# domino, Eduardo,thesaurario [dative or ablative?]



## Stoggler

I happened upon the inscription on the photo attached today, on a bridge in the Sussex town of Arundel.  I initially thought that the nouns domino, Eduardo, and thesaurario were are in the dative, but the word praetore is ablative, so does that mean all of these nouns are ablative? Usually the ablative when referring to a person is preceded by ā or ab (or some other appropriate preposition), isn’t it? 

Which case are these nouns in?  I want to say ablative but I’m not sure sufficiently!





For reference, Edward Blaxton was mayor of the town at this time.

Yours
Confused of Sussex!


----------



## Starless74

I believe it's ablative absolute all the way through:
_Sir Edward Blaxton _[being]_ praetor and tresaurer _(= during his tenure) _these defensive walls* rose up_ – _A.D. 1724_.

*Or whatever was erected there.


----------



## Stoggler

Starless74 said:


> I believe it's ablative absolute all the way through:
> _Sir Edward Blaxton _[being]_ praetor and tresaurer _(= during his tenure) _these defensive walls* rose up_ – _A.D. 1724_.
> 
> *Or whatever was erected there.


Ah, thank you.   Haven’t got to ablative absolutes on my Latin course yet! 😁


----------



## Agró

Starless74 said:


> I believe it's ablative absolute all the way through:
> _Sir Edward Blaxton _[being]_ praetor and tresaurer *treasurer *_(= during his tenure) _these defensive walls* rose up_ – _A.D. 1724_.
> 
> *Or whatever was erected there.


Agreed.


----------



## Scholiast

Stoggler said:


> Haven’t got to ablative absolutes on my Latin course yet! 😁


A treat in store. The abl. abs. is a characteristically Latinate usage which combines epigrammatic economy with rhetorical force.

Σ


----------



## Starless74

A small addendum, just to put the plaque in context (source: Google Street View)
​


Full inscription: _Domino Edvardo Blaxton prætore et thesaurario hæ moles emicuerunt A.D. 1724_
where_ moles_ evidently indicates the parapets on both sides of the bridge.


----------



## Stoggler

Evidently?  The current bridge dates from the 19th century, so the plaque does not relate to the structure we see today.  The plaque was retained when the bridge was replaced.


----------



## Starless74

Stoggler said:


> Evidently?  The current bridge dates from the 19th century, so the plaque does not relate to the structure we see today.  The plaque was retained when the bridge was replaced.


I stand corrected! I shouldn't have speculated.


----------



## Stoggler

Starless74 said:


> I stand corrected! I shouldn't speculate.



We all like a good bit of speculation on the internet!


----------

