# Britannicum vicesimo imperii die inque secundo consulatu



## PowerOfChoice

*Original Latin:*

"27... Britannicum _*vicesimo imperii die inque secundo consulatu*_..."(C. Suetonii Tranquilli, De Vita XII Caesarum, Claudius.)​ 


*Extant English translation:*"27... Britannicus was born _*on the twenty-second day *__*of his reign and*_ in his second consulship...."(Suetonius, The Lives of the Caesars, The Life of Claudius.)​**


*Question #1:*



Looking up the word "*vicesimo*" I find that it means "twentieth" or "twenty" (not twenty-second.) Isn't the correct translation "on the twentieth day...?" If not, why not?



*Question #2:*

According to the dictionary the word "*imperii*" could pertain to "his reign" as above translated, but it could also be translated "injunction" as in being ordered to duty as a consul, could it not?



*Question #3:*

According to the dictionary the word "*inque*" means something like "that is" or "i.e.," does it not? As such, isn't "inque" a specifier relative to the prior word "imperii," thus ruling out the translation "of his reign," and in favor of "the injunction to his 2nd consulship?”



*Question #4:*

Accordingly, is the following translation linguistically correct?

“Britannicus was born on the twentieth day of his [Claudius' /ed.] injunction, i.e. the injunction to his 2nd consulship.” ​ 





Thank you for all your most valuable help!


----------



## jazyk

1. Vicesimo is dative/ablative of vicesimus, which means twentieth, as you said. Twenty-second, as you know, is vicesimus secundus.

2.It certainly could. Think of the verb imperare, to order.

3.  Inque is related to the verb inquam, inquis, inquit, a defective verb that means to say.

4.


----------



## Cagey

jazyk said:


> 3.  Inque is related to the verb inquam, inquis, inquit, a defective verb that means to say.



You don't think _inque_ here is _in_ with the enclitic _-que _(= and)?

So _inque_ = _and in the_ .....


----------



## Interpres

Hi,

Inque is definitely in + the enclitic que = "and in".  This is a standard Roman way of designating imperial reigns.  

Also, imperium has to be translated "reign" or something similar, not injunction.  The emperor's power officially came from two things: his holding tribunician power (tribunicia potestas) and imperium (the power of command, and also of life over death in the field of battle).  Imperium was officially invested by the Senate.  In the republic it was given to consuls (and dictators when necessary) and provincial governors.  In the imperial period, it was still bestowed by the senate but was actually the prerogative of the emperor.  This is the way the length of imperial reigns were counted, i.e., by the number of years an emperor had imperium.

Hope this clarifies things.


----------



## PowerOfChoice

Interpres said:


> Inque is definitely in + the enclitic que = "and in". This is a standard Roman way of designating imperial reigns.
> 
> Also, imperium has to be translated "reign" or something similar, not injunction. The emperor's power officially came from two things: his holding tribunician power (tribunicia potestas) and imperium (the power of command, and also of life over death in the field of battle). Imperium was officially invested by the Senate. In the republic it was given to consuls (and dictators when necessary) and provincial governors. In the imperial period, it was still bestowed by the senate but was actually the prerogative of the emperor. This is the way the length of imperial reigns were counted, i.e., by the number of years an emperor had imperium.
> 
> Hope this clarifies things.


 


Thanks, all of you!





Interpres, 

I see that you are leaning towards the extant translation, as quoted in post #1 above, which as far as I can tell requires also that Britannicus was born _within_ the reign of Claudius and _after_ the death of Caius, or isn't that so?

I do have some questions for you before I can make sense out of the above passage of Suetonius in terms such as apparently required by your suggested translation:




*Questions re Interpres' suggested translation:*


Suetonius and Josephus both agree that Claudius died in his 14th year of reign, don't they?:"45... Excessit III. Id. Octob. Asinio Marcello Acilio Aviola coss. sexagesimo quarto aetatis, *imperii quarto decimo anno*..."(C. Suetonii Tranquilli, De Vita XII Caesarum, Claudius.)​"45... He died on the third day before the Ides of October in the consulship of Asinius Marcellus and Acilius Aviola in the sixty-fourth year of his age and *the fourteenth of his reign*." (Suetonius, The Lives of the Caesars, The Life of Claudius.)​“But *Claudius* himself, *when he had* *administered the government* *thirteen years, eight months, and twenty days, died*, and left Nero to be his successor in the empire.” (_The Wars of the Jews_, II:12:8.)​

But as you know, Nero was at that time only sixteen years of age, wasn't he?:


“igitur in urbe sermonum avida, quem ad modum *princeps vix septemdecim annos* egressus suscipere eam molem aut propulsare posset, quod subsidium in eo qui a femina regeretur, num proelia quoque et obpugnationes urbium et cetera belli per magistros administrari possent, anquirebant.” (Cornelius Tacitus, Annales, LIBER XIII:6)​“6… *a prince of scarce seventeen* was to encounter and avert this tremendous peril… who was ruled by a woman… directed by tutors.” (The Annals XIII:6 by Cornelius Tacitus)​


Given that brief background, how do you explain that Nero was "but two years older" than Britannicus, at a time when, in Claudius' 14th year of reign, Nero was in his 17th year of age, unless at that very time Britannicus was in his 15th year of age? “his evictus *triennio maiorem natu* Domitium filio anteponit...” (Cornelius Tacitus, Annales, LIBER XII:25)​“Overcome by these arguments, the emperor preferred Domitius to his own son, though *he was but two years older*...” (Cornelius Tacitus, The Annals, Book XII:25)​

And if Britannicus was in his 15th year of age when Claudius was in his 14th year of reign, wasn't he necessarily born prior to the beginning of Claudius' reign - as also suggested by Suetonius' statement in another thread? Doesn't this context constrain and limit our options for translating this passage of Suetonius?


