescate de Ariรณn".

41 La idea de prevenir una deriva "indeseada" une los Banquetes jenofonteo y plutarqueo: vid.

J. V T, 2007, p. 35. Asรญ, J. M, 1997, p. 134, seรฑala que "Solon's bringing the

dialogue to an abrupt end, we feel, prevents the conversation straying further on to dangerous

ground, as the irony of Periander's disastrous marriage break-up threatens to re-emerge".

42 Vid. A. B, 2002, p. 94: "l'objectif cachรฉ de Plutarque fut de dรฉcrire un banquet

exemplaire pour ses contemporains dont le thรจme central, rรฉcurrent dans la littรฉrature de cette

รฉpoque, รฉtait l'ฮฟแผฐฮบฮฟฮฝฮฟฮผฮฏฮฑ des ร‰tats, des maisons et du Cosmos".

43 Un simposio dรฉlco de principio – cuando Plutarco se nos disfraza de Diocles, sacerdote

puricador – a n, por ser Delfos sede de la sabidurรญa mรกxima que todo joven bien instruido

debe seguir para alcanzar las mรกximas metas. Asรญ, J. S, 2000, p. 205, pone de relieve que

el Banquete fue escrito poco despuรฉs de que Plutarco fuera nombrado sacerdote en Delfos. En

una lรญnea similar, A. B, 2002, p. 94 subraya "la volontรฉ de Plutarque de sauver de l'oubli et

de rรฉactualiser le capital culturel de Delphes".

44 No compartimos la armaciรณn de J. S, 2000, p. 160, de que "est une imitation

directe de Platon", aunque sรญ coincidimos en que Plutarco percibiera "les possibilitรฉs que lui

orait le dialogue pour exposer les idรฉes qui par ailleurs faisaient l'objet de son enseignement".

Tampoco nos parece, como aรฑade, que se viera obligado a abandonar una tradiciรณn para la que

no estaba dotado como Luciano: "semble avoir quelque peu hรฉsitรฉ dans la conception mรชme du

banquet et avoir cรฉdรฉ ร  des sollicitations divergentes; l'une plutรดt pรฉdagogique, visant ร  donner

desde la tradiciรณn socrรกtica, reemplaza a la poesรญa como marco sapiencial y

cada autor adopta libremente los temas de discusiรณn, lo que explica las lรณgicas

"desviaciones" del referente de Platรณn. Por otra parte, la introducciรณn de temas

de carรกcter prรกctico y la preeminencia del eros heterosexual y conyugal –

frente al homoerotismo platรณnico – estรก perfectamente atestiguado desde los

comienzos del gรฉnero en prosa en la obra de Jenofonte.

– En denitiva, nos hallamos ante un ejemplar de carรกcter didรกctico, con

pinceladas del gรฉnero epistolar en su forma, dirigido a los jรณvenes aristรณcratas,

futuros gobernantes del Imperio romano, cuyo paradigma de conducta se

encuentra en las mรกximas de los Sabios – la mayorรญa de los cuales habรญan

ejercido el poder –, como cuando Tales arma que "Un tirano que preera

gobernar a esclavos mรกs que a hombres libres en nada se diferencia de un

agricultor que preera recolectar cizaรฑa y malas hierbas en lugar de trigo y

cebada." (147C). Los ideales que emanan de este banquete dรฉlco son el buen

gobierno y la lantropรญa, como en las ya citadas cualidades encarnadas por

Cleobulina (148D): ฮฝฮฟแฟฆฯ‚ […] ฯ€ฮฟฮปฮนฯ„ฮนฮบแฝธฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฌฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€ฮฟฮฝ แผฆฮธฮฟฯ‚.

bi b l i o g r a f รญ a c i T a d a

A, G. J. D., "Political thought in Plutarch's Convivium Septem

Sapientium", Mnemosyne, 30.1 (1977) 28-39.

_____ Plutarch's Political ought, Amsterdam/Oxford/Nueva York, 1982.

A, D. E., "Septem sapientium convivium", en H. D. B (ed.), Plutarch's

eological Writings and Early Christian Literature, Leiden, 1972, pp. 51-

105.

B, A., Les Sept Sages de la Grรจce Antique. Transmission et utilisation d'un

patrimoine lรฉgendaire d'Hรฉrodote ร  Plutarque, Parรญs, 2002.

dans un panorama de la philosophie quelques lumiรจres sur les diverses origines de la sagesse

hellรฉnique, l'autre, plutรดt esthรฉtique, visant ร  composer un nouveau type de banquet; les deux

objectifs ne se marient pas avec bonheur, l'un embarrassant l'autre" (p. 162). No parece que esta

obra entusiasme a la escuela francesa, porque tambiรฉn dice A. B, 2002, p. 93: "Malgrรฉ

le dรฉploiement de grands eorts pour esquisser une scรจne pittoresque, le prรชte de Delphes ne

s'est malheureusement pas illustrรฉ pour son habilitรฉ dans l'รฉcriture du dialogue lรฉgendaire". En

una lรญnea mรกs productiva, F. R A, 1996, p. 136, admite la cercanรญa al gรฉnero

del banquete socrรกtico-platรณnico, pero partiendo de una tradiciรณn helenรญstica escrita. No

compartimos, empero, la inuencia de los modelos cรญnicos mรกs allรก de la inclusiรณn, como sabio,

del cรญnico Anacarsis, que reemplaza a Periandro en el grupo por su condiciรณn de tirano: "Estos

Banquetes cรญnicos de los Siete Sabios han sido la base, sin duda, del Banquete de Plutarco, que

los ha reelaborado, sin renunciar, sin duda, a introducir mรกs material de los mismos orรญgenes" (p.

139). Estos hipotรฉticos Banquetes estaban relacionados con el de Menipo, del que poco sabemos

(cf. J. M, 1931, p. 211 sqq.), que inuyรณ en el de Plutarco y en los de Meleagro, Lucilio,

Varrรณn, Horacio, Petronio, Luciano y los julianos. No lo tiene tan claro D. F. L, 2005, p. 345:

"Menos evidente se agura, no entanto, a hipรณtese de existir uma ou vรกrias obras de premeio".

En suma, aunque, en su forma, derivaba lรณgicamente de "viejas tradiciones", es plenamente

original en su contenido.

469

El Banquete de los Siete Sabios de Plutarco y los temas de sabidurรญa prรกctica

G, M. D., "Estado actual de los estudios sobre los simposios de

Platรณn, Jenofonte y Plutarco", CFC, 3 (1972) 127-91.

G, D. L., Xenophon's Cyropaedia. Style, Genre, and Literary Technique,

Oxford, 1993.

G, V. J., "Xenophon's Hiero and the Meeting of the Wise Man and Tyrant

in Greek Literature", CQ, 36 (1986) 115-23.

_____ "Xenophon's Symposion: e Display of Wisdom", Hermes, 120 (1992)

58-75.

_____ e Framing of Socrates: e Literary Interpretation of Xenophon's

Memorabilia, Stuttgart, 1998.

H, G., Plutarch von Chaeronea, der Verfasser des Gastmahl der 7 Weissen,

Diss. Wรผrzburgo-Burghausen, 1893.

J, S., Il convitato sullo sgabello: Plutarco, Esopo ed i Sette Savi, Roma,

1997.

L, D. F., "Plutarco e a tradiรงรฃo dos Sete Sรกbios", en M. J  .

(eds.), Plutarc a la seva รจpoca: Paideia i societat. Actas del VIII Simposio

Internacional de la Sociedad Espaรฑola de Plutarquistas (Barcelona, 6-8

Noviembre, 2003), Barcelona, 2005, pp. 343-51.

M, J., Symposion, Paderborn, 1931.

M, R. P., "e Seven Sages as Performers of Wisdom", en C. D

& L. K (eds.), Cultural Poetics in Ancient Greece: Cult, Performance,

Politics, Cambridge, 1993, pp. 108-28.

M, J., "Plutarch's Dinner of the Seven Wise Men and its place in

symposion literature", in J. M (ed.), Plutarch and his Intellectual

World, Londres, 1997, pp. 119-40.

M, D., Il simposio, Roma-Bari, 2001.

N, M.-P., "Symposion, philanthrรดpia et empire dans la Cyropรฉdie de

Xรฉnophon", en P. B-D & E. P (eds.), ฮฆฮนฮปฮฟฮปฮฟฮณฮฏฮฑ.

Mรฉlanges oerts a M. Casevitz, Lyon, 2006, pp. 133-46.

P, M.-L., "Inuenza della tradizione dei Sette Savi nella Vita di Solone

di Plutarco", REG, 69 (1956) 377-411.

R A, F., "Gรฉneros helenรญsticos en el Banquete de los Siete

Sabios", en J. A. F D  F. P P (eds.),

Estudios sobre Plutarco: aspectos formales. Actas del IV Simposio Espaรฑol

sobre Plutarco (Salamanca, 26-28 de Mayo, 1994), Madrid, 1996, pp.

125-42.

R, F., "Inussi Antistenici nell'Economico di Senofonte", Prometheus ,

16 (1990) 207-16.

470

Josรฉ Vela Tejada

S, J., Plutarque de Chรฉronรฉe: un philosophe dans le siรจcle, Parรญs, 2000.

S, B., "Zur Geschichte von Gastmahl der Sieben Weissen", en B. S,

Gesammelte Schriften, Gรถttingen, 1966.

S   T, E., "Diรกlogo, losofรญa y simposio", en M. J  .

(eds.), Plutarc a la seva รจpoca: Paideia i societat. Actas del VIII Simposio

Internacional de la Sociedad Espaรฑola de Plutarquistas (Barcelona, 6-8

Noviembre, 2003), Barcelona, 2005, pp. 463-83.

T, S.-T., "Principles of Composition in the Quaestiones Convivales",

en J. A. F D  F. P P (eds.), Estudios

sobre Plutarco: aspectos formales. Actas del IV Simposio Espaรฑol sobre

Plutarco (Salamanca, 26 a 28 de Mayo, 1994), Madrid, 1996, pp. 39-

48.

V T, J., "ฮˆฯฯ‰ฯ‚ ฮบฮฑฮน ฮ ฮฑฮนฮดฮตฮฏฮฑ ฯƒฯ„ฮฟ ฮฃฯ…ฮผฯ€ฯŒฯƒฮนฮฟ ฯ„ฮฟฯ… ฮžฮตฮฝฮฟฯ†ฯŽฮฝฯ„ฮฑ: ฮตฮฏฮฝฮฑฮน

ฮดฯ…ฮฝฮฑฯ„ฮฎ ฮผฮนฮฑ ฯƒฯฮณฮบฯฮนฯƒฮท ฮผฮต ฯ„ฮฟ ฮฃฯ…ฮผฯ€ฯŒฯƒฮนฮฟ ฯ„ฮฟฯ… ฮ ฮปฮฌฯ„ฯ‰ฮฝฮฑ", ฮ‘ฯฮนฮฌฮดฮฝฮท, 13

(2007) 29-47.

_____ "El Banquete de los Siete Sabios y la Vida de Solรณn de Plutarco: mito

polรญtico y contexto literario", en A. G. N (ed.), e Unity of

Plutarch's Work: Moralia emes in the Lives, Features of the Lives in the

Moralia, Berlรญn/Nueva York, 2008, pp. 501-14.

W, M. L., Hesiod. Works and Days, Oxford, 1978.

W, U. von, "Zum Gastmahl der Sieben Weisen", Hermes, 25 (1890)

196-227.

Ediciones y traducciรณn en espaรฑol del Septem sapientium convivium

B, F. C. (ed.), Plutarch's moralia, vol. II, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard

University Press, 1928, (repr. 1962).

D, J.  ., Plutarque. ล’uvres morales, tome II, Parรญs, 1985.

M O, C. & G L, J., Obras morales y de costumbres, vol. II,

Madrid, 1986.

471

El Banquete de los Siete Sabios como tour de force escolar

el ba n Q u e T e D e l o S Si e T e Sa b i o S c o m o T o u r D e f o r c e e s c o l a r

R G E

Universidad de Salamanca

Abstract

e main issue of this contribution is to point out the genre of anecdote (ฯ‡ฯฮตแฝทฮฑ) that Plutarch

relates to the symposiac sphere according to the classication specied in progymnasmatic

manuals, and to show how this rhetorical device works in the dialogization process of the

symposium as a literary genre.

  : exercice qui exige de la force.

–  . Action dicile accomplie avec une

habilitรฉ remarquable. 2. Action ou moyen d'action

qui suppose de l'adresse, de l'habiletรฉ, de la malice,

de la ruse. Le Nouveau Petit Robert (2004)

1. En 1928 Frank C. Babbitt calicรณ esta obra como un tour de force

literario1 . El empeรฑo de Plutarco, desde plena รฉpoca imperial, por recrear a un

grupo legendario de legisladores y gobernantes de รฉpoca arcaica en un gรฉnero

de รฉpoca clรกsica ya sancionado por Platรณn y Jenofonte, exigรญa de su autor una

gran energรญa (แผฮฝแฝณฯฮณฮตฮนฮฑ) y habilidad (ฮดฮตฮนฮฝแฝนฯ„ฮทฯ‚). Debรญa resolver ante todo dos

operaciones difรญciles: la construcciรณn escรฉnica y revestir las conversaciones de

sus personajes de naturalidad y encanto.

J. J. Reiske en el siglo XVIII y R. Volkmann2 en el XIX, con vistas al

resultado y no a la intenciรณn, lamentan el abuso de anacronismos y la ausencia

de un plan de conjunto, incluso el primero se permite armar que Tales de

Mileto y los Sabios, por razones cronolรณgicas, no habrรญan podido coincidir

espacialmente3 . Segรบn esta objeciรณn, a Plutarco el versรกtil escritor de las

diversas formas literarias que conforman los Moralia, lo desacredita Plutarco

el grave historiador de las programรกticas Vidas paralelas. Quienes ejercieron la

crรญtica interna del tratado4 concluyeron que nos encontrรกbamos ante un trabajo

1 F. C. B, 1956, p. 346. La ediciรณn utilizada para este trabajo es la de J. D,

Plutarque. Le Banquet des Septs Sages in J. D  . (eds.), 1985. La traducciรณn citada

es la de C. M O & J. G L, Plutarco. Obras Morales y de Costumbres , II,

Madrid, 1986.

2 R. V, 1967.

3 En D. A. W, 1821, p. 201 encontramos citado el curioso reparo de Reiske:

"Non valde congruit historiae, quod hunc cto nomine Niloxenum dictum Naucratitam facit. Nam

aletis aetate, qui Cyro et Croeso aequalis uixit, Naucratis nondum erat, condita sub Inaro in Aegypto

regnante et Artaxerxe in Perside circa Olymp. 90. teste Strabone p. 1153. Etiam aetates sapientium

haud satis apte congruunt. Periander Solone est antiquior: mitto alium". De ahรญ que W

exclamara a continuaciรณn: "Hoc mihi est judicium docti hominis! si judicium dici potest temerarium

dictum properanter scribentis."

4 C. M en su Geschichte des Ursprungs, Fortgangs und Verfalls der Wissenschaften in

472

Rodolfo Gonzรกlez Equihua

escolar5 escrito por un sosta contemporรกneo. Aquรญ escolar y sofรญstico, desde

luego, son dos atributos negativos: censuran y limitan el alcance del Banquete

plutarqueo. Seรฑalan la falta de inventiva, el estigma de lo inacabado y el exceso

de licencias literarias, de articio.

Mi objetivo, no obstante, es analizar este tratado precisamente a travรฉs de

su maniesto carรกcter escolar y la luz que arroja en el periodo de formaciรณn

de su autor, acaso el mรกs arduo y laborioso, aquel en que se escogen y ensayan

varios caminos y tambiรฉn aquel en que se descubren los territorios y vados

que tan sรณlo conviene mirar desde las orillas. Sobre todo, si aceptamos que

la fecha asignada a esta obra en la carrera de Plutarco apunta aรบn a su etapa

de formaciรณn6 . Clasicando esta obra como un ejercicio escolar apreciarรญamos

mejor y serรญamos mรกs condescendientes con su temeraria invenciรณn y con el

deliberado anacronismo que la permea, al tiempo que nos entregarรญa los trazos

inestables de todo empeรฑo por adquirir un estilo propio.

2. Cuando se habla de ejercicio escolar hemos de referirnos obligadamente

a uno de los mรฉtodos mรกs productivos en la รฉpoca imperial para el aprendizaje

gradual de la retรณrica y de sus formas discursivas fundamentales: los

progymnรกsmata o ejercicios de preparaciรณn, cuya formulaciรณn, esquematizaciรณn

e incluso ejemplicaciรณn nos legaron Teรณn de Alejandrรญa, Hermรณgenes de

Tarso, Aftonio de Antioquรญa y Nicolรกs de Mira7 , por mencionar tan sรณlo los

manuales griegos que nos han sobrevivido y que datan del siglo I al V d.C8 .

Que Plutarco se aplicara a su estudio y laboriosa asimilaciรณn nos explica en

parte que dos ejercicios constituyan las lรญneas directrices de su trabajo literario:

por una parte, la synkrisis vertebra el plan biogrรกco de las Vidas paralelas, asรญ

como por la otra la profusa producciรณn "chreica"9 recorre sus Ensayos miscelรกneos

y cartas, como querรญa Babbitt que titulรกramos sus tratados morales10 .

Apoyรกndonos tan sรณlo en el vรญnculo temporal, que harรญa factible el textual

Griechenland, Lemgo, 1781, I, p. 135 sqq., seguido por R. V, 1967, posturas nalmente

adoptadas por las historias de la literatura griega de W. C, 1889 y M. C, 1928.

5 Segรบn la sรญntesis de las posturas crรญticas ante el tratado que, en su ediciรณn, hace J. D,

1985, p. 171: "Ce recueil de platitudes ne pourrait รชtre l'ล“uvre de l'auteur des Moralia: ce ne

serait qu'un travail scolaire รฉcrit par un sophiste contemporain".

6 J. S, 2000, p. 160: "On peut discuter ร  l'inni sur la date du Banquet. Aucun

argument n'est dรฉterminant, les allusions ร  la dรฉmocratie pas plus que les autres. On doit songer

plutรดt ร  un exercice un peu articiel des annรฉes d'enseignement, entre 80 et 90 ou mรชme 95".

7 Cf. M. P & G. B, 1997; G. A. K, 2003. La traducciรณn de los

progymnasmata citada en este trabajo es la de M. D. R M, 1991.

8 Sobre la versiรณn latina de los progymnรกsmata cf. S. F. B, 1977, pp. 250-76. Para la

รฉpoca bizantina cf. H. H, 1978, pp. 92-120. Anรกlisis de la obra de Plutarco a la luz de la

teorรญa progimnasmรกtica han sido llevados tambiรฉn a cabo por J. A. F D, 2000;

y por A. V, 2005; y, eadem, en este mismo volumen, pp. 75-85.

9 P. H, 1963, p. 142 arma que la intenciรณn de Plutarco era hacer una colecciรณn de

chreiai en forma de banquete: "Man hat den Eindruck, dass es ihm hauptsรคchlich darauf ankam

eine Chriensammlung in die Form eines Symposions zu bringen (vgl. o.S. 115,1) und dann mit

allen Farben der Rhetorik auszumalen".

10 F. C. B, 1949, p. xiii: "Certainly a better descriptive title would be "Miscellaneous

Essays and Letters", for the Moralia cover many elds, and show an astounding learning and a

wide range of interests".

473

El Banquete de los Siete Sabios como tour de force escolar

e incluso el espacial –la historia literaria hace converger a ambos autores en

el siglo I d.C. –, y ante el desconocimiento del rรฉtor que marcรณ la actividad

libresca del Queronense11 , conjeturemos una posible relaciรณn magisterial entre

Teรณn de Alejandrรญa y Plutarco, y veamos cรณmo llegรณ a reejarse en la obra que

nos ocupa.

3. No hay nada equiparable, nos dice Jean Sirinelli12 , a excepciรณn del Gryllos ,

en el corpus plutarqueo, en lo que respecta a la introducciรณn de personajes

abierta y totalmente cticios, al Septem sapientium convivium. ¿Por quรฉ Plutarco

optรณ por hacer un simposio y por quรฉ escogiรณ entre los comensales al oscilante

grupo de los Siete Sabios?

Tal vez en principio asumiรณ la exigencia subrayada por Teรณn de no

acercarse a ninguna modalidad oratoria sin antes adentrarse en el estudio

de la losofรญa so pena de perder amplitud de pensamiento13 . A aquella se

suma el deber de ejercitarse en las sentencias de los sabios (ฯ„ฮฟแฟ–ฯ‚ ฯ„แฟถฮฝ ฯƒฮฟฯ†แฟถฮฝ

แผ€ฯ€ฮฟฯ†ฮธแฝณฮณฮผฮฑฯƒฮนฮฝ) y recopilarlas de las obras antiguas para adquirir, a fuerza de

interiorizarlas, un carรกcter virtuoso14 . De ahรญ que el Queronense se esmerara

en la compilaciรณn y confecciรณn de apotegmas, hypomnemata , chreiai, proverbios

y sentencias a las que posteriormente recurrirรก para aderezar sus escritos. Baste

leer la justicaciรณn de sus Regum et imperatorum apophthegmata (172d-e):

En las Vidas, las manifestaciones de los hombres se sitรบan junto a sus hechos

y aguardan el placer de una lectura sosegada. Aquรญ, pienso que sus palabras,

coleccionadas por separado como ejemplo y semilla de sus vidas (ฮดฮตฮฏฮณฮผฮฑฯ„ฮฑ ฯ„แฟถฮฝ

ฮฒฮฏฯ‰ฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯƒฯ€ฮญฯฮผฮฑฯ„ฮฑ), no te harรกn malgastar el tiempo y podrรกs pasar revista con

brevedad a muchos hombres dignos de recuerdo15.

O baste recordar las lรญneas donde arma: "Hice una colecciรณn de aquellos

apuntes (แผฮบ ฯ„แฟถฮฝ แฝ‘ฯ€ฮฟฮผฮฝฮทฮผฮฌฯ„ฯ‰ฮฝ) sobre la paz del alma que tenรญa a mano

preparados para mรญ mismo"16 . Huelgue citar las palabras donde declara este

conveniente hรกbito: "Por esto intento siempre reunir y releer no ya solamente

estos dichos de los lรณsofos […] sino mรกs bien los de los reyes y tiranos"17 ,

donde vemos declarada la predilecciรณn plutarquea por la sabidurรญa prรกctica

mรกs que por el conocimiento teรณrico. No nos extraรฑe entonces la atenciรณn que

le merecieron los Sietes Sabios, a quienes los griegos pusieron en el origen de

11 J. M. D L, 1999, p. 58. En todo caso, de la teorรญa progimnasmรกtica hay indicios

anteriores a Teรณn, su primer codicador conocido.

12 J. S, 2000, p. 161. "…il n'y a guรจre dans toute l'oeuvre de Plutarque de textes

du mรชme ordre; il y a des traitรฉs, des dialogues ctifs ou rรฉels entre des personnages rรฉels de

l'entourage de Plutarque, des biographies, mais nous n'avons que deux dialogues entre des

personnages ouvertement et totalment ctifs, ce sont le Gryllos et le Banquet des sept sages ."

13 eon 1,1-4.

14 eon 2,16-19.

15 Trad. M. L S & M. A. M, Plutarco. Obras Morales y de Costumbres, I II,

Madrid, 1987.

16 Cf. De tranquillitate animi ( Mor. 464F) Trad. R. M.ยช A, Plutarco. Obras Morales y

de Costumbres (Moralia) , VII, Madrid, 1995.

17 Cf. De cohibenda ira (Mor. 457D-E). Trad. R. M.ยช A, 1995.

474

Rodolfo Gonzรกlez Equihua

su historia de la losofรญa y de los cuales Herรณdoto nos ofrece algunos ejemplos

de su agudeza polรญtica18 : "hombres prรกcticos, de acciรณn –nos dice B. Snell–, que

en su mayorรญa, participaban en la vida del Estado como legisladores, soberanos

o consejeros"19 .

Por lo tanto, Plutarco debiรณ en principio de someterse a la tarea de recoger

un corpus de sentencias y consejos รบtiles comenzando por las inscripciones

dรฉlcas: "conรณcete a ti mismo" y "nada en demasรญa". En el curso de la encuesta se

enfrentarรญa a la falta de acuerdo tanto en la atribuciรณn de las sentencias como en

el nรบmero de los Sabios20 , hecho que reejarรก y solucionarรก en la introducciรณn de

su Simposio al multiplicar el nรบmero de comensales. Importaba mรกs, en cambio, la

pervivencia del conocimiento acumulado, que todas las sentencias se acomodasen

muy bien a la deniciรณn de la chreia del rรฉtor alejandrino; en suma, que fueran

declaraciones o acciones breves atribuidas a un personaje determinado y que fueran

รบtiles (chreiai) para la vida21 . Habrรญa tambiรฉn seguido con atenciรณn el ejemplo de

chreia verbal de respuesta interrogativa y su alusiรณn a Pรญtaco de Mitilene22 .

4. El siguiente paso era encontrar quรฉ tipo de discurso hacer con su acopio

de sentencias: ¿cuรกl era la mejor forma de realizar el exhaustivo programa que

Teรณn presenta para ejercitarse en la chreia, el cual comprende tres gรฉneros23 ,

cinco tipos24 , seis subespecies25 y doce categorรญas formales26? Plutarco debiรณ

de pensar en el recurso de pregunta y respuesta que la primera sofรญstica

encontrara27 al transitar por el terreno de las antinomias y perfeccionar el

arte de hacer prevalecer la opiniรณn personal, cuyo desarrollo culminarรญa en el

diรกlogo platรณnico. Esta fase intermedia podemos encontrarla en las respuestas

que el rey etรญope, referidas por Nilรณxeno de Nรกucratis, da a las preguntas ¿Quรฉ

es lo mรกs viejo, lo mรกs hermoso, lo mรกs grande, lo mรกs sabio, lo mรกs comรบn,

lo mรกs รบtil, lo mรกs perjudicial, lo mรกs poderoso y lo mรกs fรกcil? (Mor. 152E-

18 Cf. Hdt. I 27, 29, 59, 74 y 170.

19 El descubrimiento del espรญritu (Die Entdeckung des Geistes, trad. J. F), Barcelona,

2007 (1ยช ed. Hamburgo, 1963), p. 504.

20 D. L. 40-41.

21 eon 18, 9-14.

22 C f. eon 20, 3-6: "Habiรฉndole sido preguntado a Pรญtaco de Mitilene si la mala conducta

pasa desapercibida a los dioses, respondiรณ: 'No, ni aรบn pretendiรฉndolo'."

23 Chreiai verbales (ฮปฮฟฮณฮนฮบฮฑแฝท), de hechos (ฯ€ฯฮฑฮบฯ„ฮนฮบฮฑแฝท) y mixtas (ฮผฮนฮบฯ„ฮฑแฝท).

24 Chreiai enunciativas (แผ€ฯ€ฮฟฯ†ฮฑฮฝฯ„ฮนฮบแฝนฮฝ), de respuesta (แผ€ฯ€ฮฟฮบฯฮนฯ„ฮนฮบแฝนฮฝ), dobles (ฮดฮนฯ€ฮปแฟ†), activas

(แผฮฝฮตฯฮณฮทฯ„ฮนฮบฮฑแฝท ) y pasivas ( ฯ€ฮฑฮธฮทฯ„ฮนฮบฮฑแฝท).

25 De enunciaciรณn voluntaria (ฮบฮฑฮธ' แผ‘ฮบฮฟแฝปฯƒฮนฮฟฮฝ แผ€ฯ€แฝนฯ†ฮฑฯƒฮนฮฝ), de enunciaciรณn circunstancial (ฮบฮฑฯ„แฝฐ

ฯ€ฮตฯแฝทฯƒฯ„ฮฑฯƒฮนฮฝ), interrogativas (ฮบฮฑฮธ' แผฯแฝฝฯ„ฮทฯƒฮนฮฝ), indagativas ( ฮบฮฑฯ„แฝฐ ฯ€แฝปฯƒฮผฮฑ), causales interrogativas

(ฮบฮฑฮธ' แผฯแฝฝฯ„ฮทฯƒฮนฮฝ ฮฑแผฐฯ„ฮนแฟถฮดฮตฯ‚ ), de respuesta propiamente dicha (แผ€ฯ€ฮฟฮบฯฮนฯ„ฮนฮบแฝนฮฝ).

26 De sentencia (ฮฑแผฑ ฮณฮฝฯ‰ฮผฮฟฮปฮฟฮณฮนฮบแฟถฯ‚), demostrativa (ฮฑแผฑ แผ€ฯ€ฮฟฮดฮตฮนฮบฯ„ฮนฮบแฟถฯ‚), graciosa (ฮฑแผฑ ฮบฮฑฯ„แฝฐ

ฯ‡ฮฑฯฮนฮตฮฝฯ„ฮนฯƒฮผแฝนฮฝ), de silogismo (ฮฑแผฑ ฮบฮฑฯ„แฝฐ ฯƒฯ…ฮปฮปฮฟฮณฮนฯƒฮผแฝนฮฝ), de argumentaciรณn conclusiva o entimema

(ฮฑแผฑ ฮบฮฑฯ„แฝฐ แผฮฝฮธแฝปฮฝฮทฮผฮฑ ), de ejemplo (ฮฑแผฑ ฮบฮฑฯ„แฝฐ ฯ€ฮฑฯแฝฑฮดฮตฮนฮณฮผฮฑ), de sรบplica (ฮฑแผฑ ฮบฮฑฯ„' ฮตแฝฯ‡แฝตฮฝ), simbรณlica (ฮฑแผฑ

ฯƒฯ…ฮผฮฒฮฟฮปฮนฮบแฟถฯ‚), gurada (ฮฑแผฑ ฯ„ฯฮฟฯ€ฮนฮบแฟถฯ‚), con ambigรผedad (ฮฑแผฑ ฮบฮฑฯ„แฝฐ แผ€ฮผฯ†ฮนฮฒฮฟฮปแฝทฮฑฮฝ), con metalepsis

(ฮฑแผฑ ฮบฮฑฯ„แฝฐ ฮผฮตฯ„แฝฑฮปฮทฯˆฮนฮฝ), compuesta mediante combinaciรณn de varios modos (แฝ ฮดแฝฒ ฯƒฯ…ฮฝฮตฮถฮตฯ…ฮณฮผแฝณฮฝฮฟฯ‚

ฯ„ฯแฝนฯ€ฮฟฯ‚). Cf. M. A. B, 2005.

27 D. L. 9 53-55 nos dice que Protรกgoras fue el primero en suscitar el modo de dialogar que

llamamos socrรกtico (ฮฟแฝ—ฯ„ฮฟฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ„แฝธ ฮฃฯ‰ฮบฯฮฑฯ„ฮนฮบแฝธฮฝ ฮตแผถฮดฮฟฯ‚ ฯ„แฟถฮฝ ฮปฯŒฮณฯ‰ฮฝ ฯ€ฯแฟถฯ„ฮฟฯ‚ แผฮบฮฏฮฝฮทฯƒฮต) y registra

entre sus libros una Tรฉcnica de controversias (ฯ„แฝณฯ‡ฮฝฮท แผฯฮนฯƒฯ„ฮนฮบแฟถฮฝ).

475

El Banquete de los Siete Sabios como tour de force escolar

153A), preguntas ipso facto refutadas por Tales de Mileto (Mor. 153B-C),

en una escena que reeja muy bien el juego sofรญstico de hacer preguntas que

expresasen el grado mรกximo de una cualidad o de una circunstancia.

La elecciรณn de esta forma literaria parecรญa ineluctable. Unos supuestos

Septem sapientium logoi debรญan aspirar a ocupar un lugar junto a los logoi

socrรกticos del autor que llevara este gรฉnero a la perfecciรณn y a quien Teรณn

recurrรญa constantemente como modelo ya no sรณlo del progimnasma de la

chreia sino de otros mรกs: de la fรกbula, el relato mรญtico 28, la descripciรณn29, la

caracterizaciรณn30 y el encomio31. A Plutarco quizรก lo animรณ el hecho de que

sรณlo Jenofonte, otro escritor eclรฉctico, hubiera tratado de emular los diรกlogos

platรณnicos sin transigir en la caricatura. Despuรฉs de todo, a pesar de que los

Memorabilia fueron redactados transcurridos casi sesenta aรฑos despuรฉs de la

muerte de Sรณcrates, existe la tesis, sustentada por O. Gigon32 , de que Jenofonte

se habรญa remontado a una extensa literatura socrรกtica, no dependiente de la de

Platรณn y mรกs antigua, de mentalidad mรกs simple.

Plutarco habรญa remontado no aรฑos sino รฉpocas enteras para espigar una

literatura igual de extensa y hacerse con un catรกlogo de las sentencias de

los sabios. Tenรญa la forma en que debรญa integrarlas, el diรกlogo simposiaco, y

con รฉsta resolvรญa la construcciรณn escรฉnica y la inserciรณn de cuadros ricos en

polรฉmicas. El Queronense, no apartรกndose del patrรณn platรณnico, hace contar

a uno, Diocles, a manera de refutaciรณn de una apรณcrifa versiรณn en boga, lo

narrado por un tercero ausente y traslada la escena a un pasado remoto. Tenรญa

a los personajes. Quedaba por revestir las conversaciones de sus personajes de

naturalidad y encanto, dotarlas de animaciรณn.

Para tal empresa recurriรณ al progimnasma de la caracterizaciรณn o

prosopopeya. Teรณn la habรญa denido como "la introducciรณn de un personaje

que pronuncia discursos indiscutiblemente apropiados a su propia persona

y a las circunstancias en que se encuentra"33 . En este caso Plutarco ya sabรญa

quรฉ dirรญa cada personaje, sรณlo restaba concebir las circunstancias. Mรกs allรก

de la general, el banquete organizado por Periandro en la esta sacricial en

honor de Afrodita (Mor. 146C-D), hacรญa falta la pauta para que las sentencias

aparecieran con cierta espontaneidad en el texto.

Jean Defradas ha seรฑalado que el desorden de la composiciรณn es el defecto

28 eon 10, 2-7: "De narraciรณn serรญan ejemplos hermosรญsimos, de las mรญticas, la de Platรณn

en el libro segundo de la Repรบblica sobre el anillo de Giges y en el Banquete sobre el nacimiento

del amor, asรญ como las relativas a los temas del Hades presentes en el Fedรณn y en el libro dรฉcimo

de la Repรบblica ."

29 eon 12, 8-13: "Muchas descripciones han sido realizadas por los antiguos, como en

Tucรญdides, en el libro segundo, la peste y, en el tercero, el cerco de Platea y, en otra parte, un

combate naval y un combate a caballo; y en Platรณn, en el Timeo, lo relacionado con Sais…".

30 eon 12, 23-26: "De prosopopeya ¿quรฉ ejemplo habrรญa mรกs hermoso que la poesรญa de

Homero, los diรกlogos de Platรณn y de los demรกs socrรกticos, y los dramas de Menandro?".

31 eon 12, 26-13,1 "Tenemos tambiรฉn los encomios de Isรณcrates, los epitaos de

Platรณn…"

32 O. Gigon, Sokrates: sein Bild in Dichtung und Geschichte, 1947, p. 525.

33 eon 70,1-3. Los otros manuales designan de ordinario a este ejercicio con el tรฉrmino

etopeya.

476

Rodolfo Gonzรกlez Equihua

principal de este banquete y que todo intento por encontrarle una unidad

resulta vano34 . Sin caer en la excesiva generalizaciรณn con que E. David jรณ el

tema central: "la vida social en su aspecto mรกs general y mรกs particular"35 , bien

podemos desdoblarlo un poco y establecerlo de la siguiente manera: un examen

del vicio y la virtud a partir de los cuatro รกmbitos caracterรญsticos de acciรณn

humana: el simposiaco, el domรฉstico, el polรญtico y el religioso36 . Semejantes

รกmbitos servirรญan a Plutarco para articular sus catรกlogos chreicos con las virtudes

y vicios tรญpicos de cada uno de ellos.

Plutarco y Teรณn comparten el mismo interรฉs en la formaciรณn moral sin por

ello descartar en su exposiciรณn y pedagogรญa los casos escabrosos: "Es necesario

–nos dice Teรณn– cuidar no menos el decoro, de manera que no pongamos al

descubierto lo vergonzoso directamente, sino que lo expongamos mediante

circunloquios"37 . Con esta pauta vemos cรณmo el rรฉtor alejandrino38 transcribe

un ejemplo de chreia lleno de picardรญa sacado de la Repรบblica 329b-c:

–Sรณfocles, ¿quรฉ tal estรกs para los placeres del amor?

–¡Calla la boca –responde [Sรณfocles] –, pues yo con la mayor alegrรญa huรญ de ellos

como si escapase de un amo furioso y cruel.

Con esta misma pauta vemos cรณmo el polรญgrafo queronense hace que

Tales aligere el funesto presagio del nacimiento de un centauro, calicado por

Periandro como una infamia y una impureza, y que el de Mileto zanja con una

chreia verbal graciosa (ฮบฮฑฯ„แฝฐ ฯ‡ฮฑฯฮนฮตฮฝฯ„ฮนฯƒฮผแฝนฮฝ), presente dentro de las categorรญas

formales del ejercicio: "No emplees a hombres tan jรณvenes para cuidar tus

caballos, o proporciรณnales mujeres" (Mor. 149E). La pulla va dirigida contra

Diocles, nuestro cronista del Banquete, adivino de la corte de Periandro, y segรบn

David E. Aune39 , pseudรณnimo bajo el que se agazapa Plutarco. Asentimos si

pensamos que la alusiรณn a unos aparentemente absurdos ritos de puricaciรณn va

dirigida al pepaideumenos, al lector familiarizado con Herรณdoto o con la noticia

que รฉl registra, de que el presagio de querella y discordia tuvo repercusiones

mรกs graves que la simple negativa de Alexรญdemo a comer con los Sabios40 .

