Latin indirect speech
Indirect speech or reported speech, often referred to as ōrātiō oblīqua, is the practice, common in all Latin historical writers, of reporting speeches and letters indirectly. Passages of indirect speech can extend from a single phrase to an entire paragraph, and this style was generally preferred by Roman historians to the direct speech commonly found in Greek authors.
A special set of grammatical forms used in indirect speech in Latin: the main verbs of statements and rhetorical questions are changed into one of the tenses of the infinitive; most other verbs are put into the subjunctive mood. When the verb is an infinitive, its subject is put into the accusative case. For subjunctive mood verbs, the writer can choose whether to use historic tenses or primary ones. The use of primary tenses in a past-time context is referred to in grammar books as repraesentātiō tempōrum.
The opposite of ōrātiō oblīqua, direct speech, is known in grammar books as ōrātiō rēcta. It is sometimes used in Roman historians to record a complete speech, but in general it is used only sparingly to highlight moments of exceptional drama, such as the words of the signal-bearer to his comrades before he leapt into the sea during Caesar's invasion of Britain. In Caesar there are some 191 passages of ōrātiō oblīqua compared with 21 of ōrātiō rēcta.
Although the term ōrātiō oblīqua strictly speaking refers to the reporting of spoken or written words, the same grammatical constructions are also used in sentences introduced by other verbs such as those of perceiving, showing, remembering, and thinking. These are also included in this article.
A typical example
The following short example gives an idea of indirect speech in practice, from the historian Cornelius Nepos's life of Hannibal, describing the king of Bithynia's reaction when Titus Quinctius Flamininus and other Roman ambassadors came to demand the surrender of Hannibal. The ōrātiō oblīqua begins from the word nē:Among the typical features of ōrātiō oblīqua illustrated here, the first is that the pronouns are changed to the viewpoint of the reporter. In this case they all become the 3rd person. The pronoun sē 'himself' is used to refer back to the speaker.
Another feature is that most of the verbs, except the last one, are changed into the subjunctive mood. In addition, in this example, since the introductory verb recūsāvit 'he refused' is in the perfect tense, the tense of the verbs is changed from present to imperfect, following the historic sequence of tenses.
In the last five words, which are an indirect statement, the accusative and infinitive construction is used, but in a shortened form. The full form would be dīxit eōs inventūrōs esse 'he said that they would find'. However, as often happens, all the words are dropped but for the future participle inventūrōs.
As often in extended passages of ōrātiō oblīqua, the verb of saying is omitted and has to be supplied from the general context.
Pronouns in indirect speech
Change of pronouns
One of the characteristics of ōrātiō oblīqua is that the pronouns and persons of the verb change in accordance to the viewpoint of the new speaker. Thus in the following example, the original speaker had said 'he is very grateful to you'. In indirect speech this becomes:and
Very often the viewpoint changes to the 3rd person, in which case the reflexive pronoun sē 'himself' and its various forms suī, sibī, sēcum, suus etc. are used in order to refer to the speaker of the reported words, while a 3rd person who is not the speaker is referred to using eum or illum. To avoid ambiguity in English, it is often necessary to insert a name:Sē can also be feminine or plural, when the speaker is female or plural. In this case it will be translated as 'she' or 'they':
The reflexive pronoun sē can be used to refer to the speaker even when the speaker is not strictly the grammatical subject of the sentence, as in this example:
However, sē and suus can be ambiguous, since in addition to referring to the speaker, they can also refer reflexively to the subject of the nearest verb. Thus in these two indirect questions, the word suās 'his' refers to the speaker, Ariovistus, but sibī refers to Caesar :
Similarly, in the following example, suum and sibī refer to the external subject, while sēcum refers to the king :
Omission of pronoun
A pronoun is usually used for the subject of an infinitive, even if it is omitted in direct speech. However, in some cases, when the pronoun is easily understood from the context, it can be dropped:Constructions with the infinitive
Accusative and infinitive
Verbs of speaking
The main grammatical form for statements in indirect speech is the accusative and infinitive construction. In this, the subject is put in the accusative case, and the verb becomes an infinitive. In each example below, the infinitive has been underlined:In extended passages of ōrātiō oblīqua it is not necessary for there to be a verb of speaking. Often it is to be supplied from the context:
When the infinitive esse is combined with a future or perfect participle, a gerundive, or an adjective, esse is sometimes omitted:
The accusative and infinitive is also used for expressing what someone shows or pretends to be the case:
Verbs of perception
An accusative and infinitive can also be used to express a piece of information which someone has been told, or by extension which someone has learnt about, noticed, realised, seen, dreamed of, perceived or simply knows:Verbs of perception such as videō 'I see' and inveniō 'I find' can also be followed by a present participle. In the following example, the two constructions are shown side by side:
Introductory verbs of speaking, thinking, realising, pretending etc. are known as verba dēclārandī, while those of learning, seeing, hearing, noticing, and knowing are known as verba sentiendī.
