-
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. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 63.5 Brian Credo and Cynthia Damon Non tantum indutiis factis sed prope iam constituta opera cum complanarent custodiaeque munitionum essent deductae, auxilia regis in id castellum Marcelli quod proximum erat regis castris necopinantibus omnibus—si tamen in omnibus fuit Cassius: nam de huius conscientia dubitabatur—impetum fecerunt compluresque ibi milites oppresserunt. “With not only a truce arranged but when they (sc. Lepidus and Marcellus) were leveling their now nearly constructed earthworks and the fortifications’ guards had been removed, the king’s auxiliary troops made an attack against the stronghold of Marcellus that was closest to the king’s camp—when no one was expecting it, if in fact that ‘no one’ included Cassius, for there was doubt concerning his complicity—and overpowered many soldiers there.” prope iam MUSTV (cf. BG 3.3.3) | prope etiam Credo (cf. BG 6.11.2 paene etiam) || constituta opera cum Aldus (u. 61.6 et cf. BG 2.12.5 turribus … constitutis) | constituta opera MUSTV | pace constituta opera cum Nipperdey (cf. Cic. Q. fr. 1.1.25) | constituta pace cum opera Castiglioni | constituta die (uel prouincia) cum opera Damon exempli gratia (cf. BG 1.4.2 etc., 65.1) || complanarent (sc. Lepidus Marcellusque) MUSTV (cf. Sen. Dial. 1.5.9) | complanarentur Kübler dubitanter (cf. Cic. Dom. 101 domus) After a tense period in which the two Caesarian armies in Further Spain, one loyal to Caesar’s original legate, Q. Cassius Longinus, the other to Caesar himself but not to Cassius, seem likely to fight one another, a truce is finally arranged at Ulia and the leaders negotiate a resolution that involves releasing Cassius from his present encirclement by demolishing some fortifications (63.1–4). The present sentence concerns a surprise attack during the truce by troops commanded by Cassius’ ally Bogus, king of Mauretania (cf. 59.2, 62.1–2). The transmitted text has an obvious problem: the subjunctives are inexplicable.The faulty syntax is signaled in U by a “query” symbol in the left margin and a “caret” symbol above the word impetum. A similar system of notation appears on the same page in connection with 64.2 uenit. And the unannounced change of subject from singular to plural in complanarent is, if not unparalleled in the Bellum Alexandrinum (see Gaertner and Hausburg 2013, General Index s.v. “syntax: abrupt changes of subject”), at least odd. Aldus (1513, ad loc.) made the obvious repair, supplying the conjunction cum before complanarent: Non tantum indutiis factis sed prope iam constituta opera cum complanarent custodiaeque munitionum essent deductae, auxilia regis … impetum fecerunt. The postponement of cum is a feature of Incertus’ style (see Gaertner and Hausburg 2013, 36–39). However, this repair makes the non tantum … sed structure oddly imbalanced, with non tantum introducing an ablative absolute and sed a subordinate clause. Nipperdey (1847, 200) addressed the new problem by adding pace to create a second ablative absolute with constituta: Non tantum indutiis factis sed prope iam pace constituta opera cum complanarent custodiaeque munitionum essent deductae, auxilia regis … impetum fecerunt. The opera are now unmodified, but their identity is clear from the preceding narrative (61.5 operibus in circuiti oppidi continuatis, 62.2 munitiones … ab operibus); Cassius had demanded their dismantlement (63.4 postulat uti munitiones disicerentur). Parallelism has been restored, but it is hard to explain a two-part innovation here: either there were two unrelated omissions or a scribe tried to repair a text that was nonsensical after cum was omitted before con-. But in the latter case the excision of pace is not the most obvious move. Castiglioni (1924, 239) suggested that cum and pace were adjacent when omitted: Non tantum indutiis factis sed prope iam constituta pace cum opera complanarent custodiaeque munitionum essent deductae, auxilia regis … impetum fecerunt. This simplifies the innovation but weakens the paleographical justification for the omission of