I am working on reading a passage from Dr. Mastronarde Unit 34. I am having confusion over a couple parts and will start just with the first one for now. The passage reads,
I placed in bold the first part that is bothering me, “καὶ οὐ φοβούμενος μὴ ἁμαρτάνοι τῇ ἑαυτοῦ γνώμῃ πιστεύων, . . .”
The rule I am using for this is,
“Object Clauses with Verbs of Fearing.
a. Clauses denoting a fear about a future event, or about a present event the occurrence
of which is unascertained, contain the subjunctive in primary sequence and
the optative or subjunctive in secondary sequence. Such clauses are introduced by
μή when positive and by μὴ οὐ when negative.
Primary sequence: subjunctive mandatory
φοβούμεθα μὴ ὁ βασιλεὺς ἡμῖν ἐπιθῆται.
We are afraid that the king may attack us.
φοβούμεθα μὴ οἱ σύμμαχοι οὐκ ἔλθωσιν εἰς καιρόν.
We fear that the allies may not come in time.
Secondary sequence: optative optional
ἐφοβοῦντο μὴ ὁ βασιλεὺς ἐπιθῆται.
Or ἐφοβοῦντο μὴ ὁ βασιλεὺς ἐπιθεῖτο [optative].
They were afraid that the king might attack”
Shouldn’t the passage I am having trouble with start with a μὴ οὐ instead of just an οὐ? Since it is in primary sequence, shouldn’t the sentence have a subjunctive instead of an optative?
Hi Lukas. It’s not in primary sequence, we’re in a past narrative. The leading verb here is ἐστρατεύσατο, so all the dependent clauses are in secondary sequence. He launched the expedition “not being afraid that he might be wrong” (οὐ φοβούμενος μὴ ἁμαρτάνοι).
The tense of the participles is relative to the time of the action of the main verb, ἐστρατεύσατο. He launched the expedition without being afraid (at the time) that he might be going wrong.
Three other sentences (without participles!) to help you get the basics straight:
We’re afraid that we may be going wrong: φοβούμεθα μὴ ἁμαρτάνωμεν.
We’re not afraid that we may be going wrong: οὐ φοβούμεθα μὴ ἁμαρτάνωμεν.
We’re afraid that our allies may not come: φοβούμεθα μὴ οἱ σύμμαχοι οὐκ ἔλθωσιν.
I am having trouble with translating the first τε, whether to translate it as “both” or “and.” I was wondering if I would translate like this, “For both the Lydians and Croesus and his wife and his children were defeated and captured.” or more literal would be, “For both (and?) were defeated the Lydians and were captured Croesus and his wife and his children.” I am having trouble getting a smooth translation out of this.
It’s more important to understand what it’s doing (its function) than how to translate it.
The τε anticipates the upcoming καὶ, so the sentence is in two main parts:
(1) The Lydians were defeated (ἡττήθησαν τε οἱ Λυδοὶ) and (2) Croesus + wife & kids were captured (καὶ ἑάλωσαν ὅ τε Κροῖσος καὶ ἡ γυνὴ καὶ τὰ παιδία).
And part 2 is subdivided in turn (ὅ τε Κροῖσος καὶ ἡ γυνὴ καὶ τὰ παιδία), this time linking Croesus, wife, and children.
As to translation of A τε καὶ B, “both A and B” will usually do, but translation can only be approximate and once you understand how the Greek works you shouldn’t need to translate at all.
You suggested “For both the Lydians and Croesus and his wife and his children were defeated and captured.” That will most definitely NOT do, as I hope you now can see. The sentence is very clearly articulated: It’s the Lydians who were defeated, and it’s Croesus & family who were captured.
The two parallel clauses are separate. “Both … and” is too strong for both instances of τε … καὶ here. They’re just “and.” “The Lydians were defeated, and Croesus and his wife and children were captured.”
As Hylander says, “both … and” would be too strong here. The point is that each τε indicates that another limb is to come. It’s not meaningless, even if it’s best left untranslated. The result of the invasion was twofold: Lydians defeated, Croesus & family captured.