Verbs of thinking and feeling
Another reason to use the accusative and infinitive is to express someone's thoughts, such as the reasons for undertaking a certain course of action:It can similarly be used with verbs such as spērō 'I hope', cōnfīdō 'I am sure', meminī 'I remember', and oblīvīscor 'I forget':
Occasionally verbs of emotion such as 'I am glad' or 'I am sorry' can take an accusative and infinitive; although the more usual construction is a quod-clause:
Verbs of will and command
The accusative and infinitive construction can also be used after verbs of will, such as volō 'I want' and mālō 'I prefer', but mainly when the person has no power over the action:The construction is also used with iubeō 'I order', sinō 'I allow' and vetō 'I forbid':
Quite commonly these verbs are used with a passive infinitive:
Verbs of will and command also frequently take the construction ut with the subjunctive.
Negative statements
When the reported sentence is negative, it is common to use the verb negō rather than dīcō... nōn:Similarly nōn putō is used in preference to putō... nōn:
In the same way vetō 'I forbid' is used in place of iubeō... nōn.
Passive verb of speaking
When the verb of speaking is passive, it can be used either personally or impersonally. A present tense such as dīcitur is usually used personally:When the verb uses a compound tense it is usually used impersonally, hence with an accusative and infinitive:
When the verb of speaking is used personally, the subject of the reported statement, and hence any participles agreeing with it, are nominative:
Sometimes an active verb of speaking can be used with a simple infinitive, but only in poetry:
Verbs of will, when passive, are always used personally:
Constructions with the subjunctive
Indirect questions
Wh-questions
Indirect questions which are dependent on a verb of asking in the classical period always use a subjunctive verb.As the above examples illustrate, the present subjunctive is usual after a present tense and in imperfect after a past tense, in according with the sequence of tenses rule.
A question in ōrātiō oblīqua does not always have an introductory verb, but can be indicated as indirect by the use of the subjunctive mood. The following questions come in the middle of a long speech by the Germanic chieftain Ariovistus:
However, not all questions in ōrātiō oblīqua use the subjunctive. A rhetorical question is put in the accusative and infinitive construction:
Yes-no questions
Indirect questions expecting an answer yes or no can be introduced by -ne or num :After nesciō, the particle an is used, and it is also sometimes used after other verbs. The phrase nesciō an 'I don't know whether' means simply 'perhaps':
Sometimes an indirect question can begin with sī 'if'. The usual meaning is 'in order to see if':
Colloquially sī can also mean simply 'whether':
Disjunctive questions
Alternative questions are introduced by utrum... an, -ne... an, or simply... an or... -ne. But for 'or not', necne is used instead of annōn:Although cōnfīdō 'I am confident that' takes the accusative and infinitive, the phrase nōn dubitō 'I do not doubt' is followed by quīn and a subjunctive verb, in the same way as an indirect question:The construction with quīn can also be used after other negative phrases:
Verbs of fearing
Verbs of fearing such as timeō, metuō, and vereor 'I am afraid' are generally followed by nē with the subjunctive:For a negative fear, nē nōn can be used:
Otherwise ut is used, and 'not' must be added in English:
Normally a verb of fearing is followed by a fear for a later time, but it can sometimes equally be a fear for something past, in which case it will be followed by a perfect or pluperfect subjunctive:
Indirect commands and wishes
Indirect commands and wishes often take a construction with a subjunctive verb, usually following the conjunctions ut/utī or nē. This construction is common after verb such as imperō 'I order', rogō 'I ask', petō 'I request', moneō 'I advise', persuādeō 'I persuade', hortor 'I exhort' and others:In negative commands, it is usual to write nē umquam 'not ever' instead of numquam 'never', nē quis 'not anyone' instead of nēmō and so on.
