Aperire sectionem principem

Cassius Dio Cocceianus auctor est Gordium paidika (scilicet "catamitus") imperatoris fuisseRecensere

Could someone help me with the grammar here? What I get out of the Latin is: 'The author Cassius Dio Cocceianus is', and then (apparently in indirect discourse) 'Gordius to have been the emperor's paidika (to wit, "catamite")'—but these pieces don't combine to make a grammatical whole. What's the story? Did someone write est for a verb like ait or dicit or scribit? or what? ¶ Note that, if the second piece is in indirect discourse, paidika and catamitus must be in the accusative. IacobusAmor 14:58, 27 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

I didn't happen to see this till now (the edit was marked as "minor"). The "someone" was me. I believe "auctor est" can be used as equivalent to "scribit", followed by an accusative and infinitive. "Paidika" is accusative (neuter plural) so that's all right. "Catamitus", although in a parenthesis, should indeed have been "catamitum": thanks, I'll change that. So, "Dio is our authority for the claim that Gordius was the emperor's catamite." Ok thus? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:50, 2 Novembris 2013 (UTC)
Revertere ad "Gordius (auriga)".