Tense Sequence in BG VII,5

Latin Learning Latin
1

Hello everyone,

I’m using a Bell’s Illustrared Classics edition of Caesar and one of the explanations strikes me as odd.
This is the sentence is question:

qui […] legatis nostris renuntiant se Biturigum perfidiam veritos revertisse, quibus id consilii fuisse cognoverint, ut, si flumen transissent, una ex parte ipsi, altera Arverni se circumsisterent.

The explanation of the sequence of tenses runs like this:

Here the Tenses will be best understood by tracing the growth of the sentence from its simplest form; thus, the thought of the Aedui was: > Biturigibus id consilii fuit, ut, si transissemus, circumsisterent. > Here > fuit > is Historic, and governs the Tense of > circumsisterent> , which is Historic because it depends upon > fuit> , and is Impf. because its action is not prior (but future) to that of > fuit> ; whilst > transissemus > is Historic because it depends immediately upon > cumsisterent> , and is Plupf. and not Impf. because its action is regarded as prior to that of > circumsisterent> . The next stage of the sentence represents the words of the Aedui to the legati: > Revertimus Biturigum perfidiam veriti, quibus id consilii fuisse cognovimus, ut, si transissemus, circumsisterent. > Finally Caesar describes the statement ('> renuntiant> '), with the effect of turning > revertimus > into > se revertisse> , and > cognovimus > into > cognoverint> . Examined in this way all cases will be accounted for in which a Plupf. is used for an apparently future action, e.g, ‘reliquissent,’ c. 17, 6, ‘ascendissent,’ c. 27, 2.

It is the last part that confuses me. I can’t seem to understand why it is that we turn revertimus to se revertisse (by the Rules of Oratio Obliqua: the main tense is indicative, so the subordinate clause becomes an acc. cum inf.) at the same time turning cognovimus to cognoverint and not to cognovisse (this may be explained by the Rules of the Consecutio temporum: depending on the primary tense, the subordinate verb becomes a perf. subjunctive).

But why would we apply one rule to one instance and a different rule to a parallel instance? I’ve definitely misidentified the issue. I hope someone could help me with this.

Thank you.

2

Hi intolerandus,

If I understand your question well, I’d say it’s because only revertisse depends on renuntiant. Cognoverint is part of the relative clause introduced by quibus.

Otherwise said, the meaning is not “they send back word that they had returned through fear of the treachery of the Bituriges and that they knew…”. It is more “they send back word that they had returned through fear of the treachery of the Bituriges, to whom they knew this plan was…”.

3

I’m sorry, but your comment is not saying what verb you think cognoverint depends on.

4

Let me explain my train of thought a little further.

First, there was a design on the part of the Biturigi (fuit).

Then, the Aedui found out about it (cognovimus: fuit turns into id fuisse as depending on the perfect ind. The conditional sentence does not change as inf. perfecti is considered a historic tense).

Next, they return back. Cognovimus depends on revertimus. Looks like a causal clause with an implied conjunction, and may take an indicative.

Next, they renuntiant: revertimus goes into acc. and inf. perfecti and is supposed to change cognovimus into the imperfect subj. However, we are left with cognoverint and not cognoscerent. Perfect to emphasize completeness? But revertimus appears an aorist rather than a pure perfect and cannot allow for the primary sequence after the perfect infinitive… Perhaps AG 585b can be referred to to justify the sequence, but it all seems a stretch and I don’t know what to make of it.

All in all, the sentence is annoying and my fudge of an explanation contains too many run-arounds to my taste.

5

I am a bit unclear about what you are saying here.

Cognoverint is a perfect subjunctive because in oratio obliqua the principal clauses of direct discourse are expressed by accusative and infinitive but subordinate clauses are expressed in the subjunctive. This seems to me to be in primary sequence, perfect infinitive followed by perfect subjunctive.

If this is unhelpful just ignore.

6

Why would it be dependent on a verb? I was answering (trying to at least) to this:

I can’t seem to understand why it is that we turn > revertimus > to > se revertisse > (…) at the same time turning > cognovimus > to > cognoverint > and not to > cognovisse

which is why my answer revolved around showing that, contrary to revertimus, cognovimus doesn’t depend on renuntiant and thus wouldn’t turn into an acc+infinitive.

And now I see that your last message asks about cognoscerent instead of cognovisse (“However, we are left with cognoverint and not cognoscerent.”), so I’m a little bit confused as to what exactly is your question, which is why I’ll leave you in the expert hands of seneca2008, so as not to add more confusion.

7

Let me see if I can explain, or maybe add to the confusion.

renuntiant is present tense, so, as Seneca notes, what follows is in “primary” sequence (even though renuntiant is “historical” present).

revertisse, the verb of the indirect statement dependent on renuntiant, is infinitive (+accusative suject se) as usual for an indirect statement. It’s perfect infinitive, according to the normal rules for indirect statements, because it’s in the past in relation to renuntiant. They returned before they announced why.

The relative clause quibus id fuisse consilium cognoverint depends on Biturigum, which is part of the indirect statement. Thus, the relative clause is a subordinate clause in indirect discourse. The main verb of this relative clause is cognoverint. cognoverint is subjunctive, according to the rule that subordinate clauses in indirect discourse generally require subjunctive verbs (unless they convey information that’s not part of the indirect statement, but that’s not relevant here). See A&G 591. Since cognoverint is in primary sequence and is completed in relation to renuntiant, it’s perfect subjunctive, according to the sequence of tenses rule for primary sequence. See A&G 484(2)a. They found out the plans of the Bituriges before they told the legates why they returned.

I think the problem may be that you think the perfect infinitive revertisse, which would be revertimus in direct speech, requires the tense of what would be cognovimus in direct speech to be in “secondary” sequence, and thus cognoscerent, which in direct speech would be present tense cognoscimus. There are two problems with this.

First, the main verb governing the sequence of tenses in the relative clause is not revertisse, which is not a verb of speaking, but rather renuntiant. The relative clause of which the verb is cognoverint doesn’t depend on revertisse, it depends on Biturigum. The tense of revertisse doesn’t govern the tense of cognoverint, the tense of renuntiant does.

Second, in direct speech cognoverint would be cognovimus, “we discovered/learned/found out”, i.e., a past tense verb, not present tense. So the “primary” sequence of tenses requires a perfect subjunctive verb, cognoverint, not imperfect cognoscerent, which would stand for a present tense in indirect speech in secondary sequence, or cognoscant, which would stand for a present tense in indirect speech in primary sequence.

Does this help?

8

Yes it does Bill. thanks very much

9

Thank you everyone for taking part in this.

I also found some backing in Menge 464.2, where there is a warning against believing the grammar books which state that an infinitivus perfecti always necessitates a secondary sequence even if it is itself found in a subordinate clause.

10

Once again, cognoverint does not depend on revertisse, which is not a verb of speaking.. Cognoverint is the verb of a relative clause that depends on Biturigum. Thus, the tense of perfect infinitive revertisse does not determine the tense or the sequence of cognoverint.

Renuntiant, the verb of speaking in this sentence, determines the tense and sequence of cognoverint. Cognoverint is in primary sequence because renuntiant is present tense.

So what you read in Menge doesn’t seem to relate to the syntax of this sentence.

11

Yes, thank you.

It’s been 34 C° now around here where I am for a week or so.