Caesar and the Bellum Alexandrinum: An Analysis of Style, Narrative Technique, and the Reception of Greek Historiography (Hypomnemata) (Hypomnemata, 192) 9783525253007, 9783647253008, 3525253001

Citation preview

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

Hypomnemata Untersuchungen zur Antike und zu ihrem Nachleben

Herausgegeben von Ewen Bowie, Albrecht Dihle, Siegmar Döpp, Dorothea Frede, Hans-Joachim Gehrke, Günther Patzig, Karla Pollmann, Christoph Riedweg, Gisela Striker Band 192

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

Jan Felix Gaertner / Bianca C. Hausburg

Caesar and the Bellum Alexandrinum An Analysis of Style, Narrative Technique, and the Reception of Greek Historiography

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

Verantwortlicher Herausgeber: Siegmar Döpp

Mit 2 Karten und 27 Tabellen Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet über http://dnb.d-nb.de abrufbar. ISBN 978-3-525-25300-7 ISBN 978-3-647-25300-8 (E-Book) Umschlagabbildung: Nile Mosaic of Palestrina. Circa 100 B. C. Gedruckt mit freundlicher Unterstützung der Geschwister Boehringer Ingelheim Stiftung für Geisteswissenschaften in Ingelheim am Rhein. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen / Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht LLC, Bristol, CT, U. S. A. www.v-r.de Alle Rechte vorbehalten. Das Werk und seine Teile sind urheberrechtlich geschützt. Jede Verwertung in anderen als den gesetzlich zugelassenen Fällen bedarf der vorherigen schriftlichen Einwilligung des Verlages. Printed in Germany. Satz: textformart, Göttingen Druck und Bindung: e Hubert & Co, Göttingen Gedruckt auf alterungsbeständigem Papier. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

Preface

This book has had  a long gestation. Its origin lies in  a seminar on the Corpus Caesa­rianum, which was held at the University of Leipzig in the summer semester of 2005. Our original intention had been to write a short note on the Thucyd­ idean motifs in chapters 13 to 16 of the Bellum Alexandrinum, but in the course of our studies we soon realized that our observations had implications for the composition of the whole Bellum Alexandrinum and, indeed, the entire Corpus Caesarianum. Consequently, the scope of our analysis became wider over the years and we first added a detailed analysis of the language, then a discussion of the Epistula ad Balbum, and later also a study of the historiographical outlook and narrative technique. By the end of 2010, the original ‘note’ had grown to the size of more than one hundred densely printed pages. Rather than disintegrating the argument again and chopping it up into several long articles, we thought that it would be more convenient for our readers if we presented our research in a monograph. Our work was aided by various people whose assistance we gratefully acknowledge. From the very beginning of this project, J. N. Adams has taken a keen interest in our research. He provided encouragement and guidance at  a number of important junctures, and we greatly profited from his assiduous criticism of our first complete draft. During the last months, J. Pigoń, K. A. Raaflaub, and H. J. Tschiedel each read a penultimate draft of the whole book and saved us from many omissions and errors. In this process, H. J. Tschiedel also scrutinized our information on the manuscript transmission and generously communicated readings of the main medieval manuscripts. Furthermore, E. L. Bowie, M. Carter, J. D. Dillery, C. S. Kraus, C. B. Krebs, and A. T. Zanker read and commented on chapters or sections of this book. M. Winterbottom gave helpful advice on a passage of Quintilian, and M. Kenawi kindly discussed several drafts of the maps at the end of this book and shared his firsthand knowledge of the topography of Alexandria and the Nile Delta. Since 2007, we have been able to present and discuss our views at conferences or in the form of guest lectures on three continents. This has greatly aided the development of our ideas, and we are very grateful to our audiences for their criticism and suggestions. In particular, we would like to thank M. Jehne, A. Peer, A. Powell, J. Price, and K. Sier for their perceptive comments. Both at the University of Leipzig and later at Harvard University (since March 2012) we found an environment that was congenial to academic inquiry and scholarly exchange. We would like to extend our sincere gratitude to M. Deufert © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

6

Preface

and K. M. Coleman. M. Deufert has been very supportive and generous with his advice for many years; K. M. Coleman kindly invited us to spend eighteen months at Harvard University and thereby provided the necessary otium, as well as warm friendship, for the final stages of this project. We are also indebted to two students of the University of Leipzig. During the last two years, I. Kluckow helped us in compiling and organizing the evidence of the electronic Thesaurus Linguae Latinae; C. Weilbach assisted us in the arduous task of checking references and kindly provided information about some early editions of the Corpus Caesarianum in the Sondersammlung of the Bibliotheca Albertina at Leipzig. At Harvard, A. Koenig and S. Wallenberg kindly offered advice on questions of English grammar and usage. Whatever mistakes of fact or style remain are the result of our own negligence or stubbornness. Our research has profited from the financial support of the Alexander von Humboldt-Stiftung, which sponsored lecture tours to the USA (2007) and Israel (2009) and awarded a generous Feodor Lynen scholarship. Moreover, the Geschwister Boehringer Ingelheim Stiftung für Geisteswissenschaften has made  a major contribution to the costs of publication. Finally, we would like to thank S. Döpp and the other editors of Hypomnemata for including our book in their prestigious series, and we are grateful to U. Blech and K. Pätzke for skilfully and patiently shepherding the manuscript through the publication process. Jan Felix Gaertner Bianca C. Hausburg

Cambridge, Mass. 10 April 2013

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

Contents

Abbreviations and other conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 2. The Bellum Alexandrinum and the Corpus Caesarianum . . . . . . . . . 15 2.1. The composition and publication of the Bellum Gallicum and Bellum Civile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 2.2. The evidence of Suetonius’ Vita Divi Iulii and the Epistula ad Balbum 21 (a) Suetonius’ Vita Divi Iulii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 (b) The Epistula ad Balbum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 3. Language and style of the Bellum Alexandrinum . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 3.1. The Bellum Alexandrinum and the language and style of Hirt. Gal. 8 31 3.2. The hypothesis of the anonymous dilettante . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 3.3. The analytical approach of Landgraf, Zingerle, Dahms, and Pötter 39 3.4. Objections to the analytical approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 (a) Un-Caesarian or Hirtian usages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 (b) Linguistic features attested in B.Alex. 1–21 and B.Alex. 22–78 . 45 (c) An alternative explanation of the Caesarian iuncturae in B.Alex. 1–21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 (d) Objections concerning the contents of the Bellum Alexandrinum 47 3.5. New evidence for the heterogeneous character of the Bellum Alexandrinum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 (a) Usages which are absent from B.Alex. 1–21, but frequent in B.Alex. 22–78 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 (b) Usages which are common in B.Alex. 1–21, but absent from B.Alex. 22–78 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 (c) Relative clauses and connective relatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 (d) Sentence-initial ablatives absolute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 (e) Sentence-initial verbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 (f) Connective adverbs and particles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 (g) Adversative and disjunctive conjunctions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 (h) Copulative conjunctions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 (i) Subordinating conjunctions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 3.6. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

8

Contents

4. Literary technique and historiographical method . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 4.1. The density and quality of the historical information . . . . . . . . 74 (a) The events in Lower Egypt (B.Alex. 1–33) . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 (b) The events in Asia Minor, Illyricum, and Spain (B.Alex. 34–78) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 4.2. The presentation and evaluation of the historical events . . . . . . 93 (a) Political and ethical vocabulary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 (b) The representation of Caesar and the Caesarians . . . . . . . . 96 (c) The representation of Caesar’s enemies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 (d) The representation of Caesar’s generals and allies . . . . . . . . 109 4.3. Concepts of historical change: human and divine agency . . . . . . 110 4.4. The temporal perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 4.5. The Bellum Alexandrinum and earlier historiography . . . . . . . . 122 (a) Caesarian diction and Thucydidean motifs in B.Alex. 13–16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 (b) Further Thucydidean elements in B.Alex. 1–21 and 22–78 . . . 134 (c) The Bellum Alexandrinum and the ‘Thucydidean fashion’ of the 50s and 40s B. C. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137 (d) The account of Euphranor’s death (B.Alex. 25) . . . . . . . . . 140 (e) The influence of Hellenistic historiography . . . . . . . . . . . 144 (f) The influence of earlier Roman historiography . . . . . . . . . 150 (g) Consequences for the composition, aims, and target audience of B.Alex. 22–78 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153 5. The publication of the Bellum Alexandrinum and its historical context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1. The book division after Civ. 3.112 and its political significance 5.2. The Bellum Alexandrinum and three pieces of biographical information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3. The political context and function of the Corpus Caesarianum

. . 155 . . 155 . . 157 . . 160

6. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

Contents

9

Appendices Appendix A: The authorship and authenticity of the Epistula ad Balbum and Gal. 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169 Appendix B: hostis, inimicus, and the date of composition of the Bellum Civile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185 Appendix C: The book division between Civ. 1 and Civ. 2 . . . . . . . . . . 189 Appendix D: The chronology of the events in the two Hispaniae, Africa, and at Massilia in 49 B. C. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204 Introduction to appendices E–J . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215 Appendix E: The vocabulary of Hirt. Gal. 8 and the Bellum Alexandrinum 216 1. Expressions attested in the Bellum Alexandrinum, but not in the Caesarian commentarii or Hirt. Gal. 8 . . . . . . . . 216 2. Expressions attested in the Bellum Alexandrinum and the Caesarian commentarii, but not in Hirt. Gal. 8 . . . . . . . . . . 219 3. Expressions attested in the Bellum Alexandrinum and Hirt. Gal. 8, but not in the Caesarian commentarii . . . . . . . . . . 223 4. Words attested several times in Hirt. Gal. 8, but absent from the Bellum Alexandrinum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224 Appendix F: The distribution of hapax legomena in the Caesarian commentarii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225 Appendix G: Expressions occurring several times in B.Alex. 1–78 . . . . . . 236 1. Expressions that are attested in B.Alex. 1–21 and 22–78 . . . . . . . 236 2. Expressions that occur several times in B.Alex. 22–78, but are absent from B.Alex. 1–21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237 Appendix H: Significant phrases shared by the Bellum Alexandrinum and Hirt. Gal. 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239 Appendix I: Significant parallels between the Bellum Alexandrinum and the Caesarian commentarii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246 1. Significant parallels between the Caesarian commentarii and B.Alex. 1–21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246 2. Parallels between the Caesarian commentarii and B.Alex. 22–78 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265 © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

10

Contents

Appendix J: Expressions previously misidentified as Hirtian or un-Caesarian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 268 1. Expressions that are paralleled in the Caesarian commentarii . . . 268 2. Expressions that can be compared to similar collocations in the Caesarian commentarii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 280 Appendix K: Pronouns and connectives in Caesar, the Bellum Alexandrinum, and Hirtius . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 286 1. Relative and demonstrative pronouns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 286 2. Copulative conjunctions and enim/nam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287 3. at, autem, sed, tamen, and vero . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 288 4. praeterea, ita, itaque, sic, and interim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289 5. post(ea)quam, cum + subj., and ut (temporale) . . . . . . . . . . . . 290 Appendix L: Political value terms and expressions pointing to emotions . . 291 1. Worthiness and good reputation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 291 2. Unworthiness, indignity, disgrace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 292 3. Personal influence, power, might . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 293 4. Friendship and enmity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 293 5. fides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 294 6. Virtues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 295 7. Vices and faults . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 297 8. Emotions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300 Appendix M: Maps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 303 Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 306 Indexes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 330 Index of passages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 330 Index of Latin words and phrases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 337 Index of Greek words and phrases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 350 General index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 351

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

Abbreviations and other conventions

Unless otherwise indicated, all dates given for events before the year 45 B. C. ­refer to the pre-Julian calendar. The names of Greek authors and their works are abbreviated according to the system of the Oxford Classical Dictionary (3rd edn., Oxford 1996). Latin authors are cited according to the conventions of the Oxford Latin Dictionary (OLD); for authors not cited in OLD we use the abbreviations of the Thesaurus Linguae Latinae (TLL). When referring to the fragments of the Roman historians of the Republican period, the numbering of the more recent edition of Beck and Walter (B/W) is used, but the text itself has been checked against the editions of Peter (HRR), Jacoby (FGrHist), Barabino (1967), Forsythe (1994), Santini (1995), and Chassignet (1996–2004). Cicero’s letters are cited by book, letter, and section, but for the Epistulae ad Familiares, the Epistulae ad Quintum fratrem, and the Epistulae ad Brutum we also give the letter number and section in Shackleton Bailey’s editions (1977, 1980; abbreviated as SB). The secondary literature collected in the bibliography is referred to by author’s name, year of publication, and page. The following abbreviations are used for ­lexica, grammatical handbooks, and epigraphic or other collections: Antibarbarus

B/W CIL Draeger FGrHist Forcellini HRR

Krebs, J. P. and Schmalz, J. H.  (1905–1907): Antibarbarus der lateinischen Sprache. Nebst einem kurzen Abriss der Geschichte der lateinischen Sprache, und Vorbemerkungen über reine Latinität, 7th edn., 2 vols., Basel. Beck, H.  and Walter, U. (2004–5): Die frühen römischen Historiker, 2 vols., Darmstadt (vol. 1: 2nd edn. 2005, vol. 2: 1st edn. 2004). Mommsen, T. and Ritschl, F. W. et al. (1863 ff.): Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum, Berlin. Draeger, A. A. (1878–1881): Historische Syntax der lateinischen Sprache, 2nd edn., 2 vols., Leipzig. Jacoby, F. et al. (1923 ff.): Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker, Berlin/Leiden. Forcellini, A. (1858–1879): Totius Latinitatis Lexicon, 4th edn. by V. De-Vit, 6 vols., Prati. Peter, H.  (1906–1914): Historicorum Romanorum Reliquiae, 2 vols., Leipzig (vol. 1: 2nd edn. 1914, vol. 2: 1st edn. 1906). © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

12 HS ILS KG KS LC LSJ NW OLD Otto RE RRC SIG TLL TrGF

Abbreviations and other conventions

Hofmann, J. B. and Szantyr, A. (1972): Lateinische Syntax und Stilistik, 2nd edn., München. Dessau, H. (1892–1916): Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae, 3 vols., Berlin. Kühner, R. and Gerth, B. (1898–1904): Ausführliche Grammatik der griechischen Sprache. Zweiter Teil: Satzlehre, 3rd edn., 2 vols., Hannover/Leipzig. Kühner, R. and Stegmann, C. (1955): Ausführliche Grammatik der lateinischen Sprache. Satzlehre, 3rd edn., 2 vols., Leverkusen. Meusel, H. (1887–1893): Lexicon Caesarianum, 2 vols., Berlin. Liddell, H. G. and Scott, R. (1996): A Greek-English Lexicon, 9th edn., rev. and augm. throughout by H. S. Jones et al., Oxford. Neue, F. and Wagener C. (1892–1905): Formenlehre der Latei­ nischen Sprache, 3rd edn., 4 vols., Leipzig. Glare, P. G. W. et al. (1968–82): Oxford Latin Dictionary, Oxford. Otto, A. (1890): Die Sprichwörter und sprichwörtlichen Redens­ arten der Römer, Leipzig. Wissowa, G. et al. (1893–1980): Paulys Real-Encyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft. Neue Bearbeitung, Stuttgart. Crawford, M. H.  (1974): Roman Republican Coinage, 2 vols., Cambridge. Dittenberger, W. et al. (1915–24): Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum, 3rd edn., 4 vols., Leipzig. Wölfflin, E. et al. (1900 ff.): Thesaurus Linguae Latinae, Leipzig/ Berlin. Snell, B., Radt, S., and Kannicht, R. (1971 ff.): Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta, 5 vols., Göttingen.

Finally, we also use the following shorthand symbols and abbreviations: † Outside quotations of Greek or Latin texts, the crux is used as a shorthand symbol for ‘no other attestations in the Corpus Caesarianum (i. e. Caes. Gal. 1–7, Civ. 1–3, Hirt. Gal. 8, B.Alex., B.Afr., B.Hisp.)’. = The equal sign is short for ‘this expression occurs in the same grammatical form and word order at’. ~ The twiddle sign indicates a relation of similarity between two passages or groups of passages. + The plus sign is used for ‘in combination with’. > The closing angle bracket signifies ‘more (often) than’. frq. ‘average frequency as per 1000 words’. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

1. Introduction

Since Nipperdey’s groundbreaking edition of the Corpus Caesarianum of 1847, research on the Bellum Alexandrinum, Bellum Africum, and Bellum Hispaniense has been almost entirely centred on the historical contents of these works and the question of who wrote the three Bella. Their narrative technique, however, their historiographical outlook, and their position in the evolution of Roman historiography are largely unexplored.1 This is all the more lamentable, because the three Bella are among the first works of Roman historiography that have been transmitted complete2 and could offer new insights into the development of the genre from the late annalists and Caesar to Sallust, Livy, Curtius, and Tacitus. The present book is an attempt to partly fill this gap. Its core is an analysis of the language (ch. 3) and historiographical technique of the Bellum Alexandrinum (sections 4.1–4) and its links to earlier Greek and Roman historiography (section 4.5). As we shall see, the work consists of several parts which differ greatly from one another with regard to their language and historiographical method. While the first 21 chapters stylistically resemble the Caesarian commentarii and seem to imitate the narrative technique of Thucydides’ account of the Peloponnesian War, the later parts have much less in common with Caesar’s style and are primarily influenced by the tradition of ‘tragic’, Hellenistic historiography. Not only do these observations shed new light on some of the literary debates at Rome in the 40s B. C., they also raise the question of how the hetero­geneous character of the Bellum Alexandrinum is to be explained and thus force us to reconsider the authorship of this work and indeed the composition of the entire Corpus Caesarianum. Because of these implications our analysis of the language 1 The existing commentaries, monographs, and articles have little to offer on these issues, cf. the treatment of the pseudo-Caesarian works in Landgraf 1888a, Pötter 1932, Seel 1935: 13–65, Faller 1949: 170–88, Rambaud 1953: 78–90, Richter 1977: 199–223, Rüpke 1992: 218–26, Cluett 2003, 2009 as well as the relevant sections in the editions and commentaries by Andrieu 1954: xvi–xliii, Giomini 1956: 22–36, Townend 1988: 4–6 (B.Alex.), Wölfflin/Miodoński 1889: xxxiv, Bouvet/Richard 1997: xxi–xxxvii (B.Afr.), and Klotz 1927: 6–8, Pascucci 1965: 27–60, Diouron 1999: lv–lxxxiii (B.Hisp.). A stimulating treatment of the style of the Bellum Africum and its relation to the genre of the commentarius has been published by Adams (2005: 74–7). For an analysis of the Bellum Hispaniense and its relation to late annalistic historiography see Gaertner 2010. 2 The Bellum Civile and the pseudo-Caesarian Bella must have been published before April 43 B. C., see chapter 2 below (especially pp. 22–4). The historiographical works of Sallust belong to the time after Caesar’s death, when Sallust had completely withdrawn from politics; Sallust’s first work, the Bellum Catilinae, is unlikely to have been finished before April 43 B. C., cf. Last 1948: 359–61 (for a slightly earlier date, viz. the end of 44 B. C., see Wohleb 1928). © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

14

1. Introduction

and historiographical technique is preceded by a discussion of the ancient testimonia concerning the publication of the Corpus Caesarianum (ch. 2) and followed by  a chapter in which the composition of the Bellum Alexandrinum is placed in its historical context (ch. 5). In order to streamline the main text, much of the linguistic evidence has been collected in several appendices, which are printed at the end of this book (pp. 215–301). The same applies to our discussions that consider, in turn, the authorship of the Epistula ad Balbum (pp. 169– 84) and the evidence for the publication, book divisions, and chronology of the Bellum Civile (pp. 185–214).

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

2. The Bellum Alexandrinum and the Corpus Caesarianum

The Bellum Alexandrinum, offering an account of the deeds of Caesar and his generals in Alexandria and Lower Egypt, Illyria, Spain, and modern Turkey, could be susceptible of a highly political reading depending on the time when it was written and circulated. Consequently, one important question is that of its date of composition and dissemination. In the medieval manuscripts the Bellum Alexandrinum, Bellum Africum, and Bellum Hispaniense are transmitted together with the authentic Caesarian works Bellum Gallicum and Bellum Civile and form the final section of what is commonly called the Corpus Caesarianum.1 This suggests that the pseudo-Caesarian Bella may have originated in the same political context as the Caesarian works and were intended as a supplement to the B ­ ellum Gallicum and Bellum Civile. Although this hypothesis is to some degree supported by ancient sources, the details of the genesis of the Corpus Caesarianum are still a matter of debate. In the following sections we shall first review the evidence for the publication of the Bellum Gallicum and Bellum Civile and then ana­ lyse the ancient testimonia regarding the relation between the authentic and the pseudo-Caesarian works of the Corpus Caesarianum.

2.1. The composition and publication of the Bellum Gallicum and Bellum Civile The reference to the Caesarian commentarii in Cicero’s Brutus (262) proves that at least books 1–7 of the Bellum Gallicum must have been published by the year 46 B. C..2 Far more controversial is the date of publication of the Bellum Civile. 1 On the transmission cf. Nipperdey 1847: 37, Andrieu 1949: 138, Hering 1963: 3, Brown 1972: 6, Winterbottom 1983: 35, Diouron 1999: lxxxiv–cv. The appellations Bellum Gallicum and Bellum Civile are first attested around A. D. 500 (cf. Prisc. G. L. 2.352.6 and Seel 1961: cxiv–v; see also pp. 76 (with n. 8) and 186–8 (with n. 16) on Caesar’s intention to avoid the impression of a civil war). Before Late Antiquity, Caesar’s accounts of his deeds were simply known as Caesaris commentarii rerum gestarum, sometimes with the additional qualification Galliae or Gallici/civilis belli (Pompeiani); cf. Hirt. Gal. 8.pr.2, Suet. Jul. 56.1, Knoche 1951: 140, Seel 1961: cxiv–v, and Rüpke 1992: 202–3. 2 Cf. Radin 1918: 283 and see Jahn/Kroll 1908/1964: vii and Douglas 1966: ix–x on the date of composition of Cicero’s Brutus (46 B. C.). Whether Caesar composed the books of the Bellum Gallicum over a longer period of time in annual, biennial, or triennial units (thus e. g. Ebert 1909, Radin 1918, Kalinka 1929: 154–69, Schlicher 1936: 213, passim, Barwick 1938: 100– © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

16

The Bellum Alexandrinum and the Corpus Caesarianum

Since Nipperdey, many scholars have adopted the view that the Bellum Civile is unfinished and was published only after Caesar’s death on the Ides of March in 44 B. C..3 This view has been challenged, however, by Kalinka, Barwick, and more recently also by Macfarlane and Jehne, who argue for a publication during Caesar’s lifetime.4 The main ancient testimonium is a passage in Suetonius’ Vita Divi Iulii (Jul. 56.1–4): (1) … de commentariis Caesaris Cicero in eodem Bruto [cf. Brut. 262] sic refert: (2) “commentarios scripsit valde quidem probandos: nudi sunt, recti et venusti, omni ornatu orationis tamquam veste detracta; sed dum voluit alios habere parata, unde sumerent qui vellent scribere historiam, ineptis gratum fortasse fecit, qui illa volent calamistris inurere, sanos quidem homines a scribendo deterruit.” (3) de isdem commentariis Hirtius [cf. Gal. 8.pr.5–6] ita praedicat: “adeo probantur omnium iudicio, ut praerepta, non praebita facultas scriptoribus videatur. nos etiam, quam facile atque celeriter eos perscripserit, scimus.” (4) Pollio Asinius parum diligenter parumque integra veritate compositos putat, cum Caesar pleraque et quae per alios erant gesta temere crediderit et quae per se, vel consulto vel etiam memoria lapsus perperam ediderit; existimatque rescripturum et correcturum fuisse.5 (1) … In the same Brutus [cf. Brut. 262] Cicero speaks about Caesar’s commentarii in the following terms: (2) “He wrote very praiseworthy commentarii: they are bare, straightforward, and graceful, with all rhetorical embellishment taken away like a garment; but whereas he wanted others to have material ready, from which those who wanted to write a historiographical account might take freely, he maybe did a favour for foolish writers, who will want to singe them with curling irons; the rea-

123, 1951: 124–7, Wiseman 1998, Krebs 2013) or without interruption in a rather short period of time towards the end of his proconsulship in Gaul (thus e. g. Mommsen 1903–1904: vol. 3, 615–16 = 1976: vol. 5, 280–1, Sternkopf 1909: 653, Klotz 1910: 17–26, Norden 1920: 362, 364 n. 1, Collins 1972: 932, Richter 1977: 49–75), need not concern us here. The linguistic evidence, several inconsistencies between the individual books, and the dramatic structure of the whole work favour the view that the Bellum Gallicum is based on earlier reports which were hastily revised and put together some time between the winter and late summer of 51 B. C.: see F. Vogel 1900: 219–20, Rambaud 1953: 9–12, 45–96, 364–5, Kierdorf 2003: 66–7. On the dramatic structure of Gal. 1–7 see Rasmussen 1963: 103–4, H. A. Gärtner 1975: 63, 105, Richter 1977: 67–72, and Schönberger 1990: 676–7. 3 Cf. e. g. Nipperdey 1847: 5, Frese 1900: 10, 72, passim, Klotz 1911, 1950: viii–xiv, Fabre 1936: vol. 1, xxii–xxv, vol. 2, 10 n. 1, Collins 1952: 163–70 and 1959, Rambaud 1953: 367, Abel 1958, Rowe 1967: 402 n. 5, Richter 1977: 174–9, Boatwright 1988, Patzer 1993: 120–1, Batstone/ Damon 2006: 3, 29–32, Raaflaub 2009: 181–2, and Grillo 2012: 179. 4 Cf. Kalinka 1912, 1928: 662, 1929: 172, Barwick 1938: 132–71, 1951: 86–136, Macfarlane 1996: 108–9, Jehne 2000: 164–9; see also Mayer 2011: 202–3, 210–11. 5 On the transmitted text and the discrepancies between Suetonius’ quotations and the manuscripts of Cicero’s Brutus and Gal. 8 see pp. 174–6 with n. 29 below. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

The composition and publication of the Bellum Gallicum and Bellum Civile

17

sonable people, however, he deterred from writing.” (3) Hirtius [cf. Gal. 8.pr.5–6] praises the same commentarii thus: “they are so much approved by the judgement of everyone that it seems that [sc. future] writers were not provided with the resources [sc. for writing about the events], but rather bereft of them. We also know how easily and quickly he wrote them [i. e. the commentarii].” (4) Asinius Pollio holds that they were written with insufficient care and with too little regard for the truth, on the grounds that Caesar in very many places blindly believed in others’ deeds and, either intentionally or because of a slip of memory, also narrated6 his own deeds incorrectly; and he [i. e. Pollio] reckons that he [i. e. Caesar] would have rewritten and corrected [sc. his commentarii].

Barwick has argued that, just as Suetonius is referring to all Caesarian commentarii, Cicero’s remarks and Asinius Pollio’s comments are likely to have been aimed at both the Bellum Civile and the Bellum Gallicum.7 If that was true, both works would have been known to Cicero in 46 B. C., and Asinius Pollio’s words rescripturum et correcturum would refer to a corrected, second edition of both works. However, the fact that Suetonius treats the Caesarian works as a unit does not mean that the three authorities whom he cites did the same, nor does it presuppose that all three quotations are about the same work or works. There is nothing in Suetonius’ words that would contradict the possibility that Cicero and Hirtius are thinking of the Bellum Gallicum only, while Asinius Pollio some years later is referring to the (unfinished) Bellum Civile which Caesar would have revised and corrected (rescripturum et correcturum) if he had had the time.8 The latter interpretation would square well with the fact that Asinius Pollio wrote a history of the Civil War and is thus more likely to have commented on the defects of the Bellum Civile than on those of the Bellum Gallicum.9 Moreover, Lossmann (1957: 56–7) has correctly observed that Suetonius may paraphrase Pollio’s opinion freely and that ediderit must mean ‘narrate’, ‘tell’10 and not ‘publish’, because otherwise Pollio (or Suetonius) would make the absurd claim that Caesar’s commentarii are badly written because they were published carelessly. Hence, neither the quoted pas-

6 On the meaning of ediderit see p. 17–8 below. 7 See Barwick 1938: 132–3, 136–7. Cf. also the similar interpretations of Suet. Jul. 56.4 by Polaschek 1904: 755, Kalinka 1912, and von Mess 1913: 180 n. 131. 8 Cf. Fabre 1936: vol. 1, xxiv, Knoche 1951: 155 n. 30, Collins 1952: 169, Lossmann 1957: 55–8. 9 Cf. Fröhlich 1903: 1–4, Constans 1926: vol. 1, xii, Fabre 1936: vol. 1, xxiv–xxv, Collins 1972: 943 n. 17. The fact that Asinius Pollio’s history of the Civil War began with the First Triumvirate (60 B. C.; cf. Hor. Carm. 2.1.1–8 and Syme 1939: 8) does not diminish the force of the argument. Asinius Pollio is likely to have mentioned Caesar’s wars in Gaul, but the main focus of his work was on domestic, not foreign policy. A discussion of the literary polish and truth­ fulness of the Bellum Gallicum would have been out of place. 10 Cf. OLD s.v. edo 7 and TLL s.v. 89.47–8. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

18

The Bellum Alexandrinum and the Corpus Caesarianum

sages nor their new context in Suetonius’ Vita Divi Iulii yield any information on the publication of the Bellum Civile.11 Since the ancient testimonia are equivocal, the debate soon shifted to the linguistic form and contents of the transmitted text of the Bellum Civile. The view that the work was only published after Caesar’s death can be supported by the fact that the end of the third book is abrupt and by various inconsistencies and linguistic oddities which suggest that the work was never finished.12 In addition, Caesar’s self-presentation in the Bellum Civile is incompatible with his political role in the years 46 to 44 B. C.: whereas the Bellum Civile presents Caesar’s actions as an attempt to restore the Roman republic, the honours and powers conferred on Caesar after his return from Africa in the summer of 46 B. C. gradually transformed Rome into  a monarchy.13 Regardless of whether the Bellum Civile was published after the end of the African campaign or during the preceding 12 months,14 the work would have contrasted most sharply with the situation in the years 46 to 44 B. C., and would have highlighted how Caesar’s agenda had changed. It is odd that Caesar should not have tried to cover up or explain the shift in his policy by publishing either a sequel to or a revised version of the Bellum Civile, and it is surprising that none of our sources mentions the striking contradiction. In particular, Cicero’s complete silence about this 11 Just as elusive are two further statements in the Epistula ad Balbum, cf. Gal. 8.pr.3: qui me mediis interposuerim Caesaris scriptis and Gal. 8.pr.5: qui [sc. commentarii] sunt editi, ne scientia tantarum rerum scriptoribus deesset, adeoque probantur omnium iudicio, ut praerepta, non praebita facultas scriptoribus videatur. The first adopts the perspective of the recipient and supposes that the Epistula and Gal. 8 will have been published and will be read together with Gal. 1–7 and Civ. 1–3; since the author writes from a vantage point in the future (and not from the perspective of the time when he started working on the Epistula ad Balbum or Gal. 8), the sentence does not exclude the possibility that Civ. 1–3 was first issued after Caesar’s death in conjunction with Gal. 8 and the other supplements (cf. Patzer 1993: 119–20; contra Kalinka 1910: 486, 1912: 206– 7). Regarding the second sentence, we can hardly assume that qui sunt editi points back to both the Bellum Gallicum and the Bellum Civile, for the remarks in the preceding and following sections of the letter are fairly vague (see also Patzer 1993: 120–21; contra Kalinka 1910: 486, 1912: 206–7). 12 The end of Civ. 3 is not only abrupt (see p. 20 with n. 25 below) but also incompatible with Hirtius’ statement scio Caesarem singulorum annorum singulos commentarios confecisse (Gal. 8.48.10), cf. pp. 30 (with n. 64), 155–7, and 201 below. For linguistic arguments and inconsistencies see Frese 1900: 32–33, 62, 72, passim, Kraner/Hofmann/Meusel 1906: ix, 9–10, Klotz 1911 and 1950: ix–xiv, Collins 1972: 944. 13 Cf. Wickert 1937: 246–50, Collins 1959: 116–23, Richter 1977: 178–9. On the political situation after the Battle of Thapsus see e. g. Drumann/Groebe 1899–1929: vol. 3, 548–9, 580–1, 594–601, Groebe 1917: 249–51, Gelzer 1960: 257–8. 14 An earlier date is hardly possible. The Bellum Civile ends with the beginning of Caesar’s Alexandrian campaign in the autumn of 48 B. C., and there seems to have been no communication between Caesar and Rome between December 48 B. C. and the early summer of 47 B. C.: cf. Cic. Att. 11.16.1 (dated 3 June 47 B. C.), 11.17a.3 (dated 14 June 47 B. C.), 11.18.1 (dated 19 June 47 B. C.), 11.25.2 (dated 5 July 47 B. C.), and Fam. 14.23 (= 171 SB, dated 12 August 47 B. C.). © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

The composition and publication of the Bellum Gallicum and Bellum Civile

19

discrepancy of words and deeds strongly suggests that the Bellum Civile had not been published during Caesar’s lifetime. Kalinka, Barwick, Macfarlane, and Jehne have tried to invalidate these observations or explain them differently. Unable to rebut the linguistic and other arguments collected by Klotz, Kalinka suggested that the Bellum Civile was published during Caesar’s lifetime but without his knowledge.15 This idea has been implicitly taken up by Macfarlane (1996: 109), who argues that the hypothesis of a posthumous publication of the Bellum Civile is  a priori “flawed”, because “its proponents divorce composition from publication”, thereby ignoring the fact that in antiquity the process of publication “could be initiated by an act as simple as sending a piece of writing to a friend to read”. This is correct in theory,16 but the assumption that Caesar should have regularly shared his unfinished drafts with his friends and thereby risked the uncontrolled dissemination of incomplete and unfinished works seems fairly improbable.17 In addition, it is not particularly likely that one of Caesar’s close friends or secretaries should have dared to circulate the Bellum Civile without the consent or knowledge of the powerful statesman.18 Just as questionable is Jehne’s explanation that the Bellum Civile is primarily a piece of propaganda, which was circulated to counter Republican opposition in 15 Cf. Kalinka 1929: 172: “Immerhin mag die Herausgabe nicht von C. beabsichtigt worden sein … und ist wie die der Metamorphosen hinter seinem Rücken durch Verbreitung privater Abschriften erfolgt”. 16 There were no legal safeguards against unauthorized copying in antiquity, cf. Birt 1913: 307–12, Kenney 1982: 15–22 (especially p. 19), and Starr 1987: 218–19. Attempts to suppress the circulation of pamphlets and books for political reasons seem to be a characteristic feature of the Principate, but not the late Republic: cf. Cramer 1945: 158–9, 161–4, passim, Chrissanthos 2004 (on freedom of speech in the Republican army), and McHugh 2004 (on the persecution of historians in the early Principate). 17 In his catalogue of Caesar’s works (Jul. 55–56), Suetonius expresses doubts about the authenticity of several works and mentions that one of Caesar’s speeches (Pro Q. Metello) was written down by stenographers and later circulated without Caesar’s support and probably also against his will (cf. Lossmann 1957: 49–53). However, there is no mention of pirated copies issued by Caesar’s friends or secretaries. In his correspondence, Cicero mentions several times that a work of his has been copied or issued against his will (cf. Att. 3.12.2, 13.21a.1–2, 13.22.3; cf. also Att. 15.27.2 and see Starr 1987: 213, 218–19); however, in all of these cases Cicero refers not to fragmentary texts which had no proper ending, but to complete works which lacked their final polish or were first to be sent to the dedicatee before being released to the general public. 18 Cf. the similar objection by Fabre (1936: vol. 1, xxv n. 3). Macfarlane’s additional claim (1996: 109; cf. also 1994) that a work which is intended to influence public opinion must also be published does not seem to hold true for later periods and proves too simplistic in the case of the Bellum Civile and the late Roman Republic, for it takes into account neither the political changes during the 40s B. C. nor the observations of Wickert, Collins, and Richter (cf. n. 13 above) nor the imperfect state (cf. n. 12 above) or the literary qualities (see n. 20 below) of the Bellum Civile. See also appendix B on Macfarlane’s attempt to determine the date of composition of the early chapters of the Bellum Civile by analysing the use of hostis and inimicus. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

20

The Bellum Alexandrinum and the Corpus Caesarianum

the turbulent year of 47 B. C..19 Jehne’s characterization of the Bellum Civile could plausibly account for the linguistic oddities, the inconsistencies, and the abrupt end of book three, but it is, however, contradicted by recent studies that show how the Bellum Civile is influenced by Greek historiography and was never intended merely to be a political pamphlet.20 More substantial are Barwick’s attempts to demonstrate that the linguistic specifics and inconsistencies of the Bellum Civile can be plausibly attributed to hasty composition or to the poor transmission of the Corpus Caesarianum.21 Many of his observations are at least worth considering.22 However, Barwick does not explain the contradiction between the ostensibly republican tone of the Bellum Civile and the political situation in 46 to 44 B. C.. Nor could he account for the most striking oddity of the work, viz. the abrupt end of the third book immediately after the beginning of Caesar’s Alexandrian campaign (Civ. 3.105–112). Barwick’s hypothesis that by adding chapters 105–112 Caesar wanted to explain his long stay in Egypt and present himself as Pompey’s avenger23 is hard to believe, because the transmitted text does not mark  a connection between Pothinus’ involvement in Pompey’s assassination (Civ. 3.104) and Caesar’s order that Pothinus should be executed (Civ. 3.112.12);24 also, it is difficult to see why Caesar (if he really had wished to explain his long absence) should not have included an account of the entire Egyptian campaign.25 19 Cf. Jehne 2000: 164–9, especially p. 168 n. 108. 20 On the influence of Greek historiography cf. pp.  137–9 and the literature cited in nn.  229–37; on Caesar’s literary aims see H. A. Gärtner 1975: 63–134, Schönberger 1984: ­377–385 (especially pp. 379, 384), Rüpke 1992: 211–12, Lendon 1999: 276, passim, and Grillo 2012: 10, passim. 21 Cf. Barwick 1938: 137–64 and 1951: 86–175. 22 A detailed discussion of the various textual and interpretational problems in the Bellum Civile is beyond the scope of this study, but cf. appendix D, pp. 206–14 on Barwick’s interpretation of Civ. 2.32.5. 23 Cf. Barwick 1938: 133–5, 168 and 1951: 86–93. 24 Caesar attributes the plan to assassinate Pompey rather vaguely to a group of friends of the young king Ptolemy (amici regis, cf. Civ. 3.104.1) without even mentioning Pothinus by name. 25 Similarly incredible are four other explanations of the abrupt end of the Bellum Civile: Dinter (1876: 32–6, especially 36) argued that Civ. 3.108–12 were posthumously added by Aulus Hirtius; Landgraf (1888a: 75–7, 79–82), followed by Wölfflin/Miodoński (1889: xxxiv–v), assumed that Caesar only finished Civ. 3.1–107 and left incomplete notes on the subsequent events which were later supplemented and revised by Asinius Pollio; La Penna (1952: 2­ 29–33) believed that Caesar published Civ. 1.1 to 3.99 in 46 B. C. and later drafted chapters 100 to 112 in the years 45 or 44 B. C.; and Boatwright (1988: 34–5, 36–7, 40) suggested that the references to Caesar’s consulate at Civ. 3.106.4 and 3.107.2 pick up a central motif of the work and thus make for a “fitting end to the Bellum Civile”. The last of these four explanations vastly overstates the importance of one particular detail, while excluding all other aspects of the narrative. As regards the first three hypotheses, neither Dinter nor Landgraf nor La Penna have supplied compelling proof of the un-Caesarian nature of the last chapters of the Bellum Civile (cf. Schiller 1880a: 396–8, Zingerle 1892: 87–100, Dahms 1906: 4–6). In section 5.1 (pp. 155–7 below), we try to develop a more plausible explanation of why the Bellum Civile ends at 3.112.12. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

The evidence of Suetonius’ Vita Divi Iulii and the Epistula ad Balbum

21

Even if we leave aside the contested issue of whether some of the weaknesses of the Bellum Civile are due to the hasty composition or poor transmission of the work, the abrupt end and the distinctly republican tone still suffice to make it far more probable that the transmitted text is merely an unfinished draft and was never published during Caesar’s lifetime. In the next section we shall explore whether there is any connection between this posthumous publication and the composition of the Bellum Alexandrinum, Bellum Africum, and Bellum Hispaniense.

2.2. The evidence of Suetonius’ Vita Divi Iulii and the Epistula ad Balbum (a) Suetonius’ Vita Divi Iulii The main ancient testimonia concerning the relation between the pseudo-­ Caesarian Bella on the one hand and Caesar’s Bellum Gallicum and Bellum Civile on the other are a passage in Suetonius’ Vita Divi Iulii (56.1) and a sentence in the so-called Epistula ad Balbum (Hirt. Gal. 8.pr.). Suetonius’ testimony is later, but on the whole more lucid. In his treatment of Caesar’s eloquentia, he first discusses his skills as an orator (55.1–4) and then turns to his commentarii. He begins by cataloguing the Caesarian and non-Caesarian accounts of the Gallic and Civil Wars (56.1) and goes on to cite or paraphrase three verdicts on Caesar’s commentarii by Cicero (56.2 ~ Cic. Brut. 262), Hirtius (56.3 ~ Gal. 8.pr.5–6), and Asinius Pollio (56.4). Particularly relevant is what he says about the authorship of the commentarii (56.1): reliquit [sc. Caesar] et rerum suarum commentarios Gallici civilisque belli Pom­ peiani. nam Alexandrini Africique et Hispaniensis incertus auctor est: alii Oppium putant, alii Hirtium, qui etiam Gallici belli novissimum imperfectumque librum suppleverit. He [sc. Caesar] also left accounts of his deeds during the Gallic War and the Civil War against Pompey. For the author (of the accounts) of the Alexandrian, African and Spanish (Wars) is unknown: some think that it was Oppius, others think that it was Hirtius, who also completed26 the most recent and unfinished book about the ­Gallic War.