Pero si esta chreia presenta algo gracioso41 sin que aporte ninguna utilidad

vital, vayamos ahora como quiere Teรณn a las sentencias que se reeren a las

cosas รบtiles para la vida42 y demostremos con mรกs ejemplos concretos cuรกn

34 J. D, 1985, p. 173.

35 E. D, 1936.

36 En la actualidad, el lรณsofo holandรฉs R. R dirรก, de la mano de omas Mann, que el

arte, la moral y la polรญtica conforman la totalidad de la vida humana. Cf. R. R, 2008.

37 eon 16, 25-26; 17,1

38 eon 9, 13-20.

39 In H. B (ed.), 1978, p. 51.

40 Hdt. III 50-53.

41En todo caso, el humor es un componente importante del material progimnasmรกtico. Cf.

J. A. F D, 1996.

42 eon 19, 5-8: Se le llama chrรญa por excelencia porque en muchos aspectos es mรกs รบtil para

la vida que las otras formas [sentencia, apomnemoneuma].

477

El Banquete de los Siete Sabios como tour de force escolar

meticulosamente las categorรญas formales del rรฉtor se reejan en el Banquete de

acuerdo con los grupos temรกticos antes mencionados.

5. Limitemos nuestra investigaciรณn, ajustรกndonos al tรญtulo de este congreso,

al nรบcleo de acciรณn simposiaca. ¿Quรฉ es lo apropiado a personas que se dirigen

al banquete? Tales reere la anรฉcdota, a manera de ejemplo (ฮบฮฑฯ„แฝฐ ฯ€ฮฑฯแฝฑฮดฮตฮนฮณฮผฮฑ)

que posteriormente refutarรก a partir del argumento รฉtico de la inconveniencia

(แผฮบ ฯ„ฮฟแฟฆ แผ€ฯƒฯ…ฮผฯ†แฝนฯฮฟฯ… ), de los sibaritas y su muelle y exquisita costumbre de

invitar a sus mujeres "con un aรฑo de antelaciรณn, a n de que tuvieran tiempo

de preparar sus vestidos y adornos para ir al banquete" (Mor. 147E). A Tales,

por el contrario, le parece poco tiempo si se trata de adornar el carรกcter (แผคฮธฮตฮน

ฯ„แฝธฮฝ ฯ€ฯฮญฯ€ฮฟฮฝฯ„ฮฑ ฮบฯŒฯƒฮผฮฟฮฝ). El que es inteligente (แฝ ฮฝฮฟแฟฆฮฝ แผ”ฯ‡ฯ‰ฮฝ), vรฉase la siguiente

chreia simbรณlica (ฯƒฯ…ฮผฮฒฮฟฮปฮนฮบแฟถฯ‚), continรบa Tales, no se encamina al banquete

como si fuera un vaso vacรญo dispuesto a ser llenado, imagen que enriquecerรก

mรกs tarde en sus Quaestiones convivales (Mor. 660A-C). Incluye despuรฉs una

chreia demostrativa (แผ€ฯ€ฮฟฮดฮตฮนฮบฯ„ฮนฮบแฟถฯ‚) para ilustrar el sentimiento de antipatรญa

(ฮดฯ…ฯƒแฝฑฯฮตฯƒฯ„ฮฟฮฝ ) que produce el comensal, a quien compara con un vino de mala

calidad, insolente y grosero en el banquete (Mor. 147F-148A). Mรกs adelante,

ahondando en la misma idea, Tales concuerda con el parecer del lacedemonio

Quilรณn, quien rehusaba asistir a un banquete si desconocรญa la lista de convidados,

y le atribuye la siguiente chreia de silogismo (ฮบฮฑฯ„แฝฐ ฯƒฯ…ฮปฮปฮฟฮณฮนฯƒฮผแฝนฮฝ): "los que

estรกn obligados a navegar o hacer la guerra tienen que soportar al compaรฑero

de navegaciรณn o de campaรฑa insensato; pero es propio de un hombre poco

inteligente aceptar compartir el banquete con unos comensales elegidos al azar"

(Mor. 148A). Para nalizar el primer cerco de chreia s circunscritas al รกmbito

simposiaco, Tales nos presenta una de argumentaciรณn, naturalmente, conclusiva

(ฮบฮฑฯ„แฝฐ แผฮฝฮธแฝปฮฝฮทฮผฮฑ ) que nos exhorta a la virtud mayor de todo banquete ( Mor.

148B): la lantropรญa, implรญcita en el ฯ€ฯฮฟฯ„ฯฮญฯ€ฮตฯ„ฮฑฮน ฯ€ฯแฝธฯ‚ ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฏฮฑฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ แผ€ฮณฮฌฯ€ฮทฯƒฮนฮฝ

แผ€ฮปฮปฮฎฮปฯ‰ฮฝ, curiosamente a travรฉs de la tremebunda costumbre egipcia, a caballo

entre el respice nem y el carpe diem, de sentar a la muerte en la mesa. Nos dice

Plutarco por boca de Tales:

La momia, que los egipcios solรญan, con buen juicio, colocar y mostrar a los

comensales en los banquetes para recordarles que pronto ellos serรญan como ella,

a pesar de que llega como un invitado desagradable e intempestivo, sin embargo

aporta alguna ventaja si impulsa a los comensales no a la bebida y al placer, sino

a la amistad y al afecto mutuo y los exhorta a no hacer una vida, que es muy

corta por el tiempo, larga por sus malas acciones.

(Mor. 148A-B)

El siguiente cuadro continรบa no sรณlo con la lograda caracterizaciรณn del

personaje de Tales sino con la exploraciรณn mediante chreias, de otros aspectos

morales relativos al simposio. Vemos la animada escena donde el milesio

Alexรญmeno sale furioso del banquete a causa del lugar deshonroso que le asignรณ

Periandro. Nos encontramos ante la versiรณn grecolatina del asunto protocolario

de los primeros puestos. Pensemos que la versiรณn judeocristiana, el Evangelio

478

Rodolfo Gonzรกlez Equihua

de Lucas (14, 7-11), se adentra en el mismo asunto tambiรฉn a travรฉs de una

chreia para amonestar a los invitados que escogen los lugares principales43 .

En nuestra obra, Tales rememora la regia y elegante postura que asumiera

Agesilao, otra chreia de argumentaciรณn conclusiva (ฮบฮฑฯ„แฝฐ แผฮฝฮธแฝปฮฝฮทฮผฮฑ), cuando

lo relegaron al รบltimo lugar del coro y respondiera: "Muy bien, has encontrado

cรณmo convertir este lugar en un sitio honroso" (Mor. 149A). Aderezada con la

menciรณn de un ejemplo astrolรณgico y cerrรกndola con la exigencia de mantener,

sea cual sea el lugar que ocupemos, una actitud lantrรณpica; es decir, buscando

un comienzo y una coyuntura para la amistad (แผ€ฯฯ‡แฝดฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮปฮฑฮฒแฝดฮฝ ฯ†ฮนฮปแฝทฮฑฯ‚). En la

siguiente escena, Tales de Mileto cumplirรก con hechos sus palabras, ocupando

de buen grado el lugar que despreciara Alexรญdemo junto al autista รrdalo de

Trecรฉn (Mor. 149F).

Con estos breves ejemplos espero haber demostrado en parte el rigor con

que Plutarco ensayรณ los distintos tipos de chreia pacientemente esquematizados

por Teรณn, y cรณmo encontrรณ en la forma del diรกlogo la manera mรกs ecaz de

inyectarles vida y llevar a buen tรฉrmino este autรฉntico tour de force escolar.

bi b l i o g r a f รญ a c i T a d a

A F, R. M., Plutarco. Obras Morales y de Costumbres, VII,

Madrid, 1995.

A, D. E., "Septem sapientium convivium", in H. D. B (ed.), Plutarch's

Ethical Writings and Early Christian Literature, Leiden, 1978, pp. 51-

105.

B, F. C. (ed.), Plutarch's Moralia, I, London/Cambridge, Mass., 1949.

______ Plutarch's Moralia, II, London-Cambridge, Mass., 1956.

B, M. A., La chreia en los Moralia de Plutarco, Tesis Doctoral, Universidad

de Salamanca, 2005.

B, S. F., Education in Ancient Rome: From the Elder Cato to the Younger

Pliny, Berkeley, 1977.

C, W., Geschichte der griechischen Literatur, Mรผnchen, 1898. (1ยช ed.

Nรถrdlingen, 1889).

C, A.  C, M., Histoire de la Littรฉrature Grecque, V, Paris, 1928.

D, E., ฮ ฮปฮฟฯ…ฯ„แฝฑฯฯ‡ฮฟฯ… ฯ„แฟถฮฝ แผ‘ฯ€ฯ„แฝฐ ฯƒฮฟฯ†แฟถฮฝ ฯƒฯ…ฮผฯ€แฝนฯƒฮนฮฟฮฝ, Atenas, 1936.

D, J.  ., Plutarque. Oeuvres Morales, II, Paris, 1985.

D L, J. M., Las citas de Homero en Plutarco, Tesis Doctoral, Universidad

de Extremadura, 1999.

43 "Porque todo el que se eleva serรก rebajado y el que se rebaja serรก ensalzado" (แฝ…ฯ„ฮน ฯ€แพถฯ‚ แฝ

แฝ‘ฯˆแฟถฮฝ แผ‘ฮฑฯ…ฯ„แฝธฮฝ ฯ„ฮฑฯ€ฮตฮนฮฝฯ‰ฮธฮฎฯƒฮตฯ„ฮฑฮน ฮบฮฑแฝถ แฝ ฯ„ฮฑฯ€ฮตฮนฮฝแฟถฮฝ แผ‘ฮฑฯ…ฯ„แฝธฮฝ แฝ‘ฯˆฯ‰ฮธฮฎฯƒฮตฯ„ฮฑฮน).

479

El Banquete de los Siete Sabios como tour de force escolar

F D, J. A., "El sentido del humor de Plutarco", in J. A.

F D & F. P P (eds.), Estudios sobre

Plutarco: Aspectos formales, Madrid, 1996, pp. 381-403.

_____"Le Gryllus, une รฉthopรฉe parodique", in L. V  S (ed.),

Rhetorical eory and Praxis in Plutarch, Louvain-Namur, 2000, pp. 171-

81.

G, O., Sokrates: sein Bild in Dichtung und Geschichte, Bern, 1947.

H, P., Der Dialog, II, Hildesheim, 1963 (=Leipzig, 1895).

H, H., Die hochsprachliche profane Literatur der Byzantiner, I, Mรผnchen,

1978.

K, G. A., Progymnasmata. Greek Textbooks of Prose Composition and

Rhetoric (trans., introd. and notes), Leiden, 2003.

L S M. & M, M.A., Plutarco. Obras Morales y de Costumbres, III ,

Madrid, 1987.

M O, C.  G L, J., Plutarco. Obras Morales y de

Costumbres, II, Madrid, 1986.

P, M. & B, G. (eds.), Aelius รฉon: Progymnasmata, Paris,

1997.

R M, M. D., Teรณn, Hermรณgenes, Aftonio. Ejercicios de retรณrica,

Madrid, 1991.

R, R., Nobility of Spirit: A Forgotten Ideal, Yale, 2008.

S, J., Plutarque de Chรฉronรฉe. Un philosophe dans le siรจcle, Paris, 2000.

S, B., El descubrimiento del espรญritu, Barcelona, 2007. (1ยช ed. Hamburg,

1963).

V, A., "Plutarco, Sobre si es mรกs รบtil el agua o el fuego: Una tesis

progymnasmรกtica", in M. J  . (eds.), Plutarc a la seva รฉpoca:

paideia i societat. Actas del VIII Simposio espaรฑol sobre Plutarco,

Barcelona, 2005, pp. 507-15.

V, R., Leben und Schriften des Plutarch, Berlin, 1967 (=Leipzig,

1870).

W, D. A., Animadversiones in Plutarchi Moralia, II, Leipzig, 1821.

481

Historical Fiction, Brachylogy, and Plutarch's Banquet of the Seven Sages

hi s T o r i c a l f i c T i o n , b r a c h y l o g y , a n d pl u T a r c h ' s

ba n Q u e T o f T H e Se v e n Sa g e S

L K

University of Texas, Austin

Abstract

In this paper I examine the ways in which the weaknesses and strengths of Plutarch's

Banquet of the Seven Sages are tied to Plutarch's attempt to recreate the world of the sixth

century BCE in ctional form. e awkwardness of the rst half of the dialogue stems from

the incommensurability between the symposiastic genre of the Banquet and the Sages' role

as 'performers of wisdom' and their noted brevity of speech, or brachulogia. It is only when

Plutarch stops trying to historicize in the second half of the dialogue (and shifts his focus away

from the Sages altogether) that it becomes more readable, literary, and Plutarchan. is disparity

reects a broader tension between archaic brachulogia, and the less denitive, ambivalent, and

voluble style of discourse Plutarch favored, and I suggest that the Banquet stages its own internal

dialogue between alternative modes of representing the past.

Introduction

e Banquet of the Seven Sages is something of an anomaly in Plutarch's

works. As its title suggests, the work belongs to the genre of literary symposia,

linked to the seminal texts of Plato and Xenophon as well as Plutarch's own

Table Talk and other Imperial examples such as Lucian's parodic Symposium,

or the Lapiths and Athenaeus' Deipnosophists1 . But the Banquet can also be

classed more broadly as a dialogue, a form particularly favored by Plutarch,

and within this category it stands out as one of only two "historical" dialogues

in the Plutarchan corpus; the other is On Socrates' Daimonion2 . Both combine

a narrative of a well-known event from the distant past—in one, the legendary

dinner of the Sages at the home of Periander, tyrant of Corinth, and in the

other, the liberation of ebes in 379—with the sort of philosophical discussion

familiar from Plutarch's other dialogues.

While several of Plutarch's biographies, most notably Solon and Pelopidas,

cover analogous time periods, the composition of a ctional dialogue set at a

particular place and moment in historical time presents somewhat dierent

challenges relating to literary and dramatic composition. It seems that the early

sixth-century BCE milieu of the Banquet, less well-documented and perhaps

more alien in worldview to Plutarch than the Plato-inected fourth-century

setting of On Socrates' Daimonion, was the more dicult period to recreate

1 On the symposiastic genre in Plutarch, see M. V , 2000, and L. R, 2002, for

Imperial literary symposia in general.

2 One could arguably include Gryllus, a dialogue between Odysseus and one of Circe's

man-animals, but its heroic setting places it somewhat apart from the historical dialogues. On

Plutarchan dialogue, see R. H, 1895, pp. 124-237, I. G, 1998, L.   S,

2000, and R. L, 2001, pp. 146-87. Some of the dialogues of Heraclides Ponticus were

similarly set in the distant past; cf. R. H, 1895, p. 138.

successfully. Certainly On Socrates' Daimonion is widely considered to be one

of Plutarch's best and most original literary works3 , while the Banquet has not

been judged as kindly by posterity4 . My purpose here is to take a closer look

at the Banquet as an experiment in writing historical ction about the archaic

period, focusing on the particular problems involved in incorporating the

Seven Sages tradition and their celebrated brevity of discourse, or, brachulogia ,

into a symposiastic setting.

It might help to start with a brief sketch of the text. Like many of Plutarch's

dialogues, the Banquet is framed as a retrospective narrative (1; 146B-C), here

told by a certain Diocles, an expert in divination who was actually present at

the dinner, to an equally unknown Nicarchus and a group of his friends. It

opens with Diocles and one of the Sages, ales of Miletus, making their way

to Periander's home; they are joined by Niloxenus, a messenger conveying a

letter from the Egyptian king Amasis to Bias of Priene (2; 146D-148B). Upon

their arrival, they meet Periander, their host, and the other six sages — Bias,

Chilon, Cleobulus, Solon, Pittacus and Anacharsis (a fairly traditional list) —

but also several other guests — Cleobulus' daughter Cleobulina, known for

her riddles, Aesop, Periander's wife Melissa, Solon's companion and disciple

Mnesiphilus, the doctor Cleodorus, the poet Chersias and an otherwise

unknown Ardalus (3-4; 146B-150D). Once the eating is done and the ute-

girls have performed, the symposium proper begins. e rst half features the

Sages answering questions and oering advice, generally of a political nature, in

a manner marked by brevity and rapidity (5-12; 150D-155D); the second half,

signaled by the withdrawal of the women, Cleobulina and Melissa, features

more extended speeches on loftier topics (13-21; 155E-164D). is part of

the symposium is interrupted by the arrival of Periander's brother who tells

the wondrous story of an event he has just witnessed: the arrival at Taenarum

of Arion, conveyed by dolphins. After an ensuing discussion of dolphin-lore,

the dinner comes to an abrupt conclusion, returning perfunctorily (the last

sentence) to the framing narrative of Diocles5 .

One of the most striking characteristics of the Banquet is the considerable

disparity, in style and content, between the two halves of the text (1-12; 13-

21). e Sages dominate the rst half of the dialogue; the conversation is rapid,

consisting of short, sententious opinions, and the topics broached relate to

human activity, such as politics and the household. In the second half, however,

the non-Sages come to the fore, expounding long speeches on subjects of a

more divine and cosmic signicance familiar from Plutarch's other dialogues.6

3 On this text, see, e.g., D. B, 1984, A. B, 1988, and R. L, 2001,

pp. 179-87.

4 U. von W-M, 1890, p. 196 is the most incisive condemnation.

For a long time many scholars were convinced that the Banquet was not by Plutarch at all, or, at

least, could be dismissed as a youthful indiscretion. Few now doubt the work's authenticity—J.

D, 1954, conclusively demonstrated the unmistakably Plutarchan nature of the

Platonically-inuenced ideas expressed in the second part of the Banquet.

5 D. E. A, 1978, pp. 56-8 provides a convenient outline summary of the text.

6 L.   S, 2000, p. 113.

483

Historical Fiction, Brachylogy, and Plutarch's Banquet of the Seven Sages

Each portion has occasioned negative appraisals: if the rst half 's sprinkling

of the Sages' sayings has been criticized as "une sorte de recueil assez froid de

maximes sur divers sujets"7 , the second raises charges of gross anachronism

— Solon and Cleobulus become virtually indistinguishable from Plutarch's

relatives Lamprias or Soclaros in other dialogues8 . Coming to grips with this

stark split in subject matter and style is thus essential for fully evaluating and

understanding the Banquet ,9 and the failure to do so hampers recent attempts

to recuperate the text by locating a unifying theme underlying the apparent

convivial chaos — e.g., oikonomia, politics, love, a Platonic insistence on the

power of the divine over the material. Even the best reading of the text, by

Judith Mossman, who elegantly and persuasively argues that "the Dinner is a

richly and allusively written piece whose dramatic context and narrative are

inextricably entwined with its content…",10 concentrates on the introduction

and the second half of the dialogue, which have been recognized as possessing

considerable literary merit11 , and elides the 'dicult' rst half of the dinner.

In what follows, I examine the two halves of the dialogue as embodying

dierent approaches on the part of Plutarch toward the problem of writing

historical ction set in a period embodying ideas and an aesthetic radically

dierent from his own. In the rst part of the Banquet, Plutarch's attempts to

incorporate the traditional lore about the Sages into a symposiastic framework

— that is, to be 'historically' faithful to the Sages' tradition — runs into serious

diculties; it is only when he abandons this historicizing goal in the second

part, that the dialogue can take ight. But the two halves are also characterized

by their contrasting discursive styles, and Plutarch, wittingly or no, reveals

the tensions that exist between the brachulogia characteristic of the 'historical'

Sages, and by extension the archaic period, and the less denitive, ambivalent,

and voluble style of discourse he himself favored. In this sense, the Banquet

stages its own internal dialogue between alternative modes of representing the

past.

Historicizing the Seven Sages

roughout the dialogue, but especially in its rst half, Plutarch attempts to

incorporate as much of the legendary tradition about the Sages as possible into

his text in order to lend it the proper historicizing avor and some semblance

7 J. D, 1954, p. 13, referring to chs. 5-12. Cf. R. H, 1895, pp. 139-40.

8 U. von W-M, 1890, p. 196. Other anachronisms (Croesus,

Periander, and Amasis as contemporaries; the presence of women (Eumetis and Melissa) at an

archaic symposium (on this see J. M. M, 1997, pp. 124-5; p. 137 n. 28)) were probably

not of great concern to Plutarch, since the very idea of a dinner of the Seven Sages is dicult

to square with chronology. J. D, 1954, pp. 7-12 succinctly summarizes the debate; cf.

30 on questions of date.

9 Oikonomia: D. E. A, 1978, pp. 52-3; politics: G. J. D. A, 1977; love: J. M.

M, 1997; Platonic: J. D, 1954, p. 15.

10 J. M. M, 1997, p. 122.

11 E.g., by J. D, 1954, pp. 14-5.

of authenticity12. e premise of the Banquet draws on a longstanding tradition

that all of the Sages had gathered together at a symposium; the location varied,

but Corinth is attested as one possibility13 . Periander was often included in lists

of the Seven Sages, but his credentials were also questioned, given his rather

un-Sage-like portrayal in Herodotus. Plutarch's decision to have him host

the banquet allows him to participate in the conversation without concerns

about eligibility. e extensive guest list is an indication that Plutarch has

tried to include as many familiar faces from the archaic period as possible; and

in fact, reference is made during the conversation to many other well known

gures of the time, such as Hesiod, Epimenides, rasybulus of Miletus, and

Croesus. As the choice of characters suggests, the Banquet's evocation of the

archaic world has, perhaps inevitably, a considerable Herodotean avor. In

fact, the text cannot help but exploit the temporal xity of his symposium

by activating readers' knowledge of the Histories; Mossman shows how the

Banquet is suused with "a good deal of underlying sadness and irony" when

one considers the often tragic future in store for the guests: Periander's murder

of Melissa, Solon's sad last days in Athens, Anacharsis' brutal death in Scythia,

and Aesop's ignoble execution at Samos14 .

e two pivotal episodes in each half of the dialogue—the reading

and response of the letter from the Egyptian king Amasis, and the story of

Arion and the dolphin — are inspired by Herodotus as well. e Arion tale

is a marvelous rewriting of one of the most famous Herodotean narratives,

which I discuss at the end of this article. e letter from Amasis to Bias is

not from the Histories, but ts snugly into a Herodotean milieu. e use of

letters by non-Greek monarchs is a well-known feature of Herodotus' world,

and Amasis' epistolary correspondence with the tyrant Polycrates of Samos

(3.40-43) would be familiar to any reader of the Histories. Moreover, Amasis'

request to Bias for help is an example of another Herodotean topos, in which a

monarch or tyrant receives advice from a 'wise man' or sage. Further thematic

connections are brought out by a brief anecdote ales tells Diocles en route

to Periander's, about a previous 'epistolary' exchange between Bias and Amasis

(146F). Amasis had sent Bias an animal for sacrice asking him to send back

the best and worst portion of the meat. Bias responded to both requests by

sending back only one body part — the tongue — an act of wisdom that gained

him Amasis' respect and esteem15 . e story is linked both to the Herodotean

fondness for depicting symbolic, non-verbal communication (e.g., rasybulus

12 e specic sources are less important here than the fact that Plutarch makes a

conscientious attempt to include sayings that were well-known in the Sages tradition.

13 Plutarch refers to a banquet of the Sages at Periander's at Solon 4.1. D. L. I 40-44 mentions

the Panionion, Corinth, and Delphi as attested locations, and remarks that Archetimus of

Syracus also set it in Corinth, at the court of Cypselus (Periander's father) while Ephorus moved

it to Croesus' court. For the tradition, see B. S, 1954.

14 J. M . M, 1997, p. 126, and L. I, 2002, pp. 66-7. Occasionally there is

a pointed allusion: ales' remark that Periander is making a good recovery from despotism

(147C) concludes with an ominous "at least up till now", pointing to the disasters to come.

15 On this story and its antecedents, see I. M. K, 2004, pp. 97-119.

485

Historical Fiction, Brachylogy, and Plutarch's Banquet of the Seven Sages

and Periander: Hdt. 1.22) and the folktale motif, also found in his work, in

which a ruler rst tests an advisor before asking more important questions

(Croesus' testing of the Greek oracles before selecting Delphi: Hdt. 1.46-48).

In addition, Amasis' request falls into the category of the so-called 'riddle of

the superlative', which consists of asking "what thing or person possesses a

certain quality to the highest degree" and seems to have been a favorite device

employed by monarchs in legend — the most famous example being Croesus'

request to Solon to name the "most fortunate" man (Hdt. 1.29)16 .

Problems with Performance

If the letter ts well with Plutarch's historicizing project by contributing

to the archaic Herodotean atmosphere with which he imbues the Banquet, it

comes across as somewhat unusual when considered against the symposiastic

setting of the piece17 . e symposium is traditionally a space for oral,

improvisatory performance and public conversation, while a letter is written,

planned, premeditated, and mute — a private communication between two

individuals. Moreover, it would seem a priori dicult to incorporate a letter,

which presupposes separation in time and space between writer and addressee,

into the literary symposium's relatively restricted temporal and geographical

frame18 . is tension, however, is symptomatic of a wider problem that Plutarch

had to grapple with when incorporating the historically attested stories about

the Sages into a symposiastic milieu. On the face of it, the Sages would

seem to t extremely well into the spontaneous and face-to-face world of the

symposium, especially since the well-known anecdotes and legends about the

Sages depict them primarily as skilled performers of oral improvisatory wisdom.

As Richard Martin has suggested, the Sages are often depicted as 'performing'

wisdom, that is, giving advice or criticism, usually about political matters, in

the form of 'public enactments' before an audience, generally a tyrant or other

important man19 . We can recall the well-known episodes involving the Sages

in the rst book of Herodotus: Solon's encounter with Croesus (1.29-33),

Bias' quip to the same ruler about shipbuilding and horses (1.27), Chilon's

advising Peisistratus' father not to have a son (1.59)20 . Such stories spotlight

the Sages' fame for their ability to "shoot a brief, concise, and unforgettable

remark, just like a skilled javelin thrower, that makes the person he's speaking

16 On the 'riddles of the superlative', see I. M. K, 2005, pp. 20-2 with extensive

bibliography; quote from idem, 2004, p. 126.

17 Cf. Lucian's Symposium 21-27, in which a letter from an absent angry philosopher disrupts

the proceedings.

18 L. D, 2005, p. 90 comments on this aspect of the letter from Amasis, and her

article compares the Banquet with the Letter of Aristaeus.

19 R. M , 1993, pp. 115-16: "e sages are poets, they are politicians and they are

performers…by perfomance, I mean a public enactment, about important matters, in word

or gesture, employing conventions and open to scrutiny and criticism, especially criticism of

style."

20 On the individual Sages in Herodotus, see A. B, 2002, pp. 17-27.

to seem no better than a child."21 e quotation is from Plato's Protagoras ,

in which Socrates claims more generally that the Sages' preference for terse,

pithy opinions — their "laconic brevity" (brachulogia tis Lakรดnikรช) — was "the

characteristic style (tropos) of ancient philosophy (tรดn palaiรดn tรชs philosophias)"

(343a-b). Plutarch knows this passage and the sentiment it expresses well and

is committed to dramatizing this archaic brachulogia in his text.

But a closer consideration reveals some diculties, and it is worth

exploring them before turning to the letter itself. In Herodotus the eect of

the Sages' bons mots arises from their appropriateness to a particular situation

and addressee, and once the Sage utters his clever, incisive comment the

anecdote abruptly comes to an end. In a biography, such as the Life of Solon, or

those of individual Sages in Diogenes Laertius, these anecdotes can be linked

as a series of encounters that occur at various points in a Sage's life, relatively

unconnected in space and time. In a symposiastic dialogue, however, it is

dicult to 'stage' these momentous scenes between Sage and ruler, not only

because of the restrictions of the temporal and spatial setting, but also because

the somewhat antagonistic nature of the anecdotes is not well-suited to the

conviviality of a symposium.

e problem facing Plutarch then was how to include more than just a

few of these 'performances', for which the Sages were famous, in a setting that

was so unsuited to them. One solution is to insert famous quotes or anecdotes

about a given Sage into the mouth of another character in the text: e.g., the

story discussed above concerning Amasis, Bias, and the tongue is told by

ales. Another instance from the opening of the dialogue is when Niloxenus

informs Diocles and ales of Amasis' admiration for ales' wisdom by

relating two anecdotes illustrating this wisdom: ales' method of measuring

the pyramids and his quip that "a tyrant that lived to be old" was the most

paradoxical thing he had ever seen22 . So at the dinner proper, we nd, to

take only a few examples, Aesop quoting Solon and Eumetis (152D; 150E-F,

154B), Cleodorus quoting Pittacus (153E), and at one very odd moment Bias

almost 'becomes' ales, answering on his behalf with ales' own sayings

(160E). On one level, this is a tidy way out of the diculty identied above;

Plutarch can regale (or remind) his audience of the witty aphorisms of the

Sages and include many more 'performance' stories than otherwise. One could

also argue that the retrospective narration of the Sages' activities by their peers

gives the impression both of the fame enjoyed by all of the Sages and their

general familiarity with each other.

In a way though, this is also the problem. By having the Sages 'remind'

the gathered company of their fellows' past activities, Plutarch characterizes

these stories as already traditional at the time of the Banquet. e sense one

gets within the narrative, however, is that they are not well-known at all, since

21 Pl. Protag. 342e; quoted by Plutarch at De garrul. 17; 510E.

22 147A-B. Cf. the slightly dierent versions of the pyramid-measuring story in D. L. 1.27

and Plin., Nat. 36.82. Plutarch himself attributes the tyrant remark to Bias at De adul. et am.

61c; cf. the much longer version at De gen. Socr. 578d.

487

Historical Fiction, Brachylogy, and Plutarch's Banquet of the Seven Sages

they are told in their entirety rather than just referred to in passing. Niloxenus,

for example, insists on retelling the wisdom-stories about ales in full, even

though one of his addressees is the very person, ales, that originally performed

them23 . Indeed, the presence of the Sages as audience to the telling of their

own deeds and the quoting of their own words contributes considerably to the

forced and articial conversation that dominates the rst half of the dialogue24 .

A more serious diculty is that such a method fails to take advantage of the

Banquet's setting and the presence of the Sages; we do not witness the Sages

performing the improvised wisdom for which they are known, but only hear

about things they have already done.

e Letter of Amasis

Plutarch's major task then is to engineer situations in which we can

see the Sages in action, despite the incongruity of their performance style

to the symposiastic milieu. One example occurs before the dinner begins:

upon their arrival at Periander's Diocles and ales are shown a baby centaur

born in Periander's stables and after some speculation on the meaning of such

a portent, ales remarks to Periander that he should either avoid having

young men take care of his horses, or else provide wives for them. Periander

bursts out laughing, embraces ales, and then the three enter the dining

room; ales' 'performance' concludes the episode. But during the dinner

itself, once the guests have all settled in their places, such encounters become

more dicult to choreograph. In what follows, I want to examine Plutarch's

interesting, but ultimately fruitless, attempt to represent the oral improvisatory

performance of the Sages by means of the introduction of a written letter into

the symposium.

After the meal itself has been completed, the post-dinner discussion

begins with Niloxenus' reading of Amasis' letter to Bias. In it, Amasis explains

that the Ethiopian king and he are involved in a "contest of wisdom" (sophias

hamilla) with each other, and that the Ethiopian has demanded that Amasis

"drink the ocean" (ekpiein tรชn thalattan). If Amasis fails to solve this riddle, he

will have to withdraw from the villages around Elephantine; if he solves it, he

can lay claim to more Ethiopian territory. After a moment's thought, and some

consultation with Cleobulus (who had a reputation as a riddle-master), Bias

answers triumphantly: Amasis should oer to drink the ocean only after the

Ethiopian king has stopped up the rivers owing into it, since the agreement

was to drink the ocean that exists now, and not in the future25 . "As soon as Bias

23 e eect is mitigated slightly by ales' response, which is to correct Niloxenus'

attribution to ales — the tyrant quip was actually said by Pittacus of Mitylene — and add his

own improvisatory variation.

24 Compare the dierent eect in the second part of the dialogue when stories are told about

famous gures who are not at the banquet, such as Epimenides or Hesiod.

25On this category of riddle, known as the adynaton — an impossible situation or request

that is often answered, as here, by proposing "an equally impossible counter-task…that logically

precedes that of the propounder's adynaton", see I. M. K, 2004, pp. 121-6 (quote

had said these words, Niloxenus, hastened to embrace and kiss him out of joy

and the rest of the company also commended the answer and expressed their

satisfaction with it" (151D).

As we mentioned above, the monarchical letter to a wise advisor evokes

Herodotus and the archaic period; the further epistolary relation referred to

within the letter — the suggestion that in the old days Eastern monarchs

conducted epistolary contests of wits with each other — was also ingrained

in the popular tradition, and most likely derived from Egyptian and Near

Eastern tales. e best example comes from the Aesop Romance, where Aesop

becomes the special riddle advisor to the Babylonian king Lycurgus. e

narrator explains: "In those days it was customary for kings to collect tribute

from one another by means of contests in wit. ey did not face one another

in wars and battles, but sent philosophical conundrums by letter, and the one

who couldn't nd the answer paid tribute to the sender" (101). In the Banquet ,

however, Plutarch employs the letter to transform the standard face-to-face

performance of advice between Sage and ruler into a display of wisdom before

an audience of his peers. Unlike the above-mentioned references to past

displays, Bias' performs his wisdom in the present, at the symposium itself; the

reader too can witness the Sage in action. Normally in stories of this type, the

sage's wisdom impresses either the king to whom he gives the advice, or the

king whose riddle is defeated, but here neither Amasis nor the Ethiopian king

is present. Rather it is Amasis' proxy Niloxenus and the dinner guests who

provide the marveling response required by such stories. e letter has thus

enabled an act of performative wisdom.

Once Bias has oered his successful riposte, however, another problem

emerges. e conclusiveness of Bias' sententious solution to the Ethiopian

king's riddle leaves the narrative at an impasse. In other depictions of Sages,

such as in Herodotus, or the Life of Solon, the author can simply move on to

another anecdote, another situation for the Sage to show o his aphoristic

wisdom. In the Banquet, however, that is not possible; the cast of characters

remain in place, and there is thus no natural way to continue the dinner

conversation. e letter's strength, which was its ability to introduce by way of

proxy a distant monarch into the symposium, is also its weakness — the absent

Amasis cannot respond to the Sage's intervention.

Plutarch's solution to this dilemma is to have the Sages nevertheless

act as if Amasis were present. e silence following Bias' answer is broken

by Periander, who suggests that each Sage in turn advise Amasis as to "how

he could render his kingship drinkable and sweet to his subjects." Starting

with Solon, each sage oers a pithy response: e.g., "If only he is thoughtful"

(Anacharsis); If he trust none of his associates" (Cleobulus); "If he should make

his subjects fear, not him, but for him." (Pittacus). is 'rotation of wisdom'

is repeated two more times during the rst half of the dinner—regarding

the best kind of democracy (154D) and the best managed household (154F-

from 123). Cf. D. E. A, 1978, p. 94.

489

Historical Fiction, Brachylogy, and Plutarch's Banquet of the Seven Sages

155D) — with equally banal results26. e practice, of course, has good

sympotic precedent in both Plato and Xenophon27 , and is a way to have every

Sage, and not just Bias, contribute some wisdom, but the traditional brevity

of the Sages' responses turns the exercise into a listing of platitudes addressed

to a gure, Amasis, who is not even present at the dinner. Each aphorism

thus loses the power that it might have possessed in a particular performative

context. Furthermore, while juxtaposing the Sages' responses in this fashion

allows greater participation, it also emphasizes their interchangeability28 . No

quote is particularly tailored to any one Sage; any quote could be re-attributed

to another sage with little trouble, and in fact many of the Sages' maxims were

interchangeable in the tradition29 . Plutarch himself often ascribes them to

dierent sages: the story about Bias and the tongue, for instance, is told of

Pittacus in On Listening to Lectures (38C) and On Talkativeness (506C). is

virtual identity of thought on the part of the Sages contrasts strongly with the

diversity of opinions, philosophical allegiances, and professions that regularly

feature at such gatherings, from Plato's Symposium to Plutarch's Table-Talk.

In fact, the monotony of the Sages' responses can be contrasted with that

of Periander, who, though not ocially a Sage in this text, usually oers an

eighth opinion in these roundabouts, reective of his status as a tyrant, and

hence individualized and somewhat opposed to those of the generally anti-

tyrannical Sages.

e "rotation of wisdom" has hardly succeeded as a means of giving life to

Plutarch's ctional Sages, and in fact leaves matters right where it took them

up: the brevity and conclusiveness of the Sages' aphorisms have ended rather

than initiated further discussion. Plutarch falls back on his previous ploy;

Niloxenus reveals that the letter from Amasis has a second part. In addition

to the riddle posed to him by the Ethiopian king, Amasis had also received his

opponent's replies to a set of questions that he had posed (What is the oldest

thing? Time. e greatest? e kosmos. e wisest? Truth, etc.), and now was

26 On Plutarch's use of these "tours de parole", see L. D, 2005, pp. 82-6, who views

them in a more sympathetic light.

