No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
III. Learning in Abundance: The Ramifications of Plutarch's Erudition
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 30 September 2021
Extract
The open-minded and penetrating search for the truth is the driving force of Plutarch's philosophy. Yet this search does not start from scratch: Plutarch knew very well that he was heir to an age-old tradition and it was never his ambition to re-invent the wheel. On the contrary, whether he was looking for the explanation of physical phenomena, discussing metaphysical questions, offering moral guidance, or dealing with history, he always tried to fall back on earlier insights. This, of course, does not imply that Plutarch was opposed to innovative answers (cf. Quaest. conv. 656D, where ‘Plutarch’ announces that he will ‘stir up something of his own’, ἴδιόν τι κινεῖν) but, for him, innovation should always be informed by a learned dialogue with the rich tradition. Sound philosophical zetesis, then, presupposes considerable erudition.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Classical Association 2021
References
1 A list of Plutarch's quotations can be found in Helmbold and O'Neil 1959 (although the list is not always reliable and notoriously incomplete on the Latin side). The abundance of quotations makes intertextuality an interesting hermeneutic tool for the interpretation of Plutarch's works; see, e.g., Gallo 2004; Sanz Morales et al. 2017; Schmidt et al. 2020.
2 On the complicated relation between the Apophthegmata collections and the Parallel Lives, see Pelling 2002: 65–90, and Stadter 2008 and 2014; see also below, Chapter V, §5.
3 And even, up to a certain extent, for his persona. On Plutarch's self-presentation in the Table Talk, see esp. Klotz 2007; J. König 2011; Vamvouri Ruffy 2012: 23–5; Egelhaaf-Gaiser 2013.
4 See Titchener 2011: 39: the Table Talk presents us with ‘what might have happened, could have happened, and periodically had in fact happened’. On the problem of the historicity of the Table Talk, see above, Chapter I, §3, with the literature mentioned in n. 19 of that chapter.
5 On Plutarch's place in Symposium literature, see Teodorsson 2009; Klotz and Oikonomopoulou 2011: 13–18; see also Roskam 2010 on Plutarch's reception of Plato's and Xenophon's Symposia. On the importance of the προβλήματα tradition for the Quaest. conv., see Klotz and Oikonomopoulou 2011: 18–21 (and, more generally, Harrison 2000; Oikonomopoulou 2013); on that of the miscellany, see Morgan 2011. Every study of Plutarch's Table Talk should start from the commentary of Teodorsson 1989, 1990, and 1996. Much valuable material can also be found in Montes Cala et al. 1999 and Ribeiro Ferreira et al. 2009.
6 The talk is discussed in Schenkeveld 1996 and Klotz 2014: 210–14.
7 These conversations also have a therapeutic dimension, as is shown by Vamvouri Ruffy 2011 and 2012.
8 Quaest. conv. 614E; 643B; 644F; 660B; 664D; 679A–B; 694B; 697D; Sept. sap. conv. 154D and 155C. Collaboration, of course, strengthens the bonds of friendship between all those present. On friendship as the final goal of the dinner parties, see Van der Stockt 2000a: 94.
9 Cf. J. König 2011: 195–202 and Oudot 2016: 13.
10 Cf. Vamvouri Ruffy 2012: 67–75.
11 In Plutarch's version, the Seven Sages are Anacharsis, Bias, Chilon, Cleobulus, Pittacus, Solon, and Thales. See Defradas 1954: 16–28 or Lo Cascio 1997: 39–65 for good overviews of all the characters of the dialogue. For Plutarch's creative and innovative reception of the tradition of the ‘Seven Sages’, see Leão 2008: 484–8 and 2009.
12 Other topics include love (Mossman 1997b: 126–34) and death (Jazdzewska 2013). On the motif of laughter in The Banquet of the Seven Sages, see Jazdzewska 2016.
13 Stamatopoulou 2014.
14 See, e.g., Aalders 1977 on the political philosophy of The Banquet of the Seven Sages.
15 This is a recurrent motif in the Table Talk, where grammarians frequently appear as ‘problem symposiasts’; see Eshleman 2013 (esp. 154–7 for an excellent discussion of the character of Theon in this talk).
