Four Exegetical Notes on Plutarch’s Dialogue on Love

These notes offer interpretations of Plutarch, Dialogue on Love 756D, 764C-D, 764E,


D ialogue on Love 756D
πόρρω γὰρ οὐκ ἄπειμι τὴν δ᾿ Ἀ φρο δίτην οὐχ ὁρᾷς ὅση θεός; ἥδ᾿ ἑσ τὶν ἡ σπεί ρου σα καὶ δι δοῦσ᾿ ἔρον, οὗ πάντες ἐσ μὲν οἱ κατὰ χθόν᾿ ἔκγονοι. ( were a comparative 4 . H. Görgemanns, although offering a correct translation, comments that the meaning of the phrase within the context is unclear 5 . D. Russell correctly translates 'I go not far away' 6 and rightly observes elsewhere that the phrase does not indicate the return from a digression, as the Budé and Loeb translations suggest, but, on the contrary, a promise to go further along the lines of the argument 7 . As a matter of fact, γάρ suggests that these words even mark the beginning of a digression. Indeed, the whole part on Aphrodite and Eros and their relation as cosmic gods is structurally speaking a digression; the return from this digression is indicated by οῦν at 756f 8 . This fits into Plutarch's strategy of underemphasising the most important parts of his speech in the Dialogue on Love (cf. 762a-b; 763f; 770b) 9 . The interpretation of the sentence is not a problem if we keep in mind the general point which Plutarch is making here (i.e. that questioning the existence of one god has important implications for the other gods). The concrete example is that, if Eros is undermined, Aphrodite suffers from this as well and the unity of the Greek pantheon is threatened. The jump from Eros to Aphrodite is indeed not πόρρω: both gods are closely associated (cf. e.g. 756e, 752a-b).
Dialogue on Love 764c-d πλὴν ἐκείνῃ γε δόξειαν ἂν διαφέρειν, ᾗ δείκνυσιν ἥλιος μὲν ἐπὶ γῆς τὰ καλὰ καὶ τὰ αἰσχρὰ τοῖς ὁρῶσιν, ῎Ερως δὲ μόνων τῶν καλῶν φέγγος ἐστὶ καὶ πρὸς ταῦτα μόνα τους ἐρῶντας ἀναπείθει βλέπειν καὶ στρέφεσθαι, τῶν δ' ἄλλων πάντων περιορᾶν. (Teubner ed. modified [underlined]) Yet, there is, it seems, a difference to be pointed out: on earth the sun exhibits both the beautiful and the ugly to men's eyes, while Love illumines only what is beautiful. Only this does he persuade lovers to contemplate and turn to; everything else they must overlook. (Loeb tr. modified) The Dialogue on Love is preserved in only two manuscripts: Parisinus gr.  Sieveking, 1940, 99. 6 D. Russell, 1993, 259. 7 D. Russell, 1997. Moreover, he notes the iambic rhythm of the phrase and suspects that it is a quotation from an unknown dramatic source (D. Russell, 1997, 110 n. 10;cf. D. Russell, 1993, 378 to ἐπίσης] sembra imporsi', while I even fail to see the problem with the reading of the manuscripts. Although I follow his reading, I differ very slightly from Barigazzi in the interpretation of the passage. He defends ἐπι γῆς 'perché suggerisce il cammino che si percorre, secondo Plutarco, sotto la guida di Eros, dalle cose belle sulla terra verso gli intellegibili del mondo iperuranio'. However, the procession from the sensible to the intelligible will only become relevant later in the comparison (764d-e) and it is not necessary to import this further development here in order to make sense of the passage. The opposition between the sun and ἔρως explored here is an opposition which plays out squarely in the sensible world and is quite trivial (like the exam ples given just before this passage, 764b-c): on earth the sun illuminates both beautiful and ugly, whereas the lover will be focussed on the beautiful on earth. The later opposition between the sun as guide towards the sensible and Eros as guide towards the intelligible has not yet come into play here 15 .

