Plut. Them. 2.2 - what relates to what

Greek Learning Greek
1

This is from Themistocles 2.2
ἐπεὶ καὶ τῶν παιδεύσεων τὰς μὲν ἠθοποιοὺς ἢ πρὸς ἡδονήν τινα καὶ χάριν ἐλευθέριον σπουδαζομένας ὀκνηρῶς καὶ ἀπροθύμως ἐξεμάνθανε, τῶν δὲ εἰς σύνεσιν ἢ πρᾶξιν λεγομένων δῆλος ἦν ὑπερορῶν παρ᾽ ἡλικίαν, ὡς τῇ φύσει πιστεύων.
my current translation is this.
In fact, the cultural-arts-studies (those that are character building or dedicated to some pleasure or other and also to a grace of the free person), he reluctantly and sluggishly learnt, of what was said aiming at intelligence or practical results it was clear that he was contemptuous, in a way odd considering his age, as he trusted his innate nature.

I think I understand it all now but every time I look away it slips out of focus and I see other possibilities.
ἐξεμάνθανε relates to παιδεύσεων ie He studied the liberal arts (but why is παίδευσις genitive and not accusative?)
“τὰς μὲν ἠθοποιοὺς ἢ πρὸς ἡδονήν τινα καὶ χάριν ἐλευθέριον σπουδαζομένας” is all an accusative of respect to παιδεύσεων
σπουδαζομένας is selection one of the παιδεύσεων which is then dedicated to ἡδονήν or a χάριν so καὶ is acting here more like or. than and.

Even if I have at last got it I would really appreciate someone telling me if I have because I’m sure I’ll soon think up some other way to interpret it if I go away for half an hour and then look back over it.

2

τῶν παιδεύσεων means "Of the various subjects of education . . . " and is a partitive genitive depending on both τὰς μὲν ἠθοποιοὺς ἢ πρὸς ἡδονήν τινα καὶ χάριν ἐλευθέριον σπουδαζομένας and τῶν δὲ εἰς σύνεσιν ἢ πρᾶξιν λεγομένων.

μὲν . . . δὲ articulates the structure here: it brings out the contrast and makes it clear that τῶν παιδεύσεων applies to both elements of the sentence.

ὰς μὲν ἠθοποιοὺς ἢ πρὸς ἡδονήν τινα καὶ χάριν ἐλευθέριον σπουδαζομένας is the direct object of ἐξεμάνθανε. “[Of the various educational subjects,] he learned those that shape character or are designed for some sort of pleasure and liberal accomplishments sluggishly and reluctantly;”

τῶν δὲ εἰς σύνεσιν ἢ πρᾶξιν λεγομένων is the genitive complement of ὑπερορῶν. “[of the various topics of education] those said to be for intellectual understanding or practical use he clearly despised.”

Sorry, translations are very rough due to time constraints, but are intended to make the syntax clear.

See LSJ ὑπεροράω :

  1. despise, disdain, “ὑπεριδὼν Ἴωνας” Hdt.5.69, cf. Phld.Vit.p.27 J.; “λόγους ὑπεριδεῖν” Th.4.62; “σφῶν τὸ πλῆθος ὑπεριδών” Id.5.6, cf. 6.11; “ὑπερείδετε τὴν ἐμὴν ὁμιλίαν” Lys.8.7; “πλὴν ἀρετῆς πάντα ὑ.” Pl.Criti.120e; “πάντα τἀνθρώπινα ὑπερεώρα πρὸς τὴν παρὰ τῶν θεῶν ξυμβουλίαν” X.Mem.1.3.4:—Pass., “ἡ Λακεδαίμων κακῶς ἤκουσε καὶ ὑπερώφθη” Th.5.28, cf. 7.42; “ὑπ᾽ ἐκείνων ὑπερορᾶσθαι” Pl.Phdr.232d.

b. less freq. c. gen., > “ὑπερορῶ τῆς ἀπολογίας” Antipho 3.3.4; “ὑμῶν” D.19.338; “τῶν νόμων” X.Mem.1.2.9; “πενίας” Gorg.Pal.32; τῶν μὲν ζῴων φροντίσαι, τῶν δ᾽ οὕτω τιμίων (sc. τῶν ἄστρων）“ ὑ.” Arist.Cael.290a32; “ὑπερεῖδε τῶν ἀνθρωπείων ἀγαθῶν” Luc.Demon.3, cf. Gal.6.108,312.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Du(perora%2Fw

δῆλος ἦν ὑπερορῶν – a common Greek idiom best translated by “clearly” + verb. Note that δῆλος is masculine, not neuter, agreeing with the understood subject, Themistocles, literally, "he was clear despising . . . ", not “it was clear that he despised.” You can translate “it was clear that he despised”, but better just “he clearly despised” (pace Smyth below). This is an example of a situation in which Greek uses an adjective where English would use an adverb, and illustrates an idiomatic use of the Greek participle.

