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.
Method of Expressing Future Time in the Subjunctive.
[269]. The Future and Future Perfect, which are lacking to the Latin Subjunctive, are supplied in subordinate clauses as follows:—
1.