Tacitus opens his admiring narrative of the life Julius Agricola, his father-in-law, with subtle reflections on the problems of the biographer in his own times.
at nunc narraturo mihi vitam defuncti hominis venia opus fuit, quam non petissem incusaturus. . . .
Translation: But in this age, to write in praise of a deceased man, I had to ask permission, which I would not have sought to condemn him.
petissem: pluperfect subjunctive. What is the applicable rule for this subjunctive and its tense? He did seek permission, but would not have done so if writing a diatribe against Agricola.
you have a conditional sentence. Normally this means subjunctive in both clauses of an unfulfilled conditional but as the apodosis has an expression indicating necessity it is in the indicative, opus fuit
venia is not permission more indulgence kindness
opus fuit impersonal it is…?
What tense and person is narraturo?
quam non petissem which I would not have had to seek [si] incusaturus (tense?)
venia opus fuit – with respect, this isn’t the apodosis of a condition.
The contrary-to-fact condition is quam non petissem incusaturus, equivalent to [veniam] non petissem si incusaturus essem.
The point is that in the degenerate present T. needed indulgence to write an eulogy, which he wouldn’t have sought if he were going to write an attack. "When I set out to tell . . . I needed indulgence . . . "
Note the framing of the sentence between narraturo . . . incusaturus.
Thanks for the restatement of that second clause, Hylander. That rationalizes the clause in relation to grammar. I was satisfied with the meaning I had constructed, but it bothered me that I couldn’t fit the words into a grammatical precept.