When Philo says in On the Contemplative Life what I cite herein, he locates his work securely in the literary tradition of Greek and Roman symposia. For as Athenaeus’s similar type of remark in the second quotation suggests, it became a commonplace in Greek and Roman literary symposia to contrast one’s own symposium or favored banquet practices with those of Others. In this paper I show first that “contrasting banquets” is a commonplace of the Greek and Roman literary tradition to which Philo’s description of the meals of the Therapeutae belongs. Then I show how Philo chooses not to use perhaps the defining characteristic of the Greek and Roman literary symposia per se, the dramatic dialogue format, which represents characters conversing over a meal. Finally, I show why Philo eschews the sympotic dialogue format in his account of the Therapeutae’symposia in On the Contemplative Life. He wishes to play down the conflicts, especially over competing ideas, for which the sympotic dialogue form is especially well suited. Instead, Philo idealizes the harmoniousness and unity of the Therapeutae community at their meals, in contrast to the discord and drunkenness characteristic of Others’ banquets.
- Wild Boar
- Literary Tradition
- Dialogue Format
- Literary Convention
- Table Talk
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
But since the story of these well-known symposia is full of such follies, and stand self-convicted in the eyes of any who do not regard conventional opinions and the widely circulated report which declares them to have been all that they should be, I will describe in contrast the festal meetings of those who have dedicated their own life and themselves to knowledge and the contemplation of the verities of nature, following the truly sacred instructions of the prophet Moses. (Philo, On the Contemplative Life)1
But in the symposium of Epicurus there is an assemblage of flatterers praising one another, while the symposium of Plato is full of men who turn their noses up in jeers at one another; for I pass over in silence what is said about Alcibiades. In Homer, on the other hand, only sober symposia are organized. (Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae)2
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use onlyLearn about institutional subscriptions
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Josef Martin, Symposion: Die Geschichte einer litearischen Form (New York: Johnson Reprint Corporation, 1988), “Deipnon,” RAC.
See especially the discussion of Lucian’s technique of composition in Graham Anderson, Lucian: Theme and Variation in the Second Sophistic (Leiden: Brill, 1976). The remark Luke attributes to Jesus in Luke. 14:12–13: “When you are having guests for lunch or supper, do not invite your friends, your brothers, or other relations [suggeneis], or your rich neighbors; they will only ask you back again and so you will be repaid. But when you give a party, ask the poor, the crippled, the lame, and the blind”— seems to be quite consistent with Athenaeus’s literary aesthetic for symposia, whatever other theological connotations it may also have. Suggeneis, metaphorically, can mean “of the same sort.” So while Luke may be making a dig at priest-like Pharisaic exclusivity by having Jesus recommend that Pharisees invite precisely those whom Biblical law excludes from participating in priestly activities—“the crippled, the lame, the blind”—could he also be suggesting that God likes a “good mix” of rich and poor, fit and unfit, family, and others at His banquet? Does the householder want his “house full” (Lk. 14:24) in the enigmatic conclusion to the parable of the Great Supper for aesthetic reasons, or theological ones, or some combination of the two?
Since Marcella has so well embarked on this discussion without adequately finishing it, I think I must try to complete the argument. Now I think she has well explained the fact that man has made slow and gradual progress towards chastity under the impulse that God has given him from time to time. But her suggestion that from henceforth men are not to procreate children is not well stated. (Emphases mine). (Herbert Musurillo, ed. and trans. St. Methodius: The Symposium on Chastity, 38, 48–49 (New York, NY: Newman Press, 1958).,
Editors and Affiliations
© 2014 Susan Marks and Hal Taussig
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Brumberg-Kraus, J. (2014). Contrasting Banquets: A Literary Commonplace in Philo’s On the Contemplative Life and Other Greek and Roman Symposia. In: Marks, S., Taussig, H. (eds) Meals in Early Judaism. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137363794_10
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, New York
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-47619-0
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-36379-4