# a.d. xiiii mensis martii



## voltape

I have a diploma form a University in Spain which has the following date:   A.D. XIIII MENSIS MARTII ANNO MDCCCCLXXXXVII.  My problem is: A.D. If it is anno Domini then such date would be 14 March 1997.   But could it be a Roman date, so it would be ANTE DIEM XIIII.... etc?     Normally, Anno Domine is written before the year, not before the day.  So, what is that date in our calendar? Thank you.


----------



## fdb

It cannot be a Roman date. That would involve specifying the kalends, nones or ides. It is an ordinary Gregorian date, 14 March 1997. But I agree that the positioning of "A.D." is confusing.


----------



## Glenfarclas

I'm not so certain.  It would be very strange indeed to put "anno domini" at the beginning of the date _and_ then put "anno" _again_ before the year.  I'm not sure whether it's easier to impute to the university a mistake in using _anno domini_ or a mistake in counting backwards from "the month of March" instead of from "the kalends of March."


----------



## exgerman

It's very unlikely that there would be such a glaring error in a formal document like this. Universities have been churning them out for centuries.  I bet that the A and the D are not  Anno Domini, but something else entirely.

Can you give us some of the preceding words? Ideally the entire sentence.


----------



## voltape

NOMINE ET AVTORITATE SSMI. D.N. IOANNIS PAVLI PP. II FELICITER REGNANTIS
                    A.D. XXI MENSIS IVNII ANNO MDCCCCLXXXXV
then follow the signatures - that is all I have.   As you say, universities have been churning for centuries........   But maybe here is the quid. This is the University of Navarra in Spain.  It belongs to the Opus Dei.  Opus Dei is a recent institution.  This university can't be more than 50 or 60 years old.  As a Spanish-speaking Peruvian I know that Spaniards now and then have their oddities with Latin.  Maybe that is Spanish Latin.   By the way, I have other diplomas from the same university, in which they totally omit the A.D.  Thanks for your contribution.


----------



## exgerman

OK I give up. Your original suggestion that it is a misuse of _ante diem _makes the most sense to me, but I still can hardly believe that they would make such a mistake in 1995 (or 1997 in your first post), after being in business since the 1960s.


----------



## fdb

a.d. could possibly be "ad diem" ("on day 21"). This is not very good Latin, but there are probably parallels.


----------

