Against Nathan Porter: Ep.366 - A Supplementary Footnote on μισγεσθαι

In a previous post dated May 3rd, I delved into the curious archaism of μισγεσθαι ('to be mixed with') as found in Ep.366. Based on extensive research through lexica and indices, I posited that Clement of Alexandria was the last known writer to use this verb when writing in his own voice. Furthermore, I emphasized Clement’s tendency to boldly repurpose vocabulary from a sexual sense, as in Stromata 1.16.74, to a non-sexual, transformative context, as seen in Ep.366.

To date, no compelling evidence has been presented to counter this main contention. However, a recent encounter with the term in the works of the 6th-century medical writer Aëtius of Amida initially seemed to challenge my timeline. On closer inspection, it became clear that Aëtius was quoting Rufus of Ephesus, a 2nd-century physician. This reaffirmed that the usage aligns with my original assertion, preserving the timeline of Clement's influence.

Rufus of Ephesus and μισγεσθαι

Rufus of Ephesus, in his treatise On Sexual Intercourse (Περι Αφροδισιων), uses μισγεσθαι unambiguously in a sexual context:

"διο και τω μελαγχολικω και κατηφει και μισανθρωπω οντι ως τι μεγιστον ιαμα επιτηδειοτατον μισγεσθαι"
"therefore it is the greatest cure, as it were, and most beneficial for someone melancholic, downcast, and cantankerous to have sex."

This citation from Rufus reinforces the notion that μισγεσθαι retained its sexual connotations during his time, further highlighting Clement's innovative shift in its usage within his own writings.

Clement's Transformative Use of Vocabulary

A hallmark of Clement's style is his adeptness at transforming common vocabulary, often imbuing it with new, positive connotations. This is evident in his use of αυτομολεω and its cognates, traditionally meaning 'to desert,' which he repurposes to signify a virtuous act.

Philo, a major influence on Clement, uses the term αυτομολεω predominantly in a negative sense. For instance, in On the Giants #43, Philo warns against 'deserting to pleasure' (αυτομολησαι δε προς την..ηδονην), and at #65-67, he employs variations of the term to describe a morally reprehensible desertion to fleshly desires.

Clement echoes this negative connotation in Stromata 2.20.117, where he criticizes 'deserting to pleasure' (αυτομολων προς ηδονην). Yet, he transforms this idea in Protrepticus 10.93.1, presenting desertion as a commendable act:

"Let us therefore repent, and pass from ignorance to knowledge, from senselessness to sense, from incontinence to continence [εξ ακρασιας εις εγκρατειαν], from unrighteousness to righteousness, from godlessness to God. It is a glorious venture to desert [αυτομολειν] to God's side."

This transformation illustrates Clement's method of reinterpreting terms to fit his theological framework, enhancing their spiritual significance.

Conclusion

The archaic use of μισγεσθαι in Ep.366, alongside Clement's known penchant for linguistic transformation, further supports the letter's Clementine authorship. By repurposing vocabulary, Clement demonstrates his sophisticated approach to language, aligning with his broader theological and philosophical objectives. This depth of linguistic and conceptual innovation is consistent with Clement's established works, reinforcing the authenticity of Ep.366 against claims of later forgery.