26 The subjunctive has argumentative force, see p. 177 with n. 37. In view of novissimum imperfectumque librum, the verb supplere cannot mean ‘add’ here, but must be used in the sense of ‘complete, supplement (an unfinished literary work, etc.)’, cf. OLD s.v. 2c and Suet. Gram. 12.2: librum autem, quem Sulla novissimum de rebus suis imperfectum reliquerat, ipse [sc. Cornelius Epicadus] supplevit. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

22

The Bellum Alexandrinum and the Corpus Caesarianum

The lines suggest that already in Suetonius’ day the works of the Corpus Caesarianum were regarded as a unit and may have been copied and circulated together. Furthermore, Suetonius states (wrongly, as we shall see)27 that Caesar wrote  a draft of the eighth book of the Bellum Gallicum, which was later completed by his close friend and follower Aulus Hirtius. Finally, the passage also reveals that readers in the second century A. D. did not know who wrote the Bellum Alexandrinum, Bellum Africum, and Bellum Hispaniense or how their composition related to that of the authentic Caesarian works: the view that the pseudo-Caesarian Bella might have been written by Hirtius and might thus be part of a larger project to complete Caesar’s account of his deeds is just one hypothesis among others.28

(b) The Epistula ad Balbum Far more difficult is the interpretation of the Epistula ad Balbum. In this letter, which is transmitted between books seven and eight of the Bellum Gallicum, A ­ ulus Hirtius,29 a friend and admirer of Caesar, speaks of his plan to continue the Caesarian Commentarii. The text is one of the most discussed passages of Latin prose, and there still does not seem to be a consensus on what it means exactly. A first point that deserves clarification is the purpose of the letter. The Epistula ad Balbum is commonly cited as part of the eighth book (i. e. Gal. 8.pr.), but Hirtius’ own words show that the letter is intended as a preface not just to the eighth book, but rather to all the following books of the Corpus Caesarianum, i. e. Gal. 8, Civ. 1–3, Bellum Alexandrinum, Bellum Africum, and Bellum Hispaniense. This fact becomes particularly obvious in sections 2 and 8 of the letter, where Hirtius refers to the publication of the Bellum Alexandrinum, Bellum Africum, and Bellum Hispaniense and explains how it came about: (2) Caesaris nostri commentarios rerum gestarum Galliae, non competentibus superioribus atque insequentibus eius scriptis, contexui, novissimumque imperfectum ab rebus gestis Alexandriae confeci usque ad exitum non quidem civilis dissensionis, cuius finem nullum videmus, sed vitae Caesaris. … (8) mihi ne illud quidem accidit, ut Alexandrino atque Africano bello interessem; quae bella quamquam ex parte 27 Cf. appendix A, pp. 169–84, especially pp. 176–7. 28 The possibility that the pseudo-Caesarian works might have been composed by Oppius can be safely ignored, because the information contained in the Epistula ad Balbum and the eyewitness perspective of the Bellum Africum and Bellum Hispaniense are incompatible with the fact that Oppius had not participated in these wars: cf. Nipperdey 1846: 5 ~ 1847: 10, Landgraf 1888a: 6, and Klotz 1910: 180–1. Unfortunately, this argument cannot be corroborated by philological observations, for we hardly possess any samples of Oppius’ style: apart from one quotation in the grammarian Charisius (G. L. 1.147.3–4 = p. 186.20–21 Barwick = Oppius HRR fr. 1) there is only a letter written by Oppius and Balbus to Cicero (= Cic. Att. 9.7a). 29 On the authorship and authenticity of the letter see appendix A (pp. 169–84). © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

The evidence of Suetonius’ Vita Divi Iulii and the Epistula ad Balbum

23

nobis Caesaris sermone sunt nota, tamen aliter audimus ea, quae rerum novitate aut admiratione nos capiunt, aliter quae pro testimonio sumus dicturi. (2) competentibus Bernhardy, Schiller conparentibus A conparantibus Q B M  S L, β30 (2) I have continued31 the accounts of our Caesar on his deeds in Gaul, since his earlier and later writings did not fit together, and I have also finished the most recent and incomplete account,32 extending it33 from the deeds in Alexandria down to the end, not admittedly of civil discord, of which we see no end, but of Caesar’s life. … (8) And I did not even happen to take part in the Alexandrian and African wars; although these wars are known to us partly34 by Caesar’s own oral account, we nevertheless perceive in one way the things that fascinate us because of the novelty of the events or our admiration, and in another way the things that we will one day have to say in testimony. 30 Cf. Klotz 1952: 217. competentibus has been suggested independently by Bernhardy (1865: 658) and Schiller (1895 and 1899: 14 n.). It is closer to the transmission than conhaerentibus (K. E. C. Schneider 1818: 180 n. 3, Nipperdey 1847: 461), conspirantibus (Kübler 1893–1896: vol. 1, 198), conquadrantibus (Holder 1882: 203), comparentes (Peskett 1885: 1 and 1888, Reid 1908: 442 (without referring to Peskett)), commentarium … comparentem (Peskett 1888), comparibus (Frigell 1861: 87), (nunc)  comparentibus (Walther 1903: 19), comparandos (Maittaire 1716: 161, Morus 1780: 313, following the “codd. recentissimi”), conparentibus (Constans 1926: vol. 2, 281, Lieberg 1998: 163), comparentibus (Olivier 1937: 93), or conferentibus (Alfonsi 1954). Moreover, the usage of competere for ‘come together’, ‘meet’ has parallels in late Republican prose, but is rare enough to have provoked a corruption, cf. TLL s.v. 2065.51–60, OLD s.v. 1, Var. L. 6.25: ideo ubi viae competunt tum in competis sacrificatur and Patzer 1993: 115–16. Kelsey’s attempt (1907) to defend the transmitted comparantibus remains unconvincing: cf. Reid 1908: 441–2, Olivier 1937: 91, and Patzer 1993: 115. Bartolini’s suggestion (1963: 85–8) that the letter is heavily interpolated has not been corroborated by compelling arguments. 31 On the meaning of contexui ‘continued’ see TLL s.v. contexo 693.54–69, Cic. Cael. 18: ac longius mihi quidem contexere hoc carmen liceret, Leg. 1.9: neque tam facile interrupta contexo quam absolvo instituta and von Hartel 1891: 116, Klotz 1910: 155, Pötter 1932: 3 n. 5, Barwick 1938: 173–4. The interpretation was challenged by Seel (1935: 67–8), Constans (1933: 257), N. N. (1937: 121), Kalinka (1939: 217), Olivier (1937: 89–90), Canali (1965: 126), and Patzer (1993: 113–14, 116), who claim that contexere never means ‘continue’, but always ‘put together’. The latter claim has been refuted by Barwick, and in view of the Ciceronian parallels cited above there is no need to think that the transmitted text is lacunose (thus Hirschfeld 1889: 101–3) or that insequentibus eius scriptis is not only part of the ablative absolute non competentibus … scriptis but also implicitly supplies a dative object or adverbial phrase for the main clause commentarios rerum Galliae … contexui (thus Patzer). 32 The beginning of the next sentence quos [sc. commentarios] utinam qui legent scire possint, quam invitus susceperim scribendos shows that novissimumque imperfectum must take up commentarios, not scriptis (thus already Kalinka 1939: 216 and Patzer 1993: 117–8 against Constans 1933: 258, Seel 1935: 71, and Barwick 1938: 175–6). 33 usque ad exitum … vitae Caesaris shows that confeci does not indicate the completion of an existing work but is used in a more general fashion and points to the continuation of Caesar’s account of the Civil War. 34 Cf. TLL s.v. e(x) 1123.52–9 and s.v. pars 457.65–75. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

24

The Bellum Alexandrinum and the Corpus Caesarianum

Hirtius’ claim to have continued Caesar’s account of the Civil War and his admission that he has no firsthand knowledge of the events of the Alexandrian and African War would make little sense in a preface that introduces merely the last book of the Bellum Gallicum. Hence, the Epistula ad Balbum must have been intended as an introduction to all the books that follow Gal. 7.35 If this interpretation of sections 2 and 8 is correct, the completion of the Bellum Gallicum and the composition of the three pseudo-Caesarian Bella were part of a larger project to publish a full account of Caesar’s deeds. This plan is likely to have included also the posthumous publication of the Bellum Civile. Firstly, Hirtius was in close contact with the other Caesarians36 and both projects must have been realized in the fairly short period of time between Caesar’s assassination on the Ides of March in 44 B. C. and Hirtius’ death in April 43 B. C..37 Secondly, Hirtius writes that he has been asked repeatedly by his fellow Caesarian Balbus to undertake the difficult task of completing the account of Caesar’s achievements. The mention of such requests is, of course, a well-established topos of ancient prefaces,38 but it would also suit the political context after Caesar’s death, when there was much debate about how the dictator should be remembered and whether he should even be venerated.39 In this situation, Balbus, Hirtius, and other Caesarians must have been very eager to circulate a complete and positive account of Caesar’s deeds in Gaul and during the Civil War.40 Finally, also the contents and position of the Epistula ad Balbum suggest a close link between Hirtius’ completion of the Caesarian commentarii and the circulation of the Bellum Civile. Since Hirtius does not speak of writing an appendix to the Caesarian works, but has inserted the Epistula ad Balbum and the eighth book of the Bellum Gallicum right in middle of the Caesarian commentarii (cf. Gal. 8.pr.3: qui me mediis interposuerim Caesaris scriptis) he obviously regards the Caesarian and pseudo-Caesarian commentarii as a unit and desires that they should circulate together.41 To achieve this goal, Hirtius simply had to issue one set of all the commentarii. Consequently, he must have not only reissued the Bellum Gallicum but also released a copy of the Bellum Civile. In view of the narrow time-frame as well as the social and 35 Thus already Patzer 1993: 119–20 (contra Barwick 1938: 178, 198, 209). 36 Cf. e. g. Cic. Att. 14.9.2–3 (17 April 44 B. C.) and 14.11.2 (21 April 44 B. C.). 37 Cf. pp. 15–21, 155–7 (posthumous publication of the Bellum Civile) and the reference to Caesar’s earlier (Gal.) and later (Civ.) commentarii in the Epistula ad Balbum (Gal. 8.pr.2). 38 Cf. p. 182 with n. 60 for parallels and secondary literature. 39 Cf. section 5.3 (pp. 160–63) below. 40 One may compare Hirtius’ speedy reaction to Cicero’s encomium of Cato Uticensis, see p. 161 with nn. 30-31. 41 This conclusion is also supported by the fact that Hirtius refers back to the Caesarian commentarii and assumes that his readers have read them or at least have them at hand, cf. Hirt. Gal. 8.4.3: quas [sc. legiones] ibi collocatas explicandae rei frumentariae causa superiore commentario demonstratum est, 8.15.5: namque in acie sedere Gallos consuesse superioribus commenta­ riis Caesaris [Caesaris om. β] declaratum est, 8.30.1, 8.38.3. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

The evidence of Suetonius’ Vita Divi Iulii and the Epistula ad Balbum

25

political context (see above), this edition of the Bellum Civile is likely to have been not a simple reissue, but the first or in any case the authoritative public presentation of the work.42 So far, our interpretation of the Epistula ad Balbum may seem fairly simple and straightforward. When we turn to the details of Hirtius’ project, however, at least two major problems emerge. The first concerns the relation between Hirtius’ statement (Gal.  8.pr.2) novissimumque imperfectum [sc. commentarium] ab rebus gestis Alexandriae confeci usque ad exitum … vitae Caesaris and the extant works of the Corpus Caesarianum. The Bellum Alexandrinum, Bellum Africum, and Bellum Hispaniense, which follow the Bellum Civile in the medieval manuscripts, only cover the Civil War down to the assembly at Hispalis in late April 45 B. C. and contain no information pertaining to the last eleven months of Caesar’s life. Hence, they are incompatible with Hirtius’ expression usque ad exitum … vitae Caesaris. In addition, the Bellum Africum and Bellum Hispaniense are stylistically quite different from the eighth book of the Bellum Gallicum and can hardly have been written by Hirtius.43 To solve these contradictions, von Hartel, Dahms, and Klotz suggested that the later parts of Hirtius’ text may have been lost and replaced by the Bellum Africum and Bellum Hispaniense.44 This would explain the stylistic diversity of the pseudo-Caesarian Bella and account for the gap between April 45 and March 44 B. C.. However, it seems improbable that a coherent and detailed narration of the years 48–44 B. C. should have been partly replaced by the rather diverse hotchpotch of the pseudo-Caesarian Bellum Africum and Bellum Hispaniense.45 Moreover, it is unlikely that in the thirteen months between Caesar’s assassination and his own death at Mutina in April 43 B. C. Hirtius should have had the time and energy to write the eighth book of the Bellum Gallicum and finish a detailed description of all the events between Pompey’s and Caesar’s deaths, for Hirtius played an active role in the political struggle following Caesar’s assassination and was severely 42 Cf. Patzer 1993: 119–20 and see p. 18 with n. 11 on the temporal perspective of Gal. 8. pr.3,5. In view of the arguments above, Kalinka’s suggestion (1939: 210–11) that the Bellum ­Civile may have been published after Caesar’s death but before the composition of the Epistula ad Balbum seems implausible (cf. also Kalinka’s earlier remarks in 1910: 486, 1912: 206, 1929: 171–2 and Rambaud 1953: 367, who suggests that the Bellum Civile was published posthumously by Mark Antony). Kalinka’s claim that Hirt. Gal. 8.pr.5 and Suet. Jul. 56.4 prove that the Bellum Civile was published before the composition of the Epistula ad Balbum has already been refuted above (pp. 17–18 with n. 11). 43 Cf. Nipperdey 1846: 12–29 ~ 1847: 15–30 and the literature cited in n. 51 below. 44 Cf. von Hartel 1891: 122–3, Zingerle 1892: 82, Dahms 1906: 23, Klotz 1909: 570, 1910: 156–7, ­182–3, 203–4. Klotz later retracted this idea in his commentary on the Bellum Hispa­ niense (1927: 2). 45 Cf. Nipperdey 1846: 31 ~ 1847: 32, Schiller 1891–3: 396, Seel 1935: 73–4, Barwick 1938: 177, Richter 1977: 194. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

26

The Bellum Alexandrinum and the Corpus Caesarianum

ill in the late summer of 44 B. C..46 In view of these facts most scholars today assume that the Epistula ad Balbum was composed in the spring or summer of 44 B. C. when Hirtius had just begun to work on the completion of the Caesarian commentarii and that he happened to die too early to finish his ambitious project.47 To render this hypothesis more plausible, they compare confeci at Gal. 8.pr.2 with Thuc. 5.26.1, where the perfect γέγραφε anticipates the completion of Thucydides’ (unfinished) account of the Peloponnesian War.48 The parallel and the whole reconstruction seem attractive on first sight, but they do not explain how 46 On Hirtius’ ill health cf. Cic. Phil. 7.12, 10.16, Fam. 12.22.2 (= 346.2 SB, late Sept. or early Oct. 44 B. C.); on his political activities see von der Mühll 1913: 1958–61 and Patzer 1993: ­124–6. In view of these circumstances, Weissenborn (1849: 377–8), Forchhammer (1852: 56), and F. Vogel (1900: 218) went so far as to conclude that Hirtius did not play any role in the composition of the Corpus Caesarianum at all. Collins (1952: 168–9) rightly warns not to overstate the impact of Hirtius’ ill health and adduces the example of U. S. Grant, who wrote his Personal Memoirs while suffering from terminal throat cancer; J. Pigoń (per litteras) points to the more recent case of the modern historian and essayist Tony Judt. See also Zingerle 1892: 80–1 on ­Hirtius’ speed of composition. 47 Cf. e. g. Nipperdey 1846: 31–2 ~ 1847: 32–3, Kraner 1861: xxxiii–xxxv, Barwick 1938: 210–12, 214–15, La Penna 1952: 225, Rüpke 1992: 219, Patzer 1993: 121–6, Batstone/Damon 2006: 30, and Raaflaub 2009: 181; see also Olivier 1937: 96–9, 101. 48 The Thucydides passage has first been adduced by Kalinka (1894: 21–2, 1910: 484); see also Kunst 1919, Andrieu 1954: xix–xx, Richter 1977: 194 n. 10 (with reference to εἴρηται and ξύγκειται in Thuc. 1.22.1,4), Rüpke 1992: 220–21, Patzer 1993: 123, and Pötter 1932: 6 n. 12 (on the exchangeability of future and perfect at Sal. Cat. 4.3: quam verissume potero paucis absolvam, Jug. 5.1: bellum scripturus sum, Hist. 1.1 (Maurenbrecher): res populi Romani … composui). A more problematic parallel is Ov. Tr. 2.549: sex ego Fastorum scripsi totidemque libellos (first adduced by Felix Jacoby in a letter to or conversation with Seel, cf. Seel 1935: 76), for Ovid may simply pretend to have finished a complete draft of the Fasti: cf. Bömer 1957–1958: vol. 1, 20–1, W. Kraus 1942: col. 1950, lines 38–9: “um der rhetorischen Wirkung willen … vorweggenommen”. Seel’s attempt (1935: 74–84) to show that the perfect tense verbs in Thucydides and Ovid are fundamentally different from Hirtius’ confeci is unconvincing. His claim that Thucyd­ ides’ γέγραφε and Ovid’s scripsi mean that these writers finished a complete outline of the contents (“Skizze”, “Disposition”) is pure speculation, since we know next to nothing about the unpublished work of these authors. Moreover, it seems counter-intuitive that γράφειν and scribere should mean ‘finish a plan’ and not just ‘write down’, and neither LSJ nor OLD record the usages postulated by Seel. Furthermore, even if γράφειν and scribere did indeed mean ‘make an outline’ at Thuc. 5.26.1 and Ov. Tr. 2.549, Seel’s statement that this particular meaning cannot apply to confeci at Hirt. Gal. 8.pr.2 would still be little more than a wild guess. That collecting and organizing material should be incompatible with the form of the commentarii, because in this genre there is no difference between dispositio and enarratio (thus Seel 1935: 82–3), seems fairly unlikely in view of the careful design that we find in Caesar’s Bellum Gallicum and Bellum Civile. Also, Hirtius’ remarks at Gal. 8.48.10–11 show that he feels free to adapt the conventions of the Caesarian commentarii; hence, we should not speak of a “Bekenntnis[ses] zu der literarischen Gattung der commentarii” (Seel 1935: 82) or see Hirtius as a slavish imitator of Caesar. Equally unconvincing is Canfora’s attempt (1970: 424–6) to discredit the Thucydidean and Ovidian parallels by speculating about an interpolation at Thuc. 5.26.1 and a lacuna after Ov. Tr. 2.549. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

The evidence of Suetonius’ Vita Divi Iulii and the Epistula ad Balbum

27

the Bellum Africum and Bellum Hispaniense became part of the Corpus Caesarianum. Since the style of these works differs considerably from that of the eighth book of the Bellum Gallicum, it is virtually certain that they were not written by Aulus Hirtius. Hence, they either must be drafts which Hirtius wanted to rewrite and adjust to his own style,49 or they were commissioned and added after Hirtius’ death, when Balbus or another of Hirtius’ friends took up his plan to complete the Caesarian commentarii.50 Neither of these scenarios is fully convincing. As has been pointed out by Seel (1935: 84 n. 1, 86), the Bellum Africum and Bellum Hispaniense show a literary design51 and were obviously not intended to serve merely as Hirtius’ first drafts but to be published in their present form.52 Moreover, if Hirtius’ plan to complete the Caesarian commentarii was continued after his death and the Bellum Africum and Bellum Hispaniense were added posthumously, we might expect another preface similar to the Epistula ad Balbum, in which Hirtius’ successor(s) would mention Hirtius’ death and explain their intentions and procedure.53 However, no such text survives. Thus, in the end, the interpretation of confeci as an anticipatory perfect does not resolve the mysteries of the Epistula ad Balbum but rather creates new inconsistencies and contradictions. In view of these problems Seel suggested that the Bellum Hispaniense, which abruptly ends in the middle of Caesar’s speech at Hispalis, might originally have contained a brief account of the eleven months between April 45 B. C. and March 44 B. C. and that Hirtius might have asked senior officers who had served in Cae 49 Thus e. g. Barwick 1938: 210–12, 215, Rüpke 1992: 221, Patzer 1993: 126. 50 This possibility does not seem to have had any adherents: it is briefly taken into consideration by Seel (1935: 86) and later discarded by Barwick (1938: 210–11). 51 Cf. the recent analyses of the Bellum Africum by Adams (2005) and the Bellum Hispa­ niense by Gaertner (2010). The view that the supplements to the Corpus Caesarianum are a mimetic project by “adjutant acolytes in the secretariat” (Henderson 1996: 274) or that “the continuators … were offering unredacted, unpolished, often day-by-day accounts of life on the front lines” (Cluett 2009: 196; cf. also Cluett 2009: 197: “may not have had literary goals at all”, 198, Rüpke 1992: 221: “das abfallende literarische Niveau”, 225, and Mayer 2011: 211) does not do justice to the transmitted texts and is based on a much too narrow concept of ‘Literary Latin’ at the end of the Roman Republic. 52 Barwick (1938: 211) thinks that Hirtius may have commissioned drafts with a literary polish, but is at the same time fiercely opposed to the notion that he could have published other people’s work under his own name (cf. n. 57 below)—a patent contradiction. 53 This point was already made by Felix Jacoby (quoted by Seel 1935: 86 n. 1). Seel does not want to put too much weight on the argument, because in his eyes the Epistula ad Balbum primarily serves to celebrate Caesar’s character and literary genius and not to explain Hirtius’ aims and methods. This view, however, is at odds with the text of the letter. Barwick’s explanation (1938: 211–12), that the posthumous editor (in his eyes, Hirtius’ friend Balbus) did not know who the authors of the Bellum Africum and Bellum Hispaniense were, seems rather improbable, for Balbus and Hirtius were close friends and Balbus, who allegedly encouraged ­Hirtius to continue the Caesarian draft, is likely to have had an interest in Hirtius’ progress and procedure. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

28

The Bellum Alexandrinum and the Corpus Caesarianum

sar’s army to write down the accounts of the Bellum Africum and Bellum Hispa­ niense, thus disburdening himself and speeding up the completion of the Caesarian commentarii.54 According to this hypothesis, the Epistula ad Balbum would have been written not during the summer of 44 B. C. but rather in December 44 B. C. or during the first months of 43 B. C., after Hirtius had received the accounts of his ‘ghost-writers’, removed minor inconsistencies, inserted a few connecting passages,55 and finished his own share of the planned continuation of the Caesarian commentarii (cf. Seel 1935: 94). confeci would then be a true perfect,56 and Hirtius would have deliberately chosen the vague conficere (‘finish’) instead of the more precise scribere in order to describe his double role as writer and compiler or editor.57 This is a far more natural interpretation of the Latin text than the anticipatory perfect favoured by Kalinka, Kunst, Andrieu, and others.58 In addition, Seel’s reconstruction has the great advantage that the pessimistic outlook of the Epistula ad Balbum (cf. Gal. 8.pr.2: civilis dissensionis, cuius finem nullum videmus) much better suits the political climate of the winter 44/43 B. C., when a new

54 Cf. Seel 1935: 87 (end of the Bellum Hispaniense) and 87–9 (outline of Hirtius’ procedure). Seel fails to mention that his reconstruction is identical with that developed some 50 years earlier by Petersdorff (1880: 217–19). 55 Seel (1935: 89 n. 2) gives a collection of expressions that might have been inserted by Hirtius into the Bellum Africum and Bellum Hispaniense. However, this list is fairly short, and most of the expressions are so common that they could just as well have been used by the anonymous ‘ghost-writers’. An exception is the first sentence of the Bellum Hispaniense, which clearly points back to the preceding Bellum Alexandrinum and Bellum Africum and may have been written by Hirtius to link the three accounts: cf. Klotz 1927: 35 ad loc., Seel 1935: 90 and the similar link at the end of Civ. 3.112.12: haec initia belli Alexandrini fuerunt. Caesar, too, often starts his books by recalling some of the events narrated in the preceding commentarius: see p. 190 with n. 5 below. 56 Before the publication of Seel’s Hirtius (1935), already Petersdorff (1880: 215), von Hartel (1891: 118–19), and Dahms (1906: 8, 16–17) had emphasized that the use of the perfect tense (contexui … confeci) strongly suggests that the respective additions to the Corpus Caesarianum had been completed and were in Hirtius’ possession (see also Olivier 1937: 95–6). However, (unlike Seel) von Hartel and Dahms (and Olivier 1937: 98–9) assume that Hirtius’ supplements were later replaced by the transmitted Bella, cf. n. 44 above. 57 Cf. Seel 1935: 95, 97, 99; similarly Canali 1965: 129–30, 1966: 116 (without acknowledging his debt to Seel). Barwick’s objection (1938: 199–200) that conficere cannot mean “‘fertigund zusammenstellen’” but must signify “‘vollenden’, ‘fertigstellen’, nämlich scribendo” misses the point. Seel did not oppose two modes of composition (i. e. ‘put together’, ‘conjoin’ as opposed to ‘write oneself ’), but correctly understood that Hirtius’ confeci emphasizes the completion (cf. TLL s.v. conficio 194.83: “ad finem perducere”) and makes no statement whatsoever about the method or the intellectual property. Thus, conficere can be used of scribes finishing books by copying them (cf. e. g. Cic. Att. 13.21a.2), of Terence completing a play by adapting and combining two different Greek originals (cf. Eugraphius’ commentary on Ter. Hau. 4, p. 154.12–13 Wessner), or of an editor putting together pieces by various contributors (see also OLD s.v. 3a,c). 58 Cf. p. 26 with n. 48 above. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

The evidence of Suetonius’ Vita Divi Iulii and the Epistula ad Balbum

29

phase of the Civil War was about to begin and Hirtius would soon start his campaign against Mark Antony.59 The second problem raised by Hirtius’ remarks in the Epistula ad Balbum is the question of where exactly he started to continue Caesar’s account of the Civil War. His statement (Gal. 8.pr.2): Caesaris nostri commentarios rerum gestarum Galliae, non competentibus superioribus atque insequentibus eius scriptis, contexui, novissimumque imperfectum ab rebus gestis Alexandriae confeci usque ad exitum non quidem civilis dissensionis, cuius finem nullum videmus, sed vitae Caesaris. I have continued the accounts of our Caesar on his deeds in Gaul, since his earlier and later writings did not fit together, and I have also finished the most recent and incomplete account, extending it from the deeds in Alexandria down to the end, not admittedly of civil discord, of which we see no end, but of Caesar’s life.60

allows for two rather different interpretations. Either Hirtius has appended C ­ aesar’s novissimus imperfectus commentarius to Caesar’s later works (cf. in­ sequentibus eius scriptis), i. e. Caesar’s account of the Civil War, and so B.Alex. 1 is the beginning of the continuation announced by Hirtius, or Hirtius did not connect the novissimus imperfectus commentarius to the insequentia scripta Caesaris, but incorporated it into his continuation of the Caesarian narrative. In the former case, the entire Bellum Alexandrinum would have been written after Caesar’s death by Hirtius or some other Caesarian(s) who helped Hirtius in his task;61 in the latter case, the extant Bellum Alexandrinum would partly be based on Caesar’s novissimus imperfectus commentarius, and the continuation announced by 59 Cf. Seel 1935: 90–5. One might object that in the Epistula ad Balbum Hirtius should have mentioned his ‘ghost-writers’ and should have pointed out that not only his own literary capabilities were surpassed by Caesar’s (cf. Gal. 8.pr.3,6–7,9) but also those of the anonymous authors of the Bellum Africum and Bellum Hispaniense (thus e. g. Barwick 1938: 200). Seel, however, has rightly remarked that ancient authors were far more insouciant about questions of intellectual property (1935: 97–8), and (as we shall see below, cf. chapters 3–4) this same insouciance also shows in the Bellum Alexandrinum. Moreover, the Epistula ad Balbum concentrates on the very essentials and does not give a full account of Hirtius’ procedure. For example Hirtius informs us that he did not take part in the operations in Alexandria or Africa, but he makes no explicit statement about his participation in the campaign against Pharnaces or the Spanish war (cf. appendix A, pp. 179–81). 60 On the Latin text and its translation see pp. 22–3 with nn. 30–34 above. 61 Nipperdey (1846: 3–12 ~ 1847: 8–15), Walther (1903: 21), Klotz (1910: 156), Seel (1935: 70–3), and others identify the novissimus imperfectus commentarius with the third book of the Bellum Civile and attribute the entire Bellum Alexandrinum to Hirtius; Patzer (1993: 118, 1­ 21–6) agrees with the first half of this interpretation, but thinks that the Bellum Alexandrinum was written by an anonymous friend or successor of Hirtius. Von Hartel (1891: 122–3) and Canali (1965: 133–4) believe that the novissimus imperfectus commentarius consisted of the last paragraphs of the Bellum Civile from chapter 100 or 102 onwards. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

30

The Bellum Alexandrinum and the Corpus Caesarianum

­Hirtius in the Epistula ad Balbum would begin at some point within the account of the Alexandrian campaign (cf. Gal. 8.pr.2: ab rebus gestis Alexandriae).62 The question of which of these two scenarios is correct has been much debated in the late 19th and early 20th century. Since Hirtius’ words in the Epistula ad Balbum can be interpreted in either way63 and since the transmitted book divisions of the Corpus Caesarianum need not reflect the structure of Caesar’s literary Nach­lass,64 the debate naturally centred around the internal evidence of the Bellum Alexandrinum. In the next chapter we shall scrutinize the linguistic observations contained in earlier discussions and re-examine how the language of the Bellum Alexandrinum relates to that of the Caesarian works and of Hirtius’ eighth book of the Bellum Gallicum.

62 The view that Caesar’s novissimus imperfectus commentarius included the early chapters of the Bellum Alexandrinum has been held by Landgraf (1888a: 74–119), Zingerle (1892: 77– 80), Dahms (1906: 15), Kalinka (1910: 486, 1929: 177, 1939: 216–17), and Pötter (1932: 10–23). Apart from Landgraf (1888a: 14, 74) and Pötter (1932: 22), all of these scholars assume that the novissimus imperfectus commentarius began with B.Alex. 1 and was revised and completed after the Bellum Civile had been published; this assumption, however, is neither necessary nor probable: cf. pp. 24–5 above and section 5.1 (pp. 155–7). 63 Suetonius’ words Hirtium, qui etiam Gallici belli novissimum imperfectumque librum suppleverit (Jul. 56.1) do not help either, because the biographer misremembers or misquotes his source: see appendix A, p. 177 with n. 32. 64 The form of the Bellum Gallicum and Hirtius’ statement Caesarem singulorum annorum singulos commentarios confecisse (Gal. 8.48.10) show that Caesar usually treats the events of each year in a separate commentarius (a minor deviation is Gal. 3.1–6, see p. 193 with n. 25 below). Consequently, the transmitted division between Civ. 1 and 2, which occurs right in the middle of the year 49 B. C., cannot be ascribed to Caesar but must have been implemented by an editor of the Bellum Civile after Caesar’s death (cf. Zingerle 1892: 82–3, Kelsey 1905: 235, 236 and 1906: 52–8, Klotz 1910: 197 and 1950: vi, Seel 1935: 69–70 and the detailed discussion in appendix C, pp. 189–203). Likewise, the abrupt end of the third book of the Bellum Civile at the beginning of the Alexandrian campaign does not look like a deliberate, literary closure (cf. pp. 20–21 above and appendix C, pp. 200–3). Hence, the transmitted shape and book divisions of the Bellum Civile do not go back to Caesar and offer no solid basis for an interpretation of the Epistula ad Balbum or a reconstruction of Caesar’s Nachlass. Patzer’s claim (1993: 118) that the novissimus imperfectus commentarius must be identical with the third book of the Bellum Civile because this is the last book of the Caesarian commentarii is invalid. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

3. Language and style of the Bellum Alexandrinum

3.1. The Bellum Alexandrinum and the language and style of Hirt. Gal. 8 Research on the language and style of the Bellum Alexandrinum has always been closely linked to the question of authorship and the interpretation of the Epistula ad Balbum. The first noteworthy attempt to describe the language and style of the Bellum Alexandrinum goes back to Nipperdey.1 He attributed the Bellum Alexandrinum to Hirtius2 and tried to show that Hirtius’ eighth book of the Bellum Gallicum and the Bellum Alexandrinum share many linguistic features and must be written by the same person. As evidence he referred to four subordinating conjunctions shared by the Bellum Alexandrinum and the eighth book of the Bellum Gallicum (etsi, tametsi, quamquam, priusquam),3 to the similar preference for repente instead of subito,4 to the use of proeliari (B.Alex. 30.2,4, 31.1, 44.3; 9× Gal. 8), confligere (10× B.Alex., 3× Gal. 8), conflare bellum (B.Alex. 1.1, Gal. 8.6.1), re bene gesta (B.Alex. 26.3, 47.1 = Gal. 8.27.5, 8.36.1), felicissime (B. Alex. 32.1, 78.5, Gal. 8.37.1),5 tempus anni difficile (B.Alex. 43.1, Gal. 8.6.1), durissimae tempestates (B.Alex. 43.2, Gal. 8.5.4), celerius opinione + gen. (B.Alex. 51.3, 71.2, 78.5, Gal. 8.8.4), and to the similarity between B.Alex. 76.2: at nostri victoria elati and Gal. 8.29.3: at nostri equites … laetitia victoriae elati.6 To these observa 1 Cf. Nipperdey 1846: 10–11 ~ 1847: 14–15. 2 Before Nipperdey, Hirtius’ authorship had been advocated e. g. by Dodwell (cf. Oudendorp 1737: vol. 2, 1007–8), Godvinus (1731: 347), de Wailly (1775: vol. 2, 316–17), and B. G. Niebuhr in his lectures held at the university of Bonn (cf. the posthumous publication 1848: 40). 3 Nipperdey (1846: 10 ~ 1847: 13, 14) also observed that licet, quamvis, and antequam are absent from Gal. 8 and B.Alex.. 4 Whereas Caesar clearly prefers subito (> 40×) to its near synonym repente (10×), Hirtius completely avoids subito in Gal. 8 and employs only repente (12×). In the Bellum Alexandrinum we only find repente (4× = 26.2, 45.2, 45.4, 74.1), but not subito. 5 Cf. also feliciter gerere at B.Alex. 46.4, 48.1, 78.2. 6 As a further argument Nipperdey (1846: 11) adduced the observation that “ hic quoque frequentius ponitur (11,3. 12,1. 22,1. 49,5. 60,2 et 5. 72,2) quam (11,5. 63,6) aut (42,1. 43,2. 44,2)”. The statistics are correct, but the corresponding figures for the eighth book of the Bellum Gallicum (9× detrimentum, 9× calamitas, 2× incommodum) do not really prove a preference for detrimentum over calamitas. Moreover, detrimentum, calamitas, and incommodum overlap in meaning, but are not interchangeable. Hence, the higher frequency of detrimentum may not reveal a personal preference for one word instead of another but simply reflect the subject matter. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

32

Language and style of the Bellum Alexandrinum 

tions, Schiller later appended the use of dimicatio (B.Alex. 11.3, 22.2, 25.3, 32.4, 46.1, 46.4; 5× Gal. 8)7 and non/neque tantum … sed etiam (B.Alex. 32.4, 34.2, 42.1, 49.2, 58.4, 63.5, 67.1, Gal. 8.6.2, 8.41.6, 8.52.5),8 and Klotz added three stylistic features (inserted parentheses and distorted word order; tautological expressions; fondness for abstract expression).9 Furthermore, in 1938 Barwick expanded Nipperdey’s list of Hirtian usages by the expressions auxilia adducere (B.Alex. 1.1, 51.3, Gal. 8.7.5), palus interiecta (B.Alex. 1.1, Gal. 8.10.2), vena + gen. (B.Alex. 8.1, Gal. 8.43.4), prohibere quominus (B.Alex. 8.2, Gal. 8.34.3), summa velocitas (B.Alex. 8.5, Gal. 8.36.2), locus excelsus (B.Alex. 8.6, 28.3, 31.1, 59.2, Gal. 8.7.4, 8.33.1, 8.42.4), omnis illa regio (B.Alex. 9.4, Gal. 8.46.4), fiduciam afferre (B.Alex. 10.5, Gal. 8.10.1), summa/magna contentione (B.Alex. 11.3, Gal. 8.19.2, 8.29.1), repentinum latrocinium (B.Alex. 19.2, Gal. 8.24.3), semper consuescere + inf. (B. Alex. 53.1, Gal.  8.47.2), odio esse alicui (B.Alex. 53.4, Gal.  8.7.4), faci(un)t hoc idem (B.Alex. 54.2, Gal. 8.48.4),10 tam … quam (B.Alex. 55.2, 59.1, Gal. 8.23.6), nihil opus esse + abl. (B.Alex. 59.1, Hirt. apud Cic. Att. 15.6.2), Caesaris causam defendere (B.Alex. 59.1, Gal. 8.52.4), castra castris conferre (B.Alex. 61.2,11 61.4, Gal.  8.9.2), circuitus oppidi (B.Alex. 61.5, Gal.  8.33.2), munitionibus claudere (B.Alex. 61.5, Gal.  8.11.1), pabulari frumentarique (B.Alex. 61.5, Gal.  8.10.1), sine dubitatione (B.Alex. 63.2, Gal.  8.44.3), contra consuetudinem (B.Alex. 65.1, Gal. 8.50.1), externus hostis (B.Alex. 65.1, Gal. 8.27.2, 8.37.1), inflari secundo proelio (B.Alex. 65.3, Gal. 8.12.6), proelium facere adversus/contra aliquem/cum aliquo (B.Alex. 65.3, 69.1, 73.2, Gal. 8.31.1),12 libentius facere (B.Alex. 70.3, Gal. 8.48.2), calliditas (B.Alex. 71.2, Gal.  8.16.3), intercīdere (B.Alex. 72.2, 73.3, Gal.  8.14.4, 7 In the entire Bellum Gallicum and Bellum Civile the noun only occurs twice: Gal. 7.86.3, Civ. 3.111.2. 8 Cf. Schiller 1881: 91. Schiller defended Nipperdey’s argument in  a number of further publications without adding any substantial evidence in favour of the attribution to Hirtius. Instead, he primarily tried to refute the arguments of Nipperdey’s critics and gradually moved towards a more complex theory of the composition of the Bellum Alexandrinum: see n. 50 below and cf. Schiller 1880b, 1889: 307–8, 310 n., 1890, 1891b: 53–6, 1891–3: 398, 1899: 11. 9 Cf. Klotz 1909: 569–70, 1910: 201–3. Klotz also argued that the eighth book of the Bellum Gallicum and the Bellum Alexandrinum show the same lack of familiarity with the military language (“militärische Ausdrucksweise”, 1910: 160–80, 183–91). However, Bojkowitsch (1924–7: 73–81) has amply demonstrated that the alleged examples of “unmilitärische Ausdrucksweise” in Gal. 8 have close parallels in the Caesarian works or result from misinterpretations of the Latin text. Hence, if the “unmilitärische Ausdrucksweise” either does not exist or is not characteristic of Hirtius, it is certainly not a useful concept for establishing the stylistic identity of Gal. 8 and the Bellum Alexandrinum. Klotz seems to have realized this (1927: 1 n. 3; cf. also Kalinka 1929: 113–14, Pötter 1932: 9), but not so Seel (1933: 596–7). 10 Caesar uses the same iunctura, but always chooses the inverse word order hoc idem … f., cf. Gal. 7.53.3, Civ. 1.40.2, 1.45.8, 1.81.3, 3.13.6, 3.77.1 and appendix J.2, p. 283 on B.Alex. 54.2. 11 On the text see appendix J.1 ad loc. (p. 278–9 below). 12 Caesar employs proelium facere only with an indication of place, but never adds a dative object or a prepositional phrase specifying the enemy, cf. Barwick 1938: 189. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

The Bellum Alexandrinum and the language and style of Hirt. Gal. 8

33

8.43.4), pro vallo instruere (B.Alex. 74.2, Gal. 8.15.3), cum interim (B.Alex. 74.4, Gal.  8.19.8), facultas libere/-ius + gerund(ive)  (B.Alex. 76.4, Gal.  8.32.1), condonare (praedam) (‘give as a present’, B.Alex. 77.2, Gal. 8.4.1), and feliciter cele­ riterque (B.Alex. 78.2, Gal. 8.46.2). In addition, Barwick highlighted the postposition of ille at B.Alex. 27.1, 62.2, 66.3 and Gal. 8.34.1, 8.38.3, 8.46.6, the sentence closure exercitum lustra(vi)t (B.Alex. 56.5, Gal. 8.52.1), and the similar phrasing of B.Alex. 49.3: magna … sollicitudo periculorum ad iacturas et detrimenta … ad­ iungebatur and Gal. 8.48.2: ad eam virtutem … magnum odium Commii adiungebat, B.Alex. 63.4: cum … neque ullum exitum consilii sui reperiret and Gal. 8.44.1: cum … neque exitum consiliorum suorum animadverteret, B.Alex. 65.4: commo­ ratus fere in omnibus civitatibus … praemia bene meritis … tribuit, de controversiis veteribus cognoscit ac statuit and Gal. 8.46.5: paucos dies ipse in provincia moratus, cum … publicas controversias cognosset, bene meritis praemia tribuisset,13 and B.Alex. 66.1: paucis diebus in ea provincia consumptis and Gal. 8.14.1: compluribus diebus isdem castris consumptis.14 The arguments of Nipperdey, Schiller, Klotz, and Barwick have been accepted by Rice Holmes, Seel, Hosius, Canali, Rüpke, and others, and today most scholars attribute the whole Bellum Alexandrinum to Hirtius.15 However, since 1938 no new evidence has been presented to support Hirtius’ authorship,16 and the linguistic observations assembled in the 19th and early 20th century have little 13 Barwick (1938: 189) does not observe that cognoscere is used transitively at Gal. 8.46.5 (controversias), but intransitively (de controversiis) at B.Alex. 65.4, 68.1, 78.1 and Sent. Minuc. (= CIL 1².584 = 5.7749) 1–2, Liv. 40.20.1, Paul. Fest. Epit. p. 74.21 (Lindsay), al. (cf. also Cato orat. fr. 210 p. 85 Malcovati4 and TLL s.v. cognosco 1506.44–1507.60). This fact weakens Barwick’s argument. Caesar employs de controversiis iudicare (Gal.  5.44.4) / constituere (Gal.  6.13.5) / disceptare (Civ.  3.107.2), controversias minuere (Gal.  5.26.4, 6.23.5) / componere (Civ.  1.9.6, 3.109.1), and causam cognoscere (Gal. 1.19.5). 14 Cf. Barwick 1938: 183–93. A considerable portion of the material goes back to Landgraf (1888a: 45–63, 83–135), who, however, attributed only parts of the Bellum Alexandrinum to Hirtius (see below, pp. 39–40). Some of the expressions adduced by Barwick have close parallels in Caesar or are generally common and therefore have little diagnostic value: see appendices J.1 and J.2 below, pp. 268–85. 15 Cf. Kraner 1861: xxxiv, xxxv–vi, Judeich 1885: 4, Walther 1903: 22, Kraner/Dittenberger/ Meusel 1913–20: vol. 1, 33, Rice Holmes 1923: vol. 3, 483–4, Hosius 1927: 344, Seel 1935, Daly 1951, Collins 1959: 126, Gelzer 1960: 231–2 n. 283, Bartolini 1963: 81, Canali 1966: 121, 129, Townend 1988: 3, Rüpke 1992: 218, 1997, and Raaflaub 2009: 180. In his response to Patzer’s analysis of the Epistula ad Balbum, L. G. H. Hall (1996) neither rejects nor espouses the attribution to Hirtius. 16 Canali (1966: 127–37) argues that Gal. 8 and B.Alex. show a lower proportion of hapax legomena than B.Afr. and B.Hisp. and share several words that are absent from the other supplements of the Corpus Caesarianum. The latter observation does not constitute a significant advance over the earlier studies from Nipperdey to Barwick (see above; cf. also appendices E.3 and H, pp. 223–4 and 239–45), and the former point has no conclusive force: the material in appendix F (pp. 225–35) reveals that the frequency of hapax legomena varies considerably between the individual books of the Caesarian commentarii and is heavily influenced by the subject matter. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

34

Language and style of the Bellum Alexandrinum 

argumentative value. The subordinating conjunctions etsi, tametsi, quam­quam, priusquam, the adverb repente, and expressions such as non tantum … sed etiam, odio esse alicui, or nihil opus esse17 are so common in Latin that they might exclude certain writers as authors of the Bellum Alexandrinum, but they clearly do not suffice to establish the stylistic identity of the Bellum Alexandrinum and the eighth book of the Bellum Gallicum.18 Moreover,  a glance at the evidence shows that the Hirtian expressions are not evenly distributed over the Bellum Alexandrinum, but mostly come from the later parts of the work; this is particularly true of the stronger and more extensive echoes of Hirtius’ eighth book of the Bellum Gallicum (cf. B.Alex. 49.3, 63.4, 65.4, 66.1, 76.2, quoted above).19 Thus, the arguments adduced in support of Hirtius’ authorship are not compelling. More importantly, there is also considerable linguistic evidence that contradicts the attribution of the Bellum Alexandrinum to Hirtius. As has already been pointed out by Vielhaber, Fischer, and Fröhlich in the second half of the 19th century,20 adversus (adj., 7×), se conferre (6×), disciplina (6×), editus (‘high’, 7×), expugnare (6×), incolumis (5×), intercludere (7×), militaris (5×), negotium (6×), omnino (5×), pedester (4×), periclitari (3×), perire (‘to die’, 3×), post(ea)quam (4×), praeterea (7×), proficere (7×), quod si/nisi (4×), repellere (4×), sollertia (4×), sub idem tempus (5×), subsidium (8×), versari (5×), and veteranus (8×) are fairly common in the Bellum Alexandrinum but completely absent from Hirtius’ eighth book of the Bellum Gallicum.21 Further examples not noticed by these scholars are animum advertere (6×), mens (4×), pecunia (10×), praesertim (3×), studium (5×), and terrestris (4×). Admittedly, the absence of some of these words (e. g. pecunia) may reflect the different subject matter of the two works.22 Most of the expressions, however, are not tied to a specific topic (e. g. post(ea)quam, praesertim, praeterea, quod si/nisi, sub idem tempus) or can be contrasted with near synonyms which are securely attested in the eighth book of the Bellum Gallicum. Thus we may weigh the use of periclitari in the Bellum Alexandrinum (3×) against that of 17 Cf. also our discussions in appendices J.1 and J.2, pp. 268–85. 18 This was clearly stated by Vielhaber (1869: 547–8); cf. also the severe criticism of Petersdorff (1880: 215–17) and Schiller (1880b: 248): “Es ist richtig, daß das, was N[ipperdey] anführt, unzureichend ist”. Before Vielhaber, Petersdorff, and Schiller, already Weissenborn (1849: 378) had rejected Nipperdey’s argument as patently self-contradictory, because he attributes “facilitatem … motum … varietatem” (1847: 14) to the Bellum Alexandrinum, but “lentitudinem … sine motu … sine varietate” (1847: 13) to Hirtius’ eighth book of the Bellum Gallicum. 19 See also appendix H, pp. 239–45, where we give a revised and augmented list of significant parallels between the Bellum Alexandrinum and Hirtius’ eighth book of the Bellum Gallicum. 20 Cf. Vielhaber 1869: 548–9, Fischer 1880: 7–30, and especially Fröhlich 1887: 42–50. 21 In his review of Schneider’s edition of the Bellum Alexandrinum (1889: 308), Schiller correctly points out that Hirtius uses praeterea in a letter to Cicero (Fam. 9.13 = 311 SB). 22 Cf. the criticism of Schiller (1890: 245, 246–7, 248). © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

The Bellum Alexandrinum and the language and style of Hirt. Gal. 8

35

experiri at Gal. 8.36.2,23 compare subsidium (8× B.Alex.) with auxilium (13× Hirt. Gal. 8), mens (4× B.Alex.) with animus (9× Hirt. Gal. 8),24 sub idem tempus (5× B.Alex.) with eodem tempore (cf. Gal. 8.27.1, 8.44.3) and interim (7× Hirt. Gal. 8), or contrast negotium and studium with similar usages of res and cupiditas.25 Particularly striking is the fact that Hirtius prefers a different word for ‘fight’ (11× proeliari/2× pugnare, cf. 4× proeliari/14× pugnare in B.Alex.)26 and that he resorts to the cumbersome circumlocution sine ullo paene militis vulnere (Gal. 8.37.1) instead of using the simple adjective incolumis which we find at B.Alex. 16.6: nostris incolumibus omnibus, 20.6, 28.2, 47.1, 47.5.27 In the light of this evidence, it is very unlikely that the Bellum Alexandrinum and the eighth book of the Bellum Gallicum were written by the same person. Thus, the attribution of the Bellum Alexandrinum to Hirtius should no longer be regarded as a serious option; on the contrary, it may rightly be considered disproved and indeed should have been discarded a long time ago.28

