Indirect speech, also known as reported speech, indirect discourse (US), or ōrātiō oblīqua ( or ), is the practice, common in all Latin historical writers, of reporting spoken or written words indirectly, using different grammatical forms. 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. The main types of indirect speech in Latin are indirect statements, indirect commands, and indirect questions. Indirect statements in classical Latin usually use the accusative and infinitive construction. In this the main verb of the quoted sentence is changed to an infinitive, and its subject to the accusative case; this construction is also sometimes used for commands and rhetorical questions. Indirect questions, most indirect commands, and most subordinate verbs in indirect statements use the subjunctive mood. Subjunctive mood tenses are divided into two groups, primary (present and perfect) and historic (imperfect and pluperfect). The historic tenses are used when the context is past time, although it is also possible sometimes to use a primary tense in a past context, a practice referred to as repraesentātiō tempōrum. 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. In some cases, especially in longer passages of ōrātiō oblīqua, the verb of speaking is omitted, and the grammatical form alone shows that the words are indirect.

Main types of indirect speech

Indirect statement

The most common type of indirect speech is indirect statement, for which in classical Latin (although not in medieval Latin) the usual grammatical form is the accusative and infinitive construction. In this the subject of the quoted sentence is put into the accusative case, and the verb is changed to an infinitive. Four main tenses of the infinitive are used: the present, the perfect, the future participle with esse (which is often omitted), and the future participle with fuisse. The present infinitive is used when the original verb was a present indicative tense: The perfect infinitive is used when the original verb was a perfect, imperfect, or pluperfect indicative tense: If the original sentence had a future indicative or potential subjunctive ('would do'), the indirect statement has a future participle combined with esse (esse is however often omitted): One verb, sum 'I am' has its own future infinitive fore, which may be used instead of futūrum esse. The verb possum 'I am able' on the other hand has no future infinitive or future participle. The future participle combined with fuisse, which expresses a past or present potential ('would be doing' or 'would have done'): Three other tenses are found in indirect statements: the supine with īrī, the perfect participle with fore, and the perfect participle with fuisse. However, these are rare. The main verb introducing indirect statements does not have to be a verb of speaking; it can also be any of a range of other verbs, such as sēnsit 'he realised', simulāvit 'he pretended', cōnstat 'it is well known', spērō 'I hope', scrīpsit 'he wrote' and so on, which use the same construction. The infinitive is used only for the main verb in an indirect statement; any other verbs are changed into the subjunctive mood, using one of the past tenses if the context is past:

Indirect question

Another kind of indirect speech is the indirect question, in which the verb is usually changed into the subjunctive mood: When the context is past, one of the past tenses of the subjunctive is used (imperfect or pluperfect). (There are some exceptions to this rule, however.)

Indirect command

The third main type of indirect speech is the indirect command, for which two constructions are possible. Some verbs, principally the verb iubeō 'I order' and its opposite vetō 'I forbid', use the accusative and infinitive construction, often with a passive infinitive: Most other verbs use a clause introduced by the conjunction ut/utī or (if negative) nē followed by a subjunctive verb. As with indirect questions, the tense of the subjunctive depends on whether the context is present or past. A present context requires the present subjunctive: A past context usually (but not always) has the imperfect subjunctive:

Change of person

Another of the characteristics of indirect speech 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 thought was 'he** is very grateful to **you'. In indirect speech this becomes: Very often the viewpoint changes to the 3rd person, in which case the reflexive pronoun sē (or sēsē) 'himself, herself, themselves' and its various derivatives suī, sibī, sēcum, suus etc. are used in order to refer to the speaker of the reported words: When the subject of the verb of speaking is feminine or plural, sē will be translated as 'she' or 'they': The reflexive pronoun sē can sometimes be used to refer to the speaker even when the speaker is not strictly the grammatical subject of the sentence, as in this example: A third person which is not the subject is referred to by illum or eum 'him, that person'. To avoid ambiguity in English, it is often necessary to insert a name: 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 sibī refers to Caesar (the subject of vellet) but suās 'his' refers to the speaker, Ariovistus: Similarly, in the following example, suum and sibī refer to the Roman ambassadors (the subject of peterent), while sēcum refers to the king (the subject of habēret):

Indirect statements

Constructions with the infinitive

Verbs of speaking

Often in historical writing there is no verb of speaking but it is implied by the context and by the use of the accusative and infinitive construction: A future tense in indirect speech is turned into a future participle + esse. The infinitive esse is very often omitted: 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: When the verb is impersonal, such as vidērī 'it seems' or oportēre 'it is fitting', there is no subject: 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 (without esse). 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. The accusative and present participle construction can also sometimes be found after verbs such as cognōscō 'I learn':

