¹ The current state of the field is usefully surveyed in Griffith, M., ‘Towards a Sociology of Classical Greek Music’, Turkish Journal of Sociology (2017), 211–58Google Scholar.

² Though see Bouchard, E., ‘Audience, Poetic Justice, and Aesthetic Value in Aristotle's Poetics’, in Sluiter, I. and Rosen, R. M. (eds.), Aesthetic Value in Classical Antiquity (Leiden, 2012), 183–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³ The social value of paideia in the Second Sophistic has been widely discussed: see e.g. the papers of Borg, B. (ed.), Paideia. The World of the Second Sophistic (Berlin, 2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and part III (‘Paideia and performance’) of Richter, D. S. and Johnson, W. A. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of the Second Sophistic (Oxford, 2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁴ Bourdieu, P., Distinction. A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste (Cambridge, MA, 1984), 234Google Scholar. On a complementary approach to this article considering the distribution of lyric quotations as an expression of taste in the QC, see my article, D. F. Driscoll, ‘The Pleasures of Lyric in Plutarch's Hierarchies of Taste’, Mnemosyne (forthcoming).

⁵ Quinn, M., ‘Introduction: Taste, Hierarchy and Social Value After Bourdieu’, in Quinn, M., Beech, D., Lehnert, M., Tulloch, C., and Wilson, S. (eds.), The Persistence of Taste. Art, Museums and Everyday Life After Bourdieu (London, 2018), 3CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Bourdieu's continuing importance can be seen for example in Hanquinet, L. and Savage, M. (eds.), Routledge International Handbook of the Sociology of Art and Culture (London, 2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, which consists exclusively of extensions and critiques of Bourdieu. The editors bluntly assert ‘It is clear from the composition of our textbook that we regard Bourdieu's contribution as fundamental’ (L. Hanquinet and M. Savage, ‘Contemporary Challenges for the Sociology of Art and Culture: An Introductory Essay’, in ibid., 9).

⁶ Bourdieu (n. 4), 13.

⁷ Schmitz, T., Bildung und Macht. Zur sozialen und politischen Funktion der zweiten Sophistik in der griechischen Welt der Kaiserzeit (Munich, 1997)Google Scholar, as well as Gleason, M. W., Making Men. Sophists and Self-Presentation in Ancient Rome (Princeton, NJ, 1995)Google Scholar.

⁸ Bourdieu (n. 4), 176. See also ibid., 60–1, on the relationship between taste and social standing in the realm of song.

⁹ Such an approach could likewise be used to consider aesthetic preference in other Greek texts representing performance. A promising candidate is Xenophon's Symposium, whose characters, like Plutarch's, argue over continuities between the pleasures of sight and sound and the other senses and consider the appropriate use of these pleasures for different features of identity, including free/slave (Xen. Symp. 2.1–4). Furthermore, for Plutarch Xenophon is an important forerunner in the sympotic tradition (Quaest. conv. 1.praef.612d), though there are no explicit connections between the first symposium discussed in this article (7.5) and Xenophon's symposium (though see G. Roskam, ‘Plutarch's “Socratic Symposia”: The Symposia of Plato and Xenophon as Literary Models in the Quaestiones convivales’, Athenaeum 98 [2010], 69).

¹⁰ On local identity as distinctive in the QC, see König, J., ‘Fragmentation and Coherence in Plutarch's Sympotic Questions’, in König, J. and Whitmarsh, T. (eds.), Ordering Knowledge in the Roman Empire (Cambridge, 2017), 62–8Google Scholar. For other connections between poetry and place in the QC, see Bowie, E., ‘Poetry and Education’, in Beck, M. (ed.), A Companion to Plutarch (Chichester, 2014), 179Google Scholar.

¹¹ Bourdieu (n. 4), 292.

¹² The classic treatment is Bowie, E., ‘Greeks and their Past in the Second Sophistic’, P&P 46 (1970), 3–41Google Scholar. More recent appraisals and bibliography can be found in Whitmarsh, T., The Second Sophistic (Cambridge, 2005), 8–9Google Scholar; and T. Schmitz, ‘Professionals of Paideia? The Sophists as Performers’, in Richter and Johnson (n. 3), 178.

¹³ For the social role of Plutarch's philosophical identity, see Hoof, L. Van, Plutarch's Practical Ethics. The Social Dynamics of Philosophy (Oxford, 2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For Van Hoof, too, ‘the precise philosophical content of these works is of less interest to me than their aims, strategies, and effects’ (9).

