-
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. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 67.1 Amelia Bensch-Schaus and Cynthia Damon … quod, in ea parte positus terrarum quae nulla praesidia Caesaris habuisset et coactus exercitibus imperiisque, in Cn. Pompei castris fuisset.”… the fact that, as he was located in a part of the world that had no Caesarian garrisons and was under the compulsion of armies and orders, he had been in the camp of Gnaeus Pompey.” Caesaris MUSTV | in Caesaris Cornelissen (cf. 23.1) || et coactus exercitibus imperiisque Bensch-Schaus (cf. 43.1; coactus iam Hoffmann 1890) | exercitibus imperiisque MUSTV | excitusque imperiis Markland (cf. BHisp 4.4) | excitus imperiis Kraner | excitus uerbis imperiisque Madvig | excitus precibus imperiisque Larsen coll. Cic. Deiot. 13 | coercitus exercitibus imperiisque Dinter (cf. 33.4 et BC 1.67.4) | exercitibus imperiisque aduersariorum coactus Klotz, Cornelissen secutus (u. supra) | nisi mauis et coactus potestatibus imperiisque (cf. Cic. Leg. 1.23) || imperiisque in MUcSTV | imperiisque Uac This extract is part of Deiotarus’ speech as a suppliant before Caesar. His defense has two parts. Here, he explains that his military support of Pompey was a consequence of the absence of Caesarian troops in his region. In the following sentence he adds that he did not think he should be a judge of Roman conflicts. Caesar’s response is given in 68.1; he objects mainly to the latter sentence. The main puzzle in this passage is the syntax of exercitibus imperiisque. In the paradosis neither word is obviously connected to any expression in the vicinity, and the plural forms make a peculiar pair: … quod in ea parte positus terrarum quae nulla praesidia Caesaris habuisset exercitibus imperiisque in Cn. Pompei castris fuisset Scholars have proposed numerous solutions. Markland (1723, 129) proposed emending to excitusque imperiis, transposing the connective and converting exercitibus into a causal participle parallel to positus. … quod in ea parte positus terrarum quae nulla praesidia Caesaris habuisset excitusque imperiis in Cn. Pompei castris fuisset … the fact that, since he was located in a part of the world that had no Caesarian garrisons and summoned by orders, he had been in the camp of Gnaeus Pompey The instrumental ablative is a neat and attractive solution to the syntax problem, and one can hypothesize a two-step innovation: first the substitution of the common word exercitibus for the rare participle excitus, and second the transposition of the connective to connect the two nouns. But excitus is indeed rare. In fact the only extant example occurs at BHisp 4.4 itaque Cn. Pompeius … litteris fratris excitus … ad Cordubam iter facere coepit. So this solution is not entirely convincing. In 1861 Kraner (LVIIII) suggested a slight modification to Markland’s repair, excising the connective and thereby linking excitus more tightly to fuisset. … quod, in ea parte positus terrarum quae nulla praesidia Caesaris habuisset, excitus imperiis in Cn. Pompei castris fuisset … the fact that, located in a part of the world that had no Caesarian garrisons, having been summoned by orders he had been in the camp of Gnaeus Pompey Here the distinction between the two causal participles is hard to justify. In 1873 Madvig proposed emending exercitibus to excitus uerbis, pointing out that excitus itself is too short to yield exercitibus: … quod, in ea parte positus terrarum quae nulla praesidia Caesaris habuisset, excitus uerbis imperiisque in Cn. Pompei castris fuisset … the fact that, located in a part of the world that had no Caesarian garrisons, having been summoned by verbal orders he had been in the camp of Gnaeus Pompey The connective now links uerbis and imperiis in a hendiadys. But uerbis does not add much to the sense of what is happening, there are no close parallels pairing uerbis with imperiis, and the separation between positus and excitus remains hard to justify. In 1886 Larsen (27) suggested a paleographically and semantically superior version of this repair: … quod, in ea parte positus terrarum quae nulla praesidia Caesaris habuisset, excitus precibus imperiisque in Cn. Pompei castris fuisset … the fact that, located in a part of the world that had no Caesarian garrisons, having been summoned by pleas and orders he had been in the camp of Gnaeus Pompey Precibus contributes more meaning than uerbis, and the scribe of the archetype will have substituted exercitibus for a less common expression beginning with ex- and ending with -ibus. Larsen cites a passage from Cicero’s speech for Deiotarus as evidence for the different ways in which the king’s behavior could be characterized: Cic. Deiot. 