I Don't Get the Ordinal Grouping of Powers in Clement of Alexandria's Statement

[Secret Alias]

I have to admit I always found the groupings of 'teachers' in Clement's famous allusion (or at least potential allusion) to Pantainos puzzling:

Now this work of mine in writing (γραφὴ) is not artfully constructed (τετεχνασμένη) for display; but my memoranda (μοι ὑπομνήματα) are stored up against old age, as a remedy against forgetfulness, truly an image and outline of those vigorous and animated discourses which I was privileged to hear, and of blessed and truly remarkable men (λόγων τε καὶ ἀνδρῶν μακαρίων καὶ τῷ ὄντι ἀξιολόγων).

Of these the one, in Greece (τούτων ὃ μὲν ἐπὶ τῆς Ἑλλάδος), an Ionic; the other in Magna Graecia (οἳ δὲ ἐπὶ τῆς Μεγάλης Ἑλλάδος: the first (θάτερος) of these from Coele-Syria, the second from (ὃ δὲ ἀπ') Egypt, and others in the East (ἄλλοι δὲ ἀνὰ τὴν ἀνατολήν). The one was of the land of (καὶ ταύτης ὃ μὲν τῆς τῶν) Assyria, and the other (ὃ δὲ ἐν) a Hebrew in Palestine.

When I came upon the last (ὑστάτῳ δὲ περιτυχὼν) (he was the first in power), having tracked him out concealed in Egypt, I found rest. He, the true, the Sicilian bee, gathering the spoil of the flowers of the prophetic and apostolic meadow, engendered in the souls of his hearers a deathless element of knowledge.

Well, they preserving the tradition of the blessed doctrine derived directly from the holy apostles, Peter, James, John, and Paul, the sons receiving it from the father (but few were like the fathers), came by God's will to us also to deposit those ancestral and apostolic seeds. And well I know that they will exult; I do not mean delighted with this tribute, but solely on account of the preservation of the truth, according as they delivered it. For such a sketch as this, will, I think, be agreeable to a soul desirous of preserving from escape the blessed tradition.

I wonder if I read the passage correctly. It seems to me there are three pairs of 'teachers' here:

1. (first pair) of Ionia, of Magna Graecia
2, (second pair) of Syria, of Egypt
3. others of the East
4 .(third pair) of Assyria, a Hebrew of Palestine

I wonder what to make of the strange pairing here. And am I right in assuming that the 'Hebrew of Palestine' - the last of the last pair - is the one found hidden in Egypt? If so doesn't that imply the pairing is chronological? Any ideas? Thoughts?

[Ben C. Smith]

I have to admit I always found the groupings of 'teachers' in Clement's famous allusion (or at least potential allusion) to Pantainos puzzling:

Now this work of mine in writing (γραφὴ) is not artfully constructed (τετεχνασμένη) for display; but my memoranda (μοι ὑπομνήματα) are stored up against old age, as a remedy against forgetfulness, truly an image and outline of those vigorous and animated discourses which I was privileged to hear, and of blessed and truly remarkable men (λόγων τε καὶ ἀνδρῶν μακαρίων καὶ τῷ ὄντι ἀξιολόγων).

Of these the one, in Greece (τούτων ὃ μὲν ἐπὶ τῆς Ἑλλάδος), an Ionic; the other in Magna Graecia (οἳ δὲ ἐπὶ τῆς Μεγάλης Ἑλλάδος: the first (θάτερος) of these from Coele-Syria, the second from (ὃ δὲ ἀπ') Egypt, and others in the East (ἄλλοι δὲ ἀνὰ τὴν ἀνατολήν). The one was of the land of (καὶ ταύτης ὃ μὲν τῆς τῶν) Assyria, and the other (ὃ δὲ ἐν) a Hebrew in Palestine.

When I came upon the last (ὑστάτῳ δὲ περιτυχὼν) (he was the first in power), having tracked him out concealed in Egypt, I found rest. He, the true, the Sicilian bee, gathering the spoil of the flowers of the prophetic and apostolic meadow, engendered in the souls of his hearers a deathless element of knowledge.

Well, they preserving the tradition of the blessed doctrine derived directly from the holy apostles, Peter, James, John, and Paul, the sons receiving it from the father (but few were like the fathers), came by God's will to us also to deposit those ancestral and apostolic seeds. And well I know that they will exult; I do not mean delighted with this tribute, but solely on account of the preservation of the truth, according as they delivered it. For such a sketch as this, will, I think, be agreeable to a soul desirous of preserving from escape the blessed tradition.

I wonder if I read the passage correctly. It seems to me there are three pairs of 'teachers' here:

1. (first pair) of Ionia, of Magna Graecia
2, (second pair) of Syria, of Egypt
3. others of the East
4 .(third pair) of Assyria, a Hebrew of Palestine

I wonder what to make of the strange pairing here. And am I right in assuming that the 'Hebrew of Palestine' - the last of the last pair - is the one found hidden in Egypt? If so doesn't that imply the pairing is chronological? Any ideas? Thoughts?