¹⁴ For this identification in Quaest. conv. 7.5, see also Almazova, N., ‘On the Meaning of αὐλῳδία, αὐλῳδός’, Hyperboreus 14 (2008), 28–9Google Scholar, though Almazova assumes that chorauloi played purely instrumental music. Barker, A., ‘Plutarch, Quaestiones Convivales, 704c4–705b6: The Host and the Musician’, in Bravi, L., Lomiento, L., Meriani, A., and Pace, G. (eds.), Tra lyra e aulos. Tradizioni musicali e generi poetici (Rome, 2016), 23–8Google Scholar, and Barker, A., ‘Disreputable Music: A Performance, a Defence, and their Intertextual and Intermedial Resonances (Plutarch Quaest. conv. 704c4–705b6)’, in Phillips, T., and D'Angour, A. (eds.), Music, Text, and Culture in Ancient Greece (Oxford, 2018), 250–1Google Scholar, usefully grapple with the identity of the aulôidos in Quaest. conv. 7.5. The best recent discussion of these figures is Strasser, J.-Y., ‘Choraules et pythaules d'époque impériale: à propos d'inscriptions de Delphes’, BCH 126 (2002), 97–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Nervegna, S., ‘Menander's Theophoroumene Between Greece and Rome’, AJPh 131 (2010), 48–50Google Scholar.

¹⁵ Strasser (n. 14), 98, n. 6, with initial publication in W. E. H. Cockle, ‘The Odes of Epagathus the Choral Flautist: Some Documentary Evidence for Dramatic Representation in Roman Egypt’, in Proceedings of the XIVth International Congress of Papyrologists (Oxford, 1975), 59–65. In addition to dithyramb, at least one related figure included the nomoi of Timotheus in his repertoire: see Cockle (this note), 63; Nervegna (n. 14), 86–7.

¹⁶ Ath. 12.538f = Chares fr. BNJ 125 F 4.

¹⁷ Strasser (n. 14), 99–101.

¹⁸ Ibid., 134. The QC were composed between 99 and 116 ce: Jones, C. P., ‘Towards a Chronology of Plutarch's Works’, JRS 56 (1966), 72–3Google Scholar. The dramatic date of Quaest. conv. 7.5, however, is probably 83/4 ce, when Callistratus served as agônothetês: see Teodorsson, S.-T., A Commentary on Plutarch's Table Talks, 3 vols. (Göteborg, 1989–96)Google Scholar, iii.65; Weir, R. G. A., Roman Delphi and Its Pythian Games (Oxford, 2004), 67Google Scholar. If so, the introduction of choraulia must be pushed back earlier in the century, or Plutarch is being anachronistic.

¹⁹ See Quaest. conv. 5.2.674d–e, 675b–d, where the newer competitions include the ‘tribe of prose writers and poets’ (τὸ τῶν λογογράφων καὶ ποιητῶν ἔθνος). The introduction of these competitions is part of an increasing popularity in musical and poetic contests in the first and second centuries ce: see Scanlon, T. F., Eros and Greek Athletics (New York, 2002), 55Google Scholar.

²⁰ It is omitted, for example, from Pausanias’ history of events at the Pythian Games at Paus. 10.7.5–8. See also Weir (n. 18), 131–2.

²¹ Mart. 5.56.8–9.

²² Petron. Sat. 53.

²³ Mart. 9.77.

²⁴ Henriksén, C., A Commentary on Martial, Epigrams Book 9 (Oxford 2012), 316Google Scholar, suggests ‘envious disdain’ by Martial for the ‘high esteem in which they were held and the large sums paid to them’ – yet this does not seem to explain why an audience lacking Martial's particular social position would appreciate the punchline.

²⁵ Quaest. conv. 4.4.667c–d. For the connection between the identity of ‘sophist’ and other claims to distinction, see Schmitz (n. 7), 50–62.

²⁶ Chorêgoi are present at the symposium and support Callistratus’ point of view. See Quaest. conv. 7.5.705b: Ταῦτα τοῦ Καλλιστράτου εἰπόντος ὁ Λαμπρίας ὁρῶν ἔτι μᾶλλον ἐκείνους τοὺς τῶν ἀκροαμάτων χορηγοὺς θρασυνομένους…ἔφη (‘After Callistratus spoke, Lamprias saw that those chorêgoi of aural entertainments were even more emboldened and said…’).

