DWBrumbley wrote:With regard to discesserit vs. discesserat vs. discessisset, I'm not sure I understand the implications of the changes being made.
Disregarding the sequence of tenses for the moment, it sounds somewhat archaic to use the pluperfect indicative in a cum
clause. In classical Latin, the historic tenses are typically cast into the subjunctive mood, although the indicative is possible (only when cum
has a strictly temporal force). Cum discissesset
thus sounds much less unusual than cum discesserat
However, the main clause vertam oculum interiorem
is in a primary tense, the sequence of tenses accordingly requires the cum
clause to be likewise in a primary tense; the pluperfect is disallowed. As the action takes place in the future, the two options for the subordinate clause are future and future perfect, depending on whether the action of the cum
clause is simultaneous with or anterior to that of the main clause respectively. Either could be used here, but I would suggest that the future perfect discesserit
makes more sense.
Cum discessisset, verterem oculum interiorem ut vestigium eius videre.
The 'sequence of tenses' is so called because the tense of the subordinate clause 'follows' that of the main clause, but you have put the cart before the horse here. Vertam oculum interiorem
is the correct translation for 'I shall turn my inner eye', whereas cum discessisset, verterem ...
might mean 'when it had left, I would turn...' (or, better, 'would that I turned when it had left', etc.) which is not what you intend.
A second error has also been introduced. A final clause introduced by ut
must have a finite verb in the subjunctive mood, as you had before; the infinitive videre
Thus: Et cum discesserit, vertam oculum interiorem ut vestigium ejus videam.