5/25/2013

Tense and Aspect In Caesar’s De Bello Gallico IV-V

Simon Aerts GHENT UNIVERSITY

Ghent University

Faculty of Arts and Philosophy Blandijnberg 2, 9000 Ghent

Master Thesis

TENSE AND ASPECT

IN CAESAR’S DE BELLO GALLICO IV-V

Simon Aerts

Paper submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Master of Arts in Linguistics and Literature – main subject English - Latin

Supervisor: prof. dr. M. Janse

2012-2013

Word count: 21828

of which 7221 constitute text samples from DBG, IV-V, and their translations

Acknowledgements

Before he left Ghent University to return to Oxford, my supervisor for my research

paper, professor de Melo, made sure he left me and my soon-to-be master thesis in the

capable hands of professor Janse. I thank them both for guiding me in writing this

scription, professor Janse because he accepted to be my supervisor although he is

normally engaged only in Greek linguistics, and prof. de Melo for being my officious

supervisor, and for advising me from overseas with only e-mail as a means of

communication. I thank them both for sharing their profound linguistic knowledge

with me, and for their warmth and kindness in doing so.

I also thank my parents for their patience, their love, and their encouraging words: my

father, for volunteering to read over the text although he did not understand a word I

was writing; and my mother, for constantly obliging me to hand in my thesis in May.

I thank Klaas, for being my companion in two years of writing papers, for keeping me

posted on his progress and thereby stimulating my own, for talking long into the night

on so many occasions, and for keeping it light until the end.

Finally, I thank Lobke, for many of the above reasons, and for many more, but most of

all, for her endless love and support.

Ghent, 25th of May, 2013

Simon Aerts

Summary in Dutch

Dit werkstuk behandelt de vraag of de twee werkwoordstammen in het Latijn, de

infectum-stam en de perfectum-stam (zo genoemd door Varro), een relatieve

tijdswaarde (naar Pinkster, 1983; 1990) of een aspectwaarde (naar Oldsjö, 2001)

uitdrukken. De stelling die wordt aangenomen is dat er geen nood is aan de categorie

‘aspect’ in het Latijnse werkwoordsysteem, en dat Pinksters theorie van relatieve

tijdswaarde daarom de voorkeur verdient, daar het de meest economische en meest

eenvoudige verklaring biedt voor het onderscheid tussen infectum en perfectum.

Het werkstuk neemt twee boeken uit Caesars De Bello Gallico, boek 4 en 5, als

corpusmateriaal. Om die reden begint het met een inleiding op diens leven, werken en

schrijfstijl (hoofdstuk 1). Daarna volgt een bondige status quaestionis (hoofdstuk 2),

waarin eerst twee standaardwerken over Tempus en Aspect uit de algemene literatuur

worden besproken van de hand van Comrie, gevolgd door een stuk uit Binnick dat

handelt over Aktionsarten. Daarna volgt een overzicht van Varro’s kijk op deze materie,

zoals het besproken wordt bij Serbat. De status quaestionis wordt afgesloten met de

theorieën van Pinkster en Oldsjö.

Voor Pinkster duidt de infectum-stam op gelijktijdigheid en de perfectum-stam op

voortijdigheid: het imperfectum geeft gelijktijdigheid weer met een referentiepunt in

het verleden, het perfectum voortijdigheid met het moment van spreken. Dit

eenvoudig en logisch systeem verklaart in één klap het gebruik van alle tijden in het

Latijnse tempussysteem.

Voor Oldsjö geeft de infectum-stam onvoltooidheid weer, de perfectum-stam

voltooidheid: het imperfectum legt de focus op het verloop van de actie, het perfectum

op de eindfase. Het nadeel aan deze redenering is dat ze enkel deze twee tijden kan

verklaren, en de andere tijden die gevormd worden op de werkwoordstammen, buiten

beschouwing laat.

In hoofdstuk 3 wordt eerst een statistisch overzicht gegeven van het gebruik van het

imperfectum en het perfectum in boek 4 en 5 van De Bello Gallico. Daarna volgt een

bespreking van 19 paragrafen uit deze boeken, waarbij volgende vaststellingen

gedaan worden.

Het perfectum geeft belangrijke gebeurtenissen weer die zich bevinden op de

narratieve tijdslijn, of voorgrond. Het imperfectum wordt gebruikt om de situatie te

beschrijven die de tijdslijn begeleidt: de achtergrond. Het onderzoek in dit werkstuk

bevestigt dat dit resulteert uit het feit dat het perfectum gebeurtenissen voorstelt als

voortijdig t.o.v. het moment van spreken, waardoor ze noodzakelijkwijs gebeuren in

de volgorde waarin ze voorkomen in de tekst. Het imperfectum duidt op

gelijktijdigheid met een verleden referentiepunt, dat bepaald wordt door de perfecta

(of vormen in het historisch praesens) in de nabijheid.

Daarnaast gebruikt Caesar het perfectum om series van acties en reacties weer te

geven. Als hij om een andere reden wil weergeven dat hij al ergens mee bezig was

wanneer er zich iets voordoet, kan hij hiervoor het imperfectum gebruiken. Om deze

redenen lijkt hij met het gebruik van imperfectum en perfectum ook zijn eigen

kwaliteiten als generaal (vb. zijn reactievermogen) in de verf te zetten.

Uit het onderzoek blijkt ook nog dat het standaardtempus voor statieve werkwoorden

het imperfectum is, en voor punctuele gebeurtenissen het perfectum. Dit is niet het

resultaat van een verondersteld onderscheid in grammaticaal aspect, maar van het

Aktionsart (lexicaal aspect). Daarnaast blijkt ook dat het imperfectum zich zeer goed

leent tot het weergeven van motieven, meningen en omstandigheden die een bepaalde

beslissing of actie begeleiden. Ten slotte sluit dit werkstuk aan bij Pinkster in de

mening dat conatieve en iteratieve interpretaties van imperfecta resulteren uit een

botsing tussen tempus, Aktionsart en context die gelijktijdigheid van slechts één

instantie van de werkwoorden uitgedrukt door imperfecta, onmogelijk maakt.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction 3

1.1. Caesar’s life 3

1.2. Caesar’s style and works 5

1.3. Scope and development of this paper 7

2. Status Quaestionis 8

2.1. Tense and aspect in general linguistics 8

2.1.1. Comrie, Tense (1985) 8

2.1.2. Comrie, Aspect (1976) 9

2.1.3. Binnick, Time and the Verb: a Guide to Tense and

Aspect (1991) 11

2.2. Tense and aspect in the theory of Varro (in Serbat, 1976) 14

2.3. Tense and aspect in Latin linguistics 19

2.3.1. Pinkster, "Tempus, aspect and Aktionsart in Latin

(recent trends 1961-1981)" (1983) and Latin Syntax

and Semantics (1990) 19

2.3.2. Oldsjö, Tense and Aspect in Caesar's Narrative (2001) 23

2.4. Conclusion 28

3. Case study: Caesar, DBG IV-V 29

3.1. Statistic overview 29

3.2. Discussion of text samples 33

4. Conclusion 70

5. Bibliography 73

5.1. Editions, commentaries, translations 73

5.2. Other works 73

3

1. Introduction

1.1. Caesar’s life

The sources for this section are: Mommsen & Dickson (1895), Edwards (1917), and Holmes

(1923).

Gaius Julius Caesar was born in Rome in July of the year 100 BC, into a patrician family

called the gens Julia. When he came of age, he started public life with the usual

occupations appropriate for a young man of the nobility, like the office of flamen dialis

(priest of Jupiter) in Rome and rhetorical training on Rhodes. His political views were

those of the populares, progressive politicians who relied on the people for their power,

as opposed to the optimates, who were much more conservative in their clinging to

senatorial authority.

After his admission to the senate and quaestorship in Spain in 68, he was aedile in 65,

during which period he greatly indebted himself with the organisation of public

games. In 63, he became pontifex maximus (high priest) after much lobbying and

bribing. In 62 he was praetor, and afterwards he was rewarded with the governorship

of Spain, a time of both military and financial successes.

On his return to Rome, he formed the first triumvirate with the mighty generals

Pompey and Crassus, who supported his election for consulship in 59. As consul,

Caesar secured certain advantages for both his benefactors and himself, including the

proconsulship of Gaul: he was allowed to levy legions for his conquest of Gallia

Transalpina, thus securing a strong position for himself.

During the first two years of his proconsulship, he conquered the bulk of Gaul, for

which he was allowed a triumph in 57. At a conference in Luca, where he met with

Pompey and Crassus, they settled their newly arisen differences: they decided that

4

Caesar’s proconsulship would be prolonged for another five years, and that Pompey

and Crassus would be consuls the following year.

