OBSERVATIONS ON ἄχραντος AND RELATED ADJECTIVES

“Pure” (ἄχραντε).

In this digression I aim to clear up some problems that arise when one translates hymnographical Greek into English.  The first point I wish to make is the modest one that privative adjectives need not be translated by privative adjectives.  The second is the less modest one that privative adjective translations can be problematic.

(1)  What are the possible definitions of ἄχραντος?

DGE reports that ἄχραντος means no manchado, puro, sagrado etc.  The first thing we notice is that ἄχραντος is a privative (or negated) adjective.  The DGE reports no tocado, no puesto en contacto, no manchado, puro, sagrado, no contaminado, intacto.  Of seven definitions, three are simple.  (The DGE also reports some specialized uses of ἄχραντος which are relevant to our hymns, to which we will return below.)  By contrast, Great Scott reports only privative adjectives: undefiled, immaculate.  Montie reports two privative adjectives (uncontaminated, intact) and one simple (pure, which is identified as a later definition to be found in Iamblichus [saec. iii-iv]), inter al.  Lampe reports that ἄχραντος means “undefiled by sin.”  While Anglophone translaters generally tend to use privative adjectives, it is apparent from just three lexica that we have a choice of privative or simple adjectives. 

Why are privative adjectives problematic in English?

(1)  The most important may be that negated adjectives in English tend to emphasize the absence of a quality and so lose sight of the positive quality intended by the author.  Let’s take adjectives like stainless and undefiled as our example here and in what follows.  They obviously describe what quality is lacking but do not denote what was undoubtedly intended, namely, purity. 

(2)  Privative adjectives can be distracting.  For example, stainless is commonly collocated with steel.  Again, undefiled does not even belong to the top 20,000 words of our language, according to Davis.  In the case of the much-used immaculate, its normal reference to tidiness does not well serve the purpose of our hymns (is the Mother of God tidy?) and otherwise may be thought to confirm the Catholic dogma of the Immaculate Conception.

(3)  Privative adjectives can produce grossly inappropriate associations.  The rara avis who looks up undefiled in the COED will surmise that it means not made dirty, not polluted, not deprived of virginity.  Are these associations which we want believers to form with the Mother of God?

Let’s illustrate the problem of privative adjectives with an example.  We may refer to an authoritative translation of a hymn which informs us that the Mother of God “experienced no deflowerment” (μὴ τῆς φθορᾶς διαπείρᾳ κυοφορήσασα “having been pregnant without corruption”).  Such a barbaric translation is the outcome of a strict adherence to privative adjectives; the fact that no lexicon suggests that φθορά can be so crudely translated adds mystery to vulgarity. 

Must φθορά be translated even as corruption?  The COED defines it as “decomposition; moral deterioration; use of corrupt practices (bribery etc.); perversion (of language, text, etc.) from its original state; deformation (of words).”  None of these definitions seem to apply to the Mother of God or to the manner in which she gave birth.  There is no reason in English for φθορά to be taken as corruption.

What should corruption be replaced with?  The solution appears to be found in the Ἄξιόν ἐστιν, in which the birth of God the Word is described as ἀδιαφθόρως. 

Great Scott reports that ἀδιάφθορος means not affected by decay, chaste, incorruptible (of judges), imperishable.  DGE adds puro.  DGE also adds that ἀδιαφθόρως means de manera pura.  Puro and de manera pura seem much more relevant to the Mother of God than the privatives listed by Great Scott (“you gave birth to God the word without being affected by decay”? “you gave birth to God the Word incorruptibly”? “you gave birth to God the Word imperishably”?).  Puro and de manera allow us to say things that are indeed relevant to the Mother of God:  “you gave birth to God the word chastely,” “you gave birth to God the Word purely,” “you gave birth to God the Word in a pure manner.”  All of these seem applicable in one fashion or another, though they are awkward. 

In short, τὴν ἀδιαφθόρως Θεὸν Λόγον τεκοῦσαν can be translated literally as “you gave birth to God the Word in a pure manner.”

By contrast, the monstrous phrase, “you experienced no deflowerment,” reduces a divine conception to a vulgar comment on the maidenhead.  Can we fix the translation of μὴ τῆς φθορᾶς διαπείρᾳ κυοφορήσασα, too?  One way to do this is to take the entire phrase as an elaborate and crude paraphrase of τὴν ἀδιαφθόρως Θεὸν Λόγον τεκοῦσαν.  The hymnographers often reword commonplace expressions with non-Biblical words in order to introduce some variety or to meet metrical requirements.  So, then, we take μὴ τῆς φθορᾶς διαπείρᾳ as a non-Biblical and crude paraphrase of ἀδιαφθόρως, while κυοφορήσασα is the non-Biblical equivalent of τεκοῦσαν.  Note that both τεκοῦσαν and κυοφορήσασα are aor. act. ptcs.  Note also that τῆς φθορᾶς διαπείρᾳ is problematic, since we have already demonstrated that φθορά has no meaning in the lexica which is relevant to the Mother of God.  However, taken as a whole, μὴ τῆς φθορᾶς διαπείρᾳ corresponds to another word in this hymn, ἀπείρανδρος (that has not known a man [Great Scott]) as well as to St. Athanasius’ expression, ἀνδρὸς ἄπειρος (“not knowing a man”; cf. St. Luke’s ἄνδρα οὐ γινώσκω), i.e., a virgin.  All three expressions rely on the root which is apparent in πεῖρα (trial, experience and of course temptation [Great Scott]).

In short, we can render μὴ τῆς φθορᾶς διαπείρᾳ κυοφορήσασα as “you carried [your Son in your womb] in a pure fashion.”  We can even say “you carried [your Son in your womb] as a virgin,” based on the St. Athanasius’ virtual definition of virgin.  It is interesting that Mr. K. defines κυοφορέω as to be pregnant in the family way.

Returning now to the general problem, it seems very advisable that translators use simple adjectives to render Greek’s innumerable simple and privative adjectives.