If there are two negative commands, the second starts with neu or nēve:
If a positive command follows a negative, it begins with et or -que or atque:
In longer passages of ōrātiō oblīqua, where there is no introductory verb, ut can be omitted:
With wishes, the word ut can be omitted:
If the wish is for something which didn't happen, the main verb becomes imperfect subjunctive and the dependent verb pluperfect subjunctive:
Other clauses with
In addition, various expressions such as accidit ut 'it happened that', effēcit ut 'he brought it about that', etc. are followed by an ut-clause with the subjunctive. However, these are generally classified in grammar books as a type of consecutive clause, rather than ōrātiō oblīqua, and the negative is ut... nōn:clauses
with the indicative
Another way of expressing the English conjunction 'that...' is to use a quod-clause, with the indicative. This is found whenever the meaning is 'the fact that...'; for exampleQuod is also used after verbs of adding or omitting:
It is also found after verbs of emotion such as 'I am glad that', 'I am sorry that', 'it turned out well that' and so on:
with the subjunctive
In later Latin, quod with the subjunctive could substitute for the accusative an infinitive in indirect statement, though this did not become common until the second century AD:This type of clause with quod gradually took over from the accusative and infinitive construction and became the usual way of expressing indirect speech in modern Romance languages which are descended from Latin.
Tenses in indirect speech
Overview
Tenses in indirect speech in Latin are generally of two kinds: the subjunctive and the infinitive. When the subjunctive is used, usually the primary tenses are used after a primary tense in the verb of speaking, while the historic tenses are used after a historic tense. However, when the introductory verb is a historic present, or where there is no introductory verb, the writer has a choice, and can use either primary or historic sequence, or even a mixture of the two.Because the number of subjunctive and infinitive tenses is smaller than the number of indicative tenses, sometimes minor distinctions between tenses are lost in ōrātiō oblīqua; for example, 'I know what he did' and 'I know what he was doing' are not distinguished, and there is also no distinction between the logical future condition and the ideal future condition.
The periphrastic tenses with the future participle are used only in indirect questions and after nōn dubitō quīn 'I do not doubt that'. In other kinds of embedded sentences the present or imperfect subjunctive are used with a future meaning.
For the most part in subordinate clauses in ōrātiō oblīqua, the verb is also in one of the four basic subjunctive tenses.
| Reported situation | Subjunctive | Subjunctive | Infinitive |
| Contemporaneous | Present dūcat dūcātur | Imperfect dūceret dūcerētur | Present dūcere dūcī |
| Earlier event | Perfect dūxerit ductus sit | Pluperfect dūxisset ductus esset | Perfect dūxisse ductus esse |
| Later event | Periphrastic present ductūrus sit | Periphrastic imperfect ductūrus esset | Future ductūrus esse ductum īrī fore ut + pres/impf. subj. |
| Unreal potential | Periphrastic perfect ductūrus fuerit | Periphrastic pluperfect ductūrus fuisset | Periphrastic perfect ductūrus fuisse futūrum fuisse ut + pres/impf. subj. |
| Future perfect | Future perfect ductus fore fore ut + pf/plupf.subj. |
Possible situations
Contemporaneous situation
If the sentence describes a situation contemporaneous with the verb of speaking, the present infinitive is used. It can equally be active or passive:If the sentence is an indirect question, the present subjunctive is normally used after a primary tense verb:
But the imperfect subjunctive is used after a historic verb:
The present or imperfect subjunctive after nōn dubitō quīn would also normally refer to a current situation:
However, sometimes, the present subjunctive after nōn dubitō quīn can refer to a future event.
