Plutarch, Marcellus 3.2-3

Greek Learning Greek
1

Yesterday I got really stuck with this sentence from Plutarch. Today it is still unclear but it is at least sufficiently clearer that I can pose useful questions.

θαυμαστὸν μὲν ἐδόκει καὶ τύχης ἀγαθῆς γενέσθαι τὸ μὴ συρραγῆναι τὸν Κελτικὸν εἰς τὸ αὐτὸ τῷ Λιβυκῷ πόλεμον, ἀλλ᾽ ὥσπερ ἐφεδρείαν εἰληφότας τοὺς Γαλάτας, ὀρθῶς καὶ δικαίως ἀτρεμήσαντας μαχομένων ἐκείνων, οὕτω τότε δὴ τοῖς νενικηκόσιν ἐπαποδύεσθαι καὶ προκαλεῖσθαι σχολὴν ἄγοντας: οὐ μὴν ἀλλὰ μέγαν ἥ τε χώρα παρεῖχε φόβον, διὰ τὴν γειτνίασιν ὁμόρῳ καὶ προσοίκῳ πολέμῳ συνοισομένοις, καὶ τὸ παλαιὸν ἀξίωμα τῶν Γαλατῶν, οὓς μάλιστα Ῥωμαῖοι δεῖσαι δοκοῦσιν, ἅτε δὴ καὶ τὴν πόλιν ὑπ᾽ αὐτῶν ἀποβαλόντες, ἐξ ἐκείνου δὲ καὶ θέμενοι νόμον ἀτελεῖς εἶναι στρατείας τοὺς ἱερέας, πλὴν εἰ μὴ Γαλατικὸς πάλιν ἐπέλθοι πόλεμος.
it seemed miraculous and a good fortune to have occurred the Keltic war did not clash with the the Punic but like a sitting-waiting-his-turn one-seizing (a wrestler?) correctly according-to-the-rules unmoving while those ones were fighting, thus at that time (when?)to indeed strip off for combat to challenge the victor being free from fighting, . Nevertheless, the land provided a great fear because of the neighborhood (having) common-border-ness and dwelling-near chancing to happen war, as well as the ancient renown of the Gauls who the Romans seem to have especially feared since in fact they lost the city in consequence of them and from that (time), a law having been passed, the priests were exempt from being soldiers except should again come a Gallic war.
Questions:

  1. I have taken συρραγῆναι to mean the two wars clashing in the sense of occuring at the same time but could it be the clash of arms between the Gauls and Romans?
  2. I get that τὸ μὴ συρραγῆναι starts an infinitive construction but how far does it extend? Is ὥσπερ ἐφεδρείαν εἰληφότας τοὺς Γαλάτας, part of the same infinitive construction and if not why arn’t finite verbs used here?
  3. With μέγαν ἥ τε χώρα παρεῖχε φόβον, μέγαν belongs with φόβον so μέγαν φόβον belongs in the section being bracketed by τε καὶ so isn’t the second place position after μέγαν not ἥ?
  4. While we are on the subject of that τε, the καὶ is the one that begins καὶ τὸ παλαιὸν ἀξίωμα τῶν Γαλατῶν?
  5. why are the 4 datives ὁμόρῳ καὶ προσοίκῳ πολέμῳ συνοισομένοις dative? I presume that ὁμόρῳ προσοίκῳ συνοισομένοις all qualify πολέμῳ?
  6. The dictionary definition for ἀτελεῖς was especially confusing. I took it to be exempt but is that right.
    And how can that meaning be covered by a word that also means “everlasting”?

Any help would be gratefully received.

2
  1. The first.
  2. Extends all the way to ϲχολην αγονταϲ. It’s in two parts, the second being αλλα .. τους Γαλαταϲ … επαποδυεϲθαι και προκαλειϲθαι …. The whole lot is introduced by the το. Grammtically speaking it’s the subject of the sentence (εδοκει)
    You ignore τους Γαλαταϲ in your translation. It’s the subect of the subsequent infins, and the pariticples (εἰληφότας and ἀτρεμήσαντας) agree with it.
    ὥσπερ ἐφεδρείαν εἰληφότας introduces a metaphor. The Gauls sat it out and waited their turn, sitting quietly on the sidelines while the Romans and Carthaginians were fighting (εκεινων μαχομενων): so only then (οὕτω τότε δὴ) did they strip for combat against (επ-) the winners and challenge (them) when they (the Romans) were at leisure [i.e. no longer involved in the Punic/Libyan War].
  3. The pairing is ἥ τε χώρα … καὶ τὸ παλαιὸν ἀξίωμα τῶν Γαλατῶν. Both these caused great fear. μεγαν up front for greater prominence. Plutarch likes to split his adj.-noun combos. (τὸν Κελτικὸν … πόλεμον, μεγαν … φοβον, Γαλατικοϲ … πολεμοϲ).
  4. Yes
  5. ὁμόρῳ καὶ προσοίκῳ πολέμῳ depends on συνοισομένοις (plural), lit. “to (them) being about to engage in a ομ. και προϲ. war.”
  6. Yes, ατεληϲ means basically without τελος, and so can mean incomplete (unended) or everlasting (without end), and another meaning of τελος is a tax, so is can also mean exempt from taxes or equivalent obligation to the state. In the event of another Punic war even priests would have to serve.
    Your misconstrue καὶ θέμενοι νόμον ἀτελεῖς εἶναι στρατείας τοὺς ἱερέας: “actually passing (nom.pl., the Romans) a law that priests were exempt from military service.”

