Peculiarities of Sequence.

268. 1. The Perfect Indicative is usually an historical tense (even when translated in English as a Present Perfect), and so is followed by the Imperfect and Pluperfect Subjunctive; as,—

dēmōnstrāvī quārē ad causam accēderem, I have shown why I took the case (lit. I showed why, etc.).

2. A dependent Perfect Infinitive is treated as an historical tense wherever, if resolved into an equivalent Indicative, it would be historical; as,—

videor ostendisse quālēs deī essent, I seem to have shown of what nature the gods are (ostendisse here corresponds to an Indicative, ostendī, I showed).

3. The Historical Present is sometimes regarded as a principal tense, sometimes as historical. Thus:—

Sulla suōs hortātur ut fortī animō sint, Sulla exhorts his soldiers to be stout-hearted;

Gallōs hortātur ut arma caperent, he exhorted the Gauls to take arms.

4. Conditional sentences of the 'contrary-to-fact' type are not affected by the principles for the Sequence of Tenses; as,—

honestum tāle est ut, vel sī ignōrārent id hominēs, suā tamen pulchritūdine laudabīle esset, virtue is such a thing that even if men were ignorant of it, it would still be worthy of praise for its own loveliness.

5. In conditional sentences of the 'contrary-to-fact' type the Imperfect Subjunctive is usually treated as an Historical tense; as,—

sī sōlōs eōs dīcerēs miserōs, quibus moriendum esset, nēminem tū quidem eōrum quī vīverent exciperēs, if you called only those wretched who must die, you would except no one of those who live.

6. In clauses of Result and some others, the Perfect Subjunctive is sometimes used as an historical tense. Thus:—

rēx tantum mōtus est, ut Tissaphernem hostem jūdicārit, the king was so much moved that he adjudged Tissaphernes an enemy.

This construction is rare in Cicero, but frequent in Nepos and subsequent historians. The Perfect Subjunctive in this use represents a result simply as a fact without reference to the continuance of the act, and therefore corresponds to an Historical Perfect Indicative of direct statement. Thus, jūdicārit in the above example corresponds to adjūdicāvit, he adjudged. To denote a result as something continuous, all writers use the Imperfect Subjunctive after historical tenses.

7. Sometimes perspicuity demands that the ordinary principles of Sequence be abandoned altogether. Thus:

a) We may have the Present or Perfect Subjunctive after an historical tense; as,—

Verrēs Siciliam ita perdidit ut ea restituī nōn possit, Verres so ruined Sicily that it cannot be restored (Direct statement: nōn potest restitui);

ārdēbat Hortēnsius dīcendī cupiditāte sīc, ut in nūllō flagrantius studium vīderim, Hortensius burned so with eagerness to speak that I have seen in no one a greater desire (Direct statement: in nūllō vīdī, I have seen in no one).

NOTE.—This usage is different from that cited under 6. Here, by neglect of Sequence, the Perfect is used, though a principal tense; there the Perfect was used as an historical tense.

b) We may have a principal tense followed by the Perfect Subjunctive used historically; as,—

nesciō quid causae fuerit cūr nūllās ad mē litterās darēs, I do not know what reason there was why you did not send me a letter.

Here fuerit is historical, as is shown by the following Imperfect Subjunctive.