Plutarch · On the Eating of Flesh (II) §3-4
Animal Perception and the Habit of Slaughter
Summary
The author criticizes doctrines allowing cannibalism (such as those of the Stoics) as barbaric, contrasting them with the fireless diet and justice of Pythagoras and Empedocles, while emphasizing that animals possess perception. He then explains how humans gradually became desensitized to killing—moving from wild beasts to domestic animals and eventually to human warfare—and argues that even without proving reincarnation, the physical and moral corruption caused by meat-eating remains clear.
Notes
- 997eαἰσθήσεώς γε μετέχουσαν — A participle in the feminine accusative singular, modifying the preceding `ψυχήν`. It emphasizes that even without assuming the extreme view suggested by Empedocles that the animal's soul is that of a reincarnated relative, it is at least a soul that "participates in perception."
- 997fθεασάμενοι τοῦ πατρὸς τεθνηκότος ἢ τῆς μητρὸς ἀποτεμόντα μερίδας — The direct objects of the participle `θεασάμενοι` (when we see) are the accusative participles `ἀποτεμόντα`, `ἀποπεμπόμενον`, `καλοῦντα`, and `παρατιθέντα`. Although the genitive phrase `τοῦ πατρὸς τεθνηκότος ἢ τῆς μητρὸς` could be taken as a genitive absolute ("when the father or mother has died"), here it functions as a genitive of separation or partitive depending on `ἀποτεμόντα` ("cutting off portions from the deceased father or mother").
- 998aἐκεῖνα μὲν ... φιλοσοφεῖσθαι ... τὰ δὲ ... ἦσαν — A contrastive main clause structure led by the conditional clause `εἰ δὲ θείη τις` (if someone should place). The infinitive `φιλοσοφεῖσθαι` following `ἐκεῖνα μὲν` is used in indirect discourse, where a verb of necessity or judgment (such as `χρῆναι` or `φαίη ἄν`) is omitted. In contrast, `τὰ δὲ... ἦσαν` uses the past indicative to state a historical fact with contrastive emphasis.
- 998bγευσάμενον ... προμελετῆσαν ... τὸ φονικόν — The neuter singular participles `γευσάμενον` and `προμελετῆσαν` modify the subject neuter noun phrase `τὸ φονικόν` (the murderous spirit/disposition). This personifies the abstract concept, creating a metaphorical construction where the "murderous spirit" tasted and practiced beforehand upon wild animals.
- 998cἐὰν μὴ προσαποδείξῃ τις ... ταῦτʼ οὐκ ἀποτρέπει — The main clause responding to the concessive conditional clause `ἐὰν μὴ προσαποδείξῃ` (even if one does not further demonstrate). Here, `ταῦτα` (the lack of proof of reincarnation, or these arguments) is the subject of `ἀποτρέπει` (averts/prevents). The direct object is `τὸ ἀκόλαστον` (wantonness), and the following infinitives `τὸ ... ἐμποιεῖν ... καὶ ... διαφθείρειν` are appositive to it, explaining the specific harms of this wantonness.
Cite this passage
Plutarch, On the Eating of Flesh (II) §3-4. Humanitext Reader, https://reader.humanitext.ai/en/text/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg0007.tlg132.humanitext-grc2:3-4
Please note the AI-draft status of the translation and the date accessed.
Translation, notes and summary are AI-generated drafts, revised through reader feedback.