Clemens Romanus, Theological Homiliae 5.13.5.3 (ed. Irmscher, Paschke, and Rehm)

Greek Learning Greek
1

Hello Friends,

This looks like a fun one!

CLEMENS ROMANUS AND CLEMENTINA, 1st century AD

Ἀχ 133. Eurymedusa was the daughter of Acheloios, and Zeus visited her in the form of an ant, whereby the Myrmidons were conceived.

Theological Homiliae 5.13.5.3 (ed. Irmscher, Paschke, and Rehm)

Εὐρυμεδούσῃ τῇ Ἀχελῴου μύρμηξ γενόμενος, ἐξ ἧς Μυρμιδών.

Trans. Molinari:

The birthing of the Myrmidons: Eurymedousa, daughter of Acheloios, together with an ant.

Themata: Lineage; Zeus

NOTES: Eurymedusai is dative, Acheloiou is genitive singular, myrmex seems dative, Myrmidons is gen. plural. , genomenos is the nominative(?) singular but a participle, but I still want to add a definite article. Where is the verb???–does the participle count?

Instead of “birthing” for γενόμενος could I use “producing” or “originating”?

Any help is certainly appreciated!

2

Now I see that μύρμηξ is the subject in the nominative singular! Revision:

An ant, together with Eurymedousa, daughter of Acheloios, from whom the producing of the Myrmidons [occured].

3

The subject is Zeus. [Zeus], having become an ant, [coupled with] Eurymedousa, daughter of Acheloios, from whom [Eurymedousa] Myrmidon [singular].

4

Thank you very much–so I can just assume a subject even when it doesn’t appear in the sentence, or was it clear from the earlier context that I did not include in the excerpt?

5

I did look at the full homily to know what was going on. The preceding sentence made it clear.

6

Thanks. Is there something we could add to “from whom Myrmidon,” such as “emerged” or “descends” that does not betray the Greek?

7

You can use one of the verbs of the previous phrases, e.g. ἐγένετο: was born.

8

Looking up the homily, it’s a little hard for me to tell whether it’s ἐξ ἧς [μίξεως] or ἐξ ἧς [γυναικός]. Though bedwere says the second, I suspect it may be the first. The two arguments that I’d marshal are that the second interpretation could allow confusion about the father, which would be impossible, and also notice “…ἐκ μίξεως αὐτοῦ κάλλει διαπρεπεστάτους.”

So, “from this union [was born] Myrmidon.” Or following bedwere, “from this female [was born] Myrmidon.” Ant-Man!

9

The ἐξ ἧς formula refers to the woman, not to Zeus’s μῖξις with her. There really can’t be any doubt about that.

Anyhow, this is just a distraction from the regrettable fact that Molinari is hopelessly out of his depth with this project. He’s stupendously ill-equipped for it. This latest effort only confirms what was already embarrassingly obvious. (His revised translation: “An ant, together with Eurymedousa, daughter of Acheloios, from whom the producing of the Myrmidons [occured]” !)
If Joel wishes to help him, that’s all to the good, but he’ll have to do better than he has so far.

10

I appreciate your input concerning the correct grammar. I know I am ill-equipped, hence why I am posting on a “learning Greek” forum.

As I’ve said before, this publication will not appear until the 100 or so translations (a very small percentage of a massive book) are done to a professional standard. You will never detract me from completing this important work!

11

I’ll let the personal statements pass without comment other than to yet again request that they stop.

However I’ll engage with the following.

This claim, made without support, could represent a careful judgement, born out of wise experience and close reasoning. Or it could represent something else. Which is it here?

Some points:

Note that in other authors, these ἐξ ἧς statements will usually refer to the woman – and perhaps this usual form is what has filled Michael with his certainty – but sometimes to the union instead. Here is Isocrates where it seems to refer to the marriage or union:

Μετὰ δὲ ταῦτ’ ἔγημεν ἐκ Σερίφου παρ’ ἀνθρώπων πολὺ πλείονος ἀξίων ἢ κατὰ τὴν αὑτῶν πόλιν, ἐξ ἧς ἐγένετο Σώπολις καὶ Θρασύλοχος καὶ θυγάτηρ ἡ νῦν ἐμοὶ συνοικοῦσα.

Returning to the homily under discussion, we need to notice that the focus of the statements is on the union in each. Note that each instance of ἐξ ἧς follows the following pattern: <Zeus in nominative case, describing his method and trick for the union> <ἐξ ἧς statement>

I have already mentioned that the idea of the μίξις is explicitly present here. In fact, the μίξεις and their supposed benefit to mankind is the topic under discussion, if you glance at the above paragraph. The identities of the women are entirely incidental to the author’s point with the list.

12

In the Isocrates passage ἐξ ἧς again will be the woman.

13

Sure, could be. I’m wrong frequently. The Loeb does give it my way, I notice.

14

It seems weird to put the names of the women first if their identities are entirely incidental.

15

Not entirely strange, given the objective case. But your comment makes me think that you didn’t look at the context. Don’t take my word for for any of this: click on Bedwere’s link and read the homily starting at X or so. His topic is Zeus’s adulteries, and their ultimate morality and results. The women and goddesses involved are incidental to this.

