151 . . . audieras, cui
152 rem di donarent, illi decedere pravam
153 stultitiam; et cum sis nihilo sapientior ex quo
154 plenior es, tamen uteris monitoribus isdem?
155 At si divitiae prudentem reddere possent,
156 si cupidum timidumque minus te, nempe ruberes,
157 viveret in terris te si quis avarior uno.
From the above, I want to extract a segment:
et cum sis nihilo sapientior ex quo
plenior es, tamen uteris monitoribus isdem?
In the extract are three clauses, right? #1: cum sis nihilo sapienter #2: ex quo plenior es #3: tamen uteris monitoribus isdem?
Is it acceptable grammar that #1 and #3 fit together as a cum-circumstantial and a main clause, with #1 verb “sis” in the subjunctive and #3 verb “uteris” in the indicative?
#2 however, is just an ordinary subordinate clause, depending on #1. Its verb “es” is in the indicative, because it states a real fact, “you are richer”, and because it matches none of the rules that call for the subjunctive. Is that acceptable?
We do textbook study, where like problems appear together under one heading, but when we read literature “in the wild” so to speak, we have to quickly call forth principles taught by the textbook in different chapters.
audieras – this is pluperfect indicative, not subjunctive. This is something like a conditional: “if you had heard that richer makes wiser, but you’re no wiser for being richer, will you keep on consulting the same teachers?” or “Supposing you had heard . . .” However, it’s more “vivid” (and probably fits the meter more readily) to state what is part of the protasis as a fact, rather than as a condition. “You had heard . . . . Will you use . . .?”
es – there’s no reason to put this in the subjunctive: yes, he actually did become richer – at least, that’s the premise or hypothesis. This isn’t a contrary to fact condition. Sis is subjunctive because cum is “circumstantial,” i.e., here, adversative. “Although you are no wiser from the fact that you are richer, will you nevertheless use the same teachers?” Uteris is future indicative, not imperfect subjunctive. Imperfect subjunctive would be utereris.
Again, this is all in the indicative (except for sis), and is not cast as a contrary to fact or future less vivid condition (as it might be in a more prosaic mode). The indicative makes this more lively and, well, vivid. This is consistent with the style of the Satires and Epistles.
Thank you for the corrections Hylander. The more basic my errors, the more important to commit them where they can be seen and corrected; this is a principle in which I often seek consolation.
