Could you help me with the following (all from de Officiis)
1. Cum vero de imperio decertatur belloque quaeritur gloria (I, 38)
Is “decertatur” used impersonally and therefore there is no subj.? Is “bello” abl. of means of “quaeritur” and “gloria” the subj. of “quaeritur”?
2. Atque etiam si quid singuli temporibus adducti hosti promiserunt, (39)
Does “adducti” modify “quid [=aliquid?] temporibus”?
3. Secundo autem Punico bello post Cannensem pugnam quos decem Hannibal Romam misit … (40)
What does “quos” mean here?
4. Deinceps, …, de beneficentia ac de liberalitate dicatur, … , sed habet multas cautiones. (I, 42)
What is the subject of the verb “dicatur” and the subject of the verb “habet”?
1.In “Cum vero de imperio decertatur belloque quaeritur gloria (Cicero, De Officiis, I, 38) the verb “decertatur” is used impersonally and therefore there is no subject.
As for “bello”, it is just an abl. of means of “quaeritur”, while “gloria” is the subj. of “quaeritur”, since the sentence literally translates as:
”But (vero) when it is fought (cum...decertatur) about/for (de) supremacy(imperio) and (-que) glory (gloria) is sought (quaeritur) by means of war (bello-)...”.
2. In “Atque etiam si quid singuli temporibus adducti hosti promiserunt” (I, 39) the past participle “adducti” modifies the subject “singuli” (nominative masculine plural), since “si...singuli temporibus adducti” literally means:”if....individuals (singuli) forced (adducti) by circumstances (temporibus) ..”, i.e.:
“if ....individuals (singuli) forced (adducti)by circumstances (temporibus)promised (promiserunt) anything (quid, which stands for “aliquid” preceded by “si”) to the enemy(hosti) ...”.
3. In “Secundo autem Punico bello post Cannensem pugnam quos decem Hannibal Romam misit … “(I,40) the relative pronoun “quos” (accusative masculine plural) means:”those whom” with the antecedent “illos” understood.
Note that “quos” is in turn the antecedent of “eos” in ...”eos.......reliquerunt”.
In short, here’s the literal translation of “Secundo autem Punico bello post Cannensem pugnam quos decem Hannibal Romam misit astrictos iure iurando se redituros esse nisi de redimendis iis, qui capti erant, impetrassent, eos omnes censores, quoad quisque eorum vixit, quod peierassent in aerariis reliquerunt, nec minus illum, qui iure iurando fraude culpam invenerat”:
”And again (autem) in the Second Punic War (secundo Punico bello) after the Battle of Cannae (post Cannensem pugnam) those ten whom (quos decem) Hannibal sent to Rome (Hannibal Romam misit) bound (astrictos, predicate participle) by an oath (iure iurando) to return (se redituros esse) , if they did not succeed (nisi impetrassent) in ransoming (de redimendis) those (iis, part of the gerundive) who (qui) had been made prisoners (capti erant), those (eos) all (omnes, direct object connected to “eos”) the censors (censores, subject) left (reliquerunt) in /among the tributaries (in aerariis. See below) until (quoad) anyone (quisque) of them (eorum) lived (vixit), because (quod) they were guilty of perjury (peierassent), and not less (nec minus) [the censors punished] the one who (illum qui) had came upon /incurred (invenerat) guilt (culpam) by a violation/fraud (fraude) of [his] oath (iure iurando)”, i.e.:
“And again in the Second Punic War after the Battle of Cannae those ten Roman youngs, whom Hannibal sent to Rome bound by the oath to return, if they did not succeed in ransoming those Carthaginians who had been made prisoners, were all placed among the tributaries by the Roman censors, until any one of them lived, because they were guilty of perjury in not returning, and not less was punished the one who had violated his oath.”
Note that in Roman law the “aerarii” were those who pay a polltax, but cannot vote nor hold office. In short, they belonged to a lowest class, and the censors could degrade citizens to this class, if they were guilty of a serious wrong.
4. In “Deinceps, ... de beneficentia ac de liberalitate dicatur, qua quidem nihil est … , sed habet multas cautiones" (I, 42) the verb “dicatur” is used impersonally and literally means:”let it be spoken”, while the subject of the verb “habet” is grammatically “nihil” which however refers to the hendiadys “beneficentia ac liberalitas”, where a single idea is expressed by two words connected with ‘and’.
So, here’s the literal translation of “Deinceps..... de beneficentia ae deliberalitate dicatur, qua quidem nihil est naturae hominis accommodatius, sed habet multas cautiones”:
“Next in order (deinceps).....let it be spoken (dicatur.Hortatory subjunctive present) about (de) beneficence(beneficentia) and generosity (liberalitate), than which (qua, ablative of comparison related to the hendiadys “beneficentia ac liberalitate”, and then in the feminine singular) nothing (nihil) is definitely (quidem)more suitable (accommodatius) to nature (naturae) of man (hominis), but (sed) has /requires (habet, connected with “nihil” and the hendiadys) many (multas) cautions”, i.e. :
” Next in order .....let I speak of beneficence and generosity. Nothing is in fact more suitable to human nature than this, but it requires many cautions”