Quaestiones Convivales Research Articles

Epicurus at Plutarch’s dinner table: a tale of after-dinner sex and questionable polemics (Quaest. conv. III, 6)

The present article deals with the sixth quaestio of Book III in Plutarch’s Quaestiones convivales, which revolves around Epicurus’ claim that it is physically harmful to have sexual intercourse after dinner. After an appraisal of the Epicurean dictum itself, I argue that Plutarch’s final interlocutor, Soclarus, incorporates several polemical anti-Epicurean arguments into his speech, which can also be found elsewhere in Plutarch’s anti-Epicurean writings. Ultimately, I try to establish to what extent Soclarus’ response to Epicurus’ theory conforms to the exigencies of intellectual honesty.

Counting the Letters of the Alphabet. A Reading of Plutarch, Quaestiones convivales 9.3

The last book of Plutarch’s Quaestiones convivales contains several discussions of literary and grammatical topics. The present article focuses on Quaest. conv. 9.3, which deals with the number of the letters in the alphabet. This question is raised by ‘Plutarch’ to Hermeias the geometer. It is first argued that this qualifies as an excellent sympotic question (according to Plutarch’s own standards). Then, attention is given to the solution proposed by ‘Plutarch’ himself (738DE), to the learned reply by Hermeias (738EF), and to the final critical evaluation by Zopyrio (738F-739A). This detailed interpretation of the Quaestio should help in revealing the argumentative dynamics of Plutarch’s philosophical approach in the Quaestiones convivales.

Singing to the Wind

Abstract This paper focuses on a passage of Himerius’ Oration 47 (Simon. fr. 251 Poltera = 535 PMG + p. 157 SLG), where Simonides is cited for a song that leads a ship with favourable winds, and on a passage in Plutarch’s Quaestiones Convivales (722b–c) quoting a Simonidean fragment (17 Poltera = 595 PMG) on the propagation of sounds through still air. I argue that they both can be linked with the Argonautic myth of Orpheus. In fact, the former might have some connections with the myth of Oreithyia and Boreas, parents of Zetes and Kalaïs, involved in the Argonautic expedition; moreover, it has some similarities with a fragment from Euripides’ Hypsipyle (752g Kannicht) representing Orpheus on the Argo. The latter fragment, in its turn, seems to refer to Orpheus’ encounter with the Sirens, and to presuppose common assumptions that were later examined and better developed by Aristotle and his school.

CHANCE (τύχη), FATE (εἱµαρµένη), 'WHATDEPENDS ON US' (τὸ ἐφ' ἡµῖν) AND PROVIDENCE (πρόνοια) IN PLUTARCH'S QUAESTIONES CONVIVALES

ABSTRACT One of the many philosophical issues discussed throughout Plutarch's Quaestiones convivales (QC) has to do with the origin and inner structure of the universe, i.e., cosmological discussions. It would be impossible to discuss in detail every passage of the treatise that deals with cosmological issues. Therefore, I chose to limit my analysis to the concepts of chance (τύχη), fate (εἱμαρμένη), ‘what depends on us ’ (τὸ ἐφ' ἡμῖν), and providence (πρóνoια). My purpose is to explain these concepts in the QC and to extract from them a cosmological doctrine.

Plutarch’s Sons- and Bothers-in-law

From the Consolatio uxoris we learn that Plutarch and Timoxena had one single daughter, who was born after four sons and only lived to be two years old. Since in the Quaestiones convivales we encounter three different characters (Craton, Firmus and Patrocleas) indicated as Plutarch’s gambroi, some critics state them to be his sons-in-law, thus supposing the existence of three married daughters; others prefer to consider them as the husbands of Plutarch’s nieces; still others reject both conclusions and think the term gambroi merely refers to “relatives” in general. A careful analysis of all the passages involved clearly shows, in the first place, that gambros can only refer to sons-in-law and brothersin- law, then that – in the case in hand – the three men were Plutarch’s brothersin- law: very probably three brothers of Timoxena.

Das Beste zum Schluss?

