-
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.
III. Using this edition
The Bellum Alexandrinum has come down to us in a very imperfect
state. The ongoing process of rendering it readable and at least arguably
authentic has resulted in a text that differs in hundreds of spots from that
transmitted by the manuscripts. The critical apparatus of this edition is designed
to facilitate scrutiny of these textual repairs. We hope that readers will accept
repairs not because they are there but because they are persuasive, or better than
others, or better than nothing. Some of the damage incurred in the text's
transmission seems irreparable: where text has been lost, for example, or where
rival repairs are equally (im)plausible. These spots are marked with and †† respectively. But the vast majority of the problem spots
are amenable to emendation, and the apparatus presents the evidence and (in brief)
the arguments for the repairs adopted or proposed.
A. Text
In general terms the text of this edition aims to reproduce the text of the
archetype of our tradition, as emended where it seems possible to restore a
text closer to the original. However, several expedients adopted to improve the
legibility of the text constitute exceptions to this policy.
The spelling of names and common Latin words and forms is silently regularized
where the manuscript variants are not relevant to understanding the text or its
transmission. The lemmata in the critical apparatus match the reading in the
text (except in capitalization) and therefore do not necessarily represent the
spelling in the manuscripts cited.
Abbreviations and symbols are silently spelled out where there is no ambiguity
about the full form of the word. (For the special case of numbers see below.)
Roman praenomina are an exception to this general rule, since we use the
standard abbreviations (C. for Gaius, Cn. for Gnaeus, L. for Lucius, and so
on), regardless of what is in the text. The phrase per
compendium in the apparatus indicates that a manuscript contains an
abbreviation when this information is helpful for understanding the
transmission of the text. But the absence of such an indication should not be
taken to imply that the text is written in full. All of the manuscripts cited
here use abbreviations to a greater (U) or lesser (TV) or variable (MS) degree. The
phrase compendio indicato indicates that a word is
presented as an abbreviation in the manuscript but that the significance of the
abbreviation is unclear.
We have silently regularized the manuscripts' inconsistent and discrepant
representations of cardinal and ordinal numbers. For one, two, and three we use
the inflected forms, and for most cardinal numbers higher than three we use
Roman numerals, since the inflected forms of large numerical adjectives and
adverbs are cumbersome in Latin and less perspicuous than their symbolic
counterparts. However, we do spell out mille and the
inflected forms of milia. Ordinal numbers are spelled
out; this is particularly useful in connection with legions, where the
difference between, say, “five legions” and “the fifth legion” is significant.
Distributive numbers, which are infrequent in this text, are also spelled
out.
We used modern punctuation in the text since the punctuation in the manuscripts
is neither consistent nor reliable. The terminal punctuation for main clauses
is generally a full stop. Where a series of actions seems to gain from
presentation as a series, on the other hand, we use commas instead of full
stops. But in many instances there was rather little to tip the balance. In
extended passages of indirect statement we use semicolons to indicate sentence
breaks. Commas are used to articulate the text where clause structure and word
order are not sufficient (see further below). We occasionally use paired dashes
to indicate a gap between the narrative and an embedded utterance such as an
editorializing comment by the author, an afterthought, or a “snippet” of
indirect statement, where commas don't suffice.See Damon (2020) on such parentheses.
Where such utterances extend for a sentence or more and full stops don't
suffice we use parentheses rather than dashes. Single dashes precede instances
of anacoluthon. Pointed and square brackets indicate additions to (⟨ ⟩) and
excisions from ([ ]) the text that involve complete words. Where syllables or
individual letters are added or excised the change is not signaled in the text
but the relevant information can be found in the apparatus. In general
Incertus’ prose requires more punctuation than Caesar’s. For passages where the
periodic style consists of a heavily punctuated accumulation of clauses see,
e.g., 1.4-5 (Caesar … poterat), 14.5 (Erant … uidebantur), 24.1-2 (Caesar … puerum),
35.2 (Domitius … fuisset), 42.2-3 (Namque … sociorum), 43.1 (Gabinius … gerebat),
44.1 (Vatinius … praeparationis), 44.3-4 (Quod … persequeretur), 48.1 (Iis …
cupiebat).
Paragraphs are generally those established by Jungermann's 1606 edition, which
serve as the basis for the modern citation system. Units within the paragraphs
are numbered as in Andrieu 1954.