----------



## PowerOfChoice

PowerOfChoice said:


> Interpres,
> 
> I see that you are leaning towards the extant translation, as quoted in post #1 above, which as far as I can tell requires also that Britannicus was born _within_ the reign of Claudius and _after_ the death of Caius, or isn't that so?
> 
> I do have some questions for you before I can make sense out of the above passage of Suetonius in terms such as apparently required by your suggested translation...
> 
> 
> And if Britannicus was in his 15th year of age when Claudius was in his 14th year of reign, wasn't he necessarily born prior to the beginning of Claudius' reign - as also suggested by Suetonius' statement in another thread? Doesn't this context constrain and limit our options for translating this passage of Suetonius?


 



But allow me to walk a few steps in your direction and help you along, Interpres... because, as no doubt you know, your position is not without its own apparent support! There are some other linguistic issues that do need resolving - but perhaps we'd better address those issues in a thread of its own...


----------



## Interpres

Dear Power of Choice,

This is a fascinating philological investigation.  It might have been helpful to know this larger context, as well as having the verb for "to be born" supplied in the Latin that you initially provided.  At any rate, I still don't see any linguistic arguments against the translation I offered.

As for the dazzling array of authors, ancient sources conflict all the time regarding not only ages of persons but also their very names and other such things that you might think they could agree on.   Setting them side by side is fun but often not very helpful for sorting out the truth.  Aren't there any fasti or other such imperial documents to help you out?

Good luck in your search for the age of Britannicus.

Interpres


----------



## PowerOfChoice

Interpres said:


> Dear Power of Choice,
> 
> This is a fascinating philological investigation. It might have been helpful to know this larger context, as well as having the verb for "to be born" supplied in the Latin that you initially provided. At any rate, I still don't see any linguistic arguments against the translation I offered.
> 
> As for the dazzling array of authors, ancient sources conflict all the time regarding not only ages of persons but also their very names and other such things that you might think they could agree on. Setting them side by side is fun but often not very helpful for sorting out the truth. Aren't there any fasti or other such imperial documents to help you out?
> 
> Good luck in your search for the age of Britannicus.
> 
> Interpres


 


Thanks Interpres!


Sorry about not providing the full sentence in my first post above! I suppose the verb you are asking about may be in the rest of this sentence, perhaps "natum?" Here is the full sentence as supplied at another site:"Britannicum uicesimo imperii die inque secundo consulatu, natum sibi paruulum etiam tum, et militi pro contione manibus suis gestans et plebi per spectacula gremio aut ante se retinens assidue commendabat faustisque ominibus cum adclamantium turba prosequebatur."(C. Suetonius Tranquillus, De Vita Caesarum (ed. Maximilian Ihm,) Divus Claudius.)​ 
​I have no doubt but that your translation is indeed linguistically correct. Sorry if I conveyed to you the idea that I didn't believe it was.  However, I seriously doubt that it is the only one that is linguistically correct, and more importantly I have serious doubts that it is consistent with the reality it is intended to describe. 

Naturally, what I am after is working towards a better translation, one that is in harmony with the reality that happened in real life. 

Not knowing _ab initio_ what that reality was, given that I am not myself a firsthand witness, I am left with wrestling with what little shreds of evidence, and whatever resources, I may have accessible from whatever sources, until I reach the truth to the best of my ability. I am being blessed by your participation in this WordReference forum as one of these resources. Thank you! 

If I give up searching, if I give up wrestling with these issues, before I even begin, perhaps because I may believe its hopeless even to try, then it is obvious that I won't ever discover anything of interest, or don't you agree?

Yes, I agree that many things look contradictory when we first look at them. Indeed, many times errors and fabrications out of nothing are the causes of all this. Sad as that may be it is perhaps almost unavoidable. Yet, when dealing with truly serious references, that which may seem contradictory at first is very often nothing but another true and correct description of the same reality - as viewed from another point of view.

When I pursue those differences, I will learn things of importance and I'll have a good chance of discovering valuable items of truth that may have been hidden for centuries, even millennia. To me this gives meaning to my pursuit! Thanks for your contribution to this quest of mine!

You might enjoy this link as evidence of what I am speaking about...



Thank you also for your valuable reference to "fasti or other such imperial documents!" That is something I haven't looked into before. Perhaps you know how best to access such references?


----------



## Interpres

Dear Power of Choice,

your quest is noble.  Since you are so grateful for my help, I would be glad to help you look into fasti etc. (!)  Try the CIL (Corpus inscriptionum latinarum), ignorance of which I am frankly surprised at in one of your overpowering erudition.  This collection contains every ancient Latin inscription known to classical philologists.  The homepage website can be easily found by googling the full name of the Corpus.  Printed versions are to be found in any reputable reference library.  If you find nothing there, try the diares of Cyriac of Ancona, a Renaissance humanists who spent his life collecting inscriptions, many of which are no longer extant and thus not in CIL. 

Farewell, Power of Choice.  May the great reputation resulting from your triumphs precede your next missive.

Interpres


----------