Abstract This paper analyses the particular composition of the last book of the Quaestiones Convivales and puts it in relation to the remaining eight books. The particularity of the 9th book can be seen at different levels. The prologue is the shortest one and has no educational goals in contrast to all preceding ones. There are more questions - 15 instead of 10 - and all of them belong to the same symposion. Accordingly there is a stable constellation of participants instead of a permanent changing of characters. In this particular structure the last book should be placed near to the classical symposia of Plato and Xenophon, while the first eight books have a strong proximity to the problemata literature. A close look at the content shows an interesting development: There is no friendly conversation at the beginning, but disconnected and chaotic discussions, so the symposiarch Ammonios and other participants like Plutarch have to apply all their knowledge on symposia to achieve a friendly atmosphere. There are no programmatic discourses on symposia but a display of all necessary skills. Therefore the last book of the Quaestiones Convivales can be seen as a last examination for the reader and an opportunity to polish his learned symposiac skills. The dramatic time of this last symposion is set in the young days of Plutarch, when he was a student in Athens. He is one of the young participants, his master Ammonios is the host.While Ammonios plays the role of an alter Socrates, Plutarch as his pupil acts as a symposiast-to-be. In this way Plutarch illustrates in this last book the first step of his path to knowledge and presents himself as a worthy successor of Ammonios in sympotic competence.

The Pleasures of Lyric in Plutarch’s Hierarchies of Taste

AbstractIn his Quaestiones Convivales, a sympotic text recounting more than 75 purportedly historical banquets set in Rome and Greece, Plutarch represents intellectuals engaging with early lyric (melic, iambic, and elegiac poetry) as they express broader views about aesthetic taste. In contrast to Homeric poetry, which is commonly quoted by all characters in the symposium but proportionally more by lower-ranking participants, those who quote lyric appear to be exclusively individuals of higher status. The paper provides specific metrics that further illuminate this phenomenon, and it makes a number of suggestions regarding the relationship between literary taste and social status in Plutarch’s Quaestiones Convivales.

Plutarchus’ borrelpraat?

Summary This article aims to assess the humoristic qualities of Plutarch’s Quaestiones Convivales. Although ostensibly a serious piece, the Table Talk, an extensive prose work which treats dozens of subjects suitable for a traditional symposium in the shape of elaborated Q&A, often suggests that its serious nature is not always to be taken at face value. Quite a number of subjects appear to be only mock serious, which yields a colourful sympotic staging where the participants join this game of tongue-in-cheek seriousness, as depicted by Plutarch, based on his own experiences. Overall, serious subjects are treated lightly, whereas ludicrous subjects are given scholarly – often fussy – treatment, with both approaches equally contributing to an air of funny playfulness. Rather than considering the Quaestiones Convivales a mere treasure trove for historic or cultural realia, or as a work primarily reflecting pedagogical or philosophical ideas, it is worthwhile to read the Table Talk for what it also is: a reflection of humor within its own context.

Homer and the Good Ruler in Antiquity and Beyond ed. by Jacqueline Klooster and Baukje van den Berg

