-
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. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 26.1–2 Marcie Persyn and Cynthia Damon 26 (1) Sub idem tempus Mithridates Pergamenus, magnae nobilitatis domi scientiaeque in bello et uirtutis, fidei dignitatisque in amicitia Caesaris, missus in Syriam Ciliciamque initio belli Alexandrini ad auxilia arcessenda, cum magnis copiis, quas celeriter et propensissima ciuitatium uoluntate et sua diligentia confecerat, itinere pedestri, quo coniungitur Aegyptus Syriae—(2) Pelusium adducit. Idque oppidum firmo praesidio occupatum Achillae propter opportunitatem loci (namque tota Aegyptus maritimo accessu Pharo, pedestri Pelusio uelut claustris munita existimatur), repente magnis circumdatum copiis, multiplici praesidio pertinaciter propugnantibus, et copiarum magnitudine, quas integras uulneratis defessisque subiciebat, et perseuerantia constantiaque oppugnandi quo die est aggressus in suam redegit potestatem praesidiumque ibi suum collocauit.“Around the same time, Mithridates of Pergamum, a man of great prestige in Pergamum and of great wit and valor in war, and loyalty and dignity in his friendship with Caesar, having been sent into Syria and Cilicia at the start of the Alexandrian War for the sake of summoning reinforcements, with a great number of troops (which he had put together quickly thanks to both the most eager desire of the citizens and his own diligence), (2) brought (sc. the troops) to Pelusium by a land route, where Egypt is joined with Syria. And as for this town, held by Achillas’ strong garrison because of the location’s convenience (for all Egypt is deemed to be fortified, as if by locks, with respect to naval attack by Pharos, with respect to land attack by Pelusium), it was surrounded suddenly with a great number of troops, and, although the multifarious garrison was fighting back stubbornly, Mithridates brought it under his authority on the very day of the attack and installed his own garrison there, thanks to both the number of his own troops—he kept substituting intact troops for the wounded and the weary—and his perseverance and steadiness for fighting.” missus MU | missis STV || cum magnis copiis MUSTV | magnas copias Vascosanus | cum magnis copiis Hoffmann 1890 (u. et infra) || Pelusium adducit MUSTV (de anacolutho u. Landgraf 1891b, 8; de tempore cf. 61.4) | Pelusium adduxit Aldus (cf. 43.4) | Pelusium aduenit Dauisius 1727 (cf. Liu. 42.56.3) | ad Pelusium uēnit Vielhaber 1879 (cf. 57.6) | Pelusium accedit Fleischer 1879 coll. 56.6 | Pelusium adductis Hoffmann 1890 (u. et supra) | ante adducit lacunam statuit Persyn uel e.g. tres legiones (u. BC 3.107.1 et cf. 3.4.3) uel eas supplendam | alii alia || idque MUTV (cf. 3.4) | idque quod S | quod Landgraf 1891b, 8 coll. 36.3 || Achillae] ac(c)hil(l)ae MSV | achiliae UT | an secludendum ut glossema? || multiplici praesidio … propugnantibus MUSTV (cf. Ciris 85 et u. TLL 8.1592.48–60 ‘spectat ad quantitatem’; de constructione ad sensum u. Landgraf 1888 et ad BC 3.78.4) | multiplici praesidio … propugnantibus Gemoll || ibi suum UST et Mmr | suum ibi MV 1. Paragraph 26 of the Bellum Alexandrinum presents four primary difficulties, all indicated by problems of syntax or style rather than by discrepancies in the manuscript tradition: first, the tense of adducit, which stands alone as a present-tense verb amid perfect-tense verbs both in the previous section and in the following clauses of paragraph 26; second, the absolute usage of adducit, which is found in all the manuscripts but not used absolutely in an active form elsewhere in the Caesarian corpus; third, the strange placement and syntax of Achillae, a proper noun that contributes little except a reminder of the identity of the enemy in the passage (and, because of this mnemonic value, may have originated as a helpful gloss provided by a later hand); fourth, the difficult phrase multiplici praesidio, which must either be understood in a constructio ad sensum as an ablative absolute with a plural participle propugnantibus or be suspected as a gloss. The present tense of adducit, upon first analysis, appears problematic because of the perfect-tense verbs that both precede and follow the verb and enmesh it within a narrative of perfective aspect; additionally, adducit is linked to the subsequent redegit and collocauit by the conjunction -que, which typically joins balanced or parallel elements.It should be noted that, although the punctuation of this edition of the Bellum Alexandrinum separates paragraph 26 into two distinct sentences and includes a full stop after adducit, the close connection between the verbs indicated by the