Now, this may or may not be a transparent excuse to deliver a learned genealogy drawn from Pausanias or something – I suspect it is to a degree – I’d have to read the whole thing and investigate sources to know. But Eros and adultery remain his avowed topic and the objective case followed by the nominative phrase and main verb for Zeus’s actions seems support rather than conflict with this.

Of course, reasonable people can disagree and discuss any of this. That is of course my point. I drew out the argument due to the claim of “no doubt” above.

Note for anyone reading Bedwere’s link: “εἰμα τῇ γηγενεῖ ἐν Ῥόδῳ διὰ ὄμβρου συνῆλθεν” refers to Ἱμαλίας. Apparently a Titanis rather than a nymph here?

16

My point is that putting the names in a prominent position suggests that they weren’t incidental to the author, regardless of the context. I don’t see why the case makes any difference, but I suppose I am missing something there.

Looking at the Cambridge Grammar’s word order chapter, we could say that Eurymedousa is the contrastive topic (this sentence is about Zeus’ relations with her, not the others) with Zeus’ ant form being the (narrow) focus. It therefore seems natural to me for the ἐξ ἦς to refer back to her. But other interpretations are no doubt available.

17

Thank you all for the interesting discussion. As I’ve recorded it in the manuscript, it reads:

[Zeus], having become an ant, [coupled with] Eurymedousa, daughter of Acheloios, from which/whom Myrmidon [was born].

I added a footnote after “whom,” which reads as follows:

It is unclear if we should render ἐξ ἧς as refering to [ἐξ ἧς] μίξεως or [ἐξ ἧς] γυναικός.

18

Well, with 3 against 1, I’d certainly recommend dropping the [ἐξ ἧς] μίξεως and render it [ἐξ ἧς] γυναικός. It’s a good point for discussion, but no reason to be radical in a book of extracts.

That said, I’ll still advocate for it as correct. MattK’s contrastive topic statement (using “topic” in the CGCG technical sense, and not how I was using it) is contradicted, I think, by the fact that the author doesn’t start out fronting the women. We can look a couple of sentences up to see the focus switch from marriage to adultery with μίγνυται δέ. The women, when they begin to get focus serve almost as labels to the adultery. Our author’s (who is the author anyway?) organization is like this:

Description of Zeus’s first union, a marriage, with a long description of why Zeus chose this type of union to be first:
ἐν πρώτοις … τὸν ἀναμάρτητον γάμον ἐπορίσατο. Additional information follows, that it’s with his sister, Hera. The author’s topic is why all these unions are beneficial to mankind, and he tells us ἐξ ἧς Ἥβη τε καὶ Εἰλείθυια ἐγένετο.

Next he describes the second non-adulterous offspring. Μῆτιν should be Ἀθήνην (the product of Zeus ἀποκυίσκει, χωρὶς τῆς πρός τινα μίξεως). Interestingly for our thread, I guess that some copyist apparently thought that paramours were being listed, not unions, hence the change. [The other typo was εἰμα for Ἱμαλίᾳ, which is probably just down to bad handwriting/eyesight.]

Now the author does the first fronted μίγνυται in a sentence that seems very broken: ἔτι δὲ μίγνυται ἀδελφῇ τῇ ἐξ Οὐρανοῦ καὶ Θαλάσσης αὐτῷ γενομένῃ ἀπὸ τῆς Κρόνου ἐκτομῆς, <ἐξ ἧς> Ἔρως καὶ Κύπρις, ἣν καὶ † Δωδώνην λέγουσιν. I’d personally throw out everything starting with Ἔρως… calling it all a marginal intrusion. λέγουσίν [τινα] Δωδώνην doesn’t seem a natural use of λέγειν. I dunno though. If the sentence is fixable, ἥν seems to refer Διώνη (to be added in at the beginning?), which would contradict my theory.

The we get another μίγνεται δὲ… This (and probably the previous) are fronted because he’s now describing the adulterous unions, having already described the non-adulterous unions. Based on this fronting, MattK’s argument can now be made into a pro-ἐξ ἧς μίξεως argument. And following this sentence, the author now fronts the names of the females in the nature of labels for these unions, not the information that he is most interested in.

But you don’t have to take my word for all this. The author tells us exactly what his subject is in XII:

…ἄρξομαι τὰς ἐνίων μηνύειν κοινωνίας…
…ἄκουε τοίνυν αὐτοῦ τοῦ μεγάλου Διὸς … τὰς διὰ τῆς μεταμορφώσεως λανθανούσας κοινωνίας…

Why is he on about it?

…αὐτίκα γοῦν τὴν λεγομένην μοιχείαν πρᾶξίν τινες ὑπειλήφασιν εἶναι κακήν, καίτοι καλὴν κατὰ πάντα ὑπάρχουσαν…

Seems like a nice subject for Ὁ ἐρῶν to τῇ ἐρωμένῃ.

19

Thank you, Joel. I’ll change it per your recommendation. If you change your mind when looking at that section of the typescript just let me know.