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. 46.1 Cynthia Damon Vatinius cum animaduerteret neque nauium se magnitudine neque numero parem esse, fortuitae dimicationi fortunae rem committere maluit. Itaque primus sua quinqueremi in quadriremem ipsius Octaui impetum fecit. “Although Vatinius realized that he was inferior both with regards to the ships’ size and their number, he preferred to entrust the matter to a chance engagement. Thus, he attacked first, driving his quinquereme against the quadrireme of Octavius himself.” fortuitae dimicationi fortunae … maluit Klotz auctore Hoffmann 1857 (cf. Liu. 25.12.5 impetu fortuito), qui et post fortuitae tamen suppleuit | fortuitae dimicationi fortunae … maluit MUSV | fortunae … noluit T (cf. Liu. 9.12.11) | futurae dimicationi fortunae … maluit ς teste Oudendorp (de genitiuo u. TLL 5.1.1197.21–34, et de adiectiuo cf. BC 1.52.1) | futurae dimicationi fortunae tamen quam fugae … maluit Kübler (sed cf. BC 1.72.3 et u. TLL 8.201.78–202.8) Chapter 46 is part of the narrative of Vatinius’ res gestae after the battle of Pharsalus (43.3–47). This narrative starts and ends in Brundisium, but our passage belongs to Vatinius’ naval operations on the coast of Illyricum, where he was vying with the Pompeian fleet commander M. Octavius. Vatinius’ “fleet” was a motley collection of a few warships and a larger number of light vessels retrofitted with rostra (44.2–4), and Octavius knew it (45.1). Catching Vatinius off guard in a storm Octavius decided to attack, whereupon Vatinius rapidly prepared his fleet for battle. The general urgency of the task of stopping Octavius’ depredations was made clear earlier (44.1–3), but Vatinius’ reasoning at this critical moment is given in the following sentence, which contains a puzzling string of nouns, a murky cum clause, and an elliptical verb: Vatinius cum animaduerteret neque nauium se magnitudine neque numero parem esse fortuitae dimicationi fortunae rem committere maluit. Vatinius preferred battle—to what? Evasive action, presumably, but Incertus does not specify. If specification is wanted, one could emend maluit, as the scribe of T did, or fill in the blank, as Kübler did: … dimicationi fortunae tamen quam fugae … maluit But the supplement is superfluous, since quam (uel sim.) is not obligatory (cf. BC 1.72.3 quibus saluis atque incolumibus rem obtinere malebat (sc. quam interfectis) and see TLL 8.201.78–202.8). And T’s noluit doesn’t fit the context very well, since in the following sentence (quoted above) we learn that Vatinius attacked Octavius before Octavius could attack him, and the connective itaque indicates that the attack was a consequence of Vatinius’ preference.One might also take fortuitae dimicationi with parem (cf. BG 1.40.7 pares esse nostro exercitui) and fortunae with rem committere, but this makes Vatinius irrational in what is otherwise a highly flattering narrative: “although he realized that he was not equal … to a chance engagement, he preferred to entrust the matter to chance.” Kübler’s repair also includes tamen, which clarifies the concessive nature of the cum clause; others had added it elsewhere. But this too, although an improvement, seems unwarranted, since many of Incertus’ cum clauses, especially in chapters 34–47, are murky owing to postponed conjunctions and complicated syntax (see, e.g., 34.2, 35.2, 36.3, 39.1, 40.2, 42.3, 44.1, 44.3). The antithesis between calculation (magnitudine, numero, parem) and chance (fortuitae, fortunae) may suffice to indicate the concession that Incertus intended. But the expression fortuitae dimicationi fortunae rem committere is distinctly unlovely. Rem committere could go with dimicationi (cf. BC 2.33.2 proelio rem committere; 2.38.2, 3.74.2) or fortunae (cf. Liu. 9.12.11 committere rem fortunae) but not with both, so fortunae must be genitive. But if fortunae is a subjective genitive dependent on dimicationi (for the construction see TLL 5.1.1197.21–34), fortuitae is tautological. And if fortuitae modifies fortunae, it is otiose. In short, something has to go. Suspicion has fallen on fortuitae owing to the word’s scant presence in the corpus Caesarianum (BG 7.20.2 omnia fortuito et sine consilio accidere; cf. BAfr 3.5 fortuitu). Fortuna, of course, is a favorite Caesarian concept (⟩70x, including recently at 43.1 and 43.3). Fortuitae was emended to an adjectival futurae already in the recentiores (cf. BC 1.52.1 futuri temporis timore). This improves the style but runs counter to the sense, since Vatinius did not wait for a future engagement. The scribe of T omitted fortuitae dimicationi, presumably regarding it as an alternative to fortunae. Modern scholars, on the other hand, excise fortunae as a gloss on the more unusual expression fortuitae dimicationi. Their decision seems right. But T may have been right in seeing the two as variants transmitted by the archetype.See Damon (2015a, xxiv-xxv), pointing to the lists in Hering (1963, 42–43) and Klotz (1927, XII). The present passage is not in either.