13 uenit (sc. Deiotarus ad Pompeium) uel rogatus ut amicus uel arcessitus ut socius uel euocatus ut is, qui senatui parere didicisset. With Larsen’s reading Deiotarus appears to be covering himself with a similar range of options. In 1887 Dinter took a new approach to the puzzle, adding coercitus before exercitibus imperiisque and leaving the noun phrase as in the paradosis: … quod, in ea parte positus terrarum quae nulla praesidia Caesaris habuisset, coercitus exercitibus imperiisque in Cn. Pompei castris fuisset … the fact that, located in a part of the world that had no Caesarian garrisons, constrained by armies and orders he had been in the camp of Gnaeus Pompey Coerceo is not as rare as excio, although the perfect passive participle occurs nowhere in the Caesarian corpus. The verb itself is used once elsewhere in the Bellum Alexandrinum, of rulers who might prove ungrateful to Rome: 33.4 si essent ingrati, posse isdem praesidiis coerceri. Similarly, there is an ablative of means with the infinitive at BC 1.67.4: at luce multum per se pudorem omnium oculis, multum etiam tribunorum militum et centurionum praesentiam adferre, quibus rebus coerceri milites et in officio contineri soleant. On the whole, this suggestion is helpful in preserving the transmitted nouns and in proposing a more common verb, although the absence of any participial forms of this verb is troubling. In 1889 Cornelissen tried a drastically different approach, inserting in before Caesaris: … quod, in ea parte positus terrarum quae nulla praesidia in Caesaris habuisset exercitibus imperiisque, in Cn. Pompei castris fuisset … the fact that, located in a part of the world that had no defenses in Caesar’s armies and orders, he had been in the camp of Gnaeus Pompey The praesidia are now metaphorical and the armies and orders are Caesar’s, not Pompey’s. There are some parallels for Caesaris coming between in and its ablative object, particularly in the Bellum Alexandrinum, e.g., at 23.1 ut admoniti a regis amicis qui in Caesaris erant praesidiis, where as in our passage a verb comes between Caesaris and the ablative dependent on in. It is possible to explain how in fell out in our passage, given the oddity of its placement next to a genitive.U’s omission of in before Pompey’s name later in the sentence may or may not be relevant. The main difficulty with this suggestion is that all other examples of in Caesaris praesidiis or in Caesaris castris have a spatial sense that is lacking here, since these armies do not actually exist and so have no spatial location. The next year Hoffmann, who had printed the paradosis in his first edition, offered his own solution to the problem of exercitibus imperiisque, inserting coactus after the pair: … quod, in ea parte positus terrarum quae nulla praesidia Caesaris habuisset, exercitibus imperiisque coactus in Cn. Pompei castris fuisset … the fact that, located in a part of the world that had no Caesarian garrisons, under the compulsion of armies and orders, he had been in the camp of Gnaeus Pompey Cogere is a fairly common word in the Caesarian corpus, and this use of the participle with an ablative of means is paralleled in the Bellum Alexandrinum: 43.1 magnisque difficultatibus coactus. On the whole, this is a promising suggestion, although critics have felt that the line still needed further work. In 1927 Klotz, retaining Cornelissen’s in, added aduersariorum before Hoffmann’s coactus: … quod, in ea parte positus terrarum quae nulla praesidia in Caesaris habuisset exercitibus, imperiisque aduersariorum coactus in Cn. Pompei castris fuisset … the fact that, located in a part of the world that had no defenses in the form of Caesar’s armies, and under the compulsion of the orders of Caesar’s enemies, he had been in the camp of Gnaeus Pompey The non-existent armies are now Caesar’s and the commands come from Caesar’s enemies. Klotz is the first to take -que as breaking up two phrases rather than joining two nouns. In doing so, Klotz diagnoses a problem, namely, that the combination of plural forms of exercitus and imperium is problematic, since it does not occur elsewhere in the Caesarian corpus and is rare elsewhere, even though the two words are individually very common.Where the plurals do appear in tandem imperia generally has a broader sense than is appropriate here: e.g., Cic. Clu. 154 insignia, fasces, exercitus, imperia, prouinciae. But Klotz’ proposal requires emendation in two spots in the same phrase. The hypothesis of independent omissions is not very likely. Since none of the solutions discussed has been entirely satisfactory, we have adopted a different repair. We follow most editors in inserting a participle to govern the instrumental ablatives; Hoffmann’s coactus seems the most persuasive suggestion, since it is the most common in Caesarian usage. But we place the participle before exercitibus imperiisque and insert a connective to facilitate the coordination of positus and coactus: … quod, in ea parte positus terrarum quae nulla praesidia Caesaris habuisset et coactus exercitibus imperiisque, in Cn. Pompei castris fuisset … the fact that, as he was located in a part of the world that had no Caesarian garrisons and was under the compulsion of armies and orders, he had been in the camp of Gnaeus Pompey. The omission of et and the following word might have been prompted by the ending of habuisset. We have left exercitibus imperiisque intact, since the exercitibus of unspecified supporters of Pompey corresponds to the praesidia that Caesar has not provided. Admittedly, the unusual combination is problematic. Furthermore, if Deiotarus is claiming that he was forced to join Pompey by Pompeian armies, one might expect Caesar to point out that the king did not actually engage in combat with these armies. Instead, in his reply, Caesar focuses exclusively on Deiotarus’ subsequent claim that he did not know whose imperia to obey. To keep the focus on imperiis, we have suggested potestatibus as a possible alternative to exercitibus, a term that is found in combination with imperiis: cf. Cic. Leg. 1.23 si uero isdem imperiis et potestatibus parent, and Liu. 4.54.7: salii flaminesque nusquam … sine imperiis ac potestatibus relinquantur.