I‘d thought the subject was Dumnorix, singular."they had gathered great faculties for bribing."
[Dumnorix dixit] scire se illa esse vera, nec quemquam ex eo plus quam se doloris capere, propterea quod, cum ipse gratia plurimum domi atque in reliqua Gallia, ille minimum propter adulescentiam posset.
Yes, the objects of posset (they could also arguably be regarded as adverbial).I would say they are both neut. acc. substantives.
Yes.And also that gratia would be ablative instrumental.
Thank you, here ac Bibracte looks to be in the ablative, but it seems like it aught to be in the accusative: ac Bibractem.a Bibracte, oppido Haeduorum longe maximo et copiosissimo, non amplius milibus passuum XVIII aberat, rei frumentariae prospiciendum existimavit: Iter ab Helvetiis avertit ac Bibracte ire contendit. -B.G. 1.23
Thank you, wondering here how you would understand the phrase: recusaturos quo minus perpetuo.[Diviacius dixit Haeduos] coactos esse Sequanis obsides dare nobilissimos civitatis et iure iurando civitatem obstringere sese neque obsides repetituros neque auxilium a populo Romano imploraturos neque recusaturos quo minus perpetuo sub illorum dicione atque imperio essent. -B.G 1.31.7
they were now compelled to give the chief nobles of their state, as hostages to the Sequani, and to bind their state by an oath, that they would neither demand hostages in return, nor supplicate aid from the Roman people, nor refuse to be forever under their sway and empire.
Thank you, my literal attempt is: "neither were they [the Haedui] about to refuse in order that they [the Haedui] be anything less than perpetually under their [the Sequanis'] sway and command."neque recusaturos quo minus perpetuo sub illorum dicione atque imperio essent.
It's more like "nor about to refuse by which [i.e. with the result that] they would less/not (minus is literally "less" but virtually just means "not" here) be perpetually under..."Thank you, my literal attempt is: "neither were they [the Haedui] about to refuse in order that they [the Haedui] be anything less than perpetually under their [the Sequanis'] sway and command."
Quin would produce the same meaning. Ut could also possibly be used, but it would be much less common. I don't think quo (without minus) could possibly work.I'm wondering if the sense would be any different if ut, quin, or quo were substituted for quominus.
[Diviciacus dixit] futurum esse paucis annis uti omnes ex Galliae finibus pellerentur atque omnes Germani Rhenum transirent; neque enim conferendum esse Gallicum cum Germanorum agro neque hanc consuetudinem victus cum illa comparandam.-B.G 1.31