cum. This repair was adopted by Klotz (1927). But the expression constituta pace is problematic, since constituere pacem appears nowhere in the Caesarian corpus, despite the fact that Caesar refers to many peace negotiations; Caesarian expressions include pace facta (BG 2.29.5, 3.1.4), pace confirmata (BG 4.48.1), pace concilianda (BG 7.55.4, BC 1.26.3, 1.85.2), pace petita or petenda (BG 4.13.1, 4.27.4). Of the small number of passages listed in the relevant spot of the TLL (4.515.58–61), the best parallel comes from Cicero: Q. fr. 1.1.25 pacem tota prouincia constitutam. So we considered two nouns that are used with constituta. Non tantum indutiis factis sed prope iam constituta die cum opera complanarent custodiaeque munitionum essent deductae, auxilia regis … impetum fecerunt. Non tantum indutiis factis sed prope iam constituta prouincia cum opera complanarent custodiaeque munitionum essent deductae, auxilia regis … impetum fecerunt. Each expression can be parallelled in the corpus Caesarianum. For constituere diem cf. e.g., BG 1.4.2 and BC 3.33.1 die constituta; for constituere prouinciam cf. 65.1 praeferendum existimauit (sc. Caesar) quas in prouincias regionesque uenisset eas … relinquere constitutas.A Ciceronian usage (e.g., Sull. 52 condicio … constituta est, Ver. 2.5.157 te praetore est consitituta condicio) suggests another possibility: Non tantum indutiis factis sed prope iam constituta conditione cum opera complanarent custodiaeque munitionum essent deductae, auxilia regis … impetum fecerunt. But neither omission has any paleographic plausibility. We therefore follow Andrieu (1954) in reverting to Aldus’ repair. It seems to us that constituta goes particularly well with opera, since the reference here to the works’ closeness to completion (prope iam) is prepared for by the earlier report that Cassius dismissed his cavalry before his opponents could complete their circuit wall (61.6 quae [sc. munitiones] prius quam perficerentur Longinus omnem suum equitatum emisit).Prope iam is used with perfect passive participles at BG 3.3.3 prope iam desperata, 7.29.6 prope iam effectum, BC 3.70.1 prope iam expeditam. Furthermore, none of the repairs that couples constituta with an ablative suffices to make non tantum … sed in the present sentence match the regular usage of non/neque tantum (or solum) in the corpus Caesarianum, since apart from BG 7.54.4, BC 3.93.6, and BHisp 5.6 (all with non solumThe pair non tantum … sed (without etiam) appears at, e.g., Cic. Tusc. 3.75, Sen. Contr. 1.pr. 14 and 18, Col. 3.10.18, Quint. 4.1.16, 5.13.29. The omission of etiam (and its like) becomes commoner starting with the younger Seneca. ), sed always appears with reinforcements: etiam (30x), paene (BG 1.20.5, BC 3.32.2), paene etiam (BG 6.11.2), ne … quidem (BAlex 8.3).The existence of Incertus’ other unique usage at 8.3 persuades us to leave prope iam in the text, but we propose prope etiam in the apparatus on the model of BG 6.11.2 in Gallia non solum in omnibus ciuitatibus atque in omnibus pagis partibusque, sed paene etiam in singulis domibus factiones sunt. Admittedly, the coupling of a circumstantial ablative and a circumstantial cum clause is an even more striking oddity, unique in the corpus Caesarianum. Columella uses non tantum … sed to couple an ablative with temporal clause (12.52.14 non tantum eo tempore curanda sunt [sc. dolia], cum fructus necessitas cogit, sed ubi fuerint … uacuata), but the equivalence of eo tempore and ubi is considerably easier than that in our passage. The repairs reported in the apparatus indicate our distrust of the transmitted text. As for complanarent, a verb that appears nowhere else in the corpus Caesarianum, the transmitted active form is hard to construe (no subject) and parallel (the best is Sen. Dial. 1.5.9 quae … conplanet ipse). In emending the verb to a passive form Kübler makes the syntax simpler, but here again the best parallel comes from outside the corpus (Cic. Dom. 101 domus est complanata), so it is hard to feel confident that he is right. And it seems rash to emend when the subject of complanarent could have fallen out with cum.