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 readers 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: μν, or MS, 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: μSπ, U, 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.