²⁷ The epimelêtês was nominated by the emperor: Weir (n. 18), 56; for the rewards given by Delphi, including proedria and citizenship, see ibid., 70–6.

²⁸ See Schmitz (n. 7), 97–135; on Plutarch's sophists in particular, see Schmitz, T., ‘Sophistic Philotimia in Plutarch’, in Roskam, G., de Pourcq, M., and van der Stockt, L. (eds.), The Lash of Ambition. Plutarch, Imperial Greek Literature and the Dynamics of Philotimia (Leuven, 2012), 76–84Google Scholar.

²⁹ Quaest. conv. 7.5.704f, discussed further below. On the extent of imperial and sophistic paideia, see Schmitz (n. 7), 136–45. Though Callistratus does not quote an epinician poem, it is tempting to see his evident approval of Pindar as perhaps related to Pindar's reputation as the poet of competitive games. Cf. Quaest. conv. 3.1.646e, where a more intellectual musician claims not to remember poetry about ‘ancient victors’ (τοὺς παλαιοὺς ἱερονίκας).

³⁰ QC 7.5.704e: οὐ μὴν Ἀριστοξένῳ γε συμφέρομαι παντάπασι, ταύταις μόναις φάσκοντι ταῖς ἡδοναῖς τὸ ‘καλῶς’ ἐπιλέγεσθαι· καὶ γὰρ ὄψα καλὰ καὶ μύρα καλοῦσι καὶ καλῶς γεγονέναι λέγουσιν δειπνήσαντες ἡδέως καὶ πολυτελῶς (‘I do not agree completely with Aristoxenus’ statement that the word “beautifully” is applied to the pleasures of these senses [of sight and hearing] alone; for people call both foods and perfumes “beautiful” and say that it happened “beautifully” when they have enjoyed a pleasant and sumptuous meal’).

³¹ In this talk, too, Lamprias praises the food and drink at this particular symposium as thoroughly unimpeachable (7.5.706a); see below on Lamprias’ limited endorsement of the pleasures of food and drink, a view perhaps shared by the narrator of 4.4 as well. See also Dio 3.93 for ποικίλαι τράπεζαι in a list of pleasurable luxuries. On poikilia as a key term in Greek and specifically Second Sophistic aesthetics, see Gyselinck, W. and Demoen, K., ‘Author and Narrator: Fiction and Metafiction in Philostratus’ Vita Apollonii’, in Demoen, K. and Praet, D. (eds.), Theios Sophistes. Essays on Flavius Philostratus’ Vita Apollonii (Leiden, 2009), 107Google Scholar.

³² See below for a discussion of how Lamprias assumes that performances at symposia are sponsored by chorêgoi.

³³ Quaest. conv. 7.5.705b: τὸ μετὰ πολλῶν θεάσασθαί τι καὶ ἀκοῦσαι ἐπιτερπέστερόν ἐστι καὶ σεμνότερον, οὐκ ἀκρασίας δήπου καὶ ἡδυπαθείας ἀλλ' ἐλευθερίου διατριβῆς καὶ ἀστείας μάρτυρας ἡμῶν ὅτι πλείστους λαμβανόντων. (‘The act of seeing and hearing something with many people is rather pleasurable and sacred, as we receive as many people as possible as witnesses to a free and urbane pastime – surely not incontinence or luxury’).

³⁴ Weir (n. 18), 79. For some observations on the spectators at the Panhellenic games, see Crowther, N., ‘Visiting the Olympic Games in Ancient Greece: Travel and Conditions for Athletes and Spectators’, International Journal of the History of Sport 18 (2001), 37CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Inscriptions on the seats in the theatre at Delphi suggest, as was typical in Imperial theatres, a socially ranked seating arrangement that nevertheless included many sectors of society: for the inscriptions at Delphi see FD iii.6.1–3; T. Jones, ‘Seating and Spectacle in the Graeco-Roman World’, PhD thesis, McMaster University (2008), 258–61; on Imperial seating arrangements more generally, see Roueché, C., Performers and Partisans at Aphrodisias in the Roman and Late Roman Periods. A Study Based on Inscriptions from the Current Excavations at Aphrodisias in Caria (London 1993), 83–128Google Scholar; Fagan, G. G., The Lure of the Arena. Social Psychology and the Crowd at the Roman Games (Cambridge 2011), 116–17Google Scholar.

³⁵ See below in section three for a fuller treatment of this distinction.

