4

Suetonius, Caius (Caligula) 58:

...alii Sabinum summota per conscios centuriones turba signum more militiae petisse et Caio "lovem" dante Chaeream exclamasse: "accipe ratum" respicientique maxillam ictu discidisse.

The present participle, respicienti(que), is it linked to the ablative absolute Caio dante—with Caligula giving; continuing—with Caligula looking up; if so, respicienti would require the case-ending "e", not "i"?

7

As Sumelic says, both -i and -e can be used as the ablative ending of a participle. Even so, mixing them in the same sentence would probably be unusual.

Respicienti is really a dative here; the new a.c.i. (discidisse) has a different construction from the previous one (exclamasse with an ablative absolute Caio dante). The new construction is like Chaerea [Gaio] respicienti maxillam discidit: "Chaerea split (for) him his jaw when he looked back". The archetype is alicui maxillam discindere: to split the jaw for someone = to split someone's jaw.

Cf. Suetonius, De Vita Caesarum Aug. 67.2.4:

Thallo a manu, quod pro epistula prodita denarios quingentos accepisset, crura ei fregit; ...

"He broke his (Thallus's) legs", with dative ei.

  • Cerberus: Thanks (yet) again: taking "respicienti" as dative gives "Chaerea split the jaw, with a blow, to/ for Caius, he-who-was-looking-back" a relative clause but it fits. – tony Apr 9 at 22:14
  • @tony: Yes, exactly! – Cerberus Apr 10 at 17:49

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.