Reviewed by: Homer and the Good Ruler in Antiquity and Beyond ed. by Jacqueline Klooster and Baukje van den Berg Scott Goins Homer and the Good Ruler in Antiquity and Beyond. Edited by Jacqueline Klooster and Baukje van den Berg. Mnemosyne Supplements 413. Leiden, NE and Boston, MA: Brill, 2018. Pp. x + 293. Hardback, $119. ISBN: 978-90-04- 36581-0. This fine collection of papers examines the Homeric poems as Mirrors for Princes. Although other works have studied pedagogical aspects of the Homeric poems, there has been no full-scale examination of Homer as an educator for rulers. The present study presents many facets of the topic, ranging from Homer’s original pedagogical intent, to classical, medieval and modern views of Homer as a guide for those in positions of authority. In their Introduction, the editors note the emphasis the ancients placed on Homer as an educator. While observing that the Iliad and the Odyssey have a greater scope than serving simply as Mirrors for Princes, Klooster and van den Berg show that many passages in the poems have clear educational intent. Homer’s applicability for kingly education is the focus of the first article, in which Irene de Jong shows that the Homeric poems are replete with advice given to the young by a father or a father-figure. De Jong interestingly notes that the paternal (or quasi-paternal) advice often has negative consequences. The piety of Homeric kings is the subject of the following essay by Will Desmond, who focuses on the king’s numinous status. Desmond contends that Homer is most interested in extraordinary figures like Achilles and Odysseus, who “begin to take on aspects of the separate numinous types, and become alternately warrior, bard, prophet, and priest” (53). The book next turns to Homeric reception in antiquity. Jacqueline Klooster surveys interpretations of Phoenix’ ideal of the hero as a “speaker of words and a doer of deeds” (Iliad 9. 443). Examining several sources, she notes that ancient authors interpreted Phoenix’ words positively but often misapplied them in debates over the value of rhetoric and the nature of virtue. Patrick Lake next looks at Plato’s ambivalent attitudes towards Homer. Lake examines several Platonic quotations of Homer and notes that Plato does not dismiss the value of the poet. Instead Plato frequently “misappropriated and misinterpreted” (102) Homer’s [End Page 254] words in making his philosophical points. Misinterpreting Homer is also the subject of Elsa Bouchard’s essay on how ancient scholars viewed the apparent failures of Agamemnon as a leader. In their enthusiasm for authority, exegetes including Aristotle and Porphyry would go to extraordinary lengths to rehabilitate Agamemnon’s actions. Next, Maria Gerolemou examines how the wandering Odysseus is treated as an ideal for the ruler in Polybius’ Histories. Polybius saw Odysseus as a model for traveling rulers and generals, particularly in times of war. Like Odysseus, who was adaptable and observant, leaders such as Hannibal and Scipio are cognizant of the topography of areas where they will do battle. Jeffrey Fish’s following article on Philodemus’ On the Good King According to Homer is especially rewarding, since it examines new texts of Philodemus that Fish is editing. In Philodemus the Homeric king is a model of the Epicurean ruler, who cultivates friendship, peace and sobriety. The theme of virtuous simplicity as depicted by Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Virgil and others is the subject of the next essay by Casper de Jonge. De Jonge links Dionysius’ praise of the simple life as depicted in the Odyssey with the Augustan emphasis on simplicity. David Driscoll follows with a chapter on how intellectuals use Homer to engage in repartee with rulers in Plutarch’s Quaestiones Convivales. Driscoll claims that these scholars are ultimately depicted as petty in trying to make capital of their erudition. Elina Pyy’s article on the heroic ideal as seen in Silius Italicus’ Punica contends that Silius values most aspects of the Homeric heroic code but rejects the primacy given to earning glory. The heroes depicted in the Punica fill the heroic ideal only partially. Pyy sees the Punica as reflecting “Lucanian cynicism” and “the inevitable yet deplorable decline...

Quaestiones Convivales: Plutarch’s Sense of Humour as Evidence of his Platonism

AbstractGiven Plutarch’s fragmentary piece on Aristophanes and Menander (Mor. 853A–854D), a piece ofTable Talkon almost the same topic (Mor. 711A–713F) and various attacks on comic poets scattered through theLives, one might believe that Plutarch is a staid, conservative and humourless author. But several other instances in his writings reveal a playful, facetious, witty and humorous Plutarch. This paper will focus on theQuaestiones Convivales, which bear ample witness to this aspect of Plutarch’s personality and authorial technique. It will examine the ways in which he introduces and describes the various interlocutors, discuss certain comments (or arguments) with which he tries to ridicule his philosophical opponents, notably the Stoics and the Epicureans, try to distinguish the various manifestations of Plutarch’s humour (spontaneous reaction, literary device, pleasantry, witticism, irony) and finally suggest that Plutarch’s stance and attitude towards playfulness, comic situations and laughter may ultimately be affected, at least in part, by his allegiance to Plato.

The ''Divine'' Plato among Greeks and Romans: Banquet Literature and the Making of Cultural Memory in the ''Graeco-Roman'' Empire

Paradigmatic figures and memorable episodes from the Greek and Roman past are one of the key materials which underlie the discussions performed in Plutarch’s Quaestiones convivales. In this learned polyphony, largely based on the conversation with ancient authors (hoi palaioi), the “divine Plato” (Per., 8, 2), celebrated as “a philosopher pre-eminent in reputation and in influence” (QC, 700B), assumes the role of a “patron saint” of a new Mediterraneanwide Greek culture. In the opening prologues as in the narrative sequences and the intellectual and ritual practices outlined in this work, Plato emerges as one of the main references of Plutarch’s sympotic community. Through the analysis of this tutelary figure and its cultural significance in the Quaestiones convivales, this paper aims at emphasising the dynamics and strategies which support the making of a shared cultural memory within the Graeco-Roman “Republic of Letters”.

