In Liber III of the Aeneid, following usage of implied indirect discourse occurs: "…Huic me,quaecumque fuisset,/ addixi" (Aen. 3.652). In one of the footnotes on the page, it states that the subjunctive is used because of implied indirect discourse. I understand that subordinate clauses within indirect discourse take the subjunctive, but I do not understand why this particular sentence is considered to even be indirect discourse. Addixi does not seem like a verb of saying, showing, believing, perceiving, or thinking to me.
In Liber III of the Aeneid, following usage of implied indirect discourse occurs: "…Huic me,> quaecumque fuisset> ,/ addixi" (Aen. 3.652). In one of the footnotes on the page, it states that the subjunctive is used because of implied indirect discourse. I understand that subordinate clauses within indirect discourse take the subjunctive, but I do not understand why this particular sentence is considered to even be indirect discourse. Addixi does not seem like a verb of saying, showing, believing, perceiving, or thinking to me.
Addixi, as I understand it, is not a word that introduces indirect discourse; it means “to make over” in a legal sense. In fact, your note says “implied indirect discourse,” so you won’t see any such cue word. My note on that passage offers this explanation: “Fuisset is a reported future perfect.”
I think this means that “quaecumque fuisset” is a thought that occurred to Achaemenides not at the present but at the time when he resolved to surrender himself to the fleet. But I really don’t know all the subtleties of reported speech. I usually interpret it as best I can - without solving the grammatical problem - and hope to read more about oratio obliqua at a later time.