In the course of those five years, Caesar occupied himself with consolidating the new

territories, crushing local revolts, and even crossing the Rhine to Germany and the

Channel to Britain. He greatly impressed Rome with his conquest of a few British

tribes, but long-term Roman dominion of Britain was not established until Emperor

Claudius invaded the island in 43 AD. With the taking of Alesia, the stronghold of

Vercingetorix, who led the last great revolt of the natives in 51, Caesar regarded his

conquest of Gaul as complete.

Back in Rome, the triumvirate had collapsed: Crassus had been killed in Asia Minor,

and Pompey was now collaborating with the optimates to bring Caesar down. In 51, he

was forced to contribute two legions to the war in Parthia. However, he was assisted

in Rome by Curio, a tribune of the plebs, who vetoed a great deal of measures directed

against him. In Gaul, he settled the remaining riots and divided the riches. At the end

of his command in Gaul, he had succeeded in his goals to procure a large subjugated

territory, a strong financial position and above all, loyal legions.

In 49, Caesar was ordered to disband his army. He refused and crossed the Rubicon

with his legions, which was forbidden for Roman generals and meant civil war. His

speedy march to the capital frightened the undermanned Pompeians, who left for

Greece. Caesar took control of the City, and made plans for dealing with Pompey’s

army.

In 48, he defeated Pompey at Pharsalus in Thessaly. Pompey fled to Egypt, but was

murdered on arrival. Scipio and Cato led the army to North-Africa. In 47, Caesar saw

to the settlement of Egypt and Asia Minor. In 46, he won a decisive victory over Scipio

and the Pompeian army at Thapsus in North-Africa. In 45, he concluded the Civil War

with his victory over Pompey’s sons at Munda, Spain.

5

Caesar was bestowed with various honorary titles and offices. However, he was not

very subtle in displaying his ambitions to be sole monarch of Rome. Brutus, Cassius

and other Republicans made plans to dispose of the man they regarded as aspiring

kingship. They sought to reestablish the Republic as it should be, where no single man

could have all power. Caesar was assassinated on the Senate floor on the Ides of March,

44 BC.

1.2. Caesar’s style and works

The sources for this section are Batstone & Damon (2006), Eden (1962), Williams (1985), and

Gotoff (1984).

For Caesar’s contemporaries, Commentarii, or ‘memoirs’ as we would call the genre

today, did not aspire to the same literary level as Historiae did. They were originally

meant to justify the res gestae of the author, and served as a source for later

historiographers. Among the famous Romans who wrote Commentarii before Caesar

was the dictator Sulla. But only Caesar’s Commentarii survived: De Bello Gallico

describes in seven books the subjugation of Gaul in 58-52, using the annalistic

approach. Caesar published this work in 51, when he had to employ all possible means

to preserve his prestige, in order to be granted another term as proconsul. In De Bello

Civili, which describes his res gestae in 49-48, Caesar’s aim is to display his desire for

peace and the clementia he shows his enemies in defeat. This work consists of three

books, but the third one was left unfinished, strengthening the general impression of

incompleteness of De Bello Civile.

The main reason why Caesar chose the genre of Commentarii is that they were

commonly recognized as being the raw material, purely factual and still devoid of

embellishments. Historiae and Annales were adorned with stories that were in keeping

with the gist of the events, but were not necessarily accurate. By titling his work

6

Commentarii, he claimed accuracy, truthfulness and objectivity.

However, Caesar’s historical reliability has often been assessed negatively, and yet he

seems to be giving a report of the events that is biased rather than false. This can be

most clearly seen in De Bello Civili, which we are able to compare with other narratives

of the Civil War.

Concision, clarity and simplicity are the basic features of Caesar’s style: for example,

he consistently avoids unnecessary synonyms, archaisms and vulgarisms. The effect

of this consciously applied austere style is further amplified by Caesar’s pseudo-

objective third person narration. As Cicero puts it in Brutus, 262 (translation by E.

Jones, 1776):

[F]or they are nudi, recti et venusti, and divested of all the ornaments of language, so as

to appear ... in a kind of undress. But while he pretended only to furnish the loose

materials, for such as might be inclined to compose a regular history, he may, perhaps,

have gratified the vanity of a few literary embroiderers; but he has certainly prevented

all sensible men from attempting any improvement on his plan. For in history, nothing

is more pleasing than a correct and elegant brevity of expression.

Caesar’s Commentarii were complemented by other writers, for he himself did not have

the time to complete them. A. Hirtius, a legate in Caesar’s army, wrote the eighth book

of De Bello Gallico on Caesar’s campaigns in 51-50. To De Bello Civili were added a

Bellum Alexandrinum, probably written by Hirtius as well, and a Bellum Africanum and

a Bellum Hispaniense, which were also composed by some of Caesar’s officers. The latter

work is particularly interesting because of the many features of vulgar Latin in its

author’s language.

7

1.3. Scope and development of this paper

The aim of this paper is to bring together the different theories on tense and aspect that

have hitherto been advanced in both general and Latin linguistics, and to apply these

views to Caesar’s narrative. Given the historiographical nature of Caesar’s writings,

our primary concern will be past tense, i.e. perfect and imperfect. Our material will be

limited to DBG IV-V, providing a corpus of 96 paragraphs or 11.939 words, which will

be sufficient for this purpose.

In chapter 2, the existing views on tense and aspect will be presented in three sections:

general linguistics (Comrie, Binnick), ancient Latin "linguistics" (Varro), and finally

modern Latin linguistics. In this final section, we will take a closer look at two

opposing perspectives on tense and aspect in Latin: Pinkster’s relative tense theory

and Oldsjö’s aspectual theory. In chapter 3, these theories will be applied to Caesar’s

DBG IV-V. We will begin this chapter with some statistics of perfects and imperfects

in DBG IV-V, and attempt to present a clear overview of both tenses. Afterwards, we

will look at some examples and attempt to account for them using both frameworks.

8

2. Status Quaestionis

This chapter contains an overview of the different theories concerning tense and aspect

in the fields of general linguistics (Comrie, Binnick), ancient Latin "linguistics" (Varro)

and 20th-21st century Latin linguistics (Pinkster, Oldsjö). The sections on Comrie,

Pinkster en Oldsjö are based largely on Aerts (2012).

2.1. Tense and aspect in general linguistics

2.1.1. Comrie, Tense (1985)

Comrie distinguishes between absolute tense and relative tense. The former is defined

as “tenses which take the present moment as their deictic centre” (36). There are three

absolute tenses, which are related to the present moment as follows (123):

present: E simul S

past: E before S

future: E after S

(E: event time, S: moment of speech)

Relative tense is again subdivided into pure relative tense and absolute-relative tense.

The former is defined as tenses where “the reference point for location of a situation is

some point in time given by the context, not necessarily the present moment” (56). The

possibilities for relative tense are (125):

relative present: E simul R

relative past: E before R

relative future: E after R

R (reference point) is not anchored: it is not itself located in time relative to any deictic

centre, such as the present moment, but it is given by the context (when absent in the

context, it’s taken to be the present).

9

Finally, in the case of absolute-relative tense, “a reference point is established relative

to the present moment, and a situation is then located in time relative to that reference

point” (125). The possibilities for absolute-relative tenses are (125-128):

pluperfect: E before R before S

future perfect: E before R after S

future in the future: E after R after S

future in the past: E after R before S

2.1.2. Comrie, Aspect (1976)

Comrie defines aspects as follows (5):

Aspect is not concerned with relating the time of the situation to any other time-point,

but rather with the internal temporal constituency of the one situation; one could state

the difference as one between situation-internal time (aspect) and situation-external time

(tense).

The major aspectual distinction Comrie makes, and also the one this paper is primarily

concerned with, is the one between perfectivity and imperfectivity (16):

Perfectivity indicates the view of a situation as a single whole, without distinction of the

various separate phases that make up that situation; while the imperfective pays

essential attention to the internal structure of the situation.

Comrie continues by distinguishing between various types of “inherent aspectual (i.e.

semantic aspectual) properties of various classes of lexical items” (41), but we will say

more about these Aktionsarten (as they will be termed in this paper) in the next section.