idque and the desired balance between tenses within the paragraph remains. Other editions, including that of Aldus, have presented this entire passage as a single sentence. On the punctuation policy applied here see Damon 2015a, lxv–lxvi. Aldus, therefore, emended the verb to adduxit; one may cite as a parallel adduxit at 43.4, where it appears in a nexus of other perfect-tense verbs. However, a parallel for the mixture of tenses linked by a -que is found elsewhere within the Bellum Alexandrinum, as for example at 61.4: Hunc Marcellus insequitur et quam proxime potest Vliam castra castris confert locorumque cognita natura, quo maxime rem deducere uolebat necessitate est deductus, ut neque confligeret—cuius si rei facultas esset, resistere incitatis militibus non poterat—neque uagari Cassium latius pateretur, ne plures ciuitates ea paterentur quae passi erant Cordubenses. Both insequitur and confert are present-tense main verbs, and they are linked—after an ablative absolute and a relative clause—by a -que with the perfect passive est deductus, clearly in secondary sequence as it is followed by imperfect subjunctives. But why the mixture of tenses? For paragraph 26, the most probable explanation is the vividness of the present tense, which complements the dramatic staging of the introductory phrase sub idem tempus. This same opening hook is used five times in the Bellum Alexandrinum (at 26.1, 28.1, 40.1, 42.1, 64.2), and two of these passages have clear present-tense verbs (28.1 proficiscitur, 40.1 concurritur), one includes an ambiguous form (64.2 uenit), and one a perfect passive (42.1 acceptum est). In those cases where sub idem tempus introduces a verb of present (or potentially-present) tense, the surrounding sentences include a medley of perfect and imperfect tense verbs, as occurs in paragraph 26. Additionally, adducit, being itself a verb of motion, seems to have a kinship with the first three examples of the present/potentially-present variety, offering the action anticipated by the opening phrase. There is clearly, then, no problem with the tense of adducit in this passage, and Aldus' emendation may be set aside, though it remains a helpful diagnostic emendation. 2. The next problem likewise centers upon adducit, but is a matter of syntax not tense. The verb adduco is inherently transitivePresent forms of the simplex verb duco do occur in Latin literature absolutely with directional constructions, wherein the context is a military general leading his troops (cf. TLL 5.1.2142.30–50). Two examples may be provided from Livy: 1.23.5 ducit quam proxime ad hostem potest, and 2.39.5 postremum ad urbem a Pedo ducit, et ad fossas Cluilias quinque ab urbe milia passuum castris positis). While adduco is a compound of this verb, the TLL reports only passive forms used absolutely (cf. TLL 1.0.602.70–603.5).; there are fifteen uses within the Bellum Alexandrinum, eight of which are finite and active; all eight of these have their own direct objects (2.2, 34.5, 35.2, 42.4, 43.4, 58.1, 62.1, 68.1). The present sentence lacks a direct object to complete the sense of adducit. The ablative of accompaniment cum magnis copiis demonstrates that Mithridates was not proceeding towards Egypt alone, but does not fulfill the need of the verb adducit for an object. Various repairs have been proposedFleischer provides an effective overview of suggestions predating the end of the 19th century, and concludes with Fleischer’s own well-supported correction to the text. Authors of emendations include Stephanus, Vascosanus, Schneider, Dinter, Vielhaber, and Fleischer himself, as well as Glandorp, Davisius, Landgraf, and Klotz. , but attempts to repair the syntax have primarily taken two paths: the first method is to alter the verb adducit to a less transitive verb, the second to emend in such a way as to provide the verb with a direct object. The following four emendations adapt the syntax according to the first method. a. Davisius, in his second edition of 1727, first suggested that adducit be replaced with aduenit, an intransitive verb. This suggestion was followed by both Schneider (1888) and Klotz (1927), and is attractive for its simplicity, but it must be noted that aduenio is not found as a finite verb in the Bellum Alexandrinum, and is only found twice in participial form (32.3 dignum adueniens fructum uirtutis et animi magnitudinis tulit and, later in the same passage, aduenienti Caesari occurrerunt seque ei dediderunt). In neither of these instances is a destination designated, although parallel—albeit, again, participial—forms of aduenio with attendant accusatives of place do appear at Liu. 42.56.3 (M. Lucretius, Chalcidem