# natus est III. Kal. Ian. insigni anno Gaiana nec



## PowerOfChoice

"natus est III. Kal. Ian. insigni anno Gaiana nece" (Suetonius, De Vita Caesarum, Divus Titus)




Which translation of the above text is linguistically and grammatically correct?:


A)_ "He was born on the third day before the Kalends of January *of* the year memorable for the death of Gaius."_ ["Gaiana nece" is associated with "Ian." and Caius died *after* "Kal. Ian."]

B)_ "He was born on the third day before the Kalends of January*, in* the year memorable for the death of Gaius."_ ["Gaiana nece" is associated with "natus est" and Caius died *before* "Kal. Ian."]

C) Both A) and B) may be correct.

D) None of the above.







_Please motivate your response!_


----------



## Anne345

According to Suetonus, it's impossible to say the day, or the month when Gaius dies.


----------



## judkinsc

natus est III. Kal. Ian. insigni anno Gaiana nece

literally: He was born on the third day before the Kalends of January, in the year notable for Gaius' death/murder.

The -an on Gaius is a suffix, making it an adjective that agrees with "nece." It would be, more precisely, the "Gaianic murder," but it sounds terrible in English that way.


----------



## PowerOfChoice

judkinsc said:


> natus est III. Kal. Ian. insigni anno Gaiana nece
> 
> literally: He was born on the third day before the Kalends of January, in the year notable for Gaius' death/murder.
> 
> The -an on Gaius is a suffix, making it an adjective that agrees with "nece." It would be, more precisely, the "Gaianic murder," but it sounds terrible in English that way.


 


Yes, Judkinsc. Thank you! 

I understand that this passage is referencing "the year notable for Gaius' death/murder." What I am not convinced of is 1) whether this passage is tying the month January to that year of Gaius' death, OR 2) whether Titus' birth is tied to that year of Gaius' death. It cannot be both considering that Kal. Ian. was at that time New Year's Day in Rome just like it is now. "III Kal. Ian." and "Kal. Ian." represent two distinct and separate years! Do you see my dilemma?


----------



## judkinsc

PowerOfChoice said:


> Yes, Judkinsc. Thank you!
> 
> I understand that this passage is referencing "the year notable for Gaius' death/murder." What I am not convinced of is 1) whether this passage is tying the month January to that year of Gaius' death, OR 2) whether Titus' birth is tied to that year of Gaius' death. It cannot be both considering that Kal. Ian. was at that time New Year's Day in Rome just like it is now. "III Kal. Ian." and "Kal. Ian." represent two distinct and separate years! Do you see my dilemma?



Ahh. Well, since dates are "before" the Kalends/Nones/Ides, I would say that Titus' death is also before the Kalends. Ablative phrases typically express completed (prior) time.

So, I would choose "B" on the list.

I would still like to confirm the dates of birth and death by a more precise system though.


----------



## Anne345

_Gaianna _refers to Caligula (Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus Germanicus ) 

Suetonius, De Vita Caesarum Caligula 
(http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/L/Roman/Texts/Suetonius/12Caesars/Caligula*.html) 

1 _Germanicus, C. Caesaris pater_...  Germanicus, father of Gaius Caesar

8_ C. Caesar natus est pridie Kal. Sept. patre suo et C. Fonteio Capitone coss._ Gaius Caesar was born the day before the Kalends of September in the consulship of his father and Gaius Fonteius Capito => august 31, 12 after Christ 

58  _VIIII.Â Kal.Â Febr. hora fere septima cunctatus_  On the ninth day before the Kalends of *February* at about the seventh hour => he dies on January 24

59 Vixit annis uiginti nouem, He lived twenty-nine years => he dies in 41.


----------



## PowerOfChoice

judkinsc said:


> Ahh. Well, since dates are "before" the Kalends/Nones/Ides, I would say that Titus' death is also before the Kalends. Ablative phrases typically express completed (prior) time.
> 
> So, I would choose "B" on the list.
> 
> I would still like to confirm the dates of birth and death by a more precise system though.


 



Thanks Judkinsc!

Your response is truly addressing the focus of my dilemma. What I am hearing you say is that although you'd choose "B" you are still considering "C" as an alternative pending more hard facts re the reality being described?

