Zosimus, Historia Nova 3.3.5. "εἰς αὐτοὺς"

[Murray Hogg]

I'd just like to check that I'm getting the sense of "εἰς αὐτοὺς" (eis autous) correct in the following short snippet from Zosimus, Historia Nova 3.3.5:

εἰκότως τοίνυν ὁ καῖσαρ ἀχθόμενος ἐφ’ οἷς τό γε ἧκον εἰς αὐτοὺς ἐκδεδώκασι τοῖς βαρβάροις τοὺς ὁμοφύλους
eikotōs toinun ho kaisar echthomenos eph' hois to ge hēkon eis autous ekdedōkasi tois barbarois tous homophulous

I'm sure the translation should run something like:

Therefore, Caesar was rightly angered with those whom, being attacked, had left their comrades to the barbarians.

The problem is that I'm not sure quite how to get here from the Greek!

As it stands, I would give a wooden rendering as:

Rightly, therefore, Caesar was angered with those whom, being attacked, to them, to the barbarians, the comrades.

My major problem, not so clear in the wooden English, is how to render "εἰς αὐτοὺς" (eis autous).

Clearly (?) it does not relate to barbarois or the latter would also be in the accusative (correct?).

So I wonder if there is some relationship to "τοὺς ὁμοφύλους" (tous homophulous) even though I'm certain that the case of homopholos is not governed by eis - that is, the sense is NOT "to the comrades."

So, the question, who precisely are the "they" spoken of here, and what function is "εἰς αὐτοὺς" (eis autous) actually serving in this sentence?

One final question: how does tous homophulous end up being rendered "their comrades" (i.e. of those who had done the leaving/handing over)? I'm not seeing any reason for a possessive here, but it seems to be demanded in order to make sense of the sentence in its broader context.

[Stephen Carlson]

I'd just like to check that I'm getting the sense of "εἰς αὐτοὺς" (eis autous) correct in the following short snippet from Zosimus, Historia Nova 3.3.5:

εἰκότως τοίνυν ὁ καῖσαρ ἀχθόμενος ἐφ’ οἷς τό γε ἧκον εἰς αὐτοὺς ἐκδεδώκασι τοῖς βαρβάροις τοὺς ὁμοφύλους

As it stands, I would give a wooden rendering as:

Rightly, therefore, Caesar was angered with those whom, being attacked, to them, to the barbarians, the comrades.

My major problem, not so clear in the wooden English, is how to render "εἰς αὐτοὺς" (eis autous).

The stumbling block seems to be τό γε ἧκον εἰς αὐτοὺς. We're looking at a perfect participle of ἥκω, "to have come", and when used with εἰς, it can mean "relate to" or "concern." So it would appear to mean "at least what pertained to them." I don't know where you're getting "attacked" from.

I do find the syntax of this rather tough, and I hope Carl jumps in here to straighten me out. I think that the object of ἐκδεδώκασι ("they had given up") is τό γε ἧκον εἰς αὐτοὺς and the other accusative τοὺς ὁμοφύλους is in apposition, specifying what it is. So it goes something like this: "Justly, then, was Caesar vexed at those who had given up to the barbarians at least what pertained to them, (that is) their fellow tribesmen."

Clearly (?) it does not relate to barbarois or the latter would also be in the accusative (correct?).

Well, I don't think it relates to the βαρβάροις, but the case of the antecedent is irrelevant.

So I wonder if there is some relationship to "τοὺς ὁμοφύλους" (tous homophulous) even though I'm certain that the case of homopholos is not governed by eis - that is, the sense is NOT "to the comrades."

My guess is that τοὺς ὁμοφύλους is in apposition to τό γε ἧκον εἰς αὐτοὺς

So, the question, who precisely are the "they" spoken of here, and what function is "εἰς αὐτοὺς" (eis autous) actually serving in this sentence?

The "they" is built into the relative οἷς. To identify who they are, you'd have to look at the context, which seems to refer to some of Caesar's troops who deserted during a battle. You can read the context here in an English translation on the web at http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/zosimus03_book3.htm by Green and Chaplin. Here is how they rendered the the paragraph (with the sentence in question bolded):

We ought not however to pass over in silence an action of Caesar after the victory. He possessed a regiment of six hundred horse, which were well disciplined, and in whose valour and experience he so confided, that he ventured great partof his hopes upon their performances. Indeed when the battle commenced, the whole army attacked the enemy with all the resolution they could show; but some time afterwards, though the Roman army had considerably the advantage, these were the only troops that fled, and left their station so dishonourably, that when Caesar rode up to them with a small party, and called them back to a share of the victory, he could not by any means prevail on them to turn. On which account he was justly indignant with them, for having as much as related to them betrayed their countrymen to the Barbarians. Yet he did not inflict on them the usual and legal punishment. But he dressed them in.women's clothes, and led them through the camp towards another province, thinking that such a punishment would be worse than death to soldiers that were men. Indeed this happened very fortunately both for him and them; for in the second war against the Germans they recollected the ignominy which had previously been imposed upon them,and were almost the only troops who conducted themselves bravely in that engagement.

One final question: how does tous homophulous end up being rendered "their comrades" (i.e. of those who had done the leaving/handing over)? I'm not seeing any reason for a possessive here, but it seems to be demanded in order to make sense of the sentence in its broader context.

The Greek article is not infrequently translated by an English possessive, and English seems to require the possessive more often with certain identifiable referents.

Stephen

[Murray Hogg]

Thanks Stephen,

I'm very glad I'm not the only one who finds the syntax difficult, and I'd certainly like to hear Carl's views.

Only one comment for now:

The stumbling block seems to be τό γε ἧκον εἰς αὐτοὺς. We're looking at a perfect participle of ἥκω, "to have come", and when used with εἰς, it can mean "relate to" or "concern." So it would appear to mean "at least what pertained to them." I don't know where you're getting "attacked" from.

By way of explanation:

I did come across the translation you cited ("On which account he was justly indignant with them, for having as much as related to them betrayed their countrymen to the Barbarians"). Honestly, "as much as related to them" is precisely how I would render the phrase in question except that the resulting sentence makes no sense to me whatever. Consequently, I was fishing around for something at the fringes of the semantic range which might work in the context.

Part of my thinking was that "τό ἧκον" might be taken as a substantive. Thus, "τό ἧκον εἰς αὐτοὺς" > "those having come to them" becomes "those attacking them." I've since realized that this doesn't work for a few reasons, not least of which is that the participle is a singular. I know, I know, a dumb mistake. Mea culpa.

I'm also, let me say, struggling a bit with γε - I realize reading this passage that I haven't really given due attention to how it functions, and the resulting lack of clarity is certainly not helping my understanding.

Thanks,
Murray

[Barry Hofstetter]

Murray and Stephen, the English translation makes no sense -- there's something wrong with it.

εἰκότως τοίνυν ὁ καῖσαρ ἀχθόμενος ἐφ’ οἷς τό γε ἧκον εἰς αὐτοὺς ἐκδεδώκασι τοῖς βαρβάροις τοὺς ὁμοφύλους...

LSJ has the phrase τό γε ἐπ' αὐτοὺς ἧκον μέρος under the meaning "depends on." That's pretty close to what we have above. If we understand the phrase adverbially (as a kind of accusative of respect):

"Therefore, Caesar, vexed with them, as one would expect, for having betrayed their fellow tribesman to the foreigners with regard to what depended on them..."

The syntax is difficult, and I too would appreciate Carl weighing in.

[David Lim]

I'd just like to check that I'm getting the sense of "εἰς αὐτοὺς" (eis autous) correct in the following short snippet from Zosimus, Historia Nova 3.3.5:

εἰκότως τοίνυν ὁ καῖσαρ ἀχθόμενος ἐφ’ οἷς τό γε ἧκον εἰς αὐτοὺς ἐκδεδώκασι τοῖς βαρβάροις τοὺς ὁμοφύλους
eikotōs toinun ho kaisar echthomenos eph' hois to ge hēkon eis autous ekdedōkasi tois barbarois tous homophulous

I'm sure the translation should run something like:

Therefore, Caesar was rightly angered with those whom, being attacked, had left their comrades to the barbarians.

