Tag Archives: nature

Edward Taylor, Meditation 33, Stanza Three

06 Thursday May 2021

Posted by in Edward Taylor

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

Stanza Three

Nature’s amazed, Oh monstrous thing, quoth she,

Not love my life? What violence doth split

True love and life, that they should sundered be?                  15

She doth not lay such eggs, nor on them sit.

How do I sever then my heart with all

It powers whose love scare to my life doth crawl.

Summary:

“Nature” now makes an appearance. “She” is amazed when she looks upon the unnatural love of Taylor of that which is not his life. This leads the poet to a question: How do I stop my heart from loving that which is not his life?

Notes:

Nature’s amazed: this is an interesting personification of nature. The concept of “nature” or “natural” has a few potential meanings, which need to be distinguished here. 

First is “nature” in the sense of being or essence: it is a kind of nature you are: “Since Christ, being a divine Person, did not suffer according to His divine nature but according to His human nature, exaltation as such did not occur according to His divine nature.” Wilhelmus à Brakel, The Christian’s Reasonable Service, ed. Joel R. Beeke, trans. Bartel Elshout, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 1992), 625.

Second, there is nature as opposed to grace: to be “natural” is what one is aside from the work of  the Spirit. “By spiritual Edwards means “sanctified” in opposition to “carnal,” which signifies the natural or unsanctified man.” John E. Smith, “Editor’s Introduction,” in Religious Affections, ed. John E. Smith and Harry S. Stout, Revised edition., vol. 2, The Works of Jonathan Edwards (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009), 24.

Third, there is a common grace operation of the Spirit generally, which makes certain considerations “natural” to everyone, “The nature of the work of the Spirit may be learnt from the nature of his work in legal conviction. ’Tis the same common enlightening assistance of both, but only one is of evil, and the other of good. Those legal convictions that natural men have are from the common illuminations of the Spirit of God concerning evil.” Jonathan Edwards, The “Miscellanies”: (Entry Nos. 501–832), ed. Ava Chamberlain and Harry S. Stout, vol. 18, The Works of Jonathan Edwards (New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 2000), 357–358. 

But a personified “Nature” is certainly not a common idiom among those of Taylor’s intellectual world. This “nature” is no human being, but rather fulfills the position of say an angel who can look upon and see Taylor, but is not himself God nor another human being. 

But such an understanding immediately runs into a problem in the next line:

Nature’s amazed, Oh monstrous thing, quoth she,

Not love my life?

The “my” of “my life” means that Nature is the one conveying the life to Taylor. But that life is also in God and of God. I can understand what Taylor means by this usage, but this is not Taylor’s most theologically careful usage. 

Perhaps a way to keep this line is as if “Nature” refers to the natural life which Taylor being alive. It would then be his own life speaking to him: Why don’t you cherish your own life? But that is problematic with this line:

She doth not lay such eggs, nor on them sit.

And so we are left with a vaguely personified Nature speaking to him.

Love and life:

The incoherence of sin is here laid out: He loves something which is contrary to his life. Rationally, one’s love should be to one’s own life. As Paul writes, “For no one ever hated his own flesh.” Eph. 5:29 But in sin one loves something not only trivial but also contrary to one’s own good. 

This then justifies the use of “Nature” in the sense of: to love something contrary to one’s own life is certainly “unnatural”.

Finally, the quandary:

How do I sever then my heart with all

It powers whose love scare to my life doth crawl.

This is a Kierkegaardian despair: What do I do? How can I stop this of love of what is not my life? I have a heart which refuses to even seek its own good: It will not even crawl toward life. 

Someone whose body was ravaged would drag and crawl out of a wreck, but his heart will not even make an effort toward it’s own life: Hence, it is unnatural.

Are You An Anthropocentrist?

13 Wednesday May 2015

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

[Without further coment]:

Ample evidence that we humans are not superior to all other living beings. Instead we might recognize other creatures are “gifted with the extension of the senses we have lost or never attained, living by voices we shall never hear.”

http://lauragraceweldon.com/2014/11/05/are-you-an-anthropocentrist/

Science and the Beauty of God

05 Tuesday Aug 2014

Posted by in Apologetics, Art, Vern Poythress

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

In “Surfing the Universe,” Benjamin Wallace-Wells, of physics as a search for beauty:

Physicists have long looked to higher math for insights into the workings of the universe. “If a figure is so beautiful and intricate and clear, you figure it must not exist for itself alone,” John Baez, a professor of mathematics at the University of California at Riverside, said. “It must correspond to something in the physical world.” This instinct—the assumption that beauty will stand in for truth—has become a habit. Some physicists now worry that string theory’s mathematics have grown permanently unmoored from the real world—an exercise in its own complexity. And so modern theoretical physics has become, in part, an argument about aesthetics.

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2008/07/21/surfing-the-universe

Interestingly, Poythress explains that seeing such beauty is right, because such beauty is a disclosure of God:

Scientific laws, especially “deep” laws, are beautiful. Scientists have long sifted through possible hypotheses and models partly on the basis of the cri­teria of beauty and simplicity. For example, Newton’s law of gravitation and Maxwell’s laws of electromagnetism are mathematically simple and beauti­ful. And scientists clearly expect new laws, as well as the old ones, to show beauty and simplicity. Why?

 

The beauty of scientific laws shows the beauty of God himself. Though beauty has not been a favorite topic in classical expo­sitions of the doctrine of God, the Bible shows us a God who is profoundly beautiful. He manifests himself in beauty in the design of the tabernacle, the poetry of the Psalms, and the elegance of Christ’s parables, as well as the moral beauty of the life of Christ.

