Questions for Epistula XCVII (Trajan to Pliny)

Question

Si deferantur et arguantur, puniendi sunt, ita tamen ut qui negaverit 'se Christianum esse' idque re ipsa manifestum fecerit, id est supplicando dis nostris, quamvis suspectus in praeteritum, veniam ex paenitentia impetret.

(unmacronized)

• Why the protasis of si is subj. (deferantur et arguantur), but the apodosis is ind. (puniendi sunt)? Is it because the apodosis is future periphrastic? (I found this case in Allen & Greenough's: 517.c, but I am not sure)
• What is the structure from qui negaverit...? If qui negaverit (et) fecerit (as I guess) is the subject (he who ...), which is the corresponding verb?
• Why is it in praeteritum instead of in praeterito?

Answer 1

• About the structure qui negaverit: I agree it seems to be the subject. The corresponding verb is apparently the last word in this passage: impetret. i.e., "he who denies... will obtain pardon." (veniam impetret)

• About in praeteritum: We can compare it to in posterum and in futurum to mean "in the future" which is the natural way to go. Why in futurum and not in futuro? Well, maybe that's another question. Another possibility I find less probable is that maybe the idea is not that he was suspected in/during the past, but rather that he is currently suspected on account of the past; or more particularly a specific action in the past that he committed. According to L&S, suscipio can have in+acc. But the examples given there are all in the pattern of suscipere is se alqiud, so it is not quite the same thing. maybe a simple ablative without in would have the same function; So, though I could not find a good example, I think the probable idea that suspectus in praeteritum means something along the lines that he is charged for his past action.

• about the subj of deferantur et arguantur vs. the indicative puniendi sunt: I'm afraid I don't have an answer, but just wanted to note that the words before the si clause are "Conquirendi non sunt".