16 The question is not discussed at length in the surviving collection of Problemata, but for several aspects of Theon's explanation parallels can be found there; see Teodorsson 1989: 148–50.
17 As elsewhere in the Quaestiones convivales: see Van der Stockt 2000a: 95; J. König 2011: 189; Stadter 2011: 245. On the many ‘disruptive symposia’ that appear in the Lives, see several contributions in Ribeiro Ferreira et al. 2009: 193–260.
18 See esp. J. Martin 1931: 127–39.
19 Oikonomopoulou 2011; Meeusen 2016: 67–75 and passim; cf. Kechagia 2011a: 97–9.
20 Meeusen 2013 and 2016: 264–74.
21 Kechagia 2011a: 95–6 and 99–104; Meeusen 2014: 331–4 and 2016: 321–8.
22 See Quaest. nat. 917C (two instances; the second one in particular is remarkable: ἢ καὶ τὸ λεγόμενον ὑπ᾿ Ἀριστοτέλους ἀληθές ἐστιν (‘or is what Aristotle says also true?’); cf. Meeusen 2016: 324); 919A; 919D. It also frequently appears in the Roman questions: 267E; 270B (ἢ καὶ τὸ τοῦ Θεμιστοκλέους ἔχει λόγον, ‘or does Themistocles’ saying make some sense too?’); 273E; 279E; 279F; 288B.
23 This is Atticus’ characterization of Aristotle (fr. 7.46–7).
24 Boys-Stones 1997a.
25 The first part of the work is still understudied, although much valuable work has been done by Görgemanns 1970 and Donini 2011b.
26 Donini 2011a: 327–39 and 2011b: 71–4 and passim; Opsomer 2017.
27 A topic that has especially been discussed by Newmyer (e.g. 2006 and 2014); see also Boulogne 2005 and Horky 2017.
28 See Jazdzewska 2009–10, who argues that Plutarch's view of hunting in this work should be understood in the light of his criticism of Roman venationes.
29 Newmyer 2014: 225. This holds true for Plutarch's philosophy of nature in general: see Meeusen 2014: 313–14 and Longo 1992: 229 (on On the principle of cold).
30 On the dialogue, see, e.g., Indelli 1995; Herchenroeder 2008; Konstan 2010–11; Horky 2017: 121–30.
31 See Teodorsson 1989: 155–6 for more details.
32 See also Eshleman 2013: 157–8 and 163–4 on the character of Marcus in this talk.
33 The anecdote is discussed in Meeusen 2016: 244–8.
34 On the educational aspects of the Table Talk, see, e.g., Roskam 2009a and Kechagia 2011a: 81–104; cf. Titchener 2011: 45.
35 Cf. Ammonius’ criticism of Plutarch's praise of the number five in De E 391E–F.
36 Plutarch also wrote Barbarian questions (Lamprias catalogue 139), but these have been lost; see Schmidt 2008 for a reconstruction.
37 Jazdzewska 2018. This work is seriously understudied. The seminal commentary remains Halliday 1928; much useful information can also be found in Payen 1998. On the importance of space and of the Delphic shrine in the work, see Oikonomopoulou 2017.
38 The Roman questions have received more scholarly attention; seminal studies are Rose 1924; Boulogne 1987, 1992, and 1994; see also Preston 2001; Mora 2007; Tatum 2014.
39 According to Scheid 2012, the Roman questions reflect a promenade past monuments in the centre of Rome. Plutarch indeed adopted a similar approach in That the Pythia now does not give her oracles in verse (see below, Chapter VII, §5), but there the characters systematically follow the Sacred Way. The walker who visits ancient Rome with the Roman questions as his or her guide travels many unnecessary miles.
40 Boulogne 1987: 472, 1992: 4707, and 1994.
41 Preston 2001. Preston's view is discussed by Brenk 2019.
42 In the Comp. Lyc. et Num. 1.10, Plutarch famously states that Numa was more Greek (ἑλληνικώτερον) than Lycurgus. For Plutarch's concern with Greek identity, see, e.g., Swain 1996; Goldhill 2001; Whitmarsh 2001.
