Latin indirect speech

Indirect speech or reported speech, often referred to as ōrātiō oblīqua (/əˈreɪʃɪoʊ əˈblaɪkwə/ or /oʊˈrɑːtɪoʊ ɒˈbliːkwə/),[1] 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.

For Oratio obliqua as a topic in philosophy, see Oratio obliqua (philosophy).
Latin grammar

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 (unless the introductory verb is passive) is put into the accusative case. For subjunctive mood verbs, the writer can choose whether to use historic tenses (imperfect and pluperfect) or primary ones (present and perfect). 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,[2] 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.[3] In Caesar there are some 191 passages of ōrātiō oblīqua compared with 21 of ōrātiō rēcta.[4]

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.[5][6] 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:

hīs Prūsia negāre ausus nōn est; illud recūsāvit, nē id ā sē fierī postulārent, quod adversus iūs hospitiī esset: ipsī, sī possent, comprehenderent; locum, ubi esset, facile inventūrōs (Nepos)[7] 'to these men Prusias did not dare to say no; but one thing he refused: they should not demand something to be done by him which was against the law of hospitality: they themselves, if they could, should arrest Hannibal; they would easily find the place where he was'

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.[8]

Another feature is that most of the verbs (here underlined), except the last one, are changed into the subjunctive mood.[9] 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.[10]

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.[11]

As often in extended passages of ōrātiō oblīqua, the verb of saying is omitted and has to be supplied from the general context.[12]

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:

ad mē scrīpsit tē mihī maximās grātiās agere (Cicero)[13]
'he wrote to me that you were very grateful to me'

Sē and suus

Very often the viewpoint changes to the 3rd person, in which case the reflexive pronoun sē (or sēsē) '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.[14] To avoid ambiguity in English, it is often necessary to insert a name:

dīxit sē scīre illum verbīs conceptīs pēierāsse (Cicero)[15]
'Africanus said that he (Africanus) knew that Licinius had been lying when he took the oath'

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':

uxor eius dīxit sē in balneīs virīlibus lavārī velle (Gellius)[16]
'his wife said that she wished to bathe in the men's baths'
dīxērunt sē dēceptōs (Pliny the Younger)[17]
'they said they had been cheated'

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:[18]

ā Caesare invītor sibī ut sim lēgātus (Cicero)[19]
'I have been invited by Caesar to be one of his deputy commanders'

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 (the subject of vellet):

quid sibī vellet? cūr in suās possessiōnēs venīret? (Caesar)[20]
'what did Caesar want for himself? why was he entering Ariovistus's territory?'

Similarly, in the following example, suum and sibī refer to the external subject (the Roman senators), while sēcum refers to the king (the subject of habēret):

lēgātōs in Bīthȳniam mīsērunt, quī ab rēge peterent, nē inimīcissimum suum sēcum habēret sibīque dēderet (Nepos)[21]
'they sent ambassadors to Bithynia, who were to request the king that he should not keep their greatest enemy with him, but hand him over to them'

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:[22]

reperit esse vēra (Caesar)[23]
'he found out that (those things) were true'

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:

ille respondit sē ignōrāre Aristīdēn (Nepos)[24]
'he replied that he did not know Aristides personally'

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:

nūntium mittit ut veniant: rem atrōcem incidisse (Livy)[25]
'she sent a messenger to say that they should come: a terrible thing had happened'

When the infinitive esse is combined with a future or perfect participle, a gerundive, or an adjective, esse is sometimes omitted:

pollicētur L. Pīsō cēnsor sēsē itūrum ad Caesarem (Caesar)[26]
'Lucius Piso, the Censor, promised that he would go to Caesar'

The accusative and infinitive is also used for expressing what someone shows or pretends to be the case:

sē proficīscī ad Caesarem simulāvit (Caesar)[27]
'he pretended that he was setting off to see Caesar'

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:[28]

cognovērunt Caesarem ipsum in classe vēnisse ([Caesar])[29]
'they learnt that Caesar himself had come in the fleet'
sēnsit prōditum cōnsilium esse (Livy)[30]
'he realised that the plot had been betrayed'
vīdit in magnō sē fore perīculō, nisi quid prōvīdisset (Nepos)[31]
'he foresaw that he was going to be in great danger, unless he took some precautions'

Verbs of perception such as videō 'I see' and inveniō 'I find' can also be followed by a present participle (without esse). In the following example, the two constructions are shown side by side:

respiciēns videt magnīs intervallīs sequentēs, ūnum haud procul ab sēsē abesse (Livy)[32]
'looking back, he saw them following at wide intervals, and that one of them was not far away from him'

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.[33]

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:

magnō sibī ūsuī fore arbitrābātur, sī modo īnsulam adiisset (Caesar)[34]
'he thought it would be very useful for him, if he could just go to the island'

It can similarly be used with verbs such as spērō 'I hope', cōnfīdō 'I am sure', meminī 'I remember', and oblīvīscor 'I forget':

spērō tē istīc iūcundē hiemāre (Cicero)[35]
'I hope you are passing a pleasant winter there'
cōnfīdō tē esse factūrum (Cicero)[36]
'I am sure that you are going to do it'
nōn possum oblīvīscī meam hanc esse patriam (Cicero)[37]
'I cannot forget that this country is mine'

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:[38]

salvum tē advēnisse gaudeō (Terence)[39]
'I'm glad you've arrived safely'

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:[40]

vīs mē flēre (Horace)[41]
'you want me to weep'
māluit sē dīligī quam metuī (Nepos)[42]
'he preferred to be loved than feared'