10

According to Comrie, “the perfect1 is rather different from these aspects, since it tells

us nothing directly about the situation in itself, but rather relates some state to a

preceding situation” (52). He distinguishes between the perfect of result, where “a

present state is referred to as being the result of some past situation” (56), the

experiential perfect, where “a given situation has held at least once during some time

in the past leading up to the present” (58), the perfect of persistent situation, where “a

situation that started in the past ... continues (persists) into the present” (60), and the

perfect of recent past, where “the present relevance of the past situation referred to is

simply one of temporal closeness, i.e. the past situation is very recent."2 (60)

Comrie states that certain aspectual distinctions are restricted to certain tenses:

[T]he difference between the Aorist and the Imperfect exists only in the Past Tense, and

there is no corresponding distinction in other tenses. ... [T]he aspectual distinction is

essentially between perfective meaning on the one hand and imperfective meaning on

the other. Given that this is the basic distinction, it is not surprising from a functional

viewpoint that there should be no similar distinction in the present, since the present, as

an essentially descriptive tense, can normally only be of imperfective meaning. (71-72)

[T]he most typical usages of verbs in the present tense are those denoting actions in

progress or states (i.e. with continuous, or continuous and habitual meaning), whereas

in the past the most typical usages of verbs, especially nonstative verbs, are those with

perfective meaning. If we take it that it is most natural for a past tense verb to have

perfective meaning, then it is natural for a language to seek some other means of

expressing a past tense that does not indicate a single complete action, and it is here that

the Imperfect/Aorist distinction enters. In fact, the Imperfect expresses in past tense an

aspectual value that is more typical of the present. (72)

1 The traditional terminology is confusing: the perfect(ive) as an aspectual category is quite

different from the Latin perfect tense. 2 This effect, however, applies mostly to British English: one might hear "I have just seen it" in

Britain, whereas Americans would rather say "I just saw it".

11

2.1.3. Binnick, Time and the Verb: a Guide to Tense and Aspect (1991)

Binnick has an elaborate section on "Aristotelian Aspect", which will be termed

Aktionsart in this paper. An exploration of Aktionsart is necessary for the purpose of

this paper, as will become clear from our discussion of text samples in chapter 3.

Binnick defines the difference between aspect and Aktionsart as follows (170):

Both may be marked by differences in verb stems, and both have to do with the internal

structures of events or situations, rather than with the sort of temporal relations involved

in tense. Aspect is a fully grammaticalized, obligatory, systematic category of languages,

operating with general oppositions such as that of perfective and non-perfective, while

Aktionsarten are purely lexical categories, nongrammatical, optional, and unsystematic,

defined in very specific terms such as inceptive or resumptive.

Most scholars would agree on the subdivision of "situations (states of affairs,

instantations of temporal properties)" into "states (static situations, non-dynamic states

of affairs)" and "non-states (occurrences, dynamic states of affairs)". Non-states can be

further subdivided into "atelic situations (processes, activities, non-terminative states

of affairs)" and "telic situations (events, performances, terminative states of affairs)".

Finally, telic situations comprise "developments (non-momentaneous states of affairs,

protracted events, accomplishments)" and "punctual occurrences (momentaneous

states of affairs, instanteneous events, achievements)" (180-181).

Concerning the difference between states ("unchanging throughout their duration"

(183); "persistent" (184); lacking "volitionality or agency" (184)) and non-states

("dynamic" (183); "tend to stop unless actively continued" (184); "often involve acts of

will" (184)), Binnick states (173-174):

1. Only non-statives occur in the progressive:

*John is knowing the answer.

John is running.

John is building a house ...

12

2. When an activity or accomplishment occurs in the simple present tense (or any non-

progressive tense), it has a frequentative (or habitual) interpretation in normal contexts

...

John knows the answer. (right now)

John runs. (habitual)

John recites a poem. (habitual) ...

7. The [Aktionsarten] act differently as complements of the aspectual auxiliary verbs.

Statives do not normally occur with aspectual auxiliary verbs such as start, stop, finish,

though they do so occur in a habitual or frequentative sense ...

Joan started being ill (all the time).

stopped being ill (all the time).

*finished being ill.

Activities and accomplishments are different in the following features (175-176):

1. Whereas accomplishment verbs take adverbial preposition phrases with in but only

very marginally with for, activity verbs allow only the phrases with for:

?John painted a picture for an hour.

John painted a picture in an hour.

John walked for an hour.

*John walked in an hour ...

4. For activity verbs, x VERBed for y time entails that at any time during y, x VERBed was

true. For accomplishment verbs, x VERBed for y time does not entail that x VERBed was

true during any time within y at all. John walked for an hour entails that during that hour

it was true that John walked. John painted a picture for an hour does not entail that during

that hour it was true that John painted a picture.

5. For activity verbs, x is (now) VERBing (or x VERBs, this latter too with statives) entails

that x has VERBed. For accomplishment verbs, x is (now) VERBing entails that x has not

yet VERBed. John is painting entails that John has painted. John is ill entails that John has been

ill. John is painting a picture entails that John has not yet painted a picture ...

13

7. For activity verbs, x stopped VERBing entails that x did VERB, but for accomplishments,

x stopped VERBing does not entail x VERBed but only x was VERBing. John stopped walking

implies John did walk. John stopped painting a picture does not imply John did paint a picture,

but only John was painting a picture.

8. Only accomplishment verbs can normally occur as the complement of the verb finish.

John finished painting a picture.

*John finished walking.

Finally, achievements differ from accomplishments in these traits (177):

1. Although accomplishments allow both for-phrase and in-phrase time adverbials with

equal success, achievements are generally strange with a for-phrase.

John noticed the painting in a few minutes.

??John noticed the painting for a few minutes ...

4. Unlike accomplishment verbs, achievements are generally unacceptable as

complements of finish:

*John finished noticing the picture.

John finished painting the picture.

5. Stop occurs with achievements only in a habitual sense: John stopped noticing the picture

can only mean that he was broken of the habit of noticing the picture, not that he

"finished" noticing the picture on a certain occasion.

The same is true of start: Joan started noticing the lint on her suit can only have a progressive

or frequentative/habitual sense: over a period of time she noticed more and more lint, or

she over and over again had occasion to notice lint, on her suit.

With achievements, but not accomplishments, start VERBing entails VERBed: if Joan

started winning the race at 12:01, she must have won the race. But if she started painting

a picture at 12:01, she didn't necessarily ever paint a picture.

Non-states differ from states in developing from an initial state to a terminal state.

Within the category of non-states, events differ from activities in having a culminative

14

phase, and being able to finish as well as merely stop or cease. This telicity has been

viewed as being all about terminativity, durativity or momentaneousness, or potential

termination (188-189).

The oppositions telic/atelic and perfective/imperfective are independent of each other:

"Telic expressions may be used with imperfective aspect to indicate non-completion of

a situation which is naturally [telic]." (190)

Binnick states that "every type of verb-centered linguistic expression assigns a phasic

structure ... In the imperfective, the actualization of a culmination is not asserted ...

[The subject is] in the activity phase of an accomplishment." (192)

The difference between accomplishments and achievements is based on whether or

not they contain an activity phase (durative – punctual).

"Accomplishments add to their activity phase an achievement phase, which is a point.

They naturally terminate at this point ... An achievement is all culmination, ... the verb

refers only to the achievement phase, not to the preceding activity." (194-195).

2.2. Tense and aspect in the theory of Varro (in Serbat, 1976)

Translations for originally Latin excerpts in this section are from Kent (1938).

As Serbat notes, a study of the Latin perfect and imperfect requires an elaboration on

Varro's distinction between infectum and perfectum. Linguists have always referred to

to this prolific Roman scholar, whose De Lingua Latina is to be situated in the first

century BC, in their discussions of tense and aspect, but "some have certainly made

him say more than he actually wrote" (308). Nevertheless, however objective Serbat

claims to be, his view and conclusion with respect to Varro's writings still remains

biased.

15

In order to properly understand what exactly Varro wished to convey about the

infectum – perfectum opposition, we should bear in mind the nature and structure of De

Lingua Latina. Of the twenty-five books it originally contained, only books V-X have

survived intact, of which books V-VII are about etymology and books VIII-X about

morphology. Varro was not interested in writing a complete synchronic grammar, but

rather in the question whether morphology is regular or not, as this was the main

controversy of his time. Varro himself occupies a moderate position: he believes that

morphology is by and large regular (analogia, as opposed to anomalia), but that there

are certain exceptions which can mostly be explained diachronically. Book VIII is

written as a treatise against regularity, book IX as a treatise in favour of regularity, and

book X is Varro's synthesis. In his discussion of Varro, Serbat quotes from all three of

these books on morphology, but it should be noted that they are not all of the same

value, and therefore do not equally reflect Varro's opinions.

In LL, VIII, 13 Varro defines the verb semantically as the word which is related to time

("verbum temporale"). Elsewhere, he defines the verb as expressing tense, but lacking

case: "unum (genus) quod tempora adsignificat neque habet casus" (LL, VI, 36). Further,

Varro writes (LL, VIII, 20):

In verborum genere quae tempora adsignificant, quod ea erant tria, praeteritum,

praesens, futurum, declinatio faciunda fuit triplex, ut ab saluto, salutabam, salutabo;

cum item, personarum natura triplex esset ... haec ab eodem verbo declinata ...

Inasmuch as in the class of words which indicate also time-ideas there were these three

time-ideas, past, present, and future, there had to be three sets of derived forms, as from

the present saluto 'I salute' there are the past salutabam and the future salutabo. Since the

persons of the verb were likewise of three natures ... there are these derivative forms of

each and every verb.