adueniens … nuntium, praetoris uerbis qui abscedere eum inde iuberet, misit) and 44.30.9 (Carauantium in Cauiis Durnium oppidum aduenientem benigne accepit; see further TLL 1.831.40–50). Overall, participial forms are far more common in the Caesarian corpus (participial forms occurring at BC 2.32.12, twice at BAlex 32.3, BAfr 11.2, 23.2, 74.2, 89.2; only once in a finite form at BAfr 7.3). The infrequency of this verb with an accusative of destination, as well as the apparent preference for the verb in its participial form, together justify editors in continuing to search for alternative solutions. b. Vielhaber’s emendation, though made over a century later, closely corresponds with that of Davisius, and thus should be treated next. He emended the text to read ad Pelusium uenit, arguing that there was a transposition of the preposition ad, which later led to a misconstrual of the verb: ad Pelusium uenit became Pelusium ad uenit and, because the verb uenit would have been abbreviated as uēit, the text would resemble Pelusium aduēit, easily (mis)read as “Pelusium aducit.” Vielhaber cited 36.3 as a model for this passage (magnis et continuis itineribus confectis cum aduentaret ad Nicopolim). His paleographic explanation is appealing, and, like Davisius’, his suggested emendation neatly sidesteps the lack of direct object by replacing it adducit with an intransitive verb. Venit is, additionally, far more common in the Bellum Alexandrinum than Davisius’ aduenit, and is found in finite and infinitive forms twenty times in the text, and in participial forms three further times. Parallels from elsewhere in the text that can be used in support of Vielhaber’s emendation include 62.1, where the ablative of accompaniment cum copiis shares the same function as in this paragraph (paucis diebus Q. Cassi litteris acceptis rex Bogus cum copiis uenit), and 25.5, where uenit is used with ad (cum ad Canopum uentum esset). Vielhaber’s emendation does depend on a two-step error and on the superfluous inclusion of the preposition ad with Pelusium, an unnecessary word despite the parallel at 25.5. Indeed, uenit is used with a designated destination without a linking preposition at 63.1: … et reliquorum auxiliorum uenit ea mente Vliam ut sine ullo studio contentiones Cassii Marcellique componeret.Despite the “home-Rome” rule regarding the superfluity of prepositions with proper names of cities with accusatives showing direction (see AG 427.2), the Bellum Alexandrinum is somewhat inconsistent in this grammatical construction. At 58.1, adducit is used with the preposition ad Cordubam; at 42.4, adducit is used with in Macedoniam, reflecting the use of a preposition to advancement within a country (AG 428c). Similarly, variations and inconsistencies exist within the Caesarian corpus. BC 1.36.4, BC 1.36.5, BC 1.61.5, and BC 3.80.4.2 offer forms of adduco with destinations without separate prepositions; BG 1.43.3, BG 2.1.3, and BG 4.18.4, on the other hand, combine forms of adduco with an iterated ad; whereas BG 4.36.2 and BG 5.46.3 mix the passive infinitive adduci with the preposition in). Furthermore, the fact that aduenio appears in the Corpus, if only in participial forms, is a deterrent to emending it out of the present passage. c. Fleischer proposed Pelusium accedit, and cited four parallels from the Bellum Alexandrinum of accedo used with an accusative of destination without a preposition: 37.3 Domitius postero die propius Nicopolin accessit castraque oppido contulit, 38.1 propiusque ipse Alexandriam per Syriam accederet, 56.6 ipse classem quam parabat ut inspiceret, Hispalim accedit ibique moratur, 67.1 cum propius Pontum finesque Gallograeciae accessisset. Though the number of parallels seems impressive, Fleischer himself notes that three of his examples include the adverb propius, while paragraph 26 does not. d. A more radical repair to the verb that attempted to emend the problems of tense and syntax was proposed by Hoffmann, who altered adducit to adductis and excised cum, resulting in the following: Sub idem tempus Mithridates Pergamenus … missus in Syriam Ciliciamque initio belli Alexandrini ad auxilia arcessenda, magnis copiis, quas celeriter et propensissima civitatum uoluntate et sua diligentia confecerat, itinere pedestri, quo coniungitur Aegyptus Syriae, Pelusium adductis, id oppidum firmo praesidio occupatum Achillae propter opportunitatem loci … in suam redegit potestatem praesidiumque ibi suum collocauit. This is, as is made clear from the text above, a three-part emendation: 1. Hoffmann deleted the cum of cum magnis copiis, 2. he emended adducit to adductis (a reasonable transposition), and 3. he