27 Pl. Smp.; Xen. Smp. 3-4.

28 e lack of dierentiation among the Sages is also suggested by Amasis' instructions to

Niloxenus: "if Bias should give up trying to solve it, he should show the letter to the wisest men

among the Greeks" (146E). e epithet "wisest of the Greeks" recalls the best-known story

about the Sages, told in multiple versions, about the tripod or cup of Bathycles that is meant

for 'the wisest' (Plutarch has Aesop jokingly allude to the legend in passing at 155E and tells

his own version at Solon 4.2-7). e story goes that the object was sent rst to one of the Sages,

usually ales or Bias, who then sent it to another, until the object had passed through the

hands of all of them, and is either kept by ales again, or dedicated to Delphi. e constant

circulation of the tripod can be taken to highlight the humility of the sages and their respect

for each other, but on another level it underlines their sameness and interchangeability. In this

context the letter of Amasis is very much a stand-in for the tripod (which Plutarch almost

ostentatiously fails to mention). For an overview of the entire tradition of the cup/tripod, see A.

B, 2002, pp. 56-64.

29 E.g., ales' saying about animals, tyrants, and atterers is attributed to Bias by Plutarch

in Adul. et am. 61C; see above the other ales and Bias stories told by Niloxenus.

requesting an assessment of the responses30. is time the spokesman is ales,

who criticizes the Ethiopian's answers as incorrect and oers his own solutions

instead: e.g., "God is oldest, for God is something that has no beginning."

ales' answers match ideas attributed to him by Diogenes Laertius (I 35),

and a comparison with that text demonstrates how Plutarch has managed

to take the bare skeleton of ales' maxims and worked them into a context

where he can be seen performing them. But the problem that arose with Bias'

response is even more apparent here; ales' Sage-like propensity for brevity

results in a catalog of maxims or gnomai that brings an end to, rather than

starts, discussion of the issue at hand. Even when the Sages do enact their

wisdom onstage, as it were, their celebrated concision, or brachulogia, and the

suddenness with which their responses get at the "truth", are ill suited to the

extended conversation required by their presence together at a dinner. Plutarch

tries to import some of the Sages' often antagonistic advice to rulers into the

more harmonious rhythms of the symposium by directing ales' criticisms to

a king who is absent from the symposium. But the physical absence of that

king signicantly diminishes the eect of ales' performance.

To conclude this section, it seems that the Sages, despite the fact that

their associations with orality, performance, improvisation, and wisdom appear

to qualify them as ideal candidates for depicting in a symposium, are actually

quite unsuited to a symposiastic context; their tendency toward brevity, their

status as contextualized performers, and their interchangeability all militate

against the kind of dialogue that Plutarch was accustomed to writing.

Arion, Anachronism, and Brachulogia

e Banquet, however, changes dramatically in the second part of the

dinner, beginning with the speech of Mnesiphilus, Solon's protรฉgรฉ, at 156B;

from then on, not only does the conversation turn away from the political

to matters of proper diet, the care of the body and nally religion, but the

guests speak at length, represent a diversity of opinions, and espouse beliefs

that are hard to imagine as conceivable in the sixth century BCE. We should

note, however, that this criticism is valid only for this second half of the

dinner; in fact, it is precisely when Plutarch stops trying to historicize, that

is, when he stops trying to include the Sages' sayings and witticisms from

the gnomological tradition, that the dialogue becomes more readable, more

literary, more Plutarchan. Indeed he shifts his focus away from the Sages

altogether; the non-Sages, who are individualized by their professions — the

doctor Cleodorus, the diviner Diocles, and the poet Chersias — become more

prominent as speakers, and when a famous contemporary gure is discussed,

it tends to be one who is not present at the dinner, such as Epimenides, rather

than one of the Sages themselves. And when a Sage does speak (e.g., Solon),

he no longer does so in brief sound bites, but in the long elaborate speeches

more characteristic of other Plutarchan dialogues.

30 On the second part of the letter, see I. M. K, 2005, pp. 36-44.

491

Historical Fiction, Brachylogy, and Plutarch's Banquet of the Seven Sages

It is instructive to compare the sections surrounding the letter from

Amasis with the parallel 'Herodotean' episode in the second half of the dinner

— the beautifully crafted retelling of the story of Arion and the dolphin31 . e

tale is told to the banqueters by Periander's brother Gorgus, who functions

as the 'unexpected guest' familiar from other literary symposia and interrupts

the banquet with news of the fabulous event he has just witnessed: a device

that is also reminiscent of the way that exciting news arrives in the midst

of Plutarch's 'dramatic dialogues' like Amatorius and On Socrates' Daimonion 32 .

Technically, the story is another retrospective narrative, but the immediacy of

the event, combined with its description by an eyewitness who has interrupted

the dinner in order to bring the news, enables the fantasy of "being there" as

"history" is made — much as the letter of Amasis allowed Plutarch, somewhat

less successfully, to show the Sages in action.

In his presentation, Plutarch lays great emphasis on the wonder and

religious mystery that the episode evokes. Arion's arrival is described from

Gorgus' innocent perspective; during a moonlight sacrice on the beach at

Taenarum, a ripple is seen suddenly in the otherwise calm sea, surrounded

by foam and noise, and begins moving rapidly toward the shore. All of those

nearby raced down to the water, struck with wonder (thaumasantas); they

saw a band of dolphins carrying a man's body, which, when deposited on the

shore, was recognized as the citharode Arion. Arion himself tells Gorgus

the familiar story of his near-death experience at the hands of pirates, but

the whole episode, which Herodotus centers on the 'brave gesture' of Arion's

leap and the punishment of his would-be murderers (the latter omitted by

Plutarch), is reconceived as a religious epiphany:

Observing that the sky was dotted with stars, and that the moon was rising

bright and clear, while the sea everywhere was without a wave as if a path

were being opened for their course, [Arion] thought to himself that the eye of

Justice is not a single eye only, but through all these eyes of hers God watches

in every direction the deeds that are done on land and on the sea. (161E-F)

is elegant reworking of the marvelous as an instance of the divine

revealing itself to the human world recalls the Delphic Dialogues, where

similarly haunting tales, such as the Death of Pan, are told (De def. orac.

419A-E). And the speech Anacharsis gives in the Banquet to explain the

behavior of the dolphins employs the same argument about the divine, the

body, and the soul oered in On the Pythian Oracles (404B)33 . Needless to say,

the philosophical underpinning of Plutarch's recasting of the Arion story is

completely alien to archaic thought, but it is at this moment, when he is the

most unabashedly anachronistic, that he manages to best draw his audience

31 On this episode, see J. M. M, 1997, pp. 131-3; and the detailed comparison of L.

I, 2002.

32 On the 'dialogo drammatico', see A. B, 1988.

33 J. D, 1954, p. 15; 111-2 n. 187 sees this idea as central to the Banquet.

directly into the world of Archaic Greece and convey the sense of immediacy

and wonder might have had for the people of that long ago time. Rather

than stay faithful to his archaic 'sources', Plutarch chooses to portray the event

from his own perspective and interests, and those of the members of his circle.

e rewriting of the Arion episode is an excellent example of how Plutarch

views an archaic narrative through his own Imperial and Platonizing lens,

skillfully re-arranging its structure and re-focusing its thematic signicance.

Ironically in a work seemingly dedicated to bringing the world of the Sages to

life, Plutarch has achieved his most vivid success with a story that has nothing

to do with them—Arion's only connection to the guests is through Periander.

e Sages, instead of serving as the main attraction, have become, along with

the reader, the audience for a far more compelling narrative.

e length and leisurely pace of Gorgus' narrative, thick with description

of the scene and Arion's thoughts, contrast strongly with the repartee and bons

mots that make up the episode concerning the letter from Amasis. Moreover,

whereas the Sages' pithy replies to the letter from Amasis ground the

conversation to a halt, Gorgus' story of Arion engenders further discussion—

aside from Anacharsis' philosophical musings, the banqueters recall a series

of dolphin stories that continue to dwell on the themes suggested by Gorgus'

tale and carry the reader to the conclusion of the dialogue. e disparity is

symptomatic of that between the two parts of the dialogue in general; the

length and detail of the speeches in this last section are as characteristic of

the second part of the dinner as the concise utterances are of the rst. And

as Laetitia Demarais has proposed, this inconsistency between the brachulogia

of the opening of the symposium and the makrologia of its conclusion is so

conspicuous that it must be the result of a deliberate move on Plutarch's part34 .

For Demarais, the dierence is primarily due to content; while Plutarch's motive

in the rst part is to "show that brachylogy does not exclude profundity", he

acknowledges in the second part that for certain, more metaphysical topics,

"only macrology is relevant"35 .

Although I think that some of the awkwardness in the rst half of the

Banquet is the unintentional result of Plutarch's failed struggle to smoothly

incorporate traditional Sage-lore into a symposiastic context36 , I agree that

the shift between the rst and the second half is so radical to suggest a more

subtle design. But I see the juxtaposition of two halves, so dierent in form

and content, as a sign of an underlying tension in Plutarch's thought between

the kind of conversation, style, and philosophizing characteristic of the Sages

(and by extension the Archaic period), and those on display in his other,

contemporary, dialogues. After all, a certain ambivalence in Plutarch's view

of the Sages can occasionally be glimpsed elsewhere in his corpus: the Sages'

(predominantly democratic) political attitudes do not always accord well with

34 L. D, 2005, pp. 96-7.

35 L. D, 2005: quotes from p. 96.

36 M. V , 2000, p. 226 suggests that Plutarch might have intended to return to the text

to revise and rene it.

493

Historical Fiction, Brachylogy, and Plutarch's Banquet of the Seven Sages

Plutarch's own, and in the Life of Solon, for example, he expresses some disdain

for the Sages' primitive scientic knowledge (3.5) as well as moral disapproval

of their opinions (7 on ales' views on marriage and 20, 23 on Solon's laws).

Most importantly perhaps, while Plutarch shows great respect for

concision and brevity of speech in On Talkativeness (17.511A-B), Lycurgus

(19-20), and specically for the Sages' apophthegmata in On the Pythian

Oracles37 , these qualities are entirely antithetical to Plutarch's own stylistic

choices. e passage from On the Pythian Oracles, however, also testies to

Plutarch's vacillations on the relative virtues of brief and extended speech:

the speaker, eon, comparing the Delphic maxims attributed to the Sages

to the straightforward prose of the present-day Pythia, points out that brevity

can lead to obscurity rather than enlightenment. e Sages' maxims may be

concise, but "if you were to examine what has been written and spoken about

them by those wishing to learn what each one means, you would hardly nd

any discourses longer ( logous makroterous) than these" (29.408E). And indeed

while eon praises concision and directness of speech, his own argument

hardly displays these qualities, extending for pages and pages38 . In the sort of

ideal symposiastic or dialogic setting that Plutarch prefers to depict, concise

sayings and maxims are meant to be unpacked and explored, their meanings

and appropriateness discussed at length, and not simply stated and left alone.

e Banquet can be seen as a Plutarchan experiment in historical ction,

one that asks: is it better to historicize and portray the Sages as accurately as

possible, to incorporate the evidence of the tradition into the dialogue, in an

attempt to capture a sense of 'authenticity'? Or should one instead describe that

past, the events and gures of that time, in a way more amenable to Plutarch

and his Imperial audience, discussing ideas and topics of current interest in an

anachronistic, but less alienating manner? It also poses the broader question of

whether the style of discourse characteristic of the Sages and the archaic period

is as appropriate for a properly philosophical and symposiastic conversation as

the more expansive style adopted by Plutarch. By depicting each half of the

Banquet in such discordant ways, Plutarch lets us make that choice for ourselves,

but I suspect that many readers would agree that the aesthetic qualities and

philosophical expressions of the dialogue's second half suggest that, to Plutarch

at least, the archaic mode leaves something to be desired39 .

37 De Pyth. orac. 29.408E-F. E.g., "…he can accept and marvel at the maxims of the Sages…,

because of their concision, as encompassing in a small size a compact and rmly-forged

idea…"

38 e dialogue as a whole is structured as a debate on the clarity and ordinariness of

simple unadorned prose and the elevated, yet obscurity and pretentiousness of poetic verse; the

former is explicitly privileged, but one senses an uneasiness within the dialogue concerning that

conclusion.

39 As Mark Beck has pointed out to me, there surely must be a strong allusion to the

discussion involving the Sages and brachylogy in Plato's Protagoras, as well as the more central

debate in that dialogue between the relative ecacy of Protagoras' long speeches (makrologia)

and Socrates' elenchus.

W o r k s c i T e d

A, G. J. D., "Political ought in Plutarch's Convivium Septum [sic]

Sapientium", Mnemosyne, 30 (1977) 28-39.

A, D. E., "Septem Sapientium Convivium ( Moralia 146B – 164D)", in H.

D. B (ed.), Plutarch's Ethical Writings and Early Christian Literatures,

Leiden, 1978, pp. 51-105.

B, D., "Le dialogue de Plutarque Sur le dรฉmon de Socrate. Essai

d'interprรฉtation", BAGB, 1 (1984) 51-76.

B, A., "Plutarco e il dialogo 'drammatico'", Prometheus, 14 (1988)

141-63.

B, A., Les sept sages de la Grรจce antique. Transmission et utilisation d'un

patrimoine lรฉgendaire d'Hรฉrodote ร  Plutarque. Avec une postface de B.

D, Paris, 2002.

D, J., Plutarque: le Banquet des Sept Sages (ed., tr., comm.), Paris,

1954.

D, L., "Sages et souverain ร  l'รฉpoque du banquet: le Banquet des

Sept Sages et la Lettre d' Aristรฉe ร  Philocrate", in A. C (ed.),

Plutarco e l' etร  ellenistica. Atti del Convegno Internazionale di Studi

(Firenze, 23 - 24 Settembre 2004), Firenze, 2005, pp. 79-103.

G, I., "Forma letteraria nei 'Moralia' di Plutarco: Aspetti e problemi",

ANRW, II.34.4 (1998) 3511-40.

H, R., Der Dialog. Zweiter Teil, Leipzig, 1895, pp. 132-48.

I, L., "La leggenda di Arione tra Erodoto e Plutarco", Seminari Romani,

5 (2002) 55-82.

K, I. M., "Trial by Riddle: e Testing of the Counsellor and the

Contest of Kings in the Legend of Amasis and Bias", C&M, 55 (2004)

85-138.

_____ "Amasis, Bias and the Seven Sages as Riddlers", WJA, n. F. 29 (2005)

11-46.

L, R., Plutarch, New Haven, 2001.

M, R., "e Seven Sages as Performers of Wisdom", in C. D

& L. K (eds.), Cultural Poetics in Archaic Greece, Oxford, 1993,

pp.108-28.

M, J. M., "Plutarch's Dinner of the Seven Wise Men and Its Place

in Symposion Literature", in J. M. M (ed.) Plutarch and his

Intellectual World, London, 1997, pp. 119-40.

495

Historical Fiction, Brachylogy, and Plutarch's Banquet of the Seven Sages

R, L., Philosophes entre mots et mets. Plutarque, Lucien et Athรฉnรฉe autour de

la table de Platon, Grenoble, 2002.

S, B., "Zur Geschichte vom Gastmahl der Sieben Weisen", in O.

H, H. K  F. T (eds.) esaurismata.

Festschrift fรผr Ida Kapp zum 70. Geburtstag, Mรผnchen, 1954, pp. 105-

11.

 S, L., "Aspects of the Ethics and Poetics of the Dialogue in

the Corpus Plutarcheum", in I. G & C. M (eds.) Plutarco

e i generi letterari. Atti dell'VIII convegno plutarcheo (Pisa, 2-4 Giugno

1999), Naples, 2000, pp. 93-116.

V, M., "Plutarco e il 'genere simposio", in I. G & C. M

(eds.) Plutarco e i generi letterari. Atti dell'VIII convegno plutarcheo

(Pisa, 2-4 Giugno 1999), Naples, 2000, pp. 217-29.

W-M, U. von, "Zu Plutarchs Gastmahl der sieben

Weisen", Hermes, 25 (1890) 196-227.

497

Animal Philanthropia in the Convivium Septem Sapientium

an i m a l p H i l a n T H r o p i a i n T h e co n v i v i u m Se p T e m Sa p i e n T i u m

S T. N

Duquesne University, Pittsburgh

Abstract

e Convivium Septem Sapientium contains a series of references to human-animal relationships

which, when read in the order of their appearance, move from a position in which animals are

seen as subservient to humans to one in which animals are presumed to be capable of morally-

signicant behavior, illustrated in the rescue of the singer Arion by dolphins. Plutarch's references

to animals in the dialogue closely mirror his pronouncements on animal intellect and behavior

in his animal-related treatises. Viewed in the light of the civilized and elevated debates that

constitute the subject manner of the Convivium, the references to animals potentially capable of

rational and ethical behavior add a thought-provoking parallel narrative to the dialogue.

While nineteenth-century scholarship on the Convivium Septem

Sapientium concentrated heavily on questions relating to its authorship and

its faithfulness to history1 , scholars in recent decades have begun to examine

the intellectual content of the work, giving particular attention to its political

and religious themes2 . Although some have called attention to the extended

retelling of the famous anecdote of Arion's rescue by dolphins (160E-162B)

and to the other dolphin stories that follow, the discussions of dolphins form

in fact the culmination of a surprising number of references in the treatise

to various aspects of the human-animal relationship. ese references, which

constitute a sort of "parallel narrative" in the treatise, exhibit a progression

of thought, leading from situations in which humans exert dominance over

animals, in sacrice, through fables in which potential intellectual endowments

in animals are referenced, and concluding with human-animal interactions

of a sort that suggests rationality and moral agency in animals, manifested

in particular in striking examples of ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฑฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€แฝทฮฑ in animals that Plutarch

details in the rescue of Arion and in his subsequent dolphin stories.

While it would be an exaggeration to claim that the sometimes eeting

allusions to animals in the Convivium constitute more than a secondary theme,

their arrangement in the treatise clearly portrays human-animal interactions

in an increasingly complex light, as Plutarch gradually draws animals closer to

human beings in their intellectual capacities and nally hints at the possibility

of an ethical relationship between species, when he depicts animals displaying

concern for and kindness toward humans. e present study traces the

development of this animal theme in the Convivium, giving particular attention

1 U.  W-M, 1890, p. 196, for example, criticizes Plutarch

for an inability to write in a historically convincing manner, while G. H, 1893, pp. 1-26,

defends Plutarch's authorship on stylistic grounds and on the similarity of ideas presented in the

treatise to those seen elsewhere in Plutarch, including his conviction that animals have a share

of rationality, a view developed in his animal-related treatises.

2 Studies that emphasize the political and religious themes prominent in the Convivium

include G. J. D. A, 1977; J. M. M, 1977; and L. V  S, 2005.

to the order in which references to human-animal relations are presented, and

will suggest that earlier manifestations of the theme both prepare the way for

the portrait of animal ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฑฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€แฝทฮฑ in the latter portions of the dialogue and

mirror Plutarch's pronouncements in his animal-related treatises.

e participation in the Convivium of the legendary fabulist Aesop, who

was not reckoned among the Seven Sages in any ancient enumeration, greatly

facilitates the introduction of animal themes into the dialogue, as he poses

riddles, replies to questions, and is teased by the other interlocutors3 . His

function in the dialogue has been the subject of some speculation. In his

annotated edition of the work, Jean Defradas notes that the portrait of Aesop

oered in the Convivium is in line with those of Herodotus and Aristotle

in emphasizing his "sagesse pratique"4 , while Judith Mossman, in her study,

"Plutarch's Dinner of the Seven Wise Men and Its Place in Symposion Literature,"

concludes that his participation allows the dialogue to "... tend toward a

lighter tone"5 , and George Harrison, in his study, "Problems with the Genre

of Problems: Plutarch's Literary Innovations," admits that Aesop's presence at

an evening full of riddles should "seem appropriate, not superuous," although

he does not elaborate on his observation6 . It can be argued, however, that

Aesop's presence in the dialogue is rather more functional and integral than

incidental or merely comical, since many of the more casual and passing

references to animals in the earlier chapters of the work involve him, while the

more substantial discussions of animal themes toward the end of the work are

introduced by or commented on by members of the Seven.

Aesop does not gure in the dialogue's rst anecdote involving animals

(146F), in which ales recounts that on one occasion a sacricial animal

(แผฑฮตฯฮตแฟ–ฮฟฮฝ ) was sent to Bias by a king with the command that he send back the

best and worst parts of the animal. Bias sent the tongue and thereby earned

a reputation for cleverness. It is signicant that animals make their rst

appearance in the work in that role, as sacricial victims, that was reckoned

most proper to them and essential to the functioning of the ancient state.

Moreover, the anecdote reminds the reader of a fundamental assumption that

underlay much of classical speculation on human-animal relations, namely,

that humans are dierent from and superior to other species7 . In her recent

study "Beastly Spectacle in the Ancient Mediterranean World," Jo-Ann

Shelton observes, "Sacrice was a practice that emphasized the possibility

of communication between humans and gods, while, at the same time, it

3 Plu., Quaest. conviv. 614A-B, comments on the pedagogical, ethical and philosophical

usefulness of riddles, stories and anecdotal material, the sorts of contributions that Aesop

naturally makes, to convivial discourse.

4 J. D, 1954, p. 23.

5 J. M. M, 1997, p. 124.

6 G. W. M. H, 2000, p. 196.

7 On ancient attitudes toward the superiority of human beings to other animal species,

see R. S, 1993, pp. 1-16 and 122-57; G. S, 2005, pp. 1-92 and 223-51; and S. T.

N, 2006, pp. 1-65.

499

Animal Philanthropia in the Convivium Septem Sapientium

underscored the distinction between humans and animals"8. In Plutarch's rst

anecdote, animal sacrice appears as part of a game, but the assumption of

human domination and animal subjugation is evident.

In the second appearance of an animal in the treatise (149C-E), the

distinction between human and animal is blurred. A young herdsman brings

in a piece of leather containing a creature whose neck and arms are human

but the rest of whose body is that of a horse. Although the term is not used

in the text, the creature is obviously a centaur. e character Niloxenus turns

away in pious horror, but ales makes light of the portent. is peculiar

incident has intrigued scholars. Defradas speculates that it may be intended

as a presentiment of the spirit that infuses the later dolphin anecdotes9 ,

while Mossman calls it "an excellent example of the ฯƒฯ€ฮฟฯ…ฮดฮฑฮนฮฟฮณแฝณฮปฮฟฮนฮฟฮฝ" that

is characteristic of symposium literature10 . When one recalls, however, that

at least some centaurs, including Pholus and in particular Chiron, teacher of

heroes and scholar of medicine, were exceptions to the rule that their kind

were violent and uncivilized, one glimpses the ambivalent nature of the ancient

attitude toward this creature that straddles two worlds, joining the wildness of

the animal with the intellect of the human.

Plutarch eects a transition from the bizarre tale of the centaur to the

series of fables involving Aesop, rst mentioned as present at the banquet at

150A, by continuing his exploration of creatures that are, as Judith Mossman

puts it, "half-and-half things"11 . He portrays Aesop as alluding in a fable to

the bastard status of rasybulus' son Alexidemus, who refuses to dine with

the others since he feels that his dignity as the son of rasybulus has been

slighted. Aesop recounts a tale in which a mule acts like a horse when he

sees his image in a river and is impressed with his own size and handsome

appearance, until he "becomes aware, takes note" (ฯƒฯ…ฮผฯ†ฯฮฟฮฝแฝตฯƒฮฑฯ‚, 150A) that he

is the ospring of an ass and abandons his conceit. While it would be unwise

to press the vocabulary of fables too closely, it is interesting to note that in

each of Aesop's contributions, we nd technical terms or illustrative examples

frequently employed in ancient philosophical discussions of animal mentality.

Aristotle devoted considerable attention to the question of the content of

animal intellect in relation to its human counterpart. At Nicomachean Ethics

1140b20-21, for example, he calls ฯ†ฯแฝนฮฝฮทฯƒฮนฯ‚, the intellectual capacity to which

Aesop alludes in the above anecdote, a sort of "practical wisdom" that entails "a

truth-attaining rational quality that concerns things good for human beings"12 .

is denition suggests that here at least he denies practical wisdom to non-

humans. At Metaphysics 980b22, however, he declares that animals possessing

memory are ฯ†ฯฮฟฮฝฮนฮผแฝฝฯ„ฮตฯฮฑ, "wiser, more intelligent," than other animals. In

8 J.-A. S, 2007, p. 111.

9 J. D, 1954, p. 13.

10 J. M. M, 1997, p. 128.

11 J. M. M, 1997, p. 129.

12Arist., EN 1140b20-21: แผ€ฮฝฮฌฮณฮบฮท ฯ„แฝดฮฝ ฯ†ฯฯŒฮฝฮทฯƒฮนฮฝ แผ•ฮพฮนฮฝ ฮตแผถฮฝฮฑฮน ฮผฮตฯ„แฝฐ ฮปฯŒฮณฮฟฯ… แผ€ฮปฮทฮธแฟ† ฯ€ฮตฯแฝถ ฯ„แฝฐ

แผ€ฮฝฮธฯฯŽฯ€ฮนฮฝฮฑ แผ€ฮณฮฑฮธแฝฐ ฯ€ฯฮฑฮบฯ„ฮนฮบฮฎฮฝ.

his own defense of animal rationality, De sollertia animalium, Plutarch allows

his interlocutor Autobulus to suggest that we should consider animal intellect

to be less acute than that of humans rather than claiming that animals are

devoid of intellect and practical wisdom altogether13 .

Shortly after the anecdote of the vain mule, Solon jokingly establishes

Aesop's credentials as an expert on animals by calling him "clever at

understanding ravens and jackdaws" (ฯƒแฝบ ฮดแฝฒ ฮดฮตฮนฮฝแฝธฯ‚ ฮตแผถ ฮบฮฟฯฮฌฮบฯ‰ฮฝ แผฯ€ฮฑฮฮตฮนฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ

ฮบฮฟฮปฮฟฮนแฟถฮฝ, 152D), a passing allusion to ancient speculation on the linguistic

capacities of birds. In Stoic theory, meaningful language was denied to

animals because the "governing principle," or แผกฮณฮตฮผฮฟฮฝฮนฮบแฝนฮฝ, in the animal soul

remained irrational so that animal utterances are meaningless14 . In contrast,

Plutarch tells of a "remarkable jay" (ฮธฮฑฯ…ฮผฮฑฯƒฯ„ฯŒฮฝ ฯ„ฮน ฯ‡ฯแฟ†ฮผฮฑ ... ฮบฮฏฯ„ฯ„ฮทฯ‚, De sollertia

animalium 973C) that meditated upon the sounds of a trumpet that it had

heard and repeated only certain of its notes in its own song, suggesting that

the self-taught bird possessed more reason than would have been evident in

one that had learned from others15 .

In the next anecdote involving animals, Anacharsis, one of the Seven

Wise Men, chastises Aesop for supposing that a home is mere mortar and

wood, when even an anthill or a bird's nest can be a happy home if the beasts

who inhabit it "possess mind and discretion" (ฮฝฮฟแฟฆฮฝ แผ”ฯ‡ฮฟฯ…ฯƒฮน ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯƒฯ‰ฯ†ฯฮฟฮฝฮฟแฟฆฯƒฮน,

155C). Ants and some bird species gure prominently in ancient literature as

animals endowed with impressive intellectual capacities. In his article "Some

Stock Illustrations of Animal Intelligence in Greek Psychology," Sherwood

Dickerman observed that in classical sources, "four animals appear with a

regularity so great as to challenge attention—the ant, the bee, the spider, the

swallow (now and then the birds in general)"16 . Plutarch (De sollertia animalium

967E) maintains that the behavior of ants suggests that they have the classical

virtues of courage, prudence, practical wisdom (ฯ†ฯฮฟฮฝแฝตฯƒฮตฯ‰ฯ‚) and justice. Here

Anacharsis reiterates that claim.

e nal allusion to human-animal relations preceding the dolphin

anecdotes has been variously interpreted. At 159B-C, Solon laments the fact

that the diet of humans by necessity entails injustice because it involves the

ingestion of other living things, be they plant or animal, and, perhaps with a

nod to Phaedo 66b, he asserts that the need for food weighs down the human

soul and renders it gross and impure. G. J. D. Aalders remarks of this lament,

"Solon's ideas about the soul and the desirability of restricting one's diet to

a minimum (158b.) can hardly stem from the historical Solon and are not

even found in Plutarch's Life of Solon"17 . Yet if Solon's comments are viewed

13 Plu., De soll. anim. 973B: ฮผฮทฮดแฝฒ ฯ„แฝฐ ฮธฮทฯฮฏฮฑ ฮปฮญฮณฯ‰ฮผฮตฮฝ ... ฮผแฝด ฮดฮนฮฑฮฝฮฟฮตแฟ–ฯƒฮธฮฑฮน ฮผฮทฮดแฝฒ ฯ†ฯฮฟฮฝฮตแฟ–ฮฝ แฝ…ฮปฯ‰ฯ‚.

14 On the Stoic doctrine of the แผกฮณฮตฮผฮฟฮฝฮนฮบแฝนฮฝ, see S. T. N, 1999 and S. T. N,

2006, p. 46.

15Plu., De soll. anim. 973E: แฝฅฯƒฯ„ฮต, แฝ…ฯ€ฮตฯ แผ”ฯ†ฮทฮฝ, ฯ„แฟ†ฯ‚ ฮตแฝฮผฮฑฮธฮตฮฏฮฑฯ‚ ฮปฮฟฮณฮนฮบฯ‰ฯ„ฮญฯฮฑฮฝ ฮตแผถฮฝฮฑฮน ฯ„แฝดฮฝ

ฮฑแฝฯ„ฮฟฮผฮฌฮธฮตฮนฮฑฮฝ แผฮฝ ฮฑแฝฯ„ฮฟแฟ–ฯ‚.

16 S. O. D, 1911, p. 123.

17 G. J. D. A, 1977, p. 29.

501

Animal Philanthropia in the Convivium Septem Sapientium

in the context of Plutarch's theme of human-animal relations developed in the

Convivium, his reservations concerning human injustice toward animals seem

less problematic, especially if one recalls strikingly similar pronouncements

in De esu carnium, Plutarch's argument for vegetarianism, wherein he claims

(994E) that animals at the point of slaughter, whose remarkable intelligence

(ฯ€ฮตฯฮนฯ„ฯ„แฝธฮฝ แผฮฝ ฯƒฯ…ฮฝแฝณฯƒฮตฮน ) humans ignore, demand justice from their slayers 18 .

Already in 1893, Georg Hauck had noted the similarity in Plutarch's

argumentation here in the Convivium to those passages from his Gryllus and

De sollertia animalium where he argues for rationality in animals, a connection

which Aalders does not note19 .

Whether Solon's scruples here are his own or reect Plutarch's views as

stated in the animal treatises, it is noteworthy that the anecdotes of Arion's

rescue by dolphins and of the recovery of Hesiod's body by dolphins follow

closely upon Solon's expression of concern that human behavior toward

other species might have ethical ramications. Most scholars have judged

the dolphin anecdotes to be fundamental to some overarching theme in the

Convivium, although the animals have regularly been viewed as instruments

rather than as actors in the drama. Defradas, for example, sees the dolphins

as agents of justice carrying out the will of the gods on earth20 , a view which

indeed nds textual support both in Arion's conclusion (161F) that his rescue

illustrates how god watches over all deeds on land and sea and in Anacharsis'

observation concerning the recovery of Hesiod's body (163E-F) that god uses

every creature as his instrument (แฝ„ฯฮณฮฑฮฝฮฟฮฝ, 163E).

Even Luc van der Stockt, who displays greater aection for Plutarch's

dolphins as animals than do other scholars, concluded that the animals are "part

of a world in which god, man and animals take care of each other"21 . In van der

Stockt's understanding of Plutarch's dolphin anecdotes, god governs the cosmos

in such a way that animals serve to unite god and man, and are symbolic of god's

sympathy for the universe. Here too, the animals are viewed instrumentally . It

can be argued, however, that Plutarch's dolphins are more than passive tools

of divine will, and that the dolphin anecdotes form the culmination to the

human-animal theme in the Convivium: having raised the possibility, in Solon's

comments, that humans might have obligations to act justly toward animals,

Plutarch now raises the possibility that some animals may be moved to act

justly toward humans, who thereby benet from actions which, if performed by

humans, might be considered instances of ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฑฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€แฝทฮฑ .

In his study of Plutarchan ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฑฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€แฝทฮฑ, Rudolf Hirzel argued that

Plutarch understood that term in several senses, ranging from the conviviality

of a dinner party, to guest-friendship, to ordinary politeness, to a belief in a

18 On the concept of justice toward animals, see S. T. N, 1992 and S. T. N,

2006, pp. 48-65.

19 G. H, 1893, p. 48.

20 J. D, 1954, p. 14.

21 L. V  S, 2005, p. 19.

connection between man and man in which one is benefactor to the other22 . H e

points out Plutarch's conviction, inuenced by Pythagoras and given voice at

De sollertia animalium 959F23 , that kindness to animals inspires ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฑฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€แฝทฮฑ

toward fellow-humans. He does not suggest that Plutarch believed that a

human might practice ฯ„แฝธ ฯ†ฮนฮปแฝฑฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€ฮฟฮฝ toward animals, much less that

animals might be so inclined toward humans. Yet it is the possibility of this

ethical relationship that especially distinguishes Plutarch's accounts of dolphin

behaviors from the others.

Classicists are familiar with Herodotus' charming account of the rescue

of the poet Arion (I. 23-24), and may know the versions of Pliny (NH IX. 28)

and the post-Plutarchan Aelian (NA XII. 45). In Plutarch's retelling of the

tale, two narrative details are added which are absent from earlier versions:

the rescue is eected in Plutarch by more than one animal working as a team,

and this teamwork inspires human witnesses to suspect ethical motivations in

the animals' actions. Pliny (NH IX. 24) calls the dolphin "an animal friendly

to man" (homini ... amicum animal), but he does not ascribe any motivation to

the animal's behavior. Similarly, in Herodotus, Arion is rescued by one animal

whose motivations are not specied.

In Plutarch's account of the rescue, Gorgus, brother of Periander, tyrant

of Corinth who hosts the convivium and at whose court the tale of Arion was

set in Herodotus as well, reports witnessing a group of dolphins bearing ashore

a man whom the onlookers recognized as the famous Arion (161A). e

singer recounted that at the moment when he was about to drown, dolphins

gathered around him "in a manner kindly-disposed" (ฮตแฝฮผฮตฮฝแฟถฯ‚, 161D), and

passed him on to one another, "relieving each other as if this were a duty

necessary and incumbent upon them all" (ฮดฮนฮฑฮดฮตฯ‡ฮฟฮผฮญฮฝฮฟฯ…ฯ‚ แฝกฯ‚ แผ€ฮฝฮฑฮณฮบฮฑแฟ–ฮฟฮฝ แผฮฝ

ฮผฮญฯฮตฮน ฮปฮตฮนฯ„ฮฟฯฯฮณฮทฮผฮฑ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ€ฯฮฟฯƒแฟ†ฮบฮฟฮฝ ฯ€แพถฯƒฮนฮฝ, 161D). Shortly after this, Solon

relates that the body of the drowned poet Hesiod was recovered by dolphins

who acted, in his view, in a "kindred and human-loving manner" (ฮฟแผฐฮบฮตฮฏฯ‰ฯ‚

ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฑฮฝฮธฯฯŽฯ€ฯ‰ฯ‚, 162F). e juxtaposition here of the adverbs ฮฟแผฐฮบฮตฮฏฯ‰ฯ‚ and

ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฑฮฝฮธฯฯŽฯ€ฯ‰ฯ‚ oers critical insight into Plutarch's view of animal intellect

and behavior toward human beings, including instances of what might be

termed "animal ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฑฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€แฝทฮฑ".

In Stoic ethical theory, ฮฟแผฐฮบฮตแฝทฯ‰ฯƒฮนฯ‚ was the recognition of kinship, attachment

or belonging that one group naturally feels to another that it senses to be akin

to itself24 . Humans experience this toward other humans, and animals toward

other animals, but no ฮฟแผฐฮบฮตแฝทฯ‰ฯƒฮนฯ‚ exists between humans and animals because

animals are fundamentally unlike humans, being, in Stoic teaching, forever

irrational25 . At De nibus III. 67, Cicero states that the natural consequence of

22 R. H, 1912, p. 24.

23 Plu., De soll. anim. 959F: แฝฅฯƒฯ€ฮตฯ ฮฑแฝ– ฯ€ฮฌฮปฮนฮฝ ฮฟแผฑ ฮ ฯ…ฮธฮฑฮณฮฟฯฮนฮบฮฟแฝถ ฯ„แฝดฮฝ ฮตแผฐฯ‚ ฯ„แฝฐ ฮธฮทฯฮฏฮฑ ฯ€ฯฮฑฯŒฯ„ฮทฯ„ฮฑ

ฮผฮตฮปฮญฯ„ฮทฮฝ แผฯ€ฮฟฮนฮฎฯƒฮฑฮฝฯ„ฮฟ ฯ€ฯแฝธฯ‚ ฯ„แฝธ ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฌฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€ฮฟฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฟฮฏฮบฯ„ฮนฯฮผฮฟฮฝ.

24 e Stoic concept of ฮฟแผฐฮบฮตฮฏฯ‰ฯƒฮนฯ‚ has inspired an extensive body of scholarship. Particularly

illuminating are C. O. B, 1955-1956; G. S, 1983; and G. R-S, 2003.

25 Cicero, O. I. 50, oers the classic formulation of the Stoic position on the lack of

503

Animal Philanthropia in the Convivium Septem Sapientium

this lack of natural kinship, in the view of the Stoics, was that humans could

have no bonds of justice with animals: sed quomodo hominum inter homines esse

vincula putant, sic homini nihil iuris cum bestiis.

