# allophylorum socii



## Sniegurochka

This comes from _Contra Paganos_ by Maximus of Turin, a Latin Church father (c. late 4th-early 5th century). This treatise is written against polytheism and determinism of the heathen.

*Question:* What is the syntax of these two words? In my translation, I took _socii_ (gen sg) as depending on _armis_, and _allophylorum_ (gen pl) as depending on _socii_. Is this correct?

*Background:* In the passage, Maximus attacks determinism of the heathen. Here is my translation of the sentences immediately preceding the one in question:

“The pagans say that everything happens by fate, that prayers and supplications have no power, and that the idols are worshipped in order to honor and imitate the gods. They even say that all the elements of the world are gods and goddesses who inhabit the skies, the constellations and the stars. Therefore, brothers, we see that those pagans and astrologists are indeed silly and ill-starred, armed with useless weapons, and about to fall at once in this battle.”

*Sentence in question:* Putant se superbis et elatis adrogantiae suae armis indutos _allophylorum socii_ aciem Dei et Israheliticam virtutem posse turbare. [A variant reading has _socios_ in place of _socii_.]

*My translation: *They think that they are dressed in the haughty and puffed-up armor of their arrogance, [the armor] _of the company of foreigners_ and that they can throw into disorder the battle-array of God’s army and the virtue of the Israelites.


----------



## Scholiast

Привет, Sniegurochka, and a hearty welcome to the Latin forum.

I was at once startled by _socii_, because I can't make grammatical or syntactical sense of it. I think the variant _socios_ must be right, in apposition to the (accusative) subject of the indirect statement, _se_. (Can you explain any more about the textual transmission? Has your edition an apparatus criticus to help with this?) This would then make the sentence mean:

'They think that, accoutered in the haughty and puffed up armour of their arrogance as allies of foreigners,* they can throw into disarray... &c.'**

[Your translation is otherwise excellent]

I hope this is helpful.

Σ

*Edited afterthought: I think _allophylorum_ here could well be used for 'Gentiles'. According to L&S, s.v. ἀλλὀφυλος, it is frequently used in the LXX of the Philistines.
** Further edit, for which apologies: in patristic literature in general, 'Philistines' = 'unbelievers'.


----------



## Sniegurochka

Thank you so very much! This makes perfect sense now!


----------



## wandle

Sniegurochka said:


> What is the syntax of these two words?


Why should not _allophylorum socii_ be nominative, as subject of _putant_?
The word order may be intended to express contempt: 'They - the associates of the Philistines! - think that they ...'

Or more likely, I think, it may be a marginal comment which has become incorporated in the text by a later copyist.


----------



## Scholiast

salvete de novo



wandle said:


> Why should not _allophylorum socii_ be nominative, as subject of _putant_?
> The word order may be intended to express contempt: 'They - the associates of the Philistines! - think that they ...'



This is to me far-fetched: it would presuppose a stylistic sophistication not usually evident in Latin authors of this period, and in any case as the OP indicates, it is in a context where the (implied) subject of _putant_, namely heathen polytheists, is already clear.



wandle said:


> Or more likely, I think, it may be a marginal comment which has become incorporated in the text by a later copyist.



Far likelier. But on a point of method, if sense can be construed in a text as it stands, it offends Occam's razor to invoke scholiasts(!) or scribes and their sometimes pernicious insertions to explain apparent anomalies.

Hence I would still like to know more about the textual history of this work—I confess I have had no previous knowledge of this Maximus Turinensis or his writings.

Σ


----------



## metaphrastes

Scholiast said:


> According to L&S, s.v. ἀλλὀφυλος, it is frequently used in the LXX of the Philistines


In confirmation of that, there is the initial inscription of Psalm 56 (Psalm 55 in LXX and Vulgata numbering):
(55:1) In finem, pro populo qui a sanctis longe factus est. David in tituli inscriptionem, cum tenuerunt eum *Allophyli *in *Geth*. (55:2) Miserere mei, Deus, quoniam conculcavit me homo ; tota die impugnans, tribulavit me. (Ps 56:1 clm).​
It is important to recall that the Psalms of the Vulgata belong to the so-called Galican Psalter, having been translated from the Greek LXX and not from the Hebrew text. The LXX reads so:
(55:1) εἰς τὸ τέλος ὑπὲρ τοῦ λαοῦ τοῦ ἀπὸ τῶν ἁγίων μεμακρυμμένου τῷ δαυιδ εἰς στηλογραφίαν ὁπότε ἐκράτησαν αὐτὸν οἱ *ἀλλόφυλοι *ἐν *γεθ *(55:2) ἐλέησόν με κύριε ὅτι κατεπάτησέν με ἄνθρωπος ὅλην τὴν ἡμέραν πολεμῶν ἔθλιψέν με (Ps 56:1 lxx&ptr).​
Then, it is a direct borrowing from the Greek. Now, in this precise context it stands for _Philistine_, and we know that for two reasons: the Hebrew text of the Psalm has the word for _Philistine - _פְּלִשְׁתִּי (pelishtı̂y) - and, though the very Hebrew word seems to have some semantic relation with _immigrants _or _sojourners_, thus, _foreign people_, the more specific ethnic meaning still is to be hold, since there is mention to Gath town, that was one of the five royal or chief cities of the Philistines and the native city of Goliath.

The Russian Synodal version follows the Hebrew text and reads so: (55:1) Начальнику хора. О голубице, безмолвствующей в удалении. Писание Давида, когда *Филистимляне *захватили его в *Гефе*. (55:2) Помилуй меня, Боже! ибо человек хочет поглотить меня; нападая всякий день, теснит меня. (Ps 56:1 sy).