Plutarch’s Sympotic Forge and a Variant Reading in P.Oxy. LXXVIII 5156

AbstractP.Oxy. LXVIII 5156, a second century witness to Plutarch’s Quaestiones Convivales, reads τηρε[ῖ instead of the mediaeval manuscripts’ ποιεῖ at 660 c 7. The passage suggests a parallel between the effect of conversation on wine drinking and that of marble on heated iron during a puzzling metallurgical process. In this paper we identify and explain this process in the context of ancient ironworking technology, and discuss the two readings and their implications for the understanding of the simile.

Matching in Mind the Sea Beast’s Complexion. On the Pragmatics of Plutarch′s Hypomnemata and Scientific Innovation: The Case of Q. N. 19 (916 BF)

Abstract This article is devoted to Plutarch’s natural-philosophical interests and aspirations, as expressed more precisely in his collection of Quaestiones Naturales, which has been generally underestimated by scholars. In order to speculate about the actual position of this collection in the Corpus Plutarcheum, I present a case study of one particular problem, viz. Q.N. 19 (916BF). In the first part of the article, the scope is primarily confined to the traditional sources on which Plutarch relies, but I also take into account Plutarch’s conception of scientific innovation, as it is formulated in Quaestiones convivales. In the second part, I deal with the problematic degree of moral dynamics and literary stylistics, which are, in the main, absent from Quaestiones Naturales. I analyse a cluster of parallel passages (De soll. an. 978EF; De am. mult. 96F–97A; De ad. et am. 51D–53D; Alc. 23, 4–5) by way of contrast to Q.N. 19. This yields insight into Plutarch’s argumentative tactics and his process of writing and rewriting, with a particular focus on his use of ὑπομνήματα. On chronological grounds, I argue that at a certain point Plutarch bears the hypomnematic material of Q.N. 19 in his topical mind, but also that there are certain indications that Q.N. 19 itself is based on other ὑπομνήματα, which in turn provides new material for speculating about the true nature of Quaestiones Naturales as a “collection of notes” and about what the actual range of this label might be.

Homère dans les Quaestiones convivales

Res_eng:Homer is frequently mentioned in the Quaestiones Convivales, both explicitly and implicitly. The aim of this study is to analyse these instances or allusions – not comprehensively, since they number almost one hundred – and to verify the degree of fi delity in the offered quotations and interpretations of the Homeric text; I try also to understand, if possible, the purposes to which these quotations are due. On acccount of the extensive corpus, I will limit myself to little more than notes and examples. But they will let us to conclude that the references to the Iliad and the Odyssey, and the quotations of lines from these poems, appear in varied contexts and situations, illustrating different types of statement and endorsing opinions, even in insignifi cant and pointless questions.

Negotiating Diaspora: Jewish Strategies in the Roman Empire (review)