In De sollertia animalium, Plutarch argued, against the Stoics, that all

animals in fact partake of reason to some degree26 . In Plutarch's view, rationality

in animal species diers quantitatively rather than qualitatively from rationality

in human beings27 . Consequently animals must be judged akin (ฮฟแผฐฮบฮตแฟ–ฮฟฮน) to

human beings after all. Not only are they therefore owed justice, but Plutarch's

use of the ethically-charged terms แผ€ฮฝฮฑฮณฮบฮฑแฟ–ฮฟฮฝ , ฮปฮตฮนฯ„ฮฟแฝปฯฮณฮทฮผฮฑ and ฯ€ฯฮฟฯƒแฟ†ฮบฮฟฮฝ in

his account of the rescue of Arion in the Convivium (161D) suggests that he

considered them to be capable of disinterested and intentional aiding actions

that had moral overtones28 . At De sollertia animalium 984D, one speaker asserts

that the dolphin, alone of animals, practices the ideal of the philosophers:

friendship without advantage (ฯ„แฟท ฮดแฝฒ ฮดฮตฮปฯ†แฟ–ฮฝฮน ... ฮผฯŒฮฝแฟณ ... ฯ„แฝธ ฯ†ฮนฮปฮตแฟ–ฮฝ แผ„ฮฝฮตฯ… ฯ‡ฯฮตฮฏฮฑฯ‚

แฝ‘ฯ€ฮฌฯฯ‡ฮตฮน). Perhaps a greater degree of rationality allowed the dolphins to exercise

that friendship in a "kindred and human-loving manner" in rescuing Arion

and recovering the body of Hesiod, and perhaps too it was a recognition that

dolphins were "kindred" (ฮฟแผฐฮบฮตแฟ–ฮฟฮน) that led to the unwritten law to which Solon

alludes (163A), that no human might harm or hunt them.

While the animal theme traceable in the Convivium is overshadowed

by the debate on the form of government proper to human societies and on

the role of god in human life, the ideas advanced concerning animals in this

dialogue are, as the present study has endeavored to show, entirely in keeping

with Plutarch's views as these are set forth at length in his animal treatises.

e theme of just and "human-loving" behavior in animals who are hinted to

possess, at least to a degree, some of the better intellectual and ethical qualities

of human beings adds an intriguing counterpoint to a dialogue devoted to

rational discourse on high-minded themes carried on by the Sages of Greece.

W o r k s c i T e d

A, G. J. D., "Political ought in Plutarch's Convivium Septum [sic]

Sapientium", Mnemosyne, 30 (1977) 28-39.

kinship between humans and irrational animals: Sed quae naturae principia sint communitatis

et societatis humanae repetendum videtur altius; est enim primum, quod cernitur in universi generis

humani societate. Eius autem vinculum est ratio et oratio, quae docendo, discendo, communicando,

disceptando, iudicando conciliat inter se homines coniungitque naturali quadam societate; neque ulla re

longius absumus a natura ferarum, in quibus inesse fortitudinem saepe dicimus, ut in equis, in leonibus,

iustitiam aequitatem, bonitatem non dicimus; sunt enim rationis et orationis expertes.

26 Plu., De soll. anim. 960A: แผ€ฯ€ฮฟฯ†ฮทฮฝฮฌฮผฮตฮฝฮฟฮน ฮณแฝฐฯ แผฯ‡ฮธฮญฯ‚, แฝกฯ‚ ฮฟแผถฯƒฮธฮฑ, ฮผฮตฯ„ฮญฯ‡ฮตฮนฮฝ แผฮผฯ‰ฯƒฮณฮญฯ€ฯ‰ฯ‚

ฯ€ฮฌฮฝฯ„ฮฑ ฯ„แฝฐ ฮถแฟทฮฑ ฮดฮนฮฑฮฝฮฟฮฏฮฑฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮปฮฟฮณฮนฯƒฮผฮฟแฟฆ ...

27 On Plutarch's doctrine of quantitative dierences in rationality between species, see S.

N, 2006, p. 40, which provides citations from Plutarch's animal treatises.

28 For a detailed discussion of Plutarch's ideas on altruistic, cooperative and philanthropic

behaviors in non-human animals, see S. N, 2006, pp. 76-84.

504

Stephen T. Newmyer

B, C. O., "ฮŸแผฐฮบฮตฮฏฯ‰ฯƒฮนฯ‚ and ฮฟแผฐฮบฮตฮนฯŒฯ„ฮทฯ‚: eophrastus and Zeno on Nature in

Moral eory", Phronesis, 1 (1955-1956) 123-45.

D, J., Plutarque: Le banquet des sept sages (Texte et traduction avec une

introduction et des notes), Paris, 1954.

D, S. O., "Some Stock Illustrations of Animal Intelligence in Greek

Psychology", TAPhA, 42 (1911) 123-30.

H, G. W. M., "Problems with the Genre of Problems: Plutarch's

Literary Innovations", CPh, 95 (2000) 193-99.

H, G., Plutarch von Chaeronea, der Verfasser des Gastmahls der 7 Weisen,

Burghausen, 1893.

H, R., Plutarch, Leipzig, 1912.

M, J. M., "Plutarch's Dinner of the Seven Wise Men and Its Place in

Symposion Literature", in J. M. M, Plutarch and His Intellectual

World: Essays on Plutarch, London, 1997, pp. 119-40.

N, S. T., "Plutarch on Justice toward Animals: Ancient Insights on a

Modern Debate", in Scholia: Natal Studies in Classical Antiquity, n. s. 1

(1992) 38-54.

_____"Speaking of Beasts: e Stoics and Plutarch on Animal Reason and the

Modern Case against Animals", QUCC, n. s. 63 (1999) 99-110.

_____ Animals, Rights and Reason in Plutarch and Modern Ethics , Oxford,

2006.

R-S, G., "Human Bonding and Oikeiลsis in Roman Stoicism",

OSAPh, 22 (2003) 221-51.

S, J.-A., "Beastly Spectacles in the Ancient Mediterranean World", in

L. K (ed.), A Cultural History of Animals in Antiquity, Oxford and

New York, 2007, pp. 97-126.

S, R., Animal Minds and Human Morals: e Origins of the Western

Debate, Ithaca, NY, 1993.

S, G., Anthropocentrism and Its Discontents: e Moral Status of Animals

in Antiquity, Pittsburgh, 2005.

S, G., "e Role of Oikeiรดsis in Stoic Ethics", OSAPh, 1 (1983) 145-

67.

V  S, L.,"Plutarch and Dolphins: Love Is All You Need", in J.

B (ed.), Les grecs de l'antiquitรฉ et les animaux: le cas remarquable

de Plutarque, Lille, 2005, pp. 13-21.

W-M, U. Von, "Zu Plutarchs Gastmahl der Sieben

Weisen", Hermes, 25 (1890) 196-227.

505

Music and symposium in Plutarch's Convivium Septem Sapientium: a brief note

mu s i c a n d s y m p o s i u m i n pl u T a r c h 's

co n v i v i u m Se p T e m Sa p i e n T i u m : a b r i e f n o T e

R A  R J

Federal University of Paranรก

Abstract

In a symposion , music played an important role. It was through music that the traditions were

perpetuated and the young men were educated. We see this in several ancient Greek texts, from

Homer to Athenaeus. Music also has a signicant role in Plutarch's Convivium Septem Sapientium .

In this brief paper, my aim is to examine the use that Plutarch makes of musical themes in that

dialogue. In the end, I intend to show that music marks Plutarch's way of thinking and style.

In ancient Greek culture, the banquet and the symposion were the most

important occasions in the social life of an adult male. In a symposion friendship

relations were created or reinforced, political decisions were discussed and

inuenced and a great part of poetical and musical culture was perpetuated

and transmitted. So, there could never be a banquet without food, and after

the banquet, a symposion without wine and especially music, and when we say

'music' in ancient Greece, we are talking about a complex of arts that involved

what we nowadays call music, poetry and dance.

We can see this determinant role played by music in the banquet and in the

symposion already in the Homeric poems. In the Iliad (1, 603-604), Apollo plays his

lyre and sings with the Muses in the banquet of the gods on Olympus. In the Odyssey

Homer says many times1 that 'music is a banquet's ornament'. is not to mention

the noteworthy presence of Demodocus in book VIII and the interventions of

Phemius in book I of the Odyssey . But maybe the strongest demonstration that there

could never be a banquet without music is in 9. 3-11, when, praising the orderly and

peaceful atmosphere that reigns in Alcinoos' palace, Odysseus remembers that the

aoidos is an essential element for the maintenance of the peace-loving and happy

model of existence that prevails in the Phaeacians' Island.

We nd other references to music's role in banquets and symposia in,

for example, Xenophanes (fr. 1W) and in many fragments of Alcaeus and

Anacreon. In this kind of poetry, that was composed to be performed in a

banquet or in a symposion, there are many references to music in its practical

aspect, that is, references to instruments, to the presence of a musician or to

the kind of music he or she was playing. Later, after the second half of the

fth century, when another form of literature develops and a specic literary

genre, the Symposion, ourishes, the performance of music will be reduced

to give place to a new kind of 'musical' exercise: the discussion of dierent

subjects in a dialogue among wise men. is is what we read in Plato's and

Xenophon's Symposia, in Plutarch's Quaestiones Conviviales and in Athenaeus'

Deipnosophistai, to mention just some texts2 .

1 1, 152-155; 1, 370 and 421; 21, 430.

2 On the symposion, see W. J . H, 2000; and F. F, 2000.

506

Roosevelt Araรบjo da Rocha Jรบnior

So music, as one of the most inuential elements in Greek culture, could

not be absent from a Plutarchean work set in a symposion, namely the Convivium

Septem Sapientium. I intend to show, on the one hand, that discussions of

musical themes were usual in ancient Greek banquets and, on the other, that

Plutarch was familiar with and very fond of this kind of subject. Plutarch is

famous because of his large knowledge of all ancient disciplines, and music

was an art in which he was no beginner when he wrote this work: far from it.

It is important to understand the reason why Plutarch often chooses examples

taken from music to explain or illustrate some theme. And I think this is an

aspect of his work and style still underestimated.

In the Convivium, we nd important allusions to musical subjects. In

147F, dealing with the guest's behaviour, Plutarch says, through ales' voice,

that, if someone who was invited to a dinner does not behave properly, this

person can make unpleasant the best wines, the most delicious foods and the

performances of the most talented musicians. In making this remark, ales

indirectly is telling us about the basic components indispensable to any

symposion.

Further on, in 149A, trying to calm a guest down, rasybulus' son

Alexidemus of Miletus, who was not satised with the place of little honour

that Periander gave him next to Aeolians and men from other islands, ales

gives an example of how a guest must behave in a dinner by telling a little

story about a Spartan who was put by the director in the last place of a chorus,

but was not discontented, and exclaimed that by doing that the director had

discovered a way of making that position a place of honor. en ales himself,

in 149F-150A, gives an example of proper behavior by sitting next to Ardalus

of Troezen3 , an aulลidos and "a priest of the Ardalian Muses whose worship

his forefather, Ardalus of Troezen, had established"4 . In this passage, we can

see irony in ales' words when he says that he would pay to share the table

with Ardalus. To understand the irony we must remember that, many times

in ancient Greek literature, the musicians and most of all the ones that had

some relation to the aulos, the aulฤ“tai and the aulลidoi, were not considered

people worthy of respect5 . So, ales, by doing so, is showing that it doesn't

matter where and next to whom the guest is placed in the table, but the most

important thing is try to learn as much as possible from whoever is sitting next

to us and trying to start a new friendship whenever we can.

After the dinner, the guests make a libation accompanied by an aulฤ“tris , a

girl that plays the aulos, and, inspired by her presence, Ardalus asks Anacharsis if

the Scythians had aulฤ“trides (150D-E). Anacharsis answers that the Scythians

don't have aulฤ“trides or grape-vines, but they have gods, though they don't

"believe that the gods have more pleasure by listening to the sounds produced

by bits of bone and wood", as the Greeks do. And this leads us to a remark by

the character Aesop (150F) about the good melody produced by auloi made of

3 is character will appear again in 150D-E, 155E, 157D and 157F.

4 All the translations are taken from B' edition for the Loeb Classical Library.

5 About the situation of auletai, see A. B, 2002.

507

Music and symposium in Plutarch's Convivium Septem Sapientium: a brief note

asses' bones: the ass is an unmelodious animal, but the most beautiful melodies

are played with his bones. In the sequence Neiloxenus makes a commentary

about a complaint that the citizens of Busiris have against the people of

Naucratis because they use asses' bones to make auloi. For the Busirians to

hear even a salpinx, a trumpet, was a sin, because it sounded like an ass bray

and the ass was associated with Set, a malignant god sometimes represented

by the features of this animal. So one can notice that a simple remark or little

story leads to another one and on and on and on, like a sequence of echoes that

virtually has no end, as we would expect in an idealised talk among the wisest

men of Greece.

Some paragraphs later (156C), Plutarch, through the words of his character

Mnesiphilus, commenting on Solon's opinion "that the task of every art and

faculty, both human and divine, is the thing that is produced rather than the

means employed in its production, and the end itself rather than the means

that contribute to that end", tells us what he believes must be music's role

because "the Muses would most assuredly feel aggrieved, if we should regard

as their task a lyre or auloi, and not the development of the characters and the

soothing of the emotions of those who make use of songs and melodies". As a

follower of Platonic ideas, Plutarch would endorse Damonian ethical theory

of music, according to which music has the power to transform the soul and

to mould the character6 .

At the end of the Convivium (160C-D), Gorgus, Periander's brother,

arrives and takes part in the talk. Returning from a voyage to Taenarum,

Gorgus has an amazing story to tell his brother rst and then to everybody

there. Before Gorgus starts telling what he saw, Periander warns his friends

about the extraordinary fact that Gorgus is about to report. But Bias recalls

that ales said that we must believe in our friends' words, even if they sound

absurd. And besides, Bias says that Gorgus should tell his story at least "to

compete with those newly invented dithyrambs" (160E). is seems to be

a covert reference to Arion as the inventor of the dithyramb, according to

Babbitt, in note to this passage. But I think there is more to be said about

this comment of Bias. ere is a latent irony in these words. It sounds as if

Plutarch was making a remark about the strangeness that characterizes the

dithyramb in his own time or as if he was reproducing some other author's

words, maybe those of Plato or Aristoxenus, because these thinkers made

this kind of comment about the degeneration of the dithyramb earlier

and also inuenced Plutarch's ideas in a decisive way. We know that this

dialogue has a strong ctional character, but it is worth mentioning that

it is an anachronism7 told by a historical character that lived in the sixth

century, when the dithyramb was still getting its 'classical' shape8 . I think

it is interesting to note that, in another work ascribed in the tradition to

6 On ethical theories about music's power, see M. L. W, 1992, pp. 246-53.

7 On anachronism in Plutarch's Convivium, see G. J. D. A, 1997 and A. B ,

2008, pp. 584-5.

8 About this question, see G. A. P, 1979 and A. D' A , 1997.

508

Roosevelt Araรบjo da Rocha Jรบnior

Plutarch, the De Musica, we nd many references to the alleged decadence

of the dithyramb, especially at the end of the fth and rst half of the fourth

century B. C9 .Be that as it may, this comment by Bias prepares the reader to

what will follow: the story of Arion (160E-162B).

Gorgus tells that after he had sacriced to Poseidon, when the moon

was shining over the sea, he saw dolphins leaving a man on the shore. is

man was Arion, the kitharลidos. He gave his name and was easily recognizable

because he was wearing his ceremonial robes, i.e. his special clothes for the

occasions when he sang and played his kithara. Arion told that he was coming

from Italy to Corinth, after receiving a letter from Periander. Because of this

he took a Corinthian merchant vessel. After three days, Arion sensed that the

sailors were planning to do something against him. en, inspired perhaps by

a divine impulse, he put on his ceremonial garments and started to sing his

swan song, the nomos Pythicos to Apollo. When he was in the middle of his

song, the sailors advanced to murder him. But Arion threw himself into the

sea and was saved by dolphins. He strongly believed that he was a man beloved

by the gods10 .

After Gorgus told the story of Arion, the other participants start a

discussion and some report other stories about dolphins rescuing humans.

Solon, in particular, tells how Hesiod's body, after he was dead, was taken by

dolphins and nishes his words saying that these animals like music so much

and delight themselves with the sound of auloi and songs (162F). is fact

could explain why they help humans, specially poets and musicians like Arion

and Hesiod.

To end this brief comment about the 'musical' passages of the Convivium

Septem Sapientium, it is worth reporting some words put in the mouth of

Anacharsis by Plutarch (163E-F): just as living beings depend on God's

power, serve Him and are responsive to His movements, so the Scythians are

responsive to bows and the Greeks are very fond of lyres and auloi. is remark

serves to distinguish the barbarian Scythians from the civilized Greeks, but it

also makes evident the love that the Hellenic people dedicated to music, love

that is shown many times in this dialogue.

W o r k s c i T e d

A, G. J. D., "Political thought in Plutarch's Convivium Septem

Sapientium", Mnemosyne, 30.1 (1997) 29-31.

B, A., "Dicoltร  e rischi della professione musicale" in A. B,

Euterpe. Ricerche sulla musica greca e romana, Pisa, 2002, pp. 105-15.

9 See chapters 3, 4, 6, 12, 29 and specically 30, where Plutarch quotes the famous fragment

from the comedy entitled Chiron, by Pherecrates (fr. 155 Kassel-Austin). On the authorship of

the De Musica cf. R. R, 2007, pp. 15-31.

10 In Herodotus, 1, 24, we nd another version of this story.

509

Music and symposium in Plutarch's Convivium Septem Sapientium: a brief note

B, A.,"Plutarque et la scรจne du banquet", in A. G. N ed.),

e Unity of Plutarch's Work. Moralia emes in the Lives, Features of the

Lives in the Moralia, Berlin, 2008, pp. 584-5.

D'A, A., "How the dithyramb got its shape", CQ, 47.2 (1997) 331-51.

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

d'Homรจre ร  Athรฉnรฉe", Cahiers du GITA, 13 (2000) 65-105.

H, W. J., "Aspects of the ancient Greek symposion", Akroterion, 45

(2000) 6-26.

P, G. A.,"Il Ditirambo no al IV secolo", in R . B. B (ed.),

Storia e civiltร  dei Greci, vol. 5, Milan, 1979.

R, R., O Peri Mousikฤ“s, de Plutarco: Traduรงรฃo, Comentรกrios e Notas. Tese

de Doutoramento, IEL – UNICAMP, 2007, ( http://libdigi.unicamp.

br/document/?code=vtls000431822).

W, M. L., Ancient Greek Music, Oxford, 1992.

511

e tyrannos as a sophos in the Septem Sapientium Convivium

Th e T y r a n n o S a s a S o p H o S i n T h e

Se p T e m Sa p i e n T i u m co n v i v i u m

D L

University of Coimbra

Abstract

e group of the Seven Sages in the Septem Sapientium Convivium includes a number of gures

whose presence is problematic due to their association with autocratic power. Although the

invitation to the meeting was sent out by the tyrant Periander, he is nevertheless eliminated

from the central core of the Sages. is decision may be justied, in the rst place, by the fact

that he is a tyrant and that there is a deep animosity towards this form of government in the

Convivium. Nevertheless, Periander was expected to full a more important function in his

capacity as host, but, contrary to this scenario, his presence begins to recede, especially once

the eulogy of the democratic system starts, to the point that the honour of closing the banquet

falls to Solon. Even so, Pittacus has ruled over the destinies of Mytilene as an aesymnetes and

continues to gure among the sophoi, and the same can be said of Cleoboulus, the autocrat of

Lindos. Taking these factors into account, I propose to discuss in this paper the reason why

Pittacus and Cleoboulus were able to remain as sophoi, while Periander ended up being relegated

to a secondary place.

In my earlier work, I argued that the Septem Sapientium Convivium

represents, in a certain way, a kind of cosmopolis of dierent sorts of wisdom1 .

Among the sophoi, the dominant prole corresponds, as should be expected,

to the masculine, aristocratic and Greek sensibility, as shown in the characters

of Solon, ales, Bias, Cleoboulus, Pittacus and Chilon. e seventh gure

of the gallery is occupied by the Scythian Anacharsis, a personality that a

long-lasting tradition2 used to consider under the double perspective either

of a sort of martyr of Greek culture or of a "bon sauvage" still uncorrupted by

the vices of civilization and, because of that, apt to deprecate those same vices

without being subject to the compromises of social convenience. Besides that,

Anacharsis also adds a note of eccentricity to the group of sapientes, as he too

ends up representing the nomadic oddness of the northern barbarians.3

e group of the sophoi as a whole is not, nevertheless, the object of

the approach I intend to present, which rather deals with the image of the

tyrannos as a sophos in the banquet of the Seven Wise Men. Solon, ales,

Bias and Chilon are usually present in the stable nucleus of the Seven but do

not correspond to the tyrannos/sophos prole. Accordingly, their example is

1 e results of these several studies were gathered in a single global analysis, published in

D. F. L, 2006. See also D. F. L, 2008. I would like to express my gratitude to Manuel

Trรถster, who read an earlier version of this paper and improved a lot on the English.

2 Present already in Herodotus, 4.76-77.

3 To this relatively exotic ambience contributes as well Neiloxenos, Amasis' envoy to the court

of Periander, who can be considered, to a certain point, an example of Egyptian sophistication,

although he does not belong to the restricted circle of the Seven Wise Men. I shall later return

to him and to other secondary gures like the young Cleobouline (or Eumetis), who, along with

Aesop, represents a more intuitive knowledge.

adduced only to strengthen the contrast with other personalities present in the

Convivium: Pittacus and Cleoboulus, in their role of sapientes, and Periander

in the quality of the meeting's host. What these three gures have in common

is the fact that they all represent autocratic regimes. ere are, nevertheless,

important dierences of detail that might help to understand the dissimilar

way in which Plutarch characterized them. Besides, this happens not only in

the Convivium but is also detectable elsewhere in his oeuvre, for instance in the

De E apud Delphos (385d-e), where the author reduces the number of sapientes

to only ve (Chilon, ales, Solon, Bias and Pittacus), expressly excluding the

tyrants Cleoboulus and Periander. is clearly shows that Plutarch is somehow

reluctant to include tyrannoi among the group of sophoi. Such a perspective is

hardly surprising, because even in earlier representations of tyranny (dating

especially back to the fth and fourth centuries) the concept of autocratic

rule in general was closely connected with the idea of illegitimacy, the use

of mercenary troops, personal abuse and contempt for the laws of the city4 .

Nevertheless, it should also be taken into account, as I shall argue, that a

positive tradition related with the tyrants is also found in the sources, probably

owing its formation to an oral tradition that goes back to the time when some

of these more ancient gures lived (the sixth century). It is very important to

be aware of this in order to understand and solve the apparent contradiction of

Plutarch's portrayal of these characters in the Septem Sapientium Convivium ,

where a certain tension can be detected in their treatment, as well as a positive

appraisal. In discussing the question, I shall start by evoking some fundamental

traits of each personality in the literary tradition. However, this should not be

seen as a mere exercise of Quellenforschung, but as a preliminary step towards

understanding Plutarch's options when he decided to describe a symposion

with the Seven Sages.

Pittacus of Mytilene

Pittacus was an aristocrat of Lesbos who involved himself directly, as did

the poet Alcaeus, in the political struggles that aected the island during the

VII and VI centuries. In an initial phase of his active life, he joined Alcaeus and

Antimenides (the poet's brother) in order to depose the tyrant Melanchrus,

whose government would be substituted by that of Myrsilus, with whom

Pittacus then aligned himself, to the bitter resentment of his former allies,

who had to go into exile. Myrsilus' death was celebrated in Alcaeus' verses

with enormous elation5 , and it was in a context of great political and social

instability that Pittacus rose to power, at the turn of the VI century (around

590/89), ruling over the destinies of Mytilene over ten years. Although they had

worked together in the past, Pittacus' government is repeatedly criticized by

Alcaeus, who considers his rise to power an act of madness by the Mytileneans

4 See C. M, 2006, 189, in discussing Plato and Plutarch on the Sicilian tyrants.

5 Cf. frg. 332 Voigt.

513

e tyrannos as a sophos in the Septem Sapientium Convivium

and a consecration of tyranny6. is opposition from exile represents a clear

sign that Pittacus was progressively moving away from the aristocrats who

started by giving him their support, and that this evolution in behaviour had,

as counterpart, the eect of drawing him closer to the popular classes. In this

respect, Pittacus' political career is not dierent from that of other autocratic

leaders. However, there are two aspects that turn his experience of government

into something strikingly singular: rst, Pittacus rose to power not by force,

but in the quality of a sovereign elected by the people (aisymnetes); second,

the sources sustain that, once he managed to calm the atmosphere of civil

dissension, he abandoned the government of his own free will and died around

ten years later (possibly c. 570).

ese are precisely the aspects that deserve a deeper analysis now, because

they will provide, with great probability, the explanation for the fact that,

although being a tyrannos, Pittacus managed to be considered one of the

Seven Wise Men and retained that same position in Plutarch's Convivium. It

is therefore worthwhile to ponder more carefully the passage where Aristotle

mentions the way Pittacus rose to power (Pol. 3.1285a29-1285b3):

ฮดฯฮฟ ฮผแฝฒฮฝ ฮฟแฝ–ฮฝ ฮตแผดฮดฮท ฯ„ฮฑแฟฆฯ„ฮฑ ฮผฮฟฮฝฮฑฯฯ‡ฮฏฮฑฯ‚, แผ•ฯ„ฮตฯฮฟฮฝ ฮด' แฝ…ฯ€ฮตฯ แผฆฮฝ แผฮฝ ฯ„ฮฟแฟ–ฯ‚ แผ€ฯฯ‡ฮฑฮฏฮฟฮนฯ‚ แผฮปฮปฮทฯƒฮนฮฝ,

ฮฟแฝ“ฯ‚ ฮบฮฑฮปฮฟแฟฆฯƒฮนฮฝ ฮฑแผฐฯƒฯ…ฮผฮฝฮฎฯ„ฮฑฯ‚. แผ”ฯƒฯ„ฮน ฮดแฝฒ ฯ„ฮฟแฟฆฮธ' แฝกฯ‚ แผฯ€ฮปแฟถฯ‚ ฮตแผฐฯ€ฮตแฟ–ฮฝ ฮฑแผฑฯฮตฯ„แฝด ฯ„ฯ…ฯฮฑฮฝฮฝฮฏฯ‚,

ฮดฮนฮฑฯ†ฮญฯฮฟฯ…ฯƒฮฑ ฮดแฝฒ ฯ„แฟ†ฯ‚ ฮฒฮฑฯฮฒฮฑฯฮนฮบแฟ†ฯ‚ ฮฟแฝ ฯ„แฟท ฮผแฝด ฮบฮฑฯ„แฝฐ ฮฝฯŒฮผฮฟฮฝ แผ€ฮปฮปแฝฐ ฯ„แฟท ฮผแฝด ฯ€ฮฌฯ„ฯฮนฮฟฯ‚

ฮตแผถฮฝฮฑฮน ฮผฯŒฮฝฮฟฮฝ. แผฆฯฯ‡ฮฟฮฝ ฮด' ฮฟแผฑ ฮผแฝฒฮฝ ฮดฮนแฝฐ ฮฒฮฏฮฟฯ… ฯ„แฝดฮฝ แผ€ฯฯ‡แฝดฮฝ ฯ„ฮฑฯฯ„ฮทฮฝ, ฮฟแผฑ ฮดแฝฒ ฮผฮญฯ‡ฯฮน ฯ„ฮนฮฝแฟถฮฝ

แฝกฯฮนฯƒฮผฮญฮฝฯ‰ฮฝ ฯ‡ฯฯŒฮฝฯ‰ฮฝ แผข ฯ€ฯฮฌฮพฮตฯ‰ฮฝ, ฮฟแผทฮฟฮฝ ฮตแผตฮปฮฟฮฝฯ„ฯŒ ฯ€ฮฟฯ„ฮต ฮœฯ…ฯ„ฮนฮปฮทฮฝฮฑแฟ–ฮฟฮน ฮ ฮนฯ„ฯ„ฮฑฮบแฝธฮฝ

ฯ€ฯแฝธฯ‚ ฯ„ฮฟแฝบฯ‚ ฯ†ฯ…ฮณฮฌฮดฮฑฯ‚ แฝงฮฝ ฯ€ฯฮฟฮตฮนฯƒฯ„ฮฎฮบฮตฯƒฮฑฮฝ แผˆฮฝฯ„ฮนฮผฮตฮฝฮฏฮดฮทฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ แผˆฮปฮบฮฑแฟ–ฮฟฯ‚ แฝ ฯ€ฮฟฮนฮทฯ„ฮฎฯ‚.

ฮดฮทฮปฮฟแฟ– ฮด' แผˆฮปฮบฮฑแฟ–ฮฟฯ‚ แฝ…ฯ„ฮน ฯ„ฯฯฮฑฮฝฮฝฮฟฮฝ ฮตแผตฮปฮฟฮฝฯ„ฮฟ ฯ„แฝธฮฝ ฮ ฮนฯ„ฯ„ฮฑฮบแฝธฮฝ แผ”ฮฝ ฯ„ฮนฮฝฮน ฯ„แฟถฮฝ ฯƒฮบฮฟฮปฮนแฟถฮฝ

ฮผฮตฮปแฟถฮฝ· แผฯ€ฮนฯ„ฮนฮผแพท ฮณแฝฐฯ แฝ…ฯ„ฮน "ฯ„แฝธฮฝ ฮบฮฑฮบฮฟฯ€ฮฌฯ„ฯฮนฮดฮฑ ฮ ฮฏฯ„ฯ„ฮฑฮบฮฟฮฝ ฯ€ฯŒฮปฮนฮฟฯ‚ ฯ„แพถฯ‚ แผ€ฯ‡ฯŒฮปฯ‰ ฮบฮฑแฝถ

ฮฒฮฑฯฯ…ฮดฮฑฮฏฮผฮฟฮฝฮฟฯ‚ แผฯƒฯ„ฮฌฯƒฮฑฮฝฯ„ฮฟ ฯ„ฯฯฮฑฮฝฮฝฮฟฮฝ ฮผฮญฮณ' แผฯ€ฮฑฮฏฮฝฮตฮฝฯ„ฮตฯ‚ แผ€ฯŒฮปฮปฮตฮตฯ‚". ฮฑแฝ—ฯ„ฮฑฮน ฮผแฝฒฮฝ ฮฟแฝ–ฮฝ

ฮตแผฐฯƒฮฏ ฯ„ฮต ฮบฮฑแฝถ แผฆฯƒฮฑฮฝ ฮดฮนแฝฐ ฮผแฝฒฮฝ ฯ„แฝธ ฮดฮตฯƒฯ€ฮฟฯ„ฮนฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮตแผถฮฝฮฑฮน ฯ„ฯ…ฯฮฑฮฝฮฝฮนฮบฮฑฮฏ, ฮดฮนแฝฐ ฮดแฝฒ ฯ„แฝธ ฮฑแผฑฯฮตฯ„ฮฑแฝถ ฮบฮฑแฝถ

แผ‘ฮบฯŒฮฝฯ„ฯ‰ฮฝ ฮฒฮฑฯƒฮนฮปฮนฮบฮฑฮฏ.

Although Alcaeus' testimony, referred to in this passage, shows that at least

some of Pittacus' contemporaries considered him to be a tyrant (แผฯƒฯ„ฮฌฯƒฮฑฮฝฯ„ฮฟ

ฯ„ฯฯฮฑฮฝฮฝฮฟฮฝ), Aristotle classies him as aisymnetes, explaining this designation

with the fact that he was elected autocrat by the people of Mytilene Accordingly,

Aristotle attributes to aisymneteia a position between tyranny and hereditary

monarchy, taking more into account the way Pittacus rose to power than the

manner in which he may have ruled. However, later authors like Strabo (13.2.3)

and Diogenes Laertius (1.75) record that Pittacus abandoned tyranny of his

own will, and it is perhaps not illegitimate to conclude from these testimonies

that he exerted autocratic power in a positive manner and mainly with the

goal of calming the atmosphere of civil dissension that may have justied his

appointment as tyrant7 .

6 Frgs. 75 and 348 Voigt (cf. infra commentary to Pol. 3.1285a29-1285b3). In other poems

(frgs. 69, 70 and 72 Voigt), the poet continues to attack Pittacus in other ways, citing, for

example, his physical looks, his opportunism and tendency towards violent behaviour.

7 e testimony of Diodorus (9.11.1) is particularly elucidative by the way it synthesizes

Although the question is controversial, it is not improbable that the term

aisymnetes was used in Pittacus' time to describe his government and that

Aristotle may therefore have adopted from Pittacus' ruling experience the same

expression to refer to this political category, an hypothesis that nds support

in the fact that Pittacus' case is precisely the sole example of an aisymnetes that

Aristotle provides8 . is term, however, is used already by Homer to dene

someone engaged in activities appropriate for a 'judge' or informal 'evaluator'9 .

e conuence of these several aspects must have contributed to create a quite

favourable image of Pittacus, to the point of him being considered one of the

Seven Wise Men.

Up to a certain point, it is also appealing to compare Pittacus' role as

aisymnetes with the position of diallaktes ('arbiter') that Solon held in Athens10 .

Both seem to have enjoyed strong support from the people who had put the

government of the city into their hands, in the expectation that they might bring

to an end the ambience of enormous instability felt by then in Mytilene and in

Athens. Both were equally well succeeded in these functions, notwithstanding

the opposition they also met, and both also chose not to remain in power as

tyrants. Moreover, both of them acted as lawgivers, although at this level Solon's

activity is much more notorious and inuential — a clear sign of this is given

by the fact that Aristotle says that Pittacus was responsible for the creation

of new laws, but not of a new constitution (แผฮณฮญฮฝฮตฯ„ฮฟ ฮดแฝฒ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮ ฮนฯ„ฯ„ฮฑฮบแฝธฯ‚ ฮฝฯŒฮผฯ‰ฮฝ

ฮดฮทฮผฮนฮฟฯ…ฯฮณแฝธฯ‚ แผ€ฮปฮป' ฮฟแฝ ฯ€ฮฟฮปฮนฯ„ฮตฮฏฮฑฯ‚)11 . ere is still another important dierence

to add in considering the two statesmen: although Pittacus was a tyrant

aisymnetes, this does not necessarily imply that such a political position was

regular; Solon, on the contrary, had on his side the supplementary legitimacy

of occupying a legal oce (the archonship), reinforced by the concession of

exceptional powers.

At any rate, and even taking into account these limitations, Pittacus'

situation was suciently special to allow him to keep deserving the post of

Pittacus' political action: ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ„แฝดฮฝ ฯ€ฮฑฯ„ฯฮฏฮดฮฑ ฯ„ฯฮนแฟถฮฝ ฯ„แฟถฮฝ ฮผฮตฮณฮฏฯƒฯ„ฯ‰ฮฝ ฯƒฯ…ฮผฯ†ฮฟฯแฟถฮฝ แผ€ฯ€ฮญฮปฯ…ฯƒฮต, ฯ„ฯ…ฯฮฑฮฝฮฝฮฏฮดฮฟฯ‚,

ฯƒฯ„ฮฌฯƒฮตฯ‰ฯ‚, ฯ€ฮฟฮปฮญฮผฮฟฯ….

8 e fragment of Alcaeus quoted by Aristotle shows that the word tyrannos could have

a pejorative connotation as early as the turn of the VII to the VI century, although in this

particular case the negative overtone should also be understood as an expression of the poet's

own animosity towards the former political ally. In fact, in the Septem Sapientium Convivium

(157d-e), Plutarch records a popular song from Lesbos which mentions Pittacus as a basileus ;

if the testimony is genuine, it will contribute to show that, before the time of ucydides, the

concepts of tyrannos and basileus were not necessarily opposites. On this matter, see the pertinent

observations of V. P, 1998, pp. 156-7 and 170-1, n. 130.

9 In the sense that the aisymnetes was not a regular ocial. Cf. Il. 24.347; Od. 8. 258. See also

J. F. MG, 1993, pp. 79-81; K.-J. H, 1999, pp. 219-26.

10 Cf. [Aristotle], Ath. 5.2; Plutarch, Sol. 14.3.

11 Pol. 2.1274b18. is commentary is made when Aristotle is about to mention the best-

known law of Pittacus: the one that denes harsher penalties for crimes committed under the

inuence of wine. is tradition also left traces in the Septem Sapientium Convivium (155f). On

the remnants of other pieces of legislation implemented by Pittacus, see K.-J. H ,

1999, pp. 221-3.

515

e tyrannos as a sophos in the Septem Sapientium Convivium

sapiens in a period during which animosity towards autocratic rulers was well

established, even within the tradition of the Seven Wise Men. On the other

hand, the ethical and political resemblances between him and Solon must also

have helped to conrm the legitimacy of his presence in the symposion, because

the Athenian legislator (together with ales) played an undisputed central

role both in the Seven Sages tradition and in Plutarch's Convivium.

Cleoboulus of Lindos

Cleoboulus, son of Evagoras, was tyrant of Lindos during around forty

years, until the middle of the VI century. Even so, the information given by

the sources about this gure is much less expressive than in the case of Pittacus

and, because of that, maybe the justication for his presence in the Septem

Sapientium Convivium should be sought not in his own credits but rather in a

kind of homage that Plutarch would like to pay to Cleobouline/Eumetis. e

young girl is presented as the daughter of the autocrat Cleoboulus, but one

of the rst objections to ponder in this context has to do precisely with the

historical existence of Cleobouline. In fact, we have the record of a comedy

from Cratinus called Kleoboulinai, and because of this it has already been

argued that her name may simply be a personication of the riddles invented

by Cleoboulus12 . Elsewhere Plutarch states (De Pythiae oraculis¸ 401b) that

her real name was Eumetis, although it was superseded by the nickname

Cleobuline, given after her father. Anyway, more signicant than this detail

is the fact that Eumetis is a name that speaks for itself: it means 'prudent' or

'wise', and this is in accord with the characterization of the young girl in the

Convivium and with the positive eect that she exerts upon her father – which

is the aspect that is most relevant to the subsequent analysis.