The construction is also used with iubeō 'I order', sinō 'I allow' and vetō 'I forbid':

centuriōnēs sē sequī iubet (Caesar)[43]
'he ordered the centurions to follow him'
esse trīstem mē meus vetat Paetus (Martial)[44]
'my friend Paetus forbids me to be sad'

Quite commonly these verbs are used with a passive infinitive:[45]

Caesar pontem iubet rescindī (Caesar)[46]
'Caesar ordered the bridge to be broken down'
vīnum importārī nōn sinunt (Caesar)[47]
'they do not allow wine to be imported'
hoc fierī nūlla lēx vetat (Cicero)[48]
'no law forbids this to be done / says this may not be done'

Verbs of will and command also frequently take the construction ut with the subjunctive (see below).[49]

Negative statements

When the reported sentence is negative, it is common to use the verb negō rather than dīcō ... nōn:[50]

Phōciōn negāvit esse perīculum (Nepos)[51]
'Phocion denied that there was any danger / said there was no danger'

Similarly nōn putō is used in preference to putō ... nōn:

hospitem violāre fās nōn putant (Caesar)[52]
'they do not think it is right to do violence to a guest'

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 ('he is said to have done it') or impersonally ('it is said that he did it').[53] A present tense such as dīcitur is usually used personally:

Corinthī dīcitur lūdum aperuisse (Cicero)[54]
'he is said to have opened a school at Corinth'

When the verb uses a compound tense (such as the perfect passive) it is usually used impersonally, hence with an accusative and infinitive:

nūntiātum est adesse Scīpiōnem cum legiōnibus (Caesar)[55]
'it was reported that Scipio was present with his legions'

When the verb of speaking is used personally, the subject of the reported statement, and hence any participles agreeing with it, are nominative:

ventūrus esse dīcitur (Cicero)[56]
'he is said to be planning to come'

Sometimes an active verb of speaking can be used with a simple infinitive, but only in poetry:

ait fuisse nāvium celerrimus (Catullus)[57]
'he says that he was once the fastest of boats'

Verbs of will, when passive, are always used personally:[58]

Nōlānī mūrōs adīre vetitī sunt (Livy)[59]
'the people of Nola were forbidden to approach the walls'

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.[60]

quaerunt ā mē ubī sit pecūnia (Cicero)[61]
'they are asking me where the money is'
quaesīvit unde esset epistula (Cicero)[62]
'he asked where the letter was from'

As the above examples illustrate, the present (or perfect) subjunctive is usual after a present tense and in imperfect (or pluperfect) 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:

quid sibī vellet? cūr in suās possessiōnēs venīret? (Caesar)[63]
'what did Caesar want for himself? why was he entering Ariovistus's territory?'

However, not all questions in ōrātiō oblīqua use the subjunctive. A rhetorical question (provided it is not directly dependent on a verb of speaking, and provided that it is not derived from an originally 2nd person verb) is put in the accusative and infinitive construction:[64]

quōnam haec omnia nisī ad suam perniciem pertinēre? (Caesar)[65]
'what purpose did all these things have except for his own destruction?'
quid esse turpius quam auctōre hoste capere consilium? (Caesar)[66]
'what could be more shameful than to adopt a course of action at the enemy's behest?'

Yes-no questions

Indirect questions expecting an answer yes or no can be introduced by -ne or num ('whether', 'if'):

quaesīvit ā mē vellemne sēcum in castra proficīscī (Nepos)[67]
'he asked me whether I wanted to go with him to the camp'
pecūniam admōvit ad nārēs, scīscitāns num odōre offenderētur (Suetonius)[68]
'he held the money under Titus's nose and asked if he was offended by the smell'

After nesciō, the particle an is used, and it is also sometimes used after other verbs (but not in Caesar or Cicero).[69] The phrase nesciō an 'I don't know whether' means simply 'perhaps':

veniō nunc ad id quod nesciō an prīmum esse dēbuerit (Cicero)[70]
'I now come to what perhaps ought to have been first'

Sometimes an indirect question can begin with sī 'if'. The usual meaning is 'in order to see if':[71]

circumfunduntur hostēs sī quem aditum reperīre possent (Caesar)[72]
'the enemy poured round (to see) if they could find any way of getting near'

Colloquially sī can also mean simply 'whether':

quaesīvit sī cum Rōmānīs mīlitāre licēret (Livy)[73]
'he asked if it were possible to serve in the Roman army'

Disjunctive questions

Alternative (disjunctive) questions are introduced by utrum ... an, -ne ... an, or simply ... an or ... -ne. But for 'or not', necne is used instead of annōn:[74]

cōnsultābat utrum Rōmam proficīscerētur an Capuam tenēret (Cicero)[75]
'he was deliberating whether he should set out to Rome or make for Capua'
albus āterne fuerit ignōrās (Cicero)[76]
'you have no idea whether he was white or black'
cum sciēs Rōmae intercalātum sit necne, velim ad mē scrībās (Cicero)[77]
'as soon as you know whether or not the calendar in Rome has been adjusted, please write to me'

Nōn dubitō quīn

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:[78]

nec dubitāvēre quīn ipse rēx esset occīsus (Curtius)[79]
'nor did they doubt that the king himself had been killed'

The construction with quīn can also be used after other negative phrases:

neque abest suspīciō quīn ipse sibī mortem conscīverit (Caesar)[80]
'there is also a suspicion that he planned his own death'

Verbs of fearing

Verbs of fearing such as timeō, metuō, and vereor 'I am afraid' are generally followed by nē with the subjunctive:[81]

timuit, nē forte sacer tot ab ignibus aethēr conciperet flammās (Ovid)[82]
'he became afraid in case by chance the sacred air might burst into flames from so many fires'

For a negative fear, nē nōn can be used:

timeō nē nōn impetrem (Cicero)[83]
'I am afraid that I might not be granted my request'

Otherwise ut is used, and 'not' must be added in English:

ōrnāmenta quae locāvī metuō ut possim recipere (Plautus)[84]
'as for the costume I've lent, I'm afraid I may not be able to get it back!'

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:

timuī nē in contubernium recēpissem Ascyltī parem (Petronius)[85]
'I was afraid I had let Ascyltos's double into the lodgings'

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:[86]

imperāvit eī ut omnēs forēs aedificiī circumīret (Nepos)[87]
'he ordered him to go round all the doors of the building'
petit ut ad Caesarem mitterētur (Caesar)[88]
'he requested to be sent to Caesar'
moneō nē faciātis (Cicero)[89]
'I advise you not to do it'

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.[90]

ēdīxī nē quis iniussū meō proficīscerētur (Cicero)[91]
'I made an edict that no one was to leave without my permission'

If there are two negative commands, the second starts with neu or nēve:[92]

Pausaniās ōrāre coepit nē ēnūntiāret neu sē prōderet (Nepos)[93]
'Pausanias began to beg him not to tell anyone or to betray him'

If a positive command follows a negative, it begins with et or -que or atque:[94]

nē inimīcissimum suum sēcum habēret sibīque dēderet (Nepos)[95]
'he should not keep their greatest enemy with him, but he should surrender him to them'

In longer passages of ōrātiō oblīqua, where there is no introductory verb, ut can be omitted:

ipsī, sī possent, comprehenderent (Nepos)[96]
'they themselves should arrest him, if they could'

With wishes, the word ut can be omitted:[97]

eās litterās volō habeās (Cicero)[98]
'I want you to have those compositions'

If the wish is for something which didn't happen, the main verb becomes imperfect subjunctive and the dependent verb pluperfect subjunctive:

vellem mē ad cēnam invītāssēs (Cicero)[99]
'I wish you had invited me to dinner'

Other clauses with ut

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:[100]

accidit cāsū ut lēgātī Prūsiae Rōmae cēnārent (Nepos)[101]
'it happened by chance that some ambassadors of King Prusias were dining in Rome'
effēcit ut imperātor cum exercitū in Hispāniam mitterētur (Nepos)[102]
'he arranged to be sent to Spain as commander with an army'
utinam quidem dī immortālēs fēcissent ut tuus potius mīles quam Cn. Pompeī factus essem! (De Bello Hispaniensi)[103]
'if only the immortal gods had brought it about that I had become your soldier rather than Gnaeus Pompeius's!'

Quod clauses

Quod 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 example

quod rediit nōbīs mīrābile vidētur (Cicero)[104]
'that he (Regulus) returned seems marvellous to us'

Quod is also used after verbs of adding or omitting:[105]

praetereō quod eam sibī domum dēlēgit (Cicero)[106]
'I pass over the fact that he chose that house for himself'

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:[107]

dolet mihi quod tū nunc stomachāris (Cicero)[108]
'I'm sorry that you're angry now'

Quod 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:[109]

lēgātī renūntiāvērunt quod Pompeium in potestāte habērent (De Bello Hispaniensi)[110]
'the ambassadors reported that they had Pompey in their power'
et vīdit Deus quod esset bonum (Vulgate Bible)[111]
'and God saw that it was good'

This type of clause with quod (which became que in modern French, Portuguese, and Spanish and che in Italian) 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 (used for indirect questions and commands, as well as most subordinate clauses) and the infinitive (used for indirect statements and rhetorical questions). When the subjunctive is used, usually the primary tenses (present or imperfect) are used after a primary tense in the verb of speaking (such as a present or future), while the historic tenses (imperfect or pluperfect) are used after a historic tense (this is known as the 'sequence of tenses rule'). 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.[112]

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,[113] and there is also no distinction between the logical future condition ('if this happens') and the ideal future condition ('if this were to happen').[114]

The periphrastic tenses with the future participle are used only in indirect questions and after nōn dubitō quīn 'I do not doubt that'.[115] In other kinds of embedded sentences (e.g. after verbs of command or fearing) 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 (present, imperfect, perfect, pluperfect).[116]

Tenses available in ōrātiō oblīqua (using dūcō 'I lead')
Reported situation Subjunctive
(primary sequence)		 Subjunctive
(historic sequence)		 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 (rare)[117]		 Periphrastic perfect
ductūrus fuisse
futūrum fuisse ut + pres/impf. subj.
Future perfect Future perfect
ductus fore (rare)
fore ut + pf/plupf.subj. (rare)

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:

hostēs adesse nūntiātum est (Livy)[118]
'it was announced that the enemy were present'
sēnsit sē petī (Nepos)[119]
'he realised that he was being sought'

If the sentence is an indirect question, the present subjunctive is normally used after a primary tense verb:

quaerunt ā mē ubi sit pecūnia (Cicero)[120]
'they are asking me where the money is'

But the imperfect subjunctive is used after a historic verb:

quaesīvit unde esset epistula (Cicero)[121]
'he asked where the letter was from'

The present or imperfect subjunctive after nōn dubitō quīn would also normally refer to a current situation:

nōn dubitō quīn sciās cuius mūnicipī sim (Cicero)[122]
'I am sure you know what town I am from'
nec dubitavēre Persae quīn Macedones fugerent (Curtius)[123]
'nor did the Persians doubt that the Macedonians were fleeing'