 

The beauty of God himself is reflected in what he has made. We are more accustomed to seeing beauty in particular objects within creation, such as a butterfly, or a lofty mountain, or a flower-covered meadow. But beauty is also displayed in the simple, elegant form of some of the most basic physical laws, like Newton’s law for force, F = ma, or Einstein’s formula relating mass and energy, E = mc2. Why should such elegant laws even exist? Beauty is also dis­played in the harmony among different areas of science, and the harmony between mathematics and science that scientists rely on whenever they use a mathematical formula to describe a physical process.

 

Poythress, Vern S. (2006-10-13). Redeeming Science: A God-Centered Approach (Kindle Locations 369-377). Crossway. Kindle Edition.

 

Plutarch’s Marriage Advice, Section 24: Marriage Without Thought

27 Thursday Feb 2014

Posted by in Greek, New Testament Background, Plutarch

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

The previous post in this series may be found here: https://memoirandremains.wordpress.com/2014/02/26/plutarchs-marriage-advice-section-23-magic-charms/

On another occasion, Olympias spoke concerning a certain young man at court who had married a beautiful woman – with a bad reputation. “He has no sense at all. One ought not marry based on appearance, by what the eyes see or the fingers count – you know, the man who thinks  how much he’ll receive without thinking about how they’ll live together.

Greek Text:

πάλιν ἡ Ὀλυμπιάς, αὐλικοῦ τινος νεανίσκου γήμαντος εὐπρεπῆ γυναῖκα κακῶς ἀκούουσαν, ‘οὗτος’ εἶπεν ‘ οὐκ ἔχει λογισμόν· ουʼ γὰρ ἂν τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς ἔγημε’ δεῖ δὲ μὴ τοῖς ὄμμασι γαμεῖν δὲ τοῖς δακτύλοις, ὥσπερ ἔνιοι ψηφίσαντες πόσα φέρουσαν λαμβάνουσιν, ουʼ κρίναντες πῶς συμβιωσομένην.

Translation Notes: 

πάλιν ἡ Ὀλυμπιάς

Again, Olympias

αὐλικοῦ τινος νεανίσκου

of the court a certain young man

aulikos means of the court, as in a courtier.

γήμαντος εὐπρεπῆ γυναῖκα

having married a beautiful woman

euprepes means of an attractive appearance, but it can also mean “fitting” or suited. In light of the comment concerning her wealth, the choice of this word may be a pun on her beauty being in her wealth.

κακῶς ἀκούουσαν

of an evil reputation

κακῶς: evilly

ἀκούουσαν: genitive participle: heard of

‘οὗτος’ εἶπεν

Thus, she

οὐκ ἔχει λογισμόν

he has no ability to reason/no thought

ουʼ γὰρ ἂν τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς ἔγημε’

for then not by sight would have have married

δεῖ δὲ μὴ τοῖς ὄμμασι γαμεῖν

for not by the eyes ought one to marry

hommas is a poetic word for “eye”. The movement between ophthamos in the prior clause seems to indicate a movement from “by sight” to “eyes”.

δὲ τοῖς δακτύλοις

or by fingers

ὥσπερ ἔνιοι ψηφίσαντες πόσα φέρουσαν λαμβάνουσιν

as some number (count up) how much bringing (to the marriage) they would receive

ουʼ κρίναντες πῶς συμβιωσομένην

not judging how she would live (with him)

Plutarch’s Marriage Advice, Section 23: Magic Charms

26 Wednesday Feb 2014

Posted by in Greek, New Testament Background, Plutarch

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

The previous post in this series may be found here: https://memoirandremains.wordpress.com/2014/01/09/plutarchs-marriage-advice-section-22-constant-struggle/

 

Section 23:

Now King Philip fell passionately for a Thessalian woman – apparently due to her witchcraft. So Olympias made haste to bring this woman under her power. But when the woman came into sight and Olympias saw her beautiful appearance and then discoursed with her, Olympias commanded, “Make the slanderers leave! This woman’s magic is all in herself.”

So a lawfully wedded wife will become an irresistible thing when she has all things in herself, her dowry and birth and magic – even the belt of magic  —  for character and virtue will win a husband’s love.

 

Greek Text:

ὁ βασιλεὺς Φίλιππος ἤρα Θεσσαλῆς γυναικὸς αἰτίαν ἐχούσης καταφαρμακεύειν αὐτόν. ἐσπούδασεν οὖν ἡ Ὀλυμπιὰς λαβεῖν τὴν ἄνθρωπον ὑποχείριον. ὡς δʼ εἰς ὄψιν ἐλθοῦσα τὸ τʼ εἶδος εὐπρεπὴς ἐφάνη καὶ διελέχθη πρὸς αὐτὴν οὐκ ἀγεννῶς οὐδʼ ἀσυνέτως, ‘χαιρέτωσαν’ εἶπεν ἡ Ὀλυμπιάς ‘αἱ διαβολαί σὺ γὰρ ἐν σεαυτῇ τὰ φάρμακα ἔχεις.’ ἄμαχον οὖν τι γίγνεται πρᾶγμα γαμετὴ γυνὴ καὶ νόμιμος, ἂν ἐν αὑτῇ πάντα θεμένη, καὶ προῖκα καὶ γένος καὶ φάρμακα καὶ τὸν κεστὸν αὐτόν, ἤθει καὶ ἀρετῇ κατεργάσηται τὴν εὔνοιαν.

