-
Bellum Alexandrinum Cynthia Damon, et al. Society for Classical Studies TEI XML encoding: Samuel J. Huskey Programming for automatic generation of TEI XML: Virgina K. Felkner Coauthor of content related to section 2.5: Dallas Simons Coauthor of content related to sections 12.1–2 and 13.5: Tom Vozar Coauthor of content related to section 26.1–2: Marcie Persyn Coauthor of content related to sections 35.3 and 36.4–5: Maria Kovalchuk Coauthor of content related to sections 47.2, 49.1, and 49.2–3: Tim Warnock Coauthor of content related to section 60.2: Isabella Reinhardt Coauthor of content related to sections 63.5 and 66.3–4: Brian Credo Coauthor of content related to sections 67.1 and 68.1: Amelia Bensch-Schaus Coauthor of content related to sections 72.2–3 and 74.4: Wes Hanson First Edition The Digital Latin Library 650 Parrington Oval Carnegie Building 101 Norman OK 73071 USA The University of Oklahoma Norman, OK 2022 Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International Licence (CC BY-SA 4.0) Library of Digital Latin Texts Edited by Samuel J. Huskey 1 ​ Born digital. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ II. Constituting the text A. The stemma The foundations of the present edition are Damon 2015a and Damon 2015b.For a fuller discussion of the history of the text and of editorial work on the Caesarian corpus see the Preface to Damon 2015a and the first chapter of Damon 2015b. The Bellum Alexandrinum rests on the same five independent manuscript witnesses as Caesar’s Bellum ciuile. We looked for evidence that would challenge the stemma proposed for the Bellum ciuile, but found nothing conclusive.As was the case for the Bellum ciuile, the “good readings” in S, which have traditionally been taken as evidence of agreement in error by the hyparchetypes mu and pi and proof that they have a common ancestor, can be explained as scribal emendations. Examples are given in the description of S below. Accordingly, we used the same bipartite stemma. B. The witnesses More detailed versions of the following paragraphs are given in Damon 2015a, xxii-xxvi and 2015b, 55-61. 1. The archetype The stemma allowed us to reconstruct the text of the archetype of the Bellum Alexandrinum in most of the hundreds of places where the manuscripts disagree, but as was mentioned earlier, that archetype has to be emended in roughly 140 spots. Regular sources of error in the archetype include abbreviations, scriptura continua, and inversions. Some of the archetype’s original readings seem to have been altered in such a way that both the original reading and the correction (or “correction”) were visible to the scribes of the two hyparchetypes, mu (the common source of M and U) and nu (the common source of S and pi, the common source of T and V).Possible instances can be found throughout the apparatus, but the clearest examples are these: 9.3 dediticiis UcSV et Mmr : dedi(c/t)iis MUacT; 10.6 successuros McUS : successoros Mac : succens(u/o)res TcV : succensuros Tac ; 15.5 pugnae MTc : pugna USTacVac : pugnandi Vc; 26.2 ibi suum UST et Mmr : suum ibi MV; 32.3 precari MTcV : precare USTac; 45.1 cum Vatinium MUV : eum uatinium T : eum uatinium cum S; 46.2 contra illo remigante M (cf. BG 7.28.1 contra ueniretur) : contra illum remigantem SV : contra illo remigantem UT; 56.4 creabat UST : credebat MV; 57.3 ex USV : et MT ; 58.3 inscriptum UST : scriptum MV; 60.4 esse UacSTV : eum MUc; 73.2 triarium MS : traiarium UTV; 74.4 in procliuem Nipperdey : in proelium ST : in bellum V : praeruptam in proelium U : in praeruptam M. Other examples of innovations in the archetype that aim to repair the text include: 27.1 [a]; 29.3 [fluminum]; 70.3 [non]; 78.3 [legibus]. Disagreement among our manuscript witnesses also arises from other features of the archetype, such as variant readings and glosses.Variants: 12.1 classiariorum USTV et M supra lineam : nauigatorum M; 24.1 statuit UTV et M supra lineam : constituit M (deest S); 27.5 prudentia MUScV et T supra lineam : potentia SacT; 34.1 prouincias USTV et M supra lineam : regiones M; 46.4 dubitabant USTV et M supra lineam : dubitarent M; 73.3 discederet USTV et M supra lineam : cessaret M. Glosses: 17.2 [urbem]; 27.5 [uirtutum … imprudentia]; 37.3 [rex]; 46.1 [fortunae]. 