³⁶ Quaest. conv. 7.5.706c: ταύταις δὲ ταῖς ἐλευθερίαις λεγομέναις <περὶ> ὦτα καὶ ὄμματα φιλομούσοις καὶ φιλαύλοις μουσομανίαις προῖκα καὶ ἀμισθὶ τῶν ἡδονῶν πάρεστι πολλαχόθεν ἀρύτεσθαι καὶ ἀπολαύειν, ἐν ἀγῶσιν, ἐν θεάτροις, ἐν συμποσίοις, ἑτέρων χορηγούντων. (‘For these so-called “liberal” possessions by music, loving music and the flute, attacking the eyes and ears, it is possible in many places to obtain and enjoy these pleasures for free and without fee, in contests, in the theatres, in symposia, as others serve as chorêgoi.’)

³⁷ Quaest. conv. 7.5.706c: χαλεπὸν γὰρ ὁ δανεισμὸς τῆς ἀκρασίας κόλασμα καὶ τὸ λῦσαι βαλάντιον οὐ πάνυ ῥᾴδιον. (‘For borrowing money is a harsh chastisement of a lack of self-control, and to open one's purse is not at all easy.’)

³⁸ Compare the distinction that Bourdieu draws between teachers and public-sector executives, on the one hand, and members of the professions on the other. While both possess similar amounts of cultural capital, the difference in their financial resources leads them respectively to pursue either austere or hedonistic kinds of taste (Bourdieu [n. 4], 283–5).

³⁹ Their mutual appreciation for Pindar matches broader trends in the QC, where Pindar is quoted more frequently by individuals with claims to status beyond the purely intellectual (including financial and political), whereas individuals whose claims to status are primarily intellectual more frequently quote more recherché lyric. See Driscoll (n. 4).

⁴⁰ Alone of the QC’s characters, Lamprias quotes these three poets elsewhere: Euripides at 2.10.643f, 2.10.644d, 7.10.716b; Menander at 7.5.706b; Pindar at 1.2.618, 7.5.706a, 7.5.706e. Other characters quote Euripides and Pindar (Ammonius, Plutarch) or Pindar and Menander (Senecio), but no other characters quote all three. A TLG search does not reveal any other collocation of these three authors without similar canonical authors (e.g. joined with Homer, Hesiod, and ‘the others’ at Sext. Emp. Math. 1.58 as the authors studied by grammarians).

⁴¹ I owe this point to Ruth Webb.

⁴² Quaest. conv. 7.5.706d: ἡδόμενον δὲ μίμοις καὶ μέλεσι καὶ ᾠδαῖς κακοτέχνοις καὶ κακοζήλοις ἔξεστι μετάγειν ἐπὶ τὸν Εὐριπίδην καὶ τὸν Πίνδαρον καὶ τὸν Μένανδρον, ’ποτίμῳ λόγῳ ἁλμυρὰν ἀκοήν’ ὥς φησιν ὁ Πλάτων ‘ἀποκλυζόμενον.’ (‘It is possible to lead someone who takes pleasure in mimes, melodies, and songs with bad art and bad taste to Euripides, Pindar, and Menander, “washing away the briny sound with fresh reason”, as Plato says.’)

⁴³ Bourdieu (n. 4), 176.

⁴⁴ Bourdieu (n. 4), 176.

⁴⁵ …οὐδὲ πλαγίους παραδώσομεν ἑαυτοὺς ὥσπερ ὑπὸ ῥεύματος λείου φέρεσθαι. Compare here 7.8.713b: ‘I would never entrust a symposium to the music of an aulos or lyre on their own, without words (logos) and song, as though the music would receive and carry the symposium on a stream’ (οὔτ' ἂν αὐλοῦ ποτε καθ' αὑτὸν οὔτε λύρας μέλει χωρὶς λόγου καὶ ᾠδῆς ἐπιτρέψαιμι τὸ συμπόσιον ὥσπερ ῥεύματι φέρειν ὑπολαμβάνοντι).

