A Commentary on Plutarch's De latenter vivendo: De latenter vivendo

Commentary

Commentary Chapter 1 (1128A-C): inconsistency between Epicurus’ words and deeds epicurus proves to be inconsistent and unfair. He formulated his advice to ‘live unnoticed’in order to make fame unattractive for others and thus secure it for himself. For why did he say this and write it down if he really wished to remain unknown? 1128A ἀλλ’ οὐδέ: the abrupt opening should be understood in connection with the question of the title and from the very beginning illustrates the rhetorical character of the little work, as was rightly argued by A. Barigazzi (1990), 51; cf. also I. Gallo (1996a), 932-933; Id. (2000), 11 and 12-13. A similar opening can be found in De esu 993A (with A. Barigazzi (1992), 303 and 314, n. 10). one may add that the combination of ἀλλ’ οὐδέ at the beginning of a reply is fairly common in Plutarch; see, e.g., Sept. sap. conv. 154C and 155F; apophth. lac. 211A; De sera num. 548B; De genio Socr. 578A; Quaest. conv. 726B; cf. also reg. et imp. apophth. 180F. ὁ τοῦτο εἰπών: sc. Epicurus (fr. 551 Us.), whose name occurs only in chapter 3 (1128F), where he is directly addressed. For the significance of Plutarch’s choice of this vague paraphrase instead of Epicurus’ proper name, see supra, 3.2.1b. 1128B δόξανἄδικον:Wyttenbach’s conjecture δόξανἄδοξον, defended by J.J. hartman (1916), 610, is discerning but unnecessary. the term ἄδικον fits in very well with the sharp formulation of the argument from inconsistency and helps to disqualify Epicurus from a moral point of view. μισῶ σοφιστὴν ... σοφός: a fragment from an unknown play of Euripides (trGF 5.2, fr. 905). Parallels from other authors (Cicero, fam. 13,15,2; off. 3,62; Lucian, apol. 5) show that the verse had become part of the general culture. It even found its way into the Monostichae Menandri (457 Jäkel). Plato already considers the idea to be common knowledge; cf. Hp. Ma. 283b: καὶ πολλοῖς συνδοκεῖ ὅτι τὸν σοφὸν αὐτὸν αὑτῷ μάλιστα δεῖ σοφὸν εἶναι. Plutarch himself quotes the verse also in alex. 53,2, where he claims that Alexander himself used it to evaluate the conduct of Callisthenes. τοὺς μὲν γὰρ περὶ ... τὸν Σικελιώτην: the phrase τοὺς περὶ Φιλόξενον καὶ Γνάθωνα may refer either [1] to Philoxenus and Gnathon, or [2] to Philoxenus, Gnathon, and their followers, or [3] to their followers alone (cf. terentius, eun. 264). the first meaning seems to be the most common one in Plutarch; cf. L. torraca (1998), 3489-3494. 186 Commentary Already in Antiquity, much confusion has arisen about the identity of different Philoxeni. Many authors, including Plutarch, confuse Philoxenus of Cythera (who was the son of Eulytidas according to the Suda IV, 728.27) and Philoxenus of Leucas (see S.-t. teodorsson (1990), 82 on Plutarch, and J. Wilkins (2000), 345-347 more in general). Philoxenus the son of Eryxis may be identified with Philoxenus of Leucas (thus F. Wehrli (1969b), 66), but may equally be a different person. however that may be, Philoxenus the son of Eryxis appears to have been especially famous for his gluttony; see Plutarch, Quaest. conv. 668C (φιλοψότατος; S.-t. teodorsson (1990), 82-83) and fr. 134 Sandbach (ὀψοφάγος); and also Aristotle, ee 3, 1231a15-17; en 3, 1118a32-33; Pr. 28, 950a3-4; Athenaeus, 1, 6b and 5, 220bc; Aelian, vH 10,8 (Φιλόξενος λίχνος ἦν καὶ γαστρὸς ἥττων). Gnathon, who appears in the Corpus Plutarcheum mainly as another notorious gourmand (cf. Quaest. conv. 707E: δεινότατος ἀνθρώπων τἀλλότρια δειπνεῖν; S.-t. teodorsson (1996), 89-90) is the classic example of the parasite . he appears e.g. in Menander’s Colax – a play with which Plutarch was probably familiar, cf. De ad. et am. 57a – and in terentius’ eunuchus). Cf. also Longus, 4,10, where Gnathon is the parasite of Astylus; he is described as: οἷα μαθὼν ἐσθίειν ἄνθρωπος καὶ πίνειν εἰς μέθην καὶ λαγνεύειν μετὰ τὴν μέθην καὶ οὐδὲν ἀλλὸ ὢν ἢ γνάθος καὶ γαστὴρ καὶ τὰ ὑπὸ γαστέρα (4,11). Philoxenus also seems to have combined parasitism and gluttony; cf. Athenaeus, 6, 241e: ἦν δὲ καὶ ὁ Φιλόξενος τῶν παρασίτων. ἐπτοημένους περὶ τὰ ὄψα: the Greek dish usually contained three elements: σῖτος or ἄρτος (bread), ὄψον (any cooked or prepared food that is eaten with bread), and ποτόν (usually wine, even though Plutarch was fairly suspicious of the use of wine and advocated moderation; see e.g. S.-t. teodorsson (1999) and A.G. Nikolaidis (1999b) on this topic). on the precise meaning of ὄψον, see esp. J. Davidson (1995), 205-207. ἐναπομύττεσθαι ταῖς παροψίσιν: “Die Geschichte, die Plutarch hier auftischt, ist trotz des hinweises auf die Überlieferung (“Man erzählt sich”) in dieser Form nicht nachzuweisen”; see thus B. heininger (2000a), 62. one might detect a trace of the same story, however, in the Suda IV, 729.11-16: Φιλόξενος, Λευκαδίου. ὄνομα παρασίτου. τοῦτόν φασιν προλουόμενον ἐν τῇ πατρίδι κἀν ἄλλαις πόλεσι περιέρχεσθαι τὰς οἰκίας, ἀκολουθούντων αὐτῷ παίδων, φερόντων ἔλαιον, γάρον, ὄξος καὶ ἄλλα τῶν ἡδυσμάτων. εἰσιόντα δὲ εἰς τὰς ἀλλοτρίας οἰκίας τὰ ἑψόμενα τοῖς ἄλλοις ἀρτύειν, ἐμβάλλοντα ὧν ἦν χρεία, κᾆθ’ οὕτως [εἰς ἑαυτὸν] κύψαντα εὐωχεῖσθαι; cf. Athenaeus, 1, 5f-6a (= Clearchus, fr. 57 Wehrli). the last words of this text, and especially the...