To be CE or AD, that is the question.

[cinzia8]

If you feel that you wish to use 'correct' terms for the period then I would personally go with the consulship etc options above but put in an author's note/ glossary somewhwere eplaining what it is in terms of AD.

 

 

I just want some setting tags at the beginning of the chapters. Ex. Germania: in the month of Augustus, AD 448.

 

Im thinking "under the consulship of I haven't a clue--have to look it up" might be too long. However, I do like the accuracy or sound of it. <g>

 

Cinzia

[cinzia8]

...for example in the german speaking world, everyone understands AD (Anno Domini) but no one CE , just saying.... and if your novel is based around ancient rome its a bit weird not to use the latin term, right?

 

cheers

viggen

 

p.s. to be politicaly correct in archaeology is the oxymoron of oxymoron. BC and AD are just fine. I am so sick and tired of this argument with people who have too much time on their hands. 2000 years from now will not be the common era of today but it will be 4000 years AD

 

Viggen: Now that I think about, you're right. I use Latin in my story, so AD would be more harmonious with the tone of the novel.

 

It would be entirely appropriate for the modern narrator or you, speaking as author, to use AD. However, characters or narrators true to their time environment would use the names of the two consuls to identify the year. The other options include reign of Emperor, etc. I did a little research in regard to AUC. It was used, but not as frequently as the year of Consul X and Consul Y. Good luck!

 

Does this help? :

http://www.absolutea...Ab_urbe_condita

 

It's very helpful. Thank you!

Cinzia

[Klingan]

I thought that during the empire they also used a chronology focused on the titles given to the emperor like this fictional examples - In the year when the divine Trajan held tribunician power for the third time... or - the year when the divine Trajan received his second triumph.

 

Yes, and what is important here is that you referred to a year by naming who ever ruled, not by a standardized year system: in the empire this had to do primarily with the ruling emperors tribun and consulship, as it had been the consuls (and probably military tribunes in the early years?) during the republic. It worked in the same way in the Greek world where they had eponym Archons (basically "giving name consul" to provide a very rought translation into Roman terms).

 

 

Here is an example of the dating, from Porta Maggiore in Rome:

 

 

Ti(berius) Claudius Drusi f(ilius) Caisar Augustus Germanicus pontif(ex) maxim(us) /

tribunicia potestate XII co(n)s(ul) V imperator XXVII pater patriae /

aquas Claudiam ex fontibus qui vocabantur Caeruleus et Curtius a milliario XXXXV /

item Anienem novam a milliario LXII sua impensa in urbem perducendas curavit

 

(Tiberius Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus, son of Drusus, Pontefix Maximus, with tribune power for the twelfth time, consul for the fifth, imperator for the twenty seventh, father of the country, undertook, on his own expense, the leading of aqua Claudius from the springs called Caeruleus and Curtus at the 45^th milestone and in the same manner the leading of Anio Novus at the 62^nd milestone to the city)

 

(My own translation)

 

CIL 1256 = ILS 218a, 52/53 AD.

[Maty]

Given the needs of your heading, perhaps regnal years are the best bet.

 

Germania

Year XXV of Emperor and consul Flavius Placidius Valentinianus Augustus.

 

The proper way of putting this in a header would be Flavius Placidius Valentinianus Augustus imp. cos. XXV Vot XXX mult

 

The form XXV vot literally means that he has vowed (vota) to serve Rome every year for for 25 years, and intends to do so for thirty more (multi) years.

[guy]

Hi all:

 

I'm looking for opinions as to whether I should use CE or AD in my historical novel.

 

It depends on your crowd. I've given lectures to politically correct professionals where I mixed my time designations, for example:

 

Herodotus lived 484 BCE

[Kosmo]

Maybe you can avoid using AD or CE at all. After all nobody says that WW2 started in AD 1939. The use of AD or other specification makes sense if the reader may be confused if a certain date is BC or AD but if from the context or previous explanations is clear that the date is after year 1 then I see no problem if one writes 'Trajan died in 117'

[GhostOfClayton]

CE is a little too academic for my tastes. As Ursus says - appropriate for this forum or perhaps non-fiction, but AD has a much more comfortable feel for your context.

