cum cecidere rosae

galleon586bt

New Member

In, "et monet aetatis specie, dum floreat, uti, contemni spinam, cum cecidere rosae." (Ovid Fasti 5. 353-4), indirect speech follows, "uti"; therefore, I expected a subjunctive in the "cum"-clause. Does the use of the indicative, here, mean that the invocation of a "cum"-clause breaks the chain of indirect speech?
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima

  • Aedilis

Location:
Belgium
This doesn't have to do with cum specifically, but there's just a bit of leeway with these things sometimes. (In this specific case, meter may have played a role in the choice, since ceciderint wouldn't have scanned.)
 
 

Dantius

Homo Sapiens

  • Civis Illustris

Location:
in orbe lacteo
There may also be a perceived difference between moneo + infinitive (what we have here, since uti and contemni are infinitives of utor and contemno), which is not strictly a type of indirect speech construction (it's not semantically the same as moneo with an acc+inf, like monet hanc viam periculosam esse, and its not grammatically the same as moneo with an ut clause), and a proper indirect command (monet ut utaris et ut spina contemnatur).
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima

  • Aedilis

Location:
Belgium
I was under the impression that the second part was, indeed, an indirect statement: we're being told to enjoy the beauty of youth while it lasts; (because) the thorn is despised when the roses have fallen.
 
 

Dantius

Homo Sapiens

  • Civis Illustris

Location:
in orbe lacteo
Right, you're correct. I was focused on the OP's statement about uti (thinking that either they took that as ut rather than the infinitive of utor, or that they took the infinitive uti as part of indirect statement) and failed to think about the actual meaning of the sentence.
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima

  • Aedilis

Location:
Belgium
Ah. It's hard to tell from the wording of the post whether galleon understood everything correctly.

Now, regarding the infinitive thing, I would actually argue that it isn't wrong to say that uti is part of indirect speech (it would be wrong to say it was part of an indirect statement). I would call it an indirect command even if it's an infinitive rather than an ut clause. I mean, this kind of infinitive does stand for what would have been an imperative in direct speech, doesn't it? Rather like in, e.g., Imperator "Venito," inquit, "cum vocaro!" ---> Imperator eum iussit cum ipse vocasset venire.
 
Top