However, sometimes, the present subjunctive after nōn dubitō quīn can refer to a future event (see examples below).[124]

A present or imperfect subjunctive can also represent a deliberative subjunctive ('what are we to do?') in direct speech:[125]

neque satis cōnstābat quid agerent (Caesar)[126]
'nor was it very clear what they ought to do'

Earlier event or situation

If the reported sentence describes an event or situation earlier than the introductory verb, the perfect infinitive is used:

mihī nūntiāvit M. Marcellum pugiōne percussum esse et duo vulnera accēpisse (Servius to Cicero)[127]
'he brought me news that Marcus Marcellus had been stabbed with a dagger and had received two wounds'
quod factitāsse Alexandrum legimus Magnum (Ammianus)[128]
'which is something that we read Alexander the Great frequently used to do'

If the infinitive is passive (e.g. interfectum esse), the esse part can sometimes be omitted:

frātrem interfectum audīvit (Seneca)[129]
'he heard that his brother had been killed'

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:[130]

meminī mē adesse (Cicero)[131]
'I remember being present'

In indirect questions, after a primary tense verb, an event earlier than the verb of speaking is usually represented by the perfect subjunctive:

rogās quae castra vīderit (Cicero)[132]
'you ask what military service he has seen'

But a past tense verb is followed by the pluperfect subjunctive:

herī mīrābar quid accidisset (Cicero)[133]
'yesterday I was wondering what had happened'
nōn dubitābāmus quīn tū iam Brundisium pervēnissēs (Cicero)[134]
'we were sure that you had already reached Brundisium'

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:[135]

quid lēgātī ēgerint nōndum scīmus (Cicero)[136]
'we do not yet know what the ambassadors have done' (or 'were doing', or 'did', or 'had done')

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:[137]

[dīxit eōs] id tantum dēprecārī, nē īnferiōrēs iīs ordinēs quam quōs cum mīlitāssent habuissent adtribuantur (Livy)[138]
'[he said] that they begged just one favour, that they should be not assigned lower ranks than those which they had held when they were on military service'

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:

sēque ad tē litterās datūrōs esse dīxērunt (Cicero)[139]
'and they said that they were going to send a letter to you'

As with the perfect passive infinitive, the esse part can be omitted.

iussit mihī nūntiāri mox sē ventūrum (Cicero)[140]
'he ordered a message to be taken to me that he was going to come soon'

Because the future passive infinitive is made using the supine, the ending -um does not change with gender or number:

rūmor venit datum īrī gladiātōres (Terence)[141]
'a rumour comes that there is going to be gladiatorial show'

The verb sum has its own future infinitive fore, equivalent to futūrum esse:

comitia fore non arbitror (Cicero)[142]
'I don't think there will be an election'

Fore can be used in the periphrasis fore ut (occasionally futūrum esse ut or futūrum ut) followed by a present or imperfect subjunctive to report a future event. This can be used with an active or a passive verb:[143]

respondērunt Chaldaeī fore ut imperāret mātremque occīderet (Tacitus)[144]
'the astrologers replied that (Nero) would become Emperor, and that he would kill his mother'
omnēs id fore putābant ut miser virgīs caederētur (Cicero)[145]
'they all thought that the poor man was going to be beaten with the rods'
futūrum esse, nisī prōvīsum esset, ut Rōma caperētur (Cicero)[146]
'the voice said it was inevitable that, unless some precaution was taken, Rome would be captured'

The verb possum has no future infinitive, but the infinitive posse can sometimes refer to a future time relative to the main verb.[147]

spērat posse fierī ut mēcum in Italiam dēcēdat (Cicero)[148]
'he hopes it is going to be possible for him to leave for Italy with me'

In an indirect question or after nōn dubitō quīn, the future participle is combined with the present or imperfect subjunctive:

quid ille factūrus sit incertum est (Cicero)[149]
'it is uncertain what he is going to do'
nec dubitō quīn mihī placitūra sit (Cicero)[150]
'I am sure that I am going to like it' (viz. your play)
nōn dubitō quīn impetrātūrus sīs (Cicero)[151]
'I am sure that your request will be granted'
monuit Crassum quid ēventūrum esset, nisi cāvisset (Cicero)[152]
'he warned Crassus what would happen, if he wasn't careful'

However, after nōn dubitō quīn sometimes the simple subjunctive alone can also have a future meaning, if the context makes it clear:[153]

nōn dubitō quīn, quoad plānē valeās, tē neque nāvigātiōnī neque viae committās (Cicero)[154]
'I am sure that you will not commit yourself to sailing or travelling until you are completely better'
nōn dubitō quīn ad tē statim veniam (Cicero)[155]
'I am sure I shall come to you immediately'
haec sī Ariovistō nūntiāta sint, nōn dubitāre quīn dē omnibus supplicium sūmat (Caesar)[156]
'they said that if these things were reported to Ariovistus, they did not doubt that he would punish them all'

Since in ōrātiō oblīqua there is no distinction between a future condition and an ideal one,[157] the above sentence could also be interpreted as being an ideal conditional ('if Ariovistus were to hear of this, he would punish us all').