2. The hyparchetypes The hyparchetypes that transmitted the archetype’s text to the extant manuscripts are hard to discern in this tradition; our work on the Bellum Alexandrinum turned up no new and conclusive evidence for them.The most suggestive evidence from the Bellum Alexandrinum is discussed at Damon 2015b, 34-36. a. μ Numerous innovations common to M and U are consistent with descent from a hyparchetype, μ. In the BAlex the most telling are these, where the reading in ν is likely to be archetypal: 4.2 militem STV : milites MU 7.1 Alexandrini STV : Alexandrinis MU 16.2 qui STV : quis MU 19.2 certiorem STV : fortiorem MU 27.7 adiuncti his STV: adiunctis (h)iis MU 33.2 imperia ST : imperio MU : imperiam V : imperium Mmr 37.2 cum uereretur S : uereretur TV : ueritus MU 55.3 adfectus STV : a(d/f)fecit MU 56.2 dolore STV : dolori MU 74.3 quem1 STV : quem cum legione M : cum legione quem U 75.1 oppressus STV : oppressos MU Significant innovations unique to M or U show that neither is descended from the other. Innovations of the sort that could not be corrected by conjecture, for example, include the following: 1.2 operibus om. M 1.2 uidentur om. M 2.3 in … locis om. M (uerba 4) 9.1 negotium om. M 14.5 sic … Africae om. M (uerba 8) 16.4 falleret om. M 17.1 ad insulam om. M 26.1 Caesaris om. M 27.5 undique om. M 37.5 pro uallo om. M 40.4 non amplius om. M 44.2 misit om. M 45.2 aduersam om. M 57.6 prouincia om. M 58.2 Pompei om. M 58.3 milites adeo fatebantur om. M 61.1 Marcellus om. M 63.2 Marcellus om. M 67.2 populi Romani per compendia om. M 76.1 acri om. M 6.3 uero om. U 18.4 ex his om. U 30.3 numero om. U 50.1 faceret quae om. U As was the case in the Bellum ciuile, the relative lengths of these two lists suggests that U is a more faithful copy of μ than M is; this is borne out by other sorts of singular readings, which are far more numerous in M than in U, as can be seen in the Appendix critica. Where μ and ν diverge, as they do more than 60 times in the Bellum Alexandrinum, μ more often offers a good reading, either by conjecture or by preserving the archetype. b. ν Innovations common to S and π are consistent with descent from a hyparchetype, ν. In the Bellum Alexandrinum the most telling are these, where the reading in μ is likely to be archetypal: 19.2 quod MU : om. STV 25.1 commeatum MU : commeatumque STV 44.3 non MU : om. STV 44.3 iusta ad MU : iuxta ad STV 48.2 esset MU : om. STV 49.2 causae MU: causa STV 5.3 isdem MU : idem STV 56.6 ut MU: om. STV 59.1 tamque MU : ta(m/n)quam STV 61.4 confligeret MU : confligere STV 68.1 frequentes MUT : frequenter SV 70.8 ei MU : om. STV 71.1 proficisceretur STV : proficisceretur existimabat MU Significant innovations unique to S or π show that neither is descended from the other. Omissions of the sort that could not be corrected by conjecture, for example, include the following: 1.5 rei … alterius om. S (uerba 4) 2.1 magnumque … adduxerant om. S (uerba 12) 15.8 atque … exposceret om. S (uerba 16) 17.5 constiterunt … litore om. S (uerba 12) 19.6 pugnabatur … (24.2) ut ad om. S 27.5 constantiaque … imprudentia om. S (uerba 5) 31.1 uirum om. S 57.5 namque om. S 74.4 inanem om. S 8.3 qui MUS : om. T 14.1 eorum MUS : om. TV 46.4 erant MUS : om. TV 68.1 consul esset Mc et uocibus perpere diuisis U : consules sed Mac : consules se S : consules TV non male 70.5 se MUS : om. TV 76.1 in MUS : om. TVTextual variation between π and μ in some of the many passages omitted by S make it unlikely that these omissions were filled by contamination from the μ branch. There are also some small discrepancies between S and μ in text omitted by π (see above on 68.1). It is therefore likely that in all of the passages listed above ν's text was complete and transmitted to one of its two descendants. The relative number of words omitted in these two lists suggests that π is a more faithful copy of ν than S is; this is borne out by other sorts of singular readings, which are vastly more numerous in S than in π. Where ν and μ diverge, ν is more often in error than μ is, either by preserving a corrupt archetype or by innovating. c. π A large number of shared innovations both link T and V and separate them from the rest of the tradition, more than 50 for the Bellum Alexandrinum; the traditional siglum for the source of these innovations is π.Hering (1963, 40) lists six substantial omissions common to T and V in the BG. There is another at BHisp 40.2. (The relationship between T and V is the same for all fourteen books of the Caesarian corpus.) The separative innovations in the Bellum Alexandrinum also include a handful of brief omissions (see above), and an inversion, another variety of innovation that, once made, tends to persist in an uncontaminated tradition: 35.2 suo regno MUS : regno suo TV. Finally, among the innovations unique to these two manuscripts in the BAlex are some two dozen that repair the corrupt archetype and, once made, are unlikely to have been removed except by accident: 15.8 in pugna occupatum animum haberent TV : inpugnatioccupatum animum haberent S : in pugna occupatum animum haberet U : pugna haberet occupatum animum Mac : pugna occupatum animum haberet Mc 19.1 propior TV : prior MUS 22.1 accessiones TV : accensiones MU (deest S) 24.1 postularent TV : postularet (sc. rex) MU uix recte (deest S) 66.4 sacerdotium TV : sacerdotum S : sacerdotio MU For the hyparchetypes discussed above, μ and ν, it was a simple matter to show the independence of the two earliest descendants of each (M and U; S and π). This is not the case for π. A detailed discussion of the relationship between T and V is presented in Damon 2015b. Our work on the Bellum Alexandrinum turned up no new and conclusive evidence. We report the readings of T and V throughout. 3. The extant manuscripts For detailed descriptions of the five manuscripts used to constitute the text see Damon 2015a, xxxiv-lxi. Here we indicate the folio numbers in each for the text of the Bellum Alexandrinum and the noteworthy innovations. Full transcriptions are available online at the LDLT website (see further below). a. M M is a manuscript in the Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana in Florence, shelf mark Plut. lat. 68.8.High quality page images of M can be viewed at https://bit.ly/3HCkcSG. The Bellum Alexandrinum occupies ff. 133v-143r. M offers some uniquely successful or meritorious innovations (those marked with an asterisk are particularly impressiveAlso noteworthy in M: 11.2 conspectu ⟨suorum⟩ Khan : conspectu hostium M : conspectu USTV : an conspectu ⟨omnium⟩?; 48.1 multis UTV : mutis M : mutus S. ; there are of course other spots where M has been joined by one or another manuscript in a successful innovation): 11.1 tenuerunt M : tenurunt U : terunt ST : terter V 12.4 naturale M : naturalem USTV 14.5 impeditiores M : expeditiores USTV 23.1 quo M : qui UTV (deest S) 24.2 parceret M : parceret et UTV (deest S) 42.2 exercitus alendos M : exercitum alendos UTV : exercitum alendum S 43.3 quo M : quod USTV *46.2 contra illo remigante M : contra illum remigantem SV : contra illo remigantem UT *47.3 ea M : eum USTV 48.1 animaduertere M : animum auertere USTV 60.5 difficultatisque: difficultatesque USTV 61.4 passi M : pass(a)e USTV 72.2 huic M : hoc USTV b. U U is a manuscript in the Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana in the Vatican, shelf mark Vaticanus lat. 3324.Microfilm images are available online: https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.lat.3324. The Bellum Alexandrinum occupies ff. 85r-95r. These folios contain, besides the text, a small number of brief marginal comments on content, either factual (e.g., “situs Alexandrie” 85v, “epibatis” 86v, “berones” 92r, “dinastas” “tarsus” 93v) or moral (e.g., “laus euphranoris” 87r, “mors euphranoris” 87v), along with the familiar “quaere” and “nota bene” symbols. The singular readings in U are far fewer than those of M, S, T, or V, as can be seen in the Appendix critica.In the Bellum Alexandrinum U has roughly 80 singular readings listed in the Appendix critica; the approximate figures for the other manuscripts are as follows: M 170, S 260, T 130, V 165. Orthographical variants are not included in these figures. The uniquely successful innovations in U are few and mostly cautiousAlso noteworthy in U: 10.1 nudare MSTV : nudari U non male; 28.3 rex S : L ex MTV : ex U; 44.3 magnitudo nequaquam Larsen (cf. BC 3.109.2) : magnitudine quam non M : magnitudine quamquam non U : magnitudine quaquam S : magnitudine quamquam TV. (there are of course other spots where U has been joined by one or another manuscript in a successful innovation): 1.5 urbs U : ubrs M : urbis STV non male 20.3 refugere coeperunt U : receperunt M : fugere coeperunt T : profugere coeperunt V (deest S) 35.2 adductum U : abductum MSTV 36.3 castra U : sex castra M : et castra S : ex castra TV 49.1 hiberna U : hibernia MTV : ibernia S 52.4 ibi T. Vasius U et Mmr : ibi tuasius MTV : ibit uasius S 73.1 munituras U : munitura M : muniturus ST et Vc ut uidetur : munitur Vac c. S S