The same with the King James version, that has: To the chief Musician upon Jonathelemrechokim, Michtam of David, when the *Philistines *took him in *Gath*. Be merciful unto me, O God: for man would swallow me up; he fighting daily oppresseth me. (Ps 56:1 kj).

But now, from the very context of the Patristic quote it is obviously a narrow reading to understand the reference specifically to Philistine people, as already noted by Scholiast that should refer in general to heathens.

We find one occurrence of the Greek *ἀλλὀφυλος *in the New Testament: And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto *one of another nation* [Greek *ἀλλόφυλος*]; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean. (Acts 10:28 kj). In Russian: И сказал им: вы знаете, что Иудею возбранено сообщаться или сближаться с *иноплеменником*; но мне Бог открыл, чтобы я не почитал ни одного человека скверным или нечистым. (Acts 10:28 sy).

Here, the meaning is clearly of a _foreigner_, which implied in general being a non-Jew, a _goy, _a gentile, a heathen.

Now, coming back to the LXX, the Greek *ἀλλὀφυλος *occurs 239 times, and from a cursory look, most if not all times in the sense of Philistines (who were probably seen as the quintessential heathens, if one may speak so). Interestingly enough, the Vulgata uses in most of these verses the word _Philistini_, probably because of being translated directly from the Hebrew. But now, in the Psalms, the same Greek word occurs five times, but then St Jerome rendered it once as _Allophyli_, as already said, and in the other four occurrences, as _alienigenae _(always in plural):

Ps 60:8 (59:10) Moab olla spei meæ. In Idumæam extendam calceamentum meum : mihi alienigenæ subditi sunt.  clm
Ps 83:7 (82:8) Gebal, et Ammon, et Amalec ; alienigenæ cum habitantibus Tyrum.  clm
Ps 87:4 (86:4) Memor ero Rahab et Babylonis, scientium me ; ecce alienigenæ, et Tyrus, et populus Æthiopum, hi fuerunt illic.  clm
Ps 108:9 (107:10) Moab lebes spei meæ : in Idumæam extendam calceamentum meum ; mihi alienigenæ amici facti sunt.  clm​One might claim that the specific meaning in these verses might well be the Philistines, in particular. However, what actually matters to the translation of the Patristic text is what meaning was attached to the Latin borrowing of *ἀλλὀφυλος*, and we see that whenever St Jerome translated from the Greek, he rendered it as _alienigena._

Sure, _Philistines _would not miss the mark too far, in that it stands as an image of paganism _par excellence. _But it does not seem to be by any stretch the primary meaning of the Latin word, nor what was specifically meant by St Maxim, nor some image immediately recognized by most modern readers.

Anyway, the polemic tone of the work and all Biblical and Patristic usage points to a derogatory usage of _allophylorum_, and maybe the English word _alien_, cognate to _alienigena_, might render it more strongly - something as _allies (or associates) of [heathen] aliens. _Sure, my precise wording may miss the mark by far, since I do not master fine shades of meaning in English, my point being that, no matter the angle you examine the word and its usage, it is pejorative.

I hope this may be of some help.

PS: I hope too your translation will be soon blessed with its publication, and would be glad to receive any good-news on that.


----------



## exgerman

Maximus is indeed thinking about the Philistines=pagans. The sentence as quoted is incomplete. the full text here: 


> Putant se superbis et elatis adrogantiae suae armis indutos allophylorum socios aciem Dei et Israheliticam virtutem posse turbare, et non putant Davidico lapide se facile posse prosternere.


He goes on to say that the Davidicus lapis, which smashed Goliath's face in, is Christ


----------



## metaphrastes

exgerman said:


> He goes on to say that the Davidicus lapis, which smashed Goliath's face in, is Christ


Thank you, I stand corrected regarding the authorial intent of St Maximus and, though I engaged with the word in its Biblical context through some versions, I forgot to check the immediate context of St Maximus' treatise itself!

Then, actually the saying was fulfilled again, in that _by reading the text outside context, I found a pretext _


----------



## wandle

Scholiast said:


> Hence I would still like to know more about the textual history of this work—I confess I have had no previous knowledge of this Maximus Turinensis or his writings.


There is in fact a manuscript facsimile of Maximus' sermons online at e-codices. I have not checked to see if it includes the present text.


----------



## Sniegurochka

Thank you for your very helpful insights!

I am using the text published in JTS in 1916. Here is the link.


----------



## metaphrastes

It is also in Migne's Patrologia Latina, though it is not a critical edition, having reprinted a XVIII century edition from Rome. In the quoted excerpt, Migne reads _socios: https://books.google.pt/books/content?id=qdd7QLoml6wC&hl=pt-PT&pg=RA1-PA78&img=1&zoom=3&sig=ACfU3U3pmMbFyW3f5SVRKcFDMHQYWiTv8A&ci=51,872,416,188&edge=0_

Here a link to the treatise's page: Patrologiae cursus completus


----------



## Scholiast

Thanks, metaphrastes (# 11).

I'm going tomorrow to try consulting a printed edition in a University Library. Intrigued, perplexed and frustrated. God bless.

Σ


----------



## exgerman

Scholiast said:


> Thanks, metaphrastes (# 11).
> 
> I'm going tomorrow to try consulting a printed edition in a University Library. Intrigued, perplexed and frustrated. God bless.
> 
> Σ


The link to google books' scan of the Maximus' treatise as printed in Migne is available in post #7.


----------

