Much of Caesar’s indirect reporting of his own comments in de Bello Gallico I.14 is difficult for me, but I will limit my questions to a piece at a time. I have problems with antecedents of pronouns and omissions, especially in indirect speech, and I seek an understanding of why each subject or reference is what it is. Latin source http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/caesar/gall1.shtml#14 De Bello Gallico I.14 (line numbers inserted) [Q# index questions that follow after the excerpt] 1 [Q1] His Caesar ita respondit: [Q2] eo sibi minus dubitationis dari, quod eas res quas legati Helvetii commemorassent memoria 2 teneret, atque eo gravius ferre quo minus merito populi Romani accidissent; ... Literal translation: To these remarks (or ambassadors) Caesar responded so: the (or in this account the) less of hesitation is given to him, because those things which the Helvetian envoys related he remembers, and, the more heavily he bears (those things), by which the less they happened according to the merit of the Roman people; … Questions: (Links to translational references summarized at end) Q1 His (Line 1): (Granted, not indirect speech yet) Options for antecedents of His: 1) His =”to these remarks” mentioned by the envoys. –Loeb. The Classics Internet Archive (ICA) echoes this translation with His =”to these words”. But Finch has 2) His =to these ambassadors. I readily accept Loeb/ICA. The things just mentioned were most of para. 13 and 14 (not included here, but a link is above) and only the leader of the envoy Divicus had spoken to Caesar. It would be awkward to refer to the envoys without explicitly repeating such an antecedent; i.e. legatiis. Am I understanding correctly? Q2 eo. In general, I just do not know to what eo is really referring. Even if reduced to “the”, it seems it should have some reference, given its prominent position in the sentence and entire response. Options: 1) eo =”the” -Loeb. Here eo appears near a comparative (minus) as an Abl. of Degree of Difference, alone, without the correlative pair eo…quo =the…the… from which syntax is derived per A&G414aNote. 2) eo =”the” as in (1), but considered as just a third correlative with the two eo’s joined by atque; i.e., eo…atque…eo…quo… 3) eo=”on this account” -Finch, where “this” refers to the general notion of the quod clause that follows, but still an Abl. of Degree of Diff. or of Cause. 4) eo =“on this account”, where eo also refers to the general notion “this” of the quod clause that follows and eo is an Abl. of Specification or Cause. 5) eo=”on this matter”, where eo refers back to Caesar’s general activity discussed in prior I.12-13 and not to the notion of the quod clause that follows; here eo is still either Abl. of Specification or Cause. Or 6) eo ="on this account the" where "this" refers to the general notion of the quod clause that follows but combines Abl. Specification/Cause and Comparative character. Do any of the above Options capture the situation well? (As I bounce around possibilities for this section, somehow I think I would be tripping less had Caesar used se instead of sibi in this clause and shifted the subject of dari squarely to himself.) I hope the above is asked clearly enough. (As mentioned above, I have more questions on this passage, and will add them incrementally in the same thread, assuming that is a reasonable way to proceed.) Thanks! -EricDi Link to Finch: http://books.google.com/books/about/Caesar_Completely_Parsed.html?id=BrWqZqXkYE0C Link to The Classics Internet Archive http://classics.mit.edu/index.html) A&G refers to "New Latin Grammar"