In fact, the presence of Cleoboulus is quite discreet throughout the Septem

Sapientium Convivium. Bias discusses some ideas apart with him before giving

his response to the enigmatic questions advanced in Amasis' missive (151c).

However, this procedure may be justied simply by the fact that Cleoboulus is

reclined close to Bias, thereby not implying any special deference towards the

tyrant of Lindos. Cleoboulus is also responsible for some short observations

on political regimes and on the government of the house, suggesting by these

interventions to have a moderate nature. His major contribution has to do

with the way he explores the concept of ฮผฮญฯ„ฯฮฟฮฝ (157a-c), but even this may

be understood as an explanatory development of the sentence ฮผฮญฯ„ฯฮฟฮฝ แผ„ฯฮนฯƒฯ„ฮฟฮฝ,

which was traditionally attributed to him13 . is second-rate position of

12 Cf. Diogenes Laertius, 1.89: ฮณฮตฮฝฮญฯƒฮธฮฑฮน ฯ„ฮต ฮฑแฝฯ„แฟท ฮธฯ…ฮณฮฑฯ„ฮญฯฮฑ ฮšฮปฮตฮฟฮฒฮฟฯ…ฮปฮฏฮฝฮทฮฝ, ฮฑแผฐฮฝฮนฮณฮผฮฌฯ„ฯ‰ฮฝ

แผ‘ฮพฮฑฮผฮญฯ„ฯฯ‰ฮฝ ฯ€ฮฟฮนฮฎฯ„ฯฮนฮฑฮฝ, แผงฯ‚ ฮผฮญฮผฮฝฮทฯ„ฮฑฮน ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮšฯฮฑฯ„แฟ–ฮฝฮฟฯ‚ แผฮฝ ฯ„แฟท แฝฮผฯ‰ฮฝฯฮผแฟณ ฮดฯฮฌฮผฮฑฯ„ฮน, ฯ€ฮปฮทฮธฯ…ฮฝฯ„ฮนฮบแฟถฯ‚

แผฯ€ฮนฮณฯฮฌฯˆฮฑฯ‚ (K , 1 39). In fact, in the same passage Diogenes credits Cleoboulus as being the

author of around three thousand verses characterized by their enigmatic nature. Nevertheless,

Diogenes seems to believe in the historical existence of Cleobouline, a perspective which is in

fact preferable. On this see D. F, 1985, pp. 48-9; A. B P  H. R

S, 1994, pp. 128-9.

13 Cf. Diogenes Laertius, 1.93.5.

Cleoboulus is again stressed by Plutarch in the De E apud Delphos (385d-e),

a passage already commented on in the introduction, where he expressly

eliminates the tyrant of Lindos from the core of Sages. Accordingly, it would

have been easy for Plutarch to choose a character dierent from that of

Cleoboulus, among the many other candidates recorded by the tradition of

the Seven Wise Men14 . Consequently, the justication for the presence of the

tyrant Cleoboulus within the circle of the sophoi should perhaps be sought not

so much in the inherent qualities of the autocrat (as happened with Pittacus)

but in the opportunity to make Cleobouline appear in the convivial space15 .

In fact, although the young girl does not voice a single word, it is

particularly impressive to see the way she is presented for the rst time in

the Septem Sapientium Convivium in the act of combing the dishevelled hair

of Anacharsis (148d-e). e symbolic importance of this scene is underlined

during the conversation between Neiloxenos and ales when it is said that

both the Greek girl and the Scythian sophos derived benets from that mutual

proximity. Neiloxenos also pays her a compliment by recognizing that her

riddles were renowned as far as Egypt. is is a very interesting statement

because, apart from the obvious attering remark, it may also provide an

historical hint at the way personalities and events connected with the Seven

Sages spread throughout the Hellenized world.16 Particularly signicant is

also the comment made by ales when he emphatically mentions the natural

good character of Eumetis to the foreigner of Naucratis and at the same time

states the positive eect that she exerts on her father (148d):

ฮบฮฑแฝถ แฝ ฮฮตฮนฮปฯŒฮพฮตฮฝฮฟฯ‚ "แผฆ ฯ€ฮฟฯ… ฯ„แฝดฮฝ ฯ€ฮตฯแฝถ ฯ„แฝฐ ฮฑแผฐฮฝฮฏฮณฮผฮฑฯ„ฮฑ ฮดฮตฮนฮฝฯŒฯ„ฮทฯ„ฮฑ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯƒฮฟฯ†ฮฏฮฑฮฝ" แผ”ฯ†ฮท

"ฯ„แฟ†ฯ‚ ฮบฯŒฯฮทฯ‚ แผฯ€ฮฑฮนฮฝฮตแฟ–ฯ‚· ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮณแฝฐฯ ฮตแผฐฯ‚ ฮ‘แผดฮณฯ…ฯ€ฯ„ฮฟฮฝ แผ”ฮฝฮนฮฑ ฯ„แฟถฮฝ ฯ€ฯฮฟฮฒฮฑฮปฮปฮฟฮผฮญฮฝฯ‰ฮฝ แฝ‘ฯ€'

ฮฑแฝฯ„แฟ†ฯ‚ ฮดฮนแฟ–ฮบฯ„ฮฑฮน."

"oแฝฮบ แผ”ฮณฯ‰ฮณ'" ฮตแผถฯ€ฮตฮฝ แฝ ฮ˜ฮฑฮปแฟ†ฯ‚· "ฯ„ฮฟฯฯ„ฮฟฮนฯ‚ ฮณแฝฐฯ แฝฅฯƒฯ€ฮตฯ แผ€ฯƒฯ„ฯฮฑฮณฮฌฮปฮฟฮนฯ‚, แฝ…ฯ„ฮฑฮฝ ฯ„ฯฯ‡แฟƒ,

ฯ€ฮฑฮฏฮถฮฟฯ…ฯƒฮฑ ฯ‡ฯแฟ†ฯ„ฮฑฮน ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮดฮนฮฑฮฒฮฌฮปฮปฮตฯ„ฮฑฮน ฯ€ฯแฝธฯ‚ ฯ„ฮฟแฝบฯ‚ แผฮฝฯ„ฯ…ฯ‡ฯŒฮฝฯ„ฮฑฯ‚. แผ€ฮปฮปแฝฐ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ†ฯฯŒฮฝฮทฮผฮฑ

ฮธฮฑฯ…ฮผฮฑฯƒฯ„แฝธฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮฝฮฟแฟฆฯ‚ แผ”ฮฝฮตฯƒฯ„ฮน ฯ€ฮฟฮปฮนฯ„ฮนฮบแฝธฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฌฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€ฮฟฮฝ แผฆฮธฮฟฯ‚, ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ„แฝธฮฝ ฯ€ฮฑฯ„ฮญฯฮฑ

ฯ„ฮฟแฟ–ฯ‚ ฯ€ฮฟฮปฮฏฯ„ฮฑฮนฯ‚ ฯ€ฯฮฑฯŒฯ„ฮตฯฮฟฮฝ แผ„ฯฯ‡ฮฟฮฝฯ„ฮฑ ฯ€ฮฑฯฮญฯ‡ฮตฮน ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮดฮทฮผฮฟฯ„ฮนฮบฯŽฯ„ฮตฯฮฟฮฝ.

According to him, the natural qualities of Cleobouline — where

intelligence, political sensibility and a generous character are particularly

evident (ฯ†ฯฯŒฮฝฮทฮผฮฑ ฮธฮฑฯ…ฮผฮฑฯƒฯ„แฝธฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮฝฮฟแฟฆฯ‚ แผ”ฮฝฮตฯƒฯ„ฮน ฯ€ฮฟฮปฮนฯ„ฮนฮบแฝธฯ‚ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯ†ฮนฮปฮฌฮฝฮธฯฯ‰ฯ€ฮฟฮฝ

แผฆฮธฮฟฯ‚) — project over her father and help to make his government become

'sweeter' (ฯ€ฯฮฑฯŒฯ„ฮตฯฮฟฮฝ) and 'closer to democracy' (ฮดฮทฮผฮฟฯ„ฮนฮบฯŽฯ„ฮตฯฮฟฮฝ). rough

Eumetis, Plutarch manages to attenuate the negative traits of Cleoboulus and

14 See the elucidative testimony of Diogenes Laertius (1.41-42) on the number of

personalities that could play the role of sophos.

15 us contributing to innovate within the Greek tradition in what concerns the presence

of 'serious' women in the banquet, which was an ambience clearly marked by masculine

Weltanschauung. For more on this, see D. F. L, 2008, pp. 486-7.

16 A. B, 2002, pp. 65-71, too, calls attention to this issue, when analysing the work of

Demetrius of Phalerum and Callimachus of Cyrene in Alexandria. However, the author does

not discuss this particular case of Cleobouline.

517

e tyrannos as a sophos in the Septem Sapientium Convivium

dilutes the fact that he is tyrant of Lindos, thus making it easier to accept his

inclusion in the restricted group of the Seven Wise Men. To put it in a nutshell:

Plutarch allows Cleoboulus to be considered one of the Sages this time in order

to have the opportunity of presenting in the Convivium the young Eumetis, in

whom one can detect special traits of feminine sensibility and of the positive

eect they produce within the masculine space of the symposion.

Periander of Corinth

In the analysis of Pittacus' and Cleoboulus' characters, I have not adduced

an argument that could have carried some weight in Plutarch's choices: the fact

that his core of sophoi is very similar to the list presented in Plato's Protagoras

(343a). In fact, although Plato has Anacharsis replaced by Myson, he also

includes the names of Pittacus and Cleoboulus, leaving Periander equally

aside17 . is mistrust towards tyranny is found in other parts of Plato's work,

the best-known passage being the one in the Republic (335e-336a) where, to

the wisdom of gures like Simonides, Bias and Pittacus, he opposes the image

of personalities inebriated by wealth, in a group headed precisely by Periander,

but where Perdiccas, Xerxes and Ismenias of ebes are also present. One of

the important things about this passage of the Protagoras is that it provides

the rst complete list of the Seven Wise Men. A clear sign that Plato was

innovating in supplying the full sylloge in writing is given by the fact that

the philosopher presents «l'intรฉgralitรฉ des sept noms et leurs ethniques

respectifs»18 . If this was not the case, it would be more natural to refer to the

Sages by simply using the expression ฮฟแผฑ แผ‘ฯ€ฯ„แฝฐ ฯƒฮฟฯ†ฮฟฮฏ, which would later become

the usual designation19 . Solon is the only sophos of whom the ethnonym is not

given; rather he is designated by Socrates as ฮฃฯŒฮปฯ‰ฮฝ แฝ แผกฮผฮญฯ„ฮตฯฮฟฯ‚. is suggests

that, from the very beginning, Solon was a polarizing personality among the

Sages and that Athenian inuence played an important role in establishing

their political and ethical idiosyncrasy.20 is is still clearly visible in Plutarch's

Convivium, as shown by the importance attributed to the old legislator and to

the democratic regime in terms of political discussion.

e elimination of Periander from the core of Sages is thus justied,

in the rst place, by the fact that he was a tyrant and that there is a deep

animosity towards this form of government in the Convivium, inherited from

17 Possibly following Ephorus; by contrast, Demetrius of Phalerum admitted the presence of

Periander. See the aforementioned testimony of Diogenes Laertius, 1.41-42.

18 A. B, 2002, pp. 33-4, who also calls attention to the fact that Plato presented already

in the Hippias Major (281c) what could be considered a "proto-list" of the sapientes (pp. 31-2).

19 is does not imply, of course, that Plato was himself creating the legend of the Seven

Wise Men, because, as said before, it should already have been present in the oral tradition.

20 A reality conrmed by Plato himself (Ti. 20d: แฝ ฯ„แฟถฮฝ แผ‘ฯ€ฯ„แฝฐ ฯƒฮฟฯ†ฯŽฯ„ฮฑฯ„ฮฟฯ‚ ฮฃฯŒฮปฯ‰ฮฝ). If one

takes into consideration that this dialogue was written after the Protagoras, then it becomes

signicant that, this time, Plato felt that it was no longer necessary to provide the whole sylloge.

On this see A. B, 2002, p. 36.

Plato and echoed equally by Plutarch at several points of his work21. Periander

admittedly fulls an important function in his capacity as host, although his

presence starts to vanish especially when the guests begin the eulogy of the

democratic regime, to the extent that the honour of closing the banquet falls to

Solon and not to the host (164c-d). In order to reach a better understanding of

the more specic reasons that may lie behind this treatment, it will be useful to

recall some further information concerning the life of the tyrant of Corinth.

Periander, son of Cypselus, was in power for about forty years (c. 627 to

587 BC). Under his government, Corinth reached a notable development at

the economic, military and cultural levels, as can be seen by the foundation of

several colonies, by important military campaigns, and by the tyrant's capacity

to attract to his court poets and other artists22 . is image of a successful ruler

and protector of the arts, common in fact to several other tyrants of ancient

Greece, should have been the reason why he was sometimes placed among

the group of sapientes 23 . On the other hand, Periander also has the image

of a person given to excesses, a tradition that Plutarch could not aord to

ignore, as shown by the allusions made to them in the Convivium. is is what

happens, for example, with the practice of incest with his mother, a hideous

crime that led her to commit suicide24 ; the future uxoricide of Melissa25; or

even a crime as repulsive as the practice of necrophilia with his wife's corpse26 .

is latter transgression was reinforced by other forms of equally shocking

intemperance: still according to the same passage in Herodotus, Periander

ordered the women of Corinth to gather in the temple of Hera, with the

goal of having them stripped and all their clothes burned in order to appease

the spirit of Melissa — signicantly not to obtain her pardon, but to feed his

continuous thirst for wealth. Although in the Septem Sapientium Convivium

there is no tension between the two (Melissa does not even speak), Plutarch's

readers were already aware of Periander's subsequent excesses and therefore

knew what was going to happen to him27 . Nevertheless, it is worth noting that

even in Herodotus there are also a few positive hints concerning Periander,

21 Even with notable animosity. Cf. Dio 9.3-8; Arat. 26.1-5.

22 Like Chersias of Orchomenus, known precisely from his participation in the Septem

Sapientium Convivium.

23 Note that, according to Diogenes Laertius (1.122), a few authors also considered

Peisistratus, tyrant of Athens, one of the sophoi.

24 Cf. Septem Sapientium Convivium, 146d. e incestuous relation of Periander with his

mother is attributed by Diogenes Laertius (1.96) to Aristippus. Parthenius (Erotika Pathemata

17) presents a more romanticising version of the account, which bears some similarities to

Apuleius' Cupid and Psyche.

25 Cf. Herodotus, 3.50; Diogenes Laertius, 1.94.

26 Herodotus, 5.92.ฮท. 1-4.

27 Something similar occurs, for example, with the indication that Aesop participated in

the banquet as Croesus' envoy after the latter had sent him to the court of Periander and to the

oracle of Delphi (150a). In a certain way, this detail throws a shadow of discomfort over his

participation, since, according to the legend, Aesop would suer a violent death in Delphi for

having disrespected the priests of the oracle and the inhabitants of the region by accusing them

of simple parasitism.

519

e tyrannos as a sophos in the Septem Sapientium Convivium

like the story of Arion and the dolphins (1.23-24), which is recovered and

developed in Plutarch's Convivium (160e-162b). And even episodes like

banishing or putting to death the most inuential citizens, and burning the

clothes of the Corinthian women, were sometimes interpreted as reecting

a positive motivation: to promote social balance and implement sumptuary

legislation28 . In fact, in the Convivium Plutarch does not forget to mention the

detail that the tyrant told his wife to dress in a simple manner for the dinner

with de Seven Wise Men (150d). is conicting evidence suggests that there

were two dierent traditions concerning Periander: one mainly hostile to the

tyrant, which is widely detected in Herodotus, and another pervaded with

more positive traits, possibly Corinthian in origin29 .

If one takes all these aspects into consideration, it will become quite clear

that, despite the fact that Periander played an important role as host of the

Convivium, Plutarch had to put him at a level dierent from the one occupied

by the Seven Wise Men. At any rate, the relationship with the sapientes helped

Periander — who inherited the tyranny as if it was a disease (147c) — to

exercise power in a more moderate fashion, at least in the initial phase of his

government30 . Although Plutarch concedes him some deference along with

the interventions he makes during the symposion, the tyrant of Corinth thus

fails to exhibit the serenity characteristic of someone who is at peace with

his conscience, certainly because of the excesses already perpetrated, which

constitute a clear sign that he will continue to reveal in the future the same

propensity to immoderation. As such, he keeps living in fear of the deity he

knows he has oended (146d) and this leads him to anxiety and superstitious

terror, visible at the moment a shepherd carries a new-born centaur to the

gardens of the palace (149c-e). Even if ales' rationalism helps him to dispel,

at least temporarily, the shadow of apprehension, it is a matter of fact that

the qualms manifested by Diocles will nd their conrmation in the time to

come31 . Periander also tries to overcome, with apotropaic rituals directed to

28 See J. B. S, 1997, pp. 46-65. Aristotle (Pol. 5.1311a20-22; 5.1313a40) tells the

story of 'lopping o the heads' (an advice that according to him was given by Periander and

not by rasybulus, as sustained by Herodotus) in a context where he seeks to exemplify

the excesses characteristic of tyranny. e episode is also recorded by Plutarch in the Septem

Sapientium Convivium (147c-d). In another study, J. B. S, 1984, p. 206 e n. 80, points

out that, according to Diogenes Laertius (1.100) and eodorus Metochites (p. 668 Mรผller),

Periander was an aisymnetes, similar to Pittacus, but the scholar rightly considers neither of these

testimonies to be trustworthy.

29 See A. B, 2002, pp. 21-2, who also states (p. 73) that Ephorus was one of the authors

responsible for partially rehabilitating Periander as politician.

30 V. P, 1998, pp. 166-7, calls attention to the fact that, when considering the dierent

ways of reaching tyranny, Aristotle does not discuss the case of those (Periander of Corinth,

Pindarus of Ephesus, Hippias of Athens and Polycrates of Samos) who inherited power from

their fathers, a factor that would make their political position closer, in a certain way, to the

status of basileus.

31 Diocles advised the tyrant to make purications in order to appease the deity (Aphrodite)

that once again manifested herself because of the incestuous relations of Periander with his

mother. As remarked above, the tyrant will end up killing his wife and losing all his children

Aphrodite and Poseidon (146d, 160d), the fear generated by the warnings he

keeps receiving through dreams and oracles, but that will not be enough to dry

up the seeds of disgrace that are still feeding from his acts and shall, sooner or

later, fructify.

To conclude: Plutarch seems to have been sensitive to the position

Periander held in the tradition of the Seven Wise Men and, because of that, he

decided to characterize him as someone close to the sophoi, by giving him the

role of host in the meeting of the sapientes, at an early stage of his government.

Nevertheless, the author's reservations about tyranny (inherited from Plato)

and the awareness of the fact that Periander carried along with him the

image of deeply shocking excesses must have led Plutarch to the decision that

the tyrant was not suitable to be part of the core of Sages, contrary to what

happened with Pittacus and Cleoboulus, due to the reasons discussed above.

At any rate, the presence in the group of sophoi of several gures connected

with autocratic regimes must represent a sign of the antiquity of this tradition. In

fact, the animosity towards tyranny as such was certainly not present at the earlier

stages of the legend32 . e odious character of the term is mainly a consequence of

the irty Tyrants' oppressive and violent behaviour when they ruled over Athens

in 404. Plato already records this growing acrimony that was to be transmitted to

later tradition and nds a clear expression in Plutarch's Convivium. However, two

of these gures were able to full enough conditions to keep being considered

part of the group, either owing to personal merits (Pittacus) or due to the positive

inuence of a close relative (Cleoboulus). In Periander's case, however, the shadow

of domestic excesses severely dimmed the light of his political, military and

cultural achievements, to the extent that Plutarch was no longer able to recognize

in him the entire dignity of a fully-edged sophos .

W o r k s c i T e d

A, G. J. D., "Political thought in Plutarch's Convivium Septem

Sapientium", Mnemosyne, 30 (1977) 28-39.

A, J., Aristote. Politique. Tome II. Livres III et IV, texte รฉtabli et traduit

par, Paris, 1971, 2002 (rev. ed.).

B P, A.  R S, H., Poetisas griegas, Madrid,

1994.

(both legitimate and illegitimate), to the point of being forced to leave the throne to his nephew,

Psammetichus. Psammetichus would then take the name Cypselus II, meeting his death only

three years after having reached power, thus putting an end to the dynasty of the Cypselids. Cf.

Herodotus, 3.50-53.

32 In the rst occurrence of the term (frg. 19 W of Archilochus), tyranny is considered to

be 'powerful' 'great' (ฮผฮตฮณฮฌฮปฮท), and even in the second half of the V century the words tyrannos

and tyrannis are still used with the meaning of 'king' 'sovereign' 'wealth' 'power', although the

negative tones are also detectable already in an early phase (frg. 33 West of Solon). On this see

V. P, 1998.

521

e tyrannos as a sophos in the Septem Sapientium Convivium

B, A., Les Sept Sages de la Grรจce antique, Paris, 2002.

F, D., Die sieben Weisen und die frรผhgriechische Chronologie. Eine

traditionsgeschichtliche Studie, Bern, 1985.

H, K.-J., Schiedsrichter, Gesetzgeber und Gesetzgebung im archaischen

Griechenland, Stuttgart, 1999.

L, D. F., "A tradiรงรฃo dos Sete Sรกbios: o sapiens enquanto paradigma de uma

identidade", in D. F. L  ., Paideia e cidadania na Grรฉcia antiga,

Coimbra, 2006, pp. 35-78.

_____ "Plutarch and the Character of the Sapiens", in A. G. N (ed.),

e Unity of Plutarch's Works. Moralia emes in the Lives, Features of the

Lives in the Moralia, Berlin/New York, 2008, pp. 480-88.

MG, J. F., Tyranny and Political Culture in Ancient Greece, Ithaca, 1993.

M, C., "Plutarch and the Sicilian tyrants", in S. Lewis (ed.), Ancient

Tyranny, Edinburgh, 2006, pp. 188-196.

P, V., "Tฯฯฮฑฮฝฮฝoฯ‚. e semantics of a political concept from Archilochus

to Aristotle", Hermes, 126 (1998) 145–72.

S, J. B., Wealthy Corinth. A History of the City to 338 B.C., Oxford,

1984.

_____ ''Lopping o the heads? Tyrants, politics and the polis'', in L. G.

M & P. J. R (eds.), e Development of the Polis in Archaic

Greece, London, 1997, pp. 60–73.

523

Index rerum

Aemilius Paullus, L. (cos. 182 and 168

B.C.) 128 (n 7); 165-179; 227; 284.

aisymnetes 511-521.

Agesilaus II (Spartan king) 169; 283 (n.

24); 478.

ainigma 3-4; 89; 91; 93; 95; 97-102;

133 (n. 16); 421; 482; 485; 487-489;

498; 515-516.

akratos 133; 201-209; 212-213; 219;

248; 315; 321; 323 (n. 62); 390.

Alcibiades (Athenian politician) 4 (n.

5); 5-6; 8; 37-50; 99; 125-126; 147;

169; 361; 388 (n. 11); 464 (n. 25);

466.

aletheia 79 (n. 28); 80 (n. 38); 90;

134-137 (n. 44); 139; 283 (n. 26);

301; 303; 316 (n. 19); 319 (n. 32);

323; 347 (n. 24); 374; 376 (n. 27);

387; 398-399; 411; 416; 420; 423;

465 (n. 33); 466; 489-490; 499 (n.

12).

Alexander II (Macedonian king) 236.

Alexander III the Great (Macedonian

king) 27; 34; 67; 117; 156 (n. 54);

182; 185 (n. 17); 193-200; 201-209;

211-222; 231; 245; 247-251; 334

(n. 3).

Alexander V (Macedonian king) 246;

258 (n. 18).

allusion 19-29; 32-33; 37-39; 42; 44 (n.

28); 45; 47 (n. 43); 51-61; 82; 91;

124 (n. 2); 134 (n. 22); 133; 136;

147-148; 150; 152; 155; 170; 181;

184-186; 188; 237 (n. 38); 299;

307-308; 310; 333-340; 355; 361;

377; 379; 386 (n. 4); 396; 406; 409;

412; 417; 425; 426 (n. 6); 432 (n.

32); 439; 442; 444; 447-448; 453;

460 (n. 11); 461 (n. 17); 467; 474;

476; 483; 484 (n. 14); 493 (n. 39);

497-498; 500; 505-508; 518.

Anacharsis (Scythian prince and sage)

482-492; 500-501; 506; 508; 511;

516-517.

andreia 39; 41; 169; 287 (n. 40); 302 (n.

25); 342; 359; 361.

animals (cf. philanthropia, animal) 80

(n. 37); 82 (n. 54); 152 (n. 29); 157;

196; 236; 271 (n. 93); 290; 308 (n.

9); 351-352; 411; 419; 433; 445;

447; 452; 481 (n. 2); 484; 489 (n.

29); 507-508.

dolphins 12; 55; 82; 235 (n. 26);

309 (n. 11); 482; 484; 491-492;

497-503; 508; 519.

Antigone (daughter of Oedipus and

Iocasta) 338.

Antigone (mistress of Philotas, son of

Alexander's associate Parmenio)

202.

Index rerum

Antigonus III Doson (Macedonian

king) 203.

Antonius, M. (triumvir) 152 (n. 29);

242 (n. 61); 247; 284; 339.

Aphrodite 8; 65; 152 (n. 29); 299 (n.

8); 300; 307-311; 316; 323-324;

429-430; 465; 475; 519 (n. 31);

520.

aplestia 263-265.

Archias (poet from Antioch) 55 (n. 21);

336-338.

arete 5; 38; 40-41; 45; 68 (n. 24); 69-70;

81-83; 123; 139 (n. 53); 147; 149;

157; 169; 181; 196; 199; 208; 212;

217; 221; 227 (n. 10); 263; 268 (n.

51); 269; 271 (n. 92); 276 (n. 5);

279-281; 283-284; 287; 289; 291

(n. 5); 292; 294; 297-305; 307; 311;

313 (n. 1); 314-316; 320; 341-348;

353; 355; 360-365; 374 (n. 18); 380;

385; 388-392; 399; 425 (n. 3); 426

(n. 5); 431 (n. 25); 433 (n. 34); 434

(n. 38); 435; 442 (n. 26); 465 (n. 33);

473; 476-477; 493; 500.

Arion (citharode) 12; 55; 81; 82 (n. 59);

235 (n. 26); 466; 482; 484; 490-493;

497-503; 507-508; 519.

Aristides (Athenian politician) 147;

152 (n. 26); 157; 364.

Artaxerxes I (Persian king) 246; 471

(n. 3).

Artaxerxes II (Persian king) 131-146;

231; 257; 259; 277.

aลกa vide Zoroastrianism.

astrology 447-455; 478.

Attalus (uncle of Cleopatra, the second

wife of Philip II) 193-194; 197;

204; 207; 214.

barbarian (cf. symposion, barbarian) 98;

249; 293; 333; 345; 364; 365; 408;

508; 511.

Bias of Priene (philosopher and sage)

76 (n. 7); 77 (n. 17); 78 (n. 21); 83;

462; 463 (n. 24); 482; 484-490; 498;

507-508; 511-512; 515; 517.

biography 32; 123; 131-133; 136; 141;

147; 151 (n. 24); 166; 168 (n. 17); 193;

195; 201; 208; 212-213; 217-218;

220; 223; 231; 240-241; 259; 334 (n.

3); 341-346; 355; 359-366; 398-399;

472; 473 (n. 12); 481; 486.

negative 141 (n. 74); 147-148; 152

(n. 29); 166; 181; 185; 188;

193-195; 198; 225-226; 228;

240-241; 280; 284; 334; 342;

344; 351-355.

Bucephalas (Alexander the Great's

favourite horse) 196-197.

Calvenus Taurus (Platonist and teacher

of Aulus Gellius) 377-379.

Chilon (Spartan ephor and sage) 12; 76

(n. 7); 77; 80 (n. 43); 81; 461 (n. 17);

463; 465 (n. 32); 466; 477; 482; 485;

511-512.

chreia vide progymnasmata.

Christian gathering 103-112; 240; 477.

Cimon (Athenian politician) 282; 371

(n. 11).

citations 19-29; 31-33; 51-61; 76 (n. 7);

150 (n. 20); 248; 323-324; 334; 449

(n. 10); 452 (n. 20); 461; 463 (n. 23);

467; 503 (n. 27).

Cleitus the Black (brother of the

wet-nurse of Alexander the Great)

193-200; 204; 207; 215-220; 247;

249-251.

Cleobulina (also called Eumetis;

daughter of Cleobulus) 55; 98; 101;

426; 462; 468; 482; 483 (n. 8); 486;

511 (n. 3); 515-517.

Cleobulus (autocrat of Lindos and sage)

76 (n. 7); 78 (n. 21); 79 (n. 29, 32);

101; 462-464; 482-483; 487-488;

511-512; 515-517; 520.

Cleomenes III (Spartan king) 129 (n.

9); 248; 286.

Cleopatra (second wife of Philip II of

Macedon) 193; 195; 197; 204-205;

214.

Cleopatra VII (Egyptian queen) 152 (n.

29); 232; 242 (n. 61); 435 (n. 39).

Cornelius Scipio Aemilianus, P. (cos .

147 and 134 B.C.) 278.

Cornelius Scipio Africanus, P. (cos. 205

and 194 B.C.) 284; 286; 344-346;

354-355.

Cornelius Sulla, L. (dictator) 171 (n.

45); 184; 284; 432.

Cyrus the Great (Persian king) 131 (n.

2); 235-236.

Cyrus the Younger (second son of

Darius II) 131-132; 136-139; 259.

daimon 55; 57-58; 141; 217; 249; 275

(n. 2); 322 (n. 57).

dance (cf. symposion, dance) 426.

deipnon (cf. symposion, vs. deipnon) 55 (n.

21); 66; 114-115; 134 (n. 22); 184;

252 (n. 30); 270 (n. 78); 277; 282;

439 (n. 3)

Demaratus of Corinth (father of

Tarquinius Priscus) 199.

Demetrius I Poliorcetes (Macedonian

king) 201-202; 204; 206; 218; 246;

278; 284; 286; 351.

Demetrius of Tarsus (grammarian) 58.

dietetics 20; 22 (n. 10); 32.

dikaiosyne 151 (n. 26); 280 (n. 20); 287;

342; 359.

dialogue/discussion 3-5; 7; 9; 11-14;

21-22; 35; 38; 43-49; 51-61; 63-74;

78 (n. 21); 87-90; 95; 99-103;

113-115; 124-129; 134; 139; 147;

151; 153; 169; 181; 184-186;

188; 194-197; 201; 205-207;

212-213; 215 (n. 26); 219-220;

235; 249; 277; 298-304; 310-311;

315; 352; 369-381; 385-393;

395-398; 400; 404-413; 419-424;

426-429; 432-433; 435; 441-444;

448; 459-470; 473-479; 481 (n.

2); 483-489; 492-493; 497-499;

505-506; 508; 515; 517.

Dionysus (deity) 8; 13; 78 (n. 21); 106;

115; 126 (n. 4); 137 (n. 43); 152 (n.

29); 207; 323-324; 410; 412; 418;

420; 466.

discord 123; 134 (n. 19); 325 (n. 72);

476.

drauga/drug vide Zoroastrianism.

education (cf. paideia) 3; 5; 7; 14-15;

26-27; 28 (n. 25); 41; 45 (n. 34);

48; 53 (n. 11); 63-74; 135; 156 (n.

53); 157; 165 (n. 3); 166-167; 196;

208; 211 (n. 2); 225; 268 (n. 54);

269-271; 297; 299 (n. 9); 301; 303

(n. 31); 334; 341-350; 360; 362;

369-383; 425-426; 435.

epieikeia 250; 268; 271; 278; 280 (n. 20);

342; 359; 365.

epithalamium 297-305.

Eros 5; 7-8; 152 (n. 29); 275 (n. 2); 298;

299 (n. 10); 300-303; 307-312; 315

(n. 12, 13, 14); 316; 319; 322; 324

(n. 67); 325 (n. 73); 405; 407.

eros (cf. love) 8 (n. 17); 116; 124 (n. 2);

297-305; 313; 316 (n. 20); 317 (n.

23); 319 (n. 32, 33, 36, 37); 322 (n.

57); 323-325; 341-350; 468; 474 (n.

25).

eschatology 53; 299; 303.

ethical behaviour (cf. symposion, ethical)

11; 91; 116; 218; 248; 263 (n.

2); 275-288; 292; 303; 313; 326;

333-335; 341-344; 346 (n. 19); 348;

362; 432; 435; 477; 497; 501-503;

507; 515; 517.

ethos 5 (n. 11); 8; 23; 34; 128; 131; 141;

142 (n. 75); 198; 211; 220; 224; 250;

266; 268; 270 (n. 84); 280 (n. 18);

301-302; 325 (n. 76); 333; 337; 339;

345; 359-360; 364; 468; 516.

etymology 65; 98; 269 (n. 70); 449.

eudaimonia 275 (n. 2); 289.

eugnomosyne 268; 271; 364 (n. 16).

Eumetis vide Cleobulina.

eunoia 212 (n. 5); 270 (n. 82); 285; 313

(n. 1); 314; 316 (n. 19); 317-318;

417; 421.

eunuchs 97; 132-134; 136; 203; 259.

euphrosyne 134.

Favorinus of Arles (philosopher and

friend of Plutarch) 104-105;

379-380.

frugality 20; 22; 32; 148-149; 152; 287.

Galba (Roman Emperor) 223;

227-228.

gnome 26-27; 35; 77; 78 (n. 21); 83; 338;

343; 451 (n. 17); 463 (n. 22, 23);

466-468; 473-476; 483; 489-490;

493.

Greekness 165; 211-212; 365 (n. 20).

harmony 70; 123; 126-129; 212; 227;

231; 275; 279; 297; 361-362; 406;

418; 420; 490.

humanitas 208; 267; 353.

hybris 42; 79 (n. 34); 127; 134; 214;

390.

ignorance 40; 69; 139 (n. 57); 264; 336;

372-373; 426.

immortality 95; 289; 294; 298;

302-304.

intertextuality 19; 25; 37; 49.

Iulius Caesar, C. (dictator) 156-157;

182; 185 (n. 17); 188 (n. 25); 223;

248 (n. 18); 281; 285; 355; 363.

karpos 6; 269 (n. 68); 298-300; 315 (n.

12, 13); 323 (n. 61); 433; 453.

koinonia 63; 65-67; 71; 77 (n. 18); 136;

142; 212 (n. 5); 267; 269 (n. 69);

270; 272 (n. 95); 277; 280; 313 (n.

1); 316 (n. 20); 317; 319 (n. 32);

321; 325; 352 (n. 4); 412; 417;

420-421; 429.

krasis 35; 134 (n. 17); 278; 313-332;

407; 431 (n. 26); 432.

Lamprias (1) (brother of Plutarch) 23;

53; 56-57; 65; 376-377; 400; 407;

409; 412; 423.

Lamprias (2) (grandfather of Plutarch)

400.

lethe 137 (n. 42); 139; 141 (n. 69).

libation 12; 133; 219 (n. 48); 249; 283;

506.

Licinius Crassus, M. (cos. 70 and 55

B.C.) 181-190; 232; 281-286.

Licinius Lucullus, L. (cos. 74 B.C.) 182

(n. 8); 255 (n. 3); 282 (n. 23); 284.

love (cf. eros) 5; 8; 37-48; 54-56; 99;

125; 127; 150; 156 (n. 52); 181; 193;

195; 211; 213; 217 (n. 35); 275; 278;

297-305; 307-312; 313-332; 333;

339; 431 (n. 26); 432; 466 (n. 37);

483; 508.

Macedonia (cf. symposion, Macedonian)

167 (n. 15); 171; 193-200; 227;

336-338.

Marcius Coriolanus, Cn. (Roman

aristocrat) 44 (n. 30); 45 (n. 32, 36);

46 (n. 40); 47 (n. 46); 359-366.

marriage 8; 45; 54-56; 116; 151; 183;

193; 197; 198 (n. 10); 214; 231;

238; 239 (n. 51); 297-305; 307-312;

313-332; 347-348; 353-354; 377;

404; 425; 429; 431-434; 467 (n.

41); 493.

Medea 246; 255-260.

Media 216; 235.

medicine 20-22; 31-35; 56; 126 (n. 4);

255 (n. 2, 6); 322; 353; 377; 397;

421; 442 (n. 26); 444; 449; 452;

464; 499.

Melissa (wife of Periander) 55; 426;

482; 483 (n. 8); 484; 518.

(to ) metrion 5; 31-35; 69; 116; 142; 147;

151; 155; 181; 183; 185; 188; 206;

211; 216; 220; 264; 270 (n. 84); 313;

321; 325-326; 335-336; 360-363;

371; 385-386; 403-409; 413; 417;

515; 519.

mimesis 343; 375; 412-413.

Mithridates (a young Persian)

131-146.

Mithridates VI Eupator (king of

Pontus) 420.

moon 290; 426; 447-455; 491; 508.

moral 38-39; 41; 48-49; 67 (n. 17);

84; 88; 104; 107-108; 113; 116;

124-125; 129; 138 (n. 47); 149 (n.

12); 165 (n. 2); 170; 185 (n. 18); 203;

211 (n. 2); 212; 248-252; 259; 269;

275-288; 292-294; 319 (n. 34); 324

(n. 66); 325 (n. 77); 333-335; 339;

341-350; 359-361; 370; 373-377;

385-393; 409; 413; 426 (n. 5);

427-432; 435 (n. 39); 447; 461; 464

(n. 26); 476-477; 493; 497; 503.

