quaeque imperasset sese

[itaque]

Hi all, I'm trying to translate this sentence from Caesar's de Bello Gallico (4.27). Here the Britons are described as pleading with Caesar:

obsides daturos [esse] quaeque imperasset sese facturos polliciti sunt.

My translation is

They promised that they would give back their hostages and that they would do what(ever) he commanded.

My question is: where does sese figure in my translation? Is it the subject in "that they would give back..."? Or is it in "what(ever) he commanded"?

In either case, it seems like sese could be omitted from Caesar's description, without affect. And yet, he chose an emphatic form of se. So what is he trying to highlight by using, not only se, but sese?

 

[Bitmap]

My question is: where does sese figure in my translation? Is it the subject in "that they would give back..."? Or is it in "what(ever) he commanded"?

The former. It is the accusative subject of the AcI: polliciti sunt se(se) daturos esse

In either case, it seems like sese could be omitted from Caesar's description, without affect. And yet, he chose an emphatic form of se. So what is he trying to highlight by using, not only se, but sese?

It cannot be omitted. Otherwise the AcI wouldn't have an accusative subject.

Btw. quaeque is quae + que, i.e. "et quae", not the word that you find under "quisque" ... so it just means "and what" ... although you could translate it as "whatever" for stylistic reasons.

 

[Pacifica]

They promised that they would give back their hostages

Where does the "back" come from?

The sentence as it stands just says that they would give hostages, which I would take to mean that they would give hostages from their own people to Caesar, rather than give back hostages that Caesar had given them, but I admittedly don't know the context.

Or is it in "what(ever) he commanded"?

Note that that is impossible, because sese can't be nominative and therefore can't be the subject of a finite verb like imperasset.

 

[Pacifica]

an emphatic form of se

I know sese is theoretically stronger than se; however, maybe that was just what it originally was but it had lost much of its force by the time of classical Latin. In my experience, there's not much of a noticeable difference between the use of se and sese.

 

[David Fields]

Caesar's sentence is why I am endeavoring to read the original Latin, rather than a translation.

To me, the sentence is beautiful. The omitting of the "esse", using quaeque to connect the parts, and the rhyming "daturos"/"facturos" give the sentence a balanced look and sound. It is more poetry than prose. Thus a piece of --really, dry after battle information-- becomes, again, at least to my eye, a little work of art.

So, then, I don't have to be told that Caesar was not only an effective warrior, but very smart and cultured. I can see it.

The sentence is also why I read my Latin out loud, as originally intended: to hear the cadence and sound choices.

 

[Pacifica]

I think this is the first time I've heard Caesar called a poet.

 

[David Fields]

C'est pas just. He was a poet, whose feet showed it, because they were Longfellow's.

IMHO, much of his writing is candy. Whatever what one calls the meter, that is often called poetry.

 

[Pacifica]

I don't mean to say that Caesar's writing doesn't sound good, and I've never paid attention to any metrical patterns it may occasionally contain. It's just that his writing is, well, very prosaic prose; he's known for his terse and matter-of-fact, rather than poetic, diction.

 

[AoM]

I don't mean to say that Caesar's writing doesn't sound good, and I've never paid attention to any metrical patterns it may occasionally contain. It's just that his writing is, well, very prosaic prose; he's known for his terse and matter-of-fact, rather than poetic, diction.

Lol, this funny bit from Tacitus (about Caesar and Brutus):

fecerunt enim et carmina et in bibliothecas rettulerunt, non melius quam Cicero, sed felicius, quia illos fecisse pauciores sciunt.