I was wondering if you would like to share your thoughts on the grammar of the datives in the following texts from Cicero. The second example is a very interesting one provided by Kingshorsey in an answer to a previous question of mine. Please see this link.
An in senatu facillime de me detrahi posse credidit? qui ordo clarissimis civibus bene gestae rei publicae testimonium multis, mihi uni conservatae dedit. (Cic. Phil. 2.2.5 )
Sibi enim bene gestae, mihi conservatae rei publicae dat testimonium. (Cic. Att. 2.1.6)
In the first example, it is clear that the scope of clarissimis civibus contains multis but does it also contain mihi? I copy three translations below where you'll see slightly different interpretations.
Transl. by Walter C.A. Ker (Loeb): 'Is it in the Senate he believed he could most easily depreciate me, an order that has borne its testimony to illustrious citizens —for their administration of the State to many, to me alone for its preservation?'.
Transl. by C. D. Yonge (Perseus): 'Did he think that it was easiest to disparage me in the senate? a body which has borne its testimony in favour of many most illustrious Citizens that they governed the republic well, but in favour of me alone, of all men, that I preserved it'.
Sp. transl. by J. B. Calvo (Planeta): '¿Creyó acaso que sus ofensivas imputaciones encontrarían fácil acogida en el Senado, que dio a muchos preclaros ciudadanos testimonio de haber gobernado bien la república, pero sólo a mí de haberla conservado?'.
As for the second example, consider the following translation given by Pinkster (1990: 79), where he appears to analyze the two datives as "datives-of-agent": `He testifies that the state has been governed well by him, but saved by me'. Note that if I'm correct in claiming that so-called "datives of agent" are not expected in non-verbal contexts (please see my previous post for relevant discussion & examples), the analysis of the datives that underlies Pinkster's translation cannnot be correct.
Here are some variants of this beautiful Ciceronian structure (cf. the very nice dominant participle constructions). Please pay special attention to the fact that some relevant datives also appear in most of them (cf. the two examples above).
Ceteris enim semper bene gesta, mihi uni conservata re publica gratulationem decrevistis. (Cic. Cat. 4.20.11, 4.21.1)
Quae supplicatio si cum ceteris supplicationibus conferatur, hoc interest, quod ceterae bene gesta, haec una conservata re publica constituta est. (Cic. Cat. 3.15.7, 3.15.8)
Mihi togato senatus non ut multis bene gesta, sed ut nemini conservata re publica, singulari genere supplicationis deorum immortalium templa patefecit. (Cic. Pis. 6.6)
Tu idem mihi supplicationem decrevisti togato, non, ut multis, re publica bene gesta sed, ut nemini, re publica conservata. (Cic. Fam. 22.214.171.124, 126.96.36.199)
My conclusion is that, despite appearances, none of the examples in this post (Pinkster's/Ruppel's/Kingshorsey's "problematic" one included!) can be said to contain a dative of agent. Am I right?