Muses 21; 26; 56 (n. 24); 127-129;

297-298; 303; 324-325; 390; 444;

505-507.

music (cf. symposion, music) 26; 128;

195; 202 (n. 7); 298; 310; 405;

411-412.

Musonius Rufus, C. (Roman

philosopher) 302 (n. 25); 426 (n.

6); 434.

mythology 53; 231-240; 333; 365 (n. 20);

371 (n. 14); 405; 409; 421; 425; 443.

Nearchus (1) (satrap of Lycia and

Pamphylia) 150; 204; 219.

Nearchus (2) (Pythagorean philosopher)

343-344.

Nicias (Athenian politician) 169; 184;

187-188; 241 (n. 59); 282-283; 286;

447.

Olympia 195; 197; 231 (n. 1).

Olympias (mother of Alexander the

Great) 194; 214; 231; 278; 435 (n.

39).

ora 299-303; 325 (n. 76); 347 (n. 24);

453 (n. 26).

Otho (Roman Emperor) 223-229; 247;

282.

paideia (cf. education) 4-5; 45 (n.

34); 63-64; 157; 171 (n. 29); 183;

207-208; 223-224; 228; 297; 326;

334; 341-350; 354; 359-365; 370;

461 (n. 16); 465.

pantomime 14; 404-413; 429.

paraphrase 21; 24-25; 43 (n.22); 148;

156; 241.

paroinia 6 (n. 16); 134; 390.

Parthia (cf. symposion, Parthian) 181;

185 (n. 17, 18); 186.

pederasty 8; 39; 46; 48; 297; 299 (n. 9,

11); 300-303; 369.

Periander (tyrant of Corinth and sage)

11-13; 22; 76 (n. 7); 77 (n. 14); 83;

101; 417; 426; 460 (n. 12); 462; 466;

467 (n. 40, 41); 468 (n. 44); 471 (n.

3); 475-477; 481-485; 487-492;

502; 506-508; 511-512; 517-520.

Pericles (Athenian politician) 37; 45

(n. 33); 125; 213; 245; 275; 279;

283-284; 293.

Persia (cf. symposion, Persian) 3; 169;

194; 196; 214-219; 259; 284 (n. 29);

431 (n. 28).

philanthropia (cf. symposion, philanthropia)

passim.

absence of 131-146; 185 (n. 18);

351-357.

animal 497-504.

concept 208; 263-273; 275-288;

333-334; 342; 352-355.

in Aemilius Paullus 165-179.

in Alexander 212-214.

in Artaxerxes 131-146.

in Cato the Elder 342-346;

351-357.

in Cato the Younger 280-281;

361-363.

in Cicero 338-340; 362-363.

in Coriolanus 362.

in Crassus 282-283.

in Demosthenes 335-338.

in Flamininus 165-179.

in Marcellus 360.

in Pericles 283-284.

in Phocion 280; 359; 361-362.

in Septem Sapientium Convivium

477; 497-504; 516.

philia 8; 63; 66-67; 70-71; 98; 124-125;

134; 149; 184 (n. 12); 198; 211-213;

216; 223; 228; 258; 263-270; 275

(n. 2); 279; 297-305; 310-311;

313-332; 341; 344-345; 369-370;

375-377; 380; 417-418; 421; 461 (n.

17); 477-478; 501-503; 505-506.

Philip II (Macedonian king) 142 (n.

75); 193-200; 201-207; 214; 221 (n.

59); 231; 251 (n. 27); 278; 279 (n.

16); 335-336.

Philip V (Macedonian king) 309 (n.

14).

Philippus (Greek jester) 6-7; 463 (n.

25).

Philippus of Prusias (Stoic philosopher)

58; 115; 370; 376.

philophrosyne 8; 22 (n. 9); 33-34; 41; 66;

127; 170-171; 184; 212 (n. 5); 271;

276-280; 283; 285; 301-302; 313 (n.

1); 314; 316; 323 (n. 65); 324-325.

philonikia 124; 169; 269; 359.

philoploutia 181-185; 227 (n. 10); 354.

philosophy (cf. symposion, philosophy)

passim.

Aristotelianism 93; 142 (75); 267;

271; 287; 291; 294 (n. 15); 313;

317 (n. 27); 419; 449 (n. 8);

413.

Atomism 311; 319-320.

cosmology 87-96.

Epicureanism 53; 87; 267; 286 (n.

39); 311; 319-320; 372-378;

426 (n. 6).

epistemology 87-88; 90-91.

ethics 91; 114; 213; 287; 325 (n. 77);

334; 344; 359; 413; 420-422;

432; 435; 502.

logic 69 (n. 30); 87-88; 129; 339;

420-422; 441.

(ph. of) love 297-305.

metaphysics 32; 87; 92; 94-95; 421;

492.

moral ph. 263-273; 334.

ontology 90 (n. 9); 91; 93; 294 (n.

15).

Peripatetics 153; 263; 267; 271 (n.

93); 287; 325 (n. 77); 376; 409;

411; 419; 460 (n. 9).

Platonism 9; 14; 20-21; 37-50;

53; 55; 88-95; 114; 116;

125; 139-140; 142 (n. 75);

196-197; 267 (n. 38); 290-294;

298; 300-304; 319-326; 341;

376-380; 408; 415-420; 433;

447; 459-468; 474-475; 482 (n.

4); 483; 492; 507.

physics 419-420; 439-446.

Pythagoreanism 92; 100 (n. 13);

150; 279; 291; 343; 376.

Scepticism 376 (n. 27); 447.

Stoicism 44; 53; 58; 87; 115; 151 (n.

26); 153-157; 267; 270 (n. 74);

271; 280 (n. 20); 284; 289-295;

299 (n. 11); 300; 302 (n. 24, 25);

318; 322; 325 (n. 77); 373; 376;

378 (n. 33); 421; 426 (n. 6); 429;

432; 434-435; 439; 442-445;

452; 465; 500; 502-503.

philotimia 48; 124; 136; 166; 169 (n.

20); 185; 195; 263; 351; 360.

Phocion (Athenian politician) 148; 154

(n. 38); 155-157; 275; 279 (n. 16);

280-281; 359; 361.

phronesis 139 (n. 53); 169; 342; 359;

499-500.

physician 22; 56; 79 (n. 29); 101; 132;

301; 372; 376; 449; 452; 464-465.

physiology 419; 432-433; 449; 452.

Pittacus of Mytilene (elective tyrant

and sage) 12; 76-80; 338 (n. 15);

463 (n. 24); 474; 482; 486; 487 (n.

23); 488-489; 511-512; 516-517;

519 (n. 28); 520.

Pixodarus (satrap of Caria) 197-199.

poetry (cf. symposion, poetry) 27; 28 (n.

25); 65; 297-305; 308-310; 323;

333-334; 443; 508; 518.

poison 35; 204; 231; 238; 246; 255-260;

311; 337.

Pompeius Magnus, Cn. (cos. 70, 55 and

52 B.C.) 27; 182; 184 (n. 12); 185

(n. 17); 187 (n. 24); 188 (n. 25); 247;

251; 281-282; 286.

Porcius Cato (the Elder), M. (cos. 195

B.C.) 147-163; 172 (n. 39); 173 (n.

44); 207; 265-266; 268 (n. 50); 286;

341-350; 351-357; 361; 428.

Porcius Cato (the Younger), M. (pr .

54 B.C.) 115; 129; 147-163; 246;

280-281; 284; 359; 361-365; 371

(n. 11).

Poseidon 81; 217 (n. 38); 336; 508;

520.

praotes 138 (n. 48); 147; 165; 250; 264;

266 (n. 34); 267-268; 276 (n. 4);

279; 281; 333 (n. 2); 342; 359; 360;

363; 365; 374; 502 (n. 23); 516.

problema 3; 6; 87-88; 92-94; 97-102;

114-115; 375; 378; 395; 397; 399;

418-423; 439-446; 448; 452; 459

(n. 4); 498.

progymnasmata

chreia 26-27; 65 (n. 10); 67; 76-79;

471-479.

diegema 81-83.

mythos 27; 80-81.

psychology 40; 126; 322; 419; 432; 448;

500.

Pylades (Roman pantomimus)

408-409.

quaestio vide problema

Quinctius Flamininus, T. (cos. 198 B.C.)

165-179; 280 (n. 18).

reality 6; 137-139; 232; 376; 389; 391;

411-412; 427 (n. 16); 442 (n. 28);

445.

in the Quaestiones Convivales

395-401.

reconciliation 231; 311; 336-337.

rhetoric 26; 32; 37; 53; 63-74; 75; 76 (n.

8); 79-80; 83; 149; 157; 212; 226;

240; 299 (n. 11); 300; 324 (n. 68);

341; 343; 372; 376; 382 (n. 2); 411;

421; 460 (n. 9); 471-472.

Second Sophistic 32 (n. 7); 63; 165; 208;

241; 300 (n. 16); 365; 369; 379.

Sempronius Gracchus, C. (tr . pl . 123

and 122 B.C.) 286.

Seven Sages 11; 75-85; 100-101; 338;

459-521.

slaves 33 (n. 11); 43; 105; 110; 115;

132-134; 147-157; 185; 216; 255

(n. 3); 257; 259; 265; 268 (n. 50);

308; 346; 348; 351; 361; 379; 429;

431 (n. 28); 434 (n. 36, 38); 465;

468.

Socrates (philosopher) 3-8; 12; 37-50;

52; 55; 99; 125; 147-163; 246 (n. 7);

300 (n. 15); 301 (n. 22); 308; 347;

354; 384 (n. 8); 404; 407; 409; 416;

421; 434; 461; 463 (n. 23); 464 (n.

26); 465 (n. 30); 475; 486; 493 (n.

39); 517.

Solon (Athenian politician and poet) 11;

22; 76 (n. 7); 77; 79-80; 302 (n. 28);

319; 352; 398-399; 460; 462-467;

471 (n. 3); 482-486; 488; 490; 493;

500-503; 507-508; 511-518.

sophrosyne 4 (n. 8); 5; 41; 125; 138; 140

(n. 62); 181 (n. 3); 183; 194; 207;

287 (n. 40); 316 (n. 16); 342; 353;

370-371.

sun 197; 281; 290; 311; 447-455.

symposion passim.

barbarian 131-155; 201; 206-208;

211-222; 237; 429.

concept 3-4; 51-58; 63; 103;

127; 131; 134-135; 147; 182;

201-202; 211-213; 245-246;

255-256; 285; 314; 369;

385-386; 415-416; 505.

dance 3-4; 6-7; 10; 14; 103-104;

128; 131 (n. 2); 133; 239; 369;

377; 397; 403-414; 419; 429;

505.

death 198-199; 204-207; 215-218;

231-243; 246-253; 256-260.

(vs.) deipnon 3; 106; 114; 133; 415.

drinking 3-6; 8-9; 12-14; 20-21; 42

(n. 20); 51; 58; 66; 68-71; 80;

97-98; 100; 103; 106; 124-126;

128-129; 131 (n. 2); 133; 137

(n. 44); 138-141; 147; 151; 156

(n. 52); 168; 182; 185; 193-194;

196 (n. 3); 198 (n. 8); 203-207;

211-215; 218-220; 231; 236;

239; 247-252; 280; 284-285;

313-332; 369-383; 385-393;

397-398; 400; 403-406;

416-420; 426; 427 (n. 15); 429;

431 (n. 27); 461 (n. 17); 463;

477; 487-488.

drunkenness 4-5; 13; 34; 42; 98;

125-126; 134; 136; 140 (n. 63);

186; 193-200; 204; 206-207;

214-215; 217 (n. 38); 219; 220

(n. 55); 251 (n. 29); 285; 315;

323; 326 (n. 77); 369; 371 (n.

10); 380; 385-387; 390-391;

397; 405; 415; 428; 452 (n. 22);

517.

education 3; 5; 14-15; 26; 39; 53

(n. 11); 63-74; 125; 216-217;

369-383; 387; 389; 417;

420-421; 430; 505.

entertainment 3; 6; 12; 14-15; 66;

68; 71; 101; 103-105; 113-115;

125; 127-128; 133; 147; 153;

165; 174; 182; 184; 186; 205;

212; 225; 248; 256 (n. 8); 258;

277-278; 369-372; 376; 378 (n.

32); 385-393; 406-407; 409;

415-418; 429.

ethical 3; 13-15; 87; 108; 113-114;

129; 136; 213; 413; 417-421;

423; 434; 497; 498 (n. 3).

genre and tradition 3-16; 51-58;

99-100; 103; 113-114; 285;

369-370; 385-386; 395-397;

415-416; 459-460; 472-479;

481-495.

jokes 67; 70; 78 (n. 19); 114; 116;

258; 416-417.

Macedonian 134 (n. 22); 198 (n. 8);

201-209; 211-222; 236; 246;

249-251.

Menippean 3; 10; 15; 468 (n. 44).

music 3; 9; 14; 26; 56 (n. 24); 71;

113 (n. 6); 115; 126 (n. 5);

133; 202; 245; 371; 377; 397;

403-404; 406-407; 409; 415;

429; 505-509.

Parthian 185-187; 232.

Persian 131-146; 197; 277; 385-393;

419; 428; 429 (n. 21).

philanthropia 131; 142; 165-179.

philosophy 3-7; 10-11; 14; 44; 51-58;

63; 66-68; 70 (n. 32); 87-96;

97-102; 104-105; 115; 124 (n.

2); 125; 127; 129; 147-163;

182-183; 187; 197-200; 212;

217-218; 276-280; 369-383;

385-393; 395-396; 404-406;

413; 415-424; 428-429; 481;

488-489; 492-493.

poetry 3; 69-70; 82; 98; 104-105;

113-115; 117; 127-128; 237;

376; 403-405; 409-413; 415;

505; 514 (n. 8).

reading 103-110; 113-119;

487-492; 508; 515.

recitation 3-4; 98; 104-105; 115;

117 (n. 19); 133; 256; 278; 403

(n. 2).

science 14; 54; 56-57; 102; 104;

376; 398; 404; 419-420; 422;

439; 441-445; 449.

symposiarch 23; 123-129; 141; 172;

182-184; 187.

treacherous 231-243; 245-253.

wine 4-6; 12-13; 20-24; 33-35; 55

(n. 21); 63; 66-67; 70; 71 (n. 35);

80-81; 116; 126-128; 131 (n. 2);

133; 135-138; 140; 142; 156 (n.

52); 182; 201-207; 212-215;

218-220; 231-232; 235; 239;

241; 245-251; 256-258; 271

(n. 86); 277; 313-332; 369-383;

386-390; 397; 400; 403; 405;

416-421; 428-431; 451; 452 (n.

22); 454; 461 (n. 17); 463 (n.

25); 477; 505-506.

women 7; 12; 55; 101; 133; 148;

157; 202-203; 224; 231; 234;

236; 239; 247-248; 257-258;

259 (n. 24); 413; 425-437; 477;

482; 483 (n. 8); 516 (n. 15).

ales of Miletus (philosopher and

sage) 11-13; 76 (n. 7); 77 (n. 11);

78-79; 83; 101; 426 (n.8); 460 (n.

12); 460-463; 468; 471; 475-478;

482; 484; 486-487; 489 (n. 28,

29); 490; 493; 498-499; 506-507;

511-512; 515-516; 519.

theology 57; 87-96; 289-295; 449.

tyranny 76 (n. 7); 77 (n. 14); 78; 83;

129; 169; 227; 248; 258; 285; 291;

354; 364; 460 (n. 12); 468; 473; 489;

511-521.

tragedy 20; 27 (n. 22); 43; 116; 195;

233; 333-340; 407; 409; 413.

Trajan (Roman Emperor) 106; 124;

224; 341; 353; 355; 399.

war 3; 27; 40 (n. 11); 47 (n. 46); 123;

129; 134; 137-138; 169; 173;

196-197; 223; 233; 235; 259; 278;

284 (n. 29); 286; 289; 292-293; 339;

345; 354-355; 360; 364; 403; 410;

477; 488.

wine (cf. symposion, wine) 65; 151; 464

(n. 27); 514 (n. 11).

women (cf. symposion, women) 21 (n. 7);

25; 54 (n. 18); 134 (n. 23); 151; 214;

235; 238; 297-305; 307-312; 315;

318 (n. 31); 320-326; 346-347; 397;

451-452; 462; 464; 476; 518-519.

zetema 15; 89; 95; 375.

Zeus 6; 171; 196 (n. 3); 216; 231 (n. 1);

234; 289; 292-295; 308-309; 333;

450.

Zoroastrianism 135-136; 138 (n. 47);

454 (n. 31).

533

Index locorum

Index locorum

A T

5.3.7-8 234 ns. 21/22

A

Varia Historia

3.23 213 n. 15

De Natura Animalium

12.45 502

A 38 n. 6, 336

2.169 47 n. 44

In Timarchum

168 202

Alcibiades

(Giannantoni)

6 A 53.26-27 38 n. 6

A 5, 267, 337

Agamemnon

1590-1601 233 n. 17

Prometheus Vinctus 333, 334

240 sqq. 333 n. 1

Fragmenta

(Nauck)

44 308 n. 3

393 5 n. 12, 135 n. 24

A 12, 462, 462 n. 20, 462 n.

21, 464, 467, 518 n. 27

Fabulae

(Perry)

4, 4a 464 n. 28

62 82 n. 54

73 82 n. 54

113 82 n. 54

145 82 n. 54

ah u r a m a z d a 135

A 5, 63, 505, 512, 513, 514

n. 8

Fragmenta

(Lobel-Page)

327 308

333 135 n. 24

366 135 n. 24, 369

(Voigt)

69-70 513 n. 6

72 513 n. 6

74 513 n. 6

332 512 n. 5

333 5

348 513 n. 6

366 5

A M

30.1.23 251 n. 29

A 27

A 104, 505

Fragmenta lyrica

(Page)

11b (= PMG 356) 140 n. 61

Fragmenta elegiaca

(West)

2 134 ns.19/21

an a c r e o n t e a

43 404

A C

eologiae Graecae compendium 443

A

De Sublime

32.7 323 n. 62

an t h o l o g i a p a l a t i n a 97, 308

5. 309 308 n. 8

7.14 298 n. 5

7.407 298 n. 5

7. 703 309 n. 10

7. 385.7 322 n. 54

9.221 309 n. 11

9. 248 408 n. 12

9.440 308 n. 7

9. 616 308 n. 8

9.627 309 n. 11

12. 206 40 n. 13

12. 222 40 n. 13

14 97

14.54 98 n. 6

16.290 408 n. 12

17 298

an t h o l o g i a p l a n u d e a

195 308 n. 7

198-199 308 n. 7

200 309 n. 10

202 309 n. 10

207 309 n. 11

338 309 n. 11

A T S

(von Harnim)

3.63.11.16 431 n. 26

A (FGrH 1004) 7

Fragmenta

(Jacoby)

4 48 n. 50

A

4.5-6 42

A

Bibliotheca 234

1.9.28 257 n. 12

2 235 n. 23

3 234 n. 21, 235 ns.23/24

4-5 235 n. 23

8 234 n. 21

11 235 n. 23

14 234 n. 21

Epitome

1.5-6 257 n. 12

A

Bella Ciuilia

2.99.410-414 155 n. 43

5.73.308-311 247 n. 14

A

Mirabilia

47 439 n. 1

140 439 n. 1

258-259 439 n. 1

A R

3.26 308

A R

1. 348. 4-7 [= 242. 6 Spengel and

Hammer] 42 n. 20

A 15, 518 n. 24

A

Fragmenta

(West)

19 520 n. 32

85 463

A T 90 n. 8, 93

A

Epistolae

1.24 44 n. 28

A 463 n. 23, 518 n. 24

A 97, 113, 117, 462 n.

21

Acharnenses

1045 133 n. 13

1091 133 n. 13

1093 133 n. 11

Aves

71-72 43 n. 25

700 324 n. 67

Ecclesiazusae

844 133 n. 13

964-5 13

Equites

105 133 n. 15

Pax

896-898 40 n. 13

Vespae 416, 417

20 sqq. 97 n. 3, 133 n. 16

1175-1206 415

1208-1537 4 n. 5

1300-1325 415

1308-1313 133 n. 16

A vi, 56, 98, 196-

197, 199, 275 n. 1, 291, 413, 449 n.

8, 451, 498, 513, 514

แผˆฮธฮทฮฝฮฑแฝทฯ‰ฮฝ ฮ ฮฟฮปฮนฯ„ฮตแฝทฮฑ

5.2 514 n. 10

De anima

403a 31 322 n. 54

Ethica Nicomachea 271

1103a 17 279

1140b 20-21 499

1155a 268 n. 51

1155a 2-3 314 n. 4

1155a 20-22 271 n. 91

1155a 22-23 325 n. 71

1155b 33-34 317 n. 25

1156a 6-35 317 n. 27

1156b 1-12 317 n. 27

1156b 17-18 317 n. 27

1157a 30-31 314 n. 4

1157b 7-19 318 n. 29

1157b 17-24 317 n. 24

1162a 23 325 n. 73

1166b 30 317 n. 21

1167a 6-8 317 n. 25

1167a 13-14 317 n. 25

1447a 24 411

De Generatione animalium

432 n. 32

Historia animalium 432 n. 32

588a 451 n. 19

De partibus animalium 432 n. 32

Poetica

1458a 29 98 n. 6

Metaphysica

980b 22 499

Meteorologica

383a 31 324 n. 68

Politica

1254b 13 434 n. 38

1259a 39 434 n. 38

1260a 6 434 n. 38

1260a 9 434 n. 38

1260a 21 300 n. 15

1264b 426 n. 6

1274b 18 514 n. 11

1285a 29-1285b 3 513

1311a 20-22 519 n. 28

1313a 40 519 n. 28

[Problemata]

1.6 420

1.6-9 419

2.2-3 419

2.6 419

2.7 420

3.2-10 419

4.2 419, 420

4.4 419

4.5 422

4.7 419

4.10 419

5.1 419

5.3 422

5.9 419

6.1-6 419

6.1 422

6.8-10 422

6.8 419

6.10 410

7-9 419

7 422

7.1 419

7.3 419

7.5 419

8.3 419

8.8-10 419

9 422

9.2 422

9.9-10 419

872a 3-9 140 n. 60

880a 13 432 n. 32

Rhetorica 98

135a-b 69 n. 30

1403b 69 n. 27

1405a 37 98 n. 6

1408a-b 68 n. 24

[De Virtutibus et Vitiis ] 271

1250b 33 271 n. 92

1251b 31 276 n. 5

1251b 33-36 269 n. 65, 271 n. 92

1251b 34f 276 n. 5

Fragmenta

(Rose)

72 416

107 432 n. 32

A 9, 507

Fragmenta

(Wehrli)

103 409

A

Anabasis

3 8 219 n. 219

4.3.7 215 n. 31

4.7.4 206

4.9.9 206

7.6.2 206

4.13.2 218 n. 43

7.14.10 205

7.11.8-9 203, 205 n. 19

7.15.5 208

7.22.2-5 206

7.25.1 205

7.29.4 207

A R V

R  

1438 a 3-1438b 13 82 n. 52

A

In Ethica Nicomachea Commentaria

CAG XIX 1 267 n. 42

A 9, 10, 14, 15, 53,

54, 98, 395, 396, 408, 409, 410, 429,

440, 459, 459 n. 4, 505

Deipnosophistae 9, 54 n. 16, 97, 212

n. 6, 395, 481

1.18a 203

1.20d-e 408

2.37 135 n. 24

2.52 395

2.62a-c 439 n. 1

2.62b 439 n. 6, 440 ns.7/9

4.149c 133 n. 15

4.162b-c 10 n. 30

5.182a 9 n. 27

5.185c 270 n. 84

5.186e 9 n. 27

5.187c 9 n. 27

7.276d-e 453 n. 24

10.43 207

10.49 205

10.419a 150 n. 15

10.427a-c 140 n. 60

10.434b 213 n. 15, 214 n. 18, 215 n.

28

10.448b 133 n. 16

10.448c 99

10.449e-f 98 n. 5

10.451b-c 98 n. 5

10.452b 98 n. 6

10.452c 98 n. 4, 133 n. 12

10.457c-d 97 n. 2

10.457e-f 98 n. 7

11.499f 140 n. 60

12.512b 430 n. 24

12.537e 206

13.577e-f 4 n. 7

13.579a, d 4 n. 7

13.595 205 n. 19

13.607b 10 n. 30

13.607c-d 4 n. 7

14.613a-c 323 n. 62

14.629e-f 10 n. 31

14.630c 409

14.631a-b 410

15.669c 133 n. 13

15.674f-675a 9 n. 22

av e S t a 135, 135 n. 28

C 10

[De Bello Africano]

88.3-4 155 n. 43

C 63

[C]

1.34.2 206

2.22 215 n. 24

C D 224

43.11.4-5 155 n. 43

48.38 247 n. 14

63.8-9 225 n. 5

64.1-6 228 n. 11

64.9.2 224 n. 1

64.13-15 228 n. 12

ca t a l o g u S co d i c u m

aS t r o l o g o r u m g r a e c o r u m

4 (1903), p. 143 453 n. 27

11.1 (1932), p. 141 453 n. 27

C 453, 453 n. 26

ce r t a m e n ho m e r i e t he S i o d i

60 25 n. 18

100 20

C 443, 449 n. 8

C iii, vi, 51, 52, 53 n. 9, 449 n.

8

De amicitia

2.6-10 151 n. 22

De consulatu suo 444

De nibus

3.67 502

De ociis

1.50 502 n. 25

In Verrem

2.1.26 428

2.1.64-66 211

2.1.66 428

Epistolae ad Atticum

1.4.3 181 n. 2

2.1.8 155 n. 47

2.4.2 181 n. 2

Epistulae ad Familiares

9. 24.3 iii

Tusculanae Disputationes 53 n. 9,

155 n. 51

1.13 181 n. 2

1.71 sqq. 156

Orator

2 237 n. 36

86 237 n. 36

232 173 n. 41

351-353 237 n. 36

De diuinatione 443, 444, 445

1.9 443 n. 31

1.13 443 n. 34, 444 ns. 35/37

1.14-15 443 n. 34

1.17-22 444 n. 36

1.111-112 444 n. 38

1.127 443 ns. 31/32

1.130 444 n. 39

2.22 181 n. 2

2.47 444 n. 40

De inventione

1.28 69 n. 28

De ociis

2.76 173 n. 41

3.75-76 181 n. 2

De Senectute 150, 151

3 150 n. 20

41-42 150

45 iii

46 153

47 151

C 289

C 98

Fragmenta

(Wehrli)

63 97 n. 1

86 99 n. 11

94 98 n. 4

C A

Protrepticus

6.72.61 294

Stromateis

4.19.618 P. 13 n. 36

5.1.13.1 44 n. 28

C R

Epistula 2 109 n. 43

C 462

C 453 n. 27

De Re Rustica

11.2.11 453 n. 26

C N

Atticus

13.3 105 n. 19

14.1 105 n. 19

Cato

2.2 344 n. 12

Liber de Exc. Duc. Exter. Gentium

Praef. 6.7 427

C

Fragmenta

(Diehl)

4 460 n. 11

C (FGrH 688)

Fragmenta

(Jacoby)

9.1 135 n. 33, 137 n. 44

16.67 132

29b 246 n. 10

C R

6.6.4-5 205

C

Epistulae

29.1 110 n. 47

da r i u S , B e h i S h t a n (DB)

1.34 135 n. 32

1.78 135 n. 32

3.80 135 n. 32

4.33-5 135 n. 32

4.36-39 135 n. 32

4.63 135 n. 32

da r i u S , na q S h -i ru S t a m (DN)

12 135 n. 32

D P (FGrH

228) 517 n. 17

Elocutione

102 98 n. 6

3.150 65 n. 10

4.197-198 69 n. 28

Fragmenta

(Jacoby)

114 466 n. 39

D 311, 422

D 83

3.31 201 n. 3

21.143 48 n. 48

54.9 43 n. 25

di d a S k a l i a ap o S t o l o r u m

2.58 110 n. 48

D (FGrH 690)

Fragmenta

(Jacoby)

15b 246 n. 10

D C

1.37-41 216 n. 34

2 221 n. 59

2.71-72 217 n. 36

2.75-78 216 n. 34

2.51-53 216 n. 34

4 221 n. 59

4.40-43 216 n. 34

20.10 104

20.67.1 173 n. 41

D 461, 519

D S 219

4.55.4-6 257 n. 12

9.10. 1 466 n. 39

9.10.4 466 n. 39

9.11.1 513 n. 7

12.84.1 48 n. 48

16.87.1 204 n. 15

16.93.7 204 n. 16

17.72 219 n. 53

17.77 219 n. 51

17.77.5 205

17.117 219 n. 49

31 8. 1-9 171 n. 32

31 8. 13 172 n. 35

31 26.1 sqq. 173 n. 41

37.22 251 n. 29

D L 275, 486

1.27 486 n. 22

1.35 463 n. 22, 490

1.40-44 484 n. 13

1.41-42 516 n. 14, 517 n. 17

1.40 460 n. 9, 460 n. 9

1.77 338 n. 15

1.89 515

1.93.5 515 n. 13

1.94 518 n. 25

1.96 518 n. 24

1.98 267 n. 37

1.100 519 n. 28

1.122 518 n. 23

2.48 463 n. 23

2.86 463 n. 23

3.80-109 275 n. 1

3.48 416

3.98 275 n. 1

5.22 9 n. 22

5.76 13 n. 36

6.12 300 n. 15, 434 n. 37

6.72 434 n. 37

6.96 434 n. 37

7.24 44 n. 28

7.105 292 n. 9

7.147 305

7.149 443 n. 30

9.53-55 474 n. 27

D

Paroamiae

4.81 135 n. 24

7. 28 135 n. 24, 137 n. 44

D H

Antiquitates Romanae

1.89.1 364

Ars Rhetorica

3 64

De ucydide 70 n. 31

D

Fragmenta

(Kassel-Austin)

49 98 n. 5

E 291

E 517 n. 17

E C

Fragmenta

(Kassel-Austin)

212 278 n. 12

E

Fragmenta

(Edmonds)

11 422

E 267

3.25.1 43 n. 23

E 9, 311

E 464

et y m o l o g i c u m gu d i a n u m

124.2 13 n. 36

et y m o l o g i c u m ma g n u m

718.35 13 n. 36

E

Fragmenta

(Kassel-Austin)

106 98 n. 5

E 90 n. 8

E 434

Bacchae 186, 232, 246

298-301 137 n. 43

Cyclops

617 323 n. 62

Electra

1282-3 293 n. 13

Helena

36-40 293 n. 13

1455 82 n. 54

Hippolytus

530-534 308

Orestes 27 n. 22

1639-42 293 n. 13

Fragmenta

(Knox)

254. 2 293

286b 7 293

E C

Historia Ecclesiastica

6.43.11 110 n. 47

Chronicon

(Helm)

2161 377

E

1788. 53-54 13 n. 36

E

6.1.3 251 n. 29

F

1.13.22 150 n. 15

1.46.1 185 n. 17

2.13.71-2 155 n. 43

G 35, 452 n. 20

ฮ ฯฮฟฯ„ฯฮตฯ€ฯ„ฮนฮบแฝนฯ‚

17 34

De dierentis febrium libri II

(Kรผhn)

7 2, p. 283 322

[Introductio seu medicus]

(Kรผhn)

14 Intr. p.768 322 n. 55

A G 15, 53 n.

11, 54, 104, 105, 377, 378, 379, 395,

396, 397

Noctes Atticae 395

Praef. 4 396

Praef. 11 397

1.1 396

1.9-10 377, 398

1.9.1-11 377

1.26.4 379 n. 35

2 398

2.2.1 377

2.3 398

2.22 104 n. 10

2.22.2 379

2.22.26-27 379

3.2 398

3.19 104 n. 11, 105 n. 20

3.19.1-5 379

6.3 398

7.7 398

7.10.1-5 377

7.13.4 378

7.13.7-11 378

7.13.12 377

12.5.3 377

12.5.5 377

17.8.3-9 378

17.8.11 378

17.8.11-16 378

17.20 104 n. 9

17.20.5-6 379

18.10.1-7 377

20.8 28 n. 27

Geoponica

7.5 454 n. 31

7.6. 8 24 n. 15

7.34.2 432 n. 32

H

2.16.3 452 n. 20

H. P A.

De adnium vocabulorum dierentia

(Valck)

35 13 n. 36

H 472

ฮ ฮตฯแฝถ ฮตแฝ‘ฯแฝณฯƒฮตฯ‰ฯ‚

1.65 69 n. 26

H 49 n. 53, 83,

235, 386, 474, 476, 484, 485, 485 n.