23 Apart from experiri, one may also compare periculum facere (‘to test’, ‘to experience’) at Gal. 8.34.1. 24 Cf. especially B.Alex. 18.2: sed terror hominibus mentem consiliumque eripit ~ Gal. 8.38.2: timentes omnium animos consolatione sanat and B.Alex. 9.1: omnium mentibus excitatis ~ Gal. 8.28.6: inflantur atque incitantur hostium animi. 25 One may compare B.Alex. 20.2: studio spectandi with Gal. 8.28.4: cupiditate per se confi­ ciendi proelii, B.Alex. 9.2: quo suscepto negotio (‘after this task had been begun’) with Gal. 8.pr.1: difficillimam rem suscepi or 8.7.2: equites officio functi, B.Alex. 2.1: in gerendis negotiis (‘in (any of)  their activities’) with Gal.  8.46.6: his confectis rebus or 8.46.3: quibus rebus gestis, B.Alex. 8.4: magno negotio (‘(only) with much effort’; on the text see appendix J.1, p. 271 below) with Gal. 8.41.2: magno cum labore, and B.Alex. 9.1: dat centurionibus negotium (‘he charges the centurions to …’) with Gal. 8.43.1: Caesar … clamorem undique iubet tollere or 8.27.5: consequuntur equites nostri, ut erat praeceptum. 26 Likewise, Hirtius avoids pugna (B.Alex. 15.5, 15.8, 16.4) and uses proelium, certamen, dimicatio, contentio, and Mars, of which the last word is absent from the Bellum Alexandrinum (cf. Fröhlich 1887: 45). Cf. also obsessio (Gal. 8.14.1, 8.34.1) / obsidio (B.Alex. 61.2,6) and certare proelio (B.Alex. 29.3) / contendere proelio (Gal. 8.47.1). 27 Hirtius’ words can also be contrasted with Gal.  5.52.1: omnibus suis incolumibus, Civ. 1.72.3: quibus [sc. civibus] salvis atque incolumibus, 2.26.4: equitatuque omni fere incolumi. At Civ. 3.86.4, Caesar makes Pompey say: ita sine periculo legionum et paene sine vulnere bellum conficiemus; there, however, the use of sine vulnere instead of incolumis is not clumsy but supports the deft parallelism with sine periculo (cf. also Civ. 1.72.1: sine pugna et sine vulnere). For further observations see Fischer 1880: 18–28, Fröhlich 1887: 44–50, W. S. Vogel 1937: 43, 48, 51–2, 70–1, and appendices E.2 and E.4, pp. 219–23 and 224. Klotz’s verdict that the linguistic differences are mere products of chance (“Zufallsfälle”, 1910: 200) does not do justice to the material accumulated by Vielhaber, Fischer, and Fröhlich. 28 In view of Vielhaber’s, Fischer’s, and Fröhlich’s observations, already the 19th century commentator R. Schneider (1888a: v) had declared that the attribution of the Bellum Alexandrinum to Hirtius had been “disproved” (“widerlegt”). He was followed not only by the editors and commentators Andrieu (1954: xxix–xliii) and Giomini (1956: 29–34), but also by Richter (1977: 199–204), Murphy (1986: 310 with n. 13), and Patzer (1993: 122, 126). © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

36

Language and style of the Bellum Alexandrinum 

3.2. The hypothesis of the anonymous dilettante    Most scholars who have recently questioned the traditional attribution of the ­Bellum Alexandrinum to Hirtius ascribe the work to an anonymous author who is unfamiliar with Caesar’s classical style and reveals great incompetence in designing his account.29 According to them, the most characteristic features of the style of the Bellum Alexandrinum are  a distorted word order,30 abrupt changes of subject and elliptical or obscure syntax,31 predicative use of victor and primus,32 the use of adversus/aversus as an adjective describing modality,33

29 Cf. e. g. Andrieu 1954: xlii: “doué d’un talent honorablement médiocre, mais non point cependant dépourvu de tout sens esthétique et psychologique”, Giomini 1956: 34: “una esposizione che, senza raggiungere la nervosità e la limpidezza dello stile dei Commentari cesariani, non manca di vigore e di personalità”, and Richter 1977: 202. 30 Andrieu (1954: xxx–xxxi) and Giomini (1956: 30, 32, 235) point to the postposition of the subjunction cum in 34.2, 34.3, 68.1 and the hyperbata in 1.5: cum in duas partes esset urbs divisa, 2.1: magnumque numerum in oppidum telorum atque tormentorum, 7.1: ullus in naves receptus, 9.2: magna una nocte vis aquae dulcis inventa est, 10.5: nulla satis idonea esset hortatio, 11.4: magna praeterea multitudo in reliquis navibus propugnatorum est interfecta, 13.1: erant omnibus ostiis Nili custodiae exigendi portorii causa dispositae, 14.4: si quid ipsa multitudo et clamor et flamma nostris terroris adferre possent, 15.7: interim sunt reliquae subsecutae, 19.3: tormentis ex navibus sagittisque depulerat, 22.2 (bis), 26.2, 27.2, 33.3, 33.4, 35.3, 37.5, 40.2, 41.2, 42.1, 42.3, 47.1, 47.3, 49.1, 50.1, 52.1, 52.3, 53.3 (bis), 61.6, 63.2, 67.1, 68.1, 70.2, 76.1, 76.3. Andrieu’s and Giomini’s reference to the position of se at 40.4: in loca se superiora contulit and 28.2, 42.3, 45.2, 47.1, 53.3 is misleading, because this word order is consonant with Wackernagel’s law and occurs quite often in Latin: cf. the examples in Marouzeau 1922–53: vol. 3, 69, E. Fraenkel 1933: 347–54 (= 1964: vol. 1, 123–30), Kruschwitz 2004: 77–83, Devine/Stephens 2006: 304–7, and HS 398–9 (with further literature). — The later discussions by Richter and Patzer do not supply any new evidence; a more thorough analysis and collection of the hyperbata in the Bellum Alexandrinum (and Hirt. Gal. 8) can be found in Schiller (1890: 242–5). 31 Andrieu (1954: xxxiv) and Giomini (1956: 29–30) refer to the obscure or illogical train of thought at 7.2 (but cf. p. 68 n. 185), 20.6 (but cf. appendix I.1, pp. 263–4 ad loc.), 23.1, 26.1– 2, 35.2, 42.3, 44.3, 48.1, 65.1, 69.1–2, the syntax at 16.2 (but cf. appendix J.1, p. 274 below), 22.1, and the following sections where the subject is not explicitly stated: 2.2–3, 7.2, 13.1, 16.7, 24, 36.2, 45.2–3, 48.2–3, 51.1,2,3, 57.2, 77.2–78.5. Again, Richter and Patzer add nothing. 32 See Andrieu 1954: xxxix–xl and cf. 30.1, 32.1, 41.1, 42.4, 47.1, 47.5, 77.1 (victor) and 17.3, 25.5, 27.4, 31.3, 45.3, 46.1 (primus). Andrieu’s list also includes 8.3: primam dignitatem and 15.3: primis navibus, where, however, primus does not function predicatively. At 11.6: victricibus suis navibus, 25.6, 28.2, 34.2, 40.3, and 43.1 (listed by Andrieu on pp. xxxix–xl), victor or victrix (only of ships) are employed as an apposition or epithet; this phenomenon has many parallels in Caesar, cf. e. g. Gal. 1.40.6, 2.24.2, 6.37.7, 7.20.12 (only of land forces, hence all victor). Finally, the use of victoribus as an object at B.Alex. 16.1 is nothing remarkable (contra Andrieu, p. xxxix). 33 Cf. 14.1: adversasque naves hostibus constituit (~ 15.6, 20.5, 30.6, 40.1, 40.2, 45.2, 46.2, 52.2, 64.3, 74.4) and Andrieu 1954: xli. The usage is absent from Hirt. Gal. 8, but occurs e. g. at Gal. 3.14.2, Civ. 3.46.1. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

The hypothesis of the anonymous dilettante   

37

­hendiadys and d ­ uplicatio,34 climactic35 or alternative36 expressions, fondness for the word order est factus instead of factus est,37 and the tendency to repeat certain phrases and keywords.38 Scholars advocating the work’s attribution to Hirtius such as Klotz, Seel, and Canali would mostly agree with this characterization, but there are at least three facts that clearly contradict the attribution to a literary dilettante. First of all, several of the stylistic points—especially the lack of variatio, the abrupt changes of subject, the postposition of the conjunction cum (cf. n. 30), the fondness for the word order est factus, and the use of hyperbata, hendiadys, and 34 Andrieu (1954: xxx) and Giomini (1956: 30, 236) list 1.3: sine contignatione ac materia, 1.3: structuris ac fornicibus, 12.2: studere atque inservire, 14.2: constituit atque imperat (~ Caes. Civ. 2.44.3), 22.1: incensi atque incitati (~ Cic. Orat. 128: hoc [i. e. παθητικὸν] [sc. est] vehemens, incensum, incitatum), 25.3, 37.3, 40.5, 42.2, 43.1, 49.3, 63.2, 65.1, 65.4, 66.5, 68.1, 70.8, 71.1. 35 Cf. Andrieu 1954: xxxii, with reference to 48.1: cum periculo magno tum etiam maiore periculi fama (see also 51.1, 56.4). 36 Andrieu (1954: xxxiii) refers to sive … sive (25.6, [36.5], 43.1, 48.1, 63.2, 74.3), vel … vel (8.2, 27.2, 48.1, 74.1, 75.1), partim … partim (31.1, 43.1, 44.1, 44.4, 46.5, 69.1, 76.2), and aut … aut (1.2, 15.8 (bis), 16.2, 18.1, 22.2, 23.1, 49.2, 49.3, 53.5, 57.5, 66.5, 70.2). For a detailed discussion see section 3.5g (pp. 69–70) below. 37 According to Andrieu (1954: xxxi–ii), the regular word order factus est can be found 60 times, the reverse order est factus 50 times. Andrieu contrasts this with a ratio of 80/20 for the authentic works of Caesar. His statistics are misleading, because Caesar’s style shows a clear development from factus est, which prevails in Gal. 1–2, to est factus, which dominates in Gal. 7 and Civ. 1–3: see W. S. Vogel 1937: 4, 32, 43, 48, 51–2, 70–1 for a detailed analysis. 38 Andrieu (1954: xxxiii–iv, xxxvi–vii) and Giomini (1956: 31) point to the repetition of pons (5×), castra (2×), moles (2×), ex (3), navis (12×), and navigium (4×) in B.Alex. 19–21 and adduce 16.3–5: ut hoc maiore animo contenderent … hoc animo est decertatum, 17.5: in litore constiterant … in litore aequo institerant, 31.1: locum … in eum locum, 31.6: navem … naves … navigio, 40.1: impetum fecisset … proelium fecit …, 40.1–2: hostes adgrederetur … adgrederetur hostem, 44.3–4: numerus … satis magnus, magnitudo nequaquam satis iusta … numero classis aucto … magnam copiam … numero aegrorum, 73.1: castra posuisset … castra muniren­ tur … castra munituras, 73.3: aggerem … aggere. In addition, they call attention to the use of nobilis and nobilitas with locus, oppidum, and collis (27.1, 47.3, 66.2, 72.2) and cite several recurrent phrases, viz. ars + sollertia (15.6, 16.5), ruina oppressis (31.5, 76.2), re(bus) felicissime celer­ rimeque gesta/-is (32.1, 78.4), disciplina + armatura (34.4, 68.2), prudentia ac diligentia (42.2, 68.1), disciplina severitasque (48.3, 65.1), celerius/-ior opinione (51.3, 71.2, 78.5), hostilis adventus (58.4, 69.2), Caesaris causa (59.1 (bis)), castra castris (61.2, 61.4) as well as animi magnitudo + scientia (15.2, 31.1; cf. Cic. De Orat. 1.210: quarum [sc. rerum] qui essent animo et scientia compotes, eos esse imperatores dicerem), animi magnitudo + virtus (15.1, 32.3; cf. Caes. Gal.  7.52.4: virtutem atque animi magnitudinem, Cic. Prov. 27, Fam. 5.17.1 (= 23.1 SB), ad Brut. 1.10.4 (= 17.4 SB)), and scientia + virtus (11.3, 26.1, 43.1; cf. also B.Alex. 12.1: non virtute …, sed scientia, Cic. Man. 28: scientiam rei militaris, virtutem, auctoritatem, felicitatem, 49, Rep. 1 fr. 1e (Ziegler), Caes. Civ. 1.58.2: ab scientia gubernatorum atque artificiis ad virtutem montanorum confugiebant, Liv. 32.12.2: et virtute et scientia et genere armorum). The parallels given in the parentheses show that at least the last two expressions are generally common in Latin. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

38

Language and style of the Bellum Alexandrinum 

duplicatio—are also typical of Caesar’s commentarii,39 Hirtius’ eighth book of the Bellum Gallicum,40 Sallust,41 and the late annalists42 or have close parallels in Cic­ ero’s speeches and philosophical works.43 Hence, they are not very distinctive and they certainly should not be used as evidence for the author’s incompetence. Secondly, some of the syntactical problems highlighted by Andrieu (cf. n. 31) either result from misinterpretations of the Latin text44 or are likely to issue from the poor transmission of the work and must be blamed rather on the medieval scribes than on the author.45 And thirdly, many of the oddities which Andrieu, Giomini, and Richter collected are only attested in the last two thirds of the Bellum Alexandrinum: the postposition of the subjunction cum is almost entirely confined to chapters 22–78,46 the predicative use of victor (cf. n. 32) first occurs 39 On est factus/factus est see n. 37 above. The postposition of cum is paralleled at e. g. Gal.  1.26.1, 2.15.3, 4.28.3, 5.23.6, 7.40.3, Civ.  3.31.4, 3.37.4, 3.47.6. For close repetitions and lack of variatio cf. e. g. Gal. 1.3.2–3, 1.26.5–6, 1.33.2, 1.48.1–3, 1.49.1–3, 1.52.2–3, 2.33.1, 3.1.4– 6, 3.20.1, 5.22.4, 6.13.5, 7.11.3, 7.34.1–3, 7.37.1, 7.42.2–4, Civ.  2.25.4, 3.47.5–6, 3.97.2–4 and see Fröhlich 1887: 29–42, Hellwig 1889: 5–6, Klotz 1910: 5–8, Kraner/Dittenberger/Meusel 1913–20: vol. 1, 80 and 182, Barwick 1951: 161–3, Eden 1962: 83–6. On abrupt changes of subject (e. g. at Gal. 1.16.6, 1.18.1–2, 1.35.4, Civ. 3.21.1) see Eden 1962: 90. For pleonastic expressions including hendiadys cf. e. g. Gal.  1.26.5, 6.14.1 and see Hellwig 1889: 6–26 (with copious material), Lebreton 1901: 18–20 (repetition of antecedent in relative clauses), Barwick 1951: 143–4, and Rambaud 1953: 199–201. Some examples of rather strong hyperbata in Caesar are Gal. 2.35.1, 5.58.4, Civ. 1.74.1, 3.35.1. Cf. also the Caesarian parallels adduced in nn. 32–4, 38 above. 40 See Vielhaber 1869: 548–9, Fischer 1880: 27, and Kraner/Dittenberger/Meusel 1913–20: vol. 3, 6 on Hirtius’ fondness for hyperbata. Kraner, Dittenberger, and Meusel (1913–20: vol. 3, 24) also discuss the postposition of cum (with reference to Hirt. Gal. 8.5.2, 8.8.1, 8.16.1, 8.18.4, 8.35.4, 8.41.2, 8.49.1), and Scholz (1956: 38) accentuates the lack of variatio in Hirtius’ topographical descriptions. 41 Cf. Kroll 1927: 285–6 (abrupt changes of subject) and Skard 1964: 25–35 (duplicatio and synonym clusters). 42 Cf. Eden 1962: 80, 82, 90 and Gaertner 2010: 252–3 with nn. 81–2, 89 on abrupt changes of subject, close repetition, and lack of variatio in Calpurnius Piso, Claudius Quadrigarius, and the Bellum Hispaniense. See also appendix J.1 on B.Alex. 61.2,4, pp. 278–9 (immediate poly­ptota in the Bellum Alexandrinum and the late annalists). 43 Cf. the parallels in nn. 34, 38 above. 44 Contrast the discussion of 7.2, 16.2, 20.6 on pp. 68 (with n. 185), 274, 263–4 and see n. 31 above. 45 Interestingly, Giomini (1956), who also adheres to the theory of the literary dilettante, has obelized one of the passages which Andrieu classified as syntactically problematic (7.2; see n. 31). At 12.1, 13.5, 15.3, 16.1, 16.2, 17.6, 21.4, 22.2, 25.1, 25.2–3, 31.3, 35.3, 36.5, 38.3, 40.2, 40.4, 47.2, 48.1, 52.1, 56.2, 57.4, 60.2, 63.5, 66.3, 66.5, 67.1, 70.8, 72.2, 73.3, 78.2 Giomini or Klotz (1926–27: vol. 3) supplement the transmitted text or indicate lacunae. On the poor transmission of the Bellum Alexandrinum see also pp. 20 (with nn. 21–2), 129 (with nn. 208–9), and 201 (with n. 60). 46 In chapters 1–21, there are only two cases of postposited cum as opposed to 32 cases in B.Alex. 22–78. However, not all of these instances are equally striking. There is hardly anything unusual about the postposition of cum after the common subject of the subordinate and main clause (9.4, 23.1, 29.2, 30.1, 31.1, 35.2, 41.1, 45.1, 46.1, 60.2, 73.1, 74.1), after a con© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

The analytical approach of Landgraf, Zingerle, Dahms, and Pötter   

39

at 30.1, and most of the repeated keywords and phrases feature only in the last two thirds of the work.47 As the preceding observations show, the evidence that has been presented in support of the attribution to an anonymous dilettante is inconclusive. Moreover, the uneven distribution of some of the linguistic features suggests that the Bellum Alexandrinum is a highly heterogeneous text. Consequently, the process of the work’s genesis could have been complicated and we should not take it for granted that the Bellum Alexandrinum was written by a single author.

3.3. The analytical approach of Landgraf, Zingerle, Dahms, and Pötter A more complex approach to the language of the Bellum Alexandrinum has been developed by Landgraf, Zingerle, Dahms, and Pötter.48 All four argue that the ­Bellum Alexandrinum is not the work of  a single author but rather an assemblage of several accounts by various writers. With regard to chapters 22–78 Landgraf, Zingerle, Dahms, and Pötter reach different conclusions, but all of them agree that the first 2149 chapters of the Bellum Alexandrinum are based on a draft junction or connecting adverb (25.5, 44.2 (nam); 43.2 (ita); 48.2, 61.2 (itaque)), after  a participial construction (36.3, 52.2, 59.1), after the common subject of subordinate and main clause preceded by a relative connective (21.2: quo multitudo hominum insecuta cum inrumperet, 46.6: in quam plures cum …, 68.1: contra quem Caesar cum …) or followed by  a connecting adverb (39.1: Domitius autem, cum …), after  a relative pronoun (35.2) or relative connective (27.2, 36.4), or after a demonstrative pronoun connecting the sentence with the preceding one (30.2, 34.3, 37.1, 57.3). More intricate is the word order at 34.2: Domitius, non tantum ad explicandos sumptus rei militaris cum pecuniam necessariam esse iudicaret, sed etiam … statueret …, nuntios confestim ad Pharnacem misit, 37.2: ita Pharnaces amissa proximi temporis occasione cum vereretur, ne …, suos in castra revocavit, and 44.1: Vatinius, Brundisi cum esset, … . 47 In appendix G, we give a revised and augmented list of these repeated phrases. 48 Cf. Landgraf 1888a: 5–20, 45–63, 83–135, Zingerle 1892: 101–19, Dahms 1906: 9–27, and Pötter 1932: 10–64. See also Kalinka 1910: 486, 1929: 177–8, 1939: 216–17, 219–24 and Simo­ netti Abbolito 1981. 49 Landgraf (1888a: 109–19) tried to show that the Caesarian style fades out in chapters ­22–33 and that there are further Caesarian bits here and there. However, the expressions which he collected are so common that they are not particularly Caesarian. For example Landgraf (1888a: 109) compares 24.1: tamen petentibus dare veniam utile esse statuit to Gal. 6.4.3: libenter Caesar petentibus Haeduis dat veniam and Gal. 7.15.6: datur petentibus venia, but does not take into account that dare veniam petenti(bus) occurs also at Cic. Att. 5.21.12, Q.fr. 3.1.11 (= 21.11 SB), Hirt. Gal. 8.48.9: veniam petenti dedit, Liv. 32.15.3. Cf. also the criticism of Pötter (1932: 25–6) and our observations in chapter 4, pp.  75–87, 93–101, 110–16, 117–20 (differences in the narrative technique and the quality of the information). Dahms (1906: 20–22) explains the occasional Caesarian expressions in chapters 22–33 as faint memories of Caesar’s oral account (cf. Hirt. Gal. 8.pr.8 and p. 158 below). © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

40

Language and style of the Bellum Alexandrinum 

by Caesar.50 This hypothesis has not received much attention since the 1930s, but deserves serious consideration. Unlike the scholars who attributed the Bellum Alexandrinum to Hirtius or an anonymous dilettante, the exponents of what one might call the ‘analytical school’ did not refer to single words, but could adduce entire expressions or even clauses which are paralleled only, or at least most closely, in Caesar’s works.51 The following table contains three short samples of this material:52 B.Alex. 16.4: eadem suum quisque contubernalem, amicum, notum prosequens erat obtestatus, ne suam atque omnium falleret opinionem, quorum iudicio delectus ad pug­nam proficisceretur.

Civ. 1.74.1: quem quisque in castris notum aut municipem habebat Civ. 3.86.5: ne suam neu reliquorum opinionem fallerent Civ. 3.99.3: in pugnam proficiscens52

B.Alex. 16.5: itaque hoc animo est decertatum, ut neque maritimis nauticisque sollertia atque ars praesidium ferret, neque numero navium praestantibus multitudo prodesset, neque electi ad virtutem e tanta multitudine viri virtuti nostrorum possent adaequare.

Civ. 2.6.1: hoc animo decertabant, ut … Civ. 3.44.5: numero militum praestabant (~ Civ. 3.47.2: cum ipsi numero equitum militumque praestarent) Civ. 2.16.3: se virtute nostris adaequare non posse intellegunt

50 This view was anticipated by Blum (1828: 140): “Das Büchlein vom alexandrinischen Kriege … hat wenigstens bis zur entscheidenden Schlacht mit dem jungen Könige, so ganz den Charakter von Cäsars Schreibart, so ganz seine Weise die Erzählung zu ordnen, … daß man es zum größten Theil ihm selbst zuschreiben, aus Papieren von ihm, nicht blos aus mündlicher Erzählung entnommen glauben möchte” and Nipperdey (1846: 12 ~ 1847: 15): “in priore libri parte, quae est de rebus Alexandriae gestis, etiam Caesaris narrationi nonnihil videtur tribuendum, qua sibi Hirtius ep. ad Balb. § 8 hoc bellum notum esse scribit”. Schiller, too, accepts the view that the first quarter of the Bellum Alexandrinum differs from the rest of the work; however, he does not attribute the early chapters to Caesar but thinks that Hirtius used the report of a well-educated eye-witness: cf. Schiller 1880b: 248–9, 1881: 92, and especially 1890: 246, 396, 399–400, 521: “von einem gebildeten Teilnehmer”. Cf. also Petersdorff 1880: 216–18, Walther 1903: 23–4, and Schanz 1909: 139. Klotz (1910: 195–9) believes that chapters 1–25 are based on the account of one of the “amici Caesaris” in Caesar’s headquarters, and Andrieu (1954: xxix) reckons with the use of several “rapports de base”. 51 See appendix I.1, pp. 246–65. 52 The different prepositions result from the fact that in the Bellum Alexandrinum the soldiers cannot go directly into the battle (in), but first have to embark on the ships; hence, they can only leave towards or for the battle (ad; cf. e. g. Tac. Hist. 2.40: non ut ad pugnam, sed ad bellandum profecti). Civ. 3.99.3, on the contrary, is about Crastinus’ last words as he enters the fighting. Cf. also KS vol. II.1, 518 and see Meusel 1894: 307, who draws a similar distinction between ad pugnam proficisci and in p. p. and points out that the transmission is split at Gal. 1.51.3: ad [β, in α] proelium proficiscentes and that Caesar (and Cicero) usually prefer proficisci ad bellum vel sim. (Gal. 6.29.4, Cic. Catil. 1.33, Flacc. 5, Phil. 7.11, 14.4; cf. also Caes. Civ. 2.35.4: ad proelium egressi). © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

Objections to the analytical approach   

B.Alex. 21.2: quo multitudo hominum insecuta cum inrumperet neque administrandi neque repellendi a terra facultas daretur, fore quod accidit suspicatus, sese ex navigio eiecit atque ad eas quae longius constiterant naves adnatavit.

41

Gal. 4.29.2: neque ulla nostris facultas aut administrandi aut auxiliandi dabatur (~ Gal. 5.44.6: in illum universi tela coniciunt neque dant progrediendi [regrediendi α] facultatem) Gal. 4.31.1: fore id, quod accidit, suspicabatur, Civ. 1.40.7: suspicatus fore id quod accidit (no other close parallels for suspicari (id) quod in late Republican or Augus­ tan prose) Gal. 5.21.5: seseque ex alia parte oppidi eiecerunt, Civ. 3.96.3: se ex castris eiecit

3.4. Objections to the analytical approach The last time that the analytical approach and with it the hypothesis of a Caesarian core have been discussed in detail was in the reviews of Pötter’s dissertation by Seel (1933), Klotz (1933), and Oppermann (1934), in the monographs of Seel (1935: 1–45) and Barwick (1938: 178–89), and in Andrieu’s edition of the Bellum Alexandrinum (1954: xxv–xxix).53 An older discussion that is still relevant today is R. Menge’s review (1889) of Landgraf ’s Untersuchungen (1888a).54 None of these seven scholars has accepted the hypothesis.55 Their objections consist of (a) usages in B.Alex. 1–21 that are classified as un-Caesarian or Hirtian, (b) linguistic features that are attested in chapters 1–21 and the rest of the Bellum ­Alexandrinum, (c) an alternative explanation of the clustering of Caesarian expressions in B.Alex. 1–21, and (d) several arguments concerning the contents of the Bellum Alexandrinum and its relation to the Bellum Civile. On the following pages we shall take a closer look at each of these four categories and scrutinize the objections.

53 The treatment in Giomini’s commentary (1956: 25) relies entirely on Andrieu. Richter (1977), Rüpke (1992, 1997), Patzer (1993), and L. G. H. Hall (1996) do not even mention the studies by Landgraf, Zingerle, Dahms, and Pötter. 54 Köhler’s review (1889) and Schiller’s criticism (1890: 514–22) can be left aside, since they concentrate on Landgraf ’s view that the Bellum Africum and B.Alex. 48–64 were written by Asinius Pollio. On the whole, Schiller was fairly favourable to the analytical approach, cf. n. 50 above. 55 However, Klotz (1933: 1144) and Seel (1935: 44–5, 88) partly accept the analytical approach and follow Pötter in attributing chapters 48–64 to another author than the rest of the Bellum Alexandrinum. Far more positive is the reception of Pötter’s dissertation by Constans (1933: 259) and Rambaud (1953: 78–81, 82–6). Canfora (1999: 396–7, 2000: 425–6) takes up Pötter’s suggestion that chapters 1–21 and 65–79 might be based on Caesarian material, but neither substantiates this thesis nor acknowledges his debt to earlier scholarship. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

42

Language and style of the Bellum Alexandrinum 

(a) Un-Caesarian or Hirtian usages In his review of Pötter’s dissertation Oppermann claimed that the Caesarian expressions in B.Alex. 1–21 did not support the thesis of a Caesarian core, but contradicted it, because the word order of the iuncturae was markedly different from that in the Caesarian works.56 A glance at the evidence shows that this assertion is simply wrong, cf. e. g. B.Alex. 3.1: unoque tempore = Civ. 3.21.5, B.Alex. 11.4: magna praeterea multitudo … propugnatorum ~ Gal.  6.36.3: magna praeterea multitudo calonum, B.Alex. 13.6: virtute militum confisus = Civ.  3.24.1, B.Alex. 15.5: in eas [sc. naves] impetum faciunt ~ Civ. 2.6.6: in eas [sc. naves] inpeditas impetum faciunt, B.Alex. 16.2: pugnandi facultas ~ Civ. 1.71.4: pugnandi facultatem, B.Alex. 19.1: ibi praesidium posuit = Civ. 3.112.5, B.Alex. 21.1: quoad potuit = Gal. 4.12.5.57 More substantial are the linguistic arguments put forth by Menge, Klotz, Barwick, Seel, and Andrieu. These scholars attacked the hypothesis of a Caesarian core by collecting numerous expressions which they considered either un-Caesarian or typical of the style of Aulus Hirtius. However, many of these usages are in fact paralleled in the Caesarian works and can therefore hardly be classified as un-Caesarian or Hirtian.58 Several other expressions are indeed absent from the Bellum Gallicum and Bellum Civile, but have little diagnostic value. Since Caesar’s commentarii contain  a number of rather surprising hapax legomena such as quia (Civ. 3.30.4) or quamvis (Gal. 4.2.5),59 the mere fact that a usage is unat 56 Cf. Oppermann 1934: 1506: “Die Parallelen, die er [sc. Pötter] z. B. im ersten Kapitel zwischen Bell.Alex. und Caesar bringt, lassen aber neben Ähnlichkeiten … eine auffällige Verschiedenheit in Wortstellung, Satzbau, Satzrhythmus erkennen. Diese Verschiedenheit, die bei der Gleichheit der Wortwahl um so stärker auffällt, schließt Caesar als Verfasser der fraglichen Partien aus und rückt nach meinen Beobachtungen das Bell.Alex. in die Nähe von BG VIII.” Unfortunately, Oppermann does not specify what he observed. 57 For further material on these passages and for further examples see appendix I.1. 58 These usages are collected in appendix J.1, pp. 268–76. The appendix also discusses scattered remarks about Hirtian or un-Caesarian usages in the works of Landgraf (1888a), Kalinka (1939), Canali (1965), and Richter (1977). 59 Cf. Dahms 1906: 14.  Pötter (1932: 20–21) also mentions the use of clam + abl. at Civ. 2.32.8 (the latter usage is, however, generally rare in Latin; thus, it is hardly surprising that it turns up only once in Caesar). Further striking hapax legomena are dignus (Gal. 7.25.1), externus (Civ.  2.5.5), extimescere (Gal.  3.13.9), fortitudo (Gal.  1.2.5, but >100× virtus), haud (Gal.  5.54.5; cf. Lebreton 1901: 99), igitur (Civ.  1.85.4), perseverantia (Civ.  3.26.3), potiri + gen. (Gal.  1.3.8, but 16× potiri + abl.), provincialis (Gal.  7.7.4), prudentia (Gal.  2.4.7), sapere (Gal. 5.30.2), and siquidem/si quidem (Gal. 6.36.1). Cf. also epistula (only Gal. 5.48 (3×), but 46× litterae), quasi-prepositional gratia + gen. (only Gal. 7.43.2, Civ. 2.7.3, but >150× causa + gen.) and see Barwick 1951: 150–5, 164–7 and our appendix F (pp. 225–35). Eden (1962: 114) claims that hapax legomena are generally more frequent in the last books of the Bellum Gallicum and in the Bellum Civile, because Caesar became less strict in his selection of words; this, however, is incorrect: see our discussion in appendix F, pp. 225–6. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

Objections to the analytical approach   

43

tested in Gal. 1–7 and Civ. 1–3 cannot prove that it is un-Caesarian. Rather, one would have to show that Caesar regularly prefers a different construction or iunctura.60 Menge, Klotz, and Barwick usually do not undertake the “synonym test” (Hine 2005: 229), and many of the expressions condemned by them can be supported by expressions that are very similar. Thus Barwick’s observation (1938: 183) that palus a meridie interiecta (B.Alex. 1.4) must be compared to Gal. 8.10.2: palude interiecta and supports the attribution to Hirtius has little weight, for Caesar, too, regularly employs the participle interiectus with localities and could have certainly used the same expression.61 Likewise, numerum adaugere (B.Alex. 12.2) can be compared to pabulum adaugere (Civ.  3.58.4) or numerum augere (Gal. 3.23.7, 7.48.2, Civ. 2.5.1).62 Once these and other pieces of inconclusive evidence63 have been subtracted, there remain 18 expressions which are absent from the Bellum Gallicum and Bellum Civile and can be contrasted with passages where Caesar uses the same words differently or prefers a different phrase which has more or less the same meaning. These deviations from attested Caesarian usage can be subdivided into three groups. The first consists of non dubitare + acc. c. inf. (B.Alex. 7.3),64 adaequare + dat. (B.Alex. 16.5),65 and the use of signum pugnae (B.Alex. 15.5) instead of sig 60 On this methodological point see e. g. Hine 2005: 229, Adams/Lapidge/Reinhardt 2005: 3, de Melo 2010: 86. 61 Cf. e. g. Gal.  2.22.1: saepibusque densissimis … interiectis, 7.19.4: spatio interiecto, Civ.  2.27.3: una valle non magna interiecta and see Zingerle 1892: 102. Already Castiglioni (1940: 65) remarked: “che cosa conta, infatti, osservare che in B.Al. 1,4 palude interiecta non ha riscontro in Cesare? o non dice Cesare spatio interiecto, una valle non magna interiecta?”. 62 The isolated use of simplicia pro compositis and composita pro simplicibus is quite common in the Caesarian commentarii, cf. e. g. Gal.  4.32.4,5 (metere and demetere), Civ.  1.43.3 (aciem struere instead of aciem instruere), 1.80.5 (terga convertere instead of terga vertere), 3.24.2 (propinquare instead of appropinquare), 3.36.2 (tendere instead of contendere), 3.46.1 (locare instead of collocare), 3.65.2 (firmare instead of confirmare), 3.93.2 (conservare ordines instead of servare ordines), 3.96.3 (citare instead of incitare). See also Zingerle 1892: 108–9 and Barwick 1951: 169. 63 Cf. the discussions in appendix J.2, pp. 280–83. 64 This construction is absent from Gal. 1–7, Civ. 1–3, and Cicero, but well attested in contemporary and later historiographical prose (Nep. Alc. 9.5, Liv. 2.64.8; cf. also Col. 2.8.4, Plin. Nat. 27.144, Plin. Pan. 92.2); see TLL s.v. dubito 2101.68–82, where also examples of non dubius/ dubium + acc. c. inf. are cited. 65 In Gal. 1–7 and Civ. 1–3 adaequare is either used in the sense ‘to make equal in height, etc., (to)’ (cf. OLD s.v. adaequo 1a)  in conjunction with an accusative and  a dative object (cf. TLL s.v. adaequo 560.82–561.59, LC s.v. adaequo 145–6 (a), and Gal. 3.12.3, Civ. 2.16.3), or it is employed in the sense ‘to come up to the level of ’, ‘to show oneself equal to’ (cf. OLD s.v. 3, 5) with an accusative indicating the degree or measure to be attained (see TLL s.v. 561.60– 562.10, LC s.v. adaequo 146 (b), Gal. 1.48.7, 2.32.4, 5.8.4, 7.22.4; cf. also the use with an implied accusative at Gal. 6.12.7: quos [i. e. Remos] quod adaequare apud Caesarem gratia intellegebatur [sc. Haeduos]). The construction at B.Alex. 16.5: neque … viri virtuti nostrorum possent adaequare has its only parallel at Hirt. Gal. 8.41.5: quae [i. e. turris] moenibus adaequaret, but the phrasing is much closer to Civ. 2.16.3: se virtute nostris adaequare non posse intellegunt. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

44

Language and style of the Bellum Alexandrinum 

num proelii (Gal. 7.19.4, 7.62.2, Civ. 2.40.2);66 all three expressions clearly contradict Caesar’s stylistic preferences in the Bellum Gallicum and Bellum Civile and also deviate from Ciceronian usage.67 A second group comprises 11 expressions which closely resemble passages in Hirtius’ eighth book of the Bellum Gallicum, but lack close parallels in Caesar or other late Republican prose authors (cf. appendix H, p. 239). A third and final group contains four usages that are unattested in the Caesarian commentarii, but generally common in late Republican prose and fully compatible with Caesar’s stylistic and linguistic preferences: the use of se tenere without an ablative of place at B.Alex. 11.1 can be contrasted with passages like Gal. 1.40.8: cum … castris se ac paludibus tenuisset, but has close parallels in Cic­ero;68 at B.Alex. 13.2: urbis copia (‘the resources of the city’), the combination of copia with a genitivus possessivus instead of the common genitivus abundantiae can be compared to Cic. Ver. 3.127: res frumentaria, commeatus, copiae, salus urbis and Off. 3.63: singulorum enim facultates et copiae divitiae sunt civitatis;69 similarly, the expression asseres remorum usum obtinebant at B.Alex. 13.2 resembles Caes. Civ. 3.112.8: theatrum …, quod arcis tenebat locum, Cic. Inv. 1.3: quae [sc. consuetudo] … naturae vim obtineret, and Arch. 9: [sc. tabulae Metelli] obtinent publicarum tabularum auctoritatem;70 finally, the use of in fronte for ‘in primo ordine’ at B.Alex. 14.3 is absent from Gal. and Civ., but so common in Latin since Cato the Elder that we can hardly exclude that Caesar used it in his novissimus imperfectus commentarius.71 Even if we do not differentiate between the last three groups and sequester the classical, Ciceronian usages as distinctly ‘un-Caesarian’, the linguistic evidence does not amount to much when weighed against the many Caesarian expressions collected in appendices E.2 and I.1. The value of the 18 expressions diminishes even further, if we take into consideration that in the course of writing his Bellum Gallicum and Bellum Civile Caesar became less strict in his handling of vocabulary and syntax72 and that his account of the events in Alexandria may have 66 The fact that signum proelii occurs only thrice and is confined to two of the ten Caesarian commentarii diminishes the force of this argument, because we can hardly speak of a fixed expression or pattern. pugnae signum dare is paralleled at, e. g., Nep. Hann. 11.1, Liv. 1.23.9. 67 This was highlighted by Klotz (1933: 1141) and Barwick (1938: 182). 68 Cf. e. g. Cic. Orat. 132: nulla me ingeni, sed magna vis animi inflammat, ut me ipse non teneam, Sest. 117: cum ille furibundus … venisset, vix se populus Romanus tenuit. 69 Cf. also Hor. Carm. 2.15.6–7: myrtus et omnis copia narium / spargent and Caes. Gal. 1.23.1: oppido … copiosissimo. 70 For further attestations of this metaphorical use of obtinere with inanimate subjects and inanimate objects see TLL s.v. obtineo 286.70–287.2. 71 Cf. e. g. Cato Mil. fr. 10 (p.  81 H.  Jordan 1860/1967): una depugnatio est fronte longo, quadrato exercitu, B.Afr. 59.2: collocarat Scipio in fronte suas et Iubae legiones, Sal. Cat. 59.5: cohortis veteranas … in fronte … locat, and the material collected at TLL s.v. frons 1360.37–1361.25. 72 Cf. G. Ihm 1891–3, Frese 1900: 72, passim, Dernoscheck 1903: 68–70, passim, Schlicher 1936, Barwick 1951: 165–75, Eden 1962: 114, and Richter 1977: 183–90. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

Objections to the analytical approach   

45

been nothing but a draft. In view of these facts, minor deviations such as the four Ciceronian usages listed above are neither surprising nor a conclusive argument against Caesarian authorship. Moreover, we have to reckon with the possibility that Caesar’s continuator Aulus Hirtius may have had to link disparate parts, adjust the beginning and end, or make other minor changes. This may account for the Hirtian touches in B.Alex. 1.1, 8.6, 9.4, 11.3, and 19.4.73

(b) Linguistic features attested in B.Alex. 1–21 and B.Alex. 22–78 Apart from enumerating usages that he considered un-Caesarian, Andrieu also tried to discredit the analytical approach by demonstrating that certain linguistic phenomena occur throughout the Bellum Alexandrinum.74 His argument is primarily aimed at Pötter (1932: 10–64), who had identified seven distinct sections in the Bellum Alexandrinum: 1–21: 22–33: 34–41: 42–3: 44–7: 48–64: 65–78:

a draft by Julius Caesar; Hirtius’ narrative of the end of the Alexandrian war (based on Caesar’s oral account); an eye-witness account of Domitius’ campaign (considerably revised by Hirtius); Hirtius’ introduction to the events in Illyricum; Vatinius’ (?) account of his deeds in Illyricum (with minor adjustments by Hirtius); an eye-witness account of the events in Spain (with slight changes by Hirtius); Caesar’s account of his war against Pharnaces (revised by ­Hirtius).

Pötter’s analysis of chapters 22–78 may strain the evidence and is not supported by as compelling arguments as his discussion of chapters 1–21, but Andrieu’s ­objections are just as questionable. As we have seen above (pp. 36–9), most of the linguistic phenomena which he collected are so common in Latin that they possess little argumentative value. Moreover, even the fact that significant ­features 73 Pötter (1932: 22, 27 n. 5) suggests that the remarks about the perfidious Alexandrians at B.Alex. 7.2–3, too, might have been added by Hirtius. He rightly observes that the chauvinistic verbiage (“Geschwätz”) has a close parallel at 24.5–6. However, the phrasing is similar to Gal. 7.22.1 (see p. 250 on B.Alex. 7.3), and the use of the first person singular mihi can be compared to Gal.  6.14.4: id mihi duabus de causis instituisse videntur (part of Caesar’s excursus on the Gauls). Generally, we can only speculate about the state in which Hirtius received the novissimus imperfectus commentarius. Hence, Landgraf ’s attempt (1888a: 83–107, passim) to distinguish word for word original elements and later additions is fraught with uncertainty. 74 Cf. Andrieu 1954: xxix–xliii; he is followed by Giomini (1956: 24–5), Canali (1965: 134, 1966: 120), and Richter (1977: 201–3). © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

46

Language and style of the Bellum Alexandrinum 

such as the iuncturae disciplina + armatura (34.4, 68.2), disciplina severitasque (48.3, 65.1), or celerius/-ior opinione (51.3, 71.2, 78.4) occur in different sections of B.Alex. 22–78 does not invalidate Pötter’s analysis. First, the number of these recurrent expressions is comparatively small,75 and secondly they can easily be explained by the adjustments which Hirtius may have made when he conjoined the various parts of the Bellum Alexandrinum. Consequently, Pötter’s analysis of chapters 22–78 may be unproven, but at the same time it has also not been falsified by Andrieu. A different matter are Andrieu’s objections to the hypothesis of a Caesarian core in chapters 1–21. As has been pointed out in section 3.2 (pp. 36–9) above, many of the linguistic phenomena which Andrieu collected and regarded as typical of the style of the Bellum Alexandrinum only appear in chapters 22–78.76 Hence, paradoxically, much of Andrieu’s material supports rather than weakens the analytical approach. Furthermore, even if we leave aside Andrieu’s analysis and turn to the text itself, there is little evidence for the stylistic identity of chapters 1–21 and 22–78. Based on the material in Andrieu, Giomini, Barwick, Landgraf, and our own research we compiled a list of iuncturae and rarer words that occur both in chapters 1–21 and 22–78.77 Most of these expressions also feature in the Bellum Gallicum and Bellum Civile or are generally common in Latin.78 The few usages which are peculiar to the Bellum Alexandrinum79 hardly have great argumentative value when measured against the bulk of evidence that supports the stylistic identity of B.Alex. 1–21 and the Caesarian works.

(c) An alternative explanation of the Caesarian iuncturae in B.Alex. 1–21 A third objection that bears on the language of the Bellum Alexandrinum was raised by Seel in his monograph on Hirtius (1935). Seel largely accepted ­Pötter’s linguistic evidence, but countered the hypothesis of  a Caesarian core by arguing that the author of the Bellum Alexandrinum simply combined Caesarian bits in order to produce a particularly Caesarian work.80 For several reasons this 75 Cf. appendix G, pp. 236–8. 76 Cf. e. g. the material in nn. 32 (predicative use of victor), 36 (fondness for sive … sive and partim … partim). 77 Cf. appendix G.1, p. 236. 78 See appendix G.1, p. 236 on e. g. ab latere aperto, animi magnitudo + virtus, committere rem alicui, dare alicui negotium ut, dirimere proelium, incitare animos, interficere multitudinem, notitia locorum, omnes incolumes, perturbare milites, proficere multum, scientia + virtus, versari in periculo, and virtute confisus. 79 See appendix G.1, p. 236 on e. g. instruere navem propugnatoribus, intercludere tempestatibus, planus locus, rapere, studium spectandi, and victrix. 80 Cf. Seel 1935: 13–45, especially pp. 20, 25, 33, 38–9. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

Objections to the analytical approach   

47

hypothesis is rather improbable. First of all, Seel’s explanation is contradicted by minor variations in word order that exist between the text of the Bellum Alexandrinum and its parallels in the Bellum Gallicum and Bellum Civile; if Hirtius (whom Seel considers to be the author of B.Alex. 1–21) had deliberately conjoined Caesarian expressions and wanted to copy Caesar’s style as closely as he could, he would have always copied the words in the same order in which he found them in the Bellum Gallicum and Bellum Civile.81 Secondly, the mode of composition that Seel envisages would have been extremely time-consuming and would presuppose that Hirtius knew large portions of the Caesarian commentarii almost by heart.82 Thirdly, one may wonder why Hirtius did not already compose Gal. 8 in the same fashion; this would have been much more appropriate, because it would have turned the account of Caesar’s deeds in Gaul into a homogeneous whole. And fourthly, Seel cannot offer a convincing explanation why Hirtius’ imitation of Caesar’s style should end abruptly after chapter 21. He points to Hirtius’ poor health,83 but this is pure speculation and the typical excuse for stylistic or other defects in ancient texts for which there is no other plausible explanation. Moreover, if Hirtius in the summer of 44 B. C. already asked two fellow-Caesarians to write down the Bellum Africum and Bellum Hispaniense—as Seel persuasively argues84—then he must have been aware of his time constraints from the very beginning and would have chosen a much quicker and more efficient mode of composition. Hence, Seel’s alternative explanation of the Caesarian expressions in B.Alex. 1–21 has little claim to probability.85

(d) Objections concerning the contents of the Bellum Alexandrinum In addition to the linguistic arguments discussed in the preceding sections, Barwick and Seel also raised five objections that are based on the contents of B.Alex. 1–21. Barwick’s first argument concerns the fact that several details that were already mentioned in the last chapters of the Bellum Civile are later repeated at the beginning of the Bellum Alexandrinum.86 Barwick points out that Caesar’s remarks about the supply of grain and reinforcements at Civ. 3.112.6: 81 Cf. the material in appendix I.1, pp. 246–65 and see pp. 40–1, 42 above. 82 Seel himself (1935: 91) speaks of a “höchst mühselige und tüftelige Arbeitsweise”. The juxtaposition on p. 40 above illustrates that when writing B.Alex. 16.4–5 the author would have had to combine bits and pieces from at least six different passages in Caesar’s Bellum Civile. 83 Cf. Seel 1935: 91, 94 n. 2. 84 Cf. Seel 1935: 94 and see section 2.2b, especially pp. 27–9. 85 The same applies to Canali’s theory of two stylistic strata (“rapporto di base”—“elaborazio­ne”; cf. 1965: 135–7). It does not explain why chapters 1–21 should be consistently written in a different style from the rest of the work. Also, his description “virtuosistica ciceroniana [our emphasis]” does not adequately characterize the style of the early chapters. 86 Cf. Barwick 1938: 180–81. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

48

Language and style of the Bellum Alexandrinum 

quibus est rebus effectum, ut tuto frumentum auxiliaque navibus ad eum subportari possent. dimisit enim circum omnes propinquas provincias atque inde auxilia evocavit. By these things it was brought about that corn and reinforcements could be safely brought to him by ships. For he sent (envoys) to all the neighbouring provinces and ordered reinforcements from there.

are taken up at the beginning of the Bellum Alexandrinum (1.1): bello Alexandrino conflato Caesar Rhodo atque ex Syria Ciliciaque omnem classem arcessit; Creta sagittarios, equites ab rege Nabataeorum Malcho evocat; tormenta undique conquiri et frumentum mitti, auxilia adduci iubet. After the Alexandrian War had broken out, Caesar summoned the entire fleet from Rhodes and from Syria and Cilicia; from Crete he ordered archers, from Malchus, the king of the Nabataeans, cavalry; from all around he ordered that catapults be brought together, corn be sent, and reinforcements be dispatched to him.