As Serbat clarifies, Varro here invokes an obligatory correlation between morphology

and a pre-existing natura, sc. that of tria tempora and tres personae. (309)

16

In LL, IX, 95 two other categories are added:

Quod ad verborum temporalium rationem attinet, cum partes sint quattuor, tempora,

personae, genera3, divisiones ...

We now come to the logical system of verbs; this has four parts: tenses, persons, kinds,

and divisions.

According to Serbat, "these divisiones comprise, among other oppositions, what we call

the opposition between infectum and perfectum." (310)

However, in book X Varro names six verbal categories, sc. tense, person, interrogative,

answer, wish and command (LL, X, 31). Clearly these species are quite heterogenous,

as Serbat notes (310): interrogative and answer belong in a discussion of syntax,

whereas wish and command are illustrative of mood; but what has become of the

genera (voices) and the divisiones, which in book IX constituted, together with the

tempora and the personae, the four categories of the Latin verb? The answer is provided

in LL, X, 33:

Accedunt ad has species a copulis divisionum quadrinis : ab infecti et perfecti, ut emo

edo, emi edi; ab semel et saepius, ut scribo lego, scriptito lectito; a faciendi et patiendi,

ut uro ungo, uror ungor; a singulari et multitudinis, ut laudo culpo, laudamus culpamus.

There are added to these categories those which proceed from the four sets of pairs

consisting of the divisions: from that of the incomplete and the completed, as emo 'I buy'

and edo 'I eat,' emi 'I have bought' and edi 'I have eaten'; from that of the act done once

and the act done more often, as scribo 'I write' and lego 'I read,' scriptito 'I am busy with

writing,' and lectito 'I read and reread'; from that of active and passive, as uro 'I burn' and

ungo 'I anoint,' uror 'I am burned' and ungor 'I am anointed'; from that of singular and

plural, as laudo 'I praise' and culpo 'I blame,' laudamus 'we praise' and culpamus 'we blame.'

3 Kent (1938: 516): "Apparently a genus of verbs is a group of verbs which make their forms

similarly, a conjugation or a group belonging to one conjugation; but it may also be a set of

forms having one function, and hence equal to 'mood'."

17

Disregarding the second divisio (scribo/scriptito), which is a category purely lexical by

nature, and those species which are situated on the syntactic level, we are left with six

categories: tense, person, mood, the infectum/perfectum distinction, voice, and number.

The notions of infectum and perfectum, which are of primary concern at present, are

hardly clarified in this paragraph, or anywhere else in De Lingua Latina, except for a

single replacement of infecta res by inchoata res. (311) However, as we have noted

earlier, substantial parts of De Lingua Latina were lost, among others the parts where

Varro wrote about syntax and semantics. In books VIII-X, from which all of our

information is to be drawn, his main concern is morphology. Therefore, we must

refrain ourselves from judgements such as these, because Varro may well have

elaborated on these topics in other books of the original De Lingua Latina.

Remember that Varro's primary concern is to affirm and clarify the role of analogia in

Latin conjugations (cf. supra):

Primum quod aiunt analogias non servari in temporibus, cum dicant legi lego legam et

sic similiter alia: nam quae sint ut legi rem perfectam significare, duo reliqua lego et

legam inchoatam, iniuria reprehendunt: nam ex eodem genere et ex divisione idem

verbum, quod sumptum est, per tempora traduci infecti potest, ut discebam disco

discam, et eadem perfecti, ut didiceram didici didicero. (LL, IX, 96)

First as to their saying that the Regularities are not preserved in the tenses, when they

give perfect legi 'I have read,' present lego 'I read,' future legam 'I shall read,' and others

in just the same way: they are wrong in finding fault with those forms like legi as

denoting completed actions and the other two, lego and legam, as denoting action only

begun; for the same verb which has been taken from the same kind and the same

division, can be paraded through the tenses of non-completion, like discebam 'I was

learning,' disco 'I learn,' discam 'I shall learn,' and the same of completion, thus didiceram

'I had learned', didici 'I have learned,' didicero 'I shall have learned.'

Although Varro points out precisely the phenomenon that renders Latin conjugation

different from its Greek counterpart, sc. what he calls divisio, he does not provide a

18

satisfactory clarification of the problem: he never explains why the past participle is

used for the formation of the passive perfect, nor does he examine the formal

connections between amas and amavisti, or try to account for do, dedi as opposed to amo,

amavi. 4 (312-313)

Be that as it may, the Varronian divisio between infectum and perfectum still represents

a fundamental observation on the morphological level. However, we are left without

a clear answer as to the values these forms signify: legi expresses a res perfecta, lego a res

infecta (inchoata), but Varro never specifies the exact meaning he intended for these

notions, nor the relationship between this opposition and the tria tempora. When he

speaks of tempora, he only knows praeteritum, praesens, and futurum. Therefore, we

should apply these tempora to the category of perfectum as we do for the infectum. In

that case, we should alter our terminology of the perfect tenses to 'perfect present',

'perfect past', and 'perfect future'. However, it should be noted that Varro never

proposes this terminology in De Lingua Latina!5 Modern scholars are responsible for

the attribution of such a value to the perfect, reasoning deductively that, if the three

perfectum forms have to represent the three natural tempora, the present in this series is

legi. Yet in the passage cited above, Varro's only objection of legi in the series of legi,

lego, legam is one of divisio, and none of tense, implying that he views legi as praeteritum

rather than praesens. (313-315)

Serbat concludes as follows (315):

The construction of an aspectual system of the Latin verb, taking Varro's writings as a

basis, is an audacious and even erroneous undertaking. Drawing, as did Riemann and

then Meillet, a schema where lego and legi are situated on the same line of the present,

one forgets the capital fact that Varro saw a past situation in legi ... Varro is primarily

4 Cf. supra, p. 17. 5 Cf. supra, p. 17.

19

concerned with the morphology of the verb, ... and the interpretation of his formal

remarks in syntactic terms is entirely our doing.

However, as we have made clear earlier, Serbat has little regard for the fragmentary

nature of De Lingua Latina. Accordingly, we should bear in mind that his conclusion is

based on an incomprehensive study of Varro's work, and therefore far from unbiased.

2.3. Tense and aspect in Latin linguistics

2.3.1. Pinkster, "Tempus, aspect and Aktionsart in Latin (recent trends 1961-1981)"

(1983) and Latin Syntax and Semantics (1990)

About the Latin verb system, Pinkster states (1990: 218):

The Latin verb system turns out to be construed systematically according to two

dimensions:

(i) most verb forms contain information as to the chronological order (anterior,

contemporaneous, posterior) of the predication with regard to a past, present or future

moment known from context or situation;

(ii) part of the verb forms, especially indicative forms, also contain information (apart

from that mentioned in (i)) as to the location of the predication in time (past, present,

future).

The first dimension corresponds to Comrie’s definition of pure relative tense, and

comprises non-finite verb forms such as infinitives and participles. The second

dimension corresponds to Comrie’s definition of absolute-relative tense, and

comprises finite verb forms such as the indicative and to some extent the subjunctive.

For Pinkster, the opposition between the infectum stem and the perfectum stem is one

of relative tense: the former indicates simultaneity, the latter anteriority. Absolute

tense is conveyed by the endings of the finite verb forms, e.g. dic-o: taken together, the

20

infectum stem and the ending of the present tense indicate simultaneity with the

present moment.

The Latin perfect fits into this two-dimensional system as follows (1983: 294-295):

The perfect indicates that a state of affairs has existed before the moment of speaking.

The perfect shares its anterior character with the other forms of the perfectum stem; it

differs for example from the plusquamperfectum in orientation moment. Saying that a

state of affairs is anterior with respect to the moment of speaking implies that the state

of affairs is represented as ‘not longer going on’, as ‘finished’, or ‘having ended’ ... [and]

that the state of affairs itself obtained in the past.

Clarifying the place of the perfect in the Latin tense system, Pinkster states (1983: 295):

In Latin indicative verb forms there are three orientation moments (past, present, future).

States of affairs may be ordered anterior, simultaneous or posterior with respect to each

of these orientation moments. ... [T]he perfect and imperfect differ from each other with

respect to their orientation moment, but both indicate that the state of affairs obtained in

the past. Notice that this similarity also appears from the fact that the

plusquamperfectum can be used to express anteriority with respect to each of them.

As an illustration, consider dix-i vs. dic-ebam. The former indicates anteriority

(perfectum stem) in relation to the present moment (perfect tense ending), whereas the

latter indicates simultaneity (infectum stem) with some reference point in the past

(imperfect tense ending).

