I can translate the sentence: “Nolebat Caesar morari quod sentiebat quantum iam hostes auctoritatis apud incolas provinciae haberent” as "Caesar was unwilling to delay because he was perceiving how much already of authority the enemies were having among the inhabitants of the province. However I am confused on the followings:
Why is subjunctive “haberent” used in the in the subordinated clause: “sentiebat quantum iam hostes auctoritatis apud incolas provinciae haberent” ? To my understanding “sentiebat” marks an Indirect Statement, thus shouldn’t it be Infinitive with Accusative Subject?
Of which verb is the substantive adjective “quantum” a direct object? “sentiebat” or “haberent”.
Thanks for your advices.
When a reason or an explanatory fact is introduced by a relative or by quod (rarely quia )
As for this:
I am inclined to say the whole clause ‘quantum…haberent’ is the object of sentiebat, whereas within the clause quantum is the object of haberent, but I will defer to other, more knowledgeable, interpretations.
The answer to your first question: haberent is subjunctive because quantum iam hostes auctoritatis apud incolas provinciae haberent is an indirect question – not an indirect statement – introduced by the interrogative word quantum. Allen & Greenough 574. With due respect, I need to point out that, contrary to the previous post, this is not an instance of A&G 593. It’s not a subordinate clause in indirect discourse.
As the previous post notes, the quantum clause is the complement of sentiebat. quantum itself is the direct object of haberent.
Indirect questions are tricky because they often don’t look like questions. They’re typically clauses in indirect speech introduced by interrogative words. They take a subjunctive verb, not accusative + infinitive, in contrast to indirect statements.