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:

L. Lentulus cōnsul rēī pūblicae sē nōn dēfutūrum pollicētur (Caesar)[158]
'Lucius Lentulus the consul promised that he would not fail the Republic'
Pompeiō esse in animō rēī pūblicae non dēesse (Caesar)[159]
'he said that Pompey was determined not to fail the Republic'

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:[160]

hoc possum dīcere, mē satis adeptum fore, sī nūllum in mē perīculum redundārit (Cicero)[161]
'I can say this, that I will have achieved enough, if no danger redounds on me'
metum sī quī sūstulisset, omnem vītae dīligentiam sublātam fore (Cicero)[162]
'if someone removed fear, all carefulness of life would be removed too'
Carthāginiēsēs dēbellātum mox fore rēbantur (Livy)[163]
'the Carthaginians thought that the war was soon going to have been brought to an end'

Very rarely a future perfect of direct speech can be represented in indirect speech by fore ut followed by a perfect or pluperfect subjunctive:[164]

spērābam, cum hās litterās accēpissēs, fore ut ea quae superiōribus litterīs ā tē petīssēmus impetrāta essent (Cicero)[165]
'I hope (epistolary imperfect) that by the time you receive this letter, the things which I requested from you in my earlier letter will have been granted'

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 (redundārit) or pluperfect subjunctive (sustulisset, accēpissēs), 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 (see examples below).

Ideal conditional sentences

The distinction between the ideal conditional ('if this were to happen') and the simple future conditional ('if this happens') disappears in indirect speech).[166] Thus in an indirect statement, the future participle is used, just as with a future logical conditional:

ait sē sī ūrātur "quam hoc suāve!" dictūrum (Cicero)[167]
'he says that if he were being burnt, he would say "how pleasant this is!"'

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:

senēscendum fore tantum terrārum vel sine proeliō obeuntī (Curtius)[168]
'(he had written that) a person would inevitably grow old just visiting such a huge country, even without fighting a battle'

Similarly, in an indirect question about a hypothetical unreal situation, the periphrastic present subjunctive is found, just as in a logical future conditional:

quem adhūc nōs quidem vīdimus nēminem; sed philosophōrum sententiīs, quālis hic futūrus sit, sī modō aliquandō fuerit, expōnitur (Cicero)[169]
'we ourselves have never seen such a (perfectly wise) man; but it is explained in the opinions of philosophers what such a person would be like, if one were ever to exist'

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.[170] (A single instance where esse is used instead of the expected fuisse (Caesar, B.G. 5.29.2) is generally suspected of being a textual corruption.)[171] The following examples illustrate a present unreal (contrary to fact) situation:

fatentur sē virtūtis causā, nisi ea voluptātem faceret, nē manum quidem versūrōs fuisse (Cicero)[172]
'they confess that they would not lift a finger for the sake of virtue, unless virtue itself gave pleasure'
an tū cēnsēs ūllam anum tam dēlīram futūram fuisse ut somniīs crēderet, nisī ista cāsū nōn nunquam forte temerē concurrerent? (Cicero)[173]
'do you think any old woman would ever be so crazy as to believe in dreams if they didn't come true by chance sometimes?'
quid putāmus passūrum fuisse sī vīveret? – nobīscum cēnāret! (Pliny)[174]
'what do we think would be happening to him if he were alive?' – 'he would be dining with us!'

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:[175]

cōgitā quantum additūrus celeritātī fuerīs, sī ā tergō hostis īnstāret! (Seneca)[176]
'think how much extra speed you would put on, if an enemy were pursuing you!'

However, the following statement based on an unreal present condition uses the simple imperfect subjunctive to refer to a hypothetical future situation:[177]

nōn dubitō quīn, si modo esset in rē pūblicā senatus, aliquandō statua huic in forō statuerētur (Cicero)[178]
'nor do I doubt that, if only the Senate still existed in the republic, one day a statue would be set up to this man in the forum'

As illustrated above, in an unreal conditional, the imperfect or pluperfect tense of the subjunctive in the protasis '(if' clause) remains unchanged, even after a primary tense verb.[179]

Unreal conditional sentences (past)

The future participle plus fuisse more frequently refers to a past situation contrary to fact:

nōn vidētur mentītūrus fuisse, nisī dēspērāsset (Quintilian)[180]
'it is unlikely that he would have told a lie unless he had been desperate'
hoc tamen nūntiā, melius mē moritūram fuisse sī nōn in fūnere meō nūpsissem (Livy)[181]
'but take this message to him, that I would have died better if I had not married on the day of my funeral!'

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.[182] However, this is very rare, and only two instances have been noted:[183]

nisi eō ipsō tempore quīdam nūntiī dē Caesaris victōriā essent allātī, exīstimābant plērīque futūrum fuisse utī āmitterētur (Caesar)[184]
'if at that very moment certain reports had not arrived bringing news of Caesar's victory, most people reckoned that the town would have been lost'

The perfect infinitive of possum can also be used in the main clause of an unreal past conditional:

at plerīque exīstimant, sī ācrius īnsequī voluisset, bellum eō diē potuisse fīnīrī (Caesar)[185]
'but most people think that if he had been prepared to follow up the pursuit more vigorously, the war could have been finished on that day'

An indirect question about an unreal past situation similarly has the future participle plus the perfect subjunctive of sum:

dīc agedum, Appī Claudī, quidnam factūrus fuerīs, sī eō tempore cēnsor fuissēs? (Livy)[186]
'tell us, Appius Claudius, what you would have done if you had been censor at that time?'