In addition, he claims that Caesar’s description of the defensive works at Civ. 3.112.7–9: reliquis oppidi partibus sic est pugnatum ut aequo proelio discederetur et neutri pellerentur—id efficiebant angustiae loci—paucisque utrimque interfectis Caesar loca maxime necessaria conplexus noctu praemuniit. (8) in eo tractu oppidi pars erat regiae exigua, in quam ipse habitandi causa initio erat inductus, et theatrum coniunctum domui, quod arcis tenebat locum aditusque habebat ad portum et ad regia navalia. (9) has munitiones insequentibus auxit diebus, ut pro muro obiectas haberet neu dimicare invitus cogeretur. In the other parts of the city, the fighting was such that both sides withdrew from an even fight and neither was driven back—this was brought about by the narrow terrain—and after few men had been killed on either side, Caesar seized the most important areas and fortified them at night. (8) In that region of the city was a very small part of the king’s palace, in which he had been led at the beginning [sc. of his stay] as a place to live in, and the theatre, which was connected to the house, functioned as a citadel and gave access to the harbour and to the royal dockyards. (9) On the days that followed he strengthened these fortifications, so that he could have them as a barrier instead of a wall and could not be forced to fight against his will.

competes and is partly incompatible with B.Alex. 1.2–5: interim munitiones cotidie operibus augentur atque omnes oppidi partes, quae minus esse firmae videntur, testudinibus ac musculis aptantur;87 ex aedificiis autem 87 aptantur has long been suspected to be corrupt. testudines (‘movable wooden screens’, cf. OLD s.v. 3b) and musculi (‘shelters’, ‘mantelets’, cf. OLD s.v. 4) were usually used in attacks on beleaguered cities and not as a means to fortify a camp or city (cf. Graindor 1931: 60 n. 5); © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

Objections to the analytical approach   

49

per foramina in proxima aedificia arietes immittuntur, quantumque aut ruinis de­ icitur aut per vim recipitur loci, in tantum munitiones proferuntur. (3) nam incendio fere tuta est Alexandria, quod sine contignatione ac materia sunt aedificia et structuris ac fornicibus continentur tectaque sunt rudere aut pavimentis. (4) Cae­ sar maxime studebat ut quam angustissimam partem oppidi palus a meridie inter­ iecta efficiebat, hanc operibus vineisque agendis ab reliqua parte urbis excluderet, (5) illud spectans primum ut, cum in duas partes esset urbs divisa, acies uno consilio atque imperio administraretur, deinde ut laborantibus succurri atque ex altera oppidi parte auxilium ferri posset, inprimis vero ut aqua pabuloque abundaret, quarum alterius rei copiam exiguam, alterius nullam omnino facultatem habebat; quod utrumque large palus praebere poterat. In the meantime, the fortifications were strengthened by works from day to day and all parts of the city which seemed to be less secure were equipped with wooden screens and mantelets. From the buildings, however, battering rams were driven through holes into the neighbouring buildings, and the fortifications were advanced in every bit of space that was thrown down in ruins or taken by force. (3) For Alexandria is all but safe from fire, because the buildings are (erected) without wooden boards and are held together by brickwork and vaults, and the roofs are made of loam or pavement. (4) Caesar was especially eager to advance the defensive works and movable screens to cut off from the rest of the city that part of town which was most narrow because of the marsh that projected (into the city) from the south;88 (5) in doing so, his first objective was that while the city was divided into two parts, he himself could administer his troops by a single plan and order; his second objective was that troops which got into difficulties could be supported and could receive help from the other side of the city. The most important objective, however, was that he would have abundant water and fodder—he had a small quantity of the former, but he had no supply at all of the latter. Both of these things could be supplied in large quantities by the marsh.

aptare, however, would mean ‘equip with’ and suggest that Caesar strengthened his weaker positions by defensive devices: cf. TLL s.v. 326.19–29 and e. g. Liv. 9.31.9: ut quisque liberaverat se onere aptaveratque armis, Amm. 23.4.11: testudo … ferreis … clavis aptata. Assuming that the focus of the text has shifted from Caesar’s defensive works (interim munitiones cotidie operibus augentur …) to his offensive measures, some scholars suggested that the transmitted aptantur should be replaced by temptantur (Nipperdey 1847: 624), impugnantur (Weissenborn 1849: 397), aperiuntur (Fleischer 1879: 851–2), or captantur (Lipsius 1596: 49–50 [= book 1, dial. 9] and Graindor 1931: 60 n. 5 independently). However, such a shift is more likely to have been marked by the adversative autem at the beginning of the next sentence than by the preceding atque, which primarily has copulative force (the examples cited under OLD s.v. 9: “and yet” are not comparable). Hence, it seems better to retain the transmitted text and assume that the special circumstances of a war waged within a city had forced Caesar to fortify his positions with instruments that were usually employed in siege warfare. Since the pavement and the buildings must have rendered it rather difficult to dig trenches, movable wooden screens may have been expedient. 88 palus points to Lake Mareotis, see p. 80 with n. 23. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

50

Language and style of the Bellum Alexandrinum 

Finally, Barwick also sees a contradiction between the references to the tensions between Arsinoe and Achillas at Civ. 3.112.10–11: interim filia minor Ptolomaei regis vacuam possessionem regni sperans ad Achillam [-an U] sese ex regia traiecit unaque bellum administrare coepit. (11) sed celeriter est inter eos de principatu controversia orta, quae res apud milites largitiones auxit; magnis enim iacturis sibi quisque eorum animos conciliabat. In the meantime the younger daughter of king Ptolemy, hoping for the unrestricted possession of the kingdom, fled out of the royal palace to Achillas and began to lead the war together (with him). (11) But soon a dispute arose between them about the supreme command, and this led to an increase of the largesse to the soldiers; for both of them tried to win their hearts with huge gifts.

and B.Alex. 4.1–2: interim dissensione orta inter Achillan, qui veterano exercitui praeerat, et Arsinoen regis Ptolomaei minorem filiam, ut supra demonstratum est, cum uterque utrique insidiaretur et summam imperii ipse obtinere vellet, praeoccupat Arsinoe per Ganymeden eunuchum nutricium suum atque Achillan interficit. (2) hoc occiso sine ullo socio et custode ipsa omne imperium obtinebat. exercitus Ganymedi traditur. is suscepto officio largitionem in militem auget; reliqua pari diligentia administrat. In the meantime, a dispute had arisen between Achillas, who was the commander of the veteran army, and Arsinoe, the younger daughter of king Ptolemy, as has been shown above, because they plotted against each other and each wanted to obtain the supreme command, and so Arsinoe acted first through her guardian, the eunuch Ganymedes, and had Achillas put to death. (2) After this man had been killed, she possessed all the command, without having to share it or being controlled by a guardian. The army was handed over to Ganymedes. After taking office, he increased the largesse to the soldiers; the other things he conducted with the same diligence.

Barwick’s argument is invalidated by several facts.89 First of all, the juxtaposition of the relevant passages shows that the early chapters of the Bellum Alexandrinum do not contradict the information given at the end of the Bellum Civile, but recapitulate it and expand it. In B.Alex. 4.1 this relation is clearly indicated by the words ut supra demonstratum est, which point back to Civ. 3.112.10–11, and in B.Alex. 1.2–5 the author does not repeat the topographical information presented at Civ. 3.112.7–9, but skips this orientation and concentrates on the fortifications that had been mentioned only briefly at the end of the Bellum Civile. Moreover, this account of the fortifications is not a simple doublet, but serves to fill a gap in the narrative and describes the situation between the first hostilities (recapitulated at B.Alex. 1.1: bello Alexandrino conflato) and the next dramatic events, 89 Already Canali (1965: 135) qualified it as a “punto debole”, but he did not refute it. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

Objections to the analytical approach   

51

viz. the promotion of Ganymedes to the position of military commander and the consequent change of strategy on the Egyptian side (cf. B.Alex. 4.1 ff.).90 Hence, Barwick’s claim that the beginning of the Bellum Alexandrinum does not connect properly with the end of the Bellum Civile and must therefore have been written by someone else is not supported by the text. Furthermore, the recapitulation of pre­vious events at the beginning of a new book91 or at the beginning of a new section within a book92 is quite common in the Bellum Gallicum and Bellum Civile and can hardly be used as an argument against Caesarian authorship.93 Thus, on the whole, the first of the two arguments adduced by Barwick is unfounded. Barwick’s second argument is more specialized and concerns the number of Rhodian ships in Caesar’s fleet.94 At Civ.  3.106.1 we learn that Caesar arrived in Alexandria with ten Rhodian warships and  a few more boats of Asian origin: cum … navibus longis Rhodiis X et Asiaticis paucis Alexandriam pervenit. At B.Alex. 1.1, however, we are told that after the beginning of the hostilities in ­Alexandria, Caesar summoned all ships from Rhodes, Syria, and Cilicia (bello ­Alexandrino conflato Caesar Rhodo atque ex Syria Ciliciaque omnem classem arces­sit), and in the sea battle in the Eunostos harbour Caesar has only nine Rhodian ships (13.5): Caesar Rhodias naves VIIII habebat—nam decem missis una in cursu litore Aegyptio defecerat. According to Barwick, the passages in the Bellum Alexandrinum presuppose that the Rhodian ships arrived only after the war had broken out, whereas the reference in the Bellum Civile clearly states that Caesar was already accompanied by ten Rhodian ships when he sailed to Alexandria. 90 This function is clearly marked in the text by interim (B.Alex. 1.2, 4.1). 91 Cf. e. g. Gal. 2.1.1: cum esset Caesar in citeriore Gallia [in hibernis], ita uti supra demonstravimus [cf. Gal. 1.54.3: ipse in citeriorem Galliam ad conventus agendos profectus est], crebri ad eum rumores adferebantur, litterisque item Labieni certior fiebat omnes Belgas, quam tertiam esse Galliae partem dixeramus [cf. Gal. 1.1.1: Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres, quarum unam incolunt Belgae …], contra populum Romanum coniurare obsidesque inter se dare. The words in hibernis were deleted by Goerlitz (1827: 7), who correctly pointed out that Caesar spent the winter in Gallia citerior, whereas the hiberna were situated in Gallia ulterior; also, in hibernis is usually employed in connection with large military units and not with single persons. Apitzius (1835: 12), Held (1839: 68–9; contrast Held 1832: 65–6), Nipperdey (1847: 59–60, 290), Madvig (1873: 250), Dinter (1887: vol. 1, 33), and Du Pontet (1900: s.p.) have followed Goerlitz, but Klotz (1926–27: vol. 1, 42 ~1952: 38) prefers to assume a lacuna and reads in hibernis. In light of similar interpolations in other parts of the Corpus Caesarianum and in view of the opening words of Gal. 3, 5, and 7, Goerlitz’s suggestion seems much more plausible. Hering (1987: 26) mentions neither Goerlitz’s nor Klotz’s suggestions. For similar recapitulations at the beginning of other Caesarian commentarii see appendix C, p. 190 with n. 5. 92 Cf. e. g. Civ. 1.16.1, 2.22.1, 3.15.1, 3.39.1, 3.53.1, 3.56(55).1. 93 Also, we have to reckon with the possibility that Hirtius altered the form of the novissimus imperfectus commentarius. When editing and completing Caesar’s account of the Civil War, he may have implemented the book division after 3.112.12 and added a few lines as a new incipit for the Bellum Alexandrinum: cf. pp. 155–7. 94 Cf. Barwick 1938: 180 n. 1; see also Rice Holmes 1923: vol. 3, 484 n. 7. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

52

Language and style of the Bellum Alexandrinum 

This interpretation is by no means compelling, for the different figures can be easily explained by the fact that B.Alex. 1.1 refers to reinforcements, which were ordered bello conflato (i. e. in late October or early November, 48 B. C.) and had not yet arrived when the sea battle in the Eunostos harbour took place (early January, 47 B. C.). In that case nam decem missis una in cursu litore Aegyptio defecerat (B.Alex. 13.5) does not refer to the reinforcements, but to the ten ships mentioned at Civ. 3.106.1, which were sent from Rhodes to accompany Caesar on his trip to Egypt in late September or early October 48 B. C.. If interpreted in this way, all three passages make perfect sense.95 Similarly weak are the three arguments adduced by Seel. First of all, he considers the assumption that Hirtius could have used a Caesarian draft implausible because Hirtius explicitly tells us that Caesar could write elegant Latin facile atque celeriter.96 Secondly, Seel objects that if Hirtius had incorporated a Caesarian draft into his own account, he would have explicitly said so in the Epistula ad Balbum. Seel’s third argument concerns the careful design of the Bellum Alexandrinum, in which Caesar’s exploits in Egypt and eastern Anatolia frame the less successful campaigns of his generals. According to Seel (1933: 597), the “planmäßige und gewiß nicht zufällige Komposition” proves that the entire work must have been written by a single author. None of these three objections has much weight. The subsections of the Bellum Alexandrinum are only connected by a few cross-references, but otherwise remain fairly independent, so that the artful design could have easily been implemented by an editor or redactor.97 Moreover, Seel’s arguments concerning the Caesarian draft are contradicted by Gal. 8.pr.2: novissimumque imperfectum [sc. commentarium Caesaris] ab rebus gestis Alexandriae confeci. The statement on the one hand proves that Caesar’s literary Nachlass included an unfinished commentarius; on the other hand, it may indicate that Hirtius integrated the Caesarian draft into his account (cf. pp.  29–30 above), and it could have been intended as an acknowledgement of his debts to the late Julius Caesar.

95 This was already seen by Graindor (1931: 29–30, 101) and Andrieu (1954: lviii–lix). 96 Cf. Gal. 8.pr.6 and Seel 1933: 597: “Zudem ist es gefährlich mit Entwürfen Caesars zu rechnen, nachdem Hirtius dessen schnelle Arbeitsweise nachdrücklich hervorhebt”. 97 In a later publication Seel himself (1935: 94) assumes that Hirtius did not write chapters 48–64, but used the eye-witness account of a fellow Caesarian. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

New evidence for the heterogeneous character   

53

3.5. New evidence for the heterogeneous character of the Bellum Alexandrinum In the preceding sections of this chapter we have examined previous discussions of the language of the Bellum Alexandrinum. Based on evidence that was assembled already a long time ago we could show that the Bellum Alexandrinum is unlikely to have been written by Hirtius or an anonymous dilettante and that the linguistic form of the work can be more adequately described by the analytical approach of Landgraf, Zingerle, Dahms, and Pötter. This result can be corroborated and expanded in two ways. The first is the identification of further Caesarian expressions in B.Alex. 1–21. In appendices E.2 and I.1 we have not only collected and corrected the Caesarian material accumulated by Landgraf, Zingerle, Dahms, and Pötter, but also added  a considerable number of further sections which closely resemble passages in the Bellum Gallicum and Bellum Civile. The second way to confirm and extend the findings of Landgraf, Zingerle, Dahms, and Pötter is through an analysis of the stylistic discrepancies that exist within the Bellum Alexandrinum. Such an analysis is fraught with several problems. As mentioned above (pp. 39, 45–6), Landgraf and Pötter were convinced that the Caesarian draft of chapters 1–21 was not the only report that had been incorporated into the Bellum Alexandrinum. In addition to Caesarian and Hirtian elements they thought that the work also contained material written by several other Caesarians. An attentive reader of the Bellum Alexandrinum will easily note that the end of chapter 21 is not the only place where the style changes significantly. Whereas the syntax is often hypotactical and at times obscure or clumsy in chapters 22–33 (end of the Egyptian campaign), 34–41 (Domitius’ campaign against Pharnaces), 42–3 (beginning of the events in Illyricum), 44–7 (Vatinius’ exploits in Illyricum),98 we suddenly encounter a strong preference for short and paratactical sentences in the subsequent account of the events on the Spanish peninsula (B.Alex. 48–64).99 The last section, which describes Caesar’s campaign against Pharnaces (B.Alex. 65–78), is again written in a more elegant style that bears some resemblance to chapters 1–21, but lacks the distinctly Caesarian flavour.100 98 Cf. Pötter 1932: 23–39 and the observations in Landgraf 1888a: 107–27. Pötter (1932: ­37–9) plausibly suggests that B.Alex. 44–7 may be based on a report by Vatinius: cf. pp. 88–9 with n. 51. 99 Cf. Pötter 1932: 39–44. See also Landgraf 1888a: 45–63, 1889: 8–9, and Andrieu 1954: xxix. 100 Pötter’s attempt to show that the last chapters of the Bellum Alexandrinum, too, are based on  a Caesarian draft has been rightly discarded by Klotz (1933: 1144–5), Seel (1933: ­596–7, 1935: 42–4), and Andrieu (1954: xxvii–xxix). The echoes of Caesarian diction are much rarer and more distant than in B.Alex. 1–21: cf. pp. 265–7. See also pp. 101 (n. 111), 114 (n. 161). © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

54

Language and style of the Bellum Alexandrinum 

Theoretically, an analysis of the stylistic variation would have to identify, characterize, and contrast all the components that make up the Bellum Alexandrinum. This is, however, hardly feasible, for apart from the Caesarian draft in B.Alex. 1–21 we have no indications where exactly the various reports integrated into the Bellum Alexandrinum begin and end, who has written them, and what may have been the lexical and syntactical preferences of these authors. Hence, one would have to extrapolate all this information from the text itself by defining a set of relevant parameters, dividing the work accordingly, and finally describing the respective sections. Obviously, this procedure is highly arbitrary101 and leaves much room for speculation and uncertainty.102 In addition, the sections resulting from this procedure are likely to be much shorter than the Caesarian draft in B.Alex. 1–21 and far too small to allow for a statistical evaluation. Thus, a detailed comparison of the various portions that constitute the Bellum Alexandrinum is neither possible nor desirable. Far more practical and expedient is a comparison of chapters 1–21 and 22–78. Although the second of these two units is in itself heterogeneous and may consist of passages by a number of different authors, a comparison is still meaningful and can demonstrate in what respects chapters 1–21 resemble or differ from the remaining work. On the following pages we will present a variety of phenomena that occur exclusively or much more frequently in one of the two parts of the Bellum Alexandrinum and thus confirm the heterogeneous character of the work.103 However, before turning to the evidence, we must first address the question of statistical validity. If we assume that words are uniformly at random distributed over two texts, the probability (p) that a word occurs n-times in text A, but not in text B can be calculated by the formula p = (A / (A + B))n, where A and B represent the respective number of words of the two texts.104 The probability p ranges from 0 (impossible) to 1 (certain), and a linguistic phenomenon is

101 A good illustration is the analysis of chapters 22–33. Whereas Pötter regards the rare Caesarian echoes as negligible and treats the chapters as one section, Landgraf considers the Caesarian expressions significant and tries to establish that chapters 22–33 are a complex mix of Caesarian and Hirtian material. 102 Pötter (1932: 23–64) has produced  a very stimulating and persuasive analysis, but is rightly cautious and often hesitates to define where the reports that were integrated into the ­Bellum Alexandrinum begin or end. Moreover, Pötter’s discussion relies on a fairly small quantity of linguistic phenomena. What is badly needed is a detailed philological commentary on the entire Bellum Alexandrinum. 103 This evidence has been largely ignored by earlier scholars. The argumentation of Landgraf (1888a), Zingerle (1892), Dahms (1906), and Pötter (1932) mostly rests on the Caesarian bits, and scholars attributing the entire Bellum Alexandrinum to Hirtius or an anonymous dilettante had no interest in exploring the heterogeneous character of the work (an exception is Schiller 1890: 394–400, cf. nn. 110, 125, 154, 210 below). 104 Cf. Hine 2005: 214. We are grateful to Dr. S. Gerke for advice on statistical matters. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

New evidence for the heterogeneous character   

55

particularly significant if it contradicts our natural expectations, i. e. if its probability is low. If we follow a common rule of thumb and take a probability of 0.01 as our threshold, a phenomenon would have to be absent from chapters 22–78 (7583 words) and feature 3.6 times in chapters 1–21 (2930 words) or it would have to be confined to chapters 22–78 and occur there at least 14 times. In our analysis we have been more inclusive and have also listed phenomena which occur only twice in one of the parts of the Bellum Alexandrinum. To compensate for the lower significance of such material and to further strengthen the argument we regularly add information about the absence or frequency of the respective phenomena in the other parts of the Corpus Caesarianum. Also, we record similar usages and synonyms or near synonyms to show that the absence of a phenomenon does not result from the subject matter, but reflects a deliberate choice of the author (‘­synonym test’).105

(a) Usages which are absent from B.Alex. 1–21, but frequent in B.Alex. 22–78 Apart from sive … sive (25.6, [36.5], 43.1, 48.1, 63.2, 74.3), partim … partim (31.1, 43.1, 44.1, 44.4, 46.5, 69.1, 76.2),106 and the predicative use of victor (30.1, 32.1, 41.1, 42.4, 47.1, 47.5, 77.1), which were already highlighted by Andrieu (cf. pp.  36–7), there are several further words and usages which occur only ­occasionally in Caesar and are unattested in B.Alex. 1–21, but appear rather frequently in B.Alex. 22–78: cf. e. g. crebro (43.2, 60.5, 62.3; cf. Gal. 7.41.2, 6× Civ., 3× Hirt. Gal. 8, †),107 deprecari (32.3, 57.6, 58.4, 68.1, 69.2; cf. 5× Gal., 1× Civ., B.Afr. 85.9, 89.4, B.Hisp. 35.1, †),108 externus (34.2, 65.1),109 odium (48.1 (3×), 50.2, 50.3, 53.4, 53.5, 56.4, 58.2, 59.1; cf. 2× Gal., 2× Civ., 3× Hirt. Gal.  8, †), utrimque (25.5, 39.2, 45.4, 62.3; cf. 5× Gal., 5× Civ., 3× Hirt. Gal. 8, B.Afr. 14.1, †),

105 On the ‘synonym test’ see already p. 43 n. 60. 106 On the use of these connectives see section (g), especially pp. 69–70. 107 Cf. also creber (only 44.1, but common in Gal. and Civ.) and crebritas (69.1 †, but cf. e. g. Cic. Brut. 327, Fam. 3.1.1 (= 64.1 SB), Att. 4.16.1, 13.18.1, Sal. Hist. 3.64 (Maurenbrecher), 9× Vitr., Tac. Ann. 16.29.1). In chapters 1–21 we find saepenumero (16.3) instead: see p. 60 with n. 148 below. 108 One may compare B.Alex. 32.3: supplices dominantes deprecari consuerunt and 58.4: ­deprecaturque, ne hostili adventu Cordubam diriperent with B.Alex. 16.4: quisque contubernalem … erat obtestatus, ne suam atque omnium falleret opinionem, quorum iudicio delectus ad pugnam proficisceretur. 109 The phrase externorum hostium at 65.1 can be compared to externus hostis at Hirt. Gal.  8.27.2, 8.37.1. The only other attestation of externus in the Corpus Caesarianum is Civ. 2.5.5: externis auxiliis. In B.Alex. 3.4, externus is avoided and we find the more precise expression transmarina auxilia. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

56

Language and style of the Bellum Alexandrinum 

ceteri (31.5, 33.3, 53.2, 64.2, 67.1, 70.7),110 perire (25.6, 31.6, 43.3, 64.3),111 quasi-auxiliary coepisse,112 and the use of paene with omnis (29.5, 36.4) and totus (40.4, 67.1).113 Moreover, there are quite a few expressions which are altogether absent from Gal.  1–7, Civ.  1–3, and B.Alex. 1–21, but common or even frequent in B.Alex. ­22–78: cf. e. g. non tantum … sed etiam (only 32.4, 34.2, 42.1, 49.2; cf. Hirt. Gal.  8.6.2, 8.41.6, †),114 cognoscere de controversiis (B.Alex. 65.4, 68.1, 78.1; cf. 110 In B.Alex. 1–21 we only find reliquus (17×), which then becomes less frequent in chapters 22–78 (10× = 25.5, 27.6, 29.5, 39.2, 43.3, 46.3, 54.3, 63.1, 69.1, 74.2). The preference for reliqui instead of ceteri in B.Alex. 1–21 can be compared to a similar tendency in the Bellum Gallicum and Bellum Civile, where reliquus is used about 290 times, while ceteri occurs only 12 times (= Gal. 1.32.2, 1.35.4, 2.3.3, 3.8.1, 4.3.3, 5.6.1, 5.30.3, 6.25.5, 7.41.4, Civ. 1.55.2, 2.22.6, 3.59.4); cf. Schiller 1890: 396. 111 The passages refer to death by drowning (31.6, 64.3, possibly 25.6) or ill health (43.3). While the former phenomenon also features in the sea battles in chapters 1–21, perire is never used there; instead we find the expressions deprimere navem (cf. n. 118), nudare navem epi­batis (11.4), interire (21.3), and desiderari (21.4); cf. also interficere (4.1, 11.4, 18.4, 20.6), occidere (4.2), and capere navem (11.4, 16.6). 112 Whereas the notion of a ‘beginning’ makes good sense at 20.3, 24.5, 27.7, 30.4, 31.2, 60.3, 71.1, 74.3, and 74.4, coepisse + inf. can be easily replaced by a simple perfect at 24.2: dimittere coepit, 24.3: orare … c., 35.2: perseverare … c., 66.5: iter coeptum … conficere coepit. This otiose use of coepisse occasionally features also in Caesar (e. g. Gal. 3.23.2, 4.27.7, cf. LC s.v. coepi 565–9), but is most characteristic of the Bellum Hispaniense (1.1, 3.2, 4.4, al.) and late annalists like Sempronius Asellio (fr. 8 B/W = HRR fr. 7), Claudius Quadrigarius (frr. 10b, 73, 93 B/W = HRR frr. 10b, 72, 92), or Cornelius Sisenna (frr. 70, 133 B/W = HRR frr. 52, 131 / Barabino 1967: frr. 76, 133): see Eden 1962: 81 and Gaertner 2010: 252 with n. 79. 113 This usage has a parallel in Hirtius’ eighth book of the Bellum Gallicum (8.40.2: totum paene). Caesar, on the contrary, generally prefers to employ omnis and totus with the near synonym fere (cf. 1× paene totus, t. p./4× fere totus, t. f. and 4× paene omnis, o. p./16× fere omnis, o. f.). The latter rule is strictly observed in chapters 1–21 of the Bellum Alexandrinum (cf. 5.1: fere tota), where paene is avoided completely (contrast 7× paene in B.Alex. 22–78). Within chapters 22–78, the use of fere with omnis or totus is confined to 65.4 and 66.2 (chapters 65–78 were once attributed to Caesar by Pötter (1932: 44–64), cf. n. 100 above). Other expressions, which occur in Gal., Civ., and B.Alex. 22–78, but not in B.Alex. 1–21, are aciem instruere (8× B.Alex. 22–78; 11× Gal., 13× Civ., 12× B.Afr., 1× Hirt. Gal. 8, †), adductus + abl. (24.6, 35.2, 57.5, 71.2; 21× Gal., 7× Civ., Hirt. Gal. 8.31.4, 3× B.Afr., 2× B.Hisp., †), celer/ celeriter/celeritas (see p. 94 n. 78), commoveri + abl. (24.4, 39.1, 59.1, 75.1; 8× Gal., 1× Civ., 7× B.Afr., †), convenire (7× in B.Alex. 22–78), familiaris (49.3, 50.2, 53.3, 55.2; 9× Gal., 6× Civ., Hirt. Gal. 8.23.5, B.Afr. 68.4, 88.4, †), impedimento esse (23.2, 61.6; cf. Gal. 1.25.3, 2.25.1, Civ. 3.17.4, 3.46.5, B.Afr. 58.5, †), iter (25× in B.Alex. 22–78), opprimere (10× in B.Alex. 22–78; 10× Gal., 11× Civ., 6× Hirt. Gal. 8, 4× B.Afr., B.Hisp. 19.3, †), pecunia (10× in B.Alex. 22–78 and 12× Gal., 35× Civ., 12× B.Afr., 5× B.Hisp., †), pedester (26.1, 26.2, 44.1, 61.1; 8× Gal., 1× Civ., 3× B.Afr., 2× B.Hisp., †), statuere (7× in B.Alex. 22–78; 18× Gal., 5× Civ., 4× Hirt. Gal. 8, †), terrestris (25.1, 32.1, [33.5], 34.3 and 2× Civ., †), vehemens (see p. 94 n. 78), vulnerare (26.2, 30.6, 46.6, 48.1, 52.3; 11× Gal., 7× Civ.). However, the absence of these words from B.Alex. 1–21 may simply reflect the different subject matter of the early and later chapters. 114 Contrast B.Alex. 8.3: fugae vero nullum esse consilium non solum iis qui …, sed ne iis quidem, qui … . © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

New evidence for the heterogeneous character   

57

p. 33 n. 13), disciplina severitasque (48.3, 65.1, †),115 disciplina + armatura (34.4, 68.2, †),116 prudentia ac diligentia (42.2, 68.1, †),117 (de)mergere navem/navigium vel sim. (25.5, 31.6, 46.5, 64.3, †),118 opinari (63.5, 73.2, 75.1; cf. B.Afr. 7.5, 66.1, B.Hisp. 2.1, 2.3, 15.2, 16.3, †),119 sub idem tempus (26.1, 28.1, 40.1, 42.1, 64.2, †),120 comminus facere magnum proelium (46.3, 76.1, †),121 the use of nobilis and nobilitas with localities (27.1: locus, 47.3: oppidum (~ 66.2), 72.2: unus [sc. collis], †),122 and the collocation of adventus with felix, subitus, and hostilis (30.1, 32.4, 58.4, 69.2; cf. subitus a. at Hirt. Gal. 8.9.1, B.Afr. 65.1, †).123 If we compare these ­ aesarian examples with similar expressions from B.Alex. 1–21 that lack precise C parallels,124 there is one important difference: whereas the ‘un-Caesarian’ usages in chapters 1–21 are mostly isolated phenomena which are attested only once, the expressions listed above are recurrent patterns. Hence, chapters 22–78 deviate from the vocabulary and usage of the Bellum Gallicum and Bellum Civile not only far more often, but also in a regular and systematic fashion.

115 Outside the Corpus Caesarianum the collocation is not uncommon, cf. e. g. Cic. Clu. 129, Tac. Ger. 25.1, Dial. 28.3, 28.6. 116 These are the only attestations in Latin prose down to Apuleius. 117 Outside the Corpus Caesarianum the expression occurs e. g. at Cic. Caec. 34, Agr. 3.3, Leg. 3.5, Fam. 12.23.4 (= 347.4 SB), Col. 1.4.3, Tra. apud Plin. Ep. 10.62.1. 118 Caesar and the author of B.Alex. 1–21 usually employ deprimere (navem vel sim.), cf. Civ. 1.58.4, 2.6.6, 2.7.2, 2.43.4, 3.101.7, B.Alex. 11.4, 16.6, 20.6, 21.3 (the iunctura also features at B.Alex. 46.5, 46.6). At Civ. 3.39.2 and 3.40.1 we find submergere (navem vel sim.). 119 Except for B.Hisp. 2.3: celerius quam ipsi opinati sunt, all forms of opinari are present participles and preceded by neque or nec. Caesar avoids neque opinans and necopinans and uses inopinans instead (8× Gal., 4× Civ. (†); cf. Wölfflin 1882: 101–2 and Dernoscheck 1903: 46). One may also compare the use of contra omnium opinionem at B.Alex. 13.4. 120 The expression is characteristic of the post-Caesarian historiographical writers Livy (26×), Velleius Paterculus (1.12.2), Tacitus (11×), and Suetonius (5×). In chapters 1–21, we find the near synonyms eodem … tempore (19.5), interim (1.2, 4.1, 15.7), and simul (20.4: simul, qui in navibus longis remanserant, scalas rapere … properabant). 121 There are no further attestations of this iunctura in Latin literature down to Apuleius, but cf. facere magnum proelium (without comminus) at B.Hisp. 4.2. 122 Cf. OLD s.v. nobilis 4c: “(of places, things) important, prominent”, with reference to Plin. Nat. 18.234: sidera, Apul. Met. 8.23: civitatem. 123 In the Bellum Gallicum and Bellum Civile, adventus occurs 88 times and is usually qualified only by a genitive (72×; cf. also B.Alex. 35.2, 36.5, 64.2) or a possessive adjective (7× = Gal. 1.27.2, 1.36.4, 4.14.2, 5.11.9, 7.10.3, 7.81.2, Civ. 2.3.3, 3.64.1; cf. also B.Alex. 30.1, 44.5, 65.1). When qualifying an arrival as ‘swift’ or ‘unexpected’, Caesar does not employ subitus, but repentinus (7× = Gal. 1.13.2, 5.39.2, 6.31.1, 6.42.1, Civ. 3.11.1, 3.18.3, 3.23.2; cf. also primus adventus at Gal. 2.30.1, Civ. 3.35.1). In chapters 1–21, the concept of ‘arrival’ tends to be expressed by subordinate clauses, cf. e. g. B.Alex. 10.2: cumque ad eum locum accessissent, 10.3: ex his cognoverunt Caesarem ipsum in classe venisse. 124 Cf. the material in appendices E.1, E.3, H, J.2 and see section 3.4a (pp. 42–5). © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

58

Language and style of the Bellum Alexandrinum 

(b) Usages which are common in B.Alex. 1–21, but absent from B.Alex. 22–78 Further confirmation of the heterogeneous nature of the Bellum Alexandrinum comes from words and collocations which occur in Caesar and B.Alex. 1–21, but not in B.Alex. 22–78. The most striking examples of this phenomenon are omnino (1.5, 6.3, 18.4, 19.5, 20.5; cf. 36× Caes., 3× B.Afr., †),125 pugna (15.5, 15.8, 16.4; cf. 51× Caes., 6× B.Afr., 10× B.Hisp., †),126 se eicere (17.6, 19.5, 20.1, 21.2; cf. 5× Gal., Civ. 3.96.3, †),127 ars (15.6, 15.7, 16.5; cf. Gal. 6.17.1, †), sollertia (3.1, 13.2, 15.6, 16.5; cf. Gal.  7.22.1, Civ.  2.8.3, 2.15.4, †),128 laborare (1.5, 21.3; cf. 17× Caes., 3× B.Afr., 2× B.Hisp., †),129 neque vero (2.1, 15.8, 18.1; cf. 11× Civ., †),130 uno tempore (‘at the same time’, 3.1, 7.3, 8.2, 17.2, 17.4; cf. 11× Gal., 9× Civ., Hirt. Gal.  8.15.5, 4× B.Afr., †),131 angustiae loci (15.7, 17.4, 19.3; 125 Cf. Schiller 1890: 396 and Dahms 1906: 9. In chapters 22–78, the function of omnino is partly taken over by funditus (cf. 27.6: funditus deleti essent), umquam (cf. 19.5: nulla omnino scapha ~ 25.3: nulla umquam dimicatio), and nequaquam (cf. 44.3: multitudo nequaquam satis iusta ad proeliandum). Like omnino, the corresponding adjective omnis is more frequent in chapters 1–21 (35×) than in the rest of the work (56×): taking into account the higher number of words in chapters 22–78 (cf. p. 55 above), one would expect 88 occurrences in B.Alex. 22–78. totus, on the contrary, is evenly distributed and occurs 4× in chapters 1–21 and 9× in chapters 22–78. 126 Cf. Dahms 1906: 9. In the later chapters, pugna is replaced by proelium (22× in B.Alex. 22–78, 7× in B.Alex. 1–21) and dimicatio (5× in B.Alex. 22–78, but only once in B.Alex. 1–21). 127 Cf. Dahms 1906: 9 and contrast B.Alex. 22.2: procurrentibus et erumpentibus Alexandrinis and 46.4: ex suis navibus in hostium navis transilire non dubitabant. 128 In chapters 1–21 the concepts of skill and resourcefulness are expressed by ars (see above), doctrina (15.6, B.Afr. 27.2, †; cf. Civ. 3.50.2: quibus rebus nostri usu docti), scientia (see below), and sollertia (see above), but in the later sections we only find scientia (26.1, 31.1, 43.1; cf. B.Alex. 11.3, 12.1, 15.2 and 6× Gal., Civ. 1.58.1, 1.58.2, Hirt. Gal. 8.pr.5, 8.pr.7, B.Afr. 10.4, 31.4, †). The expressions are near synonyms and occur in similar contexts, cf. e. g. 15.6: sustinent illi [sc. impetum] atque arte sollertiaque se explicant and 16.5: ut neque maritimis nauticisque sollertia atque ars praesidium ferret with 26.1: scientiaeque in bello et virtutis, 31.1: et animi magnitudine et rei militaris scientia, or 43.1: virtute et scientia confisus. 129 See Dahms 1906: 9 and cf. especially laborantibus succurrere at B.Alex. 1.5 and Civ. 2.6.2. In chapters 22–78 the precarious situation of troops tends to be expressed in a more concrete and dramatic fashion, cf. e. g. 25.5–6, 38.1: cognoscit Caesarem magno in periculo versari flagitarique ab Domitio, ut quam primum Caesari subsidia mitteret, 40.2: vix impetum sustinuerunt, and 46.3: committitur acriter reliquis locis proelium concurriturque ad duces maxime: nam cum suo quisque auxilium ferret, magnum comminus in angusto mari proelium factum est. Interestingly, Hirtius, too, avoids laborare and only employs the corresponding noun labor (6×). 130 Cf. Dahms 1906: 9. In chapters 22–78, vero is generally much rarer (see p. 68 n. 188) and ‘and yet not’ is expressed either by neque alone (32.2: neque eum consilium suum fefellit) or by neque/nec tamen (31.1, 62.3, 78.4; no attestations in B.Alex. 1–21). 131 In chapters 22–78, uno tempore is replaced by eodem tempore (only 19.5 and 29.4, 31.3, 64.1, 75.1). See also appendix I.1, p. 260 on 17.4. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

New evidence for the heterogeneous character   

59

cf. Civ. 1.17.1, 3.49.2, 3.72.2, 3.112.7, †),132 in terra(m) exponere (10.2, 19.3; cf. Civ. 1.31.3, 3.23.2, †),133 and the use of sese for se (8.2, 11.1, 12.2, 21.2; cf. c. 150× Caes., 10× B.Afr., 2× B.Hisp., Hirt. Gal.  8.7.6, †). Less frequent but nevertheless noteworthy are the expressions circumsistere (15.5; cf. 11× Gal., 2× Civ., †), in consuetudinem venire + gen. (3.2; cf. Civ.  3.110.2, †),134 praeter consuetudinem (6.2; cf. Gal. 7.61.3, Civ. 1.19.3, 1.45.1, 1.59.3, 3.61.1, B.Hisp. 23.3, †),135 continenter (9.4; cf. Gal. 1.1.3, 1.26.5, 3.5.1, Civ. 1.46.1, †),136 se continere (18.1; cf. 6× Gal., Civ. 3.37.4, B.Afr. 41.1, B.Hisp. 20.1, †), copia exigua (1.5; cf. Gal. 5.12.5, Civ. 2.39.2, †),137 dediticius (9.3; cf. Gal. 1.27.4, 1.44.5, 2.17.2, 2.32.2, †), dispar (15.6; cf. Gal. 5.16.2, 7.39.1, †),138 minuere timorem (8.1; cf. Civ. 1.72.4, 3.1.3, †),139 naturaliter (‘by nature’, 8.1; cf. Civ.  3.92.4, †),140 nocturnum tempus (9.1; cf. Gal.  5.11.6, 5.40.5, 5.40.7, Civ.  1.21.2, B.Afr. 95.2, B.Hisp. 2.1, 22.6, †),141 notus (‘acquaintance’, 16.4; cf. Civ. 1.74.1),142 nudare (‘deductis copiis defensoribus spoliare’ (LC s.v. nudo 841–2 (B)), 10.1, 11.4; cf. 6× Gal., Civ. 3.15.5, B.Afr. 15.1, †), omni ratione + gerund (8.6: omni ratione esse vincendum, 17.1; cf. Civ.  1.65.5,

132 The expression can be contrasted with 46.3: in angusto mari; cf. also 36.4–5: locus angustus …, si … Domitius eas angustias transiret, … . 133 At B.Alex. 10.2, 19.3 the manuscripts transmit the accusative in terram, at Civ. 1.31.3 the ablative in terra, and at Civ. 3.23.2 the transmission is split (terra N U R T V, terram S L W). Since both constructions were available in Caesar’s day and Livy one generation later regularly employs exponere with an accusative (e. g. 23.40.8: in terram (~ 29.27.13, 34.8.7, 37.13.8), 28.36.5: in litus (~ 37.28.8)), Caesar himself could have employed exponere both with an accusative and with an ablative, depending on whether he wanted to focus on the place of landing or the movement towards it (on these nuances see Antibarbarus vol. 1, 555 s.v.; cf. also NW vol. 2, 935 and TLL s.v. expono 1757.39). In any case, the discrepancy between the usage in the Bellum Alexandrinum and Civ. 1.31.3 (and maybe 3.23.2) is slight. 134 Cf. also in consuetudinem adducere at Gal. 4.1.10, B.Afr. 72.5 (†). 135 At B.Alex. 65.1 and Hirt. Gal. 8.50.1 we find contra consuetudinem instead. 136 B.Alex. 9.4: Euro, qui multos dies continenter flabat can be compared to B.Alex. 36.3: ­magnis et continuis itineribus. 137 B.Alex. 1.5: quarum alterius rei [i. e. aquae] copiam exiguam, alterius [i. e. pabuli] nullam omnino facultatem habebat [sc. Caesar] can be compared to B.Alex. 42.2: quamquam erat provincia minime copiosa ad exercitus alendos. 138 In chapters 22–78, dispar is replaced by inpar (29.2); cf. also 30.3: id minore numero ­militum consequi difficile factu putaret, 38.4: qui … multum numero anteibat nostrum equitatum, and 46.1: neque numero parem esse. 139 Contrast B.Alex. 27.7: paulum ab illo timore se recrearunt. The connection between 8.1: Caesar timorem … minuebat and 9.1: hac oratione … habita atque omnium mentibus excitatis shows that animos incitare (cf. 31.3) is a further near synonym. 140 In the later chapters, we find the ablative natura instead, cf. B.Alex. 28.3: loco natura ­munito. 141 In chapters 22–78, nox is used instead; cf. 64.3: cum in Hiberum flumen noctis vitandae causa se contulisset. 142 Cf. B.Alex. 53.3: in proximam se domum familiaris sui confert. Admittedly, familiaris points to a longer and more intensive relationship than notus. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

60

Language and style of the Bellum Alexandrinum 

1.67.5, †),143 periclitari fortunam (16.1; cf. Civ. 1.72.2, 3.10.3, †),144 praedari (10.2; cf. 7× Gal., †),145 properare + inf. (20.4; cf. Gal. 2.11.1, 5.33.6, Civ. 2.43.2, 3.33.1, 3.36.6, †),146 praesens tempus (13.3; cf. Civ.  2.40.3, †),147 saepenumero (16.3; cf. 5× Gal., B.Afr. 35.4, †),148 subsidiarius (14.3; cf. Civ. 1.83.2, B.Afr. 59.2, †),149 superior dies (‘previous day’, 16.3; cf. 6× Gal., 12× Civ., †), terga vertere (17.5; cf. 6× Gal., 8× Civ., B.Afr. 70.4, †),150 ubi primum (17.5; cf. Gal. 3.14.2, 4.12.1, 7.51.3, Civ. 3.18.3, †),151 and simili ratione (19.2; cf. Gal. 7.4.1, 7.38.10, Civ. 3.76.2, †).152 The material not only shows that many of the typical expressions of chapters 1–21 are absent from the later sections of the Bellum Alexandrinum, but it also corroborates that within the Corpus Caesarianum the diction of B.Alex. 1–21 has its closest parallels in the Bellum Gallicum and Bellum Civile and not in Hirtius’ eighth book of the Bellum Gallicum.153 143 Within the Corpus Caesarianum the adverbial ablatives omni ratione and omnibus rationibus are generally confined to Caesar and B.Alex. 1–21; see also appendix I.1 on 8.6 (p. 251). 144 The only other attestations of this iunctura are Cic. Ver. 5.132 and Claud. Don. Aen. 12.15 (vol. 2, p. 548.19–20 Georgii). Two similar expressions from chapters 22–78 are fortuitae dimicationi rem committere maluit (46.1; on the text see p. 114 n. 162) and virtute et scientia sua confisus, qua saepe in bellis periclitatus magnas res et secundas ductu auspicioque suo gesserat (43.1; on the text see p. 143 n. 251). 145 One may compare B.Alex. 36.5: praeda diripienda milites dissiparentur, where praeda diripienda (abl.) could easily be replaced by (in) praedando. 146 Contrast festinare + inf. at B.Alex. 27.4. 147 Outside the Corpus Caesarianum, the iunctura is not uncommon: cf. e. g. Cic. Catil. 1.22, Fam. 9.16.6 (= 190.6 SB), Att. 9.5.2, Var. L. 9.104, Liv. 3.36.9, 42.47.8, 45.18.2. The usage at B.Alex. 13.3: praesentis temporis necessitati serviebant can be contrasted with B.Alex. 48.3: quae [i. e. praemia] speciosum reddebant praesentem exercitus amorem, where, however,  a further qualifying genitive would have been cumbersome. 148 In chapters 22–78, we find saepe (43.1, 62.3; cf. 9× Gal., 7× Civ., 4× Hirt. Gal.  8, 7× B.Afr., †) and crebro (43.2, 60.5, 62.3; cf. Gal. 7.41.2, 6× Civ., Hirt. Gal. 8.10.2, 8.44.3, 8.52.3, †); compare also 44.1: crebris litteris. 149 Contrast auxiliarius at B.Alex. 62.1, Hirt. Gal. 8.5.3 and see appendix J.2, pp. 283–4. 150 Cf. also terga convertere at Civ. 1.80.5. In chapters 22–78, se recipere ex fuga (47.2), fugere (31.4, 31.6, 53.3, 56.1), and the compounds confugere (46.6, 48.2), effugere (76.2), profugere (76.4), refugere (29.5, 30.4) are used. 151 In the later chapters, we find cum primum (48.2; cf. 3× Gal., 3× Civ., †) and temporal ubi without primum (25.3: quod ubi nuntiatum est, …, 45.3; absent from B.Hisp., but common in the remaining Corpus Caesarianum, cf. LC s.v. ubi 2260–5 (2.A.a), Hirt. Gal. 8.15.6, 8.36.4, 8.48.7, B.Alex. 15.3, 8× B.Afr.). Cf. also ut primum at Hirt. Gal. 8.30.1 (†). 152 One may compare 37.4: eadem ratione haec [sc. subsidia] mediā conlocabantur acie, 45.3: idem ut facerent significabat, and 55.3: Minucium libertis tradit excruciandum, item Calpurnium Salvianum, qui … . Less significant are  a number of further words and expressions, which may be absent from chapters 22–78 for reasons of subject matter, e. g. classiarii (B.Alex. 12.1, 20.1, 21.4; cf. Caes. Civ. 3.100.2, †). 153 Contrast the Hirtian expressions collected in appendices E.3 (pp. 223–4) and H (p. 239). © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

New evidence for the heterogeneous character   

61

(c) Relative clauses and connective relatives Apart from the differences in vocabulary and diction, there are also some discrepancies on the syntactical level. In chapters 1–21, the sentences and clauses are generally connected very carefully and with a variety of connectives and constructions. A good illustration is B.Alex. 6: (1) hoc probato consilio magnum ac difficile opus adgreditur. intersaeptis enim specibus atque omnibus urbis partibus exclusis, quae ab ipso tenebantur, aquae mag­ nam vim ex mari rotis ac machinationibus exprimere contendit: hanc locis superioribus fundere in partem Caesaris non intermittebat. (2) quam ob causam salsior paulo praeter consuetudinem aqua trahebatur ex proximis aedificiis magnamque hominibus admirationem praebebat, quam ob rem id accidisset; nec satis sibi ipsi credebant, cum se inferiores eiusdem generis ac saporis aqua dicerent uti atque ante consuessent, vulgoque inter se conferebant et degustando, quantum inter se differrent aquae, cognoscebant. (3) parvo vero temporis spatio haec propior bibi omnino non poterat, illa inferior corruptior iam salsiorque reperiebatur. (1) After this plan has been approved, he [i. e. Ganymedes] tackles the big and difficult task. For after the underground water channels had been blocked and all parts of the city which were held by himself had been cut off, he made an effort to pump a large mass of water out of the sea by means of wheels and machines: this water he continuously poured from more elevated places into Caesar’s part of the city. (2) Because of this the water drawn from the neighbouring buildings was slightly saltier than usually and provoked great astonishment among the men as to why this had happened; and they did not quite believe themselves, because those who were further away said that they were using water of the same kind and flavour as they had used to do before, and all together they compared among themselves and by tasting they found out how much the waters differed among themselves. (3) However, a little later the water that was closer (to the enemy lines) could not be drunk at all, and the more remote one was found to be already more putrefied and salty.