Smyth 2107:

The personal constructions δῆλός εἰμι, φανερός εἰμι I am plainly (impersonal δῆλόν and φανερόν ἐστιν ὅτι) are followed by a dependent statement in the participle. Thus, δῆλος ἦν οἰόμενος (= δῆλον ἦν ὅτι οἴοιτο) it was clear that he thought X. A. 2.5.27, θύ_ων φανερὸς ἦν πολλάκις (= φανερὸν ἦν ὅτι θύ_οι) it was evident that he often sacrificed X. M. 1.1.2, ἀνια_θεὶς δῆλος ἦν (= δῆλον ἦν ὅτι ἀνια_θείη) he showed his dissatisfaction X. C. 2.2.3.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Smyth+grammar+2107&fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0007

LSJ δῆλος:

  1. δ. εἰμι is freq. used c. part., δ. ἐστιν ἀλγεινῶς φέρων i.e. it is clear that he takes it ill, S.Ph.1011, cf. OT673,1008, etc.; οἳ ἂν δ. ὦσι μὴ ἐπιτρέψοντες who are clearly not going to permit, Th. 1.71; with “ὡς, δ. ἐστιν ὥς τι δρασείων κακόν” S.Aj.326; “δ. ἔσεσθε ὡς ὀργιζόμενοι” Lys.12.90, cf. X.An.1.5.9; δ. ὁρᾶσθαι . . ὤν being as was plainly to be seen, E.Or.350: with ὅτι and a Verb, “δ. ἐστιν ὅτι . . ἀκήκοεν” Ar.Pl.333; “δ. ἡ οἰκοδομία ὅτι κατὰ σπουδὴν ἐγένετο” Th.1.9<*>; “δ. ἔσται ὅτι . .” Lys.12.50: sts. the part. or relat. clause must be supplied, καταγελᾷς μου, δ. εἶ (sc. καταγελῶν) Ar.Av.1407, cf. Id.Lys. 919; δῆλοι δέ (sc. οὐ μένοντες) Th.5.10.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3DD.H.%3Dlos

3

I am grateful for any hints that you have the time to give but as it happens you post was very full and clear and sorted out my problems (including one or two I didn’t know I had).

Many thanks.

4

I’m not sure I fully understand the thrust of παρ᾽ ἡλικίαν, ὡς τῇ φύσει πιστεύων, but I think it means that he despised the intellectual (arithmetic, I would guess) and practical subjects “despite his age”, i.e., at an age when it was appropriate to study them, because he thought (ὡς signals that this was the reason in his own mind) he could rely on his innate, “natural” endowments (φύσει).

5

I wrote this earlier and then went off to do other things. Was going to add more on the end but may as well post it as is, though it’s now redundant after Qimmik.

Very difficult to translate this sort of thing, because of (a) the elaborate construction, and (b) the terms and concepts involved.

First off, note that it’s not actually a complete sentence, but strictly speaking a subordinate clause introduced by επει, which controls both verbs (εξεμανθανε and δηλος ην υπερορων).

Now, to break it down. First note the μεν-δε pairing: τας μεν .. εξεμανθανε, των δε … δηλος ην υπερορων. The one set (τας μεν) he learnt, the other set (των δε) he clearly disdained (lit. he was clear disdaining). That’s the skeletal structure of the sentence.

των παιδευσεων is a “partitive” gen.: you have 2 sets of cutural-arts-studies, (1) τας μεν … σπουδαζομενας …, (2) των δε …. λεγομενων. Since (επει και) των παιδευσεων stands outside of both, it applies to them both equally. A translation has to bring this out.

τὰς μὲν ἠθοποιοὺς ἢ πρὸς ἡδονήν τινα καὶ χάριν ἐλευθέριον σπουδαζομένας is direct object of ἐξεμάνθανεν,
while τῶν δὲ εἰς σύνεσιν ἢ πρᾶξιν λεγομένων is quasi-direct object of υπερορων (which takes gen. on account of the υπερ- prefix).

τὰς μὲν ἠθοποιοὺς ἢ πρὸς ἡδονήν τινα καὶ χάριν ἐλευθέριον σπουδαζομένας is divided into 2 subgroups: τὰς μὲν (a) ἠθοποιοὺς ἢ (b) πρὸς ἡδονήν τινα καὶ χάριν ἐλευθέριον σπουδαζομένας.

The rest is detail.

After τῶν δὲ εἰς σύνεσιν ἢ πρᾶξιν λεγομένων δῆλος ἦν ὑπερορῶν (“he plainly disdained works written with a view to discernment or action”) we have παρ᾽ ἡλικίαν, ὡς τῇ φύσει πιστεύων. παρ᾽ ἡλικίαν lit. “contrary to his age” or “beyond his age,” then “as trusting in his nature.” This seems to mean that his disdain for such works (which are evidently to be understood as components of the standard educational curriculum) was “beyond his years” in the sense that he too mature or too sophisticated to bother reading them: he trusted instead in his natural abilities (which by implication served him in good stead).

