This volume derives from a workshop organised for the International Colloquium on Latin Linguistics in Rome, 2013. Most papers discuss Latin, and although Greek, Hebrew and Irish are represented as well, the general reference to ‘Ancient Languages’ in the volume title is perhaps not quite warranted by the contents. Nevertheless, nearly all articles have something of interest to offer for linguists interested in oratio obliqua in Latin or one of the other languages included in the volume. The articles are generally of good academic quality, although there is, as is usual in volumes of this type, some variation. The volume is well produced.

The topics of the individual articles do not form any thematic unit, but there are links between several of them. Two contributions (by M. Fruyt and M.-D. Joffre) address the pronoun ipse and its various referring functions in oratio obliqua. Another two (by L. Moonens and A. Orlandini & Poccetti) are concerned with the variation between infinitives and subjunctives in oratio obliqua and the implications this choice of construction has for the syntactic or pragmatic interpretation of the passages. Two papers (C. Bodelot and L. Sznajder) address hybrid formations in late and Christian Latin that incorporate features from both direct and indirect expression. Two articles are mainly about other languages than Latin (H. Rosén on Irish and D. Shalev on Greek). The volume opens with G. Calboli's article on various aspects of direct and indirect style and closes with I. Liberati's contribution on the metalinguistic use of obliquus. Below I note some of the most interesting findings.

In ‘Les relations entre le réfléchi indirect se et ipse en latin’ Fruyt discusses the use of ipse in the place of the reflexive pronoun se in oratio obliqua when referring to the speaker. She focuses on passages from Caesar and Quintus Curtius. The latter author is traditionally quoted as the first one to have used ipse in contexts where se/sibi/suus would have been used by Classical authors. In Classical Latin this type of logophoric ipse is limited to suppletive use in the nominative (that se lacks) or to resolving the ambiguity of se in certain contexts. Quintus Curtius is claimed to have the first attestations of ipse as a genuine indirect reflexive. According to the traditional grammars, ipse in these instances replaces se without any additional value. Fruyt's re-examination of the relevant passages (four altogether) leads her to conclude that ipse is used in them as an intensifier with a clear pragmatic function and cannot be taken as a mere substitute for se. Importantly, according to Fruyt's analysis, the same observation, that ipse is used as an intensifier, applies to those rare passages in Caesar where ipse is used as if replacing se/sibi/suus.

Orlandini and Poccetti, in ‘Structures pseudo-subordonnées en oratio obliqua’, explore the question of how infinitives vs subjunctives in oratio obliqua can help in making a distinction between certain structures that are midway between coordination and subordination (cum … tum, ut … ita, ut … sic). They show that, contrary to some previous remarks, clauses introduced by these conjunctions may also in certain declarative or corrective contexts be coordinated, as shown by examples where both parts have an infinitive construction in reported speech.

Bodelot, in ‘Particularités du discours indirect chez Frédégaire’, focuses on indirect discourse in the Chronicle of Fredegar, discussing problems of indirect expression in Merovingian Latin. Reported speech in Fredegar features several non-standard phenomena, for example confusions with respect to infinitival and finite complements, moods and temporal relationships as well as ruptures in the continuation of the discourse and sudden changes from direct to indirect expression. Due to the state of the language by Fredegar's time, morphosyntactic conflicts arise which sometimes lead to a real break in the predication. The fact that Fredegar used different sources, and often copied the source's syntax, leads to further confusion. Bodelot points out that what is from the point of review of Latin a confusion between direct and indirect expression may reflect a more flexible use of these moods in Greek and, influenced by Greek, in Christian Latin, where direct expression is sometimes introduced by quia or quoniam.

Particularly rewarding is the analysis by Sznajder on hybrid formations in biblical Latin (‘Quelques réflexions sur des discours hybrides du latin biblique: oratio obliqua ou oratio recta?’). In such constructions, a direct quotation is introduced by a conjunction (quoniam or quia). There is a notable number of these: 35 of altogether 149 complements introduced by quia in the Gospels (and a smaller number of those introduced by quoniam). Sznajder analyses these in detail, with respect to the discourse context and the role of the source language, Greek or Hebrew. The hybrid structures occur typically with dicere and strong assertives. The secondary speakers (those whose words are being reported) are clearly identified individuals or groups, often Jesus himself. Often the content of the direct quotation has some special force or emphasis in the context. The surprising result is that although the construction is found in both source languages, in Latin it is found only in texts translated from Greek. Sznajder explains this, plausibly, by suggesting that when translating from Hebrew, Jerome recognised the construction as alien to Latin and avoided it as such, but in the case of Greek this did not happen. Greek was felt to be culturally so close to Latin that even this kind of construction, an anomaly from the Latin point of view, was tolerated by Jerome.

Shalev, ‘Observations on the Application and Notion of oratio obliqua in Literary Classical Greek, with Special Reference to Drama and Plato’, analyses the use of the complementisers ὡς and ὅτι in Plato's Republic and Apology, from the point of view of narrator commitment and degree of subjectivity. Shalev's contribution is rich in material and observations, but falls short of providing much of a concluding statement on the differences of the two complementisers. Naturally, this is a highly complicated matter where the governing verbs and their semantics play a role as well, as is well illustrated by Shalev.

This volume has some excellent contributions, and most of the articles are thematically linked both to each other and to the general topic.