future perfect + present with cum temporal??

[hlawson38]

I am unsure about the grammar, and cannot find a rule in A&G, concerning a cum temporal clause like this:

cum . . . future perfect indicative verb . . . present active indicative verb

This is from Boethius, Consolation of Philosophy, Book 1, Metrum 5. The poet sings the powers of God who rules the heavens with unvarying law.

Beginning at line 14

Tu frondifluae frigore brumae
stringis lucem breviore mora
tu cum fervida venerit aestas
agiles nocti dividis horas.

You [i.e. the Ruler of the Heavens] with the cold of leaf-blowing winter
draw tight the daylight to a briefer span
you when hot summer shall have come
shorten the nimble hours of the night.

(As James O'Donnell explains, the Romans had 12 hours each for day and for night. This meant the hours of summer night were shorter.)

From lines 16 and 17: "cum . . . venerit . . . dividis"

I'm reading "venerit" as indicative future perfect, and "dividis" as indicative present active. Am I reading this appropriately, and classifying it properly as a cum-temporal clause??

[Qimmik]

I'll risk committing myself to the view that this is an example of temporal cum with (perfect) subjunctive. A&G suggests that this isn't quite classical usage, although I'm not entirely sure I fully understand section 544.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... ythp%3D544

The grammar books are compilations of usage. Sometimes authors use forms that sound right to them but deviate slightly from the norms recorded in the grammar books. I suspect there was some fluctuation between indicative and subjunctive with cum--it's hard to keep the rules straight, in any event. And Boethius was writing about half a millenium after the late republic/early principate era, when the norms of Latin usage on which the grammar books are based were established. I doubt anyone has a firm handle on the quotidian speech of an educated Roman in Boethius' day, but we can be fairly sure than it must have been at least slightly different from that of an educated Roman in the Augustan era.

We saw a similar very minor deviation from what A&G tells us is pure classical Latin when Boethius used quis, instead of qui, as the nominative masculine singular form of the interrogative adjective.

[mwh]

I’m with Qimmik on this. Only if the main clause were future would we have fut.perf.indic. here.

A recent “sequence of tenses” post of yours also raised the question of fut.perf.indic. vs. perf.subj.:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=62547

I’ll simply copy three sentences from my reply to that, which I think apply equally here.:

“Perf.indic. would be more “correct,” but in subordinate clauses that tends over time to get displaced by the subjunctive.”
“There’s sometimes ambiguity over whether a –verit form is fut.perf.indic. or perf.subj., but not here I think.”
“Better Latinists will correct me if I’m wrong.”

PS If you hadn't told us it was Boethius I'd have guessed Seneca.

[hlawson38]

Thanks to qimmik and mwh for the replies. I can see that this is a difficult point, which makes me feel better. I struggle a lot with sequence of tenses, the subjunctive, and questions involving pronouns and appositives.

mwh: concerning Seneca, I don't know a thing about him, but I hope to read some eventually, if I live long enough.

[mwh]

Senecan tragedy, that is, the "lyrics." They're full of such anapaestic systems.

Subjunctive vs. indicative in subordinate clauses can be tricky. The other things you mention are relatively straightforward.