Obviously this issue would not exist had "Ian." in this sentence been any of the other eleven months of the year, since the year would have been uniquely identified by the event, i.e. by Gaius' death. With Titus' birth being a pre-January event we are dealing here with a special case of sorts. BTW, did you mean what you wrote ("Titus' death") or did you mean what I assume you meant (Gaius' death?) 

I'm deeply involved in a multi year major chronology revision project covering the period of the Twelve Caesars. My discoveries within this project are presently making it appear as though Titus' birth did in fact occur in the year prior to Gaius' death. The data I have are presently looking pretty solid (   ,) but, as always, everything is subject to further and more precise discoveries. 

Accordingly, it would seem to me as though it is the month of January that is being associated with Gaius' death by Suetonius in the present passage - and not the event of Titus' birth which did occur in the year prior to Gaius' death. Such a reading might even find further support in line "58" in Anne345's post #6 above! That is to say "A" in my question in post #1 would seem to be the correct alternative, i.e. relative to the evidence I am presently looking at in my research. Unfortunately, I am far from fluent in Latin, so any help I can receive re the Latin language is very much appreciated. I certainly cannot rely on myself for a correct answer to my own question as I have phrased it in post #1 above. 

Perhaps you could expand a little on that which you wrote about "Ablative phrases" as it applies to each of the two events within this passage of Suetonius? Certainly both Titus' birth and Gaius' death were "completed (prior time) events" by the time Suetonius wrote this passage, or isn't that so? Yet, if Titus' birth occurred in the year prior to Gaius' death, then at the time specified as "III. Kal. Ian." Gaius' death would still be a future event. 

Thus, in the final analysis, based upon what I have heard you say so far, I cannot rely with absolute certainty on the Latin within this passage of Suetonius for determining one way or the other whether Titus' birth occurred in the year before, or else in the year of, Gaius' death.

Please shed more light on my areas of darkness for I know I am looking at these Latin words with eyes that are very blind to the intricacies of the Latin language!

Thanks again for all your input!


----------



## judkinsc

I did mean "Gaius" above instead of "Titus".

The crux indeed is that it's difficult to pinpoint the year based on what is said in the Latin. It's the same as the English, "He was born on the third day before the Kalends of January, in the year notable for Gaius' death/murder."

"in the year" simply doesn't indicate _which_ year. But now I'm leaning towards A, since it's simpler to take "insigni anno" with the last antecedent, which is "Ian." Proximity between words is often a good guide when translating Latin.

An ablative absolute is a string of words in the ablative (often with a verb participle), and it's usually translated as "with...(word word "present participle")" or "with (word) having been (preterit participle of a verb)" (i.e. "with Caesar leading, the troops crossed the Rubicon"; "with Caesar dead, the government fell into chaos"). The ablative absolute is often introductory, and the main sentence will be contingent upon the activity in the ablative absolute. There will be a participle (present or perfect, typically) to indicate the relation of the cause to the "time" of the main sentence: a perfect participle indicates action completed before the actions in the main sentence, and a present participle indicates action that is still continuing in the action of the main sentence.

i.e. (just something I'm making up) "with Marcus Tullius Cicero having been dead five years, the Catalinian conspirators were free to return to Rome and continue their depredations.

_marco tullio cicerone quinquennio mortuo, conspirationes referre Romae liberaverant et insidiam continuare poterant_. (literally: with Marcus Tullius Cicero dead five years, the conspirators were free to return to Rome and were able to continue the plot.)

That list of ablatives, "marco tullio cicerone quinquennio mortuo", is an ablative absolute. It describes a situation upon which the latter part of the phrase is contingent. Cicero's death had to occur before the conspirators could return to Rome.

On second thought, I would go with "A." The ablative phrase "insigni anno gaiana nece" is not an ablative absolute, just an ablative phrase: "in the year notable for Gaius' death," rather than "in the year in which Gaius had been killed." If it were the latter, I might lean towards Gaius being killed "before" the Kalends.

Here's a couple of sites I just dug up on ablative absolutes, if you want to see them. They have a few examples and more explanation:
http://www.slu.edu/colleges/AS/languages/classical/latin/tchmat/grammar/whprax/w24-aa.html
http://www.rhul.ac.uk/Classics/NJL/Latin/verbs9.html


----------