⁴⁶ καὶ νὴ Δία κομψὸν ἦν ἀκρόαμα τὸ πρῶτον· ἔπειτα διασείσας καὶ διακωδωνίσας τὸ συμπόσιον, ὡς ᾐσθάνετο τοὺς πολλοὺς ἐγκεκλικότας καὶ παρέχοντας ὑφ' ἡδονῆς ὅ τι βούλοιτο χρῆσθαι καὶ καταυλεῖν καὶ ἀκολασταίνειν, ἀποκαλυψάμενος παντάπασιν ἐπεδείξατο τὴν μουσικὴν παντὸς οἴνου μᾶλλον μεθύσκουσαν τοὺς ὅπως ἔτυχεν καὶ ἀνέδην αὐτῆς ἐμφορουμένους· οὐδὲ γὰρ κατακειμένοις ἔτι βοᾶν ἐξήρκει καὶ κροτεῖν, ἀλλὰ τελευτῶντες ἀνεπήδων οἱ πολλοὶ καὶ συνεκινοῦντο κινήσεις ἀνελευθέρους, πρεπούσας δὲ τοῖς κρούμασιν ἐκείνοις καὶ τοῖς μέλεσιν. ἐπεὶ δ' ἐπαύσαντο καὶ κατάστασιν αὖθις ὥσπερ ἐκ μανίας ὁ πότος ἐλάμβανεν, ἐβούλετο μὲν ὁ Λαμπρίας εἰπεῖν τι καὶ παρρησιάσασθαι πρὸς τοὺς νέους…

⁴⁷ The narrator does not describe the social composition of this symposium, but in Callistratus’ other symposium in the QC (4.4), at the resort town of Aedepsus, he invites a large and diverse group (πολλοὺς καὶ παντοδαποὺς ἑστιῶν ἡδέως, ‘pleasantly feasting many of all sorts’; 4.4.667d), though at the resort that group is tantamount to the ‘men of taste’ (τοὺς χαρίεντας) who have the leisure and lack of want to spend their time in conversation.

⁴⁸ For the disapproval of audience participation in the kindred case of pantomime, see Webb, R., Demons and Dancers. Performance in Late Antiquity (Cambridge, MA, 2008), 87–90Google Scholar. On a similar ‘fusion’ between performer and audience in archaic poetry itself, see Peponi, A.-E., Frontiers of Pleasure. Models of Aesthetic Response in Archaic and Classical Greek Thought (Oxford, 2012), 70–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁴⁹ E.g. Herod. 5.6: Βίτιννα, δοῦλός εἰμι· χρῶ ὄτι βούληι <μοι> (‘Bittina, I am a slave: use me as you wish’). On the ‘use’ of slaves by masters see Marchal, J. A., ‘The Usefulness of an Onesimus: The Sexual Use of Slaves and Paul's Letter to Philemon’, JBL 130 (2011), 753–4Google Scholar. For Plutarch's disapproval elsewhere of ‘enslavement’ as a response to (canonical) poetry, see de aud. poet. 26b, with discussion in Hunter, R. and Russell, D. (eds.), Plutarch. How to Study Poetry (Cambridge, 2011), 146–7Google Scholar.

⁵⁰ οὐδὲν οὖν ὁρῶ τὰς τοιαύτας ἡδονὰς ἴδιον ἐχούσας, <ἢ> ὅτι μόναι τῆς ψυχῆς εἰσιν, αἱ δ' ἄλλαι τοῦ σώματος καὶ περὶ τὸ σῶμα καταλήγουσιν· μέλος δὲ καὶ ῥυθμὸς καὶ ὄρχησις καὶ ᾠδὴ παραμειψάμεναι τὴν αἴσθησιν ἐν τῷ χαίροντι τῆς ψυχῆς ἀπερείδονται τὸ ἐπιτερπὲς καὶ γαργαλίζον.

⁵¹ ὁρῶμεν γὰρ ὅτι καὶ μουσικῇ πολλὰ κηλεῖται τῶν ἀλόγων, ὥσπερ ἔλαφοι σύριγξιν, ἵπποις δὲ μιγνυμέναις ἐπαυλεῖται νόμος, ὃν ἱππόθορον ὀνομάζουσιν· ὁ δὲ Πίνδαρός φησι κεκινῆσθαι πρὸς ᾠδὴν ‘ἁλίου δελφῖνος ὑπόκρισιν· / τὸν μὲν ἀκύμονος ἐν πόντου πελάγει / αὐλῶν ἐκίνησ’ ἐρατὸν μέλος·’ ὀρχούμενοι δὲ τοὺς ὤτους αἱροῦσι, χαίροντας τῇ ὄψει καὶ μιμητικῶς ἅμα δεῦρο κἀκεῖσε τοὺς ὤμους συνδιαφέροντας.

⁵² On dolphins in lyric poetry responding to both meanings of auloi, see Steiner, D., ‘Dancing with the Stars: Choreia in the Third Stasimon of Euripides’ Helen’, CPh 106 (2011), 302–3Google Scholar.