The features of the text described so far are available in both online and
print versions of the LDLT edition.Since the edition itself is an XML file, it is important to note that
“online and print versions” refer to visualizations of the data in that
file. The LDLT's official online reading application is based on the CETEIcean application
developed by Hugh Cayless and Raffaele Viglianti. This edition can be viewed
in the LDLT's online reading application at
The print version is available as a PDF in the code repository for this
edition. But the LDLT's official online version has one important
feature that cannot be reproduced on paper: dynamic swapping. Unlike
traditional editions, in which variant readings are collected in a critical
apparatus at the bottom of each page, the LDLT's online reading application not
only places the critical apparatus in the margin where the variation occurs,
but also allows readers to swap variant readings into the text so that they can
be evaluated in situ. Every attempt has been
made to eliminate the possibility of introducing novel readings into the text.
This is a hazard when variants in two places are related to each other: If a
reader swaps one of the variants into the text, the one related to it elsewhere
should be swapped, too. Otherwise, this dynamic swapping feature could create a
version of the text that never existed previously. This is why we opted not to
encode certain combinations of variants to enable the swapping feature, since
the application, at least at the time this was written, was not able to render
them reliably.
B. Critical apparatus
There is an entry in the apparatus criticus if any of the following
circumstances applies for a word or phrase in the text:
If the reading of the archetype is uncertain: μ≠ν, or MS≠Uπ, etc. In choices between equally authoritative
variants we have put in the text the one that offers the best sense and
style. Or, if these criteria fail, the lectio
difficilior. If no other criterion suffices, we follow U, which is the least deviant manuscript. In some
places these criteria pull in different directions.
If there may be a disagreement between μ
and ν: μS≠π, U≠Mν, etc. We list
this category separately from (1) because it is often difficult, owing to
the waywardness of S, to determine the reading of
ν. The same is true, but to a much lesser extent,
about μ, owing to M's
propensity to stray.
If the manuscript evidence warrants display for some other
reason. Readings unique to a particular manuscript—lectiones singulares or singular readings—are
generally recorded in the Appendix
critica if the text is not in doubt, but multi-word omissions
are also reported in the apparatus since they provide crucial information
about the shape of hyparchetype families. When other sorts of singular
readings are reported in the apparatus, they are mentioned for their
value as emendations. Where two manuscripts have different singular
readings at the same spot we generally record this in the apparatus.In some cases the Appendix critica seemed the
more appropriate home for the information, especially when
unrelated errors were typical of their manuscripts or where one of
the two errors has been corrected by the scribe.
If the syntax is faulty, showing omissions, problems of
agreement, etc. The problem is fixed in the text if possible, even if the
solution adopted is only one of several possible solutions. But sometimes
a lacuna (indicated by ) is indicated instead.For the more difficult
examples of categories (4)–(7) there are notes explaining our
reasoning in Studies on the Text
of the Bellum Alexandrinum. These are signaled
by a diamond (◊) in the apparatus note.
If the usage is or appears to be problematic. In this situation,
the problem is usually fixed in the text, unless it can be attributed to
the author himself. This large category is subject to some limitations.
We rarely make notes involving the regularization of
acceptable syntax. A very common type of emendation involves verb
forms. E.g., where in a series of historical present tense verbs
one finds a perfect. These generally require trivial textual
intervention. But readers can spot these discrepancies for
themselves and decide about the suitability of the preserved
reading and the repairs available. The fact that someone before
them has also queried the text is unlikely to help resolve the
problem, and such notes, which would be very very numerous, would
clog the apparatus.The α and β
branches of the tradition of the BG
frequently differ over verb tenses, which leads one to
suspect that in our tradition, which is limited to the β branch, tense errors will be numerous
(see further Damon 2015b, 100-104). Emendations
of this sort (and of those discussed below) can be seen in the
Conspectus editionum. However, where such emendations remove a
contradiction within the text they are usually either accepted or
at least reported. Similarly if they help address an otherwise
problematic passage or draw attention to a notable feature of the
text such as a constructio ad
sensum. (This logic and these exceptions also apply to
the following two categories.)
We rarely make notes involving the addition or excision or
interchange of verb prefixes.
We rarely make notes involving the addition or excision of
the connectives et and -que, or the interchange of -que and
-ue. A glance at the apparatus will show
that these words are frequently overlooked or added by our
manuscripts.