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 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:

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 main verb

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'). A present tense such as dīcitur 'he is said' or vidētur 'he seems' is usually used personally: When the verb of speaking is used personally, the subject of the reported statement, and hence any participles or nouns agreeing with it, are nominative: However, when the verb uses a compound tense such as the perfect passive nūntiātum est, it is usually used impersonally, hence with an accusative and infinitive:

Nominative and infinitive

Sometimes an active verb of speaking can be used with a nominative and infinitive construction, but only in poetry. The word 'claim' is used in the same way in English:

Other indirect statement constructions

Nōn dubitō

Although cōnfīdō 'I am sure that' takes the accusative and infinitive, the phrase nōn dubitō 'I do not doubt' is usually 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: In the following example, however, nōn dubitō is followed by futūrum (esse):

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 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:

Quod with the subjunctive

In later Latin, quod with the subjunctive could substitute for the accusative and infinitive in indirect statement, though this did not become common until the second century AD: This type of clause with quod (which became que in modern French, Portuguese, and Spanish and che in Italian, and că in Romanian) 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.

Quia and quoniam

In post-classical Latin, the conjunction quia, which means 'because' in classical Latin, could also be used to introduce an indirect statement. They are usually used with the indicative mood: The conjunction quoniam 'since', can also introduce an indirect statement: The Greek word ὅτι which quia and quoniam translate also means 'because' or 'that'. This construction is found even in the classical period in Petronius, who satirises the bad grammar and incorrect speech of lower-class people. The following is from a speech of a freedman called Echion:

Expressions 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. The negative is ut ... nōn.

Indirect questions

In the second type of indirect speech, indirect question, the verb is usually changed to the subjunctive mood, although occasionally, in rhetorical questions, the infinitive may be used (see below). When the context is primary, the present or perfect subjunctive is usual: The first four the verbs in the last example above are perfect subjunctive, which in an indirect question may represent an imperfect, perfect, or pluperfect tense in the original speech. The last verb ignōrāre is an infinitive, since it is a rhetorical question resembling a statement ('there is none of us who doesn't know') more than a question. When the context is historic, the imperfect and pluperfect subjunctives are usual: When the main verb in a direct question is a future tense, it becomes a future participle with the subjunctive of sum in an indirect question: A past potential subjunctive in a conditional clause becomes a future participle with the perfect subjunctive of sum:

Wh-questions

Indirect questions which are dependent on a verb of asking in the classical period usually use a subjunctive verb. (The indicative is found in early Latin and sometimes in poetry.) When the context is past, as in the second example below, the tense of the quoted verb is usually changed to past 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 being indirect by the use of the subjunctive mood. The following questions come in the middle of a long speech by the Germanic chieftain Ariovistus:

Yes–no questions

Indirect questions expecting an answer yes or no can be introduced by -ne or num ('whether', 'if'): After nesciō, the particle an is used, and it is also sometimes used after other verbs (but not in Caesar or Cicero). 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': In Livy sī 'if' can also mean simply 'whether':

Disjunctive questions

Alternative (disjunctive) questions are introduced by utrum ... an, -ne ... an, or simply ... an or ... -ne. For 'or not', necne is used:

Indirect questions with the infinitive

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: A rhetorical question can also have the accusative and infinitive if it is equivalent to a statement. In the following example, the meaning is 'there is none of us who doesn't know these things':

Indirect commands

Using the infinitive

In an indirect command, there are two possible forms. If the verb of speaking is iubeō 'I order', the same construction is used as in indirect statement, that is accusative and infinitive: A few other verbs, such as sinō 'I allow', vetō 'I forbid', and sometimes imperō 'I order' take the same construction: Verbs of will, such as vetō 'I forbid', are always used personally even in the perfect passive tense: Quite commonly these verbs are used with a passive infinitive:

Using the subjunctive

However, most verbs of ordering, persuading, and encouraging are followed by ut (utī) 'that' or nē 'that not' and a subjunctive mood verb. This construction is common after verbs such as imperō 'I order', rogō 'I ask', petō 'I request', moneō 'I advise', persuādeō 'I persuade', hortor 'I exhort' and others. If the context is past, the imperfect subjunctive is used, otherwise the present: 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:

Verbs of will

The accusative and infinitive construction can 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: Verbs of will can also take the subjunctive in the same way as an indirect command. With the verb volō the conjunction ut can be omitted:

Wishes, hopes and fears

The sentence which is made indirect can be a wish, e.g. "may it (not) happen!" This is expressed in sentences like those below.