 

Translation Notes:

 

ὁ βασιλεὺς Φίλιππος ἤρα Θεσσαλῆς γυναικὸς

Philip the king passionately desired a Thessalian woman

ὁ βασιλεὺς Φίλιππος

The King, Philip: apposition.

ἤρα: 3 person, singular, imperfect, erao: he loved. While the verb does not necessarily require a sexual element, the fact that Philip was apparently bewitched indicates a peculiar degree of passion.

Θεσσαλῆς γυναικὸς: A genitive of direct object. See, e.g., Herodotus 9.108, “τότε δὴ ἐν τῇσι Σάρδισι ἐὼν ἄρα ἤρα τῆς Μασίστεω γυναικός” – Being then at Sardis he became enamored of Masistes’ wife. One could write that Philip was enamored of a Thessalian woman, but it would sound dated and overly formal.

αἰτίαν ἐχούσης καταφαρμακεύειν αὐτόν

because she bewitched him.

αἰτίαν: on the charge, because, reason.

ἐχούσης καταφαρμακεύειν: present participle with a present infinitive. The infinitive shows either purpose or result.

 

ἐσπούδασεν οὖν ἡ Ὀλυμπιὰς λαβεῖν τὴν ἄνθρωπον ὑποχείριον

Therefore, Olympias hastened to that woman under her hand.

ἐσπούδασεν οὖν: Therefore, she made haste

ἡ Ὀλυμπιὰς: The Olympias, Philip’s wife. The Wikipedia page reads:

Their marriage was very stormy, Philip’s volatility and Olympias’ jealous temper had led to a growing estrangement. Things got even worse in 337 BC, when Philip married to a noble Macedonian woman, Cleopatra, who was niece of Attalus and after the marriage changed her name to Eurydice. This caused great tensions between Philip, Olympias and Alexander. Olympias went into voluntary exile in Epirus, staying at the Molossian court of her brother Alexander I who was the king at the time, along with her son Alexander who sided with her.

λαβεῖν: to receive, obtain. The infinitive marks the purpose of her haste.

τὴν ἄνθρωπον:  The female (as marked by the article) human being (anthropos is often translated “man”. Here is it is plain that is a human being, not a male that is in view).

ὑποχείριον: Under-hand

 

ὡς δʼ εἰς ὄψιν ἐλθοῦσα

Yet as [she] came to be seen [by Olympias]

 

τὸ τʼ εἶδος εὐπρεπὴς ἐφάνη

who saw her beautiful appearance

 

καὶ διελέχθη πρὸς αὐτὴν

and she discoursed her

οὐκ ἀγεννῶς οὐδʼ ἀσυνέτως

She was not poorly bred nor senseless

‘χαιρέτωσαν’ εἶπεν ἡ Ὀλυμπιάς

Let them leave, said Olympias

Chairo can mean “greeting” but it can also be used as a farewell. As an imperative it means “leave” or “let them leave”.

αἱ διαβολαί σὺ γὰρ ἐν σεαυτῇ τὰ φάρμακα ἔχεις.

The slanderers for in herself the magic she has

Diablos: slander, English: Devil.  “Let the devils leave!”

’ ἄμαχον οὖν τι γίγνεται πρᾶγμα γαμετὴ γυνὴ καὶ νόμιμος

An irresistible thing she becomes a lawfully wedded wife

Amachon means without battle. Here Plutarch uses it to mean something that wins without a fight. Babbitt rightfully translates this “irresistible”.

 

ἂν ἐν αὑτῇ πάντα θεμένη,

if in herself all things lie

An marks the conditional sentence, with the subjective participle of tithemi.

καὶ προῖκα καὶ γένος καὶ φάρμακα καὶ τὸν κεστὸν αὐτόν

and dowry and birth and magic even the belt of charms itself.

Babbitt has “magic girdle” for kestos – which does not convey any lovely image in contemporary English.

αὐτόν: emphatic: itself.

ἤθει καὶ ἀρετῇ κατεργάσηται τὴν εὔνοιαν

character and virtue will obtain [his] affection

 

The article apparently marks a possessive: The benevolence/affection would be the affection of the husband.

Plutarch’s Marriage Advice, Section 22: Constant Struggle

09 Thursday Jan 2014

Posted by in Greek, New Testament Background, Plutarch

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

The previous post in this series may be found here: https://memoirandremains.wordpress.com/2013/12/31/plutarchs-marriage-advice-section-21-an-iliad-of-evils/

 Section 22

When his friends rebuked the Roman for sending away his wise and wealthy and beautiful wife, he showed them his shoe. “No one knows where it pinches me.”

You see it is needful for a wife not to trust in her dowry, her pedigree or her beauty. Instead, she should use those things which a husband most takes hold of, conversation, conduct and companionship.  She must not render these things in a harsh or grievous manner, but rather with harmony, not with trouble but with kindness.

Physicians fear those fevers which come from uncertain and slight causes more than those which have apparent and powerful reasons.  Likewise it is secret,  slight and constant, even daily,  insults between wife and husband which disrupt and spoil their life together.