The problem is that I'm not sure quite how to get here from the Greek!

As it stands, I would give a wooden rendering as:

Rightly, therefore, Caesar was angered with those whom, being attacked, to them, to the barbarians, the comrades.

My major problem, not so clear in the wooden English, is how to render "εἰς αὐτοὺς" (eis autous).

Could "το ηκον εις αυτους" mean "[because of] that which has come against them"?

[Alex Hopkins]

εἰκότως τοίνυν ὁ καῖσαρ ἀχθόμενος ἐφ’ οἷς τό γε ἧκον εἰς αὐτοὺς ἐκδεδώκασι τοῖς βαρβάροις τοὺς ὁμοφύλους

My two cents worth:

ἐκδεδώκασι is a perfect pcple, dative plural and in apposition to οἷς, so ~ 'Caesar was angered with those ... who betrayed', τοὺς ὁμοφύλους being direct object of ἐκδεδώκασι, 'Caesar was angered with those ... who betrayed their fellow tribesmen to the barbarians', with τό γε ἧκον εἰς αὐτοὺς qualifying the ἐκδεδώκασι ie 'at any rate, so far as it depended upon them' which I would understand as something like 'at any rate, in so far as it was within their control'; that is, they may not have been solely responsible for the loss of their kinsmen to the barbarians, but their flight from the battle could be considered an act of betrayal. ἧκον being present pcple neuter sg, the τό ἧκον unit used as an adverbial accusative or acc respect (~ 'in respect of that which pertained to them').

Alex Hopkins
Melbourne, Australia

[cwconrad]

I've been meaning to respond to this but hadn't gone around to it. There's really nothing more to say about it after Alex Hopkins' resolution of its problems. I would note that ἧκον is not a perfect but a present participle, albeit of a verb that is stative in nature and conveys the sense of a perfect tense. But the posting raises two (relatively) minor questions in my mind:

(1) Why on earth was this query posted in this particular subtopic of the Beginner's Forum? This is certainly not a beginner's query nor could I imagine a beginner in Koine Greek to be concerned with a Byzantine author. Of course, "What does this text mean?" is a question that can be posed regarding any historical Greek text at all, but we've established this topic in the Beginner's Forum precisely for queries from students who haven't yet become competent in fundamental grammar. On the other hand, we don't currently have a proper locus for an author like Zosimus; this isn't really Koine Greek; I guess it would fit best in "Other" as a subtopic of "Koine Greek Texts." But that raises another question: wouldn't it make sense to change "Koine Greek Texts" to read more simply, "Greek Texts"? Classical Greek authors have been mentioned as have also Homeric texts; this one is Byzantine. No doubt most of our discussions here concern Biblical and patristic Greek grammar and texts, but I don't think any of our moderators would reject a reasonably-phrased question on any Greek text outside of those confines.

(2) I don't think that Murray Hogg has an introduction on this forum; he's not required to post one, I guess, but he's posted some interesting questions, and I'd be pleased if he would share a little more about himself with the rest of us.

[Stephen Carlson]

OK, I moved this topic to Church Fathers and Patristic Greek texts.

[cwconrad]

OK, I moved this topic to Church Fathers and Patristic Greek texts.

Well, that gets it out of a location where it is clearly inappropriately placed, but this is not a Patristic text either. Zosimus was a secular Byzantine historian. We don't currently have a better location for it than "Koine Greek Texts: Other" -- and that's not really very good either.

[Murray Hogg]

Thanks to everybody who replied, esp. Alex Hopkins who appears to have nailed it.

Just on Carl's two questions, I can only apologize for posting in the wrong place - I'll take a little more care next time.

On the second, I think I did an intro back in the days when B-Greek was an e-mail list, but I can easily redo it here (in the appropriate section of the forum, of course)

Thanks all, once again.
Murray