⁵³ The uniqueness of Callistratus’ aesthetic position can be seen in a comparison with the case of pantomime. Characters like Lamprias and Senecio condemn audience participation by comparing it to pantomime: see Webb (n. 48), 183–94, for the near universal condemnation of the dangers of mimêsis and audience response in the case of pantomime. In contrast, Callistratus wholeheartedly endorses the mimetic response of the audience.

⁵⁴ διὸ δεῖ μάλιστα ταύτας εὐλαβεῖσθαι τὰς ἡδονάς· ἰσχυρόταται γάρ εἰσιν, ἅτε δὴ μή, καθάπερ αἱ περὶ γεῦσιν καὶ ἁφὴν καὶ ὄσφρησιν, εἰς τὸ ἄλογον καὶ φυσικὸν ἀποτελευτῶσαι τῆς ψυχῆς, ἀλλὰ τοῦ κρίνοντος ἁπτόμεναι καὶ [τοῦ] φρονοῦντος·

⁵⁵ ὁμοίως γὰρ ἐγκέκλικε καὶ παραδέδωκε ταῖς ἡδοναῖς ἄγειν καὶ φέρειν τὴν ψυχήν. Lamprias here echoes the narrator's language with a repetition of a form of ἐγκλίνω, otherwise unattested in the QC: Lamprias’ ἐγκέκλικε vs. the narrator's ἐγκεκλικότας at 704c.

⁵⁶ Note, for example, that when Lamprias discusses Callistratus’ food he explicitly judges the wine as ‘finest’ (βέλτιστος; 7.5.706a).

⁵⁷ Despite the Platonic intertextuality that permeates the narrator's description of the performance (Barker, ‘Disreputable Music’ [n. 14], 235–40), both Callistratus and Lamprias argue in broadly Peripatetic terms (Teodorsson [n. 18], iii.69–70 and iii.73–4).

⁵⁸ …ἐκπεριοδεύουσαι περὶ τὰ ὄμματα καὶ τὰ ὦτα λανθάνουσιν ἐνῳκισμέναι καὶ λοχῶσαι…

⁵⁹ Cf. Bourdieu (n. 4), 487–8, where a relationship is drawn between class and audience participation: popular entertainment elicits a response that is ‘constant, manifest (boos, whistles), sometimes direct’, while the participation in more elite entertainment is ‘intermittent, distant, highly ritualized, with obligatory applause, and even shouts of enthusiasm, at the end, or even perfectly silent (concerts in churches)’.

⁶⁰ ἀλλ' οὔτ' ὄψον οὐδὲν οὔτε σιτίον οὔθ' ὁ βέλτιστος οὑτοσὶ πινόμενος οἶνος ἐξήγαγεν ὑφ' ἡδονῆς φωνήν, οἷον ἄρτι τὰ αὐλήματα καὶ τὰ κρούματα τὴν οἰκίαν, εἰ μὴ καὶ τὴν πόλιν ἅπασαν, ἐμπέπληκε θορύβων καὶ κρότων καὶ ἀλαλαγμῶν.

⁶¹ See also Vincent, A., ‘The Music of Power and the Power of Music: Studying Popular Auditory Culture in Ancient Rome’, in Grig, L. (ed.), Popular Culture in the Ancient World (Cambridge 2016), 162–3Google Scholar, on the coercive power of brass instruments in Rome – how their noise fills the whole city, as satirized by Seneca – as an expression of political power.

⁶² Plut. Mor. De sera 564b.

⁶³ See Teodorsson (n. 18), iii.85. The term ‘compare’ (παραβάλλω) suggests a connection to synkrisis, the scholarly comparison of two texts, on which see Johnson, W. A., Readers and Reading Culture in the High Roman Empire. A Study of Elite Communities (Oxford, 2010), 128CrossRefGoogle Scholar (with n. 53); and Vardi, A. D., ‘Diiudicatio Locorum: Gellius and the History of a Mode in Ancient Comparative Criticism’, CQ 46 (1996), 492–514CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁶⁴ This is probably a reference to pantomime, in many ways a kindred genre to chorauletic performance, which is given the official title on festival programs of ‘τραγικὴ ἔνρυθμος κίνησις’ (‘rhythmic tragic motion’). See Webb, R., ‘Reperformance and Embodied Knowledge in Roman Pantomime’, in Hunter, R. and Uhlig, A. (eds.), Imagining Reperformance in Ancient Culture. Studies in the Traditions of Drama and Lyric (Cambridge, 2017), 262Google Scholar.