According to Pinkster, the advantages of such a conception are the following (1983:

295-296):

a) it does justice to both the past and present features of the perfect and its occurrence in

two types of contexts [i.e. ‘present’ contexts and past, narrative texts];

b) it does justice to the difference between perfect and imperfect (anterior vs.

simultaneous; finished vs. going on);

21

c) the perfect can be described in terms that are useful for the other verb forms as well,

so that:

d) it is not necessary to introduce the category of aspect for which there is little support

in the tense system as a whole. ... [T]he ‘aspectual effect’ of the juxtaposition of perfect

and imperfect in historical narrative (perfecto procedit, imperfecto insistit oratio) derives

from their semantic value and need not force us to introduce the category of aspect.

Furthermore, ... the difference between the aspectual notions of perfectivity and

imperfectivity and the temporal notions of anteriority and simultaneity is not very

clear.6

Pinkster regards any apparent exceptions to this rule, such as gnomic uses,

prohibitions, ingressive uses and verbs like memini “I remember” as either idiomatic

or specific interpretations, in a specific context, of predicates of a specific type (1983:

299-300; 1990: 231-232).

About the imperfect, Pinkster states:

The imperfect is used in predications that refer to a situation or event that occurred at a

certain moment in the past (or contemporaneous with a moment that itself is in the past.

...) That such events were still going on can be proved with the aid of instances in which

the imperfect cannot be replaced by a perfect, because then an implication would be

created that is contrary to reality ... (1990: 227)

Like the conative interpretation, iterative and other interpretations of the imperfect

completely depend on the context. (1990: 227)

6 In Pinkster’s framework, there is no room for aspect as a primary contrast, but since the

imperfect tense and the perfect tense essentially convey the same temporal meaning, he admits

that aspect could indeed play some part in the Latin tense system, but merely as a secondary

contrast.

22

Finally, in his chapter on the use of indicative tenses in narrative texts, Pinkster

acknowledges the fact that perfect indicative forms make up the events on the time

line, whereas the imperfect draws the scene for these events:

'Perfecto procedit, imperfecto insistit oratio' (‘In the perfect the text moves on, in the

imperfect it stands still'). The use of the perfect as the tense for successive actions in the

foreground and of the imperfect as the tense for accompanying circumstances in the

background has long been recognized for Latin, and has parallels in many languages.

The use of the imperfect as a background tense is a result of its value, viz. to characterize

a predication as taking place at and contemporaneous with a certain moment in the past.

Predications marked by the imperfect thus constitute the framework within which other

events and situations occur. In contexts in which one or more predications in the

imperfect are followed by a predication in the perfect the latter will be interpreted as the

incident that takes place in a situation in the past … (1990: 237)

Pinkster clarifies how the relations between imperfect forms and perfect forms can be

recognized:

The relations between (a) preceding predication(s) in the imperfect and (b) following

predication(s) in the perfect are often indicated explicitly, e.g. with connectors such as

igitur, ergo ('therefore'). In contexts where the order is reversed, so first a perfect and then

one or more imperfects, the predication in the imperfect will often be interpreted as

offering additional information or a motive. This can be made explicit by connectors

such as nam, enim ('for') … (1990: 237-238)

Just like the imperfect indicative, the perfect indicative in narrative texts can be

accounted for in terms of relative tense:

A predication in the perfect refers to an event or situation which is presented by the

speaker, from his situation, as 'ended', anterior. If the context does not contain any

further information, a series of predications will be interpreted as referring to events that

have occurred successively (without overlapping one another) ... In a series of

23

predications in the imperfect, however, the predications can overlap; as a rule, they are

not intended as successive … (1990: 238)

2.3.2. Oldsjö, Tense and Aspect in Caesar's Narrative (2001)

Oldsjö has a wholly different view on tense and aspect in Latin. Where Pinkster states

that the distinction between ‘finished’ (perfect) and ‘not finished’ (imperfect) is an

implication of their being relative tenses, Oldsjö believes that this distinction is in fact

the basic function of the perfect and the imperfect.

In response to Pinkster’s claim that “the perfect and imperfect differ from each other

with respect to their orientation moment, but both indicate that the state of affairs

obtained in the past” (1983: 295), Oldsjö states that in this way,

the imperfect will be reduced to what Comrie calls “absolute-relative tense”...,

completely parallel in function to the pluperfect and the past future. This, in its turn, has

the undesired effect of ascribing exactly the same tense function to the imperfect

indicative as to the imperfect subjunctive in subordinate clauses, which according to the

consecutio temporum indicates simultaneity to a past point of reference. (60)

Although Oldsjö calls this effect 'undesired', there is no reason why Pinkster should

not have wanted the indicative imperfect to have the same temporal value as the

imperfect subjunctive. Subordinate clauses mostly provide background information,

whereas main clauses can provide either foreground or background information. Main

clauses are particularly prone to provide background information if the style is

paratactic, i.e. if it contains few subordinate clauses. Moreover, in subordinate clauses

the subjunctive is very common (e.g. ut-clauses), whereas in main clauses it is rare

(mostly commands or wishes). When we now look at the imperfects, it is natural that

the imperfect subjunctive is almost restricted to subordinate clauses, being both a

24

background tense and a mood typical of subordinate clauses. The imperfect indicative

should occur in both main and subordinate clauses, but as a background tense.

Olsjö further criticizes Pinkster, saying that,

according to the relative tense theory, the imperfect and the pluperfect are parallel, since

they both relate a situation to a past reference point. (60)

This cannot be true, Oldsjö says, because of all the past tenses in Caesar’s main clauses,

there are much more indicative imperfects than indicative pluperfects. Moreover, most

of the indicative imperfects occur in Caesar’s main clauses, whereas most of the

indicative pluperfects occur in subordinate clauses (60-61). He concludes (61):

The pluperfect is an “absolute-relative” tense form that describes a situation as anterior

to some past reference point. In practice, this means that the pluperfect often is used in

clauses temporally subordinated to main clauses. The imperfect, on the other hand,

relates situations directly to the point of speech, as does, for example, also the narrative

perfect and the present. Apart from temporally describing a situation as past, the

imperfect means adopting an imperfective aspectual perspective, viewing a situation as

incomplete.

However, this similarity between the imperfect and the pluperfect in Pinkster’s theory

is not as strange as Oldsjo says it is. If there is a lot of background information to be

told, most will be simultaneous and very little will be anterior. The anterior

information can easily be packaged into subordinate clauses (pluperfect tense). But a

high amount of simultaneous background information cannot be restricted to

subordinate clauses without creating endlessly long sentences, and therefore often

occurs in main clauses (imperfect tense).

Be that as it may, Oldsjö believes that aspect and Aktionsart do play a role in the

Classical Latin, contrary to Pinkster. In fact, they are “integral parts” of its verb system

(62):

25

In the case of historical narrative it is more pertinent to reduce the importance of the

function of tense, since the temporal relation between most situations in a narrative and

the point of speech is the same, namely anteriority. It is in the light of this fact that the

frequency of the present of narration and the infinitive of narration in Classical Latin

historiography should be explained: There is simply no need to mark tense for each

single past situation in long narratives ...

Pinkster’s denial of the existence of aspect in Latin could be seen as a too strong but still

sound reaction against the long lasting tradition of treating the Latin verb system in the

same way as the classical Greek system, which by nature is more manifestly aspectual.

It would certainly be correct to tone down the comparisons to Greek and to approach

Latin aspect more independently. The problem is that Pinkster questions the category of

aspect even in Greek ..., which makes his opinion extreme.

Oldsjö sees the opposition perfective-imperfective as the general aspectual opposition

in Latin. The two most important Latin verb stems, the infectum (imperfective) and the

perfectum (perfective), are essentially aspect stems to him, to which are added tense

suffixes. However, in Classical Latin, “this opposition is functionally salient only for

past tense” (68).

When a past situation is to be narrated in Latin, there is an evident choice between two

aspectual alternatives in the indicative, the narrative perfect, which is morphologically

marked, and the imperfect, which is morphologically unmarked. (68-69)

This means that an aspectual semantic value is always present when these two tense

forms are used. Using the imperfective aspect means “viewing an incomplete

situation, without reference to its end phase” (69).

With the perfective aspect, the beginning or middle of the situation is not overtly

presented but only implied through the mentioning of the end phase. With the

imperfective aspect, which focuses on the course of the situation, the beginning is

implied but the end completely excluded. (69-70)

26

Oldsjö defines aspect as follows (72-73):

A non-deictic grammaticalized category whose function is to express the phasal

perspective chosen to describe a (normally past) situation as complete, i.e. perfective, or

incomplete, i.e. imperfective.

On the morphological marking of aspect, he says (91):

The aspect meaning of the imperfective stem is indicated by the absence of a perfective

marker. Another way to put it is that the imperfective stem acquires its aspectual

meaning from the existence of a corresponding morphologically marked perfective

stem.