Let me see:

From Clement of Alexandria, Miscellanies 1.1: Ἤδη δὲ οὐ γραφὴ εἰς ἐπίδειξιν τετεχνασμένη ἥδε ἡ πραγματεία, ἀλλά μοι ὑπομνήματα εἰς γῆρας θησαυρίζεται, λήθης φάρμακον, εἴδωλον ἀτεχνῶς καὶ σκιαγραφία τῶν ἐναργῶν καὶ ἐμψύχων ἐκείνων, ὧν κατηξιώθην ἐπακοῦσαι, λόγων τε καὶ ἀνδρῶν μακαρίων καὶ τῷ ὄντι ἀξιολόγων. τούτων ὃ μὲν ἐπὶ τῆς Ἑλλάδος, ὁ Ἰωνικός, οἳ δὲ ἐπὶ τῆς Μεγάλης Ἑλλάδος (τῆς κοίλης θάτερος αὐτῶν Συρίας ἦν, ὃ δὲ ἀπ' Αἰγύπτου), ἄλλοι δὲ ἀνὰ τὴν ἀνατολήν· καὶ ταύτης ὃ μὲν τῆς τῶν Ἀσσυρίων, ὃ δὲ ἐν Παλαιστίνῃ Ἑβραῖος ἀνέκαθεν· ὑστάτῳ δὲ περιτυχὼν (δυνάμει δὲ οὗτος πρῶτος ἦν) ἀνεπαυσάμην, ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ θηράσας λεληθότα. Σικελικὴ τῷ ὄντι ἦν μέλιττα προφητικοῦ τε καὶ ἀποστολικοῦ λειμῶνος τὰ ἄνθη δρεπόμενος ἀκήρατόν τι γνώσεως χρῆμα ταῖς τῶν ἀκροωμένων ἐνεγέννησε ψυχαῖς.

Okay, I think the online English version of this has a mistranslation. The οἳ in οἳ δὲ ἐπὶ τῆς Μεγάλης Ἑλλάδος is plural, so the men should be listed as: "of these [remarkable men] one was in Greece [A], an Ionic; and others [οἳ δὲ] were from Magna Graecia [B] (one of them [αὐτῶν, that is, one of those from Magna Graecia] was from Coele-Syria, the other from Egypt); and still others [ἄλλοι δὲ] were from the East [C]. And of this region [ταύτης, "this" = the East] one was from the land [τῆς] of the Assyrians, and another was a Hebrew in Palestine." The "last" would then be yet another from the East. So I get three sets of people:

1. One in Greece [A], an Ionic person.
2. Others in Magna Graecia [B] (in Italy), among whom one was originally from Coele-Syria, another from Egypt.
3. Still others in the East [C], among whom one was from Assyria, another (a Hebrew) from Palestine. "The last" (and most powerful, according to Clement) also came from the East.

The list contains both places of origin (expressed by a simple genitive with a linking verb, for example) and places in which Clement met them (expressed by ἐπί or ἀνά + the genitive).

[Ben C. Smith]

The arrangement is rather pleasing, actually. It is triangular. The first "group" has only one member (an Ionic man). The second group has two listed members (a Coele-Syrian and an Egyptian). The third group has three listed members (an Assyrian, a Palestinian, and "the last" man, whom Clement esteems above the others).

[Secret Alias]

So the last man is not the Hebrew from Palestine? Thank you very much from this. I wasn't getting it.

[Secret Alias]

And the ordering looks mathematical to me. Like the triangle with six dots:



is that correct? Surely that's significant. It seems to me to be the shape of a Pythagorean 'triangular number':

[Ben C. Smith]

So the last man is not the Hebrew from Palestine? Thank you very much from this. I wasn't getting it.

The construction makes it look like three different men from the East (ὃ μὲν... ὃ δὲ... ὑστάτῳ δὲ...). So I would say that the Hebrew is not the same as "the last" man.

No problem. It is somewhat confusingly written, to be sure, and I am not 100% sure I have it all correct.

[Secret Alias]

I think you're ordering is right. What threw me off was the

ὃ μὲν ... οἳ δὲ

I figured that was signifying a kind of one ... and the other. Do you think the shape of the grouping implies a triangle as illustrated?

[Secret Alias]

The gnostics of Marcus venerated the tetrad:



I think what is being described is a triad:

[Secret Alias]

Strange that his 'teachers' form a shape like:

[Ben C. Smith]

I think you're ordering is right. What threw me off was the

ὃ μὲν ... οἳ δὲ

I figured that was signifying a kind of one ... and the other. Do you think the shape of the grouping implies a triangle as illustrated?

And the ordering looks mathematical to me. Like the triangle with six dots:



is that correct? Surely that's significant. It seems to me to be the shape of a Pythagorean 'triangular number':

Yes. As I said, "the arrangement is rather pleasing, actually. It is triangular."