43 Pelling 1989 and 2002: 339–47; Swain 1990 and 1996: 139–45.
44 Boulogne 1992: 4700; Darbo-Peschanski 1998: 25. We may add that, in the Roman questions, even more than in the Greek questions, the focus is on the present (Boulogne 1987: 471–2 and 1992: 4698–9; Payen 1998: 56–7 and 2014: 242).
45 See esp. De aud. poet. 19E–20B; Babut 1969b: 370–88.
46 The relation between Plutarch's position and that of Plato has often been discussed. Scholars have long underlined the differences between Plutarch (who was eager to benefit from what poetry had to offer) and Plato (who banishes the poets from his ideal state), but more recent discussions have shown the essential similarities between the views of both thinkers: see, e.g., Bréchet 1999; Zadorojnyi 2002; Hunter and Russell 2011: 3–9.
47 The list is briefly discussed in Marincola 1994: 195–6.
48 To the literature quoted in the next notes can be added, e.g., Russell 1972: 60; Wardman 1974: 191; Bowen 1992: 2; Marincola 1994: 191.
49 Ingenkamp 2016. See also Wardman 1974: 192; Teodorsson 1997: 443–5; Pelling 2002: 150–2 and 2007: 157–64; Dognini 2007: 501–2.
50 Ziegler 1951: 871; Swain 1997: 171–2; Teodorsson 1997: 440; Dognini 2007: 482.
51 Ziegler 1951: 871; Barrow 1967: 157.
52 I develop this further in Roskam 2017b. See also Ragogna 2002: 29–30. Hershbell 1993: 154–7 points to the importance of Plutarch's educational convictions and his view of imitation.
53 See esp. Van der Stockt 1999a; other cases are discussed in Van der Stockt 1999b, 2002, 2004a, and 2004b. See also Van Meirvenne 1999 and 2001; Vicente Sánchez 2008; Verdegem 2010b: 141–9, 272–8, and 404–5. On Plutarch's use of his notebooks for the composition of his Parallel Lives, see Pelling 2002: 23–4 and 65–90; Stadter 2008 and 2014 (also Stadter 2015b: 128). The method of Van der Stockt can now be further developed by means of an algorithm-based analysis of Plutarch's corpus: see Schubert and Weiss 2015.
54 Van der Stockt 1999a: 595.
55 It is not always clear whether Plutarch directly reused his hypomnemata or drew inspiration from an earlier work (or just relied on his excellent memory); see Van der Stockt 1999a: 596–7 and esp. Xenophontos 2012; cf. Meeusen 2012.
56 On Plutarch's general attitude towards rhetoric, see the classic study of Jeuckens 1907 and the collection of essays in Van der Stockt 2000b; see also Harrison 1987.
57 On the relation between the two works, see, e.g., Wardman 1955; Hamilton 1969: xxiii–xxxiii.
58 Studies of Plutarch's language include Giangrande 1992 and Torraca 1998. Weissenberger 1895 still remains relevant.
59 Plutarch's periods are analysed in Yaginuma 1992. The classic study of his imagery is Fuhrmann 1964; for his philosophical view and use of images, see the ground-breaking monograph of Hirsch-Luipold 2002. On amplificatio, see Teodorsson 2000.
60 The study of Plutarch's use of prose rhythm is still in its infancy. An important recent contribution is Hutchinson 2018; see also Baldassarri 2000; Biraud 2014; Minon 2015. This is a domain that will still repay further study, since euphony was a crucial quality for ancient texts that were read aloud. On Plutarch's dealing with the difficult relation between orality and written texts (an issue that can be traced back to Plato's Phaedrus), see esp. Zadorojnyi 2007 and 2011.
61 On the tension between this position and Plutarch's own polished literary style, see Zadorojnyi 2014: 309–10. For Plutarch's view of literary language, see Van der Stockt 1992: 62–73.
62 See Ammonius’ critical evaluation of Lamprias in De E 386A (with Thum 2013: 105–9), or Plutarch's comments on the ingenuity (εὑρησιλογία) of the young men in Quaest. conv. 656A (with Roskam 2009a: 373).
63 See Quaest. conv. 734D (‘great learning provides many starting points’, τὴν πολυμάθειαν πολλὰς ἀρχὰς ποιεῖν), with Vesperini 2012 and Meeusen 2016: 220–1.