Tense, on the other hand, is morphologized by affixes. The present and the perfect lack

tense affixation completely: they do not signal remoteness from the hic et nunc of the

speaker, and are therefore interpreted as referring to the moment of speech (91-92).

From a morphological point of view, this means that

the use of these tense forms primarily cannot be explained with reference to the category

of tense. Instead, in the case of the aspectually marked perfect the possibilities of and

restrictions on its use should be sought in its indication of aspect. From this, a

fundamental conclusion for the morphology of the Latin verb system can be drawn: the

indication of aspect can have deictic implications. (93)

Oldsjö concludes his discussion of morphological marking of tense and aspect as

follows (129):

The perfect marks perfective aspect but not tense. Since perfectivity implicates

anteriority, the perfect can be used to indicate anteriority in relation to all three temporal

reference points present, past and future. The present is unmarked both for tense and

aspect. This morphological features gives this form the highest functional potency of all

tense forms, since in principle it is compatible with any temporal relation and both

aspects.

27

Finally, concerning the different functional uses of imperfect and perfect, Oldsjö

summarizes:

The application of imperfective aspect means viewing a situation as incomplete, or

ongoing. When telic situations are viewed imperfectively, there arises an aspectual

contrast between the telic phasal character of the situation and the imperfective

perspective. The normal reason for describing a telic situation imperfectively is that it is

iterated over a period of time. Sometimes, however, we are dealing with a single ongoing

situation which then receives a clearly marked progressive sense. The alleged conative

meaning is not the result of aspectual contrast between imperfective and telicity; it is

rather a contextual feature. (489)

Situations are viewed as complete through the perfective aspect. The aspectual contrast

between perfective and stative situations may give rise to an ingressive sense. This

contrast is not so pronounced, and we find the ingressive meaning mainly in temporal

subordinate clauses as well as in certain other instances where the context supports an

ingressive meaning. (490)

28

2.4. Conclusion

As we have seen, there are two main traditions when it comes to tense and aspect in

Latin. On the one hand, relative tense theory states that the opposition between

infectum stem and perfectum stem is a temporal one: the former indicates simultaneity,

the latter anteriority. Among others, Pinkster thus explains the distinction between the

Latin imperfect and perfect in terms of tense: they both indicate a past situation, but

relate it to a different orientation moment.

On the other hand, aspectual theory states that the aforementioned opposition is an

aspectual one: the infectum stem indicates imperfective aspect, the perfectum stem

indicates perfective aspect. Accordingly, linguists like Oldsjö account for the

distinction between imperfect and perfect in terms of aspect: the imperfect, being

morphologically marked for tense but not for aspect, relates a situation to point of

speech as past and views it as incomplete, whereas the perfect, being morphologically

marked for aspect but not for tense, can relate a situation as anterior to all three

temporal reference points, the anteriority being a result of its perfective aspect, which

conveys completeness.

29

3. Case study: Caesar, DBG IV-V

3.1. Statistic overview

Table 1: Distribution of Imperfects and Perfects in Caesar's DBG IV-V

Main Clause Subordinate Clause

Imperfect

Indicative

Subjunctive

119 92

0 (+ 5 Or. Ob.) 223 (+ 32 Or. Ob.)

Perfect

Indicative

Subjunctive

280 61

0 17 (+ 8 IR Or. Ob.)

From Table 1, visualized in Figure 2, we can deduce that the perfect indicative occurs

far more often in main clauses than in subordinate clauses, whereas this contrast is

much less distinctive for the imperfect indicative. Another conclusion to be drawn is

that all subjunctive forms (excluding the ones in oratio obliqua) occur in subordinate

clauses, and that these are nearly all imperfect subjunctives. Therefore, it is obvious

that main clauses strongly prefer the indicative mood and subordinate clauses the

subjunctive mood, whereas their preference in tense is less distinctive, though still

sound.

Since the subjunctive occurs primarily in clauses that are ‘subordinated’ to main

clauses, it is not surprising to see that the imperfect is used mostly in clauses which

are greatly dependent on the temporal reference point of the main clause for the choice

of tense, such as ut-clauses, whereas the perfect subjunctive, if it occurs at all, is used

in cases where the tense form of the subordinate clause depends less on the main

clause, such as relative clauses.

30

A final note should be made about the distrubution of tenses in De Bello Gallico IV-V.

Pinkster (1983: 311) counts 55% perfect indicative forms in main clauses in book 4, and

only 15% imperfect indicative and 25% present indicative forms. However, according

to his research, book 5 features only 24% perfect indicative and 12% imperfect

indicative forms, and an astounding 61% present indicative forms.7

Dressler (1968: 148, as paraphrased in Pinkster, 1983: 313) takes the position that the

historic present is a stylistic (‘intensive’) variant of the perfect. Pinkster, however,

follows Kravar (1969; 1971), who “replied that the present may also be used in contexts

in which an event is expressed as going on and is not necessarily successive, i.e. where

an imperfect could replace the present.” (1983: 313) Pinkster’s conclusion is that “such

differences as exist between perfect and imperfect in narrative texts are neutralized if

the (historic) present is used.” (1983: 314)

Now, since book 5 of De Bello Gallico features so many present indicative forms, we

will try to account for them upon encountering them in our text samples. This present

study does not aim to clarify the issue of the historical present in Latin narratives, but

we will look at these individual examples and try to make a few suggestions.

The problem with the historical present, which has not been resolved by Pinkster or

others, is its distribution across main clauses and subclases. In main clauses, the

present tense can replace either the perfect tense or the imperfect tense. This double

value might result from an original implicature of using the present tense, which

basically conveys simultaneity with the moment of speaking, that the narrative is

represented as an eyewitness account. After all, an eyewitness can both recount events

occurring before his eyes (foreground), and describe the situation in which these

events take place (background): both would be simultaneous with the moment of

7 Research for the present study yielded very similar results, confirming Pinkster’s findings

for tense distribution in main clauses in DBG V: 59% present indicative forms, 14% imperfect

indicative forms, and 26% perfect indicative forms.

31

speaking. At a later stage, the effects of ‘vividness’, ‘immediacy’, and ‘unexpectedness’

became the sole thing authors like Caesar had in mind when using the present tense,

which explains why an episode in the historical present in his narrative does not

necessarily require a literal transposition of the author or the audience to the scene of

the action.

Subordinate clauses, however, may depend for their verb tense on a present tense in

the corresponding main clause. An author like Caesar has two options for the tense in

such a subordinate clause: he can either regard the main clause’s present tense as a

secondary tense (i.e. past tense) and choose the subordinate clause’s tense accordingly,

or he can choose the subordinate clause’s tense on formal grounds and opt for the

present tense, because there is a historical present in the main clause. The former

option does not present any problems, since the subordinate clause’s tense must be

past. The latter option, however, could result in a present tense replacing either perfect

or imperfect. However, although subordinate clauses prefer imperfect tenses, we

should refrain from concluding that the historical present replaces the imperfect tense

in subordinate clauses, and the perfect tense in main clauses: both are sweeping

statements which disregard the versality of the Latin language.

32

Figure 1: Distribution of Imperfects and Perfects in Caesar's DBG IV-V

Table 2: Overview of tense, mood and clause types in Caesar's DBG IV-V

Total

Tense

Imperfect 471

Perfect 366

Mood

Indicative 552

Subjunctive 285

Clause Type

Main Clause 404

Subordinate Clause 433

33

3.2. Discussion of text samples

The translations of these passages are from Edwards (1917), adapted if necessary to serve the

purposes of this paper.

We will now turn to a close investigation of some text samples from De Bello Gallico

IV-V. In Aerts (2012), random samples from book IV were discussed in order to find

the most suitable explanation for the infectum – perfectum distinction in the Latin tense

system. The outcome of that paper, which was clearly in favour of relative tense

theory, will serve as the basis for the present one. Additional paragraphs will be

submitted to similar questioning, the results of which will solidify our claim that the

introduction of aspect is not as imperative as Oldsjö claims it to be, but that relative

tense, a more economical, uncomplicated, and comprehensive solution, sufficiently

accounts for the problem at hand.

