Two qui-Clauses in One Report
An original passage in a reading-comprehension exercise reads:
Legati, qui ad Caesarem missi erant, ubi in castra venerunt, pacem petierunt. Quibus auditis Caesar respondit se alios legatos, qui condiciones referrent, statim missurum.
The student translates: 'The envoys, who had been sent to Caesar, when they came into the camp, sought peace. When these things had been heard, Caesar answered that he would send other envoys, who would report the terms.' The teacher accepts the version but asks three questions the translation hides: whether the two qui-clauses are doing the same job, whether quibus auditis means 'when these things had been heard' or 'when they had been heard', and whether se could refer to the envoys rather than to Caesar. The student must also say what would change if the second clause read qui condiciones rettulerunt.
1. Compare the two qui-clauses in mood, function and translation, and explain how a reader decides.
Read the worked answer
The first is indicative (missi erant), a straightforward descriptive relative clause: 'who had been sent to Caesar'. The second is subjunctive (referrent), and here it is a relative clause of purpose: 'to report the terms', or more literally 'who were to report the terms'. The mood is the first clue, but mood alone does not settle function, since a subjunctive relative can also be characteristic ('of the sort who would report'). Two tests decide it: (a) paraphrase with ut - misit legatos ut condiciones referrent yields the same sense, which is the mark of purpose; (b) context - the main verb is a verb of sending, and the sentence is about why new envoys are dispatched. There is no correlative in the main clause, so a result reading is not available.
2. Resolve, or refuse to resolve, the ambiguity of quibus auditis, and justify your choice.
Read the worked answer
Quibus auditis is an ablative absolute, and quibus can be masculine plural ('the envoys') or neuter plural ('the terms, these things'), because the forms are identical in the ablative plural; auditis agrees either way and gives no further help. Syntax therefore cannot decide it, and the honest answer is that both translations are grammatically possible. Discourse tips the balance toward 'after hearing them', i.e. the envoys: quibus points back to the immediately preceding legati, and audire with a person is entirely idiomatic in the sense 'hear, grant an audience to'. The neutral 'after these things had been heard' is defensible and is often printed, but it should be presented as an interpretation, not as the only reading.
3. Explain the reference of se, and what would change if the clause read qui condiciones rettulerunt.
Read the worked answer
In indirect statement after respondit, se is the reflexive pronoun and refers to the subject of the main verb, Caesar - 'he (Caesar) would send'. If the envoys were meant, Latin would use eos, not se; the reflexive is the mechanism that keeps the two apart, and the future infinitive missurum agrees with the implied Caesar. Changing referrent to rettulerunt would replace a purpose with an asserted fact: 'other envoys, who did report the terms'. That clashes with statim missurum - envoys not yet sent cannot already have reported - and so the indicative would force a different main clause (for example a past tense) before the sentence made sense. The subjunctive is doing real work.