In chapters 22–78, on the contrary, we encounter several linguistic ‘tics’. One of these is the clustering of relative clauses and connective relatives.154 The most striking example of this phenomenon is chapter 27, where almost two thirds of the sentences and subordinate clauses are introduced by relative pronouns: (1) locus est fere regionum illarum nobilissimus non ita longe ab Alexandria, qui nominatur Delta; quod nomen  a similitudine litterae cepit: nam pars quaedam ­fluminis Nili derivata duobus itineribus paulatim medium inter se spatium ­relinquens diversissimo ad litus intervallo mari coniungitur. (2) cui loco cum ad­ propinquare Mithridaten rex cognovisset et transeundum ei flumen sciret, ­magnas 154 The higher frequency of the relative connective in Hirtius’ eighth book of the Bellum Gallicum and parts of the Bellum Alexandrinum was already observed by Schiller (1890: 393–4). © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

62

Language and style of the Bellum Alexandrinum 

adversus eum copias misit, quibus vel superari delerique Mithridaten vel sine dubio retineri posse credebat. (3) quemadmodum autem optabat eum vinci, sic ­satis habebat interclusum a Caesare a se retineri. (4) quae primae copiae flumen a Delta transire et Mithridati occurrere potuerunt, proelium commiserunt festinantes praeripere subsequentibus victoriae societatem. (5) quorum impetum Mithri­ dates magna cum prudentia consuetudine nostra castris vallatis sustinuit. cum vero ­incaute atque insolenter succedere eos munitionibus videret, eruptione undique facta magnum numerum eorum interfecit. (6) quod nisi locorum notitia reliqui se texissent partimque in naves, quibus flumen transierant, recepissent, funditus deleti essent. (7) qui ut paulum ab illo timore se recrearunt, adiunctis his, qui subsequebantur, rursus oppugnare Mithridaten coeperunt. (1) Not that far from Alexandria there is the more or less best known place of those regions, which is called ‘Delta’. It has got this name from its similarity to the letter: for some part of the river Nile that is led through two channels gradually leaves a middle space between itself and joins the sea, having the greatest distance (between the two branches) at the sea-shore. (2) When the king had heard that Mithridates was approaching this place and since he knew that he [i. e. Mithridates] would have to cross the river, he sent large forces against him, by which, he believed, Mithridates could be defeated and destroyed or no doubt held back. (3) Yet, however much he wanted him to be defeated, he considered it sufficient if he was held back from him and separated from Caesar. (4) The first troops that could cross the river from the Delta and confront Mithridates joined battle and hurried to steal the common possession of the victory from those that followed. (5) Mithridates withstood their attack, because following our practice he very wisely had fortified his camp with  a palisaded rampart. However, as he saw that they were advancing towards the fortifications without taking precautions and haughtily, he made a sortie on all sides and killed a large number of them. (6) If the survivers had not covered themselves thanks to their knowledge of the area and had partly withdrawn to the ships, in which they had crossed the river, they would have been destroyed completely. (7) Once they had recovered a bit from that fear and had united themselves with the other forces that followed, they began to attack Mithridates again.

Similar clusters of relative clauses and relative pronouns also occur at 44.3–4 and 53.2–3. Since the overall frequency of relative pronouns in chapters 22–78 is not much higher than in chapters 1–21,155 the two parts of the Bellum Alexandrinum 155 Forms of the relative pronoun and the relative connective feature only 1.3 times more frequently in B.Alex. 22–78 (252×, i. e. 33.23×/1000 words) than in B.Alex. 1–21 (74×, i. e. 25.26×/1000 words). Similarly slight are the differences in the use of is and idem, which occur less than 1.5 times more frequently in B.Alex. 22–78: in chapters 1–21 we find 39 forms of is (i. e. 13.31×/1000 words) and 7 forms of idem (i. e. 2.39×/1000 words), in chapters 22–78, however, 148 forms of is (i. e. 19.52×/1000 words) and 26 forms of idem (i. e. 3.43×/1000 words). Whereas the frequency of qui in B.Alex. 1–21 (25.26) is almost identical with the corresponding figures for Gal. 1–7 (25.71) and Civ. 1–3 (24.62; contrast 30.13 in Hirt. Gal. 8), is occurs much more rarely in B.Alex. 1–21 than in Gal. 1–7 (22.32) and Civ. 1–3 (18.26). Cf. the table in appendix K.1, p. 286. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

New evidence for the heterogeneous character   

63

primarily differ in the distribution of relative constructions: whereas in chapters 1–21 much effort seems to have been put into syntactical variation, chapters 22–78 reveal far less aversion to repetition or monotony. One of the means by which variatio is achieved in the early chapters is the more extensive use of the demonstrative pronouns hic and ille, which both occur about 2.5 times more often in the first 21 chapters than in the rest of the Bellum Alexandrinum.156

(d) Sentence-initial ablatives absolute Another ‘tic’ of the later chapters is the frequent use of formulaic ablatives absolute which are placed at the beginning of  a sentence and resume or evaluate the previous events, cf. 26.3: inde re bene gesta, 30.1: Caesar re praeclarissime gesta, 32.1: re felicissime celerrimeque gesta, 38.2: qua cognita re, 47.1: at Vatinius re bene gesta, 47.5: ita brevi spatio re praeclarissime gesta, 54.2: re cognita, 56.2: qua re cognita, 57.2: cognita re, 56.5: his rebus confectis, and 78.5: rebus felicissime celerrimeque confectis. Of course, ablatives absolute that occupy the first or second position in a sentence can also be found in B.Alex. 1–21. However, the sentence-initial ablatives absolute of the early chapters are not confined to  a few fixed formulae, avoid explicit comment on the historical events, and do not recur in chapters 22–78, cf. 1.1: bello Alexandrino conflato, 2.3: hac multitudine disposita, 4.1: interim dissensione orta, 4.2: hoc occiso, 6.1: hoc probato consilio, 6.1: intersaeptis enim specibus atque omnibus urbis partibus exclusis, 9.1: hac oratione apud suos habita, 9.2: quo suscepto negotio atque omnium animis ad laborem in­ citatis, 10.3: qua re comperta, 16.1: nostris enim pulsis (~ 17.6: his pulsis), 17.2: perfectis enim magna ex parte munitionibus, 17.3: quo capto consilio, 19.4: quo facto, 19.5: quorum altero opere effecto, and 20.1: in his rebus occupato Caesare militesque hortante. In addition to the formulaic nature of many of the sentence-initial ablatives absolute in chapters 22–78, there are also a number of further, less obvious differences. In chapters 1–21, much more attention is paid to the logical connection of the sentences. Apart from the first three words bello Alexandrino conflato (1.1), all sentence-initial ablatives absolute in chapters 1–21 are linked with the preceding sentence by means of a connective relative (9.2, 10.3, 17.3, 19.4, 19.5, see 156 There are 40 forms of the pronoun hic in B.Alex. 1–21; this yields  a frequency of 13.65×/1000 words. In chapters 22–78, on the contrary, we find just 42 forms of hic, i. e. hic occurs 5.54× per 1000 words. The two frequencies closely match the corresponding figures for the Caesarian commentarii (Gal. 1–7: 13.82, Civ. 1–3: 12.55) and Hirtius’ eighth book of the Bellum Gallicum (5.2). ille occurs 17× in B.Alex. 1–21 (i. e. 5.8×/1000 words) and 18× in B.Alex. 22– 78 (i. e. 2.37×/1000 words); the latter of these two frequencies is slightly higher than the corresponding figure for Gal. 8 (2.29), the former surpasses the corresponding figures for Gal. 1–7 (2.68) and Civ. 1–3 (3.71). Cf. the table in appendix K.1, p. 286. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

64

Language and style of the Bellum Alexandrinum 

above), a demonstrative pronoun (2.3, 6.1, 9.1, 17.6, 20.1, see above), enim (6.1, 16.1, 17.2, see above), or interim (4.1, see above). The first two connective devices recur in chapters 22–78,157 but instead of enim and interim we later find nam (33.2), at (47.1), autem (76.3), tamen (40.5), -que (61.4, 66.3), itaque (25.2, 30.2, 76.2), and the adverbs ibi (57.6, 66.3), inde (26.3), sic (33.5, 39.2), and ita (40.4, 47.5). Moreover, quite often the sentences are not connected at all, cf. 24.4: compressis pueri lacrimis, 32.1: re felicissime celerrimeque gesta, 36.3: magnis et continuis itineribus confectis, 46.2: celerrime fortissimeque contra illo remigante, 52.1: exercitu coacto in unum locum, castris ad Cordubam positis, 52.3: clamore sublato, 54.2: re cognita, 56.3: sanatis vulneribus, 57.2: cognita re, 57.4: celeriter habito consilio, 61.5: castellis idoneis locis collocatis operibusque in circuitu oppidi continuatis, 76.1: magno atque acri proelio comminus facto, 76.3: interfecta multitudine omni suorum aut capta, 77.2: Ponto recepto, praeda omni regia militibus condonata, and 78.5: rebus felicissime celerrimeque confectis.158 Another characteristic feature of the later chapters is the tendency to put ablatives absolute in second position after  a syntactically unrelated connective relative,159 a personal name,160 or pronoun,161 or after an adverbial phrase that indicates the temporal relation between the ablative absolute and the rest of the sentence.162 In chapters 1–21, this word order occurs only once at 4.2: is suscepto officio.163 157 Cf. the connective relatives at 38.2: qua cognita re, 43.3: quo proelio duobus milibus militum amplius amissis, centurionibus XXXVIII, tribunis IIII, 51.2: quibus litteris acceptis, 56.2: qua re cognita, 73.2: quo celeriter conlato and the demonstrative pronouns at 31.5: horum primis in ipsa fossa munitionis magna ruina oppressis, 35.3: his responsis datis, 40.1: signo sub idem tempus ab utroque dato, 44.4: his adiunctis navibus longis et numero classis aucto, militibus veteranis impositis, 52.3: hoc interfecto, 56.5: his rebus confectis, 66.1: paucis diebus in ea provincia consumptis, 70.8: his responsis datis. 158 Cf. especially the use of re/rebus instead of hac/qua re and his/quibus rebus at 32.1, 54.2, 57.2, 78.5; contrast 10.3: qua re comperta, 38.2: qua cognita re, 56.2: qua re cognita, and 56.5: his rebus confectis. 159 Cf. 74.1: quas interposita tanta locorum iniquitate consuetudine magis pervulgata militari credebat instrui Caesar. 160 Cf. 30.1: Caesar re praeclarissime gesta, 47.1: at Vatinius re bene gesta, 49.1: Cassius legionibus in hiberna dispositis, 71.2: Caesar cognita calliditate hominis. 161 Cf. 64.2: ipse omnibus suis rebus celeriter correptis. 162 Cf. 62.1: paucis diebus Q. Cassi litteris acceptis rex Bogus …, 75.2: nondum ordinibus instructis. Similar is the coordination of two ablatives absolute at 63.5: non tantum indutiis factis, sed prope iam pace constituta. 163 There is only one example of a subject placed in the middle of a sentence-initial ablative absolute: cf. 40.5: quo tamen incommodo Domitius accepto, and see Kraner/Dittenberger/ Meusel 1913–20: vol. 1, 205–6 on Gal. 2.11.2: hac re statim Caesar per speculatores cognita (with reference to Gal. 1.44.10, 6.9.8, 6.17.5, 7.1.4, Civ. 3.12.1, 3.62.1; cf. also Gal. 5.49.4, 7.77.14 and Kraner/Hofmann/Meusel 1906: 179). The integration of ablatives absolute into a subordinate clause that precedes the main clause seems to be equally common in chapters 1–21 and 22–78, cf. e. g. 17.5: sed ubi primum locis cognitis vadisque pertemptatis … and 25.1: cum duce adsumpto Alexandrini … animadverterent. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

New evidence for the heterogeneous character   

65

(e) Sentence-initial verbs A further peculiarity of the later chapters of the Bellum Alexandrinum concerns the use of sentence-initial verbs.164 The overall frequency of sentence-initial verbs is only insignificantly higher in chapters 22–78 than in chapters 1–21 (34× in B.Alex. 22–78, 13× in B.Alex. 1–21).165 Striking, however, is the high number of verb-initial clauses with verbs other than esse. Whereas more than every third sentence-initial verb in the early chapters is a form of esse (5× forms of esse, 8× other verbs),166 only three of the 34 sentence-initial verbs in chapters 22–78 are forms of esse.167 These differences primarily reflect the different functions of sentence-initial verbs in B.Alex. 1–21 and 22–78. In the early chapters, sentence-initial verbs (a) function like a connective and lead on the narrative,168 (b) mark the beginning of descriptions or background information,169 (c) indicate and structure lists of gains and losses,170 or (d) serve as hosts to enclitic pronouns171 or adverbs that introduce explanations172 or parentheses.173 Most of these usages tend to be connected with the presentation of conditions or facts rather than actions and thus naturally involve extensive use of esse. They are consonant with ­Caesar’s use of sentence-initial verbs in the Bellum Gallicum and Bellum Civile,174 164 In this section (pp. 65–6) we concentrate on finite verb forms. There seem to be no significant differences in the use of sentence-initial infinitives and participles. 165 Cf. 25.3 (bis), 28.1 (bis), 28.3, 29.1, 31.6, 34.4, 34.5, 37.5, 40.5, 45.4 (bis), 46.3, 46.5, 46.7, 47.2, 47.3, 50.3 (bis), 52.4, 53.1, 54.2 (bis), 54.3, 61.1 (bis), 62.3 (bis), 63.3, 70.2, 70.8, 72.2, 75.3, and see the following note for the relevant passages in chapters 1–21. 166 Cf. 2.4, 7.2, 11.1, 13.1, 14.5 (esse), 13.2 (deesse), and 11.4 (bis), 12.4, 15.3, 15.6, 16.6, 19.6 (other verbs). 167 Cf. 47.3, 52.4, 61.1; see also 29.1: aberat. 168 Cf. 13.2: deerant remi, 15.6: sustinent illi [sc. impetum] atque arte sollertiaque se explicant, and 19.6: pugnabatur a nobis ex ponte, ex mole. 169 Cf. 11.1: erat una navis Rhodia in dextro Caesaris cornu longe ab reliquis collocata, 13.1: erant omnibus ostiis Nili custodiae exigendi portorii causa dispositae, and 14.5: erant inter duas classes vada transitu angusto. 170 Cf. 11.4: capta est una hostium quadriremis. depressa est altera, 16.6: capitur hoc proelio quinqueremis una et biremis cum defensoribus remigibusque. 171 Cf. 15.3: “videris mihi,” inquit “Caesar …”. 172 Cf. 12.4: videbant enim non auxilia Caesari … subportari posse. 173 Cf. 2.4: erat autem quadrato exstructus saxo neque minus XL pedes altitudinis habebat and 7.2: erat autem magna multitudo oppidanorum in parte Caesaris quam domiciliis ipsorum non moverat. 174 Cf. e. g. Gal. 1.5.4, 6.37.4, 7.63.4, 7.66.3, 7.88.5 (sentence-initial verbs introducing a new or unexpected event (a)), Gal. 1.6.1, 5.6.1, 6.26.1, 6.38.1 (esse at the beginning of descriptions or background information (b)), Civ. 1.51.6 (list of losses (c)), Gal. 4.5.2, 4.9.3, Civ. 1.65.3, 1.69.1, 3.1.5, 3.32.4, 3.47.5, 3.112.6 (sentence-initial verb followed by enim (d)), Civ. 3.9.2, 3.10.3 (sentence-initial verb followed by autem (d)), Civ. 1.32.2 (sentence-initial verb followed by a personal pronoun (d); cf. also Gal. 1.8.3, Civ. 3.87.5, where verb and pronoun are preceded by a © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

66

Language and style of the Bellum Alexandrinum 

but differ sharply from the style of chapters 22–78: there, only about half of the sentence-initial verbs serve one of the functions enumerated above;175 the other sentence-initial verbs come in groups and produce a ‘telegraphese’ of short and unconnected sentences, cf. e. g. 25.3: praeficit huic Tiberium Neronem. proficiscuntur in ea classe Rhodiae naves atque in his Euphranor, 28.1: mittitur a Mithridate nuntius Caesari qui rem gestam perferret. cognoscit ex suis eadem haec acci­ disse rex, 34.4–5: adiungit Cn. Domitius legioni XXXVI duas ab Deiotaro …. mittit P. Sestium …, 45.4: parabant se Vatiniani …. instruitur utrimque acies …, 50.3: augetur odium et ipso dilectu et sumptu additae legionis. complentur equitum III milia maximisque ornantur inpensis, 54.2: re cognita XXX legio signa Cordubam infert ad auxilium ferendum imperatori suo. facit hoc idem XXI. subsequitur has V, and 62.3: accedit cum copiis Bogus ad exteriores Marcelli munitiones. pugnatur utrimque acriter … .176 In chapters 1–21, there is not  a single example of this phenomenon.177

subordinate clause). Functions (a), (b), and (d)  are well documented in standard works on Latin word order, cf. KS vol. II.2, 599–601, Kieckers 1911: 57–8, 62–3, N. Schneider 1912: 43, ­45–6, 58–61, Kroll 1918: 113–16, 118–19, 120–1 and 1925: 98–100, Linde 1923: 158–68, Marouzeau 1937: 289–97 and 1922–1953: vol. 2, 49–82 (especially pp. 65–9), Fankhänel 1938: 219–20, 2­ 24–6, 226–9, Rambaud 1962: 67, Chausserie-Laprée 1969: 351–6, and HS 403–4. The third type (c) has received less attention, but seems to be a general feature of Roman military reports: cf. the end of the following note, Hirt. Gal. 8.36.5, and B.Hisp. 24.6: nam ceciderunt … . 175 Cf. 46.3, 46.7, 53.1, 63.3, 75.3 (sentence-initial verbs introducing a new or unexpected event), 29.1: aberat autem, 52.4: erant enim, 61.1: habebat enim, 70.2: monuit autem, 70.8: miserat enim (sentence-initial verbs as hosts of enclitics), 31.6: constat, 37.5: perfecit, 54.3: permansit (verbs placed at the beginning for the purpose of emphasis, cf. KS vol. II.2, 598–9), 47.3, 61.1 (esse at the beginning of descriptions or background information), 28.3, 72.2 (verbs other than esse introducing descriptions or background information), and 40.5, 46.5, 47.2 (lists of gains and losses). 176 Cf. Pötter 1932: 41. The examples may remind one of what Fraenkel once termed “Kriegsbulletin” (cf. 1956 = 1964: vol. 2, 69–73). However, the passages collected by Fraenkel only display similar sequences of abruptly short sentences, but lack the excessive use of sentence-initial verbs. Moreover, the boundaries of the genre detected by Fraenkel appear rather fluid, and his claim that this type of reports was old-fashioned (1956: 191 = 1964: vol. 2, 71: “altertümelnde[n] Form”, passim) and not—as one might naturally expect—simply straight­ forward and pragmatic has failed to convince us. 177 Similar sequences of verb-initial sentences can be found in Coelius Antipater (fr. 52 B/W = HRR fr. 44), Claudius Quadrigarius (fr. 82b B/W = HRR fr. 81), Nepos (Eum. 9.1, 9.5–6), Sallust (e. g. Cat. 12.2, 31.2), and Caesar (Gal. 5.31.1, 5.44.7–9, 5.46.2–4, 6.38.2–4; cf. Chausserie-Laprée 1969: 357, 359), but only Coelius Antipater, Claudius Quadrigarius, and Nepos reach a similar degree of abruptness and brevity. Cf. also Fankhänel 1938: 254 and see Marouzeau 1937: 293–4 and 1922–1953: vol. 2, 68–9. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

New evidence for the heterogeneous character   

67

(f) Connective adverbs and particles The greater syntactical variety in chapters 1–21 can also be illustrated by the distribution of connective adverbs. Several expressions such as quam ob causam (6.2; cf. Civ. 3.88.6, Hirt. Gal. 8.34.4, †),178 proinde (8.6; cf. 4× Gal., 5× Civ., †),179 and postremo (13.3; cf. 4× Gal., 3× Civ., †) are well attested in the Caesarian commentarii and occur once in chapters B.Alex. 1–21, but are absent from the later chapters. The reverse phenomenon that a connective adverb occurs only in the later chapters is confined to sic (33.5, 39.2, 56.2). Thus, on the whole, the spectrum of connectives is smaller in the later chapters. Furthermore, some connectives that occur in both parts of the Bellum Alexandrinum are distributed rather unevenly. In B.Alex. 1–21 the sentences are more frequently linked by praeterea (2.2, 2.5, 11.4, 12.4, 14.4 and 46.5, 48.3); nam(que), on the contrary, occurs more often in the later sections,180 and sentence-initial ita (like sic, see above) is a characteristic feature of chapters 22–78 (9.2, 11.4, and 25.6, 28.1, 37.2, 40.3, 40.4, 43.2, 47.5, 49.3, 78.1).181 Evenly distributed are interim (3×/8×, i. e. 1×/1000 words in both parts), enim (8×/22×, i. e. 2.7× and 2.9× per 1000 words), and itaque (8×/22×, i. e. 2.7× and 2.9× per 1000 words).182

(g) Adversative and disjunctive conjunctions Of the adversative conjunctions and adverbs, autem and contra are about equally common in both parts of the Bellum Alexandrinum.183 tamen, however, occurs almost twice as frequently in the later chapters,184 and the strongest adversative 178 At B.Alex. 6.2, we also find quam ob rem; however, the expression does not connect two sentences, but introduces a subordinate clause dependent on admirationem praebebat (cf. e. g. Gal. 1.50.4). The near synonym quare is unattested in the Bellum Alexandrinum. 179 A different matter is the use of proinde ac (si) (‘just (as if)’, cf. OLD s.v. 2b) at Civ. 3.1.4, 3.60.5, 3.72.4. 180 I.e. 18× in B.Alex. 22–78 (2.37×/1000 words) as opposed to 5× in B.Alex. 1–21 (1.71×/ 1000 words). 181 The respective frequencies as per 1000 words are 1.71 (B.Alex. 1–21) / 0.26 (B.Alex. ­22–78) for praeterea and 0.68/1.19 for ita. 182 The other conclusive adverbs igitur, quapropter, and quocirca are avoided in the entire work. 183 autem features 6× in B.Alex. 1–21 and 15× in B.Alex. 22–78. contra is used as an adversative adverb at 8.5, 31.2, 37.2, 63.2. At 46.2 and 60.3 it is employed adverbially, but points to  a spatial opposition (‘on the opposite side’, ‘so as to face the enemy’, cf. OLD s.v. contra 1–2). 184 tamen occurs 6× in B.Alex. 1–21 (= 2.05×/1000 words) and 28× in B.Alex. 22–78 (= 3.69×/1000 words). © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

68

Language and style of the Bellum Alexandrinum 

conjunction at is attested185 only in B.Alex. 22–78 (8×).186 Conversely, sed features about 1.7 times more often in the early sections,187 and the more affirmative and climactic vero is even five times more frequent in chapters 1–21 than in the rest of the Bellum Alexandrinum.188 If we add up the individual figures, the overall frequencies of adversative expressions in chapters 1–21 and 22–78 are almost exactly the same (9.9× and 10.6×/1000 words). Moreover, in many places one could easily replace one adversative by another.189 Hence, the discrepancies do not result from differences in subject matter or structure, but they reflect distinct linguistic preferences and show that the author(s) of the later sections gen-

185 At 7.2 Madvig (1873: 281) wants to read at [ut codd.] mihi, defendendi essent Alexandrini …, multa [multaque codd.] oratio frustra absumeretur. Madvig’s suggestion is superior to ut si mihi defendendi (F. Ursinus 1570: 339, J. Lipsius 1586: 301, A. Manutius 1575: 447) and ut mihi defendendi (Klotz 1926–27: vol. 3, 5), which would turn the whole sentence ut … absume­retur into an illogical consecutive clause that depends on the preceding lines. However, there may be no need to alter the transmitted text at all, because the concessive or conditional use of ut (‘supposing that’, ‘gesetzt, dass’) makes perfect sense and has sufficiently close parallels in late Republican prose, cf. Draeger vol. 2, 759–61, KS vol. II.2, 251, HS 647, OLD s.v. ut 35, LC s.v. ut 2415 (2.D), Cic. Div. 1.62: qui [i. e. Plato et Socrates] ut rationem non redderent, auctoritate tamen hos minutos philosophos vincerent, Caes. Gal. 3.9.6, and Civ. 3.17.4: nihilominus tamen agi posse de compositione, ut haec non remitterentur (‘(Caesar replied) that, if they did not loosen (the blockade), they could nevertheless negotiate about an agreement’). Hence, we prefer to follow A. P. Manutius (1513: 196 recto), Giunta (1514: 189 recto), Panaetius (1517: lxxxiii recto), P. Manutius (1569: 201), Strada (1575: 204G) and read ut mihi defendendi essent Alexandrini, neque fallaces essent neque temerarii, multa [multaque codd.] oratio frustra absumeretur; cum vero uno tempore et natio eorum et natura cognoscatur, aptissimum esse hoc genus ad proditionem dubitare nemo potest (‘Supposing that I had to defend the Alexandrians and say that they were neither deceitful nor rash, much speech would be used in vain; when indeed their breed and nature is for once understood, no one can doubt that this people is most inclined to deceit’; cf. also Beroaldus 1504: s.p.: ut tum mihi defendendi … quod neque … multaque). Gruter (in his unpublished notes, cf. Oudendorp 1737: vol. 1, praef. pp. 6–7 and vol. 2, 783–4 n. 4), Kraner (1861: xxxv, n. 67), Dübner (1867: vol. 2, 210), R. Schneider (1888a: 5), and others consider the whole passage ut mihi … dubitare nemo potest interpolated, but if we delete these words the suggestive reference to the seemingly loyal Alexandrians is left hanging in the air (cf. 7.2: …, quod ea [i. e. multitudo oppidanorum] se fidelem palam nostris esse simulabat et descivisse a suis videbatur). See also n. 73 on p. 45 and appendix J.1, pp. 270–71. 186 Cf. 24.3, 25.4, 37.2, 40.2, 47.1, 71.1, 74.3, 76.2. At 52.4, the transmission is split between ad (M U R T V) and at (S L N). The train of thought, which does not allow for a strong ad­ versative, and the fact that involare is not normally used as a transitive verb both support the reading ad (cf. Andrieu 1954: 51 n. 3 ad loc.). 187 It occurs 11× in B.Alex. 1–21 (i. e. 3.75×/1000 words), but only 17× in B.Alex. 22–78 (i. e. 2.24×/1000 words). 188 We find vero 7× in B.Alex. 1–21 (i. e. 2.39×/1000 words), but only 4× in B.Alex. 22–78 (i. e. 0.53×/1000 words); see also p. 58 with n. 130 on neque vero. 189 at could have easily been used in place of sed at 17.5, 18.2: sed terror hominibus mentem consiliumque eripit et membra debilitat (cf. 25.4: at Fortuna …, 37.2: at contra spes pacis Domitio in eisdem castris morandi attulit causam), or 20.3. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

New evidence for the heterogeneous character   

69

erally prefer(s) stronger adversatives. This tendency culminates in 37.2, where at and contra are used in combination.190 As regards disjunctive conjunctions and adverbs, we have already seen that sive … sive (25.6, [36.5], 43.1, 48.1, 63.2, 74.3) and partim … partim (31.1, 43.1, 44.1, 44.4, 46.5, 69.1, 76.2) are confined to chapters 22–78.191 The latter of these two expressions supersedes the use of pars … pars (20.2, 20.6), alius … alius (7.1, 13.2),192 and alter … alter (1.5, 19.5), which we only find in chapters 1–21. In particular, one may compare 1.5: ut aqua pabuloque abundaret, quarum alterius rei copiam exiguam, alterius nullam omnino facultatem habebat with 43.1: neque provinciae facultatibus [sc. Gabinius] sublevabatur, quae partim erat exinanita, partim infidelis, or 20.2: pars eorum studio spectandi ferebatur, pars etiam cupidi­ tate pugnandi with 31.1: quod … studio partim pugnandi, partim spectandi decucurrissent, or 20.6: quorum pars … depressa est, pars … interfecta est with 46.5: propugnatores Octaviani partim in navibus iugulantur, partim in mare praecipitantur and 76.2: multis militibus partim interfectis, partim … oppressis. More homogeneous is the use of vel, -ve, and aut. The enclitic -ve is extremely rare in both parts and is attested only in the forms quidve (63.4) and neve (9.1, 34.1, 34.2). vel, too, is rare and features more frequently in the later chapters.193 aut, on the contrary, occurs a little more often in chapters 1–21194 and is employed in a slightly different fashion: in chapters 1–21, it is mostly used in pairs (aut A aut B: 1.2, 15.8 (bis), 16.2) or triplets (aut A aut B aut C: 18.1), while single occurrences are comparatively rare (1.3, 2.1); in chapters 22–78, however, the pattern A aut B (8×) is just as frequent as the pattern aut A aut B (8×).195 If we add the attestations of disjunctive conjunctions and adverbs to those of the corresponding usages of pars, alter, and alius, the overall frequencies of such expressions in chapters 1–21 (7.5×/1000 words) and 22–78 (6.46×/1000 words) are not too far apart. Consequently, as in the case of the adversatives (see above),

190 at contra is a frequent hexameter opening in Lucretius’ De Rerum Natura (1.366, al.) and occurs a few times in Cicero and Sallust, but is avoided by Caesar, Hirtius, the other continuators, and Livy (see TLL s.v. at 1003.57–1004.13). Far more common is sed tamen (76.1), which also features in the Caesarian commentarii (Gal. 5.43.5, 6× Civ.) and is fairly frequent in Cicero (> 500×). 191 Cf. p. 37 n. 36, p. 55, and Andrieu 1954: xxxiii. 192 In chapters 22–78, alius … alius occurs only once and is used in a different way, cf. 24.1: fallacem gentem semperque alia cogitantem, alia simulantem. 193 Apart from 42.3, where it does not mean ‘or’, but ‘even’, vel only occurs in the form vel … vel (8.2, 27.2, 48.1, 74.1, 75.1). The respective frequencies for chapters 1–21 and 22–78 are 0.68 and 1.05 (per 1000 words). 194 It is attested 13 times in B.Alex. 1–21 (4.43×/1000 words) and 24 times in B.Alex. 22–78 (3.16×/1000 words). 195 Cf. 25.1, 29.2, 39.1, 43.2, 46.5, 50.2, 51.4, 76.3 (A aut B) and 22.2, 23.1, 49.2, 49.3, 53.5, 57.5, 66.5, 70.2 (aut A aut B). © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

70

Language and style of the Bellum Alexandrinum 

the discrepancies in the use of disjunctive expressions do not result from differences in the contents or narrative structure, but reflect different linguistic preferences.196

(h) Copulative conjunctions With regard to the copulative conjunctions, it is interesting to see that the more emphatic connective atque/ac occurs about three times more frequently in chapters 1–21 than in chapters 22–78197 and that et is at least 1.37 times more frequent in B.Alex. 1–21;198 -que, on the contrary, is slightly more often found in the later chapters,199 and nec/neque are just as frequent in chapters 1–21 (5× nec, 21× neque) as in the rest of the work (11× nec, 39× neque). On the whole, words meaning ‘and’ generally play  a much greater role in B.Alex. 1–21 (223×, i. e. 76.11×/1000 words) than in B.Alex. 22–78 (435×, i. e. 57.37×/1000 words). Thus, the two parts differ not only in the choice of connectives, but also more abstractly in the way in which the narrative is structured. In addition to these statistical observations, there are also some interesting differences concerning the usage of copulative conjunctions. In Gal. 1–7, Civ. 1–3, and B.Alex. 1–21, -que is hardly ever attached to an infinitive;200 in B.Alex. 22–78, on the contrary, the phenomenon is quite common (23.1, 27.2, 34.1, 38.1, 45.3, 61.6).201 This fact not only illustrates the heterogeneous nature of the ­Bellum ­Alexandrinum, but also corroborates the attribution of chapters 1–21 to Caesar. Furthermore, there are three differences in the usage of atque and ac. First, the combination of atque and ac with an alliterative pair is far more frequent in B.Alex. 1–21 than in the later chapters (atque: 2.1, 7.1, 19.4 and 22.1, 27.5; ac: 16.2, 20.5; cf. e. g. Caes.  Gal.  2.15.5, al., Civ.  1.22.3, al., Hirt.  Gal.  8.12.6, al. (atque), Caes. Gal. 2.19.7, al., Civ. 1.7.1, al., Hirt. Gal. 8.8.2 (ac)). Secondly, atque and ac 196 There is, however, one important difference relating to the contents: in the later chapters, sive … sive and aut … aut often introduce different versions of the events, see section 4.1, pp. 77–8 with n. 14 below. 197 atque features 41× in B.Alex. 1–21 (i. e. 13.99×/1000 words) and 32× in B.Alex. 22–78 (i. e. 4.22×/1000 words), ac 22× in B.Alex. 1–21 (i. e. 7.51×/1000 words) and only 19× in B.Alex. 22–78 (i. e. 2.51×/1000 words). 198 et occurs 72× in B.Alex. 1–21 (i. e. 24.57×/1000 words) and 136× in B.Alex. 22–78 (i. e. 17.93×/1000 words). 199 -que is attested 62× in B.Alex. 1–21 (i. e. 21.16×/1000 words) and 198× in B.Alex. 22–78 (i. e. 26.11×/1000 words). 200 The only exceptions are Gal. 5.6.4, 5.7.6 and Civ. 1.19.3; cf. Ringe 1880: 16, Landgraf 1888a: 60, d’Ooge 1901: 38–9. 201 In the rest of the Corpus Caesarianum, the phenomenon is attested only at B.Afr. 26.5, 51.3. Hence, Landgraf ’s claim (1888a: 60) that the usage is characteristic of Hirtius is ­unfounded. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

New evidence for the heterogeneous character   

71

connect main clauses only in B.Alex. 1–21 (atque: 3.2, 15.7; ac: 12.3, 15.6, 17.4);202 in chapters 22–78, this function is taken over by et (29.4, 48.1, 49.1, 58.2 and 42.3: et … et).203 A third difference concerns preconsonantal atque. In chapters 1–21 and 22–78 atque is almost always placed before a word that begins with a vowel or the letter h, whereas ac is regularly followed by a word that begins with a consonant.204 The only exception to these rules occurs at 2.1: magnumque numerum in oppidum telorum atque tormentorum convexerant. This rare case of preconsonantal atque has many parallels in the Caesarian commentarii205 and Hirtius (Gal. 8.pr.6, 8.41.6). As in other authors,206 the use of preconsonantal atque is likely to be prompted by considerations of rhythm and euphony, but so far we have been unable to discern  a statistically significant pattern that would explain Caesar’s usage.207

202 Fischer (1880: 23–4) emphasizes that this usage is absent from Gal. 8. 203 The use of -que to add a main clause to the preceding sentence is equally common in B.Alex. 1–21 and 22–78, cf. 1.2, 2.4, 3.1, 3.4, 10.2, 14.5, 19.3, 19.5 and 26.2 (bis), 28.2, 42.3, 43.2, 61.4, 66.3, 69.3, 78.2. 204 The common rule of thumb that neque and nec are used in the same fashion as atque and ac does not apply to the Bellum Alexandrinum. Instead, neque and nec are used indiscriminately before words beginning with a vowel or a consonant; nec is avoided only before gutturals (cf. neque before gutturals at 7.1, 56.6, 61.4). 205 Cf. Gal.  1.2.5, 1.34.3 [atque emulomento α, atque emolumento β, atque molimento G. ­Faernus apud Ursinus 1570: Emendationes, p. 27], 2.6.2, 3.8.2, 4.1.8, 4.2.2, 4.3.3, 5.7.1, 5.21.3, 6.23.5, 7.32.3, Civ. 1.5.1, 1.7.5, 1.20.2, 1.40.4, 1.80.1, 2.2.5, 2.4.2, 2.9.6, 2.9.7, 3.4.3, 3.10.5, 3.19.1, 3.30.1, LC s.vv. ac/atque 49–51 (I.), 321 (I.A), and preconsonantal simul atque at Gal. 4.27.1, 5.3.3, Civ.  1.18.2, 2.20.2. There are no other attestations of preconsonantal atque in Caesar’s commentarii: at Gal. 4.10.5 (atque] atque qui β), 4.25.3 (at] atque α), 4.38.3 (at Q.] atque A T, at quem B), 7.34.1 (eaque quae Beroaldus 1504: s.p., Panaetius 1511: 37 recto (et alii edd. vett.), eaque A1 U, ea quae Ac B, atque quae T), 7.53.2 (levi facto equestri proelio, atque eo [om. α] secundo; cf. KS vol. II.1, 16–17 and Civ. 1.27.4: atque eis), 7.79.4 (itaque] atque A Q), Civ. 3.21.5 (quae S L N, -que β, atque Beroaldus 1504: s.p.) preconsonantal atque is an unattractive conjecture or variant. 206 On preconsonantal atque in rhythmic prose (outside the Corpus Caesarianum) see ­especially Wolff 1901: 637–40, Axelson 1945: 83–4 n. 72, E. Fraenkel 1968: 130, 162–3, Nisbet 1990: 355–7, Winterbottom 1992, Hutchinson 1995, 1998: 9–12, 87, 109 n. 49, 153, Berry 1996: 53–4, Zwierlein 2002; on the treatment of atque in poetry see Butterfield 2008. 207 Caesar’s commentarii are commonly considered ‘unrhythmic’ (cf. e. g. Norden 1898/ 1958: vol. 2, 939, Skutsch 1905: 432, N. Schneider 1912: 103–4, Sabbadini 1920, Kroll 1928: 212, Löfstedt 1928–1933: vol. 2, 307–11, Hutchinson 1998: 10), but some of the speeches in Gal. and Civ. have clearly been influenced by the ancient conventions of prose rhythm. A thorough investigation that takes up and expands on the observations of Harkness (1910: 158), Klotz (1910: 223–39, 258 and 1928: 398), N. Schneider (1912: 103–4), Holtz (1913: 30–40), Lejay (1914: 469), Schmid (1959: 156–8), Chausserie-Laprée (1969: 419–89), Richter (1977: 77–8), and Grillo (2012: 90–1) is badly needed. Cf. also von Albrecht 1971: 77 n. 9. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

72

Language and style of the Bellum Alexandrinum 

(i) Subordinating conjunctions Distinct tastes and predilections can finally also be observed in the use of sub­ ordinating conjunctions. The conditional subjunction quodsi occurs only in B.Alex. 1–21 and is another linguistic link between the early chapters and the C ­ aesarian commentarii (B.Alex. 8.2, B.Afr. 31.2, 7× Gal., 2× Civ., †). Likewise, post(ea)quam, which is not uncommon in the Bellum Gallicum and Bellum ­Civile,208 occurs only in the first 21 chapters of the Bellum Alexandrinum (12.2, 14.1, 20.3, 21.1). In B.Alex. 22–78 the absence of post(ea)quam is compensated by more frequent use of cum + subj.209 and by temporal ut (5×),210 which is completely absent from chapters 1–21. Moreover, the later chapters show a striking tendency to postpone the subjunction cum (e. g. 34.2, 37.2, 44.1; cf. pp. 38–9 n. 46 above), and there are several attestations of the archaic variant uti,211 which is avoided in the early sections of the Bellum Alexandrinum.212

208 Caesar slightly prefers postquam (12× = 8× Gal., 4× Civ.) over posteaquam (8×, only Gal.); the corresponding ratio in B.Alex. 1–21 is 3:1. 209 cum + subj. occurs only 11× in B.Alex. 1–21 (i. e. 3.75×/1000 words), but 78× in B. Alex. 22–78 (= 10.29×/1000 words), i. e. three times more often. In many passages cum indicates primarily a temporal relation and could easily be replaced by postquam, cf. e. g. 25.5: nam cum ad Canopum ventum esset, 45.2, 57.3, 61.2 with 14.1: postquam eo ventum est, ut … or 27.2: cum … cognovisset, 29.2: rex cum … comperisset, 45.1 with 21.1: postquam universos cedere animadvertit. 210 Cf. 27.7, 31.2: quo ut ventum est, 43.1: Gabinius ut in Illyricum venit …, 47.4: quo ut venit, 64.2: de cuius adventu ut cognovit Cassius. At least in 31.2, 43.1, 47.4, and 64.2 the author could also have used postquam, cf. 14.1 and 21.1 (quoted in n. 209) and e. g. B.Afr. 81.1: quo postquam Caesar pervenit … (~ B.Afr. 85.5). In the Bellum Gallicum and Bellum Civile temporal ut is attested, but rare (cf. Gal. 1.31.12, 1.43.4, 7.46.5, Civ. 3.6.1, 3.63.6, 3.94.5, no other attestations). The shift from postquam to cum and ut was already observed by Schiller (1890: 395–6) and Dahms (1906: 9). 211 Cf. 42.4, 44.2 (uti S L N U R, ut M T V), and 63.4. 212 On the archaic character of the conjunction see Edmar 1931: 139–40, Heusch 1954: 133–5, HS 632. Generally, archaic features are extremely rare in the Bellum Alexandrinum. The only other distinctly archaic detail is the use of maritumus instead of maritimus (on the ­archaic character cf. TLL s.v. 399.81–400.4, Leumann 1977: 88). The critical editions of Nipperdey (1847) and Klotz (1926–27: vol. 3) suggest that it follows a similar pattern and that maritimus is used in chapters 1–21, maritumus in chapters 22–78. This, however, is not the case. In manuscript S we mostly find forms of the archaic variant maritumus (12.4, 25.3, 26.2, 43.2, 44.4 against 16.5: matrimis [sic!]), which also prevails in manuscript T (25.3, 26.2, 43.2, 44.4 against 12.4: maritimae, 16.5: maritimis); manuscripts N, L, U, R, and V, on the contrary, only contain forms of maritimus, which is also more common in M (12.4, 16.5, 25.3, 26.2, 44.4 against 43.2: ­maritumum). © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

Conclusion   

73

3.6. Conclusion From the survey of the linguistic evidence three facts emerge. First, the conventional attribution of the entire Bellum Alexandrinum to Hirtius or an anonymous dilettante has never been properly established and is contradicted by numerous linguistic observations. Secondly, the Bellum Alexandrinum is highly heterogeneous, and the linguistic variation cannot be explained by differences in subject matter. And thirdly, within the heterogeneous text of the Bellum Alexandrinum the first 21 chapters form a distinct unit, which differs from the remaining work in its strong Caesarian flavour and in the use of ablatives absolute, sentence-initial verbs, pronouns, connecting adverbs, and conjunctions. All three facts suggest that the attribution of the work to Hirtius or an anonymous dilettante should be discarded and that Landgraf, Zingerle, Dahms, and Pötter have been correct in assuming that the Bellum Alexandrinum is not the work of a single author but rather an assemblage of two (or more) different reports. This point can be further corroborated, if we leave the language and style of the Bellum Alexandrinum behind and turn to its literary qualities. In the following chapter we will take a closer look at the historiographical method of the work and compare the quality of the historical data and its presentation in chapters 1–21 and 22–78.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

4. Literary technique and historiographical method  

Since most previous research on the Bellum Alexandrinum has focused on the question of authorship, the literary technique and historiographical method of the work are virtually unexplored. The present chapter will attempt to shed some light on these neglected aspects of the Bellum Alexandrinum. First of all, we shall take a closer look at the historical data and demonstrate that the quality of the information varies considerably. Moving from the historical facts to their presentation we shall then investigate how events and actors are described and evaluated. The third and forth sections will be devoted to the underlying concepts of historical change and the different temporal perspectives of the narrative. Finally, in the fifth part of this chapter, we shall consider the Bellum Alexandrinum in the wider context of ancient historiography. Based on the observations of the preceding sections and an analysis of the battle descriptions in chapters 13–16 and 25, we shall demonstrate that the Bellum Alexandrinum on the one hand is heavily influenced by the tradition of Hellenistic historiography, but on the other hand imitates the motifs and literary technique of Thucydides’ classical account of the Peloponnesian War.

