Could you help me with the following (all from de Officiis)
1. Pepigerit (III. 92)
Couldn’t find this word in the dictionary.
2. si saltare in foro turpe ducet, honestius mentietur, si ex hereditate nihil ceperit, quam si ceperit (III. 93)
In “saltare in foro turpe [esse]”, is it true that if an infinitive [saltare] is the subj., we use neuter [turpe]?
3. cum is patri suspectus esset de noverca (III. 94)
Why dat. “patri”?
4. quam calamitatem accepisset in bello communem fortunae bellicae iudicantem tenere consularis dignitatis gradum (III. 99)
Could you give a literal translation?
1.”Pepigerit” in “Si quis medicamentum cuipiam dederit.....pepigeritque …”(Cicero, De Officiis, III. 92) is the 3rd person singular, perfect subjunctive active of the verb “pango” (I stipulate) whose perfect indicative has three forms, i.e. “panxi”, “pēgi” and “pĕpĭgi” from which “pepigerit” just derives.
So “Si quis….dederit… pepigeritque…” means:”If someone has given another a remedy ….and has stipulated that…”.
2. In “….si saltare in foro turpe ducet, honestius mentietur, si ex hereditate nihil ceperit, quam si ceperit …”(III. 93) the infinitive “saltare” is just the subject of “saltare in foro turpe [esse]” and then Latin uses the neuter gender[turpe], since an infinitive mood cannot be masculine nor feminine, of course.
3.In “… cum is patri suspectus esset de noverca…” (III. 94) the dative “patri” depends on the passive form “suspectus esset” which is the pluperfect passive subjunctive of “suspĭcĭo , suspexi, suspectum, suspicĕre, which takes the dative case.
Here’s the literal translation for “..cum is patri suspectus esset de noverca..”:
”...because (cum) he (is, i.e. the son Hippolytus) was suspected (suspectus esset) to the father (patri) about (de) the step-mother (noverca)..”, i.e.: “...because the father was suspicious of the son's relations with his step-mother...”.
4. Here’s the literal translation for :”Is ….utilitatis speciem videbat, sed eam…...falsam iudicavit; quae erat talis: manere in patria, esse domi suae cum uxore, cum liberis, quam calamitatem accepisset in bello communem fortunae bellicae iudicantem tenere consularis dignitatis gradum. Quis haec negat esse utilia? …” (III. 99):
“He (i.e. Marcus Atilius Regulus)….. saw (videbat) the appearance (speciem) of expedience (utilitatis), but (sed) considered (iudicavit) it (eam, referring to “speciem”) false (falsam, referring to “speciem”); which (quae) was (erat) such (talis): [Who denies (Quis negat) that these following things (haec) are (esse) useful (utilia)?See the question clause at the end of this passage ]: to remain (manere) in his own country (in patria), to stay (esse) at home (domi suae) with his wife (cum uxore) and children (cum liberis), to retain ( tenere) the rank (gradum) of the ex-consul (consularis) dignity (dignitatis), regarding (iudicantem, attributive participle in the accusative as it depends on an understood verb such as “negat” in "quis negat" = who denies that”) [that (eam, demonstrative adjective, understood )] defeat (calamitatem) which (quam, relative agreeing with “calamitatem”) he had suffered (accepisset) in war (in bello) as a misfortune (calamitatem, as this term is used either to “defeat” or to “misfortune”) [which is ] common (communem) to military /wartime(bellicae) circumstances (fortunae)”, i.e. :
“Marcus Atilius Regulus….. saw the appearance of expedience, but he decided that it was false ; and it was so, because his interest was definitely to remain in his own country , to stay at home with his wife and children, to retain the rank of his ex-consul dignity, regarding the defeat which he had suffered in war as a misfortune that might come to anyone in war.”
Note that “his interest was…” is implied in the question clause “Quis haec negat esse utilia?” which stands at the end of the passage, though it refers to what is said before.
Hope all is clear enough.