20, 486, 488, 491, 498, 502, 518

1.22 485

1.23-24 518-519

1.24 508 n. 10

1.27 474 n. 18

1.29 474 n. 18, 485

1.46-48 485

1.59 474 n. 18

1.74 474 n. 18

1.119 236 n. 28

1.133 131 n. 2, 386 n. 4

1.136 135 n. 30

1.138 135 n. 31

1.170 474 n. 18

1.207 236 n. 30

2.78 461 n. 17

2.100 235 n. 27

3.27 135 n. 33

3.32 237 n. 35

3.34-35 237 n. 35

3.50 518 n. 25

3.50-53 476 n. 40

3.61-3 136 n. 35

3.66 136 n. 35

3.72 136 n. 35

3.109 433

4.76-77 511 n. 1

5.18-20 140 n. 63

5.18-21 202

5.19-20 236 n. 31

5.20 134 n. 22

5.92 518 n. 26

6.84 140 n. 60

6.129 403

7.102 135 n. 31

7.188 322 n. 53

7.209 135 n. 31

8.124 47 n. 44

8.142 136 n. 35

9.16 237 n. 35

9.108-13 237 n. 33

9.110 237 n. 34

H 22, 25, 104, 309, 463,

464

Opera et Dies vii, 19, 20, 22-27,

11 21, 24

26 21, 23

41 20, 22

45 20, 24

46 20

203-212 20

342 21, 23

368 21, 23, 24

373-375 464 n. 27

398 sqq. 19

405 21, 24, 25

464 21

471 21, 23

505-511 319 n. 35

559 sqq. 20, 464 n. 27

592-595 464 n. 27

595 21, 23

654 sqq. 21, 24, 25

699-705 464 n. 27

735-741 464 n. 27

744 20, 21, 22, 24, 324

748 21, 23

750 20

750-753 464 n. 27

763 21, 24

764 23

812 464 n. 27

eogonia 19, 26

26 33 n. 13

116-122 307

201-202 301 n. 20

590-612 434

Fragmenta

(Merkelbach-West)

9 20

267 26

H

Lexicon I

(Schmidt)

255 322 n. 54

H 432

ฮ ฮตฯแฝถ ฮดฮนฮฑฮนฯ„แฟ†ฯ‚ แฝ‘ฮณฮนฮตแฝทฮฝฮทฯ‚ 34

hi S t o r i a au g u S t a

Vita Heliogabali

26.3-4 225

H vi, 25, 31, 104,

113, 117, 336, 406, 463, 464, 505

Ilias vii, 31, 35, 65

1.595-604 3 n. 1

1.603-604 505

2.381 134 n. 22

6.261 33

7 415

7.282-293 467

8.7 433

9 415

9.3-11 505

9.185-89 202

9.197-224 3 n. 1

9.215-21 203

9.485-95 206

9.639 33 n. 11

14.214 430 n. 23

19.97 433

19.167-170 33

21.22 sqq. 82 n. 54

24.347 514 n. 9

Odyssea vii, 31, 231, 233, 237 n. 38,

336 n. 11

1.152-155 505 n. 1

1.370 505 n. 1

1.421 505 n. 1

4.519-537 233 n. 15

5.368 319 n. 35

6.587-615 203

7 32

7.115-116 118

7.169 203

7.182 33

7.215-217 32

7.219-221 32

8.72-75 403

8.250-55 127

8.258 514 n. 9

9 33 n. 12

10 33 n. 11

10.233-240 233 n. 12

11.426-34 434

13 32

13.53 33

20.392-393 233 n. 13

21-22 233 n. 14

21.430 505 n. 1

22.8-325 204

H 10, 468 n. 44

Carmina

1.4.89 135 n. 24

3.21.14-16 135 n. 24

I

De mysteriis 444

3.26 444 n. 42, 445 ns. 44/45

3.36 444 n. 41

I

Fragmenta

(Diels)

286.9-13 319 n. 35

I C 5

Fragmenta

(West)

26.12 5 n. 12, 135 n. 24

F I

Antiquitates Iudaicae

9.233-235 241 n. 57

18.110-111 239 n. 51

18.136-137 239 n. 51

18.148 239 n. 51

18.240 239 n. 51

I

Origines

6.5.1 173 n. 42

I

16.29 47 n. 44

I

12.3.8 206

I

Apologia

1.67.3 108 n. 38

1.67.4 109 n. 44

I

Saturae 104

5.116-118 440 n. 10

10.105-09 185 n. 16

11.180 104 n. 7

L

Catalogus 31, 83

113 265 n. 19

132 265 n. 19

L

Epistulae

1036.4 28 n. 4

Declamationes

12.10 42 n. 20

fr. 50 42 n. 20

T L

9.17 208

33.31.7-11 168 n. 16

33.32.3-33.8 168

34 344 n. 12

34.41.1-3 170 n. 28

34.48.2 170 n. 27

34.49.9-10 170 n. 27

43 344 n. 12

45.27.5-28.6 171

45.29.2-3 172

45.29.4-30.8 171 n. 32

45.31 173

45.32.1-7 171 n. 32

45.32.11 172 n. 35

45.29-33 171

45.32.10 173

45.32.11 128 n. 7

Periochae Librorum

46.14 173 n. 41

96 251 n. 29

114 155 n. 43

L 10, 15, 54, 104, 467-468

n. 44

Amores

19 315 n. 8

37 299 n. 11

41.9 266 n. 32

[Asinus]

7-11 40 n. 13

De Domo

7-15 430

Verae Historicae

2.15 104 n. 13

Dialogi Mortuorum

23 309 n. 15

De Morte Peregrini

11 106 n. 28

Symposium 53, 54, 481

3 51 n. 1

17 104 n. 14

21 107 n. 33

21-27 485 n. 17

L 10, 468 n. 44

L

14 48 n. 48

14.42 48 n. 49

18 48 n. 48

27.7 268 n. 56

28 48 n. 48

M 15

Saturnalia 54 n. 16

2.7.12-19 409

3.17.7-9 183

7.12.13 24 n. 15

7.16.15-34 450 n. 24

7.16.24 450

M 452 n. 20

M

1.27.7 51 n. 1

2.89 280 n. 19

M T iii, 386,

389, 390, 392

Orationes

3.7d 387 n. 8

11.7g 388

14.7f 387 n. 7

22 385

22.4e 386

25.5h-6a 388

25.6a 387 n. 9

30.3 388 n. 10

39.4 388 n. 11

M 10, 468 n. 44

M S

Peri Pascha 107 n. 36

M vi, 70, 104, 113,

117

M C

Fragmenta (Kassel-Austin)

451.15 133 n. 13

M R

407.12-14 302 n. 26

M 10

M L

(Bergk)

Fragmenta

3.1 299 n. 12

M

29 308 n. 9

M R 426, 434

Fragmenta minora

(Hense)

3.4 426 n. 6

N T

Ad Colossenses

4.16 107 n. 32

Ad Corinthios 310

Ad essalonicenses I

5.27 107 n. 32

Ad Timotheum I

4.13 107 n. 35, 109

Epistula Petri I 108

20 108 n. 39

Secundum Lucam

7-20 240 n. 53

14.7-11 477-478

22 240 n. 53

Secundum Marcum

6.17-29 239 n. 51

14.12-25 240 n. 53

Secundum Matthaeum

14.3-12 239 n. 51

26.17-29 240 n. 53

O

5.23.13 251 n. 29

O

Metamorphoses

1.196 234 n. 20

6.401-411 234 n. 19

6.426-674 234 n. 21

P

Erotika Pathemata

17 518 n. 24

P 8, 39, 204, 299 n. 11,

307 n. 1, 336

1-2 234 n. 20

2.3.8 257 n. 12

8 234 n. 20

8.51.3 360 n. 4

P C 10

P 10, 13, 468 n. 44

Satyricon 54, 442

55 105 n. 17

71.4 105 n. 17

109.10.3-4 442 n. 24

P

Fragmenta

(Kassel-Austin)

155 508 n. 9

P A 267

De Somniis

2.127 107 n. 31

P

Volumina Rhetorica

(Sudhaus)

90.27 9 n. 25

96.22 9 n. 25

97.22 9 n. 25

P

Bibliotheca

Codex 72 133 n. 9

P 104

Olympia

7.8 299 n. 9

Pythia

2.74 299 n. 9

Nemea

10.2 299 n. 9

P iv, vi, vii, 3, 6,

9, 14, 51, 52 n. 5, 54, 63, 83, 88, 89,

93, 98, 107, 113, 117, 129, 213, 275,

294, 301 n. 21, 302 n. 27, 310, 334,

392, 395, 406, 413, 416, 421, 422,

434, 459, 460, 466, 467 n. 44, 471,

489, 507

Charmides

154c 38 n. 5

Cratylus

408c 408 n. 10

419e 322 n. 54

Crito

49b 148 n. 7, 155 n. 49

53 c-d 40 n. 15

Denitiones

412e 267 n. 38, 275 n. 2

Euthyphro

3d 275 n. 2

Meno

72a-73c 300 n. 15

Protagoras 417, 486, 493 n. 39

11 267 n. 40

309c 38 n. 6

342a-343d 148 n. 6, 155 n. 48

342e 486 n. 21

343a-b 486

343a 517

347c-348a 370

347c-d 378

347c-e 41

347c 429 n. 22

Gorgias 37 n. 1, 389

447a 416

462 sqq. 389 n. 13

469c 148 n. 7, 155 n. 49

474b sqq. 148 n. 7, 155 n. 49

502b 408 n. 10

521d-522a 389 n. 13

Hippias Maior

281c 517 n. 18

Hippias Minor

376a 351 n. 1

Respublica 39, 42, 91, 125,

129 n. 8, 378, 475 n. 28, 475 n. 28

7 90

329b-c 476

330e 43 n. 23

335d 148 n. 7, 155 n. 49

335e-336a 517

352b 416

354a-b 416

376c 227

395e- 396a 4 n. 8

389d-e 4 n. 8

411b 324 n. 68

412c-e 125

440c 322 n. 54

451-457 426 n. 6

451d-e 300 n. 15

455d-e 300 n. 15

462c 325 n. 72

468b 47 n. 44

479b-c 4 n. 9, 98 n. 4, 133 n. 12

491c 38 n. 8

491d-492a 38 n. 7, 351 n. 1

491d 45 n. 34

493e-5b 38 n. 7

494c 47 n. 42, 48 n. 48

494d 44 n. 29

498b 47 n. 44

548e-549a 154 n. 39

559d-560a 44 n. 29

586a 139 n. 53

605d-e 300 n. 15

779b-c 4 n. 9

Apologia Socratis 37 n. 1, 148

10 40 n. 14

20c 40 n. 15

23c-d 40 n. 14, 149

24b-26b 40 n. 14

30a 40, 42 n. 21

30b 40 n. 14

30c-d 148 n. 7, 155 n. 49

33c-34b 40 n. 14

41d 148 n. 7, 155 n. 49

Menexenus

238a 433

718e-f 90

Symposium vii, 3, 5, 7, 8, 12,

37-50, 51, 52, 97, 99, 125, 198, 301

n. 22, 416, 416, 460, 462, 463, 466,

475 n. 28, 477, 489, 505

176a 133 n. 15

176e 370, 378

177d 202

179a 46

178c-179b 48

178d 46 n. 38, 48

178e-179b 46

183d-185b 39

189c-d 275 n. 2

192d-e 324 n. 68

194b 408 n. 10

203c-d 308

208 303

210a 303 n. 31

211b-c 301 n. 22

211c 465 n. 33

212a 303, 465 n. 33

212b sqq. 463-4 n. 25

212c-d 38 n. 4

212d-e 42

213e 125

215a 133 n. 16

216b 43 n. 27

215a-216c 38 n. 4

215c-216a 40

215d-216c 42

215d 38 n. 5

215e 43

216a-b 41

216a 44, 45

216b-c 43

216b 43 n. 27

216e 41

217a 38 n. 4

217b-d 41

217c 40

217e-218a 38

217e 135 n. 24

218a 43

218b-219d 37

219c-e 41

219d 39

219e 38 n. 9, 46

220b 155 n. 46

220d-221c 45, 46

220d-e 46 ns. 38/39

220e-221a 48

222c 16

Phaedrus 37, 48, 54 n. 18, 299, 301

n. 22

113a 322 n. 53

229a-b 299 n. 6

229a 155 n. 46

229b 319 n. 35

237d 127

238e-241d 39 n. 11

246a 140

247b 140 n. 67

247c 319

248b 301 n. 22

248c-d 141 n. 69

251c 321

255d 41

271a-272b 126 n. 4

Phaedo 41, 154, 155, 475 n. 28

58e 154 n. 38

61c-62c 155 n. 51

64-65d 150

64a-67b 465 n. 30

66b 500

67d 156 n. 57

80e 156 n. 57

108d 155 n. 42

Alcibiades I 37, 38, 40, 41 n. 19, 42

103a-104c 42 n. 19

104a-b 48 n. 48

104a 45 n. 34

104d 40 n. 15

122b 37 n. 3

131e 38 n. 6

eaetetus 4

173d 4 n. 10

Philebus

24a 6 sqq. 294

Timaeus 52, 53, 95

20c 416

20d 465 n. 31, 517 n. 20

28b 94

41a 95

43c sqq. 419

47e 294

48e 92, 93

52d 92, 93 n. 17

53a-b 93 n. 18

53c 92

56c 294

69b 93 n. 18

69d 150 n. 18

78e sqq. 419

90e-91a 300 n. 15

Leges 90, 91, 125, 291, 322, 323 n.

63

639c-641c 125

641b-d 370 n. 7

642a 370 n. 7

643a 370 n. 7

645c 370 n. 7

646c-650b 370

646d-e 5 n. 11

648a-c 137

648b 5 n. 11

649a-650b 135 n. 24

649d-650b 125

649e 137 n. 44

650a 5 n. 11

652a 370 n. 7

659a-c 408 n. 10

666b 126

671a-674c 370 n. 7

671a 420 n. 15

671c-d 125

673e 125

700d-701b 408 n. 10

713d 269 n. 66, 275 n. 2

773c-d 321, 323 n. 62

781a-b 300 n. 15

783a 323

792e 279

804e-806c 300 n. 15

816 411

829c 300 n. 15

831b 301 n. 21

876f 408 n. 10

896d-e 291

Politicus

269c-274 e 95

270a 95

Sophista

221-222 301 n. 21

231d 301 n. 21

P 452 n. 20

Stichus

773 442 n. 22

P M

Naturalis Historia

7.42 451 n. 16

9. 28 502

14.141 135 n. 24

18.321 453 n. 27

19.33 441 n. 20

19.34 440 n. 8

19.37 440 n. 6, 439 ns. 1/4, 440

n. 7, 442 n. 21

19.87 150 n. 15

22.100 442 n. 22

36.82 486 n. 22

P M 439, 440, 442, 453

Epistulae

1.15.2 104 n. 6

3.12.2-3 280 n. 19

10.96 106 n. 29

Panegyricus

2.7.2 353 n. 11

3.4.4 353 n. 11

4.7.1 353 n. 11

24.2.3 353 n. 11

47.3.2 353 n. 11

49.6.1 353 n. 11

71.5.3 353 n. 11

P

MORALIA

De audiendis poetis

15A 321 n. 49

17F 412 n. 21

19EF 448

27F 339 n. 16

28B 139 n. 59

31E 373 n. 16

37B 334 n. 5

De audiendo

37F 270 n. 74

38C 44 n. 28, 489

41F 408 n. 11

47A 38 n. 10

47BC 270 n. 74

De adulator et amico

51B 316 n. 19

55CD 38 n. 10

58B 412 n. 21

59D 38 n. 10

61C 486 n. 22, 489

65A 325 n. 73

66B 314 n. 5

68B 389 n. 16

68F69A 38 n. 10

69F 43 n. 22

70E 377 n. 29

71B 249 n. 22

De profectibus in virtute

79D 270 n. 74

80A 389

80E 374

81BC 374

84D 43 n. 22

85BC 374

De capienda ex inimicis utilitate

88C 268 n. 49

89B 264 n. 9

91C 279

92D-E 264 n. 17

De amicorum multitudine

94A 314 n. 4

97B 317 n. 24

De fortuna

99E 264 n. 17

De virtude et vitio

100C 264 n. 17

101B-D 264 n. 17

Consolatio ad Apollonium

109B 255 n. 6

120B 269 n. 64

De tuenda sanitate praecepta

123C 270 n. 74

130A-D 114

132B 34, 270 n. 83

133B-C 114

Coniugalia praecepta

138B 297

138C 297, 426 n. 6

138CD 299 n. 8

138D-E 298

138D 318 n. 29

138F 325 n. 76

139CD 425 n. 4

139D 430 n. 25

140E-F 321 n. 48

141B 318 n. 29

141D 318 n. 29

142DE 425 n. 4

142F-143A 318

142F 431 n. 26

143A 320

144CD 431

145C sqq 426

145C 413, 425

145D 303 n. 31

145F-146A 297 n. 1

Septem Sapientium Convivium 459-

521

146B-150D 482

146B-C 482

146C-D 475

146D-148B 482

146D 518 n. 24, 519, 520

146E 489 n. 28

146F 498

147A-B 76, 486 n. 22

147A 76, 78 n. 24, 79 ns. 26/34

147B-C 76

147B 78, 79 n. 31

147C-D 519 n. 28

147C 76, n. 7, 77 n. 11, 78 n. 24, 79

n. 26, 468, 484 n. 14, 519

147E 270 n. 78, 477

147F-148A 477

147F 506

148A-B 270 n. 77, 477

148A 76, 79, 477

148B 477

148C-D 426

148D-E 101 n. 21, 516

148D 462, 468, 516

148E-F 80 n. 43

149A-B 76 n. 7, 78 n. 24, 79 ns.

26/35

149A 447, 478, 506

149C-D 462

149C-E 499, 519

149E 462, 476

149F 80 n. 43

149F-150A 506

150A-B 80 n. 36, 80 n. 42

150A 499, 518 n. 27

150B-C 76 n. 7, 78 n. 24, 79 n. 26

150C 462

150D-155D 482

150D-E 506

150D 426, 519

150E-F 486

150F 506

151B-E 462

151C 515

151D 488

151E-F 77 n. 14, 101 n. 17

151E 465 n. 32

151F-152D 462

152A-D 76 n. 7, 77 n. 14, 78 n. 24,

79 n. 26

152A 76, 79 n. 32

152B 13

152D 76 n. 7, 77 n. 16, 78 n. 24, 79

n. 26, 486, 500

152E 462

152F 100 n. 16, 133 n. 16

153B-C 475

153C-D 463

153E-154C 462 n. 20

153E 13, 76

154A-B 101 n. 20

154A 20 n. 4

154B 98 n. 6, 101 n. 18, 426,

486

154C-D 77 n. 14

154D-E 76 n. 7, 77 n. 14, 78 n. 24,

79 n. 26

154D 488

154F 77 n. 14, 463

154F-155D 489

155B-C 80 ns. 36/42

155C-D 76 n. 7, 77 n. 14, 78 n. 24,

79 n. 26

155C 500

155D-156A 80

155D 76 n. 7, 78 n. 24, 79 n. 26

155E-164D 482

155E 426, 489 n. 28, 506 n. 3

155F 514 n. 11

156A 80

156B 490

156C-D 131 n. 1, 271 n. 85, 323

156C 507

156D 270 n. 84, 418

156E-157F 25

156E 20, 21, 22, 24

157A-B 80 ns. 36/42/43

157A-C 515

157A 77 n. 14, 464

157B 76 n. 7, 77 n. 14, 78 n. 24, 79

n. 26, 80 ns. 36/42

157C 76 n. 7, 78 n. 24, 79 ns. 26/29

157D-E 514 n. 8

157D 76 n. 7, 78 n. 24, 79 n. 26,

506 n. 3

157E-158B 22

157E 20

157F 20, 21, 22, 506 n. 4

158A-B 464 n. 27

158B 20, 25, 464

158C 76, 77 n. 11, 78 n. 24, 79 n.

26, 131 n. 1, 270 n. 75, 277

158D-E 465

159A 465

159B-C 500

159C-D 465

160A-B 76, 78 n. 24

160C-D 507

160C 465, 466

160D-161B 81

160D 81 n. 47, 83, 520

160E-162B 508, 519

160E 83, 486, 507

160F sqq. 81

161A 82, 502

161D 502, 503

161EF 491

161F 501

162A-B 81

162B 81 n. 50

162E162B 497

162F 502, 508

163A 503

163D 441 n. 13

163E-F 501, 508

163E 466 n. 38

164D 467

Regum et imperatorum

apophthegmata

172B 138 n. 49, 277 n. 11

172DE 473

173E 131 n. 2

176E 429 n. 22

186C 125

194F 150 n. 15

195B 255 n. 6

198A 427 n. 10

198B-C 173 n. 41

198B 128 n. 7, 172 n. 36, 389 n. 15

Mulierum virtutes

242EF 425 n. 3

242F 302 n. 24

243C 361 n. 9

256B-D 255 n. 6

258B-C 255 n. 4

Quaestiones Romanae

263E 318 n. 29

269A 359 n. 1

274EF 359 n. 1

279E 245 n. 4

282C 449

De Alexandri Magni fortuna aut

virtute

328CD 207, 208

328D 117

329C 324 n. 70

329D 201

329F330A 205

331E 217 n. 15

336E 268 n. 49

337F 217 n. 38

338A 217 n. 38

De gloria Atheniensium

346F 412

De Iside et Oriside

360E 291

369A 291

370D 447

De E apud Delphos

384D-E 364 n. 19, 516

385D-E 512

393A 289

De Pythiae oraculis

401B 515

401E-F 255 n. 5

402A 269 n. 68

404B 491

405F 389 n. 16

408E-F 493 n. 37

408E 493

De defectu oraculorum

410C-F 58

414F-418D 58

418A 58 n. 31

419A-E 491

419B-E 58

419B-420B 58

421A 324 n. 70

422B 140 n. 68

426A 432 n. 30

426B 289

428B 271 n. 93, 291 n. 7

428F 291 n. 7

429A 291 n. 7

432F 451 n. 19

De virtute morali

443C-D 279

443C 270 n. 74

451C-D 325 n. 77

451E 269 n. 72

452B 326 n. 77

De cohibenda ira

455B 154 n. 41

457DE 473 n. 17

458CD 147

459B 270 n. 74, 279

459B-460C 154

461A462A 154

461D 389 n. 17

462F 263 n. 4

463B 154

De tranquillitate animi

464F 396 n. 1, 473 n. 16

466D 264 n. 17

466F-467A 270 n. 74

467C 462

468E-F 264 n. 16

475D476A 142 n. 75

De fraterno amore

478C 264 n. 6, 266 n. 31

479C 265 n. 23

479D 265 n. 26

481B-C 264 n. 10

481F 264 n. 7, 266 n. 31

482B 269 n. 72

490E 271 n. 93, 325 n. 73

De amore prolis

493B-C 265 n. 27

493D-E 265 n. 29

495A 265 n. 25

495C 264 n. 11, 265 n. 28

497C-D 264 n. 8

De garrulitate

502F 389 n. 14

504D 117

504E 277

506C 489

510C-D 270 n. 74

510C 278 n. 12

510D 279

510E 486

511AB 493

511EF 279

511E 270 n. 74

512DF 279

513A 278

514C 389

514E 279

De curiositate

517C 277 n. 6, 278

520D 270 n. 74, 279

521A-E 279

522B 279

De cupiditate divitiarum

523B 264 n. 6

524B 264 n. 13

524D 265 n. 22

525C 265 n. 24

526F-527A 264 n. 16

527B 389 n. 17

De vitioso pudore

531B 117

531B-C 389

532C 279

De se ipsum citra invidiam laudando

546E 278, 282 n. 23

De sera numinis vindicta

550D 291 n. 5, 294

551D-552D 351 n. 1

551E 279

559B-C 142 n. 75

566A 451 n. 19

566F 255 n. 6

De genio Socratis

578D 486

584E 270 n. 74

588B 55 n. 21

593A 269 n. 68

596C 55 n. 21

De exilio

602C 270 n. 74

Consolatio ad uxorem

608C 156 n. 52

609B 156 n. 52

610A-B 270 n. 82

610A 131 n. 1, 270 n. 80

611A 156 n. 52

Quaestiones conuiuales1 367-455

1 396

1.2-3 396 n. 2

1.2 57, 400, 439

1.4 58, 125

1.5 124 n. 2, 400

1.6 213, 215

1.9 56, 58

2 396

2.1 56, 124 n. 2

2.2 397, 400

2.4-5 396 n. 2

2.5 57

2.8-9 396 n. 2

3.1-2 396 n. 2

3.1 397

3.2 56

3.3-5 396 n. 2

3.6 397

3.7-9 396 n. 2

3.7 400

3.10 448

4 396

4.2 439

4.3 58

4.4 397

4.5 57, 397, 448

4.4.6 396 n. 2

4.7 448

4.10 397

5 396

5.5-6 396 n. 2

5.7 124 n. 2

5.8-9 396 n. 2

6.1 58

7 396

7.1 56

1 Please note that there are separate lists

for the two reference systems used by the

respective authors.

7.4 397

7.5 14 n. 37

7.6 124, 397

7.7-8 396 n. 2

7.7 124 n. 2

7.8 14 n. 38, 124 n. 2

7.9-10 396

7.9 386

7.10 387

8.1-2 396 n. 2

8.2 397

8.3 397

8.6 57, 58

8.7-8 396 n. 2

8.8 58

9 396

9-10 396 n. 2

9. 1-2 57

9. 4 397

9. 5 57

9.10 448

9.14 57, 124 n. 2

612C-748D 19

612C 51 n. 1

612D 67, 124, 270 n. 80, 417

612D-E 9 n. 28

612E615 C 67, 87

612E 99 n. 8, 395, 114 n. 8, 416,

422 n. 19

613AC 127

613A 69, 131 n. 2, 419, 428

613B 212, 314 n. 5, 421

613C 134 n. 22, 217 n. 39, 418, 421

613D 68, 370

613E 420

613F 68

614A-B 67, 498 n. 3

614A 127, 396 n. 3

614B 183 n. 10

614CD 127, 371 n. 14

614C 69, 419

614D-615B 371 n. 13

614D-E 406

614D 54, 419, 421, 422 n. 19

615EF 128, 172 n. 36

614E 68, 314 n. 5, 420, 422 n.

19

614F615A 67

615A-B 324 n. 70

615A 325 n. 72

615B 67

616B 68

616E 68

617B 278

617E 422 n. 20

618D 422 n. 20

618E 70, 270 n. 80, 270 n. 82, 314

n. 3

618F 21, 22, 23, 25

619A 324 n. 68

619B 422 n. 19, 422 n. 20

619D 430

620A-622B 123, 141 n. 71,

215 n. 26, 220 n. 54

620A 370 n. 10

620B 69

620C 131 n. 2, 314 n. 3

620D-E 270 n. 84

620E-621A 126

621A 70

621B 126 n. 5

621C-622B 126

621C-D 320 n. 45

621C 67, 124, 131, 258 n. 16, 270

ns.80/82, 314 n. 3

621D622B 127

621D 70

622B 70

622D 323

623D 67, 213 n. 16

623E 213 n. 17, 215 n. 28

624A 213 n. 18, 422 n. 20

625A 422 n. 20

625C 373 n. 17

625F 422 n. 20

626A 423

626F 422 n. 20

627A-D 419

627A 422 n. 20

628B 277, 422 n. 19

628CD 422

628C 422 n. 20

628D 376 n. 26, 422 ns. 19/20

629A630A 131

629C 371

629D634F 67

629D 54 n. 14

629E630A 131

629E 134 n. 18

630A631C 127

630A 68, 371 n. 13

630C-631B 68

631C-F 127

631CF 127

631C 70

632B 373 n. 17

632E 270 n. 79, 270 n. 80

633E 70

634DE 70

635B 422 n. 20

635D 422 n. 20

635F 422 n. 20

636A 422 n. 19

636D 453 n. 26

638A 433

639D 422 n. 20

640C 422 n. 20

640EF 433

641CD 422 n. 20

642A 422 n. 20

642E644E 66

643A 314 n. 3

643B 66, 324 n. 70

643D 266 n. 30, 277 n. 7

643E 270 n. 2

644A 70, 134 n. 18

644E 69

644F 134 n. 20

645AC 135 n. 24

645B 70, 71

645D-646A 372

645F 278, 372

646A 371, 374, 376, 422 n. 19

647A 270 n. 83

648B 376

649A 376

649D-E 422 n. 20

650A-B 432

650A 419, 422 n. 20

650C 452 n. 22

650E-660C 322

650F 433

651A 422 n. 19

652A 419

652D 71

653B-C 372

653B 371, 374, 378

653C 372

653C-E 372

653E 372

654C 377

655E-F 371, 372

655E 270 n. 83

655F 372, 418

655F656A 372

656A 376

656B-D 419

656C-D 376

656C 422 n. 20

656D 422 n. 20

656E 373

657D 21, 22, 23, 25

657E 315 n. 9, 320 n. 45

657F 422 n. 20

658B 449 n. 6

658C 422 n. 20

658E 449, 450

658F-659A 449

658F 449 n. 7, 451

659A 453, 454

659D 419, 454 n. 28

659E-660A 66, 313

660A-C 477

660A-B 131 n. 1

660A 269 n. 73, 270 n. 82, 277 n. 6,

279 n. 13

660B 66, 212, 270 ns.

77/81/82/84, 271 ns. 86/88, 417,

418

660C 70, 277 n. 9, 279 n. 13, 324 n.

68, 418

660D 100 n. 14, 372

664B-C 440 n. 12

664B 439 n. 3, 440 n. 11

664C 422 n. 20

664D 376 n. 26, 422 n. 19, 422 n.

20, 441 ns. 14-17

664F 441 ns. 19/21

665A 441 ns. 19/20, 442 n. 27

665D-E 422 n. 20

666A 422 n. 20

666D-E 422 n. 20

667B 430, 435

667E 422 n. 19

670A 422 n. 20

670B 422 n. 20, 452

672E 66, 270 n. 82

673A 66, 67, 375

673A-B 100 n. 15, 133 n. 16

673C 422 ns. 19/20

675A 20 n. 4, 21, 22, 24

675E 25, 422 n. 19

676A 422 n. 20

676C-F 372

676E 371, 372

677C-678B 65

677C 422 n. 20

678E 278

678F 26, 422 n. 20

679A-B 67

679C 422 n. 20

680B 277 n. 9, 450

680C-D 421, 441 n. 13

680C 422 n. 20

680F 422 n. 20

682C 270 n. 74

682F 422 n. 20

683B-C 117

683C 422 n. 19

686C-D 11 n. 32

686C 67, 100 n. 12, 418

686D 51 n. 2, 417, 461 n. 17

689C 422 n. 20

689E 422 n. 20

690C, F 419

690F 422 n. 20

691C 422 n. 20

692B-E 374, 378

692B 19, 21, 22, 24, 25, 371, 372

692C-E 373

692E-693E 373

693B 422 n. 20

693C 429

694B 422 n. 20

694D 376, 419

695E696D 65

696D 419

696E-F 422 n. 20

697C 66, 275 n. 2, 277

697DE 279 n. 13

697D 66, 314 n. 2

697E 67

699E 422 n. 20

700C 115, 422 n. 19, 422 n. 20

700D-F 422 n. 20

701A 422 n. 19, 422 n. 20

701B 21, 22, 23, 25

701D 19, 21, 22, 24

701E 422 n. 20

702B 419, 422 n. 20

703B 269 n. 71, 269 n. 73

703D 21, 22, 23, 25, 26

704CE 377

704E 371, 422 n. 20

704F 419

705A 406 n. 9

705B706C 377

707C 21, 22, 23, 25

708B 125

710B-711D 370 n. 8

710B-C 370

710B 429

711A-713F 115

711A 417

711B712C 104 n. 6

711C 104 n. 12, 105 n. 21, 107 n.

34

711E-F 116, 407, 429 n. 21

712B 70, 104 n. 15, 270 ns. 81/84

712B-C 116

712D 104 n. 8

713B-C 71

713C 417

713D 71, 418

713E-F 71

713F 126 n. 5, 420, 422 n. 19

714AD 67

714AC 386

714A 126 n. 5, 131 n. 2, 385

714D716C 67, 387

714D 131 n. 2, 422 n. 19

715DF 135 n. 24

715E 207 n. 25

715F 387

716D717A 387

716E 71

716F 390

717A 385, 390

717B vii

718B-720C 87

718C-720C 88

718C-D 89

718E 90

719F 89

719A-C 91

719C-E 92

719E 376

720A-C 92

720C 364 n. 19

720D 418

722D 422 n. 20

724D 408 n. 11, 419

725A 422 n. 19, 422 n. 20

725B 422 n. 20

725D 21, 22, 23, 26

726C 422 n. 19

726E 65

728E 422 n. 20

729A 422 n. 20

729E 279, 422 n. 20

730B 422 n. 20

731A-B 422 n. 20

731D 422 n. 20

732A 422 n. 20

732B 361 n. 9

733D 422 n. 20

734E735C 379

734E 419, 422 n. 20

735C 419

736D 65

736E 21, 22, 24, 26, 70

737C738C 64

737C 21, 22, 24, 25

737D-E 26

737E 65, 125, 422 n. 20

738A 21, 22, 24, 25

738C-739A 64

738E 25

739AD 65

740B 422 n. 20

740D 422 n. 20

741B 422 n. 20

742AB 65

743D 66

743E-F 65

744C 376, 422 n. 20

744D 63 n. 2, 423

745D 422 n. 20

746B-747A 127

746B 376

747B-748D 128

747B 422 n. 19

747C 429 n. 21

748AB 412

Amatorius

748F 298

749A 299 n. 6

749D 278, 318 n. 29

750C 303 n. 30

750D 299

750E 299, 315 n. 12

751A 300

751C-D 317 n. 23

751C 300

751D 316 n. 17

751E-F 300

751E 300, 319, 322

752A 300, 303, 322 n. 52

752B 315 n. 13

752C 316 n. 20, 317

752D 322 n. 58

752E 320

753A 322 n. 58

753C-754E 321 n. 47

753F-754A 310

754A 300 n. 18, 318 n. 29, 322

754C 300, 319

754D 425 n. 4

755E 322 ns. 57/58

756B 320, 320 n. 42

756E 300, 315 n. 14

757D-E 301

757F sqq. 300 n. 18

757F-758A 301

758A 269 n. 68, 301

758B 316 n. 19

758C-D 317 n. 27

758C 322 n. 59

758D-759B 322 n. 58

758D-E 310 n. 17

758E-759B 310 n. 18

758E 301

759A 323 n. 61

759E-F 301 n. 20

759E 309 n. 12

759F-760 427 n. 13

759F 309 n. 13, 319 n.

35, 322 n. 58

759F-760B 309 n. 14

760E-761A 310 n. 16

761B 46 n. 38, 310

761C 322 n. 59

761E-F 309 n. 15

762B sqq. 310 n. 19

762C-D 42

762C 278, 322 n. 58, 322 n. 59

762D 277 n. 10, 323 n. 61

763F 311 n. 20

764B-D 322 n. 58

764B 301, 311 n. 21

764F-765A 301

765B-C 322 n. 58

765B 301, 302, 323 n. 63

765C 301, 316 n. 18, 320

765D 302 n. 29

765E 308 n. 4

766A-B 322 n. 58

766A 322 n. 59

766B 302, 303

766C 303

766E-F 301

766E 311 n. 22

767A 269 n. 65

767B 302, 311 n. 23, 322 n. 58

767D-E 324 n. 68, 425 n. 4

767D 316 n. 19, 325 n. 73

767E 311 n. 24, 322 n. 59

767F 322 n. 58

768B-D 311 n. 25

768B 302

768C 255 n. 4

768E 316 n. 16

769 311 n. 26

769A-D 302

769C 316 n. 19

769D 311 n. 27

769E 303

769F-770A 425 n. 4

769F 318, 320, 321, 431 n. 26

770A 303

770D-771C 311 n. 25

771E 409

Maxime cum principibus

776B 269 n. 65

Ad principem ineruditum

779D 354 n. 14

780A 354 n. 14

781A 269 n. 65, 269 n. 66, 271 n.

87, 354 n. 14

781B 217 n. 35

An seni respublica gerenda sit

783E 269 n. 65

786B 269 n. 68

786C 269 n. 67

790F-791B 321 n. 49

791C 269 ns. 65/69

791D 263 n. 1

796D 41 n. 17, 147

Praeceptae gerendae reipublicae

799B 128

799C-D 364 n. 19

800A 128

802B 324 n. 68

806F 354 n. 17

809E 128

810C 38 n. 10

813E 125

814E-825F 169

816C 278, 361

816D 278

819E 354 n. 18

823 460 n. 11

823A-C 360

823A 276 n. 5

825A 129

De uitando aere alieno

829C 135

Aristophanis et Menandri comparatio

853A-854D 117

854A-B 117

De Herodoti malignitate

866F 280

Placita philosophorum

881C-D 294

881E 291 n. 7

Quaestiones naturales

917F-918A 448 n. 5

918A 450

De facie in orbe lunae

926C 408 n. 11

939F 452

De sollertia animalium

959F 502 n. 23

960A 269 n. 74, 503 n. 26

970A 266 n. 30, 268 n. 56

984 263 n. 2

984C 269 n. 64

984D 503

959F 270 n. 74, 279, 502

967E 500

973B 500 n. 13

973C 500

973E 500 n. 15

De esu carnium I

994E 501

996A-B 279

996A 269 n. 74

Platonicae quaestiones

1001C 90 n. 9

1002B 91

1003A 94 n. 19

De anima procreatione in Timaeo

1013C 94 n. 19

1015B 94 n. 19

1017B 94 n. 19

1023D 94 n. 19

1024B-C 93 n. 17

1029E 94 n. 19

De Stoicorum repugnantis

1033B 373 n. 16

1048C 292

1048E 292

1049AB 293

1049CD 292

1049DE 293

1050E 293

1050F 291

1051A 294

1051E 276 n. 5

De communibus notitiis

1065 293 n. 11

1065B 291

1065C-D 292

1065C 293

1065D 293 n. 12

1070E 373 n. 16

1072F 373 n. 16

1073B 300 n. 14

1075E 276 n. 5

Non posse suaviter vivi secundum

Epicurum

1095C-E 389 n. 16

1095C-D 9 n. 26

1095E 9 n. 24

1099A 263 n. 1

Adversus Colotem

1108C 272 n. 95

VITAE

Aemilius Paullus

1 166 n. 10

1.1 375

3.2-7 167, 172

4.4 173 n. 41

6.5 362 n. 10

11 167

17.4 167

28.5 389 n. 15

28.9 128 n. 7

22 152 n. 28

26.8-27.6 167

27 201 n. 1

28 165

28.1-5 171

28.1 266 n. 35

28.5 389 n. 15

28.6 171

28.7-8 172

28.9 172

28.10-11 173

29.1 171

30.1 167

36 167

38.1-2 167

38.6-9 167

39.9 266 n. 35

39.10 173 n. 41

Agesilaus

1.5 266 n. 35, 268 n. 59, 277 n.

11, 282 n. 22

12.5 139 n. 52

23 263 n. 4

33 263 n. 4

Agis et Cleomenes

7-8 248 n. 35, 268 n. 59, 277 n.

11, 282 n. 22

12.4-9 129 n. 9

13.3 277 n. 10

32.5 276 n. 5

34.3-4 266 n. 35

34.3 268 n. 60

Alcibiades

1.3 47

1.8 43 n. 25

2.1 44 n. 30, 47

2.2-3 38

4.1-2 42, 48 n. 48

4.1 41 n. 18, 42 n. 19, 45, 46,

47, 49, 299 n. 12

4.2 44

4.3 45

4.4-5.5 41

4.4 41 n. 18, 42 n. 19, 43, 46 n.

