Latin/grammar

Advertisement


Question
Dear Maria,
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”.

Thank you.
Robert

Answer
Dear Robert,

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”.

Best regards,

Maria

Latin

All Answers


Answers by Expert:


Ask Experts

Volunteer


Maria

Expertise

I am an expert in Latin Language and Literature and I'll be glad to answer any questions concerning this matter.

Experience

Over 25 years teaching experience.

Education/Credentials
I received my Ph.D. in Classics (summa cum laude) from Genova University (Italy).

This expert accepts donations:

©2016 About.com. All rights reserved.