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:[187]

quaeris quid potuerit amplius adsequī Plancius, sī Cn. Scīpionis fuisset fīlius (Cicero)[188]
'you ask what more Plancius could/would have achieved, if he had been the son of Gnaeus Scipio'

After a historic introductory verb, the perfect subjunctive is usually still retained (contrary to the usual sequence of tenses rule):[189]

nec dubium erat quīn, sī tam paucī simul obīre omnia possent, terga datūrī hostēs fuerint (Livy)[190]
'nor was there any doubt that if it were possible for so few to manage everything at once, the enemy would have turned their backs'

The same is true if the sentence has potuerit:

haud dubium erat quīn, nisi ea mora intervēnisset, castra eō diē Pūnica capī potuerint (Livy)[191]
'there was no doubt that if the delay had not intervened, the Carthaginian camp could/would have been captured that day'

Occasionally the subjunctive becomes pluperfect, but this is rare, and found only in Livy:[192]

subībat cōgitātiō animum quōnam modō tolerābilis futūra Etrūria fuisset, sī quid in Samniō adversī ēvēnisset (Livy)[193]
'it occurred to them how impossible Etruria would have been, if anything had gone wrong in Samnium'

Use of primary and historic tenses

Repraesentātiō
Further information: Latin tenses § Sequence of tenses rule

Just as in narrative, when writers often change from the perfect (or imperfect) 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 (present and perfect) even when the context is past. This practice is known as repraesentātiō temporum.[194]

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.[195] 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:

praecipit ut ūnum omnēs peterent Indutiomarum, neu quis quem prius vulneret, quam illum interfectum vīderit (Caesar)[196]
'he instructed that everyone was to attack Indutiomarus alone, and that no one is to wound anyone before he has seen Indutiomarus killed'

Commenting on this sentence, Postgate suggests that the change to primary tenses represents some 'sharpening of the emphasis'.[197]

Practice of different authors

Andrewes (1937, 1951) 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:

quod sī praetereā nēmō sequātur, tamen sē cum sōlā decimā legiōne itūrum, dē quā nōn dubitāret (Caesar)[198]
'moreover, even if no one else were to follow him, he would go with the tenth legion alone, about whose loyalty he had no doubt'
esse in animō iter per prōvinciam facere, proptereā quod aliud iter habērent nūllum: rogāre ut eius voluntāte id sibī facere liceat (Caesar)[199]
'(the ambassadors said that) the Helvetii were intending to make a journey through the province, because they had no other route; and that they were requesting that it might be allowed for them to do so with Caesar's permission'

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.[200] 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:[201]

adgressūrum fuisse hesternō diē in conciliō; dīlātam rem esse, quod auctor conciliī āfuerit quem maximē peteret (Livy)[202]
'he would have made an attack the previous day in the council, but the matter had been postponed, since the convenor of the council, whom he had been especially aiming for, had been absent'

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:

nunc quia nōn metū dūcātur, itūrum ut praesentia spectāret compōneretque (Tacitus)[203]
'but now that he was not being induced by fear, he would go and inspect the situation and make a settlement'

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'.[204]

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:[205]

spērō, sī absolūtus erit, coniūnctiōrem illum nōbīs fore in ratiōne petītiōnis (Cicero)[206]
'I hope that if (Catiline) is acquitted, he will work more closely with me in my election campaign'
vereor nē cum tē vīderō omnia oblīvīscar (Cicero)[207]
'I'm afraid that once I see you I may forget everything'

The present indicative can also be retained after dum:[208]

dīc, hospes, Spartae nōs tē hīc vīdisse iacentīs, dum sānctīs patriae lēgibus obsequimur (Cicero)[209]
'tell them, stranger, at Sparta that you have seen us lying here obeying the sacred laws of our country'

A relative clause which is merely explanatory also uses the indicative:[210]

quis neget haec omnia quae vidēmus deōrum immortālium potestāte administrārī? (Cicero)[211]
'who would deny that all these things which we see are ruled by the power of the immortal gods?'

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.[212]

Ōrātiō rēcta

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 (ōrātiō rēcta).[213] 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.[214] 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,[215] or the eagle-bearer's encouragement to his comrades before leaping into the sea when Caesar's invading force reached the coast of Britain.[216] 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.[217]

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,[218] the words of the heroines Lucretia and Sophoniba before they committed suicide,[219] and the announcement to the people of the tragedy of Lake Trasimene.[220]