ISSN 0258-655X
Ploutarchos, n.s., 15 (2018) 21-28 and urging it to seek truth and everything else in her or in her realm, and not in any other place.
(Loeb tr. modified) The verb αἰτεῖσθαι, which is the read ing of the manuscripts, is generally regard ed as corrupt 16 . Following G.N. Bernardakis 17 and the Budé edition, which keep αἰτεῖσθαι, I would disagree. If the reason is that the exact expression does not occur elsewhere and that αἰτεῖσθαι is used rather freely, then it should be noted that in these pages of the Dialogue on Love Plutarch often resorts to creative language, even to the extent of using hapax legomena -not unlike Plato in Socrates' second speech in the Phaedrus (244a-257b). An unfamiliar construction or a not quite straightforward meaning alone are surely no reasons for emendation. The Budé keeps αἰτεῖσθαι, translating '[le soleil] tâche à nous persuader de ne chercher qu'en lui et autour de lui la vérité et tous les autres biens, sans ja mais nous adresser ailleurs' 18 . There is no need, however, to make 'nous' the subject of αἰτεῖσθαι: Plutarch is still talking about the διάνοια (ἔοικε […] φαρμάττειν τὴν διάνοιαν ὁ ἥλιος, 764f), as D. Russell's translation rightly suggests 19 . The generally accepted conjec ture (κεῖσθαι) obscures this.
Dialogue on Love 770Α-Β καὶ γὰρ ὁ νόμος βοηθεῖ καὶ γεννήσεως κοινῆς <οὔσης> καὶ τοὺς θεοὺς Ἔρωτος ἡ φύσις ἀποδείκνυσι δεομένους. οὕτω γὰρ 'ἐρᾶν μὲν ὄμβρου γαῖαν' οἱ ποιηταὶ λέγουσι καὶ γῆς οὐρανόν, ἐρᾶν δ' ἥλιον σελήνης οἱ φυσικοὶ καὶ συγγίνεσθαι καὶ κυεῖσθαι· καὶ γῆν δ' ἀνθρώπων μητέρα καὶ ζῴων καὶ φυτῶν ἁπάντων γένεσιν οὐκ ἀναγκαῖον ἀπολέσθαι ποτὲ καὶ σβεσθῆναι παντάπασιν, ὅταν ὁ δεινὸς ἔρως ἢ μέρος τοῦ θεοῦ τὴν ὕλην ἀπολίπῃ καὶ παύσηται ποθοῦσα καὶ διώκουσα τὴν ἐκεῖθεν ἀρχὴν καὶ κίνησιν; (Teubner ed. modified [underlined]) The law, in fact, assists since procreation too is a shared undertaking; and nature shows that the gods need eros. It is in this sense, then, that the poets say that 'the earth loves rain' [Eur., fr. 898.7 TrGF] and that heaven loves earth; and in this sense, too, natural 16 The Teubner edition places a crux. D. Wyttenbach, 1797, 65 suggested reading αἰωρεῖσθαι, κεῖσθαι (which was adopted in the Loeb edition, as well as in W. Sieveking, 1940, 136 andH. Görgemanns, 2011) or διαιτᾶσθαι. philosophers assert that the sun loves the moon and that they unite and that she conceives. And since earth is the mother of all men and a source of generation for all beasts and plants, will she not be destined to perish at some time or other and be completely extinguished if ever the mighty Eros or a part of the god abandons matter and if ever she stops longing for and pursuing the principle of her motion which derives from that source? (Loeb tr. modified) (1) The two manuscripts read γεννήσεως κοινῆς 20 . The text does not seem to be intelligible without addition. Therefore, I adopt A. Bari gazzi's conjecture <οὔσης>, which is also printed by H. Görgemanns. As Bari gazzi points out, γεννήσεως κοινῆς <οὔσης> is more readily explained as a haplography than other proposals which boil down to the same meaning 21 . However, I depart from Barigazzi and Görgemanns by reading γεννήσεως κοινῆς <οὔσης> with ὁ νόμος βοηθεῖ instead of with the following clause 22 . Just stating that 'the law assists' without giving any further information seems abrupt and a bit unclear. Greek legal concern with procreation within marriage is well documented, both in Plutarch and elsewhere 23 . Moreover, only this reading places the passage in the context of Plutarch's description of the ideal marriage as a mutual endeavour (769e-770a).