 

It's like the whole 'UT' argument. Don't know what I mean by UT? If I called it GMT, I bet you would know straight away.

[cinzia8]

Given the needs of your heading, perhaps regnal years are the best bet.

 

Germania

Year XXV of Emperor and consul Flavius Placidius Valentinianus Augustus.

 

The proper way of putting this in a header would be Flavius Placidius Valentinianus Augustus imp. cos. XXV Vot XXX mult

 

The form XXV vot literally means that he has vowed (vota) to serve Rome every year for for 25 years, and intends to do so for thirty more (multi) years.

 

That's so interesting the way they expressed themselves. However, authors deal with word count and a mainstream understanding. I also want the reader to go into the scene knowing the month. I start in August and build up to Catalaunum in June. I like using Valentinian, but even though he vows xxv years, he's not necessarily in year xxv. I think it best that I use a more conventional approach.

[cinzia8]

I thought that during the empire they also used a chronology focused on the titles given to the emperor like this fictional examples - In the year when the divine Trajan held tribunician power for the third time... or - the year when the divine Trajan received his second triumph.

 

Yes, and what is important here is that you referred to a year by naming who ever ruled, not by a standardized year system: in the empire this had to do primarily with the ruling emperors tribun and consulship, as it had been the consuls (and probably military tribunes in the early years?) during the republic. It worked in the same way in the Greek world where they had eponym Archons (basically "giving name consul" to provide a very rought translation into Roman terms).

 

 

Here is an example of the dating, from Porta Maggiore in Rome:

 

 

Ti(berius) Claudius Drusi f(ilius) Caisar Augustus Germanicus pontif(ex) maxim(us) /

tribunicia potestate XII co(n)s(ul) V imperator XXVII pater patriae /

aquas Claudiam ex fontibus qui vocabantur Caeruleus et Curtius a milliario XXXXV /

item Anienem novam a milliario LXII sua impensa in urbem perducendas curavit

 

(Tiberius Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus, son of Drusus, Pontefix Maximus, with tribune power for the twelfth time, consul for the fifth, imperator for the twenty seventh, father of the country, undertook, on his own expense, the leading of aqua Claudius from the springs called Caeruleus and Curtus at the 45^th milestone and in the same manner the leading of Anio Novus at the 62^nd milestone to the city)

 

(My own translation)

 

CIL 1256 = ILS 218a, 52/53 AD.

 

This is awesome, but it's got my head spinning. LOL Is this chiseled into stone or written on an important document?

[Klingan]

This is awesome, but it's got my head spinning. LOL Is this chiseled into stone or written on an important document?

 

It's the dedication inscription on one of the gates/aqueducts of Rome.

[cinzia8]

This is awesome, but it's got my head spinning. LOL Is this chiseled into stone or written on an important document?

 

It's the dedication inscription on one of the gates/aqueducts of Rome.

 

So cool. Thank you for sharing this with me. Do you have a photo of the gate?

 

Cinzia

[Klingan]

No problems! You can find a picture here, the link goes to my blog.

[M. Porcius Cato]

I'm looking for opinions as to whether I should use CE or AD in my historical novel. It has been suggested to me that the average reader will understand AD easier than CE. Ex. Gaul 451 A.D. rather than 451 CE. I've been using CE. Any thoughts are appreciated. I hope this question hasn't strayed too far from the military aspects of the forum.

 

 

Are you talking about how you should use it in exposition or in dramatization? In dramatization, it would be anachronistic to use CE (a PRC tag adopted in 1949) or AD (also hadn't been invented until 525). So, unless your characters are time travelers, it would be weird for them to use CE or AD. Same thing if the novel is told in the first person. But in standard (i.e., 3rd person) exposition, it's your voice that counts. How do you want to come across? Personally, I think AD sounds old-fashioned and parochial; others think CE sounds politically correct.