Bibliography

References
  1. Jones, Daniel (1977) Everyman's English Pronouncing Dictionary, 14th ed. revised A. C. Gimson.
  2. For example Curio's speech to his troops at Utica, Caesar, B.C. 2.32.
  3. Caesar, B.G. 4.25.3.
  4. Listed in Nordling (2006), p. 184.
  5. Gildersleeve & Lodge (1895), pp. 313; 416–7.
  6. Allen & Greenough (1903), p. 374, 384.
  7. Nepos, Hannibal 12.3.
  8. Gildersleeve & Lodge (1895), p. 324.
  9. Gildersleeve & Lodge (1895), p. 425.
  10. Gildersleeve & Lodge (1895), pp. 314–5.
  11. 'When the subject of the infinitive is a personal or reflexive pronoun, that subject may be omitted – chiefly with the future infinitive – and then esse is also dropped': Gildersleeve & Lodge (1895), p. 330.
  12. Allen & Greenough (1903), p. 375.
  13. Cicero, Fam. 6.11.2.
  14. Gildersleeve & Lodge (1895), pp. 324–7; 421.
  15. Cicero, Clu. 134.
  16. Gellius, 10.3.3.
  17. Pliny, Ep. 5.4.2.
  18. Gildersleeve & Lodge (1895), p. 325.
  19. Cicero, Att. 2.18.3.
  20. Caesar, B.G. 1.44.8.
  21. Nepos, Hann. 12.2.
  22. Allen & Greenough (1903), p. 376.
  23. Caesar, B.G. 1.18.2
  24. Nepos, Arist. 1.4.
  25. Livy, 1.58.5.
  26. Caesar, B.C. 1.3.6.
  27. Caesar, B.C. 3.21.4.
  28. Gildersleeve & Lodge (1895), p. 330.
  29. dē bellō Alexandrīnō 10.
  30. Livy, 34.25.
  31. Nepos, Hannibal 9.2.
  32. Livy, 1.25.8.
  33. Gildersleeve & Lodge (1895), p. 330.
  34. Caesar, B.G. 4.20.2.
  35. Cicero, Att. 5.21.1.
  36. Cicero, Att, 3.3.
  37. Cicero, Cat. 2.27.
  38. Gildersleeve & Lodge (1895), p. 336.
  39. Terence, Phorm. 286.
  40. Gildersleeve & Lodge (1895), p. 335.
  41. Horace, A.P. 102.
  42. Nepos, Tim. 3.4.
  43. Caesar, B.G. 5.37.1.
  44. Martial, 5.37.18.
  45. Woodcock (1959), p. 102.
  46. Caesar, B.G. 1.7.2.
  47. Caesar, B.G. 4.2.6.
  48. Cicero, Verr. 2.2.101.
  49. Gildersleeve & Lodge (1895), pp. 345–7.
  50. Allen & Greenough (1903), p. 375.
  51. Nepos, Phoc. 2.4.
  52. Caesar, B.G. 6.23.9.
  53. Gildersleeve & Lodge (1895), p. 332; Allen & Greenough (1903), p. 377.
  54. Cicero, Fam. 9.18.1.
  55. Caesar, B.C. 3.36.1.
  56. Cicero, Fam. 14.23.
  57. Catullus, 4.1.
  58. Woodcock (1959), p. 102.
  59. Livy, 23.16.9.
  60. Gildersleeve & Lodge (1895), p. 296. The indicative is found in early Latin and sometimes in poetry; cf. Allen & Greenough (1903), p. 372.
  61. Cicero, Cluent. 72.
  62. Cicero, Ver. 2.4.58.
  63. Caesar, B.G. 1.44.8.
  64. Gildersleeve & Lodge (1895), p. 415.
  65. Caesar, B.C. 1.9.5.
  66. Caesar, B.G. 5.28.3.
  67. Nepos, Hann. 2.4.
  68. Suetonius, Ves. 23.3.
  69. Woodcock (1959), p. 137.
  70. Cicero, Q. Fr. 2.15.4.
  71. Gildersleeve & Lodge (1895), p. 294; Allen & Greenough (1903), p. 373; Woodcock (1959), p. 138.
  72. Caesar, B.G. 6.37.
  73. Livy, 40.49.6.
  74. Woodcock (1959), p. 138.
  75. Cicero, Att. 16.8.2.
  76. Cicero, Phil. 2.41.
  77. Cicero, Att. 5.21.14.
  78. Gildersleeve & Lodge (1895), pp. 356–7.
  79. Curtius, 4.15.28.
  80. Caesar, B.G. 1.4.4.
  81. Gildersleeve & Lodge (1895), pp. 349–50.
  82. Ovid, Met. 2.153.
  83. Cicero, Att. 9.6.6.
  84. Plautus, Curculio, 461.
  85. Petronius, Sat. 92.
  86. Woodcock (1959), p. 101.
  87. Nepos, Hann. 12.4.
  88. Caesar, B.C. 1.18.3.
  89. Cicero, Rab. Post. 18.
  90. Gildersleeve & Lodge (1895), p. 343.
  91. Cicero, Fam. 3.8.4.
  92. Woodcock (1959), p. 103.
  93. Nepos, Paus. 4.
  94. Woodcock (1959), p. 103.
  95. Nepos, Hann. 12.2.
  96. Nepos, Hann. 12.3.
  97. Gildersleeve & Lodge (1895), p. 347.
  98. Cicero, Att. 13.32.3.
  99. Cicero, Fam. 12.4.1.
  100. Gildersleeve & Lodge (1895), pp. 355–8; Woodcock (1959), p. 103.
  101. Nepos, Hann. 12.1
  102. Nepos, Hamil. 3.1.
  103. dē Bellō Hispāniēnsī 17.1.
  104. Cicero, Off. 3.111.
  105. Gildersleeve & Lodge (1895), pp. 327–8.
  106. Cicero, Cluent. 66.188.
  107. Gildersleeve & Lodge (1895), p. 341; Allen & Greenough (1903), pp. 369–70.
  108. Cicero, ad Brut. 1.17.6.
  109. Woodcock (1959), p. 23.
  110. dē Bellō Hispāniēnsī 36.1
  111. Genesis, 1.10.
  112. Gildersleeve & Lodge (1895), p. 317.