4.1. The density and quality of the historical information (a) The events in Lower Egypt (B.Alex. 1–33) Just as varied as the style and language of the Bellum Alexandrinum are the density and quality of the historical information. This becomes most obvious, if we compare B.Alex. 1–21 with the remaining account of the war in Egypt in B.Alex. 22–33.1 The narrator of chapters 1–21 is intimately familiar with Caesar’s plans and the morale of his troops and generously shares his knowledge with the reader: we are informed about Caesar’s strategic objectives2 and 1 The different quality of these sections has already been observed (but not studied in detail) by Landgraf (1888a: 107), Zingerle (1892: 79–80), and Pötter (1932: 24–5). Klotz (1910: 197–8) admits that the account of the later chapters is less specific, but he thinks that the narrative changes after B.Alex. 25.6 (Euphranor’s death) and not after B.Alex. 21.5. Judeich (1885: 5, 7–8) and Walther (1903: 23) fail to differentiate between chapters 1–21 and 22–33 and regard the quality of the information contained in B.Alex. 1–33 as generally poor. 2 Cf. e. g. 1.4–5: Caesar maxime studebat, ut …, illud spectans, primum ut …, deinde ut …, inprimis vero ut …, 10.1: Caesar, ut per se consilium caperet, quid faciendum videretur, …, 10.5–6: © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

The density and quality of the historical information   

75

worries,3 get a graphic description of the panic of the Roman soldiers after the water supply has been spoilt (7.1), and learn how Caesar dispelled the anxiety of his troops (8.1–6) or encouraged them before the decisive battle in the Eunostos harbour.4 The narrator of the later chapters, on the contrary, often skips Caesar’s considerations or makes vague allusions that reveal his very lack of information. Thus the military operations preceding the arrival of Mithridates (26.1) are presented as a series of unconnected events.5 Also, the account of the liberation of the young king Ptolemy in chapters 23–4 is patently self-contradictory. On the one hand Caesar seems to be fooled by the Alexandrians and the young king’s melodramatic display of affection (cf. 24.1: credebat, 24.4: Caesar ipse commotus),6 but on the other hand he is credited with a clever strategic plan (24.6): accidisse hoc complures Caesaris legati, amici, centuriones militesque laetabantur, quod nimia bonitas eius fallaciis pueri elusa esset—quasi vero id Caesar bonitate tantum adductus ac non prudentissimo consilio fecisset. Many of Caesar’s staff officers, friends, centurions, and soldiers were delighted that this had happened, thinking that his excessive kindness had been fooled by the deceptive tricks of the boy—as if indeed Caesar had done this only because of his kindness and not because of a very wise plan.7

The ‘very wise plan’ mentioned in the last sentence is never explained to the reader. One might be tempted to identify it with the thoughts that are attributed to Caesar a few lines earlier at 24.1: qui duabus de causis eo die dimicare nolebat, quod et … et …, 17.1: hoc ne sibi saepius accidere posset, omni ratione Caesar contendendum existimavit, ut …, and 19.2: sed eum [i. e. alterum pontem] postero die simili ratione adgreditur, quod his [sc. pontibus] obtentis duobus omnem ­navigiorum excursum et repentina latrocinia sublatum iri videbatur. 3 Cf. 15.3: “videris mihi,” inquit [sc. Euphranor],“Caesar, vereri, si …” and 21.2: fore quod accidit suspicatus. 4 Cf. 16.3: haec superioribus diebus saepenumero Caesar suis exposuerat, ut … . 5 More information about Caesar’s and king Ptolemy’s plans can be found towards the end of the Egyptian campaign (B.Alex. 28–33), cf. 28.2: Caesar eodem itinere uti noluit, ne navibus in flumine dimicaret, 30.3: Caesar adgressus omnibus copiis expugnat, non quo …, sed ut …, and 33.2–3 (motives for stationing Roman troops in Egypt). 6 Cf. Cass. Dio 42.42.3: ὁ οὖν Καῖσαρ ἐνόμισε μὲν καὶ ὡς ἀληθῶς αὐτοὺς μεταβεβλῆσθαι. Ptolemy’s disingenuous display of affection (B.Alex. 24.3) resembles the hypocritical declarations of loyalty in Roman comedy, cf. Plaut. Mil. 1339–43, 1354–77. For other themes and motifs borrowed from Greco-Roman drama see pp. 141–3 below. 7 One may compare Civ.  1.72–4, where the staff officers, tribunes, and centurions urge Caesar to adopt  a more offensive strategy (1.72.2: concurrebant legati, centuriones tribunique militum …), but later admit that he was right to avoid unnecessary bloodshed (1.74.7): erant plena laetitia et gratulatione omnia et eorum, qui tanta pericula vitasse, et eorum, qui sine ­vulnere tantas res confecisse videbantur, magnumque fructum suae pristinae lenitatis omnium iudicio Caesar ferebat, consiliumque eius a cunctis probabatur. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

76

Literary technique and historiographical method  

Caesar etsi fallacem gentem semperque alia cogitantem, alia simulantem bene cog­ nitam habebat, tamen petentibus dare veniam utile esse statuit, quod, si quo pacto sentirent ea quae postularent, mansurum in fide dimissum regem credebat, sin, id quod magis illorum naturae conveniebat, ducem ad bellum gerendum regem habere vellent, splendidius atque honestius se contra regem quam contra convenarum ac fugitivorum manum bellum esse gesturum. Although Caesar had well understood this deceitful people, which was always thinking one thing and pretending another, he nevertheless decided that it would be useful to grant them the favour they were asking for, because he believed that, if they somehow sincerely believed what they were saying in their request, the king would remain loyal to him even after he had been sent away; if however, as was more consistent with their natural disposition, they wished to have the king as a leader for waging the war, it would be more illustrious and honourable to wage war against a king than against a group of strangers and fugitives.

These thoughts, however, hardly constitute a prudentissimum consilium, for the only consideration that concerns the later course of events is  a reflection on the glory and fame of  a war waged against king Ptolemy. In addition, the argument ascribed to Caesar at B.Alex. 24.1 patently contradicts his earlier considerations at Civ. 3.109.6, where we are told that he deliberately put the young king under arrest and prevented him from joining the Egyptian troops, because he wanted to create the impression that the war was merely  a revolt organized by  a few private individuals and brigands (ut potius privato paucorum et latronum quam regio consilio susceptum bellum videretur).8 Thus, neither the considerations at B.Alex. 24.1 nor the prudentissimum consilium of B.Alex. 24.6 are likely to reflect Caesar’s strategy. Instead, both are mere speculations by someone who lacked precise information about the events in Alexandria,9 8 This contradiction has been observed already by e. g. Judeich (1885: 8), Pötter (1932: 26), Andrieu (1954: 24 n. 2), and Heinen (1966: 122 = 2009: 107–8). Andrieu’s claim that B.Alex. 24.1 is a deliberate, but clumsy imitation of Civ. 3.109.6 is not particularly plausible. The considerations mentioned at Civ. 3.109.6 closely resemble Caesar’s propaganda during the Civil War: just as he presents the war in Egypt as a revolt of brigands, he earlier tried to create the impression that the Civil War was primarily a private conflict with his inimici (cf. Jal 1963: 62, Raaf­ laub 1974: 113–152, 183–6, 238–9 and 2003: 59–61) and characterized the Pompeian armies as brigands and barbarians (cf. e. g. Civ.  1.14.4–5, 1.24.2, 1.38.3, 1.56.2–3, 1.57.4 and Collins 1972: 953–4, Grillo 2012: 69–70, 141, 142); for the exploitation of these motifs in earlier and later propaganda see MacMullen 1963, Shaw 1984: 23, 33, and especially Jal’s discussion (1963: 67–70, 78) of Cicero’s speeches against Catiline and Mark Antony, B.Hisp. 1.4, Sal. Hist. 1.77.7 (Maurenbrecher), Paneg. 2(12).36.3–4, 12(9).5.3, Julian. Paneg. Const. 27 (p.  34A Spanheim = p. 42 Hertlein), and other texts. 9 While Caesar (Civ. 3.109.6, see above) correctly speaks of privati and latrones, thus evoking the Roman distinction between  a bellum (iustum) and illegal violence (cf. Pompon. Dig. 50.16.118: ‘hostes’ hi sunt, qui nobis aut quibus nos publice bellum decrevimus; ceteri ‘latrones’ aut ‘praedones’ sunt), the author of B.Alex. 24.1 wrongly creates the impression that the revolt was © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

The density and quality of the historical information   

77

had no idea of Caesar’s real motives,10 and could only try to rationalize Caesar’s behaviour.11 Like the information about Caesar and his strategy, the information about the enemy varies considerably between B.Alex. 1–21 and 22–33. In the early chapters we are given background information about the intrigues of the Egyptian court (4.1–2),12 learn about the political views of the Alexandrians (3.2–4), and get a detailed account of their strategy.13 In the later chapters, however, the intentions and plans of the enemy are no longer specified in detail, but become a mat-

not led by the Egyptians, but by foreigners (convenae and fugitivi). This illuminating detail has been overlooked by R. Schneider (1888a: 18), Andrieu (1954: 24), Giomini (1956: 99–100), and Simonetti Abbolito (1981: 371). 10 R. Schneider (1888a: 18) plausibly suggests that Caesar may have released the king in order to create discord in the enemy camp; Graindor (1931: 120–1) and Heinen (1966: 122–6 = 2009: 107–11) argue that he was eager to achieve some sort of settlement with the Egyptians, because he feared that he might otherwise be defeated by them. According to Schäfer (2006: ­76–8), Caesar (and Cleopatra) wanted to get rid of king Ptolemy, and the only way to do so without creating a political scandal was by making him join the enemy camp (similarly Macurdy 1932: 188; cf. also Cass. Dio 42.42.4). For further hypotheses and literature see Schäfer 2006: 299 nn. 93–97. 11 One may contrast these speculations with the clearer and more precise account of two similar events at Gal. 7.54.2–4 and Civ. 1.72–4 (cf. especially Civ. 1.72.4 and n. 7 above) and with Cassius Dio’s treatment of the Egyptian campaign. The latter bears re­semblance to the narrative of the Bellum Alexandrinum (cf. B.Alex. 24.1 ~ 42.42.3–5 and Grohs 1884: 82–3, Jung 1900: 34–5), but appears much more consistent and logical, because Caesar is already aware of the imminent arrival of the reinforcements led by Mithridates (cf. Cass. Dio 42.42.5; contrast B.Alex. 25.1: nondum auditum Caesari erat) and consequently need not worry about the potential consequences of an alliance between the young king Ptolemy and the Egyptians (cf. Cass. Dio 42.42.3–5 and Schäfer 2006: 76). This smoothening out of inconsistencies would accord well with Livy’s technique (cf. Tränkle 1977: 48–9, 64–72) and suits the traditional view that Dio’s account is based on the lost books of Ab Urbe condita: cf. Wilmans 1835: 14–19 (especially pp.  17–18), Heimbach 1878, Haupt 1884: 680–5, Grohs 1884: 78–83 (especially pp.  81, 83), Judeich 1885: 14–32, Schwartz 1899: 1697–1714, Graindor 1931: 14–15 (with further literature in n. 3), and Radicke 2004: 24–7; see also Simons 2009: 5–8. 12 As pointed out on pp. 50–51, the information given here does not contradict Caesar’s remarks at Civ. 3.112.10–11, nor is it merely a cheap imitation of the latter passage. 13 Cf. 2.3: veteranas cohortes vacuas in celeberrimis urbis locis habebant ut, quacumque regio­ne pugnaretur, integris viribus ad auxilium ferendum opponi possent, 5.3: quo facto est ad­ monitus Ganymedes posse nostros aqua intercludi, 10.3: qua re comperta magnam sibi facultatem fortunam obtulisse bene gerendae rei crediderunt, 12.1: eo detrimento adeo sunt fracti Alexandrini, 12.4: praeterea nautici homines, urbis et regionis maritimae, … ad naturale ac domesticum bonum refugere cupiebant …; itaque omni studio ad parandam classem incubuerunt, 14.4: magnum … numerum minorum navigiorum et scapharum producunt cum malleolis ignibusque, si quid ipsa multitudo et clamor et flamma nostris terroris adferre possent. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

78

Literary technique and historiographical method  

ter of speculation, cf. 23.1: Alexandrini …, ut coniectura consequi possumus, aut admoniti a regis amicis … aut suo priore consilio … probato.14 Similar discrepancies can be observed in the handling of the historical events and the Egyptian topography. Several facts suggest that chapters 1–21 are the ­account of an eye-witness. The narrator markedly refers to the Caesarian troops as nos rather than nostri, thus indicating that he himself took part in the campaign, cf. 3.1: quae a nobis fieri viderant and 19.6: pugnabatur a nobis ex ponte, ex mole.15 Moreover, of all the extant historical sources, he gives by far the most detailed and reliable account of the Alexandrian topography,16 the fortification 14 See also p. 81 n. 26 and cf. sive … sive at 25.6 (of Caesar’s navy), 43.1 (of the Caesarian general Gabinius), 48.1 (of Caesar’s propraetor Cassius Longinus), 74.3 (of Pharnaces). The use of aut … aut and sive … sive to enumerate different versions of the historical events is fundamentally different from the enumerations at B.Alex. 1.2, 15.8, 16.2, 18.1, but has a few prece­ dents in the Bellum Gallicum (1.27.4, 3.13.6) and Bellum Civile (1.27.2, 2.27.2, 3.104.1). It is more common in later historians (especially Livy and Tacitus), cf. Whitehead 1979, C. S. Kraus 1994: 157 on Liv. 6.12.1, and Hausmann 2009: 51–66. While Herodotus and other Greek historians offer close parallels (e. g. Hdt. 1.19.2, 1.61.2, 1.86.2), Thucydides does not cite alternatives: cf. Rood 1998: 106 n. 100 on Thuc. 5.65.3 (the only exception). 15 Since this was obviously incompatible with the hypothesis of Hirtian authorship (cf. Hirt. Gal. 8.pr.8: mihi ne illud quidem accidit, ut Alexandrino atque Africano bello interessem), Nipperdey (1846: 6–7 ~ 1847: 11) and others (cf. Fischer 1880: 5 for references) wanted to change nobis to nostris. This suggestion has rightly been discarded on methodological grounds (cf. Schiller 1880b: 249 and the criticism of Vielhaber 1869: 547–9, R. Schneider 1888a: v, Walther 1903: 24, Dahms 1906: 10, Klotz 1910: 192, Andrieu 1954: xxv n. 1, and Giomini 1956: 28). Other scholars tried to bring the text in line with Hirtian authorship by arguing that nobis does not imply personal involvement, but only a Roman perspective (“Äußerung römischer Subjektivität”, cf. Schiller 1891b: 54–5), by suggesting that Hirtius adopts the perspective of someone directly participating in the events (cf. Seel 1935: 31–2), or by pointing to other passages in ancient literature where the perspective of an underlying primary source has not been adjusted by the historian (cf. Klotz 1910: 181, 192–5, with reference to Polyb. 1.63.4, 1.79.12, 4.38.4,5,7, 5.104.10, 7.9.1, 11.31.6, 15.19.5, 24.12.4, 29.19.8, Sal. Jug. 91.7). The first two explanations are wild guesses that are not substantiated by conclusive parallels in Caesar or other Latin authors (cf. Klotz 1910: 193, Kalinka 1939: 223–4); the third explanation by Klotz does not contradict the view that chapters 1–21 are written by an eye-witness and would even square with the hypothesis that they were originally composed by Julius Caesar. Cf. also n. 24 below. 16 Cf. especially B.Alex. 1.3–4, 3.1, 5.1–2, 7.2, 13.1, 14.5, 18.1. Of the other ancient sources, only Cassius Dio provides some orientation on the topography and the position of the Cae­ sarian and Egyptian forces (cf. 42.38.2, 42.40.1–3, 42.40.6, 42.41.1–2). B.Alex. 8.2 hardly qualifies as counter-evidence: the transmitted toponym Paratonio (printed e. g. by R. Schneider 1888a: 6, Kübler 1893–97: vol. 3, 6, Klotz 1926–27: vol. 3, 5) is unattested elsewhere, but Paraetonio (printed e. g. by Beroaldus 1504: s.p., A. P. Manutius 1513: 196 verso, Giunta 1514: 189 verso, Panaetius 1517: lxxxiii recto, P. Manutius 1569: 201 recto (Paretonio) and R. Stephanus 1544: 392, Strada 1575: 204H, Oudendorp 1737: vol. 2, 784, Nipperdey 1847: 628, Kraner 1861: 292, Dübner 1867: vol. 2, 210, Dinter 1887: vol. 3, 5, E. Hoffmann 1890: vol. 2, 175 (Paraetonio)) makes good sense, because Paraetonium was  a major port and a point of strategic importance (cf. Kees 1949: 1183). Some scholars have objected that the city is situated 250 km westwards of Alexandria and thus hardly qualifies as  a convenient source of water. They either keep the transmitted Paratonio and identify it with an area t­oday © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

The density and quality of the historical information   

79

works (1.2–5, 2.4–5),17 the two sea battles near Chersonensus and in the Eunostos harbour (10.1–16.7),18 Caesar’s capture of the island of Pharos (17–18),19 the fighting on the mole connecting Pharos with Alexandria (19–21),20 and the Alexandrians’ attempt to spoil Caesar’s water supply (5.1–9.2).21 called Albaradan or El Baradan about 100 km westwards of Alexandria (cf. Mahmoud-Bey 1872: 92, Judeich 1885: 88, Rice Holmes 1923: vol. 3, 492, Klotz 1926–27: vol. 3, 5), or they accept the emendation Paraetonio, but interpret it as referring to  a suburb or quarter of Alexandria (cf. Graindor 1931: 82–3, Giomini 1956: 250). Neither of these suggestions stands up to scrutiny. The second hypothesis is based on a misinterpretation of Luc. 10.9: Paraetoniam … in urbem, where Paraetonius does not refer to a quarter of Alexandria, but is merely used metonymically for Aegyptius (cf. Luc. 3.295, Mart. 10.26.1, Stat. Theb. 5.12, Kees 1949: 1184, and OLD s.v. 2). The first suggestion suffers from the fact that the location of Albaradan or El Baradan is not attested elsewhere under the name Paratonium (vel sim.) and is unlikely to have been familiar to the soldiers addressed at B.Alex. 8.2, let alone the readers of the Bellum Alexandrinum. In addition, a distance of 100 km is still far too long for supplying fresh water by ship on a daily basis (cf. 8.2: cotidie navibus aquam peterent), and even if this was logistically possible, one would wonder why Caesar does not first think of the Small Chersonesus (Χερσόνησος μικρά, probably today’s Marabit, c. 15 km south-westwards of Alexandria), where Caesar’s troops get water in a later episode of the Bellum Alexandrinum (cf. 10.2). If Caesar’s words are to make sense and to be meaningful to his troops and the contemporary Roman reader, one must read Paraetonio and should interpret the preposition a(b) not as indicating a precise origin, but a direction, cf. OLD s.v. a(b) 23a (‘in the direction of ’), TLL s.v. 21.79–22.40, KS vol. II.1, 492–3, Rolfe 1898: 496, and e. g. Cic. Fam. 15.4.4 (= 110.5 SB): Cappadocia …, quae patet a Syria, Caes. Gal. 1.1.5: attingit [sc. una pars] etiam ab Sequanis et Helvetiis flumen Rhenum, Sal. Cat. 58.6, Plin. Nat. 2.246, Tac. Ann. 11.31.3. The words vel a sinistra parte a Paraetonio vel dextra ab insula then simply mean ‘either from the left side in the direction of Paraetonium or from the right side in the direction of the island [i. e. the Nile Delta]’. 17 Appian only mentions various battles (B. C. 2.90.(377): ἀγῶνες … ποικίλοι) around the palace; Cassius Dio’s phrasing is similarly vague (42.38.2: πολλαὶ … μάχαι). 18 The only other sources that mention naval battles are Cassius Dio (42.38.3, 42.40.2–3) and Orosius (Hist. 6.15.33–4). Their accounts are far less specific than the extensive descriptions of the Bellum Alexandrinum. 19 The event is briefly referred to by Florus (Epit. 2.13.59), Plutarch (Vit. Caes. 49.7), and Cassius Dio (42.40.3–4). It must not be confused with Caesar’s occupation of the homonymous lighthouse in an earlier phase of the war: cf. Civ. 3.112.1–6 and Vielhaber 1869: 551 n. 12, Jud­ eich 1885: 91, Graindor 1931: 58, Andrieu 1954: 18 n. 3. 20 Cassius Dio links the fighting with Caesar’s capture of Pharos (42.40.3–5), thus condensing the action of at least two days into one battle (contrast B.Alex. 17–18, 19–21, especially 19.2: postero die, and Jung 1900: 32); also, he is more interested in Caesar’s dramatic flight (contrast B.Alex. 21.1–3) than in the military action. Shorter versions of the account given by Cassius Dio can be found in Suetonius (Jul. 64), Plutarch (Vit. Caes. 49.7–8), Appian (B. C. 2.90.(370), 2.150.(628)), Florus (Epit. 2.13.59), and Orosius (Hist. 6.15.33–4). Lucan (10.534–46) deviates from the historiographical tradition and presents the centurion Scaeva as Caesar’s saviour (cf. Radicke 2004: 510). 21 Plutarch (Vit. Caes. 49.6) and Cassius Dio (42.38.4) give a simplified version of the events and write that the enemy tried to shut Caesar off from the water supply. Jung’s claim (1900: 25– 6) that the description of the water supply at B.Alex. 5.3, 9.1–2, 10.2 is self-contradictory seems far-fetched: cf. Judeich 1885: 70–1, 72, 86, 87–8 and Graindor 1931: 80–4, 86. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

80

Literary technique and historiographical method  

The objections raised by Seel (1935: 15–19) and his claim that the narrator of chapters 1–21 lacks firsthand knowledge are based entirely on the mention of a palus a meridie interiecta in B.Alex. 1.4 and do not bear scrutiny. According to Seel, the existence of the palus a meridie interiecta is doubtful, and Caesar’s efforts to reach the palus to secure a steady supply of water and fodder (1.5: ut … aqua pabuloque abundaret) are incompatible with the shortage of water mentioned in chapters 5–9. Neither of these two points is valid. First, we are never told that Caesar ever accomplished his goal and reached the palus (cf. 1.4: maxime studebat); hence, there is no contradiction between the information given at B.Alex. 1.4–5 and chapters 5–9.22 Secondly, Seel’s doubts concerning the existence of the palus a meridie interiecta are misguided, for palus is likely to refer to Lake Mareotis, which is called palus also by Curtius Rufus (4.7.9, 4.8.1, 4.8.2).23 Finally, even 22 Seel’s assumption that the attempt would not have been mentioned, if it had not been successful is invalid: cf. p. 96 with nn. 85–7 below. In addition, the temporary shortage of drinking water described in B.Alex. 5.1–9.2 strongly suggests that Caesar never reached the palus: cf. Judeich 1885: 87 and Graindor 1931: 62. 23 We owe these parallels to R. Schneider (1888b: 336). A look at the attestations of intericere shows that the verb can be used fairly loosely. At Gal. 3.8.1: in magno impetu maris atque aperto, paucis portibus interiectis quos tenent ipsi, omnes fere … habent vectigales Caesar employs interiectus almost in the general sense of ‘exist’, for he does not indicate between which other locations the harbours are ‘inserted’. In view of this parallel, palus a meridie interiecta can simply mean ‘the marsh that intervenes towards the south [sc. outside the city]’. On the use of the preposition a(b) to indicate a direction rather than a place of origin, see n. 16 above; for angustissimam partem oppidi … efficiebat cf. Gal. 4.10.1, 4.10.4: Rhenus … in plures diffluit ­partes multis ingentibusque insulis effectis, and 6.31.3. From Caesar’s perspective, the area between his own positions near the Eastern harbour and the south-eastern end of street R2 could rightly be called the narrowest part of the city: see map 2, p. 304. Cf. also Plin. Nat. 5.62, Strabo 17.1.8: τὰ δ’ ἐπὶ πλάτος οἱ ἰσθμοί, and Tarbell 1906: 284–6 with fig. 1.  Previous scholars assumed that the marsh or swamp must have protruded right into the city. Mahmoud-Bey (1872: 27–8, 109–10) placed it in a long depression that projected northwards from Lake Mareotis towards Cape Lochias (cf. the grey area in map 2, p. 305), and Wachsmuth (1880: 453), followed by Graindor (1931: 63–4, 66), added that the depression together with the palus may have been connected to the ‘harbour on the lake’ (ὁ λιμὴν ὁ λιμναῖος) mentioned by Strabo (17.1.7). Noack (1900: 277), on the contrary, suggested that during the annual Nile flood, which reaches its greatest extension in late September and early October (i. e. at that time of the year when the street fighting described in B.Alex. 1.4–5 took place), Lake Mareotis and the canals which connected Alexandria with the Nile temporarily flooded parts of the depression (thus also Rice Holmes 1923: vol. 3, 491). None of these hypotheses bears scrutiny. In the course of his excavations, Mahmoud-Bey (1872: 12–14) found remains of a massive, 5m thick city-wall near the south-eastern end of the streets R1 and R3bis/R4bis (cf. map 2, p. 305). Later research has corroborated his reconstruction of the street grid and the city-wall, and it is today commonly agreed that both go back to the Ptolemaic period (cf. Noack 1900: 231–9, 266–9, McKenzie 2007: 20–4 and 25–9, with further literature). The strong fortifications dis­ covered by Mahmoud-Bey contradict the idea of a harbour or swamp protruding into the city from the south (cf. also Puchstein 1893: 1382) and are incompatible with the view that the depression was regularly inundated during the Nile flood. Moreover, also the hypothesis of a temporal or permanent swamp or marsh inside the city-wall is rather implausible (cf. Noack © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

The density and quality of the historical information   

81

if Seel was correct and this particular detail of the description was incompatible with the topography of ancient Alexandria, the inaccuracy would be fairly minor compared to the wealth of details contained in chapters 1–21. It could be a mere gap in the narrator’s memory and is no sufficient reason to doubt that chapters 1–21 were written by an eye-witness. Whereas the early sections of the Bellum Alexandrinum show great familiarity with the events and the Alexandrian topography, chapters 22–33 are written from a more distanced perspective. When referring to the Caesarian troops, the narrator of the later sections does not speak of ‘us’ (nos), but only of ‘our troops’ (nostri)24 or distances himself even further by using Romani (‘Roman troops’, only at 23.1, 25.1).25 Furthermore, he appears uncertain about the historical facts,26 and his account is often lacunose and inferior to the remaining tradition.27 In chapter 22 the detailed report of the fighting in Alexandria is suddenly replaced by empty ranting28 about the superior morale of the Caesarian troops: (1) 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 1900: 275), especially, if we take into consideration that Alexandria was densely populated in the first century B. C. (cf. McKenzie 2007: 34, 68, 75). Finally, a relatively small swamp or marsh inside the city-walls could hardly have provided enough fresh water and fodder for Caesar’s troops. On the difficulties of reconstructing the topography of Alexandria and its surroundings see also Breccia 1922: 59–85, Fraser 1972: vol. 1, 7–37, passim, Tkaczow 1984 and 1993: 23–4, McKenzie 2007: 8–30, Kenawi 2011a,b, and the contributions to Robinson/Wilson 2010. 24 Of course, nostri also occurs in B.Alex. 1–21 (3.1, al.). It is primarily used when the Caesarian troops are divided and the narrator refers to one of the various detachments; cf. e. g. 15.8, 16.1, 16.5, 16.7, where some of Caesar’s troops are in the city of Alexandria, while others take part in the sea battle. nos, on the contrary, occurs in situations where the Caesarian troops are viewed as a single entity (3.1: quae a nobis fieri viderant, almost: ‘what they had seen happen on our side’) or when the narrator (19.6) or speaker (15.3–4 (3×)) wish to express that they took part in the military action or will do so in the future. See also p. 78 with n. 15. 25 The references to the social status of an eques Romanus at B.Alex. 40.5, 56.4 are a different matter. 26 Judeich (1885: 7) acutely observed that the author’s statement constat fugisse ex castris regem (B.Alex. 31.6) implies that he is unsure about many details which he reports. Cf. pp. 77–8 with n. 14 above on sive … sive, aut … aut, and B.Alex. 23.1. 27 This is especially true of Cassius Dio and Josephus. The accounts given by Strabo (17.1.11 (sub fine)), Velleius (2.54.1), Plutarch (Vit. Caes. 49.9), Suetonius (Jul. 35), Florus (Epit. 2.13.60), Appian (B. C. 2.90), Eutropius (6.22.1), and Orosius (Hist. 6.15.29–16.2) are generally more sketchy than B.Alex. 22–33, but they were never intended to be detailed descriptions of Caesar’s Egyptian campaign. Lucan’s treatment unfortunately ends right in the middle of the fighting near the mole (i. e. roughly at the point that corresponds to B.Alex. 21.1–3). 28 Cf. Landgraf 1888a: 107: “vage Phrasenmacherei”, Zingerle 1892: 79–80, Pötter 1932: 25. The motif of “virtus as a response to a setback” (Grillo 2012: 52) has several precedents in the Caesarian commentarii, cf. e. g. Gal. 5.43.4, 7.59.6, Civ. 1.45.6, 2.15.4, 3.28.5–6, 3.73.4–5 and Lendon 1999: 312. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

82

Literary technique and historiographical method  

Alexandrinis manum , †comprehendi multum operibus et† ardentibus studiis militum. nec divulgata Caesaris hortatio subsequi legionum aut laborem aut pugnandi poterat cupiditatem, ut magis deterrendi et continendi a periculosissimis essent dimicationibus quam incitandi ad pugnandum. (1) Our soldiers were so far from being confounded by this reverse that they were even inflamed and incited and increased their efforts when attacking the enemies’ defensive works. (2) In the daily fights, whenever chance offered the attacking soldiers29 and the Alexandrians, as they burst forth (from their fortifications), the opportunity of engaging in close combat, (the Caesarians prevailed (?)) thanks to the ardent efforts of the soldiers; and not even Caesar’s public exhortation could keep up with the work or pugnacity of the soldiers, so that it was necessary to deter and prevent them from the most dangerous fights rather than to incite them to fight.30

Likewise, when describing a sea battle in chapter 25, the narrator dwells on the death of the Rhodian admiral Euphranor (25.3–6), but is very vague about the strategic purpose of the military operations and completely skips the outcome of the sea battle (25.1–26.1): (1) cum duce adsumpto Alexandrini nihilo se firmiores factos aut languidiores Romanos animadverterent eludentibusque militibus regis aetatem atque infirmitatem 29 procurrere commonly refers not to troops making a sortie, but to soldiers storming the enemy lines in an open battle (cf. TLL s.v. 1588.33–71); thus, the verb better suits Caesar’s pugnacious soldiers (cf. n. 30). 30 The passage poses many problems. Since in operibus hostium expugnandis (1) clearly refers to Caesar’s troops attacking the defensive works of the Alexandrians and since incensi atque incitati (1), ardentibus studiis militum (2), and nec divulgata Caesaris hortatio subsequi legionum aut laborem aut pugnandi poterat cupiditatem, ut … (2) all highlight the pugnacity of Caesar’s soldiers, also the intervening words are likely to refer to attacks by Caesar’s troops. Hence, the second operibus (2) should point to the defensive works of the Alexandrians and can hardly be linked with the following words ardentibus studiis militum (2) by means of et. In addition, somewhere between in operibus hostium expugnandis (1) and ardentibus studiis militum (2) we would expect to read a finite verb, and manum comprehendi multum cannot be fitted into the syntax. A. P. Manutius (1513: 201 recto), Giunta (1514: 195 recto), and R. Stephanus (1544: 397) place an asterisk between Alexandrinis and manum to mark the difficulties; N ­ ipperdey (1847: 193, 636), R. Schneider (1888a: 17), Klotz (1926–27: vol. 3, 16), Andrieu (1954: 23), Gio­ mini (1956: 97), and others indicate two lacunae after manum and after operibus and wrongly attribute these to R. Stephanus. Since the sentence must contain some reference to the clashing of Romans and Alexandrians, we tentatively supplement conserere: see Nipperdey 1847: 193 (“‘conserentes’ vel simile quid”) and cf. B.Alex. 71.2: ut celerius omnium opinione manum consereret, TLL s.v. consero 416.24–63, s.v. manus 353.24–6, and the use of fors at Caes. Gal. 7.87.3: cohortibus, quas ex proximis praesidiis deductas fors obtulit, Calp. Ecl. 7.76–7: tibi si propius ve­ nerandum cernere numen / fors [N G: sors V] dedit. As regards comprehendi multum operibus et, we doubt that much sense can be made of the transmitted text simply by inserting words before comprehendi and after operibus. Originally, the text may have referred to the exploits of the Roman soldiers (cf. multum proficere at 20.2, 30.6, 31.1 and Dinter 1887: vol. 3, 13) or the burning of the enemy’s defensive works, cf. Hirt. Gal. 8.42.1, 8.43.3: ita nostri fine proelii facto ­celeriter opera flamma comprehensa partim restinguunt, partim interscindunt. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

The density and quality of the historical information   

83

magnum dolorem acciperent neque se quicquam proficere viderent, rumoresque existerent magna Caesari praesidia terrestri itinere Syria Ciliciaque adduci, quod nondum auditum Caesari erat, commeatum qui mari nostris subportabatur intercipere statuerunt. (2) itaque expeditis navigiis locis idoneis ad Canopum in statione dispositis navibus insidiabantur nostris †commeatu†. (3) quod ubi Cae­ sari nuntiatum est, universam classem iubet expediri atque instrui. praeficit huic Tiberium Neronem. proficiscuntur in ea classe Rhodiae naves atque in his Euphranor, … (25.6) … ita [sc. Euphranor] qui unus ex omnibus eo proelio bene rem gessit, solus cum sua quadriremi victrice periit. (26.1) sub idem tempus Mithridates Pergamenus … (1) ex add. R. Stephanus (1544: 405)  (3) universam Fleischer (1879: 858) unam M U R T V nam S, om. L N (1) When the Alexandrians realized that by taking a (new) commander they had in no way become stronger nor the Romans any weaker, and when they felt great pain because (our) soldiers were laughing about the age and weakness of the king, and when they saw that they were not achieving anything, and when rumours arose that large reinforcements were being brought to Caesar by land from Syria and Cilicia—a fact that had not yet been heard by Caesar—, they decided to intercept the supplies that were conveyed to our troops by sea. (2) So they stationed ships ready for ­action in suitable places near Canopus and lay in ambush for our ships. (3) When this had been reported to Caesar, he ordered that the entire fleet be made ready for battle and equipped (with troops). He appointed Tiberius Nero as commander. With this fleet also the Rhodian ships set out and in these Euphranor, … (25.6) … so he [i. e. Euphranor], who was the only one of them all who did his job well in this battle, died alone with his victorious quadrireme. (26.1) At the same time Mithridates of Pergamum …

Much clearer and more precise is the account of Cassius Dio (42.40.5–41.1): (40.5) καὶ ἤδη γὰρ καὶ τὰ στρατεύματα ἃ ἀπὸ τῆς Συρίας μετεπέπεμπτο ἐπλησίασε, τάς τε κατάρσεις ἐτήρουν [sc. οἱ Αἰγύπτιοι] καὶ πολλὰ αὐτοὺς ἔβλαπτον. (40.6) τοῖς μὲν πρὸς τὴν Λιβύην σφῶν προσπίπτουσιν ὁ Καῖσαρ τρόπον τινὰ ἤμυνε· συχνοὺς δὲ δὴ περὶ τὰς τοῦ Νείλου ἐκβολὰς πυρσοῖς ὡς καὶ Ῥωμαῖοι ὄντες ἠπάτων τε καὶ συνελάμβανον, ὥστε τοὺς λοιποὺς μηκέτι τολμᾶν παρακομίζεσθαι, μέχρις οὗ Τιβέριος Κλαύδιος Νέρων ἐς αὐτὸν τότε τὸν ποταμὸν ἀναπλεύσας ἐκείνους τε μάχῃ ἐκράτησε καὶ τοῖς σφετέροις ἀδεέστερον τὸν πρόσπλουν ἐποίησε. (41.1) κἀν τούτῳ Μιθριδάτης ὁ Περγαμηνὸς ἐπικληθεὶς ἐπεχείρησε μὲν ἐς τὸ στόμα τοῦ Νείλου τὸ κατὰ Πηλούσιον ταῖς ναυσὶν ἀναβῆναι … (40.5) For already also the troops that had been sent from Syria came closer, and they [i. e. the Egyptians] were guarding the landing places and often harmed them [i. e. Caesar’s reinforcements]. (40.6) For Caesar somehow defended those of them that wound up towards Libya, but they [i. e. the Egyptians] deceived in fact many others near the estuaries of the Nile by lighting fires and pretending to be Romans and seized them, so that the remaining ones no longer dared to bring supplies, until Tiberius Claudius Nero sailed into that same river and defeated those forces in a © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

84

Literary technique and historiographical method  

battle and rendered the journey safe for them [i. e. the Caesarians]. (41.1) And at the same time Mithridates, named the Pergamenian, endeavoured to go up into the mouth of the Pelusian Nile with his ships …31

Just as sketchy is the account of Mithridates’ arrival in Egypt (26–7) and the end of the Alexandrian War (28–33). The tactical details of Mithridates’ attack on Pelusium are left out,32 the crucial role of the Jewish contingent led by Antipater33 and the negotiations with the population of the ‘Land of Onias’ (Ὀνίου χώρα, a location near Leontopolis) and Memphis are omitted,34 the route taken from Pelusium to Alexandria is not specified,35 and the Egyptian attempts to negotiate a peaceful settlement (cf. Cass. Dio 42.43.3) are not mentioned. In addition to these omissions, the narrative is often obscure and confusing. This is particularly true of the description of the battles on the southern edges of the Nile Delta. To begin with, the topographical references are much more impre 31 Cf. Jung 1900: 36 and Graindor 1931: 125–6. Rice Holmes (1923: vol. 3, 495–6) correctly points out that Cassius Dio does not differentiate as clearly as one would wish between the supplies that were shipped to Alexandria and the reinforcements that were sent from Syria overland; nevertheless, his overall verdict on Dio’s account (“so confused and inaccurate as to be almost worthless”) is hardly justified. The battle fought on the Nile is also briefly mentioned by Suetonius (Tib. 4.1). Pötter (1932: 34) has drawn attention to the fact that Tiberius Nero later requested that Caesar’s assassins should not only be exempt from punishment, but also receive a reward (cf. Suet. Tib. 4.1: etiam de praemiis tyrannicidarum referendum censuit [sc. Tiberius Nero]); he believes that this may have prompted the author of chapter 25 to suppress Tiberius Nero’s victory. However, in view of the other gaps in the narrative of B.Alex. 22–33, there is no need to look for a political motive for the omission. 32 Compare B.Alex. 26.2 and Cass. Dio 42.41.1–3; cf. also Josephus, A. J. 14.130, B. J. 1.189. 33 Cf. especially B.Alex. 26.1, 26.3 and Josephus, A. J. 14.127–139 ~ B. J. 1.187–94. The omission of the Jewish support is particularly striking, because Caesar later returned the favour (A. J. 14.137 ~ B. J. 1.194) and was known to have become a great friend of the Jewish people, cf. especially Josephus, Ap. 2.61, A. J. 14.143–5, 14.190–5, 14.197, 14.200–1, 14.211–12, Suet. Jul. 84.5, and Judeich 1885: 119–41. Canfora’s hypothesis (1999: 234, 239–41, especially p. 241: “pulsioni dell’anti-semitismo romano”) that the author of B.Alex. 26–8 deliberately downplayed the importance of the Jewish contingent and attributed Antipater’s achievements to Mithridates of Pergamum is fairly implausible, because it only explains some of the gaps in the account and turns a blind eye to the many other inaccuracies in chapters 22–33. 34 Cf. Josephus, A. J. 14.131–2 (~ B. J. 1.190): τοὺς δὲ περὶ Ἀντίπατρον καὶ Μιθριδάτην ἀπιόντας πρὸς Καίσαρα διεκώλυον οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι οἱ τὴν Ὀνίου [χώραν, del. Niese 1887–1895: vol. 3, 263, cf. A. J. 13.287] λεγομένην κατοικοῦντες. πείθει δὲ καὶ τούτους τὰ αὐτῶν φρονῆσαι κατὰ τὸ ὁμόφυλον Ἀντίπατρος καὶ μάλιστα ἐπιδείξας αὐτοῖς τὰς Ὑρκανοῦ τοῦ ἀρχιερέως ἐπιστολάς, ἐν αἷς αὐτοὺς φίλους εἶναι Καίσαρος παρεκάλει καὶ ξένια καὶ πάντα τὰ ἐπιτήδεια χορηγεῖν τῷ στρατῷ. (132) καὶ οἱ μὲν ὡς ἑώρων Ἀντίπατρον καὶ τὸν ἀρχιερέα συνθέλοντας ὑπήκουον. τούτους δὲ προσθεμένους ἀκούσαντες οἱ περὶ Μέμφιν ἐκάλουν καὶ αὐτοὶ τὸν Μιθριδάτην πρὸς ἑαυτούς· κἀκεῖνος ἐλθὼν καὶ τούτους παραλαμβάνει and B.Alex. 26.3: [sc. Mithridates] omnes … eas regiones … auctoritate ea, quae plerumque adest victori, pacarat. 35 Cf. Judeich 1885: 5, 92–7, Pötter 1932: 24, Sijpesteijn 1965: 123 n. 1. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

The density and quality of the historical information   

85

cise than in chapters 1–21 and can be contrasted with the more reliable account of Flavius Josephus (A. J. 14.127–136, B. J. 1.190–2).36 Josephus indicates with exemplary precision that Mithridates advanced from Pelusium at the easternmost estuary of the Nile to the ‘Land of Onias’, moved southwards to Memphis,37 defeated the troops sent by Ptolemy near the so-called ‘Jewish Camp’,38 and then continued north-westwards to Alexandria, thus marching along the southern edges of the Delta.39 The narrator of the Bellum Alexandrinum, on the contrary, mentions only Pelusium and the Delta and mostly uses vague indications, cf. 26.3: inde [i. e. Pelusio] … Alexandriam ad Caesarem contendit, omnesque eas regiones, per quas iter faciebat, … pacarat, 28.2: circumvectus eo mari quod Africae partis esse dicitur, and 28.3: considerat cum copiis rex loco natura munito, quod erat ipse excelsior planitie ex omnibus partibus subiecta. That this imprecision results not from carelessness, but a lack of information becomes clear in chapter 27, where the narrator first explains the toponym Delta and then uses this term to indicate where Mithridates encountered the troops sent by king Ptolemy (27.1–4): (1) locus est fere regionum illarum nobilissimus non ita longe ab Alexandria, qui nominatur Delta; quod nomen a similitudine litterae cepit: nam pars quaedam fluminis Nili derivata [inter se] duobus itineribus paulatim medium inter se spatium relinquens diversissimo ad litus intervallo [a] mari coniungitur. (2) cui loco cum adpropinquare Mithridaten rex cognovisset et transeundum ei flumen sciret, mag­ nas adversus eum copias misit, quibus vel superari delerique Mithridaten vel sine dubio retineri posse credebat. (3) quemadmodum autem optabat eum vinci, sic satis habebat interclusum a Caesare a se retineri. (4) quae primae copiae flumen a Delta transire et Mithridati occurrere potuerunt, proelium commiserunt festinantes praeripere subsequentibus victoriae societatem … (1) inter se del. Dübner (1867: vol. 2, 227) a del. Ciacconius (cf. Jungermann 1606: part 2, 331) 36 Much of Josephus’ material comes from Strabo’s lost Hypomnemata Historica (cf. A. J. 14.138–9 ~ FGrHist 91 F 16–17) and (directly or indirectly) from a letter written by Mithridates to Caesar (cf. A. J. 14.136, B. J. 1.192, and B.Alex. 28.1). Cassius Dio describes Mithridates’ tactics at Pelusium (42.41.1–2), but does not provide any details on his march towards Alexandria apart from a confrontation with a certain Dioscurides (apparently the commander of the troops sent by king Ptolemy; 42.41.3); likewise, Dio’s version of the final battle between Ptolemy and Caesar remains fairly unspecific in comparison to B.Alex. 28.2–31.6. Given the vagueness of our sources, any reconstruction must remain hypothetical (cf. e. g. Graindor 1931: 141–56). 37 Cf. A. J. 14.132 (~ B. J. 1.190), quoted in n. 34 above. 38 Cf. A. J. 14.133: περὶ τὸ καλούμενον ᾿Ιουδαίων στρατόπεδον (~ B. J. 1.191). The ‘Jewish camp’ must be situated on the western side of the Delta along the route from Memphis to Alexandria (cf. Schürer 1898: vol. 3, 22, 98–9 n. 25, Graindor 1931: 136). Josephus’ description clearly excludes identification with the castra Iudaeorum (Notitia Dign. orient. 28.42) or vicus Iudaeorum (Itin. Anton. Aug. 169.5, cf. Cuntz 1929: vol. 1, 23 and Worp 1991: 293–4) on the eastern side of the Delta (contra Judeich 1885: 94, Tcherikover 1975: 279, Sijpesteijn 1965: 123, 124). 39 Cf. A. J. 14.133: ἐπεὶ δὲ τὸ καλούμενον Δέλτα ἤδη περιεληλύθει (~ B. J. 1.191). © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

86

Literary technique and historiographical method  

(1) Not that far from Alexandria there is the more or less best known place of those regions, which is called ‘Delta’. It has got this name from its similarity to the letter: for some part of the river Nile that is led through two channels gradually leaves a middle space between itself and joins the sea, having the greatest distance (between the two branches) at the sea-shore. (2) When the king had heard that Mithridates was approaching this place and since he knew that he [i. e. Mithridates] would have to cross the river, he sent large forces against him, by which, he believed, Mithridates could be defeated and destroyed or no doubt held back. (3) Yet, however much he wanted him to be defeated, he considered it sufficient if he was held back from him and separated from Caesar. (4) The first troops that could cross the river from the Delta and confront Mithridates joined battle and hurried to steal the common possession of the victory from those that followed.

