I am starting to read the life of Plotinus and I am a little confused concerning a portion in the first paragraph.
ἔπειτα γράφοντος ἐκ τοῦ τῇ μνήμῃ ἐναποκειμένου ἰνδάλματος τὸ εἴκασμα καὶ συνδιορθοῦντος εἰς ὁμοιότητα τὸ ἴχνος τοῦ Ἀμελίου εἰκόνα αὐτοῦ γενέσθαι ἡ εὐφυία τοῦ Καρτερίου παρέσχεν ἀγνοοῦντος τοῦ Πλωτίνου ὁμοιοτάτην.
The genitive absolutes “γράφοντος” and “ἐναποκειμένου” seem to be arranged into a chiastic structure??..are they gen absolutes?
Could someone help be understand what τὸ ἴχνος τοῦ Ἀμελίου εἰκόνα αὐτοῦ γενέσθαι is doing?
My confused translation would be:
Then [Carterius] painting the image from the stored up impression in his memory and Amelius correcting in order for a likened impression ?image? to come about of him, the genius of Carterius presented the likeness of Plotinus without him knowing.
I’m taking the “εἰς” in “εἰς ὁμοιότητα τὸ ἴχνος…” to function like “ἵνα”…but that has to be wrong.
Could someone give a better translation but still pretty literal so I can see how this sentence should flow. Cause it seems really chopping and disjointed. That’s usually an indicator that I am missing some grammar point somewhere.
Here’s the full paragraph.
1.) Πλωτῖνος ὁ καθ’ ἡμᾶς γεγονὼς φιλόσοφος ἐῴκει μὲν αἰσχυνομένῳ ὅτι ἐν σώματι εἴη. ἀπὸ δὲ τῆς τοιαύτης διαθέσεως οὔτε περὶ τοῦ γένους αὐτοῦ διηγεῖσθαι ἠνείχετο οὔτε περὶ τῶν γονέων οὔτε περὶ τῆς πατρίδος. ζωγράφου δὲ ἀνασχέσθαι ἢ πλάστου τοσοῦτον ἀπηξίου ὥστε καὶ λέγειν πρὸς Ἀμέλιον δεόμενον εἰκόνα αὐτοῦ γενέσθαι ἐπιτρέψαι· οὐ γὰρ ἀρκεῖ φέρειν ὃ ἡ φύσις εἴδωλον ἡμῖν περιτέθεικεν, ἀλλὰ καὶ εἰδώλου εἴδωλον συγχωρεῖν αὐτὸν ἀξιοῦν πολυχρονιώτερον καταλιπεῖν ὡς δή τι τῶν ἀξιοθεάτων ἔργων; Ὅθεν ἀπαγορεύοντος καὶ καθεδεῖσθαι ἕνεκα τούτου ἀρνουμένου ἔχων φίλον ὁ Ἀμέλιος Καρτέριον τὸν ἄριστον τῶν τότε γεγονότων ζωγράφων εἰσιέναι καὶ ἀπαντᾶν εἰς τὰς συνουσίας ποιήσας—ἐξῆν γὰρ τῷ βουλομένῳ φοιτᾶν εἰς τὰς συνουσίας—τὰς ἐκ τοῦ ὁρᾶν φαντασίας πληκτικωτέρας λαμβάνειν διὰ τῆς ἐπὶ πλέον προσοχῆς συνείθισεν. ἔπειτα γράφοντος ἐκ τοῦ τῇ μνήμῃ ἐναποκειμένου ἰνδάλματος τὸ εἴκασμα καὶ συνδιορθοῦντος εἰς ὁμοιότητα τὸ ἴχνος τοῦ Ἀμελίου εἰκόνα αὐτοῦ γενέσθαι ἡ εὐφυία τοῦ Καρτερίου παρέσχεν ἀγνοοῦντος τοῦ Πλωτίνου ὁμοιοτάτην.
I thought that συνδιορθοῦντος εἰς ὁμοιότητα was “corrected into a likeness”. And I would have thought that the γενέσθαι would depend on παρέσχεν, not what came before. And γράφοντος and συνδιορθοῦντος seem like normal genitive absolutes, though they’re connected to Καρτερίου later, right?
I read εἰκόνα αὐτοῦ γενέσθαι as a consecutive depending on συνδιορθοῦντος εἰς ὁμοιότητα τὸ ἴχνος τοῦ Ἀμελίου:
Amelius correcting the impression into similarity to become an image of him
I don’t think that we’re talking about all that different of an idea.
The LSJ gives the examples of παρέχουσι . . γάλα θῆσθαι, and π. τὸ σῶμα τύπτειν, etc., as examples of παρέχω with an accusative and infinitive of purpose.
So I took it all as:
γράφοντος ἐκ τοῦ τῇ μνήμῃ ἐναποκειμένου ἰνδάλματος τὸ εἴκασμα
With Carterius painting the resemblance from the impression of the face in memory,
καὶ συνδιορθοῦντος εἰς ὁμοιότητα τὸ ἴχνος τοῦ Ἀμελίου
and improving with him the imprint of Amelius into a likeness,
εἰκόνα αὐτοῦ γενέσθαι ἡ εὐφυία τοῦ Καρτερίου παρέσχεν ἀγνοοῦντος τοῦ Πλωτίνου ὁμοιοτάτην.
the genius of Carterius produced a portrait of him to become, without the knowledge of Plotinus, the most exact likeness.
I think you are right Joel: εἰκόνα ὁμοιοτάτην
γράφοντος ἐκ τοῦ τῇ μνήμῃ ἐναποκειμένου ἰνδάλματος τὸ εἴκασμα
With Carterius painting the resemblance from the impression of the face in memory,
καὶ συνδιορθοῦντος εἰς ὁμοιότητα τὸ ἴχνος τοῦ Ἀμελίου
and improving with him the imprint of Amelius into a likeness,
εἰκόνα αὐτοῦ γενέσθαι ἡ εὐφυία τοῦ Καρτερίου παρέσχεν ἀγνοοῦντος τοῦ Πλωτίνου ὁμοιοτάτην.
the genius of Carterius produced a portrait of him to become, without the knowledge of Plotinus, the most exact likeness.
Where do you get “of the face”? K. drew the (initial) image based on the form stored up (ἐναποκειμένου) in his memory
καὶ συνδιορθοῦντος εἰς ὁμοιότητα τὸ ἴχνος τοῦ Ἀμελίου
Like bedwere, I take Ἀμελίου as the subject of this gen abs. A. helped correct the sketch into a proper likeness.
You’re right that εἰκόνα γενέσθαι… is dependent on παρέσχεν (K.’s talent allowed there to be…), though the snippets you quote from the LSJ are not relevant.
Thank you all. I helps to just get a different perspective.
ἐναποκειμένου ἰνδάλματος
I hadn’t seen these words before – this is from an era well out of my comfort zone – but εν-απο-κειμενου sure looks like “set-in-from” and ινδαλ-μα “a thing of seeming.” So a face stamped in memory. And I thought it was a setup for ἴχνος, which struck me as very strange.
If the τὸ ἴχνος is simply a sketch, then that’s the sense. I haven’t seen it used to mean sketch. It made me think first of a trace of a sense impression left in Amelius’ memory. συν- would have to refer to their working together then.
Now that’s very interesting. That παρέχω is “allow” (originally) because it’s something like “hold aside”. I wouldn’t have imagined ἡ εὐφυία fitting with that sense at all. But no doubt it’s very divorced from its root here. Was it an Attic revival word, or a sense in common use?