Wishes

The thought that is made indirect can be a wish, e.g. 'may it happen!' or 'if only it had happened!'. If the wish is for something which is impossible, the main verb becomes the imperfect subjunctive vellem, followed by the imperfect or pluperfect subjunctive: However, if the wish can still be true, the present subjunctive velim is used, followed by the present subjunctive:

Hopes

The verb spērō 'I hope' is generally followed by an accusative and infinitive construction. The following sentence has the future infinitive fore followed by ut and the subjunctive: However, a present or perfect infinitive is also possible:

Fears

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: Another possibility is to use ut; '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:

Tenses in indirect speech

A table of tenses

When a sentence is made indirect, the verbs generally change either to the infinitive or the subjunctive mood. There are fewer tenses in the infinitive than in the indicative, so sometimes the same infinitive tense can be interpreted as a transformation of more than one indicative tense; for example, the perfect infinitive can reflect the perfect, pluperfect, or imperfect indicative. There is also no distinction between the logical future condition ('if this happens') and the ideal future condition ('if this were to happen'). Further details are given in the sections below. The following table summarises how the tense of the main verb of a quoted sentence changes when it is made indirect: The categories 'doubly past' and 'future perfect' above are only found with passive and deponent verbs.

Tenses of the infinitive

Contemporaneous situation

A present infinitive in indirect speech usually represents a situation contemporaneous with the introductory verb, whether the main verb is present or past tense. In the following examples, the verb in direct speech would have been present tense (e.g. hostēs adsunt): However, the verb meminī 'I remember', when the sentence describes a personal reminiscence, is an exception to the rule given above, in that the present infinitive is used even though it refers to an event earlier than the introductory verb:

Earlier event or situation

If the reported sentence describes an event or situation earlier than the introductory verb, the perfect infinitive is used. This applies whether the main verb is in the present tense or one of the past tenses: The perfect infinitive can also represent an imperfect indicative in the original sentence. In the following example vīxisse is equivalent to the imperfect tense vīvēbat in direct speech: In the following example, to emphasise the idea of habitual action, a frequentative verb factitō 'I do often' is used: If the infinitive is passive (e.g. interfectum esse), the auxiliary verb esse can sometimes be omitted:

Perfect participle with fuisse

Occasionally a perfect passive infinitive is found formed with fuisse instead of the usual esse. This usually refers to a situation that existed at a certain time in the past resulting from an earlier event: In other examples the participle refers to a situation that existed up until a certain time in the past, but which changed later: For further examples see Latin tenses.

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: The infinitive esse is often omitted: A future passive infinitive can be made using the supine with īrī (the passive infinitive of the verb eō 'I go'). Since the supine is a verbal noun, 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 also be used in the phrase 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: The participle futūrum can be used alone without esse: The verb possum has no future infinitive, but the infinitive posse can sometimes refer to a future time relative to the main verb. 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 in an accusative and infinitive construction, but in the second, the simple present infinitive is used with no accusative:

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 passive or deponent perfect participle with fore: Very rarely a future perfect of direct speech can be represented in an indirect statement by fore ut followed by a perfect or pluperfect subjunctive: As the last two examples above illustrate, in a subordinate clause in ōrātiō oblīqua the future perfect tense usually becomes either the perfect subjunctive (redundārit) or pluperfect subjunctive (accēpissēs), according to whether the tense of the introductory verb is primary or historic. In a few cases, however, when the introductory verb is in the 1st or 2nd person, the future perfect indicative is retained.

Ideal potential situations

The distinction between the ideal conditional ('if this were to happen') and the simple future conditional ('if this happens') disappears in indirect speech). 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:

Present unreal situations

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 (contrary to fact) situation: 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.

Past unreal events and situations

Exactly the same construction with the future participle plus fuisse can also refer 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, that is, to write 'could have done' instead of 'would have done', since the two are close in meaning:

Indirect questions

Indirect questions in Latin use the subjunctive mood. Following the sequence of tenses rule, primary tenses (present, perfect, periphrastic future) are used when the context is primary, and historic tenses (imperfect, pluperfect, and imperfect periphrastic future) when the context is historic. Similar tenses are usually used after the phrase nōn dubitō quīn 'I do not doubt'. 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. 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 indirect 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 in one of the four basic subjunctive tenses (present, imperfect, perfect, pluperfect); the periphrastic subjunctive is not usually used.