You’re showing that you can now handle quite complex sentences. But do check your (relatively few) syntactical slips.

3

θαυμαστὸν μὲν ἐδόκει καὶ τύχης ἀγαθῆς γενέσθαι

τὸ μὴ συρραγῆναι τὸν Κελτικὸν εἰς τὸ αὐτὸ τῷ Λιβυκῷ πόλεμον,

ἀλλ᾽ ὥσπερ ἐφεδρείαν εἰληφότας τοὺς Γαλάτας, ὀρθῶς καὶ δικαίως ἀτρεμήσαντας

μαχομένων ἐκείνων

οὕτω τότε δὴ τοῖς νενικηκόσιν ἐπαποδύεσθαι καὶ προκαλεῖσθαι σχολὴν ἄγοντας:

  1. τὸ μὴ συρραγῆναι τὸν Κελτικὸν εἰς τὸ αὐτὸ τῷ Λιβυκῷ πόλεμον – “the Celtic war did not break out at the same time as . . .”

2.The articular infinitive construction extends to προκαλεῖσθαι σχολὴν ἄγοντας:

It seemed to be [γενέσθαι] . . . that . . . they challenged them [the victors in the fight between the Romans and the Carthaginians] at their leisure" (seems to be at the Gauls’ leisure, but could mean when the victors were no longer occupied by defeating their opponents).

  1. μέγαν is fronted for emphasis – “a really, really big fear”

  2. The two conjoined elements are ἥ τε χώρα παρεῖχε φόβον and καὶ τὸ παλαιὸν ἀξίωμα τῶν Γαλατῶν, which are the subjects of μέγαν . . . παρεῖχε φόβον.

  3. συνοισομένοις is medio-passive, meaning something like “to engage with”, to enter into"; the referent is apparently the Romans. It’s the indirect object of παρεῖχε.

LSJ συμφέρω:

B. Pass. συμφέρομαι: fut. συνοίσομαι: aor. Pass. “ξυνηνέχθην” Th. 7.44, Ion. “συνηνείχθην” Hdt.1.19, 2.111, 3.10: pf. συνενήνεγμαι (Hes. Sc.440), v. συνενείκομαι:—come together, opp. διαφέρεσθαι, Heraclit. 10, cf. Pl.Sph.242e, etc.; meet, associate with, Theoc.Ep.8.2; of sexual intercourse, Luc.Herm.34, Tox.15.
2. in hostile sense, meet in battle, engage, “πτόλεμόνδε” Il.8.400; “μάχῃ” 11.736; τινι with one, A. Th.636: abs., Th.7.36; so “συνοισόμεθα πτολεμίζειν” Hes.Sc.358; ς. κακῷ encounter it, Hdt.6.50.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dsumfe%2Frw

ὁμόρῳ καὶ προσοίκῳ πολέμῳ is the dative complement of συνοισομένοις.

  1. “exempt” is right. The idea is that because of the early Roman experience of the city having been taken by the Gauls, the Romans had enacted a law that the priests would otherwise be exempt from military service, but not in the event of a war with the Gauls.

I think you got everything more or less right but this: ἀλλ᾽ ὥσπερ ἐφεδρείαν εἰληφότας τοὺς Γαλάτας, ὀρθῶς καὶ δικαίως ἀτρεμήσαντας μαχομένων ἐκείνων, οὕτω τότε δὴ τοῖς νενικηκόσιν ἐπαποδύεσθαι καὶ προκαλεῖσθαι σχολὴν ἄγοντας:

It seemed to happen miraculously and with a stroke of good fortune that the Gauls, as if having taken up a position of lying in wait [that’s very rough, but you get the picture], correctly and justly remaining at rest [ἀτρεμήσαντας] while those [the Carthaginians and the Romans] were fighting, only then [after the Romans defeated the Carthaginians] went on the attack against the victors and challenged them . . .

Edit: mwh beat me to it, but I’ll post anyway.

4

“In the event of another Punic war even priests would have to serve.” Before anyone picks me up on it, I meant not Punic but Gallic of course. Please excuse all the typos.

The final words, μὴ Γαλακτικὸς πάλιν ἐπέλθοι πόλεμος. Wasn’t that the last line of a George Lucas movie?

5

Thanks for both of your replies. The sentence now does make sense now though I have had to read it through several times before being able to follow it without notes.

Just one last question: Would the neutral word order be μέγαν παρεῖχε φόβον ἥ τε χώρα or ἥ τε χώρα μέγαν παρεῖχε φόβον? It is the way παρεῖχε φόβον is moved within the τε καὶ bracketing even though it is grammatically distinct though I can see now why that would not be confusing to a native speaker.


Indeed, which is why Lucas is suing Plutarch for plagiarism. :slight_smile: