Relative of characteristic versus Indirect Discourse

[TheTaoOfPhil]

Hi,

In my reading of De Bello Gallico, I just came across this, the first sentence in 1.3.

Hīs rēbus adductī et auctōritāte Orgetorīgis permōtī, cōnstituērunt ea quae ad proficīscendum pertinērent comparāre, iūmentōrum et carrōrum quam māximum numerum coëmere, sēmentēs quam māximās facere ut in itinere cōpia frūmentī suppeteret, cum proximīs cīvitātibus pācem et amīcitiam cōnfīrmāre.

My initial reading of "quae ad proficīscendum pertinērent" is that it is a relative clause of characteristic. I was surprised to find that the Allen & Greenough commentary, as well as Finch's, read it as Indirect Discourse (Oratio Oblique): Caesar is reporting the opinion of the Helveti that these preparations were necessary. The Dickenson commentary cites both readings as plausible.

Is there anything within the sentence itself that would lend weight to either reading? Does indirect discourse reading imply that Caesar has some reason to doubt that the preparations are objectively necessary. If so, is there something from the context (in the upcoming text) to support his presentation of the Helveti?

Thanks for your help.
--Phil

[Hylander]

Does indirect discourse reading imply that Caesar has some reason to doubt that the preparations are objectively necessary.

No, it simply reflects what Caesar thought was going through their minds in making their decision -- their thinking.

My vote would be for indirect discourse, but I can see an argument for a relative clause of characteristic, "such things as pertained to their departure". In the end, it really doesn't matter how the clause is characterized -- it takes a subjunctive verb regardless, and Caesar used the subjunctive without analyzing which type of subjunctive would be appropriate.

[RandyGibbons]

Does indirect discourse reading imply that Caesar has some reason to doubt that the preparations are objectively necessary.

Let me ditto and reinforce what Hylander said: No! Takeaway for you: While indirect discourse can be used to make it clear that the speaker/writer is merely reporting what someone else thought or said, that doesn't automatically imply any distrust on the part of the speaker/writer. You have to decide that based on the context.

If so, is there something from the context (in the upcoming text) to support his presentation of the Helveti?

Precisely as you said! That's really the important question here. Implicit in your question is the profounder question of Caesar's purpose in writing De bello gallico and what his strategy is as a writer. As you continue to read, please let us know what you think!

Randy Gibbons

[TheTaoOfPhil]

Thank you both for your thoughtful replies. They are very helpful.

I find this idea of signalling indirect discourse through the mood of the verb to be rather fascinating. We don't have anything parallel to this in English -- we have to use an explicit verb or something similar to signal that we're reporting someone's thought process. The ambiguity about what Caesar meant forces one to read the text closely to get the contextual clues.

Thanks again!
--Phil

[Barry Hofstetter]

Syntactically, in the narrow sense, there is no reason to read this as indirect statement. The main verb, constituērunt, is in the indicative. Caesar is telling us what the Helvetians did, so in the broader sense he is "reporting" but he is not telling us what the Helvetians said or thought. I think a relative clause of characteristic better fits the usage here. Caesar is quite able to write long sections in indirect statement, as he does later in DBG.

[mwh]

To follow up on Phil’s interesting point, in English it is actually quite possible to shape a narrative in such a way to convey a character’s thoughts or point of view, isn’t it, all without departing from the authorial narrative mode. Novelists—Jane Austen is a prime example—can present situations from the perspective of a particular character (“focalization”), and this is often effected though what narratologists have taken to calling free indirect discourse. Latin and Greek tend to be syntactically less nuanced and more circumscribed. In relative clauses where it’s more than a matter of plain objective fact they use the subjunctive (as in this instance, however you care to categorize it), and of course they can readily slip into acc.&infin. for actual indirect discourse, but it’s more of an either/or thing than it is in English.

[Dantius]

I think the best argument that this is not a relative clause of characteristic is that in DBG 1.1 the same construction with ea quae ad ____ with a form of pertineo takes the indicative:
atque ea, quae ad effeminandos animos pertinent, important

It seems weird to me that Caesar would be inconsistent in his construction that way if the only explanation for the subjunctive in chapter 3 is "relative clause of characteristic". To me, it seems more likely that the subjunctive in chapter 3 is due to him reporting the thoughts of the Helvetii, their decisions, whereas in chapter 1 he was just stating his own thoughts as the narrator.

[Hylander]

I think the best argument that this is not a relative clause of characteristic is that in DBG 1.1 the same construction with ea quae ad ____ with a form of pertineo takes the indicative:
atque ea, quae ad effeminandos animos pertinent, important

Good catch! The clause in DBG 1.1 is obviously Caesar's editorial comment, and doesn't represent the thinking of the Belgae(?).

Constituerunt has mental or verbal connotations. That's enough for Latin "indirect discourse", which is broader than just specific verbs of speaking or thinking -- it includes something closer to "free indirect discourse" as mwh aptly refers to the techniques of modern novelists such as Jane Austen and Henry James.

[Barry Hofstetter]

I think the best argument that this is not a relative clause of characteristic is that in DBG 1.1 the same construction with ea quae ad ____ with a form of pertineo takes the indicative:
atque ea, quae ad effeminandos animos pertinent, important

Good catch! The clause in DBG 1.1 is obviously Caesar's editorial comment, and doesn't represent the thinking of the Belgae(?).

Constituerunt has mental or verbal connotations. That's enough for Latin "indirect discourse", which is broader than just specific verbs of speaking or thinking -- it includes something closer to "free indirect discourse" as mwh aptly refers to the techniques of modern novelists such as Jane Austen and Henry James.

I've been thinking about this off and on, but haven't done much because of Christmas break (both daughters home!). Another explanation is that Caesar does not use a subjunctive in 1.1 simply because he is not thinking of the types of things that bring civilization, but specific things. Not being convinced that constituo in particular and Latin in general does "free indirect discourse" (a category invented to describe a particular English narrative style) I decided (ha!) to have a look at some of the other uses of constituo in DBG, looking for an unambiguous usage in an embedded relative clause, and I was happily not finding any until:

Huic, cum proelio dimicare constituerunt, ea quae bello ceperint plerumque devovent... (6:17).

Note also the similar narrative context to 1.3, Caesar "reporting" the religious beliefs and practices of the Gauls much as he was reporting the actions taken place by the Helvetians to prepare for their migration. A clause of characteristic really wouldn't make much sense here. Checked a commentary and found:

ceperint subjv. of informal indir. disc., for the fut. perf. inc. of the direct...

So just maybe there's something to this after all.

[Hylander]

Huic, cum proelio dimicare constituerunt, ea quae bello ceperint plerumque devovent... (6:17).

The subjunctive of "informal" indirect discourse here, ceperint, seems to depend not on implicit discourse inherent in constituerunt,, but rather on implicit discourse inherent in devovent. Caesar imagines the Gauls as saying, immediately after having declared war (but before they have captured anything), something like "we dedicate to Mars what we will have captured in the war for the most part." He goes on to say cum superaverunt, animalia capta immolant reliquasque res in unum locum conferunt., "when they have been victorious" . . .

"Free indirect discourse" in Latin: something like this is exactly what A&G describes as "informal indirect discourse" (secs. 591.1, 592, especially 592.2).

[Barry Hofstetter]

Huic, cum proelio dimicare constituerunt, ea quae bello ceperint plerumque devovent... (6:17).

The subjunctive of "informal" indirect discourse here, ceperint, seems to depend not on implicit discourse inherent in constituerunt,, but rather on implicit discourse inherent in devovent. Caesar imagines the Gauls as saying, immediately after having declared war (but before they have captured anything), something like "we dedicate to Mars what we will have captured in the war for the most part." He goes on to say cum superaverunt, animalia capta immolant reliquasque res in unum locum conferunt., "when they have been victorious" . . .

"Free indirect discourse" in Latin: something like this is exactly what A&G describes as "informal indirect discourse" (secs. 591.1, 592, especially 592.2).

Thanks, Hylander, appreciate your grammatical expertise as always. Do you think it's possible that ceperint actually is a future perfect indicative?

[Hylander]

Do you think it's possible that ceperint actually is a future perfect indicative?

The form would be the same, of course, but to me at least it seems to be part of what the Gauls say when they dedicate the spoils to Jupiter, rather than a statement of fact by Caesar -- especially since the Gauls haven't actually taken any spoils when they make the dedication.