We rarely make notes involving diction. Unlike categories
(a)–(c), such notes sometimes involve substantial changes to the
text, and the presumed innovations have to be explained as
substitutions (deliberate or unconscious) by the scribe.Or additions. We also
refrain from making notes about possible intrusive glosses,
as long as they don't interfere with the comprehension of the
text. Spotting this sort of problem is an almost
infinite task, as there are many words in the text for which one
could think of a more apt, a more common, or at least a different
expression. The fact that in the BG
tradition there are numerous synonym-variants between the α and β branches (see
Damon 2015b, 100-104) almost guarantees that some of the
expressions in our text were not those originally chosen by the
author, and one advantage of notes on diction would be to call
attention to anomalies, but at the cost of suggesting, even if only
gently, that dictional anomalies need to be fixed. Readers who are
sensitive enough to diction to look to the apparatus when an
expression seems odd already have what they need to analyse the
situation. This is obviously a matter for editorial judgment, and
“rarely” does not mean “never.”
If the sense is or appears to be problematic on grounds of
either history or logic. Such a problem is fixed in the text unless it
can be attributed to the author himself. A number of these passages
involve names.For example,
we printed the transmitted spelling, even though epigraphic
evidence suggests that it is wrong, at 42.3 Iadertinorum and 48.2 Medobrigam. Incertus might not have known the local
or accepted spelling of these rather out of the way toponyms. Like
Caesar, Incertus is inconsistent in his use of the tria nomina, both at an individual’s
introduction, where he sometimes supplies the praenomen and sometimes doesn’t, and
subsequently. Q. Cassius Longinus, for example, is sometimes called
Cassius, sometimes Longinus.
If the text is or appears to be suspect on other grounds.
Numbers are responsible for most of this category. Sometimes no solution
can be proposed but it still seems worth marking the problem.
Parallel passages are often cited in the apparatus to defend the text, a
variant, or an emendation, but only when the available parallels are rare;
regular usage speaks for itself. In directing the reader to parallels we use
uide [u.] for
passages illustrating the matter, confer [cf.] for passages illustrating the expression. If a
parallel from the Caesarian corpus is given, it is the best one, and often the
only one, unless “etc.” follows, in which case there are up to five or so
pertinent parallels. If parallels are given for distinct aspects of the phrase
in question, et is interposed between
citations. If a parallel is given from outside of the Caesarian corpus, no
adequate parallel exists within the corpus. Where the cited parallel
nevertheless provides only indifferent support for the reading it defends, the
reading can be assessed accordingly.
In this edition the readings of all of the principal manuscripts are stated for
every lemma. This makes it easy for the reader to follow the behavior and
affiliations of the manuscripts over large stretches of text. It also
facilitates the task of assessing the arguments about readings in the text,
since the lemmata and the evidence for them are listed alongside the
conflicting evidence.
Orthographical variants and the related category of abbreviations abound in
this tradition (see Damon 2015a, xxiii). They are generally ignored in the
apparatus, unless a variant helps explain subsequent innovations, as is
sometimes the case for abbreviations in particular.
Citations for works of classical literature are given in the abbreviated forms
standardized by the OLD and Liddell-Scott-Jones. (With
space-saving exceptions for the six works in the corpus
Caesarianum, which appear as BG, Hirt., BC, BAlex, BAfr, BHisp.) Citations without titles refer to
the Bellum Alexandrinum.
Scholars are cited by name only, or by name and date if it is necessary to
distinguish among their works. Full bibliographic information is given in the
List of works cited.In the long history of work on the text of the
Bellum Alexandrinum some emendations have lost their
source. Where other editors ascribe a reading to “edd.,” we have named the earliest source we can find. We use ς if we can verify that a reading is in a
manuscript other than those used here to constitute the text. (This
usually means that the reading is in L or N or R.) Otherwise we give the
earliest edition in which it appears. Emendations credited to the first
edition (“ed. pr.”) are presumably drawn from a manuscript source.
C. Appendix critica
In the Appendix critica we record the singular readings of the principal
manuscripts in passages where the text is not in doubt. (Where a singular
reading is useful for the constitution of the text it is recorded in the
critical apparatus.) This collection of readings illustrates the character of
the witnesses to the text, allowing the reader to see both the frequency and
the types of errors in each. Lemmata are provided to show the nature of the
error. The spelling of the lemma is that of the printed text. Orthographical
variants are not registered in the Appendix. An erroneous reading ascribed to
Mac (or Mc) implies that Mc (or Mac) has the reading of the lemma.
All singular omissions are listed. Omissions notable for length or content are
also reported in the apparatus criticus. An asterisk marks errors in M that prompted a correction—not necessarily a successful
one—by Mmr.
