-
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. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 22.1–2 Cynthia Damon Hoc detrimento milites nostri tantum afuerunt ut perturbarentur ut incensi atque incitati magnas accessiones fecerint in operibus hostium expugnandis. (2) In proeliis cotidianis, quandocumque fors obtulerat, procurrentibus et erumpentibus Alexandrinis, manum ​ comprehendi multum operibus et ardentibus studiis militum. Nec diuulgata Caesaris hortatio subsequi legionum aut laborem aut pugnandi poterat cupiditatem, ut magis deterrendi et continendi a periculosissimis essent dimicationibus quam incitandi ad pugnandum.“Our men were so far from being thrown into confusion by this defeat that, roused and provoked, they made extra efforts in attacking the enemy’s fortifications. (2) In the daily battles, whenever a chance had come their way, with the Alexandrians running forward and making sorties, ​ combat ​ to be checked greatly by fortifications and the burning eagerness of the soldiers. Nor was Caesar’s widespread exhortation able to attain the level of the legions’ effort or desire for fighting, so that they had to be deterred and restrained from exceptionally dangerous forms of combat rather than worked up for fighting.” (The two lacunas in the translation reflect a single lacuna in the Latin that contains at a minimum the main clauses of both the sentence to which “combat” belongs and the sentence that ends “by fortifications and the burning eagerness of the soldiers.”) af(f)uerunt MU | fuerunt TV (deest S) | afuit Vielhaber (cf. Suet. Tib. 50.1) || accessiones TV | accensiones MU (deest S) || 2 manum ​ Nipperdey, qui lacunam alteram ante et statuit | manum MUTV (deest S) | ​ manum Stephanus || multum scripsimus : multum MUTV (deest S) | an munitionum (cf. 1.2)? nisi mauis lacunam alteram ante operibus statuere The personal use of afuerunt and the shift from secondary to primary sequence in the first sentence prompted Vielhaber (1869, 558–60) to replace the main verb with an impersonal afuit and deal with fecerint and the subsequent problem spots by excising incensi … ut. His explanation for the genesis of this long stretch of text is not particularly plausible, however, and the shift of sequence is paralleled at Suet. Tib. 50.1 (Iuliae uxori tantum afuit ut relegatae … offici aut humanitatis aliquid impertiret ut … commercio hominum frui uetuerit; cf. also Suet. Vesp. 14.1). Afuerunt remains anomalous, but it is hard to believe that so strange a usage arose as a gloss or scribal emendation. It is best left alone. The principal problem here is obvious: the middle sentence does not have a main clause. Nor can its pieces easily be attached to what precedes or follows. The prior sentence concerns Roman attacks on Alexandrian positions, while the sentence under consideration involves Alexandrian sallies. The following sentence is a general assessment of the situation: Caesar’s men were dangerously eager to fight. The lacuna (on which see further below) creates uncertainty about what quandocumque fors obtulerat modifies: the closest verbal forms pertain to the Alexandrians (procurrentibus, erumpentibus), but the context is about Roman risk-taking, so it seems more likely to modify a verb in the lacuna.Thus Carter 1997: “In the daily encounters, whenever the occasion offered, when the Alexandrians ran forward and made sorties, our men were passionately keen to take the chance of fighting. Andrieu translates otherwise: “Toutes les fois que dans les combats quotidiens le hasard avait permis aux Alexandrins de s’élancer et de faire une sortie, leur troupe [​] était arrêtée par les travaux [​], par le zèle ardent de nos soldats.” He adds, optimistically, “le sens est apparent.” Stephanus proposed putting a lacuna before manum: In proeliis cotidianis, quandocumque fors obtulerat, procurrentibus et erumpentibus Alexandrinis, ​ manum comprehendi multum operibus et ardentibus studiis militum.Klotz and Andrieu credit Stephanus with two lacunas and misplace both. The lacunas in their texts are Nipperdey’s: “lacunas ego significaui” ad loc. He explains them in his prefatory “Quaestiones Caesarianae” (1847, 193). What precedes this lacuna is clear enough, but the string of words after it form an implausible ensemble: it is odd to have a band of men enclosed by fortifications (manum comprehendi … operibus), and multum is anomalously placed after whatever it modifies.Adverbial multum never follows the word it modifies in the Caesarian corpus. It precedes even at 75.3 multum adiuuante natura loci, despite the potential for bracketing here. For the adjective, there are a few examples (e.g., BHisp 11.2 ignemque multum miserunt). If manum does mean “band” here (see further below), it seems more likely to refer to one of the groups making the sorties. Furthermore, the apparent parallel between fortifications (operibus) and emotions (studiis) is hard to credit. To fix the former problem Nipperdey indicated a lacuna between manum and comprehendi, proposing conserentes or something similar in the first lacuna to govern manum, which now refers to combat, not troops: In proeliis cotidianis, quandocumque fors obtulerat, procurrentibus et erumpentibus Alexandrinis, manum ​ comprehendi multum operibus ​ et ardentibus studiis militum. The sense is good, the expression, although more Livian than Caesarian, does occur in the corpus (71.2 ut celerius omnium opinione manum consereret, BC 1.21.3), and the lacuna can be explained as originating in an eye-skip from con- to com-. As for the remaining words, Nipperdey suggested that the first three originated in something like Caesar comprehendi multum operibus noluit. This required the second lacuna shown above, to separate operibus and studiis, since the latter makes no sense with comprehendi. Nipperdey’s text is accepted by subsequent editors, including Klotz and Andrieu. However, his explanation of comprehendi multum operibus seems unlikely, in that the most recently mentioned opera were protecting the Alexandrians, not Caesar. Furthermore, it would be nice to have one problem spot instead of two. So it is worth trying to come up with a better explanation for the words after Nipperdey’s first lacuna. The expression quandocumque fors obtulerant, with its pluperfect verb, suggests that verb in the lacuna will be an imperfect indicative (cf., e.g., BAlex 2.5 alias ambulatorias (sc. turres) … in quamcumque erat uisum partem mouebant, BC 2.41.4 hi quamcumque in partem impetum fecerant, hostes loco cedere cogebant).The Caesarian corpus supplies several parallels for this use of fors (BG 2.21.1, 7.873, Hirt. 8.18.7). In place of Nipperdey’s participle therefore, we might try: 1) manum conserere optabant (cf. Hirt. 8.41.2 hoc fonte prohiberi posse oppidanos cum optarent reliqui, from a passage that has much in common with the one under consideration and will be cited again below). Or: 2) manum conserendam conclamabant (cf. BG 3.18.5 conclamant omnes occasionem negotii bene gerendi amittendam non esse, ad castra iri oportere) Neither is quite right in a sentence that begins In proeliis cotidianis. Better: 3) manum conserere properabant (cf. 20.2 naues … a terra repellere properabant).In place of properabant one could supply contendebant, which also takes a complementary infinitive (e.g., BG 3.15.1 milites … transcendere in hostium naues contendebant … barbari … fuga salutem petere contendebant, cf. BC 1.58.1), but the imperfect is less common in this construction than the perfect. If the lacuna did originate in an eye-skip, it is difficult to determine its length. But the words that come after the lacuna provide some clues as to its contents. 1) If we make Caesarian soldiers the subject of the verb in the lacuna, we also need something that changes the subject, or at least the focalization, since these eager soldiers are later referred to in the genitive (ardentibus studiis militum). In the Hirtius passage just mentioned (8.41.2), which continues Caesar unus uideret (sc. eos prohiberi posse), the focalization shifts from reliqui to Caesar, as it often does in passages in which Caesar overrules the impetuous desires of his men (e.g., BC 1.71–72 id … ex omnibus partibus ab eo flagitabatur … Caesar in eam spem uenerat se sine pugna et sine uulnere suorum rem conficere posse; cf. BG 6.34.7, BC 3.74.2–3, BAfr 82.2–3 and, with the roles reversed, BC 1.64.2–3). 2) The infinitive comprehendi needs a subject and something to govern it. For the former, the most likely candidates are people (cf. 55.1, BG 4.27.3, etc.) or places (cf. BC 3.46.6 aliis comprehensis collibus).The passages in which comprehendi is used of things catching fire do not seem to offer any way to use operibus, let alone ardentibus studiis: BG 5.43.2 hae (sc. casae) celeriter ignem comprehenderunt, BC 3.101.4 flamma ab utroque cornu comprehensa naues sunt combustae quinque, Hirt. 8.43.3 opera flamma comprehensa partim restinguunt, partim interscindunt. When applied to people the verb usually means “round up and put under arrest,” which does not suit the present passage, but BC 3.65.2 cuius aduentus Pompeianos compressit nostrosque firmauit offers a parallel for the meaning “check,” which might work. However, the verb’s use with places also suits the situation on the ground in Alexandria: Caesar’s objective is not to encircle the Alexandrians with defensive works but to increase the space that he himself controls by building defensive works around it (cf. BC 3.112.7 Caesar loca maxime necessaria complexus noctu praemuniitThe strategy announced here plays out in the Bellum Alexandrinum, which shows him taking control of the palace area first (1.2–5, esp. munitiones cotidie operibus augentur), then Pharos Island and the Heptastadion (17.1–2, 19–21). ); he is trying to keep his men safe until reinforcements arrive (BC 3.112.5–6, BAlex 1.1–2), as they will do shortly (28.1–2). As for what governs comprehendi, the possibilities are obviously numerous. 