deleted the -que of idque, reducing the number of finite, indicative verbs in this lengthy sentence to two and the number of -que’s to one. The distribution of these emendations, which requires a number of small errors to coordinate throughout the passage, makes his suggestion less likely; the great separation between magnis copiis and propugnantibus, forty-six words apart from one another, is another reason to doubt Hoffmann's emendation. Yet the repair is worth consideration because, although with each intervention his proposal becomes more unlikely, each individual emendation is plausible and his overall approach to altering the verb is of a completely different character from those that preceded him. There are also emendations that resolve the difficult syntax of adducit without altering the form of the verb, three of which are discussed below. e. Vascosanus replaced cum magnis copiis with magnas copias; Stephanus made the same emendation almost simultaneously. The emendation is based upon the overall sense of the passage: the ablative of accompaniment makes it clear that it is (at least in part) the copiae that Mithridates led into Asia, so the deletion of cum and modification of the cases of magnis copiis simplifies this complex sentence. But this emendation, too, requires a two-step corruption, wherein first the accusatives shifted to ablatives, then cum was inserted (or the same steps in reverse order); these changes could have occurred accidentally through transcription (though there is no nearby cum that could have resulted in dittography), or the distance between the accusative and its transitive verb could have led a particularly intrusive scribe to alter the text to its detriment. Distance alone, however, was little enough cause to prompt such an innovation, as it is unclear why the ablative of accompaniment would have been inserted in place of the accusative. f. Landgraf in 1891 chose not to alter the paradosis at all, but rather to justify the anomalous use of adducit by means of anacoluthon. Landgraf explains the lack of a direct object for adducit as an error original to the text resulting from the ungainly length of the sentence, which resulted either in the author’s losing track of the syntax of his sentence or choosing rather to start again with emphasis—a subtle distinction that either demeans the style of the author of the Bellum Alexandrinum or underscores its similarity to other prose works incorporating rhetorical figures. This is an attractive solution, as it requires no alteration of the text at all, and can be used to explain the rambling structure of this sentence with logic rather than by assuming random clumsiness of the author and ignorance of all subsequent scribes and readers. Even with anacoluthon, however, the verb adducit strongly desires a direct object, even if only a resumptive deictic hearkening back to the ablative of accompaniment. g. Following upon Landgraf’s supposition of anacoluthon, it is additionally possible, and, indeed, my suggested emendation, that there is a lacuna of one or more words before the verb adducit that included its original direct object. The grammatical problem of adducit is subtle enough that no subsequent scribe would necessarily suspect a lost direct object, or indeed look for or supply a correction. The sheer length of the sentence is a likely cause for such an omission: adducit occurs only at the conclusion of the long opening sentence; a lacuna may indeed have arisen precisely because of the string of genitives, participial phrases, and relative clauses that in the end masks the syntactic trouble with adducit. It is possible that the lacuna included a number of troops, or a military unit such as a legion (cf. the list of troops provided at BC 3.4.3–6). Mithridates, although a Pergamene, may have led legions alongside the copiae he had rallied together; something similar occurs at 62.1 (rex Bogus cum copiis uenit adiungitque ei legioni quam secum adduxerat conplures cohortes auxiliarias Hispanorum). Likewise, commonly abbreviated words, such as nostros or deictics such as eas, could easily have been lost. A lacuna doesn’t fix everything, of course, since anacoluthon is still present. 