Pater dicit se iuvenem saepe ad contiones ivisse, ut bonos oratores audiret.

Because Latin often uses an indirect statement construction instead of a separate word meaning that.

After a verb like dicit (says), Latin normally uses:

• an accusative subject
• plus an infinitive

So se ... ivisse means that he had gone / that he used to go.

This is called the accusative-and-infinitive construction.

Se is the reflexive pronoun in the accusative singular. Here it refers back to the subject of the main verb, pater.

So:

• Pater dicit = Father says
• se ... ivisse = that he had gone

Because the person who is said to have gone is the same person as the one doing the saying, Latin uses se, not eum.

It is accusative because it goes with se inside the indirect statement.

In se iuvenem ... ivisse, both se and iuvenem are accusative, because:

• se is the subject of the infinitive ivisse
• iuvenem is a predicate accusative describing se

So se iuvenem ivisse means something like:

• that he went as a young man
• that he went when he was young

Latin often uses this kind of predicate noun/adjective in the accusative with an infinitive.

Ivisse is the perfect active infinitive of eo, ire (to go).

In indirect statement, the perfect infinitive usually shows action earlier than the main verb. So literally:

• Pater dicit se ... ivisse = Father says that he had gone

But in natural English, depending on context, this may be translated more smoothly as:

• Father says that when he was young he often went...
• Father says that he used to go...

So the Latin tense is perfect infinitive, but the best English wording may vary.

Yes. Ivisse is from eo, ire, ii/ivi, itum.

This verb is irregular, and its perfect forms can appear in more than one shape. Both of these are found:

• ivisse
• isse

So ivisse is perfectly normal and means to have gone.

It is a purpose clause.

Ut + subjunctive very often means:

• so that
• in order that

Here the sense is:

• he often went to meetings in order to hear good orators

So ut bonos oratores audiret explains why he went.

Because purpose clauses in Latin normally take the subjunctive.

So after ut meaning in order that, Latin uses:

• ut
  • subjunctive

That is why we get audiret, not audiebat or audit.

The subjunctive here does not mean doubt. It is simply the standard grammar for a purpose clause.

Because the purpose clause is connected to a past idea: the going is expressed by ivisse (to have gone).

Latin sequence of tenses tends to use the imperfect subjunctive in a purpose clause when the main idea is past. So:

• ivisse = a past action
• audiret = the purpose at that past time

In other words, he went in order to hear. The hearing is intended at the same time as the going, but from a past point of view, so Latin uses audiret.

The subject is understood to be the same person as se: the father.

Latin often leaves a subject pronoun unstated when it is clear from the context. So audiret means:

• that he might hear
• in order that he could hear

If Latin wanted to emphasize a different subject, it would usually make that explicit.

Because ad with the accusative often shows motion toward something.

So:

• ad contiones = to meetings / to public assemblies

This fits naturally with ivisse (to have gone).

Also, contiones is plural, which matches the idea of repeated attendance: he went often, on multiple occasions, to public meetings.

It goes with ivisse in sense:

• Pater dicit se iuvenem saepe ad contiones ivisse
• Father says that he often went to meetings when he was young

That is the natural reading. It would be much less likely to mean Father often says... because the rest of the sentence strongly points to saepe modifying the going.

Latin word order is more flexible than English word order, because the endings show the grammar.

This order is natural and clear:

• Pater dicit introduces the statement
• se iuvenem ... ivisse keeps the indirect statement together
• ut bonos oratores audiret comes at the end as the purpose clause

The order also helps emphasis and flow, but the grammatical relationships come mainly from the forms, not from position alone.