That sure is a hard law in Plato, which enjoins ἀπέχεσθαι ἀρούρας θηλείας πάσης, ἐν ᾗ μὴ βούλοιο ἄν σοι φύεσθαι τὸ σπαρέν: “men to have no familiarity with a woman, without wishing for the success of it.” (Laws.) That mentioned in Sefer Haredim says otherwise; מ״ע לק״ם אדם עונתו ואף כשאשתו מעוברה וכו׳: “It is an affirmative precept, that a man should act the part of a husband, though his wife is incapable of having any children.” (Eliezer Azkari.) Many opinions are taken up upon slight reasons. When Ocellus Lucianus says, Ἀυτὰς τὰς δυνάμεις, καὶ τὰ ὄργανα, καὶ τὰς ὀρέξεις τὰς πρὸς τὴν μίξιν ὑπὸ θεοῦ δεδομένας ἀνθρώποις, οὐχ ἡδονῆς ἕνεκα δεδόσθαι συμβέβηκεν, ἀλλὰ τῆς εἰς τὸν ἀεὶ χρόνον διαμονῆς τοῦ γένους: “that the powers, the organs, and the desire of procreation, were given men by God, not for the sake of pleasure, but for the perpetual continuation of mankind,” how does he know that they were not given for both these ends, in a regular way (On the Nature of the Whole)? And so when Clement of Alexandria shows his zeal against τὰς ἀκάρπους σπορὰς, τὴν πρὸς τὰς ἐγκύους όμιλίαν: “such familiarities as produce no effect, meddling with pregnant women,” etc., adding, ψιλὴ γὰρ ἡδονὴ, κᾂν ἐν γάμῳ παραληφθῇ, παράνομός ἐςι, κ.τ.λ.: “that such mean pleasure is unlawful, even in married persons” (Paedagogus), he does this because ὁ Μωσῆς ἀπάγει τῶν ἐγκύων τοὺς ἄνδρας: “Moses forbids a man coming near a pregnant woman,” and then cites a text to prove this which is nothing to the purpose, nor I believe anywhere to be found: Οὐκ ἔδεσαι τὸν λαγὼν, οὐδὲ τὴν ὕαιναν: “Thou shalt not eat a hare or a hyaena” (Quem interpretem secutus sit Clemens nescio: “What commentator Clement followed, I know not.” —Gentian Hervetus). Certainly the Jews understand their lawgiver otherwise. See how that עונה, “conjugal due,” mentioned in the law is explained by Maimonides in Mishneh Torah (Hilkot Ishut XIV). Nor are the suffrages of Christians wanting, Deus, cum cæteras animantes, suscepto fœtu, maribus repugnare voluisset, solam omnium mulierem patientem viri fecit; … ne feminis repugnantibus, libido cogeret viros aliud appetere, etc.: “When God made all other female animals, so as to refuse the males when they are pregnant, he made women only capable of men; … lest, upon their refusal, men’s violent passions should force them to go after others, etc.,” that is, that the man and wife might be kept inseparably together. (Lactantius, Divine Institutes.) ↩
Καὶ τὸ χοήσιμον εἷναι δοκεῖ, καὶ τὸ ἡδὺ ἐν τάυτῃ τῇ φιλίᾳ: “There seems to be both profit and pleasure in this sort of friendship.” (Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics.) כשאיש ואשה נוהגים כראוי שכינה ביניהם: “When the man and the wife behave themselves towards each other as they ought, they are then most intimately united.” (Reshit Hokmah.) ↩
Ἔρως … καθάπερ ἑνὸς ζώου διττὰ τμήματα … εἰς ταυτὸν ἁρμόττεται: “Love … is like two parts of the same living creature … united into one.” (Philo Judaeus, On the Creation.) ↩
True love is to be found in marriage, or nowhere. Πόρνη γὰρ φιλεῖν οὐκ ἐπίσταται, ἀλλ᾿ ἐπιβουλέυει μόνον: “For there is no real love in whoring; nothing but ensnaring one another.” (St. Chrysostom, Ad Populum Antiochenum.) ערותה מגולה והלב מכוסה: “They discover their nakedness, but hide their real sentiments,” a homely but true saying of a Jewish commentator (Levi ben Gershom). ↩
Quod facere turpe non est modò occultè; id dicere obscœnum est: “That which has no evil in it when it is done in private, may be obscene when spoke publicly.” (Cicero, De Officiis.) ↩
Ἐὰν γὰρ ἦ κοσμία καὶ ἐπιεικὴς, οὐ μόνον τὴν ἀπὸ τῆς κοινωνίας παραμυθίαν παρέξει τῷ ἀνδρὶ, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἄλλοις ἅπασι πολλὴν τῆς ἑαυτῆς χρείαν ἐπιδείξεται, κ.τ.λ.: “For, if she be neat and good-natured, she will not only in general be a comfort to her husband, but will be very useful to him in every particular.” (St. Chrysostom, Homily on Genesis 16.) ↩
Διῄρηται τὰ ἔργα, καὶ ἔστιν ἕτερα ἀνδρὸς, καὶ γυναικός· ἐπαρκοῦσιν οὖν ἀλλήλοις εἰς τὸ κοινὸν τιθέντες τὰ ἴδια: “Their business is different, there is one sort of employment for the man, and another for the woman; so that they are assistant to each other, by joining their forces together.” (Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics.) ↩
See the conversation between Ischomachus and his wife in Xenophon. (Oeconomicus.) ↩
Though Plato (like most of the old Greeks and Romans) among many very fine things has now and then some that are weak, and even absurd; yet I cannot think that by his community of women he meant anything like that which is said in Athenæus to have been practiced παρὰ Τυῤῥηνοῖς ἐκτότως τρυφήσασιν: “among the Tyrrhenians, who were exceedingly debauched” (Deipnosophistae), or that his thought could be so gross as Lactantius represents it: Scilicet ut ad eandem mulierem multi viri, tanquam canes, confluerent: “namely, that several men, like so many dogs, should run after one woman.” (Divine Institutes.) For thus, property being taken out of the world, a great part of virtue is extinguished, and all industry and improvements are at an end. And besides that, many of the most substantial comforts and innocent delights of this life are destroyed at once. Si omnes omnium fuerint et mariti, et patres, et uxores, et liberi, quæ ista confusio generis humani est? … Quis aut vir mulierem, aut mulier virum diligit, nisi habitaverint semper unà? nisi devota mens, et servata invicem fides individuam fecerit caritatem, etc.: “If