Greek Text and Translation Notes:

ὁ Ῥωμαῖος ὑπὸ τῶν φίλων νουθετούμενος ὅτι σώφρονα γυναῖκα καὶ πλουσίαν καὶ ὡραίαν ἀπεπέμψατο, τὸν κάλτιον αὐτοῖς προτείνας; ‘ καὶ γὰρ οὗτος’ ἔφη ‘ καλὸς ἰδεῖν καὶ καινός, ἀλλʼ οὐδεὶς οἶδεν ὅπου με θλίβει.’ δεῖ τοίνυν μὴ προικὶ μηδὲ γένει μηδὲ κάλλει τὴν γυναῖκα πιστεύειν, ἀλλʼ ἐν οἷς ἅπτεται μάλιστα τοῦ ἀνδρός, ὁμιλίᾳ τε καὶ ἤθει καὶ συμπεριφορᾷ, ταῦτα μὴ σκληρὰ μηδʼ ἀνιῶντα καθʼ ἡμέραν ἀλλʼ εὐάρμοστα καὶ ἄλυπα καὶ προσφιλῆ παρέχειν. ὥσπερ γὰρ οἱ ἰατροὶ τοὺς ἐξ αἰτιῶν ἀδήλων καὶ κατὰ μικρὸν συλλεγομένων γεννωμένους πυρετοὺς μᾶλλον δεδοίκασιν ἢ τοὺς ἐμφανεῖς καὶ μεγάλας προφάσεις ἔχοντας, οὕτω τὰ λανθάνοντα τοὺς πολλοὺς μικρὰ καὶ συνεχῆ καὶ καθημερινὰ προσκρούματα γυναικὸς καὶ ἀνδρὸς μᾶλλον διίστησι καὶ λυμαίνεται τὴν συμβίωσιν.

 

Plutarch, Moralia, ed. Gregorius N. Bernardakis, vol. 1 (Medford, MA: Teubner, 1888), 344–345.

 

ὁ Ῥωμαῖος

The Roman

ὑπὸ τῶν φίλων

by his friends

hypo + genitive: agency

νουθετούμενος

being admonished

ὅτι σώφρονα γυναῖκα καὶ πλουσίαν καὶ ὡραίαν ἀπεπέμψατο.

that a prudent wife and rich and beautiful he sent away

The hoti introduces the reason for the rebuke.  The kai’s (ands) between each adjective do not sound as excessive in Greek as it does in Engligh.

τὸν κάλτιον αὐτοῖς προτείνας

his shoe to them he stretched out

The article marks position, “his shoe”.  He held out the shoe to his friends. The “shoe” is accusative as the object of the verb.

 

‘ καὶ γὰρ οὗτος’ ἔφη

And for thus he said

Translate, so doing, he said.

καλὸς ἰδεῖν καὶ καινός

beautiful to see and new

The infinitive is epexegetical: it modifies the adjective “beautiful” the shoe is beautiful to look at (Wallce, 607).

ἀλλʼ οὐδεὶς οἶδεν ὅπου με θλίβει

But no one knows where me it pinches.

The alla marks a contrast with the beauty.  Oiden is in the perfect tense. This demonstrates some of the difficulty in translating verbs: It does not mean “it was seen in the past but has present continuing effects”. It merely means it was seen.

δεῖ τοίνυν

Hence it is necessary

μὴ προικὶ μηδὲ γένει μηδὲ κάλλει τὴν γυναῖκα πιστεύειν,

not dowry nor family linage nor beauty for the wife to trust (in).

“The wife” is in the accusative since it is the subject of the infinitive.

ἀλλʼ ἐν οἷς ἅπτεται μάλιστα τοῦ ἀνδρός

rather in those [things which] the husband especially takes hold of

, ὁμιλίᾳ τε καὶ ἤθει καὶ συμπεριφορᾷ

Conversation and custom and companionship

ταῦτα μὴ σκληρὰ μηδʼ ἀνιῶντα

these things neither rough nor grievously

The participle functions as a straight adjective in parallel with sclera.

ἀνιάω [α^ν], S.Aj.266, etc.: 3sg. impf. ἠνία ib.273, Pl.Grg.502a: fut. ἀνιάσω [α_ς] X.An.3.3.19, Ep.

A.“ἀνιήσω” Hom.: aor. “ἠνία_σα” And.1.50, etc.; Dor. “ἀνία_σα” Theoc.2.23: pf. “ἠνία_κα” Hld.7.22:—Pass., “ἀνιῶμαι” Od.15.335, etc., Ion. 3pl. opt. “ἀνιῴατο” Hdt.4.130: 3pl. impf. “ἠνιῶντο” X.Cyr.6.3.10: fut. “ἀνιάσομαι” Ar.Fr.488.11, X.Mem.1.1.8 (ἀνιαθήσομαι only in Gal.Anim.Pass.9); Ep. 2sg. “ἀνιήσεαι” Thgn.991: aor. “ἠνιάθην” X.HG6.4.20; Ion. “-ήθην” Il.2.291: pf. “ἠνΐημαι” Mosch. 4.3: the aor. Med. ἀνιάσασθαι is v.l. for ἀνιᾶσθαι in Gal.UP6.16: (ἀνία）. [ι_ always in Hom. and S.; ι^_ in Thgn. and late Poets; ι^ in Ar. l. c., etc.]:—commoner form of the Ep. ἀνιάζω, grieve, distress, c. acc. pers., “ἀνιήσει . . υἷας Ἀχαιῶν” Od.2.115, cf. 20.178; “μηδὲ φίλους ἀνία” Thgn.1032; “φίλους ἀνιῶν” S.Aj.266: c. acc. rei, ἀνιᾷ μου τὰ ῶ<*>τα Pl.Grg.485b: c. dupl. acc., “ὁ δρῶν σ᾽ ἀνιᾷ τὰς φρένας” S.Ant.319: c. acc. pers. et neut. Adj., τί ταῦτ᾽ ἀνιᾷς με; ib.550; παῦρ᾽ ἀνιάσας, πόλλ᾽ εὐφράνας (sc. ὑμᾶς) Ar.Pax764; “ἠνίασά σε οὐδὲν πώποτε” And. 1.50:—Pass., to be grieved, distressed, c. dat. pers. vel rei, ἀνιᾶται παρεόντι he is vexed by one’s presence, Od.15.335; “ἀ. ὀρυμαγδῷ” 1.133; “σύν σοι . . παθόντι κακῶς ἀνιώμεθα” Thgn.655; “πάσχων ἀνιήσεαι” Id.991; “ἀ. ὑπομιμνῄσκων” Lys.13.43; “δαπανὼντα ἀνιᾶσθαι” X.Cyr.8.3.44; “περί τινος” Ar.Lys.593: c. neut. Adj., τοῦτ᾽ ἀνιῶμαι πάλαι I have long been vexed at tnis, S.Ph.906; πολλὰ μὲν αὐτοὺς ἀνιωμένους, πολλὰ δὲ ἀνιω<*>ντας τοὺς οἰκέτας X.Oec.3.2: abs., “οὐδ᾽ ἂν . . ἀνιῷτο” Thgn.1205: esp. in aor. part. Pass. “ἀνιηθείς” disheartened, Od.3.117, Il.2.291.