A present or imperfect subjunctive can also represent a deliberative subjunctive in direct speech:
Earlier event or situation
If the reported sentence describes an event or situation earlier than the introductory verb, the perfect infinitive is used:If the infinitive is passive, the esse part can sometimes be omitted:
An exception to this rule is that with the verb meminī 'I remember', when the sentence describes a personal reminiscence, the present infinitive is used even though it refers to an event earlier than the introductory verb:
In indirect questions, after a primary tense verb, an event earlier than the verb of speaking is usually represented by the perfect subjunctive:
But a past tense verb is followed by the pluperfect subjunctive:
With the perfect subjunctive in indirect questions there is sometimes some ambiguity, since this tense can also represent an imperfect or pluperfect tense of direct speech:
The pluperfect subjunctive can also be a reflection of an original imperfect tense. In the following example, according to Woodcock, the original verbs would have been mīlitābāmus and habēbāmus:
Later event or situation
If an indirect statement describes an event or situation later than the introductory verb, the future infinitive is used. This consists of the future participle + esse, if active, or the supine + īrī if passive. The future participle is an adjective, and so changes for number and gender:As with the perfect passive infinitive, the esse part can be omitted.
Because the future passive infinitive is made using the supine, the ending -um does not change with gender or number:
The verb sum has its own future infinitive fore, equivalent to futūrum esse:
Fore can be used in the periphrasis fore ut followed by a present or imperfect subjunctive to report a future event. This can be used with an active or a passive verb:
The verb possum has no future infinitive, but the infinitive posse can sometimes refer to a future time relative to the main verb.
In an indirect question or after nōn dubitō quīn, the future participle is combined with the present or imperfect subjunctive:
However, after nōn dubitō quīn sometimes the simple subjunctive alone can also have a future meaning, if the context makes it clear:
Since in ōrātiō oblīqua there is no distinction between a future condition and an ideal one, the above sentence could also be interpreted as being an ideal conditional.
In indirect commands and after verbs of will, the simple present infinitive has a future meaning. Thus in the first of the sentences below, the future infinitive is used, but in the second, the simple infinitive:
Future perfect situation
If the main verb of a reported statement is a reflection of a future perfect tense in direct speech, it cannot be expressed using an active verb, but it is possible to use a perfect or deponent perfect participle with fore:Very rarely a future perfect of direct speech can be represented in indirect speech by fore ut followed by a perfect or pluperfect subjunctive:
No examples are given in grammar books of an indirect question expressing a future perfect situation.
As the examples above illustrate, in a subordinate clause in ōrātiō oblīqua the future perfect tense usually becomes either the perfect subjunctive or pluperfect subjunctive, according to whether the tense of the introductory verb is primary or historic. In some cases, however, when the introductory verb is in the 1st or 2nd person, the future perfect indicative is retained.
Ideal conditional sentences
The distinction between the ideal conditional and the simple future conditional. Thus in an indirect statement, the future participle is used, just as with a future logical conditional:In the following indirect statement, the future infinitive of sum is combined with a gerundive to express what would happen in a hypothetical future situation:
Similarly, in an indirect question about a hypothetical unreal situation, the periphrastic present subjunctive is found, just as in a logical future conditional:
Unreal conditional sentences (present)
If a reported statement depends on a situation contrary to fact, the verb takes the form of a future participle + fuisse, which is known as the periphrastic perfect infinitive. The following examples illustrate a present unreal situation:If the sentence is an indirect question, according to Woodcock, the periphrastic perfect subjunctive can be used. The following example is quoted by Woodcock as describing a hypothetical present or future situation:
However, the following statement based on an unreal present condition uses the simple imperfect subjunctive to refer to a hypothetical future situation:
As illustrated above, in an unreal conditional, the imperfect or pluperfect tense of the subjunctive in the protasis ' remains unchanged, even after a primary tense verb.