  113. Gildersleeve & Lodge (1895), p. 315; Woodcock (1959), pp. 136, 224, 226; Allen & Greenough (1903), p. 304.
  114. Allen & Greenough (1903), p. 382.
  115. Gildersleeve & Lodge (1895), p. 331, note 3.
  116. Gildersleeve & Lodge (1895) p. 419 note a rare exception: sī adsēnsūrus esset from Cicero Ac. (= Lucullus) 2.21.67.
  117. The periphrastic perfect is usually used even after a historic verb; cf. Gildersleeve & Lodge (1895), p. 387.
  118. Livy, 5.39.5.
  119. Nepos, Hann. 12.5.
  120. Cicero, prō Cluentiō 72.
  121. Cicero, Verr. 2.4.58.
  122. Cicero, Fam. 13.11.1.
  123. Curtius 3.8.14.
  124. Woodcock (1959), p. 136.
  125. Allen & Greenough (1903), pp. 371–2.
  126. Caesar, B.G. 3.14.
  127. Cicero Fam. 4.12.2.
  128. Ammianus Marcellinus 16.5.4.
  129. Seneca, dē Cōnsōlātiōne 11.16.1.
  130. Gildersleeve & Lodge (1895), p. 181.
  131. Cicero, Fin. 2.55.
  132. Cicero, prō Planciō 61.
  133. Cicero, Off. 3.59.
  134. Cicero, Att.' 8.11D.4.
  135. Gildersleeve & Lodge (1895), p. 315; Woodcock (1959), pp. 136, 224, 226; Allen & Greenough (1903), p. 304.
  136. Cicero, Phil. 7.26.
  137. Woodcock (1959), pp. 224, 225.
  138. Livy 42.33.3.
  139. Cicero, Att. 16.16A.4.
  140. Cicero, Att. 10.4.8.
  141. Terence, Hec. 38.
  142. Cicero, Att. 4.3.4.
  143. Gildersleeve & Lodge (1895), p. 334.
  144. Tacitus, Ann. 14.9.
  145. Cicero, Verr. 2.4.86.
  146. Cicero, Div. 1.101.
  147. Woodcock (1959), p. 113.
  148. Cicero, Fam. 14.1.3.
  149. Cicero, Fam. 9.6.2.
  150. Cicero, Qu. fr. 3.1.13.
  151. Cicero, Att. 10.10.2.
  152. Cicero, Div. 1.30.
  153. Woodcock (1959), p. 136.
  154. Cicero, Fam.16.4.1.
  155. Cicero, Att. 8.11B.3.
  156. Caesar, B.G. 1.31.15.
  157. Woodcock (1959), pp. 235-7; Gildersleeve & Lodge (1895), p. 418.
  158. Caesar, B.C. 1.1.2.
  159. Caesar, B.C. 1.1.4.
  160. Woodcock (1959), p. 22; Gildersleeve & Lodge (1895), p. 334, note 1.
  161. Cicero, Sull. 27.
  162. Cicero, Tusc. 4.46.
  163. 23.13.6.
  164. Gildersleeve & Lodge (1895), p. 165.
  165. Cicero, Att. 16.16E.2.
  166. Gildersleeve & Lodge (1895), pp. 418, 420; Woodcock (1959), p. 237.
  167. Cicero, Fin. 2.27.88.
  168. Curtius 4.5.6.
  169. Cicero, Tusc. 2.51.
  170. Terrell (1904); Woodcock (1959), pp. 139, 235–7; Gildersleeve & Lodge (1895), pp. 420–1; Allen & Greenough (1903), pp. 383–4.
  171. Gildersleeve & Lodge (1895), pp. 420–21; Terrell (1904).
  172. Cicero, Fīn. 5.31.93.
  173. Cicero, dē Dīv. 2.141.
  174. Pliny, Ep. 4.22.6.
  175. Woodcock (1959), p. 139.
  176. Seneca, Ep. 32.2.
  177. Gildersleeve & Lodge (1895), pp. 386–7.
  178. Cicero, Sest. 83.
  179. Allen & Greenough (1903), p. 383.
  180. Quintilian, 5.12.3.
  181. Livy, 30.15.
  182. Allen & Greenough (1903), p. 383.
  183. Woodcock (1959), p. 236; the other instance is Cicero Tusc. Disp. 3.69.
  184. Caesar, B.C. 3.101.3.
  185. Caesar, B.C. 3.51.3.
  186. Livy 9.33.7.
  187. Woodcock (1959), p. 139.
  188. Cicero, Planc. 60.
  189. Gildersleeve & Lodge (1895), p. 387.
  190. Livy, 4.38.5.
  191. Livy, 24.42.3.
  192. Gildersleeve & Lodge (1895), p. 387.
  193. Livy, 10.45.3.
  194. Postgate (1905); Woodcock (1959), p. 238. On the various meanings of the word repraesentātiō in Latin see Ker (2007). On the use of the historic present, see Viti (2010).
  195. Postgate (1905), p. 443.
  196. Caesar, B.G. 5.58.4.
  197. Postgate (1905), p. 445.
  198. Caesar, B.G. 1.40.14.
  199. Caesar, B.G. 1.40.14.
  200. Andrewes (1951), p. 144.
  201. Postgate (1905), p. 442.
  202. Livy, 1.51.4.
  203. Tacitus, Annals, 3.46.
  204. Postgate (1905), p. 444.
  205. Salmon (1931).
  206. Cicero, Att. 1.2.1.
  207. Cicero, Fam. 8.15.2.
  208. Gildersleeve & Lodge (1895), p. 418.
  209. Cicero, Tusc. Disp. 1.101.
  210. Allen & Greenough (1903), p. 377.
  211. Cicero, Cat. 3.21.
  212. Woodcock (1959), p. 240.
  213. Nordling (2006), note 10, quoting Rasmussen (1963).
  214. Caesar, B.C. 2.32.2–14.
  215. Caesar, B.C. 3.85.4.
  216. Caesar, B.G. 4.25.3.
  217. Nordling (2006), note 23.
  218. Livy, 1.56.10.
  219. Livy, 1.58; 30.15.
  220. Livy, 22.7.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.