«Symposion» and «Philanthropia» in Plutarch - Bad Request ...

Geert Roskamgarlands (645D-646A). Plutarch immediately makes it clear that such areaction is unnecessary: Ammonius is just making fun of the company (645D:ἐπέσκωψε) and merely introduces the issue for the sake of exercise and inquiry(646A: γυμνασίας ἕνεκα καὶ ζητήσεως). At a symposion of Plutarch’s father,likewise in Athens, the host raises the question of why sweet new wine isleast intoxicating (655EF). Again, most students are embarrassed, coming nofurther than being baffled by what they regard as paradoxical and incredible(655F), although in this case two of them (Hagias and Aristaenetus) dotheir best to provide a plausible explanation (655F-656A). When Lucaniusentertains Plutarch’s friends in Corinth, finally, the discussion is about theuse of the pine as the victor’s garland at the Isthmia. An unnamed professorof rhetoric, well-known for his familiarity with literature, points out that theancients used celery rather than the pine and argues his point by means of awhole series of quotations (676C-E). In this case, too, the young are impressedby the rhetorician’s great learning and wide reading (676E) and once again,one of the older, learned participants (here the host himself ) has to intervenein order to put things into perspective (676EF).Secondly, young people are – unsurprisingly – still represented asinsufficiently acquainted with ancient literature. We already saw how they wereimpressed by the wealth of quotations adduced by the rhetorician (676E).On another occasion, young men attacked Epicurus for having introducedin his Symposium a discussion about the proper time for coition. In their view,Epicurus gave evidence of extreme licentiousness by dealing with such a topicin the presence of young men and at a banquet (653BC). Such a criticism,however, is not merely cheap but even entirely unjustified, being based on utterignorance of the great literature of the past – both Xenophon’s Symposium(653C) and Zeno’s Republic (653E) deal with similar topics – and on a carelessinterpretation of Epicurus’ position. Zopyrus thus undertakes the defence ofEpicurus and explains what the great philosopher of the Garden really wantedto say (653C-E). As a result, the young men are reduced to silence and thecompany goes on to discuss precisely this topic.Thirdly, the young give evidence of radicalness, which may be connectedwith their fresh enthusiasm for philosophy. When Philinus took some ofhis students to a banquet of Philo the physician, one of them refused to eatanything but bread (660D). This example is somewhat ambivalent, though,for the student’s behaviour is indirectly (and not without humour) attackedby the host and no less indirectly defended by Plutarch and Philinus. Theyoung man’s conduct shows a praiseworthy principled consistency, to be sure,but also a rigid inflexibility which hardly suits the sympotic conviviality andmay thus be regarded as παρὰ καιρόν. Elsewhere, such radicalness appearsin an even more negative light. At a dinner given by Aristion, the discussionis initiated by Niger. Before reporting the latter’s arguments, Plutarch givesa short characterisation of the young man: he happens to have returned froma brief course of instruction under a famous philosopher. The phrase χρόνονοὐ πολύν (692B) already suggests that Niger’s philosophical progress is at372