The description is imprecise because in antiquity Delta referred to (a) the entire Nile Delta, (b) an area or (c) a village at the southernmost tip of the Nile Delta, and (d)  two subsections of the Nile Delta.40 The expression locus … nobilissimus strongly suggests that the narrator uses Delta in its most common sense and thinks of the whole area between the modern cities of Alexandria, Port Said, and Cairo. However, this region is not in the vicinity of, but rather adjacent to Alexandria,41 and it is far too large to be qualified as a mere locus or to be of any use in determining the geographical situation of Mithridates’ army or the troops sent by king Ptolemy. Thus, either the narrator confuses one of the smaller sites ((b), (c), (d)) with the more common usage of the word Delta (a), or he has no idea of the size and geographical position of the Nile Delta.42 In either case, we are dealing with a narrator, who has no firsthand knowledge of the region or the events he is describing. This impression is further corroborated by the description of king Ptolemy’s camp, which is said to be located on a most elevated place (cf. 28.3: 40 Cf. Strabo 17.1.4: γέγονε δὴ νῆσος ἔκ τε τῆς θαλάττης καὶ τῶν ῥευμάτων ἀμφοῖν τοῦ ποταμοῦ, καὶ καλεῖται Δέλτα διὰ τὴν ὁμοιότητα τοῦ σχήματος [cf. (a)  above]· τὸ δ’ ἐπὶ τῇ κορυφῇ χωρίον ὁμωνύμως κέκληται διὰ τὸ ἀρχὴν εἶναι τοῦ λεχθέντος σχήματος [cf. (b)], καὶ ἡ κώμη δὲ ἡ ἐπ’ αὐτῷ καλεῖται Δέλτα [cf. (c)] and Ptol. Geog. 4.5.39–41: Μέγα Δέλτα καλεῖται, καθ’ ὃ ἐκτρέπεται ὁ Μέγας ποταμὸς, ὁ καλούμενος Ἀγαθὸς δαίμων (ἢ Ἀγαθοδαίμων), καὶ ῥέων διὰ τοῦ Ἡρακλεωτικοῦ στόματος εἰς τὸν καλούμενον Βουβαστιακὸν, ὃς ἐκρεῖ διὰ τοῦ Πηλουσιακοῦ στόματος [cf. (a)]· … (40) Μικρὸν δὲ καλεῖται Δέλτα, καθ’ ὃ σχίζεται ὁ Βουβαστιακὸς ποταμὸς εἰς τὸν Βουσιριτικὸν ποταμὸν, ὃς ἐκρεῖ διὰ τοῦ Παθμητικοῦ στόματος [cf. (d)], … (41) λέγοιτο δ’ ἂν καὶ τρίτον Δέλτα μεταξύ πως τῶν εἰρημένων, καθ’ ὃ σχίζεται ὁ Βουβαστιακὸς εἰς τὸν δι’ Ἀθρίβεως πόλεως καὶ τοῦ Πινέπτιμι στόματος ῥέοντα [cf. (d)]. 41 Contrast B.Alex. 27.1: non ita longe ab Alexandria. 42 Jung (1900: 38–40) thought that the narrator misinterpreted his source and that Delta originally referred to the area between the Bolbitic and Canobic branches of the Nile. Graindor (1931: 137–9) discards both Jung’s interpretation and the testimony of the Bellum Alexandrinum; cf. also Pötter 1932: 24: “offensichtlich unsicher fühlt sich der Verfasser bei der Schilderung des Deltas”. Quite a different view is held by Rice Holmes (1923: vol. 3, 496–7): according to him, B.Alex. 27.1 refers to the village at the apex of the Delta and there is nothing confused or confusing about the geographical description. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

The density and quality of the historical information   

87

editissimo loco) and near the very steep bank of one of the branches of the Nile (cf. 29.1: altissimis ripis). The superlatives do not square with the fairly flat surface of the Nile Delta and its surroundings and sound more like a reminiscence of the campaigns in Gaul or Thessaly.43 Finally, the account of the last phase of the war in Alexandria and Lower Egypt also suffers from the fact that the information is occasionally organized and presented in an awkward fashion. At 27.5 the narrator refers to  a fortified camp (castra vallata), which Mithridates must have erected some time before the attack of the Egyptian forces, but which has not been mentioned before. Similarly, at 27.7, we learn about a second battle between Mithridates and the Egyptian forces, but as in chapter 25 (see pp. 82–3 above) the outcome remains obscure and is only later implied at 28.2: eumque [i. e. Mithridaten] ad se victorem incolumi exercitu recepit [sc. Caesar]. The different degrees of historiographical precision in chapters 1–21 and ­22–33 are remarkable, because the division occurs right in the middle of the account of the Egyptian campaign (1–33) and cannot be explained by a change of subject matter. Unless we are willing to turn to speculations and suppose that the author temporarily suffered from dementia or lacked the leisure or energy to keep up his prior, more diligent mode of composition,44 we have to assume that chapters 1–21 and 22–33 rely on different channels of information. This observation squares well with the linguistic evidence presented in chapter 3 and lends further support to the view that the Bellum Alexandrinum was not written by a single author, but is an assemblage of several reports by different authors.

43 Cf. e. g. Gal. 1.6.1: mons … altissimus (of the Jura mountains), 3.1.5: altissimis montibus (of the Valaisian Alps, cf. Tarpin 1987: 243–4, 245, 248), 7.36.1: posita in altissimo monte (of Gergovia), Civ. 2.1.3: valle altissima (of the roughly 80 feet or 24 meters deep depression in front of the walls of ancient Massilia, cf. Civ. 2.1.4: aggerem in altitudinem pedum LXXX exstruit), 3.93.6, 3.95.5 (of the Thessalian mountains). Judeich (1885: 103) speculates that the landscape may have changed as a result of erosion and the subsidence of the areas near the Mediterranean coast of Egypt. Graindor (1931: 148–51) thinks of a “mamelon” or a sand-dune that disappeared (similarly Carcopino 1950: 917). Jung (1900: 43) speaks of natural hills (“natürliche Hügel”) and adduces Strabo’s description of the Nile flood at 17.1.4: ἐν δὲ ταῖς ἀναβάσεσι τοῦ Νείλου καλύπτεται πᾶσα [sc. χώρα] καὶ πελαγίζει πλὴν τῶν οἰκήσεων· αὗται [i. e. αἱ οἰκήσεις, the dwellings in the Nile Delta] δ’ ἐπὶ λόφων αὐτοφυῶν ἢ χωμάτων ἵδρυνται, πόλεις τε ἀξιόλογοι καὶ κῶμαι, νησίζουσαι κατὰ τὴν πόρρωθεν ὄψιν. However, Strabo’s remarks concern mounds that were created by the building and rebuilding of houses and other structures in the same spot, and these so-called ‘tells’ are usually not particularly steep (cf. also the objections in Graindor 1931: 148–51). For further attempts to situate or explain the editissimus locus see Rice Holmes 1923: vol. 3, 498–503. 44 Cf. the hypothesis of Seel, mentioned on p.  47 above. For other, similarly implausible explanations see nn. 31 (Pötter) and 33 (Canfora) above. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

88

Literary technique and historiographical method  

(b) The events in Asia Minor, Illyricum, and Spain (B.Alex. 34–78) Further evidence for the heterogeneous character of the Bellum Alexandrinum comes from chapters 34–78. There we are dealing with much shorter sections, but the discrepancies in the density and quality of the information are just as glaring. After chapter 33 we first read  a well-informed report about Domitius’ campaign against Pharnaces, which clearly relies on firsthand knowledge of the events and the theatre of war (B.Alex. 34–41).45 This is followed by a rather cursory and imprecise account of the events in Illyricum between June 48 and January 47 B. C. (B.Alex. 42–3).46 Beginning with the intervention of Vatinius (cf. B. Alex. 44.1), however, the narrative of the war in Illyricum suddenly becomes much more detailed (B.Alex. 44–7): we are informed about the size and quality

45 Cf. the insights into Domitius’ (34.2, 35.2, 35.3, 39.1) and Pharnaces’ (36.4–5, ­38.1–2) thoughts and secret plans, the information on the military units and their training (­34.4–5), the summaries of Domitius’ correspondence and negotiations with Deiotarus (34.1), Pharnaces (34.2, 35.1, 36.1, 37.1), and Caesar (34.3), the description of the landscape (36.3–4), and the detailed narration of the Battle of Nicopolis (38.3–40.5). The other ancient sources (i. e. Strabo 13.4.3, Liv. Per. 112, Suet. Jul. 36, App. B. C. 2.91, Mithr. 120, Plut. Vit. Caes. 50, Cass. Dio 42.45.1–47.1) are generally less specific, but mention Pharnaces’ capture of Amisus (App. B. C. 2.91.(381), Mithr. 120 (591), Cass. Dio 42.46.3; cf. B.Alex. 41) and the revolt of Asander (Strabo 13.4.3, App. Mithr. 120 (591), Cass. Dio 42.46.4), which are omitted in the Bellum Alexandrinum (cf. Grohs 1884: 84–6, Judeich 1885: 5, 9). Judeich suggests that chapters 34–41 may be based on an account written by Domitius himself. This is possible and would explain why the account shows a strong focus on the military aspects of the campaign (cf. especially 34.4–5, 37.3–5, 38.3–4, 3­ 9.1–2, 40.1–5) and tends to exculpate Domitius by suggesting that his defeat was primarily a result of his loyalty to Caesar (cf. 34.2, 34.3, 38.1, 39.1) and the Roman people (cf. 34.2, 36.2; see also Rambaud 1953: 79 and the more cautious remarks by Pötter 1932: 35–6). 46 Cf. Judeich 1885: 9–10, Pötter 1932: 37–8. The narrator does not specify when exactly something happens or how much time has elapsed between two events (cf. 42.1: sub idem tempus, 42.1: superioribus mensibus, 42.2: aestate, 43.1: hiberno tempore, 43.3: paucis mensibus morbo periit). Just as inaccurate is the geographical information: apart from the towns of Salona and Iader and the fairly general indications Illyricum, Macedonia, and provincia, there are no precise topographical references, but only vague remarks such as castella complura locis e­ ditis posita (42.3), illum … sinum (42.3), illam partem regionemque (42.5), or castella aut oppida (43.2). Moreover, also the military operations of Cornificius (cf. 42.2: [sc. provinciam] et recepit et defendit, 42.3: castella complura … expugnavit) and Gabinius (cf. 43.2: propter inopiam castella aut oppida expugnare cogeretur, 43.2: crebro incommoda accipiebat) are presented in fairly ­general terms, and the tribes against whom they wage war are vaguely referred to as castellani (42.3) and barbari (43.2). Likewise, the plans and considerations of the Roman generals and their enemies are either omitted (contrast App. Ill. 12) or remain a matter of speculation (43.1: sive … sive … sive …; cf. pp. 77–8 with n. 14). The only piece of precise information is the number of casualties after the battle near Salona (43.3). Unfortunately, the other ancient sources ­offer little help in reconstructing the historical events, but raise problems of chronology: cf. App. Ill. 12, B. C. 2.58–9, Cass. Dio 42.11 and Judeich 1885: 20–1, 158–63. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

The density and quality of the historical information   

89

of the military units,47 learn about the tactical considerations of the two sides,48 and get a captivating description of the decisive sea battle between Vatinius and Octavius.49 The intimate familiarity with Vatinius’ plans and personal experience50 suggests that we are dealing with the revised version of  a text in which ­either Vatinius himself or one of his close associates wrote down his memories of the war.51 A similar wealth of detailed information can be found in the stylistically rather different52 account of the events in Spain (B.Alex. 48–64). The best example is the graphic description of the failed attempt to assassinate the governor Q. Cassius Longinus (B.Alex. 52–5): the narrator not only portrays the growing tensions between Cassius and the provincials53 and records the names of the chief conspirators, the time of the day, and the building where the assassination attempt took place,54 but he also describes how Cassius was first approached by a certain Minucius Silo with a petition, then stabbed twice, and finally attacked by all of the conspirators (52.2–3).55 Furthermore, the narrator provides specific 47 Cf. 44.2: paucas … naves longas, 44.3 (armament of naves actuariae), 44.4 (provenance and experience of the military personnel on board the ships), 45.4 (morale of ­Vatinius’ troops), 47.2 (numbers and types of captured boats). 48 Cf. 44.1, 45.1, 46.1 (Vatinius) and 45.1 (Octavius). Pötter (1932: 38) rightly contrasts the precision of these remarks with the speculation about Gabinius’ motives at 43.1 (cf. n. 46 above). 49 Cf. 45.2–47.2 and contrast the meagre and confused report in Cass. Dio 42.11.4 (cf. the end of n. 46 above). 50 Pötter (1932: 38) draws attention to 45.2: repente adversam ad se venientem navem … advertit; cf. also the reference to his ill health (44.1) and the details of his attack on Octavius (46.1– 6). 51 Cf. Pötter 1932: 37–9 and Rambaud 1953: 79–80. Apart from the similarities and dissimilarities between these chapters and the style of Hirtius, Pötter emphasizes that chapters 44–7 constantly praise Vatinius’ virtus (cf. especially 44.1, 47.5) and compares Vatinius’ boastful letters to Cicero, cf. Fam. 5.9 (= 255 SB), 5.10c (= 256 SB): Caesar adhuc mi iniuriam facit, de meis supplicationibus et rebus gestis Dalmaticis adhuc non refert, quasi vero non iustissimi triumphi in Dalmatia res gesserim, 5.10b (= 258 SB), 5.10a (= 259 SB). However, the explicit comment re praeclarissime gesta (47.5) also recurs in other parts of the Bellum Alexandrinum (see p. 63 above for parallels), and chapters 22–78 are generally more biased and overtly propagandistic than the early sections of the work: see pp. 99–106 below. 52 See section 3.5, p. 53 above. 53 Cf. the description of Cassius’ greed (51.2, 51.4, 55.4–5), his largesse to the troops ­(48.2–3), the financial burdens of the provincials (49.1–3, 50.3), their growing hatred of the governor (48.1, 50.1–3, 56.4, 61.2), and Cassius’ plans and thoughts (48.1: compensare offensionem provinciae exercitus amore cupiebat, 51.2, 55.2, 56.2; exceptional is the speculation at 48.1). 54 Cf. 52.2: tempore postmeridiano, cum in basilicam iret and the names given in 52.2–4, 53.2–4, 55.2–5. 55 As has been observed by Landgraf (1889: 16), the passage bears close resemblance to the account of Caesar’s assassination at Suet. Jul. 82: the two narratives mention the same pretext for approaching the victim (B.Alex. 52.2: quasi aliquid ab eo postularet ~ Jul. 82.1: quasi ­aliquid rogaturus propius accessit), refer to the same weapon (pugio, cf. B.Alex. 52.2, Jul. 82.2), and in © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

90

Literary technique and historiographical method  

information on the fighting that followed the attack (53.1–2), the flight of the conspirators (53.3–4), their arrest (53.3, 55.1) and punishment (55.2–5), and the sums that were paid for acquittals (55.4–5). Just as detailed is the following account of the revolt of some of Cassius’ legions (B.Alex. 57–64): the places of the action56 and the historical actors are mentioned by name,57 there are precise indications of time58 and detailed descriptions of the theatre of war (e. g. 61.3), and we are informed about the size and quality of the military units (57.1–3, 57.5, 61.1), the channels of communication (57.1, 57.3, 57.5, 59.2, 62.1), Q. Cassius’ correspondence with king Bogus and Lepidus (59.2, 62.1), and the motives and intentions of Cassius (57.6, 60.4, 63.4, 64.3),59 Marcellus (60.2, 61.4), and Lepidus (63.1).60 Moreover, the narrator knows the exact circumstances of Cassius’ death (64.2–3), and in contrast to other sections of the Bellum Alexandrinum he repeatedly differentiates between rumours and common talk on the one hand and his own positive knowledge on the other.61 Hence, like the preceding account of Vatinius’ exploits, chapters 48–64 are far superior to other ancient sources62 and seem to be based on the account of an eye-witness.63

both episodes the victim is first approached by one assassin and then attacked by the whole crowd of conspirators (cf. B.Alex. 52.3, Jul. 82.2). Despite the similarities, there is no need for postulating a relation of dependence, for we find the same strategy and weapon in many other conspiracy narratives: cf. e. g. Tacitus’ description of the Pisonian conspiracy (Ann. 15.53.2) and the version of Maelius’ death which Dionysius of Halicarnassus (Ant. Rom. 12.4.2–5) ­attributes to Cincius Alimentus (fr. 8 B/W = HRR fr. 6) and Calpurnius Piso (fr. 26 B/W = HRR fr. 24 / Forsythe 1994: fr. 31). 56 Cf. 57.1: ad oppidum Ilipam, 57.2: Naevam, 57.2: Carmonem, 57.3: ad Obuculam, 57.4: Hispalim, 57.5: conventum Cordubensem … Cordubae, 57.6: Segoviam ad flumen Singiliense, 59.2: circiter IIII milia passuum a Corduba citra flumen Baetim, etc.. 57 Cf. 57.1: L. Titius, 57.3: T. Thorium Italicensem, 57.4: M. Marcellum, etc.. 58 Cf. e. g. 57.2: mane, 57.6: postero die, 59.2: eo biduo. 59 Exceptional are the speculations at 63.2, 63.5. 60 Cf. also the remarks about Thorius’ intentions at 58.1–2. 61 Cf. e. g. 57.5: namque id varie nuntiabatur, 58.2: communis erat coniectura, 63.5: nam de huius conscientia dubitabatur, 64.2: ut ipse praedicabat … ut amici eius dictitabant … ut ceteri existimabant. 62 Cf. Cass. Dio 42.15.1 (financial and other burdens imposed on the provincials), B.Hisp. 42.4, V.Max. 9.4.2, Cass. Dio 42.15.1–3 (the attempted assassination of Q. Cassius), Liv. Per. 111, Cass. Dio 42.15.2–16.2, 43.29.1 (the military revolt), Cass. Dio 43.1.1–2 (Lepidus’ presence in Spain), Cass. Dio 42.16.2 (the departure and death of Q. Cassius) and see the discussions of the ancient sources by Grohs (1884: 75) and Judeich (1885: 191–200). 63 Cf. Judeich 1885: 10, Pötter 1932: 40–1. The view that the information is coming from someone who was personally involved would square well with the tendentiously negative representation of Q. Cassius (cf. especially 48.1, 49.2–3, 51.2, 51.4, 55.5, 56.2, 56.6, 57.6, 59.2, 60.4, 61.1, 64.2) and the positive portrait of his antagonist Marcellus (59.1, 60.1–3, 61.1–2, 61.4, 63.2; contrast the more balanced account at Cass. Dio 42.15–16 and especially the nega© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

The density and quality of the historical information   

91

The last section of the Bellum Alexandrinum, which describes Caesar’s campaign against Pharnaces (B.Alex. 65–78), gives less room to the concerns of the provinces and treats Caesar’s administrative measures in  a fairly general and summary fashion (B.Alex. 65–6).64 Starting with the march through Cappadocia, however, the narrative becomes more detailed and at times even periegetical.65 It does not describe all the events with the same degree of precision, but very much concentrates on three self-contained episodes of the war. The narrator first devotes roughly one and a half chapters each to Caesar’s meeting with king Deiotarus (67.1–68.1) and to his negotiations with the embassies sent by Pharnaces (69.2–71.1); both events could have been treated in a much more succinct fashion and primarily serve as a setting for two speeches which illustrate Caesar’s

tive characterization of Marcellus at 42.15.3: τό τε ἀστάθμητον τῶν πραγμάτων ὁρῶν καὶ τὴν ἔκβασίν σφων ἐφ’ ἑκάτερα προσδεχόμενος ἐπημφοτέριζε and see Judeich 1885: 199, Pötter 1932: 42–3, Woytek 2003: 190–2). Pötter (1932: 42–3) takes the analysis one step further. He observes that the narrative also hints at Marcellus’ dishonesty and fickleness (cf. e. g. 57.5, 60.2) and concludes that the editor of the Bellum Alexandrinum supplanted the nuanced or even negative representation of Marcellus in the eye-witness account by his own, more positive characterization. However, Pötter cannot adduce a plausible motive for such changes, and the text can also be interpreted differently, cf. e. g. Judeich 1885: 199: “Der Verfasser des bellum Alexandrinum steht ganz auf Marcellus Seite und liefert nur zuweilen fast unfreiwillig in seinem Berichte eine Bestätigung für die Auffassung des Livius [Cassius Dio’s main source, according to Judeich]”. 64 Cf. 65.4: commoratus fere in omnibus civitatibus quae maiore sunt dignitate, praemia bene meritis et viritim et publice tribuit, de controversiis veteribus cognoscit ac statuit; reges, tyrannos, dynastas provinciae [i. e. Syriae] finitimosque, qui omnes ad eum concurrerant, receptos in fidem, condicionibus inpositis provinciae tuendae ac defendendae, dimittit et sibi et populo Romano ami­ cissimos, 66.3: ibi rebus omnibus provinciae [i. e. Ciliciae] et finitimarum civitatium constitutis and contrast the detailed information given by Josephus (A. J. 14.137–157 ~ B. J. 1.193–201) and Cassius Dio (42.49.2, 47.26.3 (Syria) and 41.63.1, 47.26.2 (Cilicia)). 65 Cf. 66.3: biduum Mazacae commoratus Comana < …> vetustissimum et sanctissimum in Cappadocia Bellonae templum, quod tanta religione colitur, ut sacerdos eius deae maiestate, imperio, potentia secundus a rege consensu gentis illius habeatur; this is followed by Caesar’s appointment of the Bithynian Lycomedes as  a new priest (66.4–5). The ancient geography of Anatolia strongly suggests that the passage is about the cult of the goddess Bellona (or rather Enyo or Ma) in the Cappadocian town Comana (cf. also the similarities between B.Alex. 66.3 and Strabo 12.2.3). In that case, however, Caesar would have taken a detour and the account in the Bellum Alexandrinum would contradict the testimony of Strabo (12.3.35, cf. also 12.3.32) and Appian (Mithr. 121 (597): Λυκομήδην] Νικομήδην iC), who report that there was a priest named Lycomedes in the Pontic town Comana in the second half of the first century B. C. (cf. also Cass. Dio 51.2.2, who mentions  a king Lycomedes in Cappadocia Pontica). Either the text of the ­Bellum Alexandrinum is lacunose or corrupt (cf. Larsen 1887: 34–5, Kübler 1893– 97: vol. 3, xx, Klotz 1926–27: vol. 3, 50) or has been distorted by a misleading punctuation (cf. ­Madvig 1873: 285, Judeich 1885: 117–19, Rice Holmes 1923: vol. 3, 510–11), or the author of B.Alex. 65–78 has confused the Pontic and Cappadocian Comana (cf. Drumann 1834–44: vol. 3, 554 n. 81 ~ Drumann/Groebe 1899–1929: vol. 3, 498 n. 2, Andrieu 1954: 88–9); for further, less plausible hypotheses see Pötter 1932: 50–1 with n. 9. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

92

Literary technique and historiographical method  

patriotic feelings and propagate his view of the Civil War.66 The third episode is Caesar’s victory at Zela: here the topographical information becomes much more specific;67 there are precise indications of time,68 and we get a fairly detailed account of the preparations (73.1–3), the strategic considerations,69 and the battle itself.70 Thus, on the whole, the density of the information in chapters 65–78 is fairly uneven: some parts of the account are inferior to other ancient sources (cf. nn. 64–5), but others clearly surpass the remaining tradition.71 Unlike in the earlier sections on the wars in Egypt and Illyricum, however, these discrepancies seem to be the result of a deliberate selection rather than a lack of information. The graphic description of the landscape, the mention of Caesar’s laughter at the sight of Pharnaces’ unexpected attack, and other details of the narrative suggest that this section, too, may be based on the memories of an eye-witness.72 The survey of the information contained in chapters 34–78 shows that the later sections of the Bellum Alexandrinum rely on markedly different channels of information. The account of the first developments in Illyricum (B.Alex. ­42–3) is far inferior to other parts of the work and seems to be based on fairly poor 66 At 68.1 Caesar is not only presented as the legitimate consul, who enjoys the support of the Senate and the Roman people (cf. p. 104 below), but he is also credited with forgiveness and characterized as someone who honours the ties of friendship and hospitality and respects the dignity and old age of oriental rulers (tamen se concedere id factum superioribus suis beneficiis, veteri hospitio atque amicitiae, dignitati aetatique hominis, precibus eorum, qui frequentes concurrissent hospites atque amici Deiotari ad deprecandum). The response to Pharnaces which is put into Caesar’s mouth in chapter 70 repeats the concept of Caesar’s forgiveness (70.2), points to the support of the gods (70.4: sibi [sc. Caesari], cui di immortales victoriam tribuissent), and highlights his concern for the interests of the Roman state (70.7; cf. p. 102 below). 67 Cf. the description of the terrain at Zela (72.1–2) and the position and fortification of Pharnaces’ and Caesar’s camps (72.3–73.3). The narrative even accentuates the historical significance of the area by recalling the Romans’ defeat against Mithridates VI at Zela in 67 B. C. (cf. 72.2–3). 68 Cf. 73.2: proxima nocte, vigilia quarta … prima luce, 74.1: prima luce, 77.2: postero die. 69 Cf. 73.1, 73.3, 74.1, 74.4–75.1 (Caesar’s tactical considerations and interpretation of Pharnaces’ decisions), 74.3 (speculation about Pharnaces’ motives and thoughts). 70 Cf. 76.1–4. Among many other details, the narrator indicates that the battle began to turn in Caesar’s favour when the veteran sixth legion on Caesar’s right wing repelled the enemy (76.1). 71 This applies particularly to the Battle of Zela: cf. B.Alex. 73–6 with the much sketchier accounts at Plut. Vit. Caes. 50, Suet. Jul. 35.2, Flor. Epit. 2.13.61–3, Fron. Str. 2.2.3, Cass. Dio 42.47.5, App. B. C. 2.91, Mithr. 120 (595), Anon. De viris illustr. 78.7 (cf. Pichlmayr 1911/1966: 70), Eutr. 6.22, Oros. Hist. 6.16.3 (the event is also briefly mentioned or alluded to at Cic. Deiot. 14, 24, Liv. Per. 113, Vell. 2.55.2, Sen. Suas. 2.22, Plin. Nat. 6.10, Amp. 34.1). 72 Cf. also B.Alex. 74.3, where the narrator contrasts the state of his knowledge before and after the Battle of Zela (postea audiebamus; see Nipperdey 1847: 11, Landgraf 1888a: 133). Nipperdey (1847: 10, 11), Judeich (1885: 5–6, 10–11), Landgraf (1888a: 128), and Dahms (1906: 17–18, 22–3) believe that the chapters are written by Hirtius, who had accompanied Caesar on his campaign against Pharnaces (cf. Cic. Att. 11.20.1 and see pp. 170 (with n. 8), 179 (with n. 42)). Pötter (1932: 44–64) has tried to establish that the last chapters are based on a Caesarian draft, but there is little evidence in support of this thesis: cf. p. 53 with n. 100. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

The presentation and evaluation of the historical events   

93

sources. The chapters on Domitius, Vatinius, Q. Cassius, and Caesar’s war against Pharnaces, on the contrary, are generally far more substantial. Although the latter accounts may all be based on the memories of persons who were personally involved in the events, there are nevertheless remarkable differences in precision and focus. Whereas the sections on Domitius and the events in Spain pay close attention to topography and give fairly specific information even on insignificant details of the military campaigns, the chapters on Vatinius’ exploits in Illyricum and the account of Caesar’s war against Pharnaces are more selective, discard less colourful details, and focus on  a few particularly emotive and captivating episodes. These tendencies do not result from the subject matter, but reflect the interests of the underlying sources or informants.73 The fact that their preferences and interests are still perceptible in the transmitted text shows that whoever put together the Bellum Alexandrinum did not make a sustained effort to even out discrepancies and turn the narrative into a balanced and coherent whole. This observation corroborates the view that the transmitted text is little more than a patchwork of separate reports.

4.2. The presentation and evaluation of the historical events Like the density and quality of the historical information, its presentation and evaluation vary considerably. Whereas the first 21 chapters of the Bellum Alexandrinum give a fairly sober and seemingly objective account of the historical facts, the later chapters put greater emphasis on emotions and are characterized by explicit political and ethical comment. A good illustration of this is the following passage (29.5–30.1): (29.5) quorum impetum adeo pertimuerunt hostes, ut in fuga spem salutis conlocarent; sed id frustra: namque ex ea fuga pauci ad regem refugerunt, paene omni reliqua multitudine interfecta. (30.1) Caesar re praeclarissime gesta, cum subitum adventum suum iudicaret magnum terrorem Alexandrinis iniecturum, protinus victor ad castra regis pertendit. (29.5) The enemies feared their assault so much that they placed their hope of salvation in escape; but in vain: for only a few escaped from this retreat to the king, while almost all the remaining crowd was killed. (30.1) After the matter had been dealt with in a most brilliant fashion, the victorious Caesar directly pressed on towards the camp of the king, because he estimated that his sudden arrival would provoke great terror among the Alexandrians. 73 This seems more plausible than the explanation of Rambaud (1953: 78–9), who suggests that “le rédacteur” may have treated the underlying “rapports de légats” inconsistently, sometimes accurately copying detailed information and sometimes replacing it by vague expressions or summaries. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

94

Literary technique and historiographical method  

On the one hand, the historical details are presented in  a dense, partly even e­ lliptical (sed id frustra), style that exploits the brevity of participial constructions (paene omni reliqua multitudine interfecta); on the other hand, the author accentuates the emotions of the enemies (adeo pertimuerunt, ut …; magnum terrorem), highlights in an almost tragic fashion the futility of their efforts (sed id frustra),74 and gives his personal evaluation of the events (re praeclarissime gesta). In order to describe and distinguish the different modes of presentation, we shall first turn once more to the language of the Bellum Alexandrinum and examine the distribution of political and ethical value terms. This quantitative approach will be followed by an analysis of the various ways in which the historical actors are characterized and judged in the Bellum Alexandrinum.

(a) Political and ethical vocabulary The more emotive and at times openly subjective presentation of the later chapters can be detected already on a lexical level. Most of the political value terms such as dignitas (8.3, 26.1, 33.4, 36.2, 55.2, 58.1, 64.2, 65.4, 68.1), maiestas (34.2, 66.3), nobilitas (26.1, 72.2, 78.2),75 indignitas (60.1), amicitia (23.2, 26.1, 26.3, 33.3, 37.1, 68.1), and fides (23.2, 24.1, 24.2, 26.1, 32.1, 32.4, 33.2, 33.4, 61.1, 63.3, 65.4)76 are either confined to, or much more frequent in, chapters 22–78.77 Likewise, most references to virtues (e. g. fortitudo, diligentia, prudentia),78 negative

74 The harsh and emphatic effect of sed id frustra can be compared to Hirt. Gal. 8.3.3–4: perterriti Bituriges … in finitimas civitates aut privatis hospitiis confisi aut societate consiliorum confugerant. frustra: nam Caesar magnis itineribus omnibus locis occurrit … (~ Catul. 21.6–7: … omnia experiris. / frustra: nam …, Hor. Carm. 3.7.21, 3.13.6, S. 2.7.115, Mart. 10.35.19), 8.5.3: nec frustra: nam …, 8.19.6: hostes concidunt animis atque itineribus diversis fugam quaerunt. nequiquam: nam …, Verg. A. 3.628: haud impune quidem (~ Sil. 14.216, 16.66), or Sen. Ep. 31.10: et inpune (~ Tac. Hist. 1.74.2, Apul. Met. 1.25: sed non impune); for further examples see KS vol. II.1, 10–11 and Wölfflin 1885: 10–11. 75 Cf. also 66.4: homini nobilissimo Lycomedi Bithyno; the other attestations of nobilis at 27.1, 47.3, 60.1, 66.2 (all superlative) point to the fame or prominence of geographical places (on this usage see already p. 57 with n. 122 above). 76 Cf. also fidelis (7.2, 33.3, 43.2, 61.2) and infidelis (43.1). 77 For further examples see appendix L.1–5, pp. 291–94; an exception is dedecus (15.4, but absent from B.Alex. 22–78). 78 Cf. e. g. fortis (19.2, 40.3, 43.2, 46.2, 66.2), diligentia (4.2, 26.1, 42.2, 43.4, 68.1), prudentia (27.5, 42.2, 68.1), and the use of acer/acriter (20.4: acrius … insequebantur and 8× in B. Alex. ­22–78), celeriter (confined to B.Alex. 22–78 (23×)), celer (28.2, 51.3, 61.2), celeritas (77.1), and vehementer (46.2, 56.6, 65.3; cf. also 64.3: vehementiore tempestate, no attestations for vehementia) to emphasize the soldiers’ swiftness, zeal, and courage. For further evidence see ­appendix L.6, pp. 295–97. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

The presentation and evaluation of the historical events   

95

character traits (e. g. fallacia, crudelitas, avaritia),79 or emotions (e. g. laetitia, dolor, odium)80 belong to the later sections of the work. Two further characteristic features of the later chapters are resumptive ablatives absolute that evaluate the preceding events (e. g. 26.3: re bene gesta)81 and tendentious superlatives, cf. e. g. 23.2: dominatione crudelissima Ganymedis, 24.3: regius animus disciplinis fallacissimis eruditus, 30.1: re praeclarissime gesta,82 43.2: cives Romani fortissimi fide­ lissimique, 78.5: rebus felicissime celerrimeque confectis.83 The striking distribution of these linguistic phenomena shows that the evaluation of human behaviour features prominently in the later sections of the Bellum Alexandrinum, but is not a topic that is explicitly raised in chapters 1–21. In addition, the strong focus on emotions and ethical evaluation in B.Alex. 22–78 also differs sharply from the style of Caesar and Hirtius, who avoid many of the expressions listed above or use them far more sparingly.84 79 Cf. appendix L.7 (pp. 297–300) and e. g. fallacia (24.6), fallax (7.2, 24.1, 24.3), crudelis (23.2, 41.1), crudelitas (55.5), avaritia (55.5). 80 Cf. gaudium (24.5), laetitia (56.2, 77.1), laetus (53.4, 77.1), laetari (24.6, 32.4), dolor (15.4 (Euphranor’s speech), 25.1, 29.3, 54.1, 55.2, 55.5, 56.2), odium (48.1 (3×), 50.2, 50.3, 53.4, 53.5, 56.4, 58.2, 59.1), appendix L.8 (pp. 300–302), and the rudimentary discussion of the emotional vocabulary by Fischer (1880: 12). 81 Cf. section 3.5d (pp. 63–4) above for further examples. 82 In view of the intensifying quality of prae-, praeclarissime can almost be said to be a ‘double superlative’ (cf. Wölfflin 1867: 131–2, André 1951: 136–8). The frequent use of such compounds in the late Republic and early Principate soon diminished the intensifying force of prae-, and already in Tacitus’ day it may have vanished (cf. Wölfflin 1867: 132 and André 1951: 146–8, 151–2). 83 Further examples can be found at 32.1, 40.3, 41.1, 47.5, 55.2, 60.1, 66.4, 78.2; cf. also the use of superlatives to highlight the difficulties faced by Caesar and his troops, e. g. 28.3: editissimo loco, 43.2: durissimis tempestatibus, 43.3: summa … difficultate, 77.1: quod maximum bellum tanta celeritate confecerat. Another characteristic feature of the later sections of the Bellum Alexandrinum are superlative doublets such as fertilissima et copiosissima (3.1): they occur nine times in B.Alex. 22–78 (30.6, 32.1, 43.2, 46.2, 47.3, 60.1, 66.2, 66.3, 78.5), but only once in B.Alex. 1–21 (see above), eight times in the entire Bellum Civile, eleven times in Gal. 1–7, and not once in Hirt. Gal. 8. On the whole, the frequency of superlatives in B.Alex. 22–78 (10.45 superlatives/1000 words) is considerably higher than in B.Alex. 1–21 (7.16/1000 words), but not too far away from the corresponding figures for Gal. 1–7 (11.55/1000 words) and Civ. 1–3 (10.06/1000 words); an even higher frequency can be found in Hirtius’ Gal. 8 (13.3/1000 words); cf. also the clustering of superlatives in Cicero’s accounts of his deeds in Asia Minor and Syria at Att. 5.20 (especially §§ 3 and 5) and Fam. 2.10.3 (= 86.3 SB), 15.4.3–10 (= 110.3–10 SB; cf. especially § 10). 84 H. A. Gärtner (1975: 87) correctly observes that Caesar, too, occasionally makes extensive use of words pointing to character traits, emotions, and ethical concepts. However, this phenomenon is confined to speeches. Gärtner’s example (Gal. 7.52.1–4) is a case in point: Caesar the general (not Caesar the historian) is speaking to his troops after the set-back suffered at Gergovia. The tables in appendix L.1–8 (pp. 291–302) show that common words such as gau­ dium, fallacia, laetari, trepidatio, benignitas, and the ethical use of bonitas are completely absent from the Caesarian commentarii; likewise, the ethical use of constantia (Gal.  1.40.6, 7.77.10, © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

96

Literary technique and historiographical method  

(b) The representation of Caesar and the Caesarians The change from a rational and seemingly objective account in chapters 1–21 to a subjective presentation in chapters 22–78 also becomes apparent in the characterization of the main protagonist Julius Caesar. In B.Alex. 1–21, facts that could cast doubt on Caesar’s qualities as a general are not always suppressed: low morale85 and criticism by the soldiers are mentioned,86 and on one occasion Caesar is even explicitly accused of being too hesitant.87 Furthermore, we get a fairly colourful and dramatic description of the disastrous battle on the mole, in which Caesar not only failed to protect his flanks, but also lost all control over his soldiers and could not prevent their chaotic flight.88 Instead of explicitly attenuating such set-backs or praising Caesar’s successes and his personal qualities in other episodes of the war, the narrator of chapters 1–21 influences the reader’s perception by means of subtle hints. A good example of this is B.Alex. 21.1: Caesar, quoad potuit cohortando suos ad pontem ac munitiones continere, eodem in periculo versatus est; postquam universos cedere animadvertit, in suum navigium se recepit. As long as he could keep his soldiers at the mole and the fortifications by means of exhortations, Caesar remained in the same danger; after he had seen that everyone was retreating, he withdrew to his ship.