 

καθʼ ἡμέραν

            every day

ἀλλʼ εὐάρμοστα καὶ ἄλυπα καὶ προσφιλῆ παρέχειν

but good harmony and painless and friendly to offer/present

Here in the infinitive appears to function as an imperatival. The wife should present such.

ὥσπερ γὰρ οἱ ἰατροὶ

            For just as the physicians

Here the subject of the sentence “physicians” is separated by ten words from its consonant.

τοὺς ἐξ αἰτιῶν ἀδήλων καὶ κατὰ μικρὸν συλλεγομένων γεννωμένους πυρετοὺς

those fevers from causes and unclear and according to small/slight causes becoming

The accusative plural article is matched by the last word in the clause, fevers. It is in the accusative as the direct object of that the physician fears. The first participle is in the genitive and is bound to the preposition ex (thus genitive).  The second participle is in the accusative and modifies “fevers”.

μᾶλλον δεδοίκασιν

rather they fear

The verb is perfect.

ἢ τοὺς ἐμφανεῖς καὶ μεγάλας προφάσεις ἔχοντας

rather than those manifest and great (apparent) causes having

tous: those fevers

Prophaseis does not necessary refer to a false or deceitful cause.

The participle modifies “those [fevers]”.

οὕτω τὰ λανθάνοντα

Thus the hidden ones

Articular participle as a substantive.

τοὺς πολλοὺς μικρὰ

            those many small

καὶ συνεχῆ

and continuous

καὶ καθημερινὰ προσκρούματα

and daily knocks against

προσκρούματα is an alternate spelling of πρόσ-κρουσμα , ατος, τό,

A.that against which one strikes, obstacle, Arist.PA658a7 (pl.).

2. knock, Hippiatr.96.

II. stumblingblock, cause of offence or friction, D.54.3 (pl.), J.BJ1.26.3 (pl.); “πολιτικὰ π. τοῖς δημάρχοις πρὸς τοὺς ὑπάτους συνέστη” D.H.10.31, cf. 4.25; τὰ περὶ τὴν σιτοδοσίαν π. Id.7.45.—The form πρόσκρουμα (which is preferred by Thom.Mag.p.317 R., citing Aristid.1.455 J.) freq. occurs in the same Mss. as πρόσκρουσμα, cf. Plu.2.137c with 141b, al.

γυναικὸς καὶ ἀνδρὸς

of wife and of husband

μᾶλλον διίστησι καὶ λυμαίνεται τὴν συμβίωσιν.

 

Especially separates and harms their life together

Winter Trees

02 Thursday Jan 2014

Posted by in Literature

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

WINTER TREES

By William Carlos Williams

All the complicated details
of the attiring and
the disattiring are completed!
A liquid moon
moves gently among
the long branches.
Thus having prepared their buds
against a sure winter
the wise trees
stand sleeping in the cold.

Take the first line: “All the complicated details”. He has done something more than merely speak of a tree losing its leaves; dropping leaves entails nothing “complicated”. Yet by calling the process of loss “complicated details” one must stop and think: how does a tree know to prepare for winter? I say “know” because Williams calls such trees “wise”. Only intelligent agents have “wisdom”. Stop and think, what must a tree do to lose its leaves (but only for the winter).

Next he uses the verb “attriring” and the unusual “disattiring”: one knows what he means by “disattiring”, but the unusual verb puts the emphasis upon a deliberate act of costume. The tree does not lose its leaves, it takes them off for winter.

“A liquid moon/moves”: One would not normally call the moon “liquid”. Yet, in speaking of the moon moving between the branches, the word “liquid” has the light from the moon moving over and through the branches. The light now bathes the branches — not merely shining through the branches. The “gentlely” makes the interaction dear, sweet.

By speaking of the winter moon (as opposed to sun), the scene is cold. Williams stands at the base of the tree, looking up at the moon and thinks of spring “prepared their buds”. The tree wisely falls to hibernation (sleeping in the cold).

The poem does two things: First, he merely observes and describes the tree. Second, he think of the wisdom of the tree. In thinking of the wisdom, Williams points toward something beyond the tree (for trees do not have a self-conscious wisdom). Here the moon comes back again: there is a system, something bigger than either a tree or the moon. Then we return to the complicated details.