[1]

Caesar cum ab hoste non amplius passuum XII milibus abesset, ut erat constitutum, ad

eum legati revertuntur; qui in itinere congressi magnopere ne longius progrederetur

orabant. Cum id non impetrassent, petebant uti ad eos [equites] qui agmen

antecessissent, praemitteret eosque pugna prohiberet, sibique ut potestatem faceret in

Ubios legatos mittendi; quorum si principes ac senatus sibi iure iurando fidem fecisset,

ea condicione quae a Caesare ferretur se usuros ostendebant: ad has res conficiendas

sibi tridui spatium daret. Haec omnia Caesar eodem illo pertinere arbitrabatur ut tridui

mora interposita equites eorum qui abessent reverterentur; tamen sese non longius

milibus passuum IIII aquationis causa processurum eo die dixit: huc postero die quam

frequentissimi convenirent, ut de eorum postulatis cognosceret. Interim ad praefectos,

qui cum omni equitatu antecesserant, mittit qui nuntiarent ne hostes proelio lacesserent,

et, si ipsi lacesserentur, sustinerent quoad ipse cum exercitu propius accessisset. (DBG,

IV, 11)

34

When Caesar was no more than twelve miles away from the enemy, the deputies

returned to him as was agreed: having met him on the march, they besought (ind. impf.)

him earnestly not to advance (subj. impf.) further. When they had not obtained this, they

asked (ind. impf.) him to send forward (subj. impf.) to the cavalry which had preceded the

column, and to prevent (subj. impf.) them from engaging, and to grant (subj. impf.)

themselves an opportunity of sending deputies into the land of the Ubii. They pointed

out (ind. impf.) that, if the chiefs and the senate of the Ubii had pledged their faith on

oath, they (the Germans) would accept the terms which Caesar offered (subj. impf.); he

should give (subj. impf.) them an interval of three days to settle these affairs. Caesar

supposed (ind. impf.) that all these pleas had the same object as before: that their cavalry,

which was absent (subj. impf.), would return (subj. impf.) after a delay of three days;

however, he said (ind. perf.) that on that day he would advance no further than four miles

for reasons of water supply. They should meet (subj. impf.) him there the next day with

as large a number as they could, in order that he might take cognisance (subj. impf.) of

their demands. Meanwhile he sent messengers to the commanders who had gone

forward with all the cavalry to instruct (subj. impf.) them not to provoke (subj. impf.) the

enemy to an engagement, and, if they themselves were provoked (subj. impf.), to hold

their ground (subj. impf.) until he himself with the army had come up nearer.

It is common knowledge in Latin linguistics that imperfect forms in a narrative

constitute the background information to the main action, while the perfect forms

make up the backbone of the narrative. Accordingly, orabant, petebant, ostendebant and

arbitrabatur are seen by both Pinkster and Oldsjö as describing the ongoing situations

that form the circumstances (background) as they were at the time when dixit occurred

(foreground)8. However, where Pinkster states that this results from the fact that these

imperfect forms mark situations as simultaneous with some past reference point (E

simul R before S), Oldsjö claims that the actual reason is the fact that they convey

incompleteness at a past moment which is directly related to the moment of speech

(Eimperfective before S).

8 Cf. Fleischman (1985) for the use of this terminology.

35

Upon closer investigation of the lexical nature of these imperfect verbs, it turns out

that they are all verbal processes, except for arbitrabatur, which is a mental process.

However, dixit is as much a verbal process as these imperfect verbs are. Therefore, it

is difficult to imagine that Caesar wanted to stress a certain difference in completeness:

without their respective end phases included in their meaning, orabant, petebant, and

ostendebant are pointless. Caesar can only dicere when the enemy’s deputies have

finished orare, petere and ostendere (arbitrare will be discussed in the next text sample,

along with other imperfect mental processes). Moreover, there is no reason why

Caesar would regard only dixit from the perspective of its end phase and not the other

processes as well. In his discussion of this passage, Oldsjö suggests an intensifying

sense, a derivation of the iterative type resulting from the opposition imperfectivity-

telicity (cf. supra, p. 27), but he himself explicitly restricts this nuance to “the specific

contexts in which verbs of these types occur” (2001: 222-223), which leads us to

conclude that, if such an interpretation is to be made, it is not a grammatical feature

(i.e. conveyed by the verb tense), but part of the lexical context.

It seems that every process in this paragraph revolves around dixit, to which all the

indicative imperfect forms have been made “subordinate”, sc. on a textual level. It is

this perfect form that is related directly to the moment of speech: by virtue of its

anteriority to the present moment it establishes a past reference point which is exactly

the same reference point with which all the imperfect forms are simultaneous.

Therefore, instead of resorting to aspectual oppositions, it seems more legitimate to

account for the fact that these situations were all going on at the time of dixit in terms

of relative tense. The implication is that orabant, petebant, ostendebant and arbitrabatur

(cf. infra) are seen as non-successive situations pertaining to the moment when dixit

occurred, not merely in their end phase or in their progress, but as a whole.

36

[2]

Hoc facto proelio Caesar neque iam sibi legatos audiendos neque condiciones

accipiendas arbitrabatur ab iis qui per dolum atque insidias petita pace ultro bellum

intulissent; expectare vero dum hostium copiae augerentur equitatusque reverteretur

summae dementiae esse iudicabat, et cognita Gallorum infirmitate quantum iam apud

eos hostes uno proelio auctoritatis essent consecuti sentiebat; quibus ad consilia

capienda nihil spatii dandum existimabat. His constitutis rebus et consilio cum legatis

et quaestore communicato, ne quem diem pugnae praetermitteret, oportunissima res

accidit, quod postridie eius diei mane eadem et perfidia et simulatione usi Germani

frequentes, omnibus principibus maioribusque natu adhibitis, ad eum in castra

venerunt, simul, ut dicebatur, sui purgandi causa, quod contra atque esset dictum et

ipsi petissent, proelium pridie commisissent, simul ut, si quid possent, de indutiis

fallendo impetrarent. Quos sibi Caesar oblatos gavisus illos retineri iussit; ipse omnes

copias castris eduxit equitatumque, quod recenti proelio perterritum esse existimabat,

agmen subsequi iussit. (DBG, IV, 13)

After this engagement was over, Caesar felt (ind. impf.) that he ought no longer to receive

deputies nor to accept conditions from those who had sought for peace by guile and

treachery, and then had actually begun war. Further, he judged (ind. impf.) it the height

of madness to wait till the enemy’s forces were increased (subj. impf.) and till their cavalry

returned (subj. impf.). Knowing as he did the fickleness of the Gauls, he apprehended

(ind. impf.) how much influence the enemy had already acquired over them by a single

engagement; and he considered (ind. impf.) that no time to form plans should be given

them. When these matters had been decided, and when his purpose not to lose (subj.

impf.) a day in giving battle had been communicated to the lieutenant-generals and the

quartermaster-general, a most fortunate event occurred (ind. perf.), namely that the next

morning, by the same treacherousness and feigning, a large company of Germans, all

their principal and senior men having been summoned, came (ind. perf.) to his quarters,

both to clear themselves, as they said (ind. impf.), from the accusation that they had

engaged in a battle the day before, contrary to what had been said and to what they

themselves had asked for, as well as to get (subj. impf.) by deceiving what they could

37

(subj. impf.) in respect of the truce. Caesar, rejoicing that they were delivered into his

hand, ordered (ind. perf.) them to be detained; then in person he led (ind. perf.) all his

troops out of camp, and ordered (ind. perf.) the cavalry, which he judged (ind. impf.) to

be shaken by the recent engagement, to follow in the rear.

The imperfect forms in this paragraph are all mental processes. Since they essentially

refer to states, they have no natural end phase (nor a beginning, for that matter) for an

aspectual opposition between perfective and imperfective to focus on. Therefore, a

distinction between perfect and imperfect tense can never signal an aspectual contrast

in the case of stative verbs, since the notion that the situation they refer to has no

beginning or end is inherent to the lexeme (Aktionsart), and not part of the grammar

(aspect). Due to their lexical value, the unmarked tense for stative verbs is the

imperfect, since their meaning involves simultaneity with the main action. Notice,

however, that some typically stative verbs can (a) have alternative, dynamic meanings,

possibly under the influence of an aspectual morpheme9, or (b) be modified by other

verbs expressing initiation or termination. Finally, note that dicebatur falls under the

same reasoning as for the verbal processes in the previous text sample.

Evidently, this leads us to the same conclusion as before: instead of indicating

incompleteness, the imperfect forms arbitrabatur, iudicabat, sentiebat, existimabat, and

dicebatur merely convey a cluster of non-successive situations which make up the scene

as it was when accidit (and venerunt, which defines accidit) occurred. Caesar then

quickly moves into action, as well he should: the time line is continued by iussit, eduxit,

and iussit, only to be interrupted once, by existimabat, which clarifies Caesar’s motive

for the second order.

9 Cf. Haverling (1996).

38

[3]

In eadem causa fuerunt Usipetes et Tencteri, quos supra diximus; qui complures annos

Sueborum vim sustinuerunt, ad extremum tamen agris expulsi et multis locis

Germaniae triennium vagati ad Rhenum pervenerunt, quas regiones Menapii

incolebant. Hi ad utramque ripam fluminis agros, aedificia vicosque habebant, sed

tantae multitudinis adventu perterriti ex iis aedificiis quae trans flumen habuerant

demigraverant, et cis Rhenum dispositis praesidiis Germanos transire prohibebant. Illi

omnia experti, cum neque vi contendere propter inopiam navium neque clam transire

propter custodias Menapiorum possent, reverti se in suas sedes regionesque

simulaverunt et tridui viam progressi rursus reverterunt atque omni hoc itinere una

nocte equitatu confecto inscios inopinantes Menapios oppresserunt, qui de

Germanorum discessu per exploratores certiores facti sine metu trans Rhenum in suos

vicos remigraverant. His interfectis navibus eorum occupatis, priusquam ea pars

Menapiorum quae citra Rhenum erat certior fieret, flumen transierunt atque omnibus

eorum aedificiis occupatis reliquam partem hiemis se eorum copiis aluerunt. (DBG, IV,

4).