Unreal conditional sentences (past)
The future participle plus fuisse more frequently refers to a past situation contrary to fact:Just as fore ut is used to make a future passive infinitive, so futūrum fuisse ut can occasionally be used to make a potential passive infinitive. However, this is very rare, and only two instances have been noted:
The perfect infinitive of possum can also be used in the main clause of an unreal past conditional:
An indirect question about an unreal past situation similarly has the future participle plus the perfect subjunctive of sum:
It is also possible to use the perfect subjunctive potuerit with the present infinitive; that is, to write 'could have done' instead of 'would have done', since the two are close in meaning:
After a historic introductory verb, the perfect subjunctive is usually still retained :
The same is true if the sentence has potuerit:
Occasionally the subjunctive becomes pluperfect, but this is rare, and found only in Livy:
Use of primary and historic tenses
Just as in narrative, when writers often change from the perfect to the historical present tense to make their writing more vivid, so in the same way the tenses of subjunctives in indirect speech can be changed to the two primary tenses even when the context is past. This practice is known as repraesentātiō temporum.Usually if the introductory verb of indirect speech is in a primary tense, the subjunctive verbs are primary, while if it is historic, the subjunctive verbs are historic. However, even in the same sentence, a writer may switch between historic and primary tenses, as in the following example, in which peterent is historic, despite the present tense introductory verb, but vulneret and vīderit are primary:
Commenting on this sentence, Postgate suggests that the change to primary tenses represents some 'sharpening of the emphasis'.
Practice of different authors
Andrewes points out that different authors have different practices in this regard. Cicero generally follows the sequence of tenses, but this is not always true of Caesar. In some examples Caesar seems to use the present subjunctive to refer to a future time, and the imperfect to refer to the current situation, as in the following:Both Livy and Tacitus, on the other hand, tend to use a present or perfect subjunctive to represent a present or perfect indicative in direct speech. An example from Livy is the following, in which the perfect subjunctive āfuerit represents a perfect indicative āfuit, and imperfect subjunctive peteret represents an imperfect indicative petēbat in direct speech:
However, when the original verb in direct speech in these authors is subjunctive, it does not always keep its tense in ōrātiō oblīqua, but follows the sequence of tenses rule. In the following sentence of Tacitus, the present subjunctive dūcātur represents a present indicative, but the imperfects spectāret and compōneret, following the historic introductory verb, represent present subjunctives in direct speech:
The use of primary and historic subjunctives in this example from Tacitus is the opposite of the preceding examples from Caesar, since in Tacitus the present subjunctive refers to the current situation, and the imperfect to future time. However, Caesar is not always consistent, and Postgate observes that as far as the future and future perfect of direct speech when transferred to ōrātiō oblīqua are concerned, 'the usage of Caesar appears to be irreducible to general rules'.
Indicative in subordinate clauses
Although the verb in a subordinate clause in ōrātiō oblīqua is usually in the subjunctive mood, when the verb of speaking is 1st or 2nd person, the indicative can be used:The present indicative can also be retained after dum:
A relative clause which is merely explanatory also uses the indicative:
Woodcock notes that the use of the indicative is more common after a primary tense introductory verb than a historic one, and also sometimes in cases where the use of the subjunctive might cause ambiguity.In Latin historians, ōrātiō oblīqua is very common. In Caesar's commentaries, there are some 190 instances of indirect speech, but only 21 direct speeches. The direct speeches tend to be quite short, although there are some longer ones, such as Curio's speech to his troops before a battle. Quite often they mark dramatic moments, including several speeches made just before a battle, such as Caesar's own speech before the battle of Pharsalia, or the eagle-bearer's encouragement to his comrades before leaping into the sea when Caesar's invading force reached the coast of Britain. In some cases they are accompanied by phrases such as vōce magnā 'in a loud voice'. It is likely that during a public recitation of the work, such passages allowed the reciter to add extra drama to the recitation.
In Livy too, direct speech is found sparingly but at dramatic moments. These include the words of the Delphic oracle announcing the future ruler of Rome, the words of the heroines Lucretia and Sophoniba before they committed suicide, and the announcement to the people of the tragedy of Lake Trasimene.