Plut. Amatorius 23

Dear all,

Can somebody help me understand the following bits of Plutarchus? If needed, here is the link to the text on Perseus: https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2008.01.0313%3Asection%3D23

  1. τόν τε Σόλωνα μαρτυρεῖ γεγονέναι τῶν γαμικῶν ἐμπειρότατον νομοθέτην, κελεύσαντα μὴ ἔλαττον ἢ τρὶς κατὰ μῆνα τῇ γαμετῇ πλησιάζειν, οὐχ ἡδονῆς ἕνεκα πόθεν;

I translated it “there’s evidence that Solon became most experienced law-giver in matters of marriage. He ordered that husband shall approach his wife no less than three times a month, not for the sake of pleasure (was it not for the sake of pleasure?).”

What I don’t understand is how to explain πόθεν; and render the phrase as a question.

  1. τί δὲ δεῖ λέγειν περὶ σωφροσύνης καὶ συνέσεως αὐτῶν, ἔτι δὲ πίστεως καὶ δικαιοσύνης, ὅπου καὶ τὸ ἀνδρεῖον καὶ τὸ θαρραλέον καὶ τὸ μεγαλόψυχον ἐν πολλαῖς ἐπιφανὲς; γέγονε;

Here, I don’t understand γέγονε;

The rest I translated as follows: " But what should be said about their pudence, sagacity, besides faithfulness and justice, if you find in many of them even courage, bravery, and magnanimity?"

  1. The next sentence
    τὸ δὲ πρὸς τἄλλα καλὴν τὴν φύσιν αὐτῶν, ἀλλὰ ψέγοντας εἰς μόνην φιλίαν ἀνάρμοστον ἀποφαίνειν, παντάπασι δεινόν.
    My translation: The fact is that their nature is good for other virtues, but … only to friendship it is not fitting …, it is by all means terrible.
    Is ψέγοντας ἀποφαίνειν Acc. cum Inf. ? How would you render it? How would you render παντάπασι δεινόν?

  2. καὶ γὰρ φιλότεκνοι καὶ φίλανδροι καὶ τὸ στερκτικὸν ὅλως ἐν αὐταῖς, ὥσπερ εὐφυὴς χώρα καὶ δεκτικὴ φιλίας, οὔτε πειθοῦς οὔτε χαρίτων ἄμοιρον ὑπόκειται.
    My translation: For women love their children and husbands, and tenderness is entirely in them, as blooming land is capable of friendship, not lacking either faithfulness or charm.
    Does στερκτικὸν correspond here to ἄμοιρον ὑπόκειται? Does it literally mean that this tenderness or ability to love, not deprived either of faithfulness or charms, underlies their character as a blooming land?

Thank you very much in advance for your help.

  1. Hubert prints <δή>πουθεν, followed by a comma. Very boring, and I like it with the πόθεν, with Plutarch is doing the Al Bundy Married with Children thing: “…not from pleasure (how could that be?!?), but…”

Cmp. Mark 12:37 for this use of πόθεν.

I suppose, a middle of the road text could just make it enclitic: ποθέν: “not from pleasure somehow, but…” It depends on what an editor thinks of Plutarch’s comic genius.

Hi Joel! Thank you for your reply. But if ποθέν is enclitic, shouldn’t i pass its accent to the last syllable of ἕνεκα ?

  1. … οὐχ ἡδονῆς ἕνεκα πόθεν;
    If πόθεν is right—I really don’t know Plutarch well enough to say, but I don’t see why it shouldn’t be—I think it has to be understood not as “(was it not for the sake of pleasure?)” but the opposite: it clearly was not for the sake of pleasure. This idiomatic use of πόθεν is quite common in Aristophanes (though as a separate rhetorical question), and is in line with what he’s said about marital sex: τὸ τῆς ἡδονῆς μικρόν (“the pleasure factor is small”).

2, ὅπου καὶ τὸ ἀνδρεῖον καὶ τὸ θαρραλέον καὶ τὸ μεγαλόψυχον ἐν πολλαῖς ἐπιφανὲς; γέγονε;
It looks to me as if there should be no punctuation between ἐπιφανὲς and γέγονε. Then the sense is clear. The question mark at the end will be applying to the opening rhetorical τί δὲ δεῖ λέγειν—which is not “what should be said” but “why should one speak” i.e. everybody knows.

  1. τὸ δὲ πρὸς τἄλλα καλὴν τὴν φύσιν αὐτῶν, ἀλλὰ ψέγοντας εἰς μόνην φιλίαν ἀνάρμοστον ἀποφαίνειν, παντάπασι δεινόν.
    “The idea that their nature is fine with regard to everything else, and instead blaming them for showing (it to be) unfit for friendship alone, is thoroughly preposterous.”
    ψέγοντας is accusative by default; the construction has shifted a little and there’s no major verb to apply the participle to. ἀποφαίνειν is referring to the object of the unwarranted attack—that it represents (αποφαινειν) women’s nature as incompatible with friendship alone (unattended by other qualities). It’s not entirely coherent.,

  2. καὶ γὰρ φιλότεκνοι καὶ φίλανδροι καὶ τὸ στερκτικὸν ὅλως ἐν αὐταῖς, ὥσπερ εὐφυὴς χώρα καὶ δεκτικὴ φιλίας, οὔτε πειθοῦς οὔτε χαρίτων ἄμοιρον ὑπόκειται.
    “… is fundamentally devoid of neither persuadability nor charms.” (δεκτικὴ attracted into agreement with χώρα.)

It’s nice to get a rare agreement from Michael. I didn’t expect it to be on an Al Bundy joke though.

The same occurs in Philo from time to time, and can be punctuated as interjectory question or enclitic depending on the editor’s mood.

δεδρακὼς οὐκ ἐλέου —πόθεν; —ἀλλ’ ὀργῆς ἄξια

βούλεται γὰρ οὐχ ἑτέρωθέν ποθεν, ἀλλ’ ἐκ τῶν γεωργηθέντων (this is the answer to the accent question, btw)

Here it is as enclitic from elsewhere in Plutarch:

…ὁρῶντες αὐτοὶ μὲν αὑτοῖς ἀναπνοήν τινα καὶ ῥᾳστώνην πορίζειν ποθὲν, ἀλλ’ οὐδ’ ἑτέρων παρακαλούντων…

Hi Michael. Thank you so much for your detailed reply and explanations! Your correction of my version of the beginning of 2 (τί δὲ δεῖ λέγειν) is taken into account. The second sentence now became much clearer without the punctuation mark after ἐπιφανὲς.

Thank you also for your comment about the 3. At least now I see that ψέγοντας ἀποφαίνειν is not Acc + Inf, it is ψέγοντας blaming them for what - for ἀποφαίνειν.

I’m also grateful to you for confirming my initial guess in 4 (ὥσπερ εὐφυὴς χώρα καὶ δεκτικὴ φιλίας, οὔτε πειθοῦς οὔτε χαρίτων ἄμοιρον ὑπόκειται) that it is χώρα δεκτικὴ (capable of) φιλίας . I also wonder if οὔτε πειθοῦς οὔτε χαρίτων ἄμοιρον ὑπόκειται defines τὸ στερκτικὸν.