3) The phrase operibus atque ardentibus studiis needs to be made plausible. At present operibus most naturally refers to the Alexandrian fortifications just mentioned (in expugnandis operibus), which make an awkward pair with the enthusiasm of Roman soldiers. If, however, the opera are Roman and parallel to the studia, as laborem aut pugnandi poterat cupiditatem in the following sentence suggests, the phrase here is oddly imbalanced.For the combination of morale and effort cf. Hirt. 8.41.3 non deterrentur tamen milites nostri vineas proferre et labore atque operibus locorum vincere difficultates. 4) The mysterious diuulgata in the following sentence needs a textual anchor; at present it is hard to see anything that it might refer to, since the previously mentioned Caesarian exhortations mentioned occurred in earlier battles, one a success (15.5), one a failure (20.1, 21.1). It ought to point to something that Caesar says in this episode, something that aligns with the resulting labor and pugnandi cupiditas, and can perhaps be located in the word that governs comprehendi. So one might fill the lacuna thus, exempli gratia: In proeliis cotidianis, quandocumque fors obtulerat, procurrentibus et erumpentibus Alexandrinis, manum conserere properabant omnes, Caesar autem contendebat hostes (or loca illa) posse comprehendi multum operibus et ardentibus studiis militum. Nec diuulgata Caesaris hortatio subsequi legionum aut laborem aut pugnandi poterat cupiditatem, ut magis deterrendi et continendi a periculosissimis essent dimicationibus quam incitandi ad pugnandum. This is a minimalist stopgap; the lacuna might be longer. Caesar’s repeated utterance (contendebat) is (a gesture towards) diuulgata hortatio desiderated above.For contendere with a dependent accusative/infinitive cf. 67.1 quod ei neque legibus neque moribus concessum esse ceteri tetrarchae contendebant (also BG 1.31.2, 5.6.3, 6.37.7, 6.41.4, etc.). The scenario suggested here is rather implausible as it stands—Caesar and his soldiers do not usually squabble over strategy on the field of battle—but that is perhaps due to its abbreviation. (For a one-time squabble, however, see the peculiar opening of the battle of Thapsus: BAfr 82.2–3 Cum idem a pluribus animaduerti coeptum esset, subito legati euocatique obsecrare Caesarem ne dubitaret signum dare: uictoriam sibi propriam a dis immortalibus portendi. Dubitante Caesare atque eorum studio cupiditatique resistente sibique eruptione pugnari non placere clamitante, etiam atque etiam aciem sustentante, subito dextro cornu iniussu Caesaris tubicen a militibus coactus canere coepit.) In our passage he might have exhorted his men to redouble their efforts to retake the fortifications on the bridge instead of fighting outside the fortifications, and followed this up with the explanation in the text. But there remains (at least) one fly in the ointment: the anomalous position of multum (see above, note ​). What we really want is a modifier for operibus, both to sever the connection with the Alexandrian opera and to balance ardentibus studiis. A passage just cited, 1.2. munitiones cotidie operibus augentur, suggests the following: … Caesar autem contendebat hostes (or loca illa) posse> comprehendi munitionum operibus et ardentibus studiis militum. The verbal parallel is not perfect but the sense is decent and there is a similar combination of opus, munitio, and milites at BG 1.8.4 operis munitione et militum concursu et telis repulsi (sc. Heluetii), a parallel that gives a slight edge to hostes over loca as the subject of comprehendi. All of our desiderata have now been met. This extended discussion has shown that Nipperdey’s second lacuna is in the wrong place and may not be necessary. The remaining options seem to be these: Place the second lacuna after multum to give room for the word it modifies. Or Obelize multum. The argument for emending it to munitionum is a bit wobbly, hence the obelus. As between these two, our preference goes to the latter as being more likely to stimulate further work on this spot, which has been untouched since 1847. With our exempli gratia supplement it reads as follows: Hoc detrimento milites nostri tantum afuerunt ut perturbarentur ut incensi atque incitati magnas accessiones fecerint in operibus hostium expugnandis. (2) In proeliis cotidianis, quandocumque fors obtulerat, procurrentibus et erumpentibus Alexandrinis, manum conserere properabant omnes, Caesar autem contendebat hostes posse comprehendi multum operibus et ardentibus studiis militum. Nec diuulgata Caesaris hortatio subsequi legionum aut laborem aut pugnandi poterat cupiditatem, ut magis deterrendi et continendi a periculosissimis essent dimicationibus quam incitandi ad pugnandum. Our men were so far from being thrown into confusion by this defeat that, roused and provoked, they made extra efforts in attacking the enemy’s fortifications. (2) In the daily battles, whenever a chance had come their way, with the Alexandrians running forward and making sorties, they would all would rush into combat. Caesar, however, insisted that it was possible for the enemy to be checked greatly by fortifications and the burning eagerness of the soldiers. Nor was Caesar’s widespread exhortation able to attain the level of the legions’ effort or desire for fighting, so that they had to be deterred and restrained from exceptionally dangerous forms of combat rather than worked up for fighting.