A great poem is shy. It does not disclose all its beauty on the first glance.

Plutarch’s Marriage Advice, Section 21: An Iliad of Evils

31 Tuesday Dec 2013

Posted by in Greek, New Testament Background, Plutarch

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The previous post in this series may be found here: https://memoirandremains.wordpress.com/2013/12/09/plutarchs-marriage-advice-section-20-no-need-for-a-pre-nup/

 

Helen loved money –

            Paris loved pleasure.

Odysseus was thoughtful,

            Penelope was prudent.

The second of these marriages was blessed – one to be envied. But the first marriage wrote an Iliad of Evils for the Greeks and for the Barbarians.

Notes and Translation

Plutarch praises the philosophical life (see his introduction to the piece). He describes the first couple as those who “love” money and pleasure. The second are marked by a pair of words which mean thoughtful/prudent (if anything, the word of Penelope means even more careful in one’s thought). 

The first pair literally reads, “Helen [was] a money-lover, Paris [was] a pleasure-lover.” However, since they were characterized by the “love” and since love implies an action (to love); and also to create a greater contrast in the couples; it seems appropriate to translate the adjective as an active noun.

The word “wrote” in the final line is “made/created”, but with an indefinite concept.  Yet, the English “made” does not necessary carry the same feeling as the Greek poein.  However, the word is related to the Greek word for “poetry”; and Plutarch is using a literary example. Thus, “wrote” is not far off the mark.

 

Greek Text:

Φιλόπλουτος ἡ Ἑλένη, φιλήδονος ὁ Πάρις· φρόνιμος ὁ Ὀδυσσεύς, σώφρων ἡ Πηνελόπη. διὰ τοῦτο μακάριος γάμος ὁ τούτων καὶ ζηλωτός, ὁ δʼ ἐκείνων Ἰλιάδα κακῶν Ἕλλησι καὶ βαρβάροις ἐποίησεν.

 

Φιλόπλουτος ἡ Ἑλένη

Money-lover: Helen

Here begins a series of four predicate adjectives, nominative chains.  In more idiomatic English, Helen was a money-lover.   The article means The Helen – that one from the story!. The “celebrity” article.

φιλήδονος ὁ Πάρις

            Pleasure-lover: Paris.

φρόνιμος ὁ Ὀδυσσεύς

            Thoughtful: Odyesseus

There is a great deal of overlap in the meaning of the words used to describe Odysseus and his wife.  The phron- word group centers upon the idea of thinking in the sense of giving careful thought. Thus, it also means one who is prudent or wise. The second word is built upon the first and means “sound-thinking”.

σώφρων ἡ Πηνελόπη.

Prudent: Penelope.

διὰ τοῦτο

Because of this/on this account

μακάριος γάμος

blessed [the] marriage,

marriage was blessed

ὁ τούτων

the closer/nearest [one named], “this”.

The latter of the marriages mentions.

καὶ ζηλωτός

and enviable

ὁ δʼ ἐκείνων

            But of that one [the further one named; here, the first]

Ἰλιάδα κακῶν

            An Illiad of evils

 

Ἕλλησι καὶ βαρβάροις

For the Greeks and for the Barbarians

The nouns are definite because they function as proper nouns for the two groups of the war. The dative of interest:  more precisely, in Wallace’s scheme, a dative of disadvantage.

ἐποίησεν.

It (the marriage) made

Plutarch’s Marriage Advice, Section 20: No Need for a Pre-Nup

09 Monday Dec 2013

Posted by in Greek, New Testament Background, Plutarch

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

The previous post in this series is found here: https://memoirandremains.wordpress.com/2013/11/15/plutarchs-marriage-advice/

Plutarch, Section 20:

This section sounds quite romantic: Each of the partners to the marriage must give themselves up completely to the other so that there is no longer mine or yours. And yet, when we reach the punch line we learn that Plutarch means that a wife should give up her property to her husband and no longer consider her wealth – even if it is greater than the husband’s before marriage – as hers.

 

Translation:

Plato says that in a prosperous and blessed city, people really hear “mine” or “not mine”—especially when it comes to those things most needful for the good of the whole. Even more so should such expressed be refused in the state of marriage.

It’s like when physicians say that a wound to the left side is felt on the right.  It is beautiful when a wife sympathizes with her husband, and a husband with his wife.

Or, it’s like this: When the strands of a rope are interwoven, each strand gains strength from the other.  When goodwill is given one-to-another the whole is preserved through the union.

Nature unites our bodies in order that from each a measure is received and mixed and something of fellowship is received by both, so that neither can limit or distinguish oneself or the other.

This is most especially important when it comes to property in marriage: there should be just one common fund, poured together and deeply intertwined so that one can longer tell what is mine and what is yours.

It’s like when we called wine mixed with water “wine” – even if it is mostly water: it is very important to call the entire household property the “husband’s” even if his wife contributed the greater share.

