Pliny's letter re Christians -- subjunctive?

[Callaina]

Hi! Just wondering what you guys think about this passage from Pliny's letter to Trajan regarding the Christians.

Interrogavi ipsos an essent Christiani. Confitentes iterum ac tertio interrogavi supplicium minatus; perseverantes duci iussi. Neque enim dubitabam, qualecumque esset quod faterentur, pertinaciam certe et inflexibilem obstinationem debere puniri. Fuerunt alii similis amentiae, quos, quia cives Romani erant, adnotavi in urbem remittendos.

How would you classify those subjunctives? Relative clause within acc+inf?

 

[Pacifica]

Relative clause within acc+inf?

Yes, basically. Subjunctive in dependent clause within indirect statement.

 

[Callaina]

Yes, I guess it's not quite a "relative" clause as such, but obeys the same principle. Thanks.

 

[Pacifica]

Yes, I guess it's not quite a "relative" clause as such, but obeys the same principle. Thanks.

They are relative clauses, but the verbs aren't in the subjunctive because they're in relative clauses; in this situation, any sort of dependent clause* would have taken the subjunctive.

*Except acc.-inf., obviously.

 

[Callaina]

Hmm -- quod faterentur is definitely a relative clause, but is qualecumque esset? It doesn't really have any antecedent.

 

[Pacifica]

Hmm -- quod faterentur is definitely a relative clause, but is qualecumque esset?

I believe so.

 

[Pacifica]

I mean, qualis(cumque) is a relative.

 

[Bitmap]

Yes, I guess it's not quite a "relative" clause as such, but obeys the same principle. Thanks.

Why? These are two relative clauses, aren't they?

I'm not sure if they have to be dependent ... they can also be taken as some kind of parenthesis.

 

[Pacifica]

I'm not sure if they have to be dependent ... they can also be taken as some kind of parenthesis.

They wouldn't be in the subjunctive in that case.

 

[Bitmap]

They wouldn't be in the subjunctive in that case.

You're probably right.
So you take the relative clause to be an apposition to pertinaciam and obstinationem (or vice versa)?

 

[Pacifica]

So you take the relative clause to be an apposition to pertinaciam and obstinationem (or vice versa)?

No.

 

[Callaina]

But it is set apart from the main thought:

Neque enim dubitabam, qualecumque esset quod faterentur,pertinaciam certe et inflexibilem obstinationem debere puniri.

"For I did not doubt that, whatever it was that they confessed (i.e. "no matter what they confessed"), their persistence and their inflexible obstinacy ought to be punished."

Is this sort of "no matter what" clause really a relative clause?

 

[Bitmap]

No.

What's the syntactic function of the relative clause then?

 

[Pacifica]

But it is set apart from the main thought:

Neque enim dubitabam, qualecumque esset quod faterentur,pertinaciam certe et inflexibilem obstinationem debere puniri.

It is still part of Pliny's reported thought.

Is this sort of "no matter what" clause really a relative clause?

I don't think it is one in English, but the qualecumque clause in the Latin is.

 

[Pacifica]

What's the syntactic function of the relative clause then?

I don't know.

 

[Bitmap]

"For I did not doubt that, whatever it was that they confessed (i.e. "no matter what they confessed"), their persistence and their inflexible obstinacy ought to be punished."

I also took it that way, but in that case it wouldn't be a dependent relative clause.

 

[Pacifica]

It is still part of Pliny's reported thought.

Pliny was thinking: "Qualecumque est quod fatentur, pertinacia certe et inflexibilis obstinatio debet puniri". This is the direct speech. Then, in his letter, he reported his own thought, casting it into indirect speech depending on neque dubitabam.

 

[Bitmap]

I don't know.

If it's no apposition, it only makes sense as a parenthesis ... and if, as you say, it is still part of his reported thought, wouldn't the subjunctive still be justified?

 

[Pacifica]

I also took it that way, but in that case it wouldn't be a dependent relative clause.

Maybe we aren't talking about the same thing when we say "dependent". By "dependent" I mean dependent on — part of — the indirect statement.

 

[Bitmap]

Well, it doesn't have to be a parenthesis actually ... it's probably more like an adverbial of something like circumstances.