Context: In Aristophanes’s mythical narrative Zeus had split the primordial human beings in two (male and female), but he has not yet given the two sexes our present physical form. This sentence explains why Zeus had to make a subsequent change in the physical arrangement of the human sexes.
Trial translation: And whenever one of the halves would die, and one would be left behind, the one being left behind looked for another, whether a woman half of the [i.e. the primoridial combined form] whole the [left-behind] one would chance upon–what now we call woman–or whether a man [half]: and in this way they were perishing.
Some questions:
Have I got the story right?
Have I represented the optatives [ἀποθάνοι, ἐντύχοι] properly?
As I read it, the sentence uses neuter subjects. I take it that Plato doesn’t intend a literal neuter, but uses neuter to represent an either male or female gender. Is that correct?
Yes Hugh you’ve just about got it, except for the optatives (your question 2), which are simply due to the fact that we’re in past sequence. So better “whenever one of the halves died and the other was left behind.” (Your “would” would be opt.+αν, or imperfect—but admittedly “would” is in accordance with contemporary American usage.)
And since τὸ λειφθὲν is aorist too I wouldn’t say “the one being left behind”, which suggests τὸ λειπόμενον, but “the one left behind” or “the one that had been left behind.”
You duck καὶ συνεπλέκετο.
εἴτε γυναικὸς τῆς ὅλης ἐντύχοι ἡμίσει is awkwardly expressed, lit. “whether it chanced upon half of a woman, the whole (woman)" i.e. “whether the half that it chanced on was that of a whole woman" or better (given the word order) “whether it was a woman that it chanced upon half of the whole of.”
Yes Hugh you’ve just about got it, except for the optatives (your question 2), which are simply due to the fact that we’re in past sequence. So better “whenever one of the halves died and the other was left behind.” (Your “would” would be opt.+αν, or imperfect—but admittedly “would” is in accordance with contemporary American usage.)
And since τὸ λειφθὲν is aorist too I wouldn’t say “the one being left behind”, which suggests τὸ λειπόμενον, but “the one left behind” or “the one that had been left behind.”
I see I need to re-study sequence of tenses and moods.
Michael continues:
You duck καὶ συνεπλέκετο.
Ouch! I am the world’s worst proofreader of my own writing.
Michael concludes:
εἴτε γυναικὸς τῆς ὅλης ἐντύχοι ἡμίσει is awkwardly expressed, lit. “whether it chanced upon half of a woman, the whole (woman)" i.e. “whether the half that it chanced on was that of a whole woman" or better (given the word order) “whether it was a woman that it chanced upon half of the whole of.”
Many thanks , Michael; your reply makes this an instructive exercise.
Just a quick follow-up on the optatives in ὁπότε τι ἀποθάνοι etc. This is a past narrative. Optative in the subordinate clauses here represents what in primary sequence would be subjunctive + ἄν: “whenever one of the halves dies …” = ὁπόταν τι ἀποθάνῃ τῶν ἡμίσεων, τὸ δὲ λειφθῇ, τὸ λειφθὲν ἄλλο ζητεῖ καὶ συμπλέκεται, ἐάντε γυναικὸς τῆς ὅλης ἐντύχῃ ἡμίσει, …
Such conversion exercises can be very useful for grammatical consolidation, and Plato offers no end of opportunities. Similarly for conversion of indirect to direct speech, as throughout the Symposium.
Um, no. In fact no no no. Τhere’s no articular infinitive. τὸ δὲ is “and the other one” (answering the prior τι—any one of the halves), and λειφθείη is in parallel with αποθάνοι—both aor.opt., both governed by the ὁπότε. (Aor.pass.infin. is λειφθῆναι. And you’re most unlikely to find acc.absolute in Plato except with neuter participles of impersonal verbs such as εξόν or δέον.)