Contemporaneous situation

If the sentence is an indirect question referring to the same time as the main verb, the present subjunctive is normally used after a primary tense verb: The present 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 (see examples below). When the verb of speaking is in a historic tense, the imperfect subjunctive is used:

Deliberative subjunctive

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

Earlier event or situation

In indirect questions, after a primary tense verb, an event earlier than the verb of speaking is usually represented by the perfect 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: When the introductory verb is in a historic tense, the pluperfect subjunctive is used: 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: In the following examples, in the second verb the 'double' perfect subjunctive passive made with fuerit is used, to refer to an earlier situation than the time of the first verb:

Later event or situation

In an indirect question referring to an event or situation later than the main verb, the future participle is combined with the present subjunctive of sum: After a historic verb, sit changes to the imperfect esset: The subjunctive foret, standing for futūrum esset, can sometimes be found in such indirect questions referring to the future: However, after nōn dubitō quīn sometimes the simple subjunctive alone can also have a future meaning, if the context makes it clear. This is in fact necessary if the verb is passive, since there is no passive future participle: 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 ('if Ariovistus were to hear of this, he would punish us all').

Future perfect situation

Almost no examples are given in grammar books of an indirect question expressing a future perfect situation using a subjunctive verb, apart from the following: As with the infinitive construction, there seems to be no way of expressing a future perfect situation when the verb is active.

Ideal potential situation

The distinction between the ideal conditional ('if this were to happen') and the simple future conditional ('if this happens') disappears in indirect speech). In an indirect question about a hypothetical unreal situation, the periphrastic present subjunctive is found, just as in a logical future conditional:

Present unreal situations

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 '(if' clause) remains unchanged, even after a primary tense verb.

Past unreal events and situations

An indirect question about an unreal past situation has the future participle plus the perfect subjunctive of sum: After a historic introductory verb in an unreal conditional clause, the potential perfect subjunctive is usually still retained (contrary to the usual sequence of tenses rule): Occasionally, however, the subjunctive becomes pluperfect, but this is rare, and found only in Livy:

'Could have done'

'Could have done' can be used instead of 'would have done', since the two are close in meaning. So in an indirect question it is possible to use the perfect subjunctive potuerit with the present infinitive; The perfect subjunctive potuerit is usually retained even in a historic context:

Present subjunctive in historic sequence

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 subjunctives in indirect speech sometimes use the two primary tenses (present and perfect) 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 (imperfect) is historic, despite the present tense introductory verb, but vulneret (present) and vīderit (perfect) are primary: Commenting on this sentence, Postgate suggests that the change to primary tenses represents some 'sharpening of the emphasis'. Andrewes (1937, 1951) points out that different authors have different practices in regard to the use of primary and historic tenses in indirect speech. 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. Thus in the following examples, sequātur and liceat are in the present subjunctive because they refer to a future time: In Livy and Tacitus, on the other hand, the tense of the reported verb tends to follow the tense of the indicative of direct speech; thus in the following example, a perfect indicative turns into a perfect subjunctive (āfuerit), and an imperfect indicative into an imperfect subjunctive (peteret): However, when the original verb in direct speech is subjunctive, these authors follow 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 differs from 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: 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.

Extended passages of indirect speech

Roman writers, especially historians, often use quite extensive passages of indirect speech. An example is the following, which is from a letter by an ex-consul Servius Sulpicius Rufus to Cicero: The whole passage above, which mainly consists of indirect statements, is dependent on the verb nūntiāvit 'he reported'. That it is indirect is shown by the fact that most of the verbs have been changed to infinitives (shown in bold), while the subjects of the verbs Mārcellum, Magium are put into the accusative case. The last clause, with its imperfect subjunctive (ut ... mitterem 'that I should send'), is an indirect command. Many passages of indirect speech are found in Julius Caesar's commentaries. The following is typical: The passage consists of five indirect statements with infinitive verbs (two of which, oportēre 'it is fitting' and vidērī 'it seems' are impersonal and have no subject), and an indirect question with the subjunctive (quid ... esset). Interleaved with these are two conditional clauses (sī esset ... sī velit) and two relative clauses (quās possidēret ... quam vīcisset), all of which use the subjunctive mood. All the subjunctive verbs are imperfect or pluperfect, except for velit, which is present subjunctive and thus breaks the sequence of tenses rule.

Direct speech (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 examples of direct speech (ōrātiō rēcta). 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 'with a great 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.