Plutarch in Macrobius and Athenaeus

chapter 1 Plutarch in Macrobius and Athenaeus

Maria Vamvouri Ruffy

This chapter deals with the reception and legacy of Plutarch in Athenaeus and Macrobius. It highlights common threads and differences between Plutarch’s Table talk, Athenaeus’ Deipnosophistae and Macrobius’ Saturnalia, three literary works that bring to light the convivial and erudite discussions that graced idealised banquets in Greece and Rome. First, it will show how certain themes depicted in Table talk have been incorporated and re-elaborated by Athenaeus and Macrobius in order to be adapted to the specific context of each work. These include the transmission of knowledge, memory, harmony and conviviality, which are the pillars of a successful banquet in Table talk. This chapter will also explore how logos (tale, conversation), another essential component of the erudite symposium, is presented in the three works through metaphors and references to other texts, with particular attention to the culinary meta- phor of logos and Helen’s tale (logos) in the wedding banquet at Sparta. Before getting to the heart of the matter, we may observe that an examina- tion of the reception of Plutarch’s Table talk should take into account the fact that such an erudite work exploits a rich literary and philosophical tradition and that a great part of this material was also used by later authors such as Athenaeus and Macrobius. Consequently, studying the reception of Plutarch amounts to considering his work as a link in the transmission of a particular literary and philosophical production. We should therefore be wary of claim- ing that specific topics or literary devices found in Athenaeus’ and Macrobius’ works can be traced back exclusively to Table talk, when in fact both draw their inspiration from several other authors to whom Plutarch also refers. While Plutarch’s influence may undoubtedly be traced, we should not exclude the contribution of a common literary heritage utilised by all three authors. This chapter aims also to bring to light the literary strata, the subtexts or background texts that infuse Plutarch’s, Athenaeus’ and Macrobius’ works.1

1 On the “background text” (arrière-texte in French) which is both a construction of the author and the reader and which is related to the notion of latency and of cultural assumptions, see Gladieu, Pottier, Trouvé (2013). Cf. also Bellemin-Noël (2001: 11–37) who uses the term interlecture.

1 Table Talk and the Transmission of Knowledge

The nine books of the Table talk, written between 89 and 116 AD, are addressed in the form of letters to Sosius Senecio, a Roman consul who is also the dedi- catee of the Parallel lives. The narrator recreates discussions in the course of certain symposia in Greece and Rome, in which he participated.2 In these symposia, an intellectual elite of grammarians, philosophers, musicians, ora- tors, physicians, politicians – Greek or Roman, gathered together, invited by a different host every time.3 Harmony and conviviality characterise these symposia. The conversations tackle diverse topics, related, for example, to physiol- ogy, physical phenomena, arboriculture, literature and cults. Often, the guests begin a discussion concerning the traditional elements of a banquet in order to clarify their origin, to understand their meaning and to define their use. In this way, the wearing of floral crowns, the function of the banquet’s president, the musical entertainments, the types of proper conversations, form starting points for several erudite and well-argued discussions. The element of mixing and the heterogeneous aspect of these discussions (memeigmena deigmata, 629C–D) constitute important compositional principles of the Table talk that associate it with the miscellanea, i.e. various pieces of writing of different authors, which were very popular during the imperial era.4 Curiosity, love for learning, willingness for remembrance and new ideas as well as the element of astonishment are the starting points for discussing, displaying and transmitting knowledge. The combination of these trigger- ing elements in Plutarch’s Table talk seems to be present in Athenaeus and Macrobius as well, although obviously in different degrees. In the Table talk, it is through the dynamic process of questions and answers on different topics that guests are practising philosophy. Consequently, they lean on the tradition of the Socratic zētēsis, and above all of the Aristotelian Problēmata.5 The guests thus satisfy their curiosity and feed their souls, as it is clearly claimed by the narrator:

2 For an introduction to the Table talk, cf. Klotz and Oikonomopoulou (2011); König (2012: 60–89); Vamvouri Ruffy (2012). 3 On the profile of the guests, see Rodrigues and al. (2010: 15–52). 4 Cf. Mandosio (2003); Morgan (2011); König (2011). 5 Cf. Oikonomopoulou (2011: 108–112), and Klotz and Oikonomopoulou (2011: 18–21). The verb zētein and the word zētēsis appear very frequently in the Table talk. Cf. 612Ε, 613C, 635B, 646Α, 666A, 673B, 694D, 700C, 701E. For Plutarch’s firm acquaintance with the Aristotelian Natural problems (as exemplified most clearly in his Natural questions), see also Meeusen (2016: 75–84).