EDIT. Incidentally, on the δηλος ην construction, I would agree with Smyth that “it was clear than he …” is often a better translation than “he clearly …” Greek tends to use the personal construction where English tends to use the impersonal.

6

mwh: τῶν δὲ εἰς σύνεσιν ἢ πρᾶξιν λεγομένων – is this “works” or various paideuseis, i.e., topics of education? I took τῶν δὲ εἰς σύνεσιν λεγομένων to mean subjects said to be (λεγομένων) for intellectual purposes (arithmetic) and [τῶν εἰς] πρᾶξιν λεγομένων to mean subjects said to be for practical purposes (maybe military training–what would an Athenian aristocrat have studied εἰς πρᾶξιν?).

I took παρ᾽ ἡλικίαν to refer to ὑπερορῶν πρᾶξιν λεγομένων, i.e., he despised these subjects at an age when they were usually studied, but my original impulse was to take it as you did, “he despised them as beneath his age”. I think you’re right.

7

Well yes, this was the bit I meant to revise. των … λεγομενων fem., the 2nd group of παιδευσεις. Lectures, perhaps, or is λεγομ. used more loosely? I take εις as directly dep. on λεγομ., lit. “spoken [which I took as tantamount to “written,” but probably shouldn’t have] towards,” i.e. “addressing,” “concerned with”? συνεσιν η πραξιν both vague terms but obviously an opposition of some kind between mental facility and capacity for (moral?) action? I think less in terms of military training than of lessons on how to act in various circumstances. He’d have undergone ephebic training (and Plutarch would know that) but that would hardly be described as λεγομεναι εις πραξιν. Something like de officiis might fit?

I confess to being unsure about the precise import of παρ᾽ ἡλικίαν, which seems odd with υπερορων.

8

I have Hubert A. Holden’s 1884 commentary and he suggests “more than was natural at his years”. I took that to mean than one so young would not be expected to be quite so sure of himself and suspect Plutarch was hinting without explicitly stating a generous helping of arrogance.

And Michael, though you covered the same ground it was very welcome to read yours as well. It wasn’t redundant.
Thanks

9

I was getting ready to reply that παρ’ ἡλικίαν might be comparative like παρὰ τὰ ἄλλα ζῷα ὥσπερ θεοὶ οἱ ἄνθρωποι βιοτεύουσι, but Hubert Holden seems to have pre-empted me by more than a century.

10

Reminds me of forensic oratory (?) with things being kata or para. As in according to or beyond (usually in a negative context), I’m “thing” here ought to be nomos but I can’t fully remember.

11

Thanks daivid. Yes I suppose that must be it, but I’d put less stress on the arrogance, and I’m not sure it’s said entirely in disapprobation. He was a precocious and gifted kid who felt he could make do without formal studies, and relied on his φύσις instead. Successfully. Destined for great things. There’s no problem about the meaning of παρ’ηλικιαν in itself (see my first post); what I find a little odd is the idea that his disdain was “beyond his age,” but I think we can make sense of it. The familiar φύσις:νόμος opposition that Scribo alludes to has no bearing on it, and is relevant only inasmuch as all παιδεύσεις could in principle be put under the νόμος heading.

Anyway, daivid, the important thing is that you see how the sentence as a whole is put together. Things like μεν … δε are wonderful navigational aids. Neatly packaged phrases like τὰς μὲν ἠθοποιοὺς ἢ πρὸς ἡδονήν τινα καὶ χάριν ἐλευθέριον σπουδαζομένας also help (Ah, all that is a phrase in the accusative: direct object?—and so it turns out to be). The syntax is basically quite straightforward (cf. e.g. των ανθρωπων τους μεν φιλους οντας φιλῶ, τους δ’ εχθρους μισῶ), and the structure of the sentence itself makes clear “what relates to what.” Once you understand the sentence, there’s no need to translate it, a more difficult task.

In short, the sentence articulates itself as you make your way through it:
ἐπεὶ καὶ τῶν παιδεύσεων:
(1) τὰς μὲν ἠθοποιοὺς ἢ πρὸς ἡδονήν τινα καὶ χάριν ἐλευθέριον σπουδαζομένας | (direct object)
ὀκνηρῶς καὶ ἀπροθύμως ἐξεμάνθανε || (verb),
(2) τῶν δὲ εἰς σύνεσιν ἢ πρᾶξιν λεγομένων |
δῆλος ἦν ὑπερορῶν παρ᾽ ἡλικίαν, ὡς τῇ φύσει πιστεύων. |||

Michael