36

5.1-5 42

5.1 42 n. 19

5.5 47 n. 42

6.1 39, 42 (n. 19), 43, 44

6.2 44

6.3-5 45

6.4 45, 47

7 46 n. 40

7.1-3 45

7.3-6 45

7.4-5 46

7.4 49

7.5 46 n. 41

10.3 47 n. 43, 48 n. 48

14.12 47 n. 42

16.1 43 n. 25

16.5-6 361 n. 7

20.1 47 n. 42

24.5 44 n. 30

25.2 47 n. 42

32.1 44 n. 30

32.3 47 n. 42

Alexander

1.2 224

2.4-5 194

2.9 207

4.7-11 194

4.7 207 n. 28

4.9-11 195

4.11 195, 205 n. 19

5.4-6 196

5.4-8 196

8.4 196

9 193, 207, 231 n. 4

9.4 196

9.7-11 204 n. 12

9.7 214

9.8 214 n. 21

9.9 206

9.9-10 206, 207

9.10 214 n. 23

9.12-14 199

10.2-4 205 n. 19

15.9 202

17.9 207

21.7 214 n. 23

21.10 215 n. 24

22 207

22.3 214

23.1-2 215 n. 25

23.1 207

23.6 215 n. 26

23.7 207

29.1-6 205

37.5 204

38.1-2 203 n. 10

38.2 207

38.6 219 n. 50

38.8 219 n. 52

39.2 204

39.6 206

42.10 198 n. 10

45 215 n. 30, 219 n. 51

45.2 205

47.7 205 n. 19

48.4-49.1 203

48.5 204 n. 12

50-51 193

50.2 217

50.7 204, 252 n. 30

50.9-10 217

50.9 207, 215

50.11 196 n. 3

51 134 n. 19

51.3 216

51.5 216 n. 32

51.9-10 204

51.11 216

52.3 217

52.4 217 n. 38

52.7 198

52.8-9 205

52.8 220 n. 56

53-55 199

53.1 218 n. 41

53.3-4 207

54.3 218 n. 42

54.4-6 205 n. 22

55.7-8 199

57.3 220 n. 58

58.8 266 n. 35, 278

67.1-6 204, 205 n. 20, 207

67.7-8 203, 205 n. 19, 207

69.9 204

70 231 n. 5

70.1-2 205, 206, 207

70.3 219 n. 48

72.1-2 205

72.2 207, 218 n. 46

74.3 218 n. 45

75 251, n. 28

75.4-5 204, 205

75.5 206

75.6 219 n. 47

Antonius

3.10 266 n. 35

10 152 n. 29

14 152 n. 29

18.2 280 n. 16

25.3 266 n. 35, 277 n. 10

26 152 n. 29

28.2 232 n. 11

29 152 n. 29

32.3 247 n. 14

32.3 252 n. 30

32.4 252 n. 30

32.8 247 n. 14

36.2 140 n. 65

54.8 205

63 152 n. 29

67-68 152 n. 29

75-87 152 n. 29

76 152 n. 29

Aratus

6.4-7.1 247 n. 13, 252 n. 30

26.1-5 518 n. 21

43 203

49.1 142 n. 75

52 205

Aristides

1.2 147 n. 5

1.9 147

2.2 152 n. 26

6.3-6 269 n. 66

10 152 n. 28

23.1 266 n. 35

27.7 268 n. 56, 269 n. 61, 364 n. 17

Artaxerxes

3.5-6 138

4.4 138, 277

5.2 137 n. 40, 138

5.3-4 136 n. 38

5.4 138

6.5 259 n. 24

9.3 139

10.1 137 n. 42

11.1-2 139

11.2-10 132

11.5 131

11.6 131 n. 6

11.9-10 132 n. 5

12.2 132

13.1 132

14.3-4 138

14.5 132 n. 6

14.7 132

14.9-10 138

15 201 n. 2

15.1-7 131 n. 4

15.1 136 n. 37

15.2 134

15.3 137 n. 41

15.4 134, 141 n. 72

15.5 136, 139

15.6 136 n. 39, 137, 139, 141 n. 70

15.7 134, 139, 141 n. 72

16.2 132 n. 8, 137 n. 46

16.4 137 n. 45

16.7 138

17.1-8 132 n. 7

17.6 259 n. 24

19 231 n. 2, 246 n. 10

19.1-5 257

19.1 252 n. 30, 260 n. 25

19.6 259 n. 21

19.7 231 n. 3

23.1 132 n. 7

29.11 141 n. 72

Brutus

27.5 139 n. 52

30.6 266 n. 35

Caesar

4.8 277 n. 9

8.1 363

13.4 363

21.5 363

34.7 266 n. 35

40.5 363

45.3 363

46 152 n. 28

47.7 363

54.6 157

Camillus

17.2 289 n. 16

Cato Maior

1.9 151 n. 25

2.1-4 149

2.3.4 150

2.3 149, 244

2.5 150 n. 20

3.2 151

3.7 277 n. 10, 345, 354 n. 19

4 351

4.2-5 149

4.5-6 151

4.5 346

5 351, 361

5.1-7 151

5.1 266 ns. 33/35, 346, 352 n. 4

5.2-5 265 n. 21

5.2 265 n. 20, 266 n. 35

5.5 266 n. 35, 268 n. 50, 269 n. 74,

279, 345, 352

6.1-3 347

6.1 207

6.4 355 n. 22

7.1 43 n. 22, 148

7.2 149

8.4 428

8.6 149

10.1 345

10.6 152

11.1 344

12.5-7 172 n. 39

17 201 n. 1

17.1-6 150, 153

19.7 149

20.1-4 346

20.3 148

21 352 n. 8

21.1-4 152

21.4 153

21.5 363

21.10 363

22 352

22.2 246

22.5 363

22.6 352 n. 9

23.1 148, 363

24.1-10 151

24.1 347

24.2-7 348 n. 26

24.8 354 n. 15

24.11 354 n. 15

25.3-4 153

25.3 149

25.4 270 n. 79

26.5 363

27.7 148, 364 n. 14

29(2).4 363

31(4) 352 n. 9

31(4).2 264 n. 6, 265 n.18

31(4).2-4 354 n. 16

32(5).4 355 n. 20

33(6).1 353 n. 13

33(6) 15

33(6).1-2 151

Cato Minor

1.1 148

1.3-6 280 n. 18

1.3 281

1.5 153 n. 36

1.8 155 n. 51

2.3 151

4.1-2 151 n. 26

4.1 364 n. 15

4.2 155, 280 n. 20

5.1 148

6.1-2 371 n. 11

6.1 181 n. 4

6.2-4 156 n. 52

6.2-5 156 n. 52

6.3 280

6.6 155

8.2-3 148

10.1-3 155

11.3-8 156

21.3-4 281

21.10 266 n. 35

23.1 266 n. 35, 282 n. 22

26.1 277 n. 6, 281

29.4 266 n. 35

30-31 281

37.3 453

44.1 155

46.1 154, 155

47.2-4 281

49.6 281

50.1 155

50.2 280

50.3 281 n. 21

60.1 363

60.3-4 153 n. 33

65.10 155 n. 50

65.11 153 n. 35

67 115, 153, 246 n. 7, 252 n. 30

67.4 154 n. 38

68.2-5 154

70 154

Cicero

3.1-4 344

3.5 156 n. 4

4.10 344

5 335 n. 6

8.2 156 n. 4, 363 n. 11

9.6 363 n. 13

10.5 182 n. 7

12.39 344

30.1 363

32.5-7 156 n. 53

36.3-5 363 n. 11

36.3 181 n. 4

41.8 156

46.6 339

47.7 363

52(3).2-3 338

52(3).4 363

Cimon

1.5 248 n. 20, 252 n. 30

3.3 282 n. 23

4.3 371 n. 11

6.2 266 n. 35

9.1 4 n. 2

9.4 252 n. 30

10.6-7 268 n. 56

10.6 266 n. 30

10.7 266 n. 35

15.3 371 n. 11

Coriolanus

1.3 45 n. 34, 268 n. 55, 351 n.

1, 362

4.1-4 46, 47 n. 45

4.3 360 n. 5

15.4 360 n. 5

16.2 362

17.7 362

18.2-3 45 n. 32

19.3 362

21.1 45 n. 32, 35

22.4 44 n. 30

23 201 n. 1

30.7 362

31.6 362

39.8 46 n. 40

44(5) 362

Crassus

1.1-2 183

1.1 282

1.4 184

2.5 184

2.6 185

3.1-2 282

3.2-8 182

3.4 282 n. 23

3.5 266 n. 35, 268 n. 59, 282

5.2 183

6.7-8 184

7-9 232 n. 8

7.3-4 282

7.4 282

12.3 184 n. 12

13.2 185

16.1-2 185

17.8-9 185 n. 17

18.2 280 n. 16

29.4 447

33 232 ns. 7/8

33.1-4 246 n. 8

33.1-7 134 n. 23, 185

33.1 252 n. 30, 252 n. 30

33.5 255 n. 6

33.6 252 n. 30

34(1).1 184

34(1).4 184 n. 15, 188 n. 30

34(4).1-4 185 n. 17

Demetrius

1 152 n. 29

1.5 268 n. 58

1.7-8 351 n. 1

2 399

4.1 266 n. 35

16 202, 205

17.1 266 n. 35

19 206, 206

20 204, 206

22.1 278

22.2 268 n. 56

25 204

27 202

36 204, 206

36.4-12 247 n. 11

36.4 252 n. 30, 252 n. 30

36.11 252 n. 30

37.1 280 n. 16

42 206

42.3 351 n. 3

50.1 266 n. 35

52 206

Demosthenes 336, 337, 338

1 152 n. 29

7 335 n. 6

22.2-4 335

22.5 335 n. 7

29.3 337

Dio

7.5 265 n. 23, 266 n. 35

9.3-8 518 n. 21

13.2 389 n. 17

16.1 280 n. 16

20 201 n. 1

Eumenes

13.4 278

13.5 205

14.2 205

Fabius Maximus

4.3.8 173 n. 41

16.5 48 n. 51

22.8 266 n. 35

Flaminius

5.7 138 n. 50, 280 n. 18

7.1-3 166

10.1-3 167

10.4-7 168

11 165

11.1-3 168

11.4-7 169

12 166

12.1 168,169

12.5-6 170

12.8-13 170

13.1-4 166

18.3-21.14 166

18.10 150

22(1).4 169 n. 20

22(1).7 169 n. 20

24(3).4 266 n. 35

Galba

1 227 n. 9

10-28 228 n. 11

20.5 282

Lucullus

18.9 266 n. 35

29.6 266 n. 35

38.5 182 n. 8

41.9 264 n. 9

43.1-2 255 n. 3

44(1).5 282 ns. 22/24

44(1).6 268 n. 60

Lycurgus

2 152 n. 28

10 201 n. 1

11 152 n. 28

12 201 n. 1

13.3 252 n. 30

16 152 n. 28

24 152 n. 28

25.2 389 n. 15

26 201 n. 1

28 152 n. 28

Lysander

4 201 n. 1

27.7 138 n. 50

Marcellus

1.2-3 360

1.3 266 n. 35

10.6 266 n. 35, 268 n. 54

14.9 90 n. 8

20.1-2 276 n. 5

20.1 266 n. 35, 269 n. 62, 364 n.

16

23.5 364 n. 18

Marius

2 152 n. 28

5 152 n. 28

37 152 n. 28

43-44 152 n. 28

Nicias

3.2 188 n. 27

5.1 188, 241 n. 59

9.1 351 n. 1

9.2 268 n. 48

11.2 266 n. 35, 268 n. 60, 282 n. 22

Otho

1.1 278

3.2-6 228

3.3-7 223, 226

3.4 247 n. 12, 252 n. 30

5.3 228

16-18 228

Pelopidas

3.3 352 n. 7

4-11 232 n. 9, 236 n. 31

4.5 364 n. 18

6.2 364 n. 19

6.4-5 276 n. 5

6.5 268 n. 56

9 232 n. 9, 236 n. 31

9.4 247 n. 17, 252 n. 30, 252 n.

30

11 202 n. 9

11.3 252 n. 30

17.13 46 n. 38

21.3 266 n. 35

Pericles

1.1-2 264 n. 15

1.1 269 n. 72

1.3-2.4 375

1.6 202

2.4 271 n. 88

5.3 279

7.3 258 n. 14

7.4 188 n. 26

7.5 213 n. 14, 375

15.1 38 n. 10

30.3 266 n. 35

Philopoemen

1.7 169

2.2-4 359 n. 3

3.1-2 359 n. 3

3.1 169 n. 20, 269 n. 62

8.1 138 n. 50

8.2 268 n. 56

9.7 139 n. 59

13.8 359 n. 3

16.7-9 360 n. 4

17.5 359 n. 3

Phocion

1.3 281

1.5 335 n. 8

2.3 38 n. 10

2.6 281

3.1 155

3.2 129

3.5 281

3.8 281, 361 n. 9

4.1-2 155

4.3 280 n. 17

4.4 155

5.1 266 n. 35, 280

5.4-5 148, 155

5.5 266 n. 35

10.7-8 276 n. 5

10.7 282

16.5 279 n. 16

19 201 n. 1

27.6 362 n. 10

32.6-7 148, 155

36.1 155

38.5 148, 155

Pompeius

2.11-12 181 n. 4

3.2 247 n. 15, 252 n. 30

20.3-4 250 n. 25

24 187 n. 24

49 152 n. 28

75 152 n. 28

76.6 187 n. 24

79.1 280 n. 16

Publicola

1.2 266 n. 35, 276 n. 5, 282

4.5 266 n. 35, 282

25(2).7 282

Pyrrhus

1.4 138 n. 50

5.1 259

5.2 258 n. 19

5.7-14 247 n. 11, 252 n. 30, 256

5.8 256 n. 10

14 259

18.6 362 n. 10

21.1 255 n. 6

28.1-3 47 n. 42

28.5-7 47 n. 42

29.5-6 47 n. 42

Sertorius

25.6 142 n. 75

26 232 n. 6, 250 n. 23

26.6-8 252 n. 30

Solon

2.1 277 n. 6, 352 n. 6

3.5 493

4.1 484 n. 13

4.2-7 489 n. 28

7 152 n. 28, 493

7.2 269 n. 66

7.3 264 ns. 12/14

14.3 514 n. 10

15.3 266 n. 35, 276 n. 5

20 493

20.4 302 n. 28

23 493

27.1 398

Sulla

2.2 181 n. 4

5.5 447 n. 2

9 152 n. 28

12 174 n. 45

14.8 266 n. 35

28 152 n. 28

37 152 n. 28

37.6 447 n. 2

43(5).5 280 n. 16

emistocles

2.3-4 4 n. 2

2.4 202 n. 7

2.7 351 n. 1

9.3 9.3

18.7 428

30 152 n. 28

eseus

6.4 266 n. 35

12.2-3 257 n. 11

12.2 259 n. 22

12.3-4 246 n. 9, 252 n. 30

30 201 n. 1, 206

30.3-4 246 n. 6

30.3 231 n. 1, 252 n. 30

36.4 266 n. 35, 276 n. 5, 361

Tiberius et Caius Gracchus

2 152 n. 28

8 152 n. 28

19.2 277 n. 8

Timoleon

41(2).8 173 n. 41

FRAGMENTA

(Sandbach)

61 453

93 324

105 452 n. 21

109 453 n. 26

111 454 n. 30

134 319

135 322 n. 57, 322 n. 58

137 322 n. 56, 322 n. 58

138 322 n. 58

154-166 265 n. 19

157.5 450 n. 10

157.5-6 318 n. 29

167 320

203 38 n. 10

210 321 n. 49

[Homericae Quaestiones ] 31, 31 n. 2

[Vita Homeri ] 31 n. 2, 34, 35

204 32 n. 5

205-6 32

207 32 n. 6

P

3.155 43 n. 23

10.100 44 n. 28

P

4.24 203

P

8.12.1-6 205

18.35.4-6 173 n. 41

18.45.7-12 168 n. 16

18.46.1-15 168

21.32.3 360 n. 4

30.14 128 n. 7, 172

31.22.1-7 173 n. 41

P T

De Antro Nympharum 31

P 443, 444, 445

Fragmenta

(Edelstein-Kidd)

7 443 n. 30

27 443 n. 30

110 444 n. 39

(eiler)

258 443 n. 30

371a 443 n. 30

378 444 n. 39

P 28

P

Tetrabiblos

1.2 448 n. 4

Q

Institutio Oratoria

1 (praef.) 71 n. 36

2 237 n. 36

2.42 69 n. 29

3.1 69 n. 26

4.2.31 69 n. 28

5.14.5 69 n. 30

6.39 65

8.1.1 69 n. 27

11-16 237 n. 36

11.1.1 68 n. 24

11.1.43 68

R 452 n. 20

S

Historiarum fragmenta

(Maurenbrecher)

3.83 251 n. 29

Catilina

48.5 181 n. 2

S 297, 298, 308

Fragmenta

(Voigt)

47 319

103.8 297

105 (a) + (b) 297

130 319 n. 35

S

4.601.15-17 Walz 42 n. 20

Ad Platonem Resp. 479c 98 n. 4

In eocritum 3.21 9 n. 22

In eocritum 13.1-2 308

S 434

S 267, 442, 443, 449 n. 8

De Constantia

18.2 427 n. 13

Agamemnon 233

875-909 233 n. 16

Hercules Furens

409 n. 15 409 n. 15

yestes 17

Epistolae Morales ad Lucilium

67.7 157 n. 60

71.17 157 n. 60

98.12 157 n. 60

104.28 sqq. 157 n. 60

De providentia

3.4 157 n. 60

3.12 sqq. 157 n. 60

De tranquillitate animi

16.1 157 n. 60

Ad Marciam

22.3 157 n. 60

De Ira

2.25.4 154

3.13.3 154 n. 41

3.24.2 154

3.35.1-3 154

3.39.2-4 154

S 69, 235, 237, 412, 460

n. 11, 517

Fragmenta

(Page)

70 308

S 77, 80, 319, 352,

460, 463 n. 24, 464, 465, 465 n. 31,

467 n. 41, 484, 514

Fragmenta

(West)

33 520 n. 32

S

Ajax 334

Antigona 333, 334, 335, 336, 337

175-177 339

781-800 308 n. 3

Electra 27 n. 22

Oedipus Coloneus 334, 337 n. 13

434 322 n. 54

Trachiniae 334

S 452

S B

305.1 13 n. 36

314.6 13 n. 36

452.8 13 n. 36

S

2.120.20 267 n. 41, 271 n. 90

2.121.22 267 n. 41, 271 n. 90

3.6.23 432

4 432

4.22.21 432

6.22.20 432

St o i c o r u m Fr a g m e n t a

(von Arnim)

1.174 443 n. 30

1.537 289

1.557 294

2.463-481 318 n. 31

2.1010 290, 292

2.1021 305

2.1075 290

2.1080 290

2.1191 443 n. 30

3.63 318 n. 31, 318 n. 31

3.126 292 n. 9

3.716-717 299 n. 11

3.718A 302 n. 24

S

13.2.3 513

15.3.18 135 n. 30

15.3.20 131 n. 2

S 237

Augustus

45.4 408

69.1 427

Caligula

25.1 427 n. 13

36.2 427 n. 13

Nero

22-26 225

25.1 225, 226 n. 6

Galba

11.1 266 n. 35, 268 n. 59

11.20 228 n. 11

12.2 228 n. 11

20.5 266 n. 35

Otho

1.3 268 n. 59

7-12 228 n. 12

8.1 sqq. 224 n. 1

10-11 228 n. 12

Tiberius

39 237 n. 39

T 224, 237, 238

Annales

3-4 238 n. 43

4 4.59

11 238 n. 40

13 238 n. 42

14 238 n. 43

16 238 n. 42

26-32 238 n. 40

Historiae

1.4-41 228 n. 11

1.44-47 228 n. 12

1.71-90 228 n. 12

1.80-82 224 n. 1

1.82 226

2.11-56 228 n. 12

2.48-49 228 n. 12

T 108, 109

Apologeticum 106 n. 30

39.3 108 n. 40

Praescriptio adversus haereses 41.8

T 460 n. 12, 461, 461

n. 17, 462, 463 n. 24, 477, 478, 482,

515, 516, 519

T

Idyllia

22 235 n. 23

29.1 135 n. 24

29.1-3 5 n. 12

T

(Mรผller)

668 519 n. 28

T 63, 369

309-312 136 n. 36

500 135 n. 24

681-682 133 n. 16

763-764 134 n. 21

1001 133 n. 13

T 75, 472, 474, 476, 478

Progymnasmata 75-85

(Spengel)

1.1-4 473 n. 13

2.16-19 473 n. 14

9.13-20 476 n. 38

10.2-7 475 n. 28

12.8-13 475 n. 29

12.23-26 475 n. 30

12.26–13.1 475 n. 31

16.25-26 476 n. 37

17.1 476 n. 37

19.5-8 476 n. 42

20.3-6 474 n. 22

59 75 n. 3, 80 n. 38, 84

60 sqq. 83

62 27 n. 24

65 27 n. 24, 83

66 83

70 27 n. 24, 83

70.1-3 475 n. 33

72 80 n. 38

74 80

75 80, 81

76 80 n. 39, 81, 83 n. 62

78 81

79 81, 82

80-81 82

83 82 n. 60

84 83 n. 61

93 sqq. 83

96 76 n. 8

97 76 n. 8, 77 n. 10

98 77 ns. 13/15/17

99 77, 78

100 78

101 78, 79

102-103 79

104 sqq. 79

T 9, 439, 440, 442

Historia Plantarum

1.6.5 439 n. 1

5.1.3 453

Fragmenta

(Fortenbaugh)

L 91 271 n. 93

L 195-196 271 n. 93

400 439 n. 1

400a 439 n. 6, 440 ns. 7/9, 441 n.

21

T 37, 45 n. 31, 83,

339, 425 n. 3, 514 n. 8

1.62-63 45, n. 35

5.43.2 47 n. 43

6.15.3 47 n. 43

6.15.4 45 n. 31

6.28 38 n. 4, 42 n. 20

T

2.5.92 44 n. 28

T 63

T 28

V M

Facta et Dicta Memorabilia

4.3.5a 150 n. 15

De viris illustribus

56.6 173 n. 41

V 10, 449 n. 8, 453

n. 26, 468 n. 44

V P

2.31.1 251 n. 29

V

Aeneis

4.441-449 319 n. 35

V T

Daniel

5 239 n. 50

Genesis

40.20-23 238 n. 44

Iudices

14.10-20 238 n. 46

Iudith

12-13 239 n. 49

Liber II Regum

15.25 241 n. 57

X 505

Fragmenta

(West)

1 505

B1 15-17 134 n. 18

B1 21-24 134 n. 21

X 3, 7, 9, 12, 14, 67, 213,

301 n. 21, 365, 386 n. 4, 392, 395,

406, 459, 466, 468, 471, 475, 489

Anabasis

1.8.24 139

1.8.27 132

6.1.5-13 409 n. 18

6.1.5 133 n. 15

Cynegeticus

13.9 301 n. 20

Cyropaedia 140 n. 63, 370, 386 n. 4

4.1.6 133 n. 15

5.2.18 131 n. 2

8.2.2-3 205 n. 18

Historia Graeca

4.1.4 351 n. 1

4.1.34 139

Memorabilia 6, 460, 475

1.2.12-48 42 n. 21

2.1.4 433

4.1.2 38 n. 6

Symposium 6, 8, 11, 97, 99, 198, 298,

370, 404, 461, 489 n. 27, 505

1.1 416

1.11-16 463 n. 25

1.11 7

2.1 133 n. 11, 133 n. 15

2.9 300 n. 15

2.16-19 409

2.23-27 6 n. 15

2.26 153

3-6 7

4 12 n. 33

4.29 7

6.2 6 n. 16, 134 ns.18/20,

7.1-2 4 n. 4

8.1-41 38 n. 6

8.1 8 n. 17

8.13 8 n. 19

8.15 8 n. 18

8.24 8 n. 17

8.32-40 8 n. 21

8.32 46 n. 38

ya S n a

31.8 135

47.5 135

46-96 135 n. 28

Z C 10

Z E 443

Z

Paroemiographi

4.5 135 n. 24

Z

9.24.4 173 n. 41

567

li s T o f c o n T r i b u T o r s

al d o s e T a i o l i is professor emeritus at the University of Perugia. His scholarly

activity centers on Latin literature but he also devotes constant attention to

Greek literature. He has devoted books and papers on Seneca, Virgil, Servius,

Petronius, as well as to many other authors and problems.

รกl i a r o s a c. ro d r i g u e s translated the seventh book of the Quaestiones

Conuiuales and assists the scholars working on the Portuguese Plutarch Project.

Moreover, she is preparing a translation of the Life of Fabius Maximus. At the

moment, she is working on her master's thesis on Poetics and Hermeneutics and

is also a collaborator on the Ancient Women's Dictionary. She is about to start

her PhD thesis on Plutarch's Lives of Lycurgus and Numa.

an a v i c e n T e s รก n c h e z is Assistant Professor of Greek Philology at the

University of Zaragoza (Spain) and has done research on Greek epistolography,

the history of the Greek language and late antique literature.

an a s T a s i o s g. n i k o l a i d i s , Ph.D (London, King's College) is Professor

of Classics at the University of Crete, Greece. His research interests and

publications comprise Plutarch (mostly), Greek and Roman historiography

(Herodotos, ukydides, Sallust, Tacitus), Greek and Roman ethics (Platon,

Aristoteles, Seneca), and Latin love elegy (Ovid).

an T o n i o ig n a c i o m o l i n a m a r รญ n is Doctor of Ancient History at Murcia

University, Spain. He has done research on the history of ancient Macedonia

(Alexander the Great) and Greek geography.

au r e l i o p รฉ r e z J i m รฉ n e z is Professor of Greek Philology at the University of

Mรกlaga, Spain. He has been president of the Spanish Plutarch Society ever since

its foundation in 1987, and presided over the International Plutarch Society

from 2002 to 2005. Among his works on Plutarch are Spanish translations

of fourteen Lives (1985, 1996, 2006) and the edition of the De capienda ex

inimicis utilitate (2008) for the Corpus Plutarchi Moralium.

ca r l o s a. ma r T i n s d e Je s u s is a PhD student at the University of Coimbra

and fellow of the Fundaรงรฃo para a Ciรชncia e Tecnologia (FCT). He is currently

working on Greek literature and myths, while preparing his PhD thesis on

Bacchylides. Among other things, he is the author of several books and papers

on Greek archaic poetry. He has also translated into Portuguese Archilochus'

fragments, Aristophanes' Wasps and Epictetus' Encheiridion. As for Plutarch,

besides some papers in national and international conferences, he has translated

books 4 and 6 of Table Talk, Amatorius and Amatoriae Narrationes, and is now

working on a Portuguese version of the Life of emistocles.

dรก m a r i s r o m e r o g o n z รก l e z is a postdoctoral researcher at the Institute

for Textual Scholarship and Electronic Editing at Birmingham University,

England. Her research elds are Plutarch, women in antiquity and the

semantics of the New Testament.

de l f i m l e รฃ o is professor of Classics at the University of Coimbra. He has a

deep interest in law, politics and the constitutional history of ancient Greece,

as well as in theatrical practice and the Roman novel. He is one of the editors

(together with E. M. Harris and P. J. Rhodes) of Law and Drama in Ancient

Greece (Duckworth, forthcoming).

er a n a l m a g o r is a post-doctoral scholar based at the Hebrew University

of Jerusalem, Israel. His PhD dissertation (2007) was a historical and literary

commentray on Plutarch's Life of Artaxerxes. He is interested in Achaemenid

history, ancient ethnography, narratology in Plutarch and perceptions of the

"other" in ancient Classical and Jewish literature.

fr a n c e s b. Ti T c h e n e r is Professor of History and Classics at Utah State

University, USA. She has published research on the development of biography

and autobiography, as well as the works of Plutarch. She serves as International

Coordinator of the International Plutarch Society and co-editor of its journal,

Ploutarchos.

fr a n c e s c a m e s T r e has been Tenured Lecturer of Greek Philology at the

University of Barcelona since 1988. Her main elds of study are Greek

Literature in the Roman Empire, the Second Sophistic, authors such as

Lucian, Plutarch and Philostratus, historiography, and Hellenism. Since 2001

she has led the research group "Graecia Capta" on Greek culture under the

Roman Empire.

fr a n c e s c o b e c c h i is professor of Greek Language and Literature at Florence

University ("G. Pasquali" Dept. of Ancient Classics), Italy. He studied ethical

literature in its historical development from the classical to imperial age

(eophrastus, Stoics, Posidonius, Middle Platonism, Alcinous, Peripatetics,

Aspasius, Neopythagoreans, Plutarch of Chaeronea, Alexander of Aphrodisias,

Galenus). Among his works on Plutarch, he has published a critical edition

with introduction, translation and commentary of the De virtute morali and of

the De fortuna.

fr a n c o f e r r a r i is full professor of the history of ancient philosophy at the

University of Salerno. He has a PhD in Philosophy (University of Torino:

1993) and in History (University of San Marino: 1997). He was Alexander-

von-Humboldt Fellow at the University of Mรผnster in Germany (1997-1999),

where he worked on the project "Der Platonismus in der Antike" directed by

Matthias Baltes. Since 1999 he has been teaching at the University of Salerno.

He is member of the Editorial Board of the International Plato Society and of

the Academia Platonica.

fr e d e r i c k e. br e n k is Emeritus Professor of the Greek and Roman

Background of the Old and New Testament at the Pontical Biblical Institute

in Rome. He has written many articles on Plutarch, in particular on the

Moralia, and several monographs treating Plutarch, along with Greek and

Roman literature, religion, and philosophy, especially during the rst century.

ge e r T r o s k a m is research professor at K.U. Leuven. He has published

extensively on Hellenistic and Middle Platonist philosophy, including On the

Path to Virtue. e Stoic Doctrine of Moral Progress and its Reception in (Middle-)

Platonism (2005), Lathe biรดsas. On the Vicissitudes of an Epicurean Doctrine

(2007), A Commentary on Plutarch's De latenter vivendo (2007), and Plutarch's

Maxime cum principibus philosopho esse disserendum. An Interpretation with

Commentary (2009).

ge n n a r o d'ip p o l i T o teaches Greek literature at the Facoltร  di Lettere e

Filosoa of the University of Palermo. He has published widely on poetry

(Homer and the minor poets, Mimnermus, Euripides, Callimachus, Pantaleon,

Gregory of Nazianzus, Synesius, Tryphiodorus, Nonnus, Kavas, Seferis, Elytis)

and, in the area of prose writing, on the novel and especially on Plutarch. He

has participated in 15 conferences on Plutarch and is a Council member of the

Italian section of the IPS. Moreover, he is co-director of the Corpus Plutarchi

Moralium, which is being published at Naples.

is r a e l m u รฑ o z g a l l a r T e is PhD Researcher of Greek Religion at

Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, e Netherlands. He has done research on

semantic of New Testament Greek and on Plutarch, esp. on historical and

religious topics.

Ja m e s T. c h l u p is Assistant Professor of Ancient History at the University of

Manitoba. In addition to Plutarch, his research interests include Greek and

Latin historiography and the Roman Middle East. He has written articles on

ucydides and Livy, and it currently working on a commentary on Plutarch's

Life of Crassus.

Je f f r e y b e n e k e r is assistant professor of Classics at the University of

Wisconsin in Madison.

Je r o e n la u W e r s is currently preparing his PhD as a research assistant of the

Research Foundation Flanders. His research revolves around authorial self-

presentation and the use of authority in Imperial Greek Literature (the era

of the so-called 'Second Sophistic'), with a particular interest in Maximus of

Tyre.

Jo a q u i m J. s. pi n h e i r o is Assistant Professor of Classics and Humanistic

Studies at Madeira University, Portugal. In 2007 he nished his PhD thesis

on Time and Space of Paideia in Plutarch's Lives. Presently he is member of the

Project Plutarch and the Founding of an European Identity and he also conducts

research in Greek literature and culture, especially on political thought,

education and rhetoric.

Jo s รฉ an T o n i o f e r n รก n d e z d e l g a d o is Professor of Greek Philology at the

University of Salamanca (Spain). He has been the head of nine research projects

nanced by the Spanish Ministry and the Government of Castilla and Leรณn,

by which his research team has been recognised as Group of Excellence. He has

supervised ten Ph. D. eses, has participated in more than 30 International

Congresses, and has occupied important posts in the University Government.

He has done research mainly on Hesiod and Archaic and Classical poetry, on

dierent texts about Greek education, on school inuence on Greek literature,

and on Plutarch from this and other points of view.

Jo s e f a f e r n รก n d e z z a m b u d i o works on the web page http://interclassica.

um.es, which is concerned with the study and diusion of the ancient Greek

and Roman worlds. She has done research on ancient biography, especially

the Lives of Homer and Alexander the Great, and is currently working on the

inuence of ancient mythology in Sor Juana Inรฉs de la Cruz.

Jo s รฉ m a r รญ a c a n d a u m o r รณ n is Professor of Greek Philology at Seville

University, Spain. He has done research on Greek historiography, Plutarch and

Julian the Apostate and has published translations into Spanish of Zosimus,

Cassius Dio and Polybius.

Jo s รฉ ve l a Te J a d a is Permanent Professor of Greek Philology at the University

of Zaragoza, Spain. He has done research on the history of the Greek language

(koinรฉ and atticism), Greek historiography, especially Xenophon, and on

Plutarch by attending ve conferences of the IPS, contributing to the Studies

in honour of Prof. Stadter and editing the Proceedings of the 5th Spanish

Conference of the IPS.

la W r e n c e k i m is Assistant Professor of Classics at the University of Texas at

Austin. His research focuses on Greek literature under the Roman Empire and

his publications include articles on the ancient novel, Strabo, Dio Chrysostom,

and Atticism. His book, Homer between History and Fiction in Imperial Greece

is forthcoming from Cambridge University Press.

ll u รญ s g o n z ร  l e z J u l i ร  is preparing his PhD thesis at the University of

Barcelona, Spain, on Lucian's declamations. He conducts research on ancient

education, rhetoric, and declamation.

lu k a s d e b l o i s has been since 1980 professor of ancient history at the

Radboud University of Nijmegen in e Netherlands. He published books

and articles on the history of the Roman Empire in the third century A.D., the

history of the Late Roman Republic, ancient historiography (Sallust, Tacitus,

Cassius Dio), Plutarch's works, and Greek Sicily in the fourth century B.C.

He has also published a manual, together with R.J. van der Spek (English ed.:

L. de Blois & R.J. van der Spek, Introduction to the Ancient World, Routledge,

London/ New York, 2nd ed. 2008, 1st ed. 1997). He is a member of the editorial

board of the international network Impact of Empire (Roman Empire, 200

B.C. – A. D. 476).

ma n u e l T r รถ s T e r studied History and Politics at Trier, London, and

Cambridge, writing his doctoral thesis on emes, Character, and Politics in

Plutarch's Life of Lucullus (Stuttgart, 2008). He currently holds a postdoctoral

fellowship funded by the DAAD at Coimbra University. His principal elds of

research are Roman Republican history, Plutarch's Lives, and foreign relations

in the ancient and modern worlds.

ma r i a le o n o r sa n T a bรก r b a r a is professor of Greek and Greek Literature

at the Faculdade de Ciรชncias Sociais e Humanas of the Universidade Nova de

Lisboa. She is also responsible for the research group of Studies on Antiquity,

at the Centro de Histรณria da Cultura of the same University. She has been

working mainly on the Hellenistic age, namely on the Greek Anthology.

ma r k b e c k is Assistant Professor of Classics at the University of South

Carolina in Columbia, South Carolina, USA. He has published numerous

articles on Plutarch and is currently working on a monograph Distinguishing

the Individual: Ideology and Individuality in Ancient Greek Biography and is

editor of the forthcoming Blackwell Companion to Plutarch.

ma r T a i s a b e l d e o l i v e i r a v รก r z e a s is professor of Classical Studies at the

Faculty of Humanities of the University of Oporto. Her area of research covers

Greek Literature, Rhetoric and Poetics.

nu n o s i m รต e s r o d r i g u e s has a PhD in Classical History and is Professor of

Classical History at the University of Lisbon. He has published Mitos e Lendas

da Roma Antiga (Lisboa, 2005) and Iudaei in Vrbe. Os Judeus em Roma do tempo

de Pompeio ao tempo dos Flรกvios (Lisboa, 2007).

pa o l a v o l p e c a c c i a T o r e is Professor of Greek at Salerno University, Italy.

She has done research on Byzantine philology, Attic theater, Plutarch and

humanistic translations from Greek texts. At present, she is engaged in the

critical edition of Aeschylus' Persae. She is President of the Italian section of

the International Plutarch Society.

ph i l i p a. s T a d T e r is Professor of Classics Emeritus at the University

of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He has published extensively on Greek

historical authors, especially Plutarch, including A Commentary on Plutarch's

Pericles (Chapel Hill, 1989), Plutarch and the Historical Tradition (London,

1992) and introductions and notes to Plutarch, Nine Greek Lives (Oxford,

1998) and Plutarch, Eight Roman Lives (Oxford, 1999).

pi l a r gรณ m e z has been Tenured Lecturer of Greek Philology at the University

of Barcelona since 1988. She has published on the Greek fable and Aesop, as

well as on Plutarch, Lucian and the Second Sophistic. She is a member of the

research group "Graecia Capta".

ro d o l f o g o n z รก l e z e q u i h u a is currently studying for his Ph.D. degree

at the University of Salamanca. He is working on the reception of the full

progymnasmata in Heliodoros.

ro d o l f o l o p e s is a researcher in the Centro de Estudos Clรกssicos e

Humanรญsticos at the University of Coimbra. He is currently preparing a

doctoral thesis on the myths of Plato.

ro o s e v e l T a r a รš J o r o c h a J รš n i o r is Professor of Greek at the Universidade

Federal do Paranรก, in Curitiba (Paranรก – Brazil). For his Ph.D. thesis, he made

a translation into Portuguese of the Plutarchean work De musica, together with

notes and a study of important aspects of this work. He is researching on

ancient Greek music and archaic Greek poetry (lyric, elegy and iambus), and

working on translations into Portuguese of authors such as Aristoxenus and

some lyric poets (Stesichorus, Alcman, Alcaeus, etc.).

ro s a r i o sc a n n a p i e c o has achieved a "PhD" in Classical Philology at the

Universitร  degli Studi di Salerno; his studies concern Greek prose of the

Imperial period, especially Dio Chrysostom's and Plutarch's, in both its

contents and textual aspects.

si m o n e b e T a is currently Research Assistant of Classical Philology in the

Department of Classical Studies at the University of Siena (Italy). His research

interests include classical theatre (mainly Greek comedy and its reception),

Greek epigrams and novels, rhetoric, wine, and symposium. He is the author

of Il linguaggio nelle commedie di Aristofane (Rome, 2004); he has also published

Vino e poesia. Centocinquanta epigrammi greci sul vino, an anthology of Greek

epigrams on wine (Milan, 2006), and I comici greci, an anthology of Greek

comic fragments (Milan, 2009).

sT e p h e n T. n e W m y e r is Professor of Classics and Chairman of the Department

of Classics at Duquesne University in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA. He is

author of a number of studies of Plutarch's attitudes toward animals, viewed

both in their ancient context and in their relation to modern animal rights

philosophy.

sv e n -T a g e T e o d o r s s o n is Professor of Greek at Gรถteborg University,

Sweden. He has done reseach on the history of the Greek language (phonology),

Anaxagoras' theory of matter, and on Plutarch, especially a Commentary on

his Table Talks.

Ti m o T h y e. du f f is Reader in Classics at the University of Reading. His

publications include Plutarch's Lives: Exploring Virtue and Vice (Oxford

University Press 1999).

T o n i b a d n a l l is a University Teacher in Greek Literature at the University

of Nottingham, where she nished her PhD in 2008. Her research interests

focus on gender in Greek literature, and her thesis examined the function of

the wedding song in Greek literature and culture. is has inspired her interest

in แผ”ฯฯ‰ฯ‚ and gender relations in later Greek prose, and her project will explore

the construction of gender in Plutarch.

v a l e r i y a l i k i n , born in Kemerovo, Russia, is currently a PhD researcher of

the Faculty of Humanities at Leiden University, Netherlands. He does research

in the area of early Christianity and the Graeco-Roman world. He has several

forthcoming publications on the history of early Christian gatherings and

Church History.

vi c e n T e ra m รณ n p a l e r m is Associate Professor (Profesor Titular) of Greek

Philology at Zaragoza University, Spain. He is currently working on Greek

historiography and Greek literature of the classical period. His main focus is

on Plutarch. He is presently Secretary of the Spanish Section of the I.P.S.

ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.