In On Affection for Offspring 493e Plutarch mentions various legal sanctions against
childlessness. For passages in other authors see K. Praechter, 1901, 144.The marital function of procreation is particularly important in the (Middle-)Stoic conception of the city; see e.g. I. Ramelli, 2009, 120. For the use of this argument in rhetoric see, e.g., Libanius' Whether one should marry 9-12. 24 This is the reading of E. B, the other manuscript, has ἥλιον δὲ σελήνης, adopted by D.
Wyttenbach, 1797, 86. abs., to be big or pregnant') cannot be said of a male subject 26 ; the passive is only said 'of the embryo or foetus' (LSJ) 27 . Agreeing with this argument but resisting the ensuing conjecture, I suggest that the subject changes twice: the subject of ἐρᾶν is the sun, the subject of συγγίγνεσθαι are both the sun and the moon 28 , the subject of κυεῖσθαι is, indeed, the moon 29 . This once again ties in with the emphasis on reciprocity 30 .

ISSN 0258-655X
The abrupt change of subject is rather fitting given the context. It occurs again (and this time with certainty) in the next example: ἀπολίπῃ καὶ παύσηται -the subject of the first verb is the male principle (akin to the sun), while the subject of the second verb is the female principle (akin to the moon).
(3) Instead of the manuscripts' μέρος, editors have unanimously printed H.
Stephanus' 1572 emendation ἵμερος. I wonder whether this is as compelling as it seems. After all, in the Platonic Questions (2.1001c) Plutarch has no problem with calling the rational part of the world soul a τοῦ θεοῦ […] μέρος. Although the 25 Reiske is followed by G.N. Bernardakis, 1892;W. Sieveking, 1940, 162 Amat. 765c for a similarly abrupt shift in subject involving the same verb: οὐκ ἂν εἴη πολὺς χρόνος, ἐν ᾧ τό τε σῶμα τὸ τῶν ἐρωμένων παρελθόντες ἔσω φέρονται καὶ ἅπτονται τοῦ ἤθους, † ἐκκαλούμενος τὰς ὄψεις καθορῶσι καὶ συγγίνονται διὰ λόγων πολλὰ καὶ πράξεων ἀλλήλοις. The ἐρασταί are the subject of the first three main verbs (φέρονται, ἅπτονται, καθορῶσι). The word ἀλλήλοις makes it clear that the subject of συγγίνονται are both the ἐρασταί and the ἐρώμενοι. Cf. G. Pasqual, 1997, 218. (On the crux in this passage, which does not affect the argument here, see A. Barigazzi, 1986, 249-250;H. Görgemanns, 2011, 180 n. 330). 29 Similarly, A. Barigazzi, 1986, 262 keeps the texts of the manuscripts on the argument that 'il soggetto dei due infiniti non è espresso'. However, instead of assigning subjects, he considers the infinitives to be generic (translating 'e avviene che ci sono unioni e gravidanze'); cf. D. Russell, 1993, 281 ('the sun is in love with the moon and joins with him, and conception follows'). This is possible, but it draws away from the point Plutarch is making here: love is reciprocal. 30 Cf. De Is. et Os. (e.g. 356a, 372d-f), where mutual love between Osiris (the demiurgic figure akin to the sun) and Isis (the matter-like figure akin to the moon) drives the cosmos. Cf. also my next remark sub 3.