Could you help me with the following (all from de Officiis)
1. Existunt etiam saepe iniuriae calumnia quadam et nimis callida sed malitiosa iuris interpretatione (I, 33)
Could you check whether the following understanding of mine is correct: “iniuriae” is the subj. (f. pl.) ”calumia” and “iuris interpretatione” are abl. of cause.
2. Ac belli quidem aequitas sanctissime fetiali populi Romani iure perscripta est. (I, 36)
Can you give a literal translation?
3. nisi quod aut rebus repetitis geratur aut denuntiatum ante sit et indictum (I, 36)
I have some difficulty with “nisi quod aut rebus repetitis geratur”.
4. negat enim ius esse, qui miles non sit, cum hoste pugnare (I, 37)
Is the following understanding of the grammar of this sentence correct?
(a)Is “ius” n. accu. and form “accu.+inf.” with “esse”?
(b)Is there another accu.+inf. after “ius esse”? i.e. [eum] cum hoste pugnare”. And the understood “eum” is the antecedent of “qui”.
1.In “Existunt etiam saepe iniuriae calumnia quadam et nimis callida sed malitiosa iuris interpretatione (Cicero, De Officiis,I, 33)the word “iniuriae” (f. pl.)is the subject, while ”calumia” and “ interpretatione” are abl. of cause, for the sentence literally means:
”There are (existunt) often (saepe) also (etiam) injustices (iniuriae) because of some (quadam) cavil (calumnia) and a too (nimis) subtle (callida) but (sed) malicious (malitiosa) interpretation (interpretatione) of the law (iuris)”, i.e.:
“Injustice often derives also from some quibble and from a too subtle and even malicious interpretation of the law”.
2. Here’s the literal translation of “Ac belli quidem aequitas sanctissime fetiali populi Romani iure perscripta est” (I, 36):
”And (ac) in fact (quidem) the equitable conduct (aequitas) of war (belli) has been written (perscripta est) very scrupulously (sanctissime) by the fetial (fetiali) law (iure) of the Roman (Romani) people(populi)”, i.e.:
"And in fact a correct conduct of war has been written in the fetial code of the Roman people under all the guarantees of religion".
Note that the Roman “fetiales” were priests who were duty bound to make declarations of war and treaties of peace.
3. “.....intellegi potest nullum bellum esse iustum, nisi quod aut rebus repetitis geratur aut denuntiatum ante sit et indictum “(I, 36) literally means:
”It can (potest) be understood (intellegi) that no (nullum) war (bellum) is (esse) just (iustum), except (nisi) that [war] which (quod, relative pronoun agreeing with “bellum”) is made (geratur) either (aut) things taken as booty (rebus) having been demanded back (repetitis, ablative absolute) or (aut) [war, bellum] has been announced (nuntiatum sit) before (ante) and declared (et indictum)”, i.e. :
“It can be understood that no war is just, except that war which is made either after demanding satisfaction or has been announced before and formally declared ”.
Note that “repetere res” in the law of the fetiales meant :” to demand back from the enemy things which they had taken as booty; hence, to demand satisfaction”.
4. In “negat enim ius esse, qui miles non sit, cum hoste pugnare” (I, 37) you are right in thinking that:
(a) “ius” is n. accu. and forms “accu.+inf.” with “esse”.
(b) there is another accu.+inf. after “ius esse”, i.e. [eum] cum hoste pugnare”, as the understood “eum” is the antecedent of “qui”.
In fact, “negat enim ius esse, qui miles non sit, cum hoste pugnare” means:
”he denies that it is legally right that the one who is not a soldier fights against the enemy”.