is a manuscript in the Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana in Florence, shelf mark Ashburnhamensis 33. The Bellum Alexandrinum occupies ff. 121r-134v. The manuscript has lost some folios between 124v and 125r covering BAlex 19.6 pugnabatur-24.2 ad; there are also some shorter gaps (see above). Thirteen of S's singular readings make it into the text in this edition, a lower number than that in previous editions (see above). But the philological acumen of the innovatorOn the innovator see further Damon 2015a, li-liii. The innovations in S, here as in the Bellum ciuile, include supplements to apparent omissions, omissions of superfluous material, alterations of inflexional endings to repair the syntax, corrections to misreadings of letters, and repairs based on material elsewhere in the text. There are also a large number of obvious mistakes, and some possible misreadings of corrections: see the apparatus for 11.3 contentione Rhodiorum, 26.2 idque, 28.2 circumuectus, 61.6 sibi usui. … The most interesting of these can be seen in the apparatus for 11.4 altera duae, where the nonsensical que pertur and que peritur in Sac and Sc respectively may contain the kernel of apertae un- in Kübler’s emendation. whose legacy reaches us through S is as evident here as it was in the Bellum ciuile (the innovations marked with an asterisk are particularly impressive Also noteworthy in S: 8.4 aduersos (sc. impetus) ex munitionibus sustineri MUTV : aduersos (sc. nostros) ex munitionibus sustinere S fortasse recte; 11.6 suis nauibus MUTV : suis S non male; 17.4 quo MUTV : qua S fortasse recte; 26.2 idque MUTV (cf. 3.4) : idque quod S : quod Landgraf; 45.4 parati deinceps MUTV : deinceps S : paratis ( sc. Vatinianis) deinceps Klotz dubitanter; 48.1 Q. Cassius MU : quae cassius TV : cassius S; 48.2 sestertiis centenis ς teste Oudendorp : ihs c MUT compendio indicato : Iterum ihs c S compendio indicato : ihc cesar V compendio indicato; 72.2 unus qui MUTV : qui S non male; 78.3 Deiotaro MUTV: a deiotaro S fortasse recte. See also the immediately previous note. ): 7.2 domiciliis S : domicilius V et MT per compendia : domicius U per compendium *11.3 contentione Rhodiorum scripsimus (cf. BC 1.1.1) : contentio nerhodiorum S : contentio r(h)odiorum MUTV *28.3 rex S : L ex MTV : ex U 37.2 cum uereretur S : uereretur TV : ueritus MU *37.3 contulit S : contulit rex MUTV 44.1 classe S : classem MUTV 45.1 classem magna S : classem magnam M : classe magna UTV *49.3 quin S : qui MUTV 52.4 at S: ad McUTV *60.5 uitii S : uti UTV : usus M 62.1 paucis diebus q S : paucis diebusque MU : paucisque diebus T : paucis diebus V 64.2 obtinendam uenit S : obtinendam MUTV : obtinendam mittitur Damon exempli gratia 64.3 nihilo S (cf. 25.1) : ni(c)hil MUTV d. T T is a manuscript preserved in the Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris, shelf mark lat. 5764.Page images of T may be viewed at http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b90668596. The Bellum Alexandrinum occupies ff. 122va-136ra. For the Bellum Alexandrinum T only offers one successful innovationAnother noteworthy correction in T: 12.3 non tamen MU : tamen STacV : non post cogitationem suppleuit Tc.(there are of course other spots where T has been joined by one or another manuscript in a successful innovation): 33.2 diuturnitate confirmarentur Tc et Mmr : diuturnitates confirmarentur MUSTacV e. V V is a manuscript preserved in the Österreichische Nationalbibliothek in Vienna, shelf mark 95. The Bellum Alexandrinum occupies ff. 137vb–153rb. V is unique in presenting the three non-Caesarian Bella under the title Bellum Alexandrinum and numbering the Bellum Africum and the Bellum Hispaniense as Books III-IV of that work. The number of uniquely successful innovations in V in the Bellum Alexandrinum is much lower than would have been expected based the evidence of the Bellum ciuileAlso noteworthy in V: 27.5 Mithridates magna cum prudentia MUSc et T supra lineam : mithridates magna cum potentia SacT : magna cum prudentia mithridates V feliciter; 62.1 paucis diebus q S : paucis diebusque MU : paucisque diebus T : paucis diebus V non male. Perhaps the scribe devoted less attention to this work than to those written by Caesar himself. (there are of course other spots where V has been joined by one or another manuscript in a successful innovation, or where V seems to have joined μ in a good reading): 59.1 esse1 V : esset MUST