⁶⁵ αἵ τε σφοδραὶ περιχάρειαι τῆς ψυχῆς τῶν μὲν ἐλαφροτέρων τῷ ἤθει καὶ τὸ σῶμα συνεπαίρουσιν καὶ παρακαλοῦσιν εἰς ἔνρυθμον κίνησιν, ἐξαλλομένων καὶ κροτούντων εἴπερ ὀρχεῖσθαι μὴ δύνανται· ’μανίαι τ' ἀλαλαί τ' ὀρινομένων ῥιψαύχενι σὺν κλόνῳ’ κατὰ Πίνδαρον (fr. 208 = 70a9, 10)· οἱ δὲ χαρίεντες ἐν τῷ πάθει τούτῳ γενόμενοι τὴν φωνὴν μόνην εἰς τὸ ᾄδειν καὶ φθέγγεσθαι μέτρα καὶ μέλη προΐενται. (‘And the soul's intense joys stir men of light character to bodily activity and invite them to rhythmic movement – they jump up and clap their hands if they can't dance, “The madness and shrieking of men / Excited by neck-breaking clash / Of the fight”, as Pindar has it – but men of taste who experience these emotions raise their voice alone to sing and recite verses and lyrics.’)

⁶⁶ Plutarch seems to voices a similar dichotomy at 1.1.614d, where ‘the bodies of men who are drinking are accustomed to sway in time with pantomimic and choral dancing’. Perhaps also relevant is the importance of contributing to the symposium in one's own right (see 1.1.613e), rather than merely passively absorbing the conversation, as Teodorsson (n. 18), iii.85, notes.

⁶⁷ Bourdieu (n. 4), 61–2.

⁶⁸ This talk's treatment of dance has been analysed by K. Schlapbach, ‘Dance and Discourse in Plutarch's Table Talks 9.15’, in T. Schmidt and P. Fleury (eds.), Perceptions of the Second Sophistic and Its Times = Regards sur la Seconde Sophistique et son époque. Communications présentées lors d'un atelier tenu du 28 au 30 sept. 2007 à l'Université Laval, Québec (Toronto, 2011), 149–68; expanded in Schlapbach, K., The Anatomy of Dance Discourse. Literary and Philosophical Approaches to Dance in the Later Graeco-Roman World (Oxford, 2018), 25–74Google Scholar (esp. 34–42, including 35 on the link between Xenophon and this talk).

⁶⁹ Quaest. conv. 9.15.748c–d: ἀλλ' οὐδὲν οὕτως τὸ νῦν ἀπολέλαυκε τῆς κακομουσίας ὡς ἡ ὄρχησις…καὶ γὰρ αὕτη [καὶ] πάνδημόν τινα ποιητικὴν προσεταιρισαμένη τῆς δ' οὐρανίας ἐκπεσοῦσ' ἐκείνης, τῶν μὲν ἐμπλήκτων καὶ ἀνοήτων κρατεῖ θεάτρων, ὥσπερ τύραννος ὑπήκοον ἑαυτῇ πεποιημένη μουσικὴν ὀλίγου τὴν ἅπασαν, τὴν δὲ παρὰ τοῖς νοῦν ἔχουσι καὶ θείοις ἀνδράσιν ὡς ἀληθῶς τιμὴν ἀπολώλεκε. (‘But today nothing enjoys the benefits of bad taste so much as dancing…Dancing has indeed made a profane poetry her companion and fallen out of favour with the other heavenly kind; and having tyrannously brought almost all music under her sway, she is mistress of the caprice and folly of the theatres, but has lost her honour among men who have intelligence and may properly be called divine.’)

⁷⁰ See Schlapbach, 2011 (n. 68), 160–1, who notes the conventionality of this rejection.

⁷¹ Cic. Tusc. 4.71 (‘Maxime vero omnium flagrasse amore Rheginum Ibycum apparet ex scriptis’), with Graver, M., Cicero on the Emotions. Tusculan Disputations 3 and 4 (Chicago, IL, 2002), 174–81Google Scholar, and the Suda's comment ἐρωτομανέστατος περὶ μειράκια (‘utterly mad in his love for boys’). For Plutarch's quotations of Ibycus more broadly, see Bowie, E., ‘Plutarch's Habits of Citation: Aspects of Difference’ in Nikolaidis, A. G. (ed.) The Unity of Plutarch's Work. ‘Moralia’ Themes in the ‘Lives’, Features of the ‘Lives’ in the ‘Moralia’ (Berlin, 2008), 144Google Scholar.