Civ.  1.6.1, Hirt. Gal.  8.39.2) and the terms perseverantia (Civ.  3.26.3, not Hirt.), indigni­tas (Gal. 2.14.3, 7.56.2, Hirt. Gal. 8.44.2), maiestas (Gal. 7.17.3, Civ. 3.106.4, not Hirt.), and fortitudo (Gal. 1.2.5) only occur once, twice, or thrice in the much larger corpus of Gal. 1–8 and Civ. 1–3; and even the frequency of fides (54× Caes., 5× Hirt.), nobilitas (8× Caes., Hirt. Gal.  8.45.2), honestus (8× Caes., not in Hirt.), amicitia (43× Caes., 3× Hirt.), laetitia (5× Caes., 2× Hirt.), odium (4× Caes., 3× Hirt.), crudelitas (4× Caes., Hirt. Gal. 8.44.1), or dolor (16× Caes., 2× Hirt.) is markedly higher in B.Alex. 22–78 than in Caesar or Hirtius. 85 Cf. 7.1: quo facto dubitatione sublata tantus incessit timor, ut ad extremum periculi omnes deducti viderentur. 86 Cf. 7.1: … ut … alii morari Caesarem dicerent, quin naves conscendere iuberet. 87 Cf. the words of the Rhodian admiral Euphranor at 15.3: “videris mihi,” inquit “Caesar, vereri, si haec vada primis navibus intraris, ne prius dimicare cogaris quam reliquam classem potueris explicare …”. Caesar is also hesitant to give battle at 10.5 and 14.5. The first of these three passages has a close parallel at Civ. 1.64.2–3: totis vero castris milites circulari et dolere hostem ex manibus dimitti, bellum necessario longius duci; centuriones tribunosque militum adire atque obsecrare, ut per eos Caesar certior fieret, ne labori suo neu periculo parceret; paratos esse sese, posse et audere ea transire flumen, qua traductus esset equitatus. (3) quorum studio et vocibus excitatus Caesar, etsi timebat tantae magnitudini fluminis exercitum obicere, conandum tamen atque experiendum iudicat. Cf. also B.Afr. 82.2–3. 88 Cf. especially 20.3: ut sine signis certisque ordinibus, sine ratione prodierant, sic temere in navis refugere coeperunt and 21.1 (quoted above). © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

The presentation and evaluation of the historical events   

97

Caesar is presented here as the last man to retreat and thus appears as a leader of exemplary constantia and fortitudo.89 However, neither of these two qualities is explicitly stated. In a similar fashion, we are induced to admire Caesar’s geological knowledge,90 his careful planning,91 his sense of honour,92 his courage,93 and his care for his soldiers.94 In other passages, the narrator carefully directs the reader’s attention towards the troops and thus conceals set-backs or obfuscates Caesar’s responsibility. A good illustration of this manipulative strategy can be found once again in chapters 20–21, where the narrative focuses on the irrational behaviour of Caesar’s rowers, marines, and infantry and thus diverts the attention from the insufficient preparation and planning of the operation.95 Another example is the account of the secret plots at the Egyptian court (4.1–2) and the detailed description of how the Alexandrians tried to spoil the water supply (5.1–9.2). Both passages captivate our attention and make us forget that Caesar’s attempts to reach Lake Mareotis and secure the supply of water and fodder (cf. 1.5) must have failed.96 89 One may compare Caesar’s unsuccessful attempts to prevent his men from retreating in the Battle of Dyrrhachium, cf. Civ. 3.69.4. In these and other episodes (e. g. Gal. 1.52.1–2, 2.20–1, 2.25.2–3) Caesar acts according to ancient treatises on warfare, which state that the ideal general must abstain from hand-to-hand fighting, but should remain close to his troops and encourage them: cf. Onasander Strat. 33.6: στρατηγοῦ δ’ ἔστι τὸ παριππάζεσθαι ταῖς τάξεσιν, ἐπιφαίνεσθαι τοῖς κινδυνεύουσιν, ἐπαινεῖν τοὺς ἀνδριζομένους, ἀπειλεῖν τοῖς ἀποδειλιῶσι, παρακαλεῖν τοὺς μέλλοντας …, Goldsworthy 1996: 156–63, Grillo 2012: 74 and see Lendon 1999: 278 on the reception of Greek military writers in Rome. 90 Cf. 8.1: nam puteis fossis aquam dulcem reperiri posse adfirmabat: omnia enim litora natu­ raliter aquae dulcis venas habere. 91 Cf. 10.1: Caesar, ut per se consilium caperet, quid faciendum videretur, navem conscendit and 14.2: post hunc ordinem reliquas naves subsidio distribuit; quae quamque earum sequatur et cui subveniat, constituit atque imperat. 92 Cf. 11.2: cui coactus est Caesar ferre subsidium, ne turpem in conspectu [suppl. M] contumeliam acciperet, quamquam siquid gravius illis accidisset, merito casurum iudicabat. 93 Cf. 13.6: tamen virtute militum confisus cognitis hostium copiis se ad dimicandum parabat. 94 Cf. 21.2–3. This type of implicit characterization is also typical of the Bellum Gallicum and Bellum Civile: cf. e. g. Civ. 3.105.1–2 (Caesar protects the treasure of the Artemis temple at Ephesus), 3.109.1 (Caesar tries to resolve disputes amicably), 3.112.12 (the execution of Pothinus is not an arbitrary act, but occurs indicatis deprehensisque internuntiis) and see Lehmann 1951: 42, 53, 223, Pitcher 2007: 106, 108–9, 114–15, Bartley 2008: 373–4, Grillo 2012: 11, 26–8, 37–57 (especially pp. 40, 43–5, 53), 60–1, 71–2, 76, 79, 102, 139 for further examples and discussion. virtute et patientia (Civ. 1.45.6) and nulla ratione (Civ. 3.92.4) hardly qualify as exceptions or counter-evidence: the passages mention behaviour that was commonly regarded as positive or negative, but they do not contain a “direct appreciation” or “explicit [sc. judgement]” (contra Grillo 2011: 253, 260). 95 This was already observed by Graindor (1931: 115). 96 The manipulative technique has close parallels in the Bellum Gallicum and Bellum Civile: cf. Barwick 1951: 81 (on Civ. 3.59–73, especially 3.73.4–5), Rambaud 1953: 206–7 (“dissimulation et diversion”, e. g. Gal. 2.17.4–5, 4.33, 7.84.4, Civ. 3.64.3–4, 3.69.4), 211–12, 214 (“disparitions de César”, e. g. Gal. 3.28.3, 5.15.3, Civ. 1.45.2–6), Drees 1977/1978: 36–8 (on Gal. 5.24–37), © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

98

Literary technique and historiographical method  

Furthermore, the narrator of chapters 1–21 also resorts to minor misrepresentations that put Caesar and his troops in a more positive light. At the beginning of chapter 12, he claims that after the first naval encounter the Alexandrians were distressed (fracti), because they had been beaten not by the strength and courage of propugnatores (i. e. soldiers of the infantry), but by the skill of Caesar’s c­ lassiarii (i. e. the less respected marines).97 The statement suggests that at the time of the sea battle Caesar’s fleet bad been manned only with marines.98 This, however, is unlikely to be correct, for Caesar was on his way back from some place in the west of Alexandria (cf. 10.4: Caesari redeunti), where he had picked up the entire 37th legion.99 The narrator deliberately makes Caesar’s forces appear smaller, so that his victory is all the more impressive.100 Slightly different is the case of chapters 12–13, where we look in vain for the defensive measures and the smaller attacks which Cassius Dio mentions for the interval between the two major sea battles narrated in B.Alex. 11 and 14–16.101 These actions may have been deliberately suppressed, because they would have illustrated Caesar’s rather limited control of the city and its harbours.102 Holzberg 1987 (on the ethnographic digressions in Gal.  4.1.3–4.4.7, 5.12–14, 6.11–24,[25– 8]), and Powell 1998: 115–20 (on Gal. 5.24–37). Although Caesar occasionally creates the impression that his officers and soldiers are responsible for major failures and defeats (cf. e. g. Gal. 1.22.1–4, 1.23.2, 5.24–37 and Rambaud 1953: 208, 211–12, 297, Collins 1972: 940, Welch 1998: 91, 95–7), the representation of his troops is generally very positive, cf. Collins 1952: 109–11, La Penna 1952: 204–5, Welch 1998: 89–90. 97 That the classiarii were not prestigious special forces, but second-rate soldiers can be deduced from Suet. Aug. 16.1: viginti servorum milibus manumissis et ad remum datis (cf. Louis 2010: 156 ad loc.) and Cass. Dio 48.49.1; see also Zingerle 1892: 113–14, R. Schneider 1893: 255, Kromayer/Veith 1928: 621, Wickert 1949/50: 106–8, 122, 124. 98 Cf. also 10.5: qui [i. e. Caesar] … dimicare nolebat, quod … nullos milites in navibus h ­ abebat. 99 The precise landing place of the 37th legion cannot be determined, but it must be situated westwards of the Small Chersonesus (Χερσόνησος μικρά, probably today’s Marabit, c. 15 km south-westwards of Alexandria), cf. B.Alex. 9.3, 10.2, Jung 1900: 27, Graindor 1931: 85 and n. 16 on p. 79 above. 100 This was already observed by Jung (1900: 27) and Graindor (1931: 88); the manipulative technique is characteristic of Caesar: cf. Lehmann 1951: 225, Rambaud 1953: 182–6 (“exagération par imprécision”). Jung (1900: 27) and Graindor (1931: 87 n. 1) also point out that the Egyptian fleet had been burnt at the beginning of the war (cf. Civ. 3.111.6 and B.Alex. 8.2: … quoniam … neque hostes classem haberent) and that the narrator exaggerates when he calls the ships of the Alexandrians a ‘fleet’, cf. 11.5: tota classe hostium; more truthful, but just as suggestive and manipulative, is the description at 10.4: naves omnes quas paratas habuerant [sc. Alexandrini] ad navigandum (the words cum classe in the same sentence are likely to refer to Caesar’s fleet). 101 Cf. Cass. Dio 42.38.3 (the Alexandrians block the entries to the Eunostos harbour to prevent an attack by Caesar) and 42.40.1–2 (Ganymedes builds ships, opens the blockade of the Eunostos harbour, and conducts small, but effective attacks against the Romans). 102 Cf. Jung 1900: 30 and Graindor 1931: 91, 95–6, 98. Similar omissions can also be found in the Bellum Gallicum and Bellum Civile. Particularly striking examples are the mutiny at Placentia, which is omitted at Civ. 2.21–2, but mentioned at Cass. Dio 41.26–35, App. B. C. 2.47, Suet. Jul. 69, Luc. 5.237–373, and Caesar’s failed attempt to cross the Adriatic Sea (cf. Civ. 3.25 © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

The presentation and evaluation of the historical events   

99

The discreet misrepresentations and other strategies illustrated above all closely resemble the manipulative techniques of the Bellum Gallicum and Bellum Civile,103 but are quite different from the narrative of the later chapters, where Caesar is celebrated in an overtly propagandistic fashion. The best example of this is the account of his arrival in Alexandria after his decisive victory over king Ptol­ emy. The narrator graphically describes how Caesar was greeted by the Alexandrians in the most humble and submissive way (32.3): dignum adveniens fructum virtutis et animi magnitudinis tulit: omnis enim multitudo oppidanorum armis proiectis munitionibusque suis relictis, veste ea sumpta, qua supplices dominantes deprecari consuerunt, sacrisque omnibus prolatis, quorum religione precari offensos iratosque animos regum erant soliti, advenienti Caesari occurrerunt seque ei dediderunt. Upon his arrival, he received a worthy reward of his valour and fortitude: for the whole crowd of the inhabitants of the city laid down their arms, left their fortifications, put on those garments in which supplicants are used to ask rulers for pardon, brought forth all the sacred objects with which they were accustomed to perform religious practices and pray to the offended and angry minds of their kings, hurried to meet Caesar when he arrived and gave themselves up to him.

Not only is Caesar here presented as a godlike figure whom the Egyptians try to placate by sacrifices and prayers, but this type of veneration is also explicitly qualified by the narrator as being commensurate to Caesar’s valour and fortitude (cf. dignum … fructum virtutis et animi magnitudinis).104 The narrator then goes on to portray Caesar’s reception by his own troops (32.4): and contrast App. B. C. 2.57, Plut. Vit. Caes. 38, Cass. Dio 41.46.2–4, Luc. 5.497–677); cf. the discussion of these and other omissions in Lehmann 1951: 73–4, 225, Barwick 1951: 45–7, Rambaud 1953: 204–8, Powell 1998: 115, and Grillo 2012: 22–3, 42, 71 n. 39. 103 This was already observed by Judeich (1885: 10–11). For Caesarian parallels and secondary literature see nn. 89, 94, 96, 100, and 102 above. 104 Landgraf (1888a: 117) compares Civ. 1.74.7: magnum … fructum suae pristinae lenitatis omnium iudicio Caesar ferebat, but Pötter (1932: 27) acutely observes that the boastful tone of B.Alex. 32.3 is quite un-Caesarian (cf. p. 266 ad loc.). The passage shares several motifs with deditiones in fidem in Roman historiography: cf. the similar emphasis on the Roman general’s virtus at Liv. 30.14.4 (Masinissa and Scipio), the references to supplication and typical behaviour of supplices at Caes. Gal. 1.27.1–2 (deditio of the Helvetii), Civ. 2.11.4–2.12.3 (pleas of the Massiliots), B.Alex. 47.4 (d. of the inhabitants of Issa), Sal. Jug. 47.3 (d. of Iugurtha), Liv. 36.27.6–8, 37.1.2 (d. of the Aetolians), Tac. Ann. 2.22.2 (d. of the Angrivarii), the religious resonances at Liv. 42.8.6: tot milia capitum innoxiorum fidem implorantia populi Romani (deditio of the Sta­ tellates) and see Flurl 1969: 188–9 (discussion of B.Alex. 32.3–4), 138, 205 (on the religious connotations of fidem implorare), 228 (on the close connection between virtus and fides in Cicero, Caesar, Livy, and others). Paradoxically, Gambetti (2009: 54) takes 32.2 and 7.2 as evidence that Caesar was supported by a large portion of the population of Alexandria (magna multitudo oppidanorum) and that the Alexandrian Jews actively supported Caesar in the street fighting inside the city; the image painted by Gambetti may contain some historical truth, but differs sharply from the account in the Bellum Alexandrinum: cf. 7.2–3 and p. 68 n. 185. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

100

Literary technique and historiographical method  

Caesar in fidem receptos consolatus per hostium munitiones in suam partem oppidi magna gratulatione venit suorum. qui non tantum bellum ipsum ac dimicationem, sed etiam talem adventum eius felicem fuisse laetabantur. After he had taken them under his protection and had comforted them,105 he came through the fortifications of the enemies into that part of the city that he had controlled and was greeted with much congratulation by his men.106 They rejoiced that not only the war itself and the fighting had been fortunate, but also this sort of ­arrival.

The description of the subservient Alexandrians and the jubilant Roman soldiers may well contain some historical truth,107 but it is not an innocent report of facts. The images of defeat and joy primarily serve to render Caesar’s victory tangible and underscore his achievement. Moreover, the narrative evokes key concepts of Caesarian propaganda such as clemency (cf. in fidem receptos consolatus) and the Fortuna Caesaris,108 and the soldiers’ affection casts a warm light on their general. Furthermore, the narrative provides the readers with a ready-made interpretation of the events and prefigures how they are supposed to react to them. Like similar scenes on modern photographs or in propaganda films,109 the description of the 105 Cf. Hirt. Gal. 8.38.2: ipse [sc. Caesar] reliquas civitates adit, … timentes omnium animos consolatione sanat and B. Scholz 1956: 67. 106 Cf. Civ.  1.53.2: concursus ad Afranium magnaeque gratulationes fiebant and OLD s.v. ­gratulatio 2. 107 However, the account should not be taken at face value. In the Bellum Civile (3.106.4–5) and some of the earlier chapters of the Bellum Alexandrinum (3.2–3, 25.1) the Alexan­drians are said to be very proud of their king and to thoroughly dislike any meddling in their affairs. In view of these earlier passages, the sudden subservience sounds unrealistic. Moreover, the description of Caesar’s return to Alexandria is strongly influenced by literary conventions: see n. 109 below and p. 153 n. 284. 108 Cf. 32.4: non tantum bellum ipsum ac dimicationem, sed etiam talem adventum eius felicem fuisse. On the Fortuna Caesaris see section 4.3, pp. 114–16 below. 109 A classic example is Leni Riefenstahl’s Triumph des Willens (1934). Its opening scenes focus on the cheering women and children, who stand on the sidewalks and wave to Hitler as he is driven from the airport to the hotel “Deutscher Hof ” in Nuremberg (for an analysis see Decker 2005: 53). A similar technique is used by Cicero at Pis. 51 (cf. also Rab. Perd. 8) and by Hirtius at Gal.  8.51.1–3: exceptus est Caesaris adventus ab omnibus municipiis et coloniis incredibili honore atque amore. tum primum enim veniebat ab illo universae Galliae bello. (2) ­nihil relinquebatur, quod ad ornatum portarum, itinerum, locorum omnium, qua Caesar iturus erat, excogitari poterat. (3) cum liberis omnis multitudo obviam procedebat, hostiae omnibus locis immo­labantur, tricliniis stratis fora templaque occupabantur, ut vel spectatissimi [Nipperdey 1847: 123, 491, exspectatissimi codd.] triumphi laetitia praecipi posset. tanta erat mag­ nificentia apud opulentiores, cupiditas apud humiliores. Caesar, too, employs ‘band-wagon propaganda’, but his use is discreet and not so melodramatic (see Collins 1972: 958–9). See also pp. 150 (n. 268), 153 (n. 284) and cf. Liv. 5.23.1–4, Vell. 2.89.1, 2.103.1–4, Plin. Pan. 22.5, Suet. Cal. 4, Paneg. 2(12).37, 2(12).47.3–4, 5(8).8.1, 3(11).6.3–5, 3(11).7.2–3, Amm. 15.8.21, 22.2.4 (~ Zos. 3.11.2), Pearce 1970: 313–16, Woodman 1977: 130, 133, and MacCormack 1972, 1981: 21–2, 46–51, Lehnen 1997: 243–77 (on the adventus principis and its representation in art and ­literature). © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

The presentation and evaluation of the historical events   

101

celebrating soldiers functions as an invitation to identify with the jubilant masses and join the crowd of Caesar’s friends and admirers.110 Similarly strong emphasis is put on Caesar’s achievements in the war against Pharnaces. After the account of the Battle of Zela, Caesar’s great accomplishment is underscored by references to his own relief and joy, the number of victories, the difficult task, and the swiftness with which he acted (B.Alex. 77.1): tali victoria totiens victor Caesar incredibili est laetitia affectus, quod maximum bellum tanta celeritate confecerat, eoque subiti periculi recordatione laetior, quod victoria facilis ex difficillimis rebus acciderat. Caesar, who had so often been victorious, was moved to incredible joy by such a victory, because he had finished a very big war with so great speed, and the memory of the unexpected danger made him all the more joyful, because an easy victory had happened under most difficult circumstances.

In the middle sections of the Bellum Alexandrinum, where the narrative focuses on the deeds of Caesar’s generals in Asia Minor (B.Alex. 34–41), Illyricum (B.Alex. 42–7), and Spain (B.Alex. 48–64), there are naturally fewer occasions to speak of Caesar’s successes, but even there the repeated phrase Caesar victor (34.2, 42.4, 43.1, and 77.1 (quoted above)) reminds the reader of Caesar’s many victories.111 Apart from stressing Caesar’s military successes, chapters 22–78 also emphasize his personal qualities. In 24.6, a passage that we have already looked at above (p. 75), Caesar’s foresight and superior strategic instinct are contrasted with the more limited intelligence of his officers: accidisse hoc complures Caesaris legati, amici, centuriones militesque laetabantur, quod nimia bonitas eius fallaciis pueri elusa esset—quasi vero id Caesar bonitate tantum adductus ac non prudentissimo consilio fecisset. Many of Caesar’s staff officers, friends, centurions, and soldiers were delighted that this had happened, thinking that his excessive kindness had been fooled by the de 110 A similar effect is created at 58.4, where the pleas of men, women, and children not only serve to arouse the reader’s sympathy, but also draw attention to Caesar’s popularity in southern Spain: frequens legionibus conventus obviam prodit, neque tantum virorum, sed etiam matrum familias ac praetextatorum, deprecaturque, ne hostili adventu Cordubam diriperent; nam se contra Cassium consentire cum omnibus, contra Caesarem ne facere cogerentur orare. 111 Since the propagandistic slogan pervades chapters 22–78, there is little attraction in attributing chapters 65–78 to Caesar and interpreting 77.1 as  a reflection of Caesar’s selfperception and monarchic ambitions after Pharsalus (contra Pötter 1932: 63). In the Bellum Gallicum and Bellum Civile, Caesar and other generals are occasionally called imperator (cf. e. g. Civ. 1.13.1: C. Caesarem imperatorem and 2.26.1: Curio … imperator appellatur), but this is not a descriptive epithet but rather an honorary appellation of victorious generals (cf. TLL s.v. 554.42–47, 556.10–13 and Rosenberg 1914: 1140–44); in the Bellum Alexandrinum the noun is used only of Cassius Longinus (48.2, 49.2, 50.1, 54.2) and generally of victorious commanders (70.8). © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

102

Literary technique and historiographical method  

ceptive tricks of the boy—as if indeed Caesar had done this only because of his kindness and not because of a very wise plan.112

Another quality highlighted in the later chapters is Caesar’s clemency and sense of justice. In chapter 70, the narrator garnishes his account with a piece of reported speech in which Caesar responds to Pharnaces and employs no fewer than four different expressions for his mildness and forgiveness: (1) Caesar respondit se fore aequissimum Pharnaci, si quae polliceretur repraesentaturus esset. (2) monuit autem ut solebat mitibus verbis legatos, ne aut Deiotarum sibi obicerent aut nimis eo gloriarentur beneficio quod auxilia Pompeio non misissent. (3) nam se neque libentius facere quicquam quam supplicibus ignoscere, neque provinciarum publicas iniurias condonare iis posse, qui [non] fuissent in se officiosi. (3) non del. Vascosan (1543: 106E–F) (1) Caesar answered that he would be most indulgent113 to Pharnaces, if he [i. e. Pharnaces] would do the things that he promised. (2) But he warned the ambassadors with mild words (as usually) that they should not throw in his teeth the case of Deiotarus nor pride themselves on the favour that they had not sent auxiliary troops to Pompey. (3) For he did nothing more gladly than forgive supplicants, but he could not condone public injuries against the provinces even if the perpetrators had been dutiful to him.

The negotiations with Pharnaces could have been treated in a much more summary fashion (cf. pp. 91–2), and the speech that is put into Caesar’s mouth at 70.1–8 does not heighten the suspense or serve any other narrative function. Its primary purpose is to propagate Caesar’s point of view and illustrate his claim to cle­mentia, which played a key role in his self-representation during the Civil War.114 112 Cf. Judeich 1885: 8; on the obscure reference to Caesar’s consilium prudentissimum cf. pp. 75–6 with n. 8 above. One may compare Hirt. Gal. 8.41.2: hoc fonte prohiberi posse oppidanos cum optarent reliqui, Caesar unus videret, …; see Scholz 1956: 76. 113 Cf. OLD s.v. aequus 7a. Since Pharnaces has no just claim to being treated in this way, aequis­simum is unlikely to be employed here in its legal sense (‘fair, just, reasonable, right’, cf. OLD s. v. 6a). 114 Cf. especially Caesar’s letter to Oppius and Cornelius Balbus (= Cic. Att. 9.7c.1, dated 5 March 49 B. C.): … quod mea sponte facere constitueram, ut quam lenissimum me praeberem …. haec nova sit ratio vincendi, ut misericordia et liberalitate nos muniamus. Neither here nor in the Bellum Civile are the words clementia and clemens used, and the adverb clementer occurs only once at Civ. 3.20.2, where it refers to the jurisdiction of the praetor urbanus Trebonius: qui his temporibus clementer et moderate ius dicendum existimabat. Caesar may have avoided the words, because (a) they would imply a misbehaviour of his enemies (cf. Wickert 1937: 243), (b)  they had been exploited as  a political slogan and were redolent of popular propaganda (cf. Rochlitz 1993: 46–9, Griffin 2003: 161–2), (c) they were typically a virtue of kings and thus could have provoked resentment (cf. Rambaud 1953: 291, Collins 1972: 960, Richter 1977: 178; contra Konstan 2005), or (d) they were not an adequate expression for the Greek concepts that Caesar may have had in mind (πρᾳότης, φιλανθρωπία, ἐπιείκεια, εὔνοια, cf. Treu 1948: 215 and © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

The presentation and evaluation of the historical events   

103

In addition to his success and clemency, chapters 22–78 also stress Caesar’s concern for stability and legal certainty. At B.Alex. 65.1, we are told that on his way from Egypt to Syria Caesar was informed about the mismanagement and violent conflicts at Rome, but nevertheless decided to move northwards through Syria and Cilicia to confront Pharnaces. His decision could have easily given rise to criticism, but the narrator implies that Caesar was torn between different duties115 and highlights Caesar’s concern for concord, rule of law, and security in the eastern provinces, cf. 65.1: ut [sc. provinciae] domesticis dissensionibus liberarentur, iura legesque acciperent, externorum hostium metum deponerent. In the following chapters, this concern is illustrated by several administrative and judicial acts and diplomatic achievements,116 and Caesar is explicitly credited with securing the friendship of neighbouring rulers both for himself and for the Roman people (65.4): reges, tyrannos, dynastas provinciae finitimos[que], qui omnes ad eum concurrerant, receptos in fidem condicionibus inpositis provinciae tuendae ac defendendae dimittit et sibi et populo Romano amicissimos. -que del. Oudendorp (1737: vol. 2, 835) He took the kings, tyrants, and dynasts that were closest to the province and had all come to meet him under his protection; he imposed obligations for the protection and defence of the province, and sent them away as most devoted friends of himself and the Roman people.

Closely connected with Caesar’s concern for stability and rule of law is his role as a guardian of Roman interests. At the end of the Egyptian campaign we learn that Caesar left several legions117 in Egypt not only for the sake of stability, but Konstan 2005: 344, with reference to de Romilly 1974: 100). The concept of clemency, however, plays a key role in Caesar’s self-representation: cf. Wickert 1937: 234–44, Treu 1948, Barwick 1951: 70–8, Weinstock 1971: 233–43, Collins 1972: 959–62, Rochlitz 1993: 40–58, Griffin 2003: 159–63, Dowling 2006: 20–6, and Grillo 2012: 78–105. 115 Cf. 65.1: cum … eaque omnia flagitare adventum suum videret, tamen praeferendum existimavit … . 116 Cf. 65.4: praemia … tribuit, de controversiis veteribus cognoscit ac statuit, 66.3: rebus ­omnibus provinciae et finitimarum civitatium constitutis, 66.3–4 (appointment of the priest ­Lycomedes), 66.5 (confirmation of Ariobarzanes’ position as king of Cappadocia; subordination of his brother Ariarathes), 68.1 (pardon of Deiotarus and confirmation of his kingship), and the detailed account of Caesar’s administrative measures in chapter 78. 117 Cf. 33.3: legiones ibi, veterana sexta secum reducta, ceteras reliquit. According to Sueto­ nius (Jul. 76.3), the Roman contingent consisted of three legions. Apart from the 27th (cf. Civ. 3.34.2, 3.106.1) and 37th legions (cf. B.Alex. 9.3), it probably comprised a legion that was formed out of the Gabiniani milites (cf. Civ. 3.103.5, 3.110.2) after the defeat of king Ptolemy; the legion sent by Domitius Calvinus overland never reached Alexandria (cf. B.Alex. 34.3) and is likely to have been put under the command of Sextus Caesar in Syria (cf. B.Alex. 66.1 and von Domaszewski 1894: 170–3 (especially pp. 172–3), Jung 1900: 47, Rice Holmes 1923: vol. 3, 503, Graindor 1931: 163–4; contra Andrieu 1954: 83). © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

104

Literary technique and historiographical method  

also because it would be useful for Rome to protect the royal couple and influence their political agenda.118 In the account of the war against Pharnaces, great emphasis is put on the death and maltreatment of Roman citizens119 and the seizure of Roman property;120 thus, in defeating Pharnaces, Caesar automatically becomes a defender of Rome’s interests and an avenger of her citizens.121 Moreover, Caesar is repeatedly presented as the legitimate representative of the Roman people (cf. 33.1, 65.4, 78.2), and phrases such as ut … fidem populo Romano sibique [i. e. Caesari] praestaret (24.2), turpe populo Romano et C. Caesari victori sibique [i. e. Domitio] infame esse (34.2), or et sibi [sc. Caesari] et populo Romano amicissimos (65.4) almost create the impression that Caesar and the Roman people are inseparably connected. At 68.1, Caesar is even said to have argued that the Senate, the Roman people, and the entire res publica had been on his side during the Civil War: Caesar, cum … defectionem eius [i. e. Deiotari] nullam posse excusationem [eius] imprudentiae recipere coarguisset, quod homo tantae prudentiae ac diligentiae scire potuisset, quis Urbem Italiamque teneret, ubi senatus populusque Romanus, ubi res publica esset, quis deinde post L. Lentulum C. Marcellum consul esset … . eius del. Clarke (1720: 393) After Caesar had proved that his [i. e. Deiotarus’] desertion could not claim the excuse of ignorance, because a man of such great wisdom and careful attention could have known who controlled the city and Italy, on whose side122 the senate and the Roman people were, on whose side the Republic was, and finally who was consul after L. Lentulus and C. Marcellus …

It is instructive to compare these remarks with Caesar’s self-presentation in the Bellum Civile. Of course, Caesar, too, tries to legitimize his war against Pompey and the Roman Senate by emphasizing that he invaded Italy not only to defend his personal dignitas against his inimici,123 but also for the sake of the Roman 118 Cf. 33.4: simul ad imperii nostri dignitatem utilitatemque publicam pertinere existimabat, si permanerent in fide reges, praesidiis eos nostris esse tutos; si essent ingrati, posse isdem praesidiis coerceri. 119 Cf. 40.5: ceciderunt eo proelio splendidi atque inlustres viri nonnulli, equites Romani, 41.2: supplicia constituit in eos, qui aliquam formae atque aetatis commendationem habebant, ea quae morte essent miseriora, 70.5–6 (see n. 121 below). 120 Cf. 41.1: bona civium Romanorum Ponticorumque diripuit [sc. Pharnaces]. 121 Cf. especially the reflections put into Caesar’s mouth at 70.5–6: itaque se [i. e. Caesarem] magnas et graves iniurias civium Romanorum, qui in Ponto negotiati essent, quoniam in integrum restituere non posset, concedere Pharnaci. (6) nam neque interfectis amissam vitam neque exsectis virilitatem restituere posse, 70.7, and the following account of Pharnaces’ defeat at 71.2–76.4. 122 For this pregnant use of ubi cf. Cic. Att. 7.11.1: ubi est autem dignitas nisi ubi honestas? (the classification at OLD s.v. is not helpful). 123 For this motive cf. e. g. Civ. 1.7.7, 1.9.1–2, 1.22.5, 3.91.2, Hirt. Gal. 8.50.3–4, 8.52.4, Cic. Att. 7.11.1 and see Raaflaub 1974: 149–52, 183–6, 2003: 59–61, 2010: 165, and Dobesch 2000: © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

The presentation and evaluation of the historical events   

105

state. From the very beginning he presents himself as a liberator of the Senate and the Roman people124 and describes how towns and soldiers sympathize with him or join his camp.125 However, he never goes so far as to assert that the whole Roman Senate supported him (contrast B.Alex. 68.1: ubi senatus populusque Romanus [sc. esset]) or that only his side could lay claim to the state and the constitutional order (contrast B.Alex. 68.1: ubi res publica esset).126 Instead, Caesar repeatedly mentions that many senators were bitterly opposed to him (Civ. 1.2.8; cf. also 1.23.3); he reports that the Senate supported a proposal that called on him to disband his troops lest he should be considered a public enemy (Civ. 1.2.6); he quotes the senatus consultum ultimum that declared a state of emergency and granted the magistrates special powers to defend the Roman state against him (Civ.  1.5.3); he mentions  a personal message from Pompey (Civ.  1.8.3–4), in which Caesar’s opponent explicitly claims to have acted in the interest of the state (rei publicae causa); he describes how he did not succeed in persuading the senators to cooperate with him and send a delegation to Pompey (Civ. 1.32–33);127 and when he narrates his negotiations with the Massiliots, the historical character ‘Caesar’ does not claim to be supported by constitutional entities such as the Senate, the Roman people, or the Republic, but vaguely points to the authority of

92–3. Morstein-Marx (2009: 122–35) has tried to demonstrate that Caesar’s private agenda is really a public one and argues that Caesar’s dignitas and his references to libertas are closely connected: by trying to prevent Caesar from running for the consulate, his inimici not only stripped him of his honor and personal dignitas, but also infringed the Roman people’s liberty to bestow honores. This is an interesting hypothesis, and Caesar may have occasionally exploited this logic during the Civil War; in the Bellum Civile, however, his references to dignitas are often connected with the concepts of contumelia and iniuria and are focused on his person: cf. Raaflaub 1974: 183–6 and 2003: 59–61. See also Jal 1963: 61–2 and Mutschler 2003: 111–14, who illustrates that according to the Bellum Civile Caesar’s troops fight primarily for Caesar and not the res publica. 124 Cf. e. g. Civ. 1.2.6, 1.3.2–5, 1.9.5; see also Hirt. Gal. 8.52.3, Raaflaub 1974: 165–74, 2003: 52–6, 2010: 165, and Dobesch 2000: 89–92. 125 Cf. Civ.  1.12.1, 1.13.1, 1.15.1–2, 1.18.1–2, al. and Collins 1972: 958–9 (‘band-wagon propaganda’), Grillo 2012: 131–6. On the fundamentum in re see e. g. Cic. Att. 7.3.5, 7.7.6 and ­Raaflaub 1974: 65 n. 260, 2010: 166, Brunt 1986: 18–19, Morstein-Marx 2007: 176 n. 83 and 2009: 132. 126 An exception is Civ. 3.53.5, where Caesar and the Roman Republic seem to coalesce: ut erat [sc. Scaeva centurio] de se [i. e. Caesare] meritus et de re publica. 127 Cf. Caesar’s request at Civ. 1.32.7–8: pro quibus rebus hortatur ac postulat, ut rem publicam suscipiant [sc. senatores] atque una secum administrent; sin timore defugiant, illis se oneri non futurum et per se rem publicam administraturum. (8) legatos ad Pompeium de compositione mitti oportere …, the description of the controversies in the Roman Senate (1.33.1–3), and the explanation of Caesar’s departure to Gaul at 1.33.4: … Caesar frustra diebus aliquot consumptis, ne reliquum tempus dimittat, infectis iis, quae agere destinaverat, ab urbe proficiscitur atque in ulteriorem Galliam pervenit. See also Raaflaub 1974: 230–1, 243–9. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

106

Literary technique and historiographical method  

all Italy (Civ. 1.35.1: debere eos Italiae totius auctoritatem sequi potius quam unius hominis [sc. Pompei] voluntati obtemperare).128 Thus, despite its tendentiousness, the Bellum Civile gives a fairly complex and nuanced picture of Caesar’s relation to the Roman Senate and the res publica. In contrast to this, the author(s) of the later sections of the Bellum Alexandrinum seem to have felt that it could not be emphasized enough that Caesar had been committed to the Senate, the Roman people, and the Republic and had assiduously acted in their interest. This tendency suits the political climate of the turbulent months after Caesar’s death,129 but it differs sharply from the tone of chapters 1–21, where Romanus occurs only once130 in a description of the Egyptian perspective on the Alexandrian War (B.Alex. 3.2, quoted on p. 107 below).

(c) The representation of Caesar’s enemies The shift from a seemingly objective account towards a much more tendentious presentation is also discernible in the characterization of the enemy. In the early sections of the Bellum Alexandrinum the Alexandrians are described as sly and perfidious,131 but they are also credited with cleverness132 and industry,133 and the narrator tries to give a fair account of their political objectives (B.Alex. 3.2–4):

128 The words Italiae totius auctoritatem can be compared to Civ. 3.11.4: cum … illi autem se contra imperium populi Romani pugnaturos negarent (~ 3.12.2) and are discussed in Raaf­ laub 1974: 250–1 and 2010: 166. Cf. also the fairly balanced description of the political situation which Caesar has put into the mouth of the Massiliots at Civ. 1.35.3–5: cuius [i. e. Caesaris] orationem legati domum referunt atque ex [suppl. R. Menge, cf. Menge/Preuss 1885–1890: 106, line 61 s.v. auctoritas] auctoritate haec Caesari renuntiant: intellegere se divisum esse populum [add. Beroaldus 1504: s.p., A. P. Manutius 1513: 130 recto, G ­ iunta 1514: 125 verso, Panaetius 1517: lv verso, R. Stephanus 1544: 259, P. Manutius 1569: 133 verso, and Strada 1575: 136K] in partes duas; neque sui iudicii neque suarum esse virium discernere, utra pars iustiorem habeat causam. (4) principes vero esse earum partium Cn. Pompeium et C. ­Caesarem, patronos civitatis, quorum alter agros Volcarum Arecomicorum et Helviorum publice iis concesserit, alter bello victos Sallyas adtribuerit vectigaliaque auxerit. (5) quare paribus eorum beneficiis parem se quoque voluntatem tribuere debere et neutrum eorum contra alterum iuvare aut urbe ac portibus recipere. 129 Cf. section 5.3, pp. 160–63 below. 130 In B.Alex. 22–78, on the contrary, the ethnicon features 18×. 131 Cf. B.Alex. 4.1, 7.2–3. The image of the Alexandrian army, too, is fairly negative, cf. B.Alex. 4.2, 17.5 and Civ. 3.110.2–6, 3.112.11. 132 Cf. 3.1: ingeniosi atque acutissimi, 13.2: naturalis sollertia. Their inventiveness and quick exploitation of tactical opportunities show especially at 5.3–6.1, 10.3, 11.1. 133 Cf. 2.1–5, 9.2: operosis Alexandrinorum machinationibus maximisque conatibus, 12.2– 13.4. Further positive qualities are their swiftness (8.5), their nautical expertise (12.4, 16.5), and the community spirit and patriotic determination of their rich élite, cf. 2.2: servos praeterea puberes armaverant, quibus domini locupletiores victum cotidianum stipendiumque praebebant. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

The presentation and evaluation of the historical events   

107

atque haec principes in consiliis contionibusque agitabant: populum Romanum paulatim in consuetudinem eius regni occupandi venire. (3) paucis annis ante A. Gabinium cum exercitu fuisse in Aegypto; Pompeium se ex fuga eodem recepisse; Caesarem venisse cum copiis; neque morte Pompei quicquam profectum quominus apud se Caesar commoraretur. (4) quem si non expulissent, futuram ex regno provinciam; idque agendum mature: namque eum interclusum tempestatibus propter anni tempus recipere transmarina auxilia non posse. And in the meetings and public assemblies the leading citizens considered the following topics: the Roman people was gradually adopting the habit of occupying this kingdom; a few years earlier A. Gabinius had been in Egypt with an army; on his flight Pompey had taken refuge there; Caesar had come there with troops; and the assassination of Pompey had done nothing to prevent Caesar from staying among them. If they did not throw him out, the kingdom would become a (Roman) province; and this had to be done quickly; for he was cut off by bad weather because of the time of the year and could not receive reinforcements from across the sea.134

This characterization is not only consonant with the end of the Bellum Civile, where the Alexandrians are likewise portrayed as perfidious, proud, and eager to preserve their independence,135 but it also resembles Caesar’s description of the Gauls and other barbarian tribes in the Bellum Gallicum. Like the Alexandrians, the Gauls and the Germanic tribes are often said to be fickle and deceitful,136 but are occasionally also credited with courage and endurance.137 Moreover, similar to B.Alex. 3.2–4, there are numerous references to the Gauls’ longing for freedom,138 and Caesar sometimes comes close to admitting that his enemies have good reasons for fighting against him.139 In particular, one may compare the sentiments allegedly voiced in the Alexandrian contiones with a speech which Caesar attributes to a certain Critognatus during the siege of Alesia (7.77.7–16):

134 For another attempt to understand and explain the motives and psychology of the Alexandrians see B.Alex. 12.4. 135 See Civ.  3.106.5, 3.109.4–5, 3.112.3 for the sly character of the Alexandrians and cf. 3.106.4: in hoc [i. e. the fact that Caesar was accompanied by lictors] omnis multitudo [sc. ­Alexandrinorum] maiestatem regiam minui praedicabat, 3.108.1: is [i. e. Pothinus] primum inter suos queri atque indignari coepit regem ad causam dicendam evocari [sc. a Caesare]. 136 Cf. e. g. Gal.  3.8.2–3, 3.10.3 (fickleness of the Gauls), 4.13.1–5 (deceitfulness of the ­Germani and fickleness of the Gauls), 7.54.2 (unfaithfulness of the Haedui) and see Urban 1999: 20, 136–8 for further references. 137 Cf. e. g. Gal.  2.27.3–5. Another example of positive characterization is Vercingetorix’s noble offer to surrender himself to Caesar in order to prevent further bloodshed, cf. Gal. 7.89.1–2 and H. A. Gärtner 1975: 95, 112. For further examples and detailed discussion see Barlow 1998. 138 Cf. e. g. Gal. 1.17.2–5, 3.8.3, 3.10.3, 5.7.8, 5.27.6, 5.38.2, 7.1.5–8, 7.4.4, 7.37.4–5, 7.64.3, 7.66.4, 7.71.3, 7.76.2 and Lieberg 1998: 155–61, Urban 1999: 137. 139 Cf. Gal. 3.2.5, 3.10.3, 5.7.8, 5.54.5 and H. Fränkel 1933: 33 (~ 1968: 302). © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

108

Literary technique and historiographical method  

(7) sed in consilio capiendo omnem Galliam respiciamus, quam ad nostrum ­auxilium concitavimus: … (9) nolite hos vestro auxilio exspoliare, qui vestrae salutis causa suum periculum neglexerunt, nec stultitia ac temeritate vestra aut animi imbecillitate omnem Galliam prosternere et perpetuae servituti addicere. … (15) Romani … quid petunt aliud aut quid volunt nisi invidia adducti, quos fama nobiles potentesque bello cognoverunt, horum in agris civitatibusque considere atque his aeternam iniungere servitutem? neque enim umquam alia condicione bella gesserunt. (16) quodsi ea, quae in longinquis nationibus geruntur, ignoratis, respicite finitimam Galliam, quae in provinciam redacta, iure et legibus commutatis, securibus subiecta perpetua premitur servitute. (7) But when taking a decision we should also consider the whole of Gaul, which we stirred up to help us. … (9) Do not strip those of your help that have ignored their personal danger for the sake of your salvation, and do not throw down all of Gaul by your stupidity and thoughtlessness and mental weakness and do not assign all of Gaul to perpetual servitude. … (15) What else do the Romans seek or what else do they want if not, induced by envy, to settle in the fields and cities of those, whom they discovered to be famous because of their good reputation and mighty in war, and to impose on them the yoke of eternal servitude? For they have never waged wars under any other condition. (16) If you ignore the things that are done in more remote nations, look at the neighbouring Gaul, which has been reduced to a province, has received a new legal system and new laws, was subjected to the axes,140 and is oppressed by perpetual servitude.

Of course, neither the representation of the Alexandrians in B.Alex. 1–21 nor the characterization of the Gauls in Gal. 1–7 is meant to arouse our sympathy and make us adopt an anti-Caesarian viewpoint,141 but both texts at least try to make the behaviour of Caesar’s enemies comprehensible to the Roman reader by crediting the opponents with clear objectives, a rational agenda, and some perceptive comments about Roman imperialism.142 140 securibus refers to the axes carried by the Roman lictors, which symbolize the authority of Rome and her magistrates: cf. OLD s.v. 2a with Cic. Ver. 4.144: nobilissimos homines atque innocentissimos securi esse percussos (of Verres’ abuse of his executive and judicial powers), Phil. 2.51 (with Ramsey 2003: 236–7 ad loc.), Liv. 3.36.4, and see Kraner 1855: 314 (~ Kraner/Dittenberger/Meusel 1913–20: vol. 2, 424). 141 Critognatus’ speech contains a proposal for cannibalism (cf. 7.77.12) and is introduced as an example of extreme barbarian cruelty, cf. Gal. 7.77.2: non praetereunda oratio Critognati videtur propter eius singularem ac nefariam crudelitatem and see e. g. Rasmussen 1963: 51, 53, Schieffer 1972: 488–91, and Cipriani 1986: 18–33 (on the literary motif of cannibalism during sieges). The plans and political ideas of the Alexandrian principes are not commented on explicitly, but cf. the negative characterization at B.Alex. 7.2–3 and see n. 131 above for further examples. 142 The motif of foreigners criticizing Roman imperialism has close parallels in later writers: cf. e. g. the letter of Mithridates at Sal. Hist. 4.69 (Maurenbrecher), Hannibal’s words at Liv. 21.44.1–9, Calgacus’ speech at Tac. Ag. 30–32, and Boudica’s complaints at Tac. Ann. 14.35.1, Cass. Dio 62.3–6; see Adler 2011 on these and related texts. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

The presentation and evaluation of the historical events   

109

In the later chapters of the Bellum Alexandrinum there are no such attempts to understand the motives of the other side, and the characterization of the enemy is less nuanced. The Alexandrians are simply qualified as a treacherous people,143 and their soldiers are described as an egoistic and undisciplined crowd.144 Even more negative is the portrait of Pharnaces of Pontus: he is not only characterized as deceitful like the Egyptians,145 but also called a most cruel king (41.1: crudelissimus rex), and great emphasis is put on his confiscation of Roman property and the castration of Roman citizens (41.1–2). Moreover, the narrator describes him as overconfident, arrogant, and ostentatious and highlights his lack of scientia belli.146

(d) The representation of Caesar’s generals and allies Compared with the discrepancies in the characterization of Caesar and his enemies, the treatment of his generals and allies is on the whole much more ­homogeneous. Both in chapters 1–21 and in the remaining work they are regularly associated with positive qualities. In chapters 1–21 the Rhodian fleet is often put in a favourable light, cf. 11.3: qui cum in omnibus dimicationibus et scientia et virtute praestitissent and 15.1: Rhodiis navibus praeerat Euphranor, animi magnitudine ac virtute magis cum nostris hominibus quam cum Graecis comparandus (cf. also 15.2). This positive presentation continues in the later chapters, where the Rhodian admiral Euphranor is portrayed as courageous and described as a key figure of Caesar’s navy.147

143 Cf. 24.1: fallacem gentem semperque alia cogitantem, alia simulantem, 24.3: regius animus disciplinis fallacissimis eruditus, ne a gentis suae moribus degeneraret, 33.2: homines seditiosos. 144 Cf. 27.4: festinantes praeripere subsequentibus victoriae societatem. Fischer (1880: 14) compares Hirt. Gal. 8.19.5, 8.28.4; for an illuminating discussion of these passages see B. Scholz 1956: 52. 145 Cf. 37.1: haec cum administraret [sc. Pharnaces], numquam tamen intermittebat legatos de pace atque amicitia mittere ad Domitium, cum hoc ipso crederet facilius eum decipi posse and 71.2: cognita calliditate hominis [i. e. Pharnacis]. 146 Cf. 74.3: sive etiam fiducia [sc. inductus] veterani exercitus sui, …, simul contemptu exercitus nostri and 74.4: cuius aliquamdiu Caesar inridebat inanem ostentationem et eo loco militum coartationem, quem in locum nemo sanus hostis subiturus esset. As observed by Rasmussen (1963: 121–2) and Grillo (2012: 123 n. 49), fiducia often connotes hybris in the Corpus Caesarianum, cf. Gal. 7.76.5, Civ. 1.56.4, 2.4.3, 2.37.1, 2.38.2, 3.72.1, 3.96.1 and Hirt. Gal. 8.9.1, B.Alex. 12.2, 74.1, 74.3, 75.1, B.Afr. 48.4. 147 Cf. 25.3: Rhodiae naves atque in his Euphranor, sine quo nulla umquam dimicatio marituma, nulla etiam parum feliciter confecta erat and see the detailed discussion of this passage in section 4.5d, pp. 140–43 below. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

110

Literary technique and historiographical method  

Likewise, at B.Alex. 26.1 Mithridates of Pergamum is introduced as a man of nobilitas, scientia, virtus, fides, and dignitas,148 and in the account of the first campaign against Pharnaces, the narrator accentuates the bravery and determination of the 36th legion.149 In chapters 42–3, the Caesarian quaestor pro praetore Cornificius is attributed the positive qualities of prudentia and diligentia (42.2, 43.4),150 and his defence of Illyricum is said to have been non tantum sine ignominia, sed etiam cum laude (42.1). Moreover, the description of the following events in Illyricum contains several references to the virtus (43.4, 44.1, 46.4) or even admiranda virtus (46.4) of Vatinius and his troops.151 A negative foil is the misconduct of Cassius Longinus, whose rule over Spain is marked as irrational, cruel, and corrupt.152 Particularly harsh is the verdict at 60.1, where the narrator describes the devastation of the countryside around Corduba by the nouns deformitas and indignitas.153

4.3. Concepts of historical change: human and divine agency So far, we have seen that chapters 1–21 and 22–33 of the Bellum Alexandrinum differ with regard to the quality of the historical data and that there is  a major shift towards a more subjective and tendentious presentation of the events. A third inconsistency of the work concerns the underlying concept of historical 148 Cf. also 27.5: quorum impetum