So I’m reading the Descriptio Sanctæ Sophiæ by Paulus Silentiarius. Most of it is quite straightforward, but I noted down a passage early on which I got stuck. Do you think you could help me?
He’s talking to Justinian, about how he’s a great guy and loved by God etc, and then he says the following. The line I’m having trouble with is the one in bold. Thanks!
Actually that’s a typo in my transcription. I’ve been reading τολμημάτων all along (and still not getting it). Sorry for leading you in the wrong direction, it’s fixed now.
I’m not sure I understand this completely, but I think ὧν is the direct object of δρῶμεν, having been “attracted” into the genitive by its antecedent οὐχ ὁσίων τολμημάτων.
See Smyth 2522 ff.:
Attraction.—A relative pronoun is often attracted from its proper case into the case of its antecedent, especially from the accusative into the genitive or dative. A demonstrative pronoun to whose case the relative is attracted, is usually omitted if unemphatic. Cp. “Vengeance is his, or whose he sole appoints:” Milton.
a. Genitive.—ἄξιοι τῆς ἐλευθερία_ς ἧς (for ἣν) ““κέκτησθε” worthy of the freedom which you possess” X. A. 1.7.3, πρὸ τῶν κακῶν ὧν (for ἃ) ““οἶδα” instead of the evils which I know” P. A. 29b, ἀφ᾽ ὧν (for τούτων ἃ) ““ἴστε” from what you know” D. 19.216, Μήδων ὅσων (for ὅσους) ἑώρα_κα . . . ὁ ἐμὸς πάππος κάλλιστος my grandfather is the handsomest of all the Medes I have seen X. C. 1.3.2, μὴ ὑποκειμένων οἵων δεῖ θεμελίων (for τοιούτων οἷα δεῖ ὑποκεῖσθαι) if the foundations were not as they ought to be X. Eq. 1.2.
b. Dative.—φοβοίμην ἂν τῷ ἡγεμόνι ᾧ (for δ̀ν) ““δοίη ἕπεσθαι” I should fear to follow the leader whom he might give” X. A. 1.3.17, ἐπαινῶ σε ἐφ᾽ οἷς (for ἐπὶ τούτοις ἃ) λέγεις I commend you for what you say 3. 1. 45, οἷς (for τούτοις ἃ) ““ηὐτυχήκεσαν ἐν Λεύκτροις οὐ μετρίως ἐκέχρηντο” they had not used with moderation the success they gained at Leuctra” D. 18.18.
Thank you Hylander. I still couldn’t get it, until I found a Latin translation which, assuming it is right, probably solves the issue. It reads:
ex tot vero quæ perpetramus nefandis ausis,
habes, o imperator, clementiæ occasiones.
I think that παρρησία meaning clemency (! that’s a sense I’d never encountered) was what led me off in the wrong way: I thought he meant his own “license in speaking”, probably for daring to say things better left unsaid (the beauty of the place, the majesty of the emperor etc), and not the emperor’s.
So the line in a more straightforward sense would be
ἐξ (τῶν) οὐχ ὁσίων τολμημάτων ἃ δρῶμεν
ἔχεις etc
(The) impure deeds that we commit
give you an excuse to exercise your clemency
where παρρησία seems much closer to its standard meaning (probably meaning something like intercession, i.e., freedom to speak freely to God in Your favour).
In Theodora’s case παρρησίαν must undoubtedly mean “licentiousness”. Let’s see. Hmm. Her soul has licentiousness above you, i.e., beyond your control, against God.
Maybe that’s reading more into the Greek than is actually there.