 

Greek Text and Translation Notes:

 

ὁ Πλάτων φησὶν εὐδαίμονα καὶ μακαρίαν εἶναι πόλιν, ἐνh ‘τὸ ἐμὸν καὶ τὸ οὐκ ἐμὸν’ ἣκιστα φθεγγομένων ἀκούουσι διὰ τὸ κοινοῖς ὡς ἔνι μάλιστα χρῆσθαι τοῖς ἀξίοις σπουδῆς τοὺς πολίτας, πολὺ δὲ μᾶλλον ἐκ γάμου δεῖ τὴν τοιαύτην φωνὴν ἀνῃρῆσθαι. πλὴν ὥσπερ οἱ ἰατροὶ λέγουσι τὰς τῶν εὐωνύμων πληγὰς τὴν αἴσθησιν ἐν τοῖς δεξιοῖς ἀναφέρειν, οὕτω τὴν γυναῖκα τοῖς τοῦ ἀνδρὸς συμπαθεῖν καλὸν καὶ τὸν ἄνδρα τοῖς τῆς γυναικός, ἵνʼ ὥσπερ οἱ δεσμοὶ κατὰ τὴν ἐπάλλαξιν ἰσχὺν διʼ ἀλλήλων λαμβάνουσιν, οὕτως ἑκατέρου τὴν εὔνοιαν ἀντίστροφον ἀποδιδόντος ἡ κοινωνία σῴζηται διʼ ἀμφοῖν. καὶ γὰρ ἡ φύσις μίγνυσι διὰ τῶν σωμάτων τῶν ἡμᾶς, ἵνʼ ἐξ ἑκατέρων μέρος λαβοῦσα καὶ συγχέασα κοινὸν ἀμφοτέροις ἀποδῷ τὸ γεννώμενον, ὥστε μηδέτερον διορίσαι μηδὲ διακρῖναι τὸ ἴδιον ἢ τὸ ἀλλότριον. τοιαύτη τοίνυν καὶ χρημάτων κοινωνία προσήκει μάλιστα τοῖς γαμοῦσιν εἰς μίαν οὐσίαν πάντα καταχεαμένοις καὶ ἀναμίξασι μὴ τὸ μέρος ἴδιον καὶ τὸ μέρος ἀλλότριου ἀλλὰ πᾶν ἴδιον ἡγεῖσθαι καὶ μηδὲν ἀλλότριον. ὥσπερ γὰρ τὸ κρᾶμα καίτοι ὕδατος μετέχον πλείονος οἶνον καλοῦμεν, οὕτω τὴν οὐσίαν δεῖ καὶ τὸν οἶκον τοῦ ἀνδρὸς λέγεσθαι, κἂν ἡ γυνὴ πλείονα συμβάλληται.[1]

 

 

ὁ Πλάτων φησὶν

Plato said

The article refers to THE Plato. Wallace calls this the “Well-Known, Celebrity” use of the article (225).

εὐδαίμονα καὶ μακαρίαν

Fortunate/prosperous and blessing

εἶναι πόλιν

is a city

A city which is happy and blessed (prosperous).

The infinitive indicates indirect discourse. Plutarch is summarizing what Plato had said.

ἐνh

In which (in which city)

‘τὸ ἐμὸν καὶ τὸ οὐκ ἐμὸν

The “mine” and the “not mine”

Here the article marks the quotation.

ἣκιστα φθεγγομένων ἀκούουσι

rarely being uttered they hear

They rarely hear it said.

The passive/middle participle provides the ground for what is heard: it must have been uttered for one to hear the word.

ἥκιστος , η, ον, prob., like foreg., Sup. of ἦκα,

A.least, “ὁ δ᾽ ἥκιστ᾽ ἔχων μακάρτατος” S.Fr.410.

 

2. c. inf., worst at . . , ἥ. θηρᾶν, κρυμῷ ὁμιλεῖν, Ael.NA9.1,4.31 (cf. foreg.).

 

II. mostly as Adv., ἥκιστα least, Hp.Acut.68, S.Ph.427, etc.; “οὐκ ἥ. ἀλλὰ μάλιστα” Hdt.4.170; ὡς ἥ. as little as possible, Th.1.91.

 

2. in reply to a question, not at all, S.OT623, E.HF299, etc.; “ἥκιστά γε” S.OT1386, Pl.Phdr.276c; “ἥ. πάντων” Ar.Pl.440.

 

3. οὐχ ἥ., freq. in litotes, above all, more than all, A.Ch.116; “οἵ τε ἄλλοι καὶ οὐχ ἥ. Ἀθηναῖοι” Pl.Prt.324c, cf. Tht. 177c, Smp.178a, al.; “ἐπὶ πολλῶν μέν . . , οὐχ ἥ. δὲ ἐν τοῖς παροῦσι πράγμασι” D.2.1, cf. Th.7.44, etc.: c. gen., “οὐχ ἥ. Ἀθηναίων σέ, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν τοῖς μάλιστα” Pl.Cri.52a.

 

 

διὰ τὸ

Because the things

Dia + accusative: because.

τὸ: This is an accusative neuter plural and refers to all things of whatever sort covered by the following clause.

κοινοῖς ὡς ἔνι

common [dative plural] as one [dative singular]

The verb is implied: those common things should be

μάλιστα χρῆσθαι τοῖς ἀξίοις σπουδῆς τοὺς πολίτας

especially to use those most worthy (needful) for the city

πολὺ δὲ μᾶλλον

Now much more

ἐκ γάμου

From marriage

That is out of marriage: certain things must be taken out of the marriage (here denied, forbidden)

δεῖ τὴν τοιαύτην φωνὴν ἀνῃρῆσθαι

it is necessary that such things spoken be denied

δεῖ It is necessary – completed in thought by the infinitive ἀνῃρῆσθαι.

τὴν τοιαύτην φωνὴν that such like things vocalized.

