Indirect Discourse
When a Latin author reports what someone else said, thought, or perceived, the whole sentence shifts shape.
Caesar venit ("Caesar is coming") becomes dīcit Caesarem venīre — the subject drops into the accusative, the verb collapses into an infinitive, and every nested clause turns subjunctive.
This is ōrātiō oblīqua, and it's the construction the AP exam tests more than any other.
Three moves cover almost everything you'll see. Statements become accusative + infinitive. Questions and commands become subjunctive.
Subordinate clauses inside the report take the subjunctive too — even ones that would be indicative in the original.
And the reflexives sē and suus shift their reference: they now point back to the speaker, not to the local subject.
The load-bearing piece is the infinitive's tense, which is RELATIVE: present infinitive = same time as the verb of saying, perfect = before, future = after. This hub surveys the system; the spokes drill the pieces.
Statements go acc. + inf.; questions and commands go subjunctive; subordinate clauses inside the report shift to subjunctive too.
Infinitive tense = RELATIVE time. Present inf = same time, perfect inf = earlier, future inf = later — measured against the verb of saying.
See It In Action
— B. G. i. 17
Two moves at once: the main reported clause is acc. + inf. (esse nōn nūllōs), and the relative clause inside it goes subjunctive (valeat) by attraction — even though direct speech would have valet.
— Lael. 79
The future infinitive (esse captūrōs) marks action AFTER the verb of hoping. And sē = the subject of spērant — that reflexive bounce-back is the indirect-discourse signature.
— B. G. i. 44
Caesar reports Ariovistus's questions to him. Real question → subjunctive (vellet, venīret), with imperfect by sequence. And suās bounces back to Ariovistus — the speaker — not to Caesar, the local subject.
— Liv. iii. 50. 7
Contrary-to-fact past condition in indirect discourse. The protasis (habuisset) keeps its pluperfect subjunctive unchanged; the apodosis morphs into the future-participle-plus-fuisse periphrasis. Caesar and Livy lean on this constantly.
"that X is/was [doing] Y" — same time as the verb of saying
dīcit sē cadere / dīxit sē cadere = 'he says/said he is/was falling'
"that X did / has done / had done Y" — earlier than the verb of saying
dīcit sē cecidisse = 'he says he fell / has fallen / had fallen'
"that X will / would do Y" — later than the verb of saying
dīcit sē cāsūrum esse / dīxit sē cāsūrum esse = 'he says/said he will/would fall'
"that it will come about that X…" — periphrasis for future inf. when no participle exists
dīcit fore ut ceciderit = 'he says he will have fallen'
"that X would have done Y" — contrary-to-fact past apodosis
sē superstitem futūrum fuisse, nisi habuisset (Liv. iii. 50)
Inside indirect discourse, sē refers back to the SPEAKER. In a normal clause, sē refers to the local subject. Same form, different pointer.
refers to the speaker / subject of the verb of saying
Caesar dīxit sē ventūrum
Caesar said HE (Caesar) would come
refers to the subject of its own clause
Caesar Gallōs sē dēfendere iussit
Caesar ordered the Gauls to defend THEMSELVES (the Gauls)
Tip: Ask: is sē inside reported speech (after dīcit / putat / sciō / etc.)? If yes, bounce back to the speaker. If no, take the local subject.
In Caesar's Caesar dīxit sē in eam partem itūrum, ubi Helvētiōs cōnstituisset esse (paraphrased B. G. i. 13), why is cōnstituisset pluperfect subjunctive?
Study Tips
- •Whenever you see a verb of saying/thinking/perceiving (dīcō, putō, sciō, audiō, sentiō, crēdō, spērō, negō), prime yourself for an accusative subject + infinitive. That accusative is NOT the object — it's the subject of the reported clause.
- •Read infinitive tense as RELATIVE time, not absolute. Present inf = simultaneous with the main verb; perfect inf = before; future inf = after. This is the single most-tested point in AP indirect discourse.
- •When you meet sē or suus inside indirect discourse, bounce back to the speaker, not the nearest subject. Caesar dīxit Gallōs sibi pārēre = 'Caesar said the Gauls obey HIM (Caesar),' not the Gauls.
- •If a subordinate verb inside reported speech is subjunctive, don't hunt for ut/cum/sī — the indirect-discourse context IS the trigger. This is called attraction.
- •For contrary-to-fact conditions in indirect discourse, drill the future-participle-+-fuisse periphrasis (āfutūrum fuisse, dictūrum fuisse). Caesar uses it constantly.