 

 

[cinzia8]

I'm looking for opinions as to whether I should use CE or AD in my historical novel. It has been suggested to me that the average reader will understand AD easier than CE. Ex. Gaul 451 A.D. rather than 451 CE. I've been using CE. Any thoughts are appreciated. I hope this question hasn't strayed too far from the military aspects of the forum.

 

 

Are you talking about how you should use it in exposition or in dramatization? In dramatization, it would be anachronistic to use CE (a PRC tag adopted in 1949) or AD (also hadn't been invented until 525). So, unless your characters are time travelers, it would be weird for them to use CE or AD. Same thing if the novel is told in the first person. But in standard (i.e., 3rd person) exposition, it's your voice that counts. How do you want to come across? Personally, I think AD sounds old-fashioned and parochial; others think CE sounds politically correct.

 

Thanks Cato. They are not speaking of the year to one another. If they were I would most likely go with what some have mentioned: the year of the consul etc.. This is just a chapter sub-heading, ex. Germania A.D. 448. I use Latin chapter titles, so as suggested, A.D. might blend better because it is Latin. Originally I did use CE, but readers in my writers group mentioned that it might be what's happening in the academic community but the general population is still somewhat unaware. It is a mainstream novel. I also see that movies and TV are still using A.D.. I saw a commercial for Terra Nova and they listed the year as 2149 A.D. It was tagged after the number but as stated in this thread, I believe it is accurate to tag it before the numbers. Also, I went and changed it all, so at this point there's no goin' back. BTW there is a cat in my story named Cato. <g> Better yet, a reader in my group read the scene with the cat and circled the name and wrote Kato beside it. I felt like saying, "Ah, dude (me being cool) that's the Green Hornet's sidekick." Cinzia.

[Romanus]

I'm looking for opinions as to whether I should use CE or AD in my historical novel. It has been suggested to me that the average reader will understand AD easier than CE. Ex. Gaul 451 A.D. rather than 451 CE. I've been using CE. Any thoughts are appreciated. I hope this question hasn't strayed too far from the military aspects of the forum.

 

 

Are you talking about how you should use it in exposition or in dramatization? In dramatization, it would be anachronistic to use CE (a PRC tag adopted in 1949) or AD (also hadn't been invented until 525). So, unless your characters are time travelers, it would be weird for them to use CE or AD. Same thing if the novel is told in the first person. But in standard (i.e., 3rd person) exposition, it's your voice that counts. How do you want to come across? Personally, I think AD sounds old-fashioned and parochial; others think CE sounds politically correct.

 

Thanks Cato. They are not speaking of the year to one another. If they were I would most likely go with what some have mentioned: the year of the consul etc.. This is just a chapter sub-heading, ex. Germania A.D. 448. I use Latin chapter titles, so as suggested, A.D. might blend better because it is Latin. Originally I did use CE, but readers in my writers group mentioned that it might be what's happening in the academic community but the general population is still somewhat unaware. It is a mainstream novel. I also see that movies and TV are still using A.D.. I saw a commercial for Terra Nova and they listed the year as 2149 A.D. It was tagged after the number but as stated in this thread, I believe it is accurate to tag it before the numbers. Also, I went and changed it all, so at this point there's no goin' back. BTW there is a cat in my story named Cato. <g> Better yet, a reader in my group read the scene with the cat and circled the name and wrote Kato beside it. I felt like saying, "Ah, dude (me being cool) that's the Green Hornet's sidekick." Cinzia.

 

Try this [Germania in the year 448]. You don't need to add Anno Domini or Common Era to the end that way and just use B.C. in the form of Germania 25 B.C. for earlier than 1 A.D. this way the person reading it will know by context what you are describing. This Idea doesn't work if you need something like Carthage in the years 25 B.C. and 25 . Depending on who your audience is and what you are discussing A.D. may be be the better choice or C.E. could be. If you are aiming for the Average person use A.D. if it's for the Academic use C.E. If it's general Roman history you can use A.D. but if you are dealing with Jesus then you must use C.E. as having him born in 8 A.D.or before 5 B.C. can confuse and anger the reader.