3. The third problem in this passage is the word Achillae, which, in form, could be either a genitive or a dative, and is problematic both in syntax and in its position within the sentence. There are two possible grammatical functions served by this word: either it is a dative of agency with the perfect passive participle occupatum (uncommon and therefore unlikely), or it is a possessive genitive depending on praesidio. The latter is a more likely reading, but the intervening word occupatum makes for an awkward word order. The name Achillas only occurs two other times in the Bellum Alexandrinum, and here the word serves only to remind the reader of the identity of the stronghold’s leader. Achillas himself plays no direct role in the action of the passage. The possibility must therefore be entertained that Achillae was supplied by a scribe as a gloss on the text. We therefore suggest excision as a possible repair. 4. The final problem involves the unusual phrase multiplici praesidio. As with adducit above, the issue is not one of confusion within the manuscripts, for multiplici praesidio is undisputedly the parodosis. Suspicion arises, however, because of the seeming tautology that arises if propugnantibus is construed with copiis as a drawn-out ablative absolute with a repetitive phrase contained within it. The phrase multiplici praesidio complicates the surrounding ablative phrase without, at first glance, contributing additional information about the fighting—we have already been informed by magnis … copiis that there are a large number of troops fighting. So, if we read copiis as the noun of the ablative absolute in agreement with propugnantibus, multiplici praesidio, whether understood in apposition or as a locative ablative, is superfluous—or, at the very least, the term multiplici is. At BC 1.69.4 one finds the ablative praesidio used as a locative within an ablative absolute (… atque omnes copiae paucis praesidio relictis cohortibus exeunt rectoque ad Hiberum itinere contendunt), but multiplex occurs nowhere else in the Caesarian corpus. Gemoll therefore proposed that multiplici praesidio should be removed, arguing that it was inserted into the text as a gloss. Gemoll is correct in positing that multiplici praesidio provides little additional information: yet the fact that the phrase supplies no necessary data can also be used to rebut the probability of this phrase acting as a gloss in the first place. Glosses are meant to provide helpful information to a reader, not repeat what is already stated in a synonymous phrase; thus no scholarly scribe would find the need or desire to add it in the first place. But Landgraf (1888) defended the parodosis, retaining the phrase multiplici praesidio but construing it, not as a parallel or subordinate detail to magnis copiis, but rather as the noun paired with the participle propugnantibus in the ablative absolute. Landgraf cited Liu. 32.32.4 as a parallel for praesidium used as a collective singular (arcem regium tenebat praesidium neque ut decederent inde aut Opuntiorum minui aut auctoritate imperatoris Romani perpelli potuerunt). Not only can praesidium function collectively, but multiplex, too, may do so, and one can complement Landgraf’s defense with parallels elsewhere in Latin (see TLL 8.1592.48–60 ‘spectat ad quantitatem,’ where this passage is listed along with fourteen others). This interpretation resolves the matter, too, of the meaning of propugnantibus, a defensive verb that generally means “to make a sortie” or “to go out to fight,” often explicitly from walls or battlements. This is an action that befits the troops of Achillas but not those of Mithridates, who are storming a well guarded city, and thus we should not expect the copiae (who belong to Mithridates) to be the subject of propugnantibus. The meaning of the participle, therefore, makes the ablative absolute extending from magnis to propugnantibus unlikely, and favors instead Landgraf’s explanation of the paradosis. Inserted in a sentence about the operations of Mithridates’ troops, multiplici praesidio pertinaciter propugnantibus reminds the careful reader of both sides of the battle and should be understood as an ablative absolute with adversative force. Furthermore, although multiplex is not found elsewhere in the Caesarian corpus, the word itself is not uncommon word in classical Latin,A Brepolis search, for example, offers over nine hundred forms of the adjective from authors predating 500 CE, nearly two hundred of which belong to the classical period. and is found frequently in historical works by authors such as Sallust and Livy, as well as in the philosophical works of Cicero. The term should not, therefore, be omitted on stylistic grounds. It even echoes nicely the previous description of Achillas’ praesidium at the opening of the sentence, where it is characterized as being “firmus,” and the lengthy description at BC 3.110.1–6. Multiplici, then, is a lynchpin that identifies the praesidium as that of the enemy, marks the opening of the concessive ablative absolute, and emphasizes the success of Mithridates in this passage.