πλὴν ὥσπερ οἱ ἰατροὶ λέγουσι

Nevertheless just as physicians they say

τὰς τῶν εὐωνύμων πληγὰς

The blows/wounds of the left side

The materials between the article and the substantive constitute modifiers. The genitive is used to indicate the place of the pain.

τὴν αἴσθησιν ἐν τοῖς δεξιοῖς ἀναφέρειν

The sensation (recognition of the pain) on the right side is borne up.

Anapherein is sometimes used as a technical term to “sacrifice” in the sense of bringing something up to the altar. This is a good example of how one could easily misuse a lexicon. I don’t think Plutarch means the right side is sacrificed when the left side is struck.

οὕτω τὴν γυναῖκα τοῖς τοῦ ἀνδρὸς συμπαθεῖν καλὸν

Even so the wives to their husbands to sympathize is beautiful

The wives is accusative as the subject of the infinitive.

The articular “husbands” is possessive (an article is used rather than a possessive pronoun).

καὶ τὸν ἄνδρα τοῖς τῆς γυναικός

Likewise husband to their own wives

ἵνʼ ὥσπερ οἱ δεσμοὶ

in order that just as the ropes

Desmos means anything for tying or binding together. It frequently refers to chains. Here, the reference is to ropes.

The complex transition language: hina hosper sets up the comparison.

κατὰ τὴν ἐπάλλαξιν ἰσχὺν διʼ ἀλλήλων λαμβάνουσιν

according to (by means of) the interweaving they strength through one-another they receive

οὕτως ἑκατέρου τὴν εὔνοιαν ἀντίστροφον ἀποδιδόντος

Thus from the two the goodwill for the other giving

ἡ κοινωνία σῴζηται διʼ ἀμφοῖν

The common is saved/preserved through both

καὶ γὰρ ἡ φύσις μίγνυσι διὰ τῶν σωμάτων τῶν ἡμᾶς

For Nature unites  through the bodies of us  [our bodies]

Dia + genitive seems to be spatial: through our bodies, rather than an agency or means.

τῶν σωμάτων τῶν ἡμᾶς: the article for the possessive, emphasized by the pronoun.

ἵνʼ ἐξ ἑκατέρων μέρος λαβοῦσα

In order that from both a measure they receive

καὶ συγχέασα κοινὸν ἀμφοτέροις ἀποδῷ τὸ γεννώμενον

and poured together in common the both may receive the same being (nature?)

συγχέασα: means to mix, confuse, pour together.

 

ὥστε μηδέτερον διορίσαι μηδὲ διακρῖναι τὸ ἴδιον ἢ τὸ ἀλλότριον

so that not two  to limit nor distinguish his own (self? Nature) or the other’s (self/nature)

διορίσαι: to set a limit

διακρῖναι: to distinguish

The infinitives indicate the result of the mixing.

τοιαύτη τοίνυν καὶ χρημάτων κοινωνία προσήκει

Hence, such as this and of property in common is fitting

Τοίνυν: hence

Προσήκει: this either refers to an approach or something suitable/fitting. Here is it suitable.

μάλιστα τοῖς γαμοῦσιν εἰς μίαν οὐσίαν

Especially for those married into one substance/wealth/fund

πάντα καταχεαμένοις καὶ ἀναμίξασι

everything being poured together and joined

καταχέω , pour down, mix together, run together

There is a bit of play on words here:

ἀνα-μίσγω , poet. and Ion. for

A.“ἀναμείγνυμι, ἀνέμισγε δὲσίτῳ φάρμακα” Od.10.235; “αἷμα δακρύοισι” Tim.Fr.7:—Med., have intercourse with, “τινί” Hdt.1.199:—Pass., “γέλως ἀνεμίσγετο λύπῃ” Call.Aet.Fr.7.3 P.

μὴ τὸ μέρος ἴδιον καὶ τὸ μέρος ἀλλότριου

Not a portion one’s own and not a portion of the other

ἀλλὰ πᾶν ἴδιον ἡγεῖσθαι καὶ μηδὲν ἀλλότριον

But all one’s own  to be reckoned and nothing the other’s.

ἡγεῖσθαι is a pretty strong word. It means merely more than to think something to be so, but rather to think it so and live like that.

ὥσπερ γὰρ τὸ κρᾶμα

Just as the “mixed wine”  

καίτοι ὕδατος μετέχον πλείονος οἶνον καλοῦμεν

even so water mixed more with “wine” we call

οὕτω τὴν οὐσίαν

Thus, the property

δεῖ καὶ τὸν οἶκον τοῦ ἀνδρὸς λέγεσθαι

It is necessary the household of the husband to be called

κἂν ἡ γυνὴ πλείονα συμβάλληται

even if the wife the greatest part throws in (contributes)

 

[1] Plutarch, Moralia, ed. Gregorius N. Bernardakis, vol. 1 (Medford, MA: Teubner, 1888), 343–344.

The Sun Also Rises

15 Thursday Mar 2012

Posted by in Biblical Counseling, Ecclesiastes

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

Garrett makes the following observation on Ecclesiastes 1:3-11:

These verses profoundly impress certain sensations on the reader. First comes a sense of the indifference of the universe to our presence. It was here before we came, and it will be here, unchanged, after we have gone. Second, however, the universe, like us, is trapped in a cycle of monotonous and meaningless motion. It is forever moving, but it accomplishes nothing. Finally, a sense of loneliness and abandonment pervades the text. No one has described this better than Paul. The creation is “subjected to frustration,” in “bondage to decay,” and awaiting “freedom” (Rom 8:19–21).

NAC Ecclesiastes