⁷² ἀλλ᾿ οὐδὲν οὕτως τὸ νῦν ἀπολέλαυκε τῆς κακομουσίας ὡς ἡ ὄρχησις. διὸ καὶ πέπονθεν ὃ φοβηθεὶς Ἴβυκος ἐποίησε, ‘δέδοικα μή τι παρὰ θεοῖς / ἀμπλακὼν τιμὰν πρὸς ἀνθρώπων ἀμείψω.’

⁷³ On past and present in Ammonius’ speech, see Schlapbach, 2018 (n. 68), 38 and 41–2.

⁷⁴ See also the opinion of one theatre critic quoted by Bourdieu (n. 4), 6, as an example of the sublimation of nudity in certain contexts: ‘What struck me most is this: nothing could be obscene on the stage of our premier theatre, and the ballerinas of the Opera, even as naked dancers, sylphs, sprites or Bacchae, retain an inviolable purity.’

⁷⁵ For this identification, see Teodorsson (n. 18), iii.376.

⁷⁶ Aristox. t. 103 Wehrli = Ath. 14.630c: ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ τῆς λυρικῆς ποιήσεως τρεῖς, πυρρίχη, γυμνοπαιδική, ὑπορχηματική (‘Likewise three dance-styles are associated with lyric poetry: pyrrhichê, gymnopaidikê, and hyporchêmatikê’).

⁷⁷ Poltera, O., Simonides lyricus. Testimonia und Fragmente. Einleitung, kritische Ausgabe, Übersetzung und Kommentar (Basel, 2008), 428–9Google Scholar.

⁷⁸ ὀρχηστικῇ δὲ καὶ ποιητικῇ κοινωνία πᾶσα καὶ μέθεξις ἀλλήλων ἐστί, καὶ μάλιστα [μιμούμεναι] περὶ <τὸ> τῶν ὑπορχημάτων γένος ἓν ἔργον ἀμφότεραι τὴν διὰ τῶν σχημάτων καὶ τῶν ὀνομάτων μίμησιν ἀποτελοῦσι…δηλοῖ δ' ὁ μάλιστα κατωρθωκέναι δόξας ἐν ὑπορχήμασι καὶ γεγονέναι πιθανώτατος ἑαυτοῦ τὸ δεῖσθαι τὴν ἑτέραν τῆς ἑτέρας· τὸ γὰρ (Pind. fr. 107a) ’Πελασγὸν ἵππον ἢ κύνα / Ἀμυκλαίαν ἀγωνίῳ / ἐλελιζόμενος ποδὶ μίμεο καμπύλον μέλος διώκων,’…καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς μόνον οὐ δοκεῖ ποθεῖν τὴν ἐν ὀρχήσει διάθεσιν καὶ παρακαλεῖν τὼ χεῖρε καὶ τὼ πόδε, μᾶλλον δ' ὅλον ὥσπερ τισὶ μηρίνθοις ἕλκειν τὸ σῶμα τοῖς μέλεσι καὶ ἐντείνειν, τούτων [δὲ] λεγομένων καὶ ᾀδομένων ἡσυχίαν ἄγειν μὴ δυνάμενον. αὐτὸς γοῦν ἑαυτὸν οὐκ αἰσχύνεται περὶ τὴν ὄρχησιν οὐχ ἧττον ἢ τὴν ποίησιν ἐγκωμιάζων, ὅταν λέγῃ ’ἐλαφρὸν ὄρχημ' ἀοιδᾷ ποδῶν μειγνύμεν· / Κρῆτα μὲν καλέουσι τρόπον.’

⁷⁹ See Schlapbach, 2018 (n. 68), 37.

⁸⁰ Ammonius here echoes Xenophon's Socrates in approving of dance (Xen. Symp. 2.15–9), but, unlike Xenophon's Socrates, Ammonius refuses to participate in dance himself. It is tempting to see Ammonius as rejecting Xenophon's Socrates and offering himself as a more ‘intellectual’ Platonizing model for approaching dance. See Klotz, F., ‘Imagining the Past: Plutarch's Play with Time’, in Klotz, F. and Oikonomopoulou, K. (eds.), The Philosopher's Banquet. Plutarch's Table Talk in the Intellectual Culture of the Roman Empire (Oxford, 2011), 177Google Scholar.