The Usipetes and the Tencteri, whom we have mentioned (ind. perf.) above, were (ind.

perf.) in the same case. For several years they endured (ind. perf.) the force of the Suebi,

but at last they were driven out of their lands, and after wandering for three years in

many districts of Germany they reached (ind. perf.) the Rhine, the localities about which

the Menapii inhabited (ind. impf.). These possessed (ind. impf.) lands, buildings, and

villages on both banks of the river, but alarmed by the approach of so great a host, they

had removed from the buildings which they had possessed beyond the river, and,

having set garrisons at intervals on the near side of the Rhine, they were preventing (ind.

impf.) the Germans from crossing. Since the Germans, having tried everything, could

(subj. impf.) neither force their way because of their lack of vessels nor cross secretly

because of the Menapian guards, they pretended (ind. perf.) to have retired to their own

homes and districts, and having proceeded for a three days’ journey, they turned around

(ind. perf.). Their cavalry, having completed the whole of this distance in a single night,

fell upon the unsuspecting Menapii, who, having learnt through their scouts of the

39

departure of the Germans, had moved back without fear over the Rhine into their own

villages. After they were killed and their vessels seized, the Germans crossed (ind. perf.)

the river before the part of the Menapii which was (ind. impf.) on the near side of the

Rhine, could learn (subj. impf.) of it, and, having seized all of their buildings, they

sustained (ind. perf.) themselves for the remainder of the winter on the supplies of the

Menapii.

Before we turn to the discussion of this paragraph, it should be noted that the second

perfect form is a special case, since diximus does not refer to the narrative, but to

Caesar’s act of writing. In Pinkster’s relative tense theory, this case would be explained

as referring to a situation of ‘mentioning’ that precedes the moment of speech10.

Aspectual theory, however, would rather emphasize that the ‘mentioning’ has been

completed at the moment of speech, and that anteriority is implicated by this

perfective aspect. Essentially, it seems that in both frameworks the basic function and

its implication are being interchanged when this use of the perfect is concerned.

As we have seen in our discussion of text sample [2], the default tense for stative verbs

is the imperfect tense, not because they are viewed in their progress, but because the

situations they refer to are generally related to the main action as simultaneous. This

reasoning allows us to account for perfect forms of stative verbs, such as fuerunt, as

well, since (a) they cannot focus on an end phase of such a verb, and (b) they stress the

fact that the situation they refer to is an important part of the main action, and thus

constitutes a past reference point to which imperfect forms can align as simultaneous.

But why is fuerunt such an important event on the timeline, being merely a stative

copula verb? The answer should be looked for in the preceding paragraph, where

similar events happened to the Ubii. Paragraph boundaries were not as clear to Caesar

10 In writing, the moment of speech is the moment when the message is conveyed to the

audience, i.e. the oral delivery of a text to a live audience or the visual reading by an individual

reader. Essentially, the temporal gap between the act of writing and the perception by the

reader/listener should be omitted.

40

and his audience as they are to us, so fuerunt might have been put in the perfect tense

just to stress sequentiality with the situation of the Ubii.

Furthermore, the situation conveyed by sustinuerunt cannot have been viewed by

Caesar in its end phase either, which is exactly the eventual failure of several years of

sustinere. Aspectual theorists would perhaps expect the imperfect tense with a conative

interpretation in this case, but Pinkster, who believes that such interpretations of the

imperfect tense depend entirely on the context (1990: 227), would say that sustinuerunt

is part of the main action and therefore rightly occurs in the perfect tense. Indeed, no

such difficulties would arise if we do not bring in aspect and choose the simplest

option to explain sustinuerunt: relative tense. This way, the situation of enduring is

viewed as taking a primary place on the time line, just like fuerunt and pervenerunt.

The imperfect forms incolebant and habebant are both states, which do naturally convey

situations that are simultaneous to the events on the time line (cf. supra, p. 37), in

this case pervenerunt. Prohibere, on the other hand, is an accomplishment, and consists

of an activity phase and a culminative phase (Binnick, 1991: 194-195). Whereas Oldsjö

would explain this use of the imperfect as focussing on the activity phase of prohibere,

and on the lack of a culminative phase, relative tense theory can provide the equally

satisfactory explanation that both phases of prohibere are viewed as going on at the

time of simulaverunt, as a whole. Moreover, the context does not exclude that the

Menapii could hold off the Germans for a while, on the contrary. After simulaverunt,

the sequence of events continues with reverterunt, oppresserunt, and transierunt, ending

with aluerunt.

[4]

Dum in his locis Caesar navium parandarum causa moratur, ex magna parte Morinorum

ad eum legati venerunt, qui se de superioris temporis consilio excusarent, quod homines

41

barbari et nostrae consuetudinis imperiti bellum populo Romano fecissent, seque ea

quae imperasset facturos pollicerentur. Hoc sibi Caesar satis oportune accidisse

arbitratus, quod neque post tergum hostem relinquere volebat neque belli gerendi

propter anni tempus facultatem habebat neque has tantularum rerum occupationes

Britanniae anteponendas iudicabat, magnum iis numerum obsidum imperat. Quibus

adductis eos in fidem recepit. Navibus circiter LXXX onerariis coactis contractisque,

quot satis esse ad duas transportandas legiones existimabat, quod praeterea navium

longarum habebat quaestori, legatis praefectisque distribuit. Huc accedebant XVIII

onerariae naves, quae ex eo loco a milibus passuum VIII vento tenebantur quo minus in

eundem portum venire possent: has equitibus tribuit. Reliquum exercitum Q. Titurio

Sabino et L. Aurunculeio Cottae legatis in Menapios atque in eos pagos Morinorum a

quibus ad eum legati non venerant ducendum dedit. P. Sulpicium Rufum legatum cum

eo praesidio quod satis esse arbitrabatur portum tenere iussit. (DBG, IV, 22)

While Caesar tarried in these regions to fit out his ships, deputies came (ind. perf.) to him

from a great part of the Morini to make excuse (subj. impf.) for their policy of the previous

season, when in their barbarism and ignorance of our usage they had made war against

Rome, and to promise (subj. impf.) that they would carry out his commands. Caesar,

believing that this had happened exceedingly opportunely to him, since he did not wish

(ind. impf) to leave an enemy in his rear, since he did not have (ind. impf) a chance of

carrying out a campaign because of the lateness of the season, and since he did not think

(ind. impf) the settlement of such trivialities should take precedence of Britain, ordered

(ind. pres.) them them to furnish a large number of hostages. When these were brought,

he received (ind. perf.) them under his protection. When about eighty transports, which

he deemed (ind. impf.) to be enough for the transportation of two legions, had been

collected and concentrated, he distributed (ind. perf.) all the ships of war he had (ind.

impf.) over between his quartermaster-general, lieutenant-generals, and commandants.

To this were added (ind. impf.) eighteen transports, which were detained (ind. impf.)

eight miles off by the wind, as a result of which they could (subj. impf.) not come to the

same port: these he allotted (ind. perf.) to the cavalry. The rest of the army he handed

over (ind. perf.) to Quintus Titurius Sabinus and Lucius Aurunculeius Cotta, lieutenant-

generals, to be led against the Menapii and against those cantons of the Morini from

42

which no deputies had come to him. He commanded (ind. perf.) Publius Sulpicius Rufus,

lieutenant-general, with a garrison he considered (ind. impf.) sufficient, to hold the port.

In this paragraph, the main action consists of a single major event (venerunt), followed

by a series of decisions and orders which constitute Caesar’s reaction to the

opportunity: imperat, recepit, distribuit, tribuit, dedit, and iussit. Note that imperat has

been put in the present tense to signal Caesar’s liveliness and sagacity (a trait more

than once conveyed by perfect forms resuming the action), and should therefore be

seen as part of the time line. Most of these verbs are surrounded by imperfect forms:

volebat, habebat and iudicabat are states which describe Caesar’s motives at the time

when he decided to imperare; existimabat indicates Caesar’s opinion when he decided

on the number of transports that were to be assembled; habebat describes the size of

Caesar’s fleet of war ships at the time of distribuere; accedebant and tenebantur sketch

another situation on which Caesar acted by tribuere; and finally, arbitrabatur relates

once