Reviewed by: Negotiating Diaspora: Jewish Strategies in the Roman Empire Louis H. Feldman Negotiating Diaspora: Jewish Strategies in the Roman Empire, edited by John M. G. Barclay. Library of Second Temple Studies, 45. London: T & T Clark International, 2004. 161 pp. $49.95. This is a collection of six essays originally presented at a conference at the University of Glasglow in 2001. They are built around three themes: local and translocal identities, clarity and ambiguity in cultural expression, and power and the politics of representation as seen in Josephus' essay Against Apion. As Barclay points out in his insightful introduction, these essays serve as a background for numerous global diasporas in our own day, and, in particular, dual identities of peoples removed from their original homeland. Margaret Williams, "Being a Jew in Rome: Sabbath Fasting as an Expression of Romano-Jewish Identity," boldly argues that the references in Augustus, Pompeius Trogus, Petronius, and Martial to fasting on the Sabbath reflect the actual practice of Jews in Rome in contrast to the practice of Jews elsewhere. Inasmuch as, however, rabbis from Palestine frequently visited Rome during the first century, we may object that it seems unlikely that they would not have noted and commented upon such a deviation from the rabbinic insistence that fasting on the Sabbath is prohibited. Moreover, nowhere in rabbinic literature do we hear that the Roman Jews or Jews in any other area had this or any other peculiar practice. Furthermore, Ovid (Ars Amatoria 1.416) and Plutarch (Quaestiones Convivales 4.6.2.671D–672A) describe the Sabbath as a day of feasting. We may suggest that the origin of the view that the Sabbath is a fast day may be due to the fact that the Sabbath is viewed, quite correctly, as a day of abstention from work; and the word nesteia (which means both "fasting" and "abstention"), as used by Strabo (16.2.40.763), who was not a Roman, in reference to the Jews' abstention from work on the day that Jerusalem [End Page 146] was captured by Pompey in 63 B.C.E., came to be understood as a day of abstention in general. Sarah Pearce, "Jerusalem as 'Mother-City' in the Writings of Philo of Alexandria," insists that there is no tension between the notion of Jerusalem as mother-city and Alexandria as home. The fact that Apion accused the Alexandrian Jews of having a dual allegiance, that a bitter pogrom that broke out when the Jewish king Agrippa I visited Alexandria in 38, and that, as Pearce notes, Philo himself (In Flaccum, 46) says that the Alexandrian Jews regard Jerusalem as their mother-city would seem to argue otherwise. Alexander Panayotov, "The Jews in the Balkan Provinces of the Roman Empire: The Evidence from the Territory of Bulgaria," commenting on new evidence of Jewish inscriptions from Bulgaria dating from a period between the third and sixth centuries, notes the acculturation of the Jews, in that while drawing on biblical tradition in the depiction of the menorah, the Jews often had dual names, biblical and Greek, and used inscriptional formulae reminiscent of the non-Jewish environment. But, as Panayotov correctly realizes, it would be premature to draw conclusions as to the degree of acculturation on the basis of so few inscriptions. Paul Trebilco, "The Christian and Jewish Eumeneian Formula," comments on the ambiguous language of this standard formula in inscriptions found in Eumeneia in central Asia Minor, which warns a would-be grave robber that "he will have to reckon with G-d." He convincingly concludes that it is likely that both Jews and Christians used this formula, and he suggests that this may indicate that there may have been close relations between Christians and Jews during this period, especially since we have evidence in the fourth-century Council of Laodicea that a number of Christians had adopted Jewish practices. James S. McLaren, "Constructing Judaean History in the Diaspora: Josephus's Accounts of Judas," theorizes that Josephus used Judas the Galilean and the creation of the so-called "fourth philosophy" as scapegoats, as a means of diverting responsibility for the revolt against Rome from himself and his colleagues and from Jerusalem and...

Grasping the Pangolin: Sensuous Ambiguity in Roman Dining

This chapter examines the cultural geography of Roman dining, arguing that the food, seating arrangements, entertainment, and decoration of triclinia worked together to construct the body as more than a "slightly porous jug" (M. Douglas). The half-open body in Plutarch's Quaestiones Convivales and Petronius's Satyricon is compared to the treatment of the wall surface as membrane in fourth-style painting: both types of evidence point to dining as a process of unwrapping the body/self from layers of formal deportment. Neither simple decadence nor Bakhtinian carnival, dining functions as a dynamic metaphor for social change in the early empire.

PLUTARCH’S TABLE TALK

This volume concludes T.'s commentary on Plutarch's Quaestiones convivales; in my opinion it is noticeably superior to its two predecessors. Whether owing to the time elapsed (vol. 2 appeared in 1990) or because the author took seriously into account former reviews, this volume is both more readable and more diversified in its approach. To begin with, T. has now supplied each Talk with a brief but lucid and most useful introduction (omission of the titles of the individual Talks is, however, somewhat inconvenient). In each introduction he designates the place and the dramatic date of the Talk, gives information about the participants, summarizes the contents, and underscores the main points of interest or any relevant problems. The Commentary basically follows the methodological lines of the previous volumes, but here the author, apart from proposing interesting emendations and giving illustrative parallels, which testify to his solid philological background and scholarly expertise, also discusses with competence-and more extensively, I think, than before-the various philosophical, literary, and scientific topics of the Quaestiones. His comments on 7.5 (the pleasures from degenerate music), 7.8 (the appropriate dinner entertainment), 8.2 (God is always doing geometry), 8.8 (the Pythagorean fish taboo), 8.9 (the causes of new diseases), and 9.14 (about the Muses) are especially profound and illuminating. However, the lemmata could have been more concise had T. avoided some unnecessary repetitions. He did not need, for instance, to keep explaining why emendations or conjectures that have not passed muster are wrong or superfluous; he could have been more sparing in quoting lengthy passages and, perhaps, avoided altogether printing more than one parallel from the same work of the same author (pp. 81, 94 etc.). Occasionally, the same quotation is printed twice (a Theophrastean passage in two successive entries on p. 209, Galen 1.522 on pp. 292, 294); some lemmata are also unnecessarily repeated (e.g. 8atrv,ovaS, vol. II, p. 23 and vol. III, p. 103); the no doubt correct observation that Plutarch was fond of seafaring images occurs more than ten times (coupled with the reference to Fuhrmann's book). T. is very well-read in secondary literature (yet I saw no reference to Griffiths's commentary on De Iside, although several instances would call for it), but sometimes the bibliography he gives is clearly outdated (p. 134: Becker 1854; p. 247: Griechische Altertumer 1873; p. 256: Barth 1849) or disproportionately extensive for the significance of the subject (on p. 311 he gives eight books and articles about pentathlon). Further, several bibliographical references are printed in full time and time again (e.g. Babut's book on Stoicism, Martin's Symposion, etc.), whereas, incidentally, some obscure ancient authors are referred to in an abbreviated form (e.g. Nicomach. Geras. on p. 326; no full name in the indices). A separate Literatur Verzeichnis that would have lightened the lemmata is lacking. The book closes with two indices, one of English and one of Greek words, which, being short and deficient, do injustice, I am afraid, to the toil and contributions of the author. There is no separate index of proper names, and while there are superfluous names in both indices, many are missing altogether (e.g. Diogenianos, Protogenes,

ΣTaΣIΣ-Theory in Homeric Commentary

(i) Analysis of the small number of references to the rhetorical theory of stasis (issue-theory) in the Homeric scholia shows that they assume a modified version of the theory of Athenaeus, a contemporary and rival of Hermagoras of Temnos. (ii) In his discussion of Agamemnon's speech in Iliad 3.456-60 Eustathius follows the discussion in Plutarch Quaestiones convivales 9.13, rather than that in the scholia. It is shown that this is justified on technical grounds. The interpretation in the scholia does not fit Agamemnon's speech, and must have originated in a discussion of the attested Homeric 'problem' concerning claims that the Trojans had broken their oath.

Grammatikoi and grammatistai: Teacher of Literature at Ammonius' Table (Plut. QC IX)

Grammatikoi and grammatistai: Teacher of Literature at Ammonius' Table (Plut. QC IX)
 In a vivid contrast to the less rigorous attitude displayed in other parts of the work, Book Nine of Plutarch’s Quaestiones convivales describes a single banquet: held in the house of the Athenian philosopher Ammonius, the banquet is held in honor of the Muses – in accordance with this aim, it is attended by the most learned among the Athenian society, the best of Athenian teachers. As I have discussed the contents as well as the actual structure of the book elsewhere (Komorowska 2014), it seems advisable to supplement that particular discussion with a consideration of yet another aspect, an aspect of particular importance given the theme of the present volume: with a roomful of teachers, it would be interesting to inquire into the possible peculiarities of their portrayal. My focus, however, will be on the single and possibly most colorful group attending the banquet, i.e. the grammarians, as set against the background of the two personages of particular importancein Plutarch’s narrative, namely the host, Ammonius, and the one often hidden behind the tale, but frequently present within the tale, i.e. Plutarch himself. A methodological caveat should be however signaled right at the beginning: my interest lies with a literary portrayal rather than factual reference, which effectively means that regardless of their possible ‘reality’ the personae of Plutarch’s will be considered as prosopa of the narrative2, the internal dynamics governing their mutual interactions carefully traced in order to reconstruct something of the Cheronean’s attitude towards various academic disciplines as present in QC IX. By necessity, such a discussion will involve some narratological inquires relating both to the execution of actual narrative incl. authorial/narratorial choices involved and to the persona of the narrator.

Notes on the Text of Plutarch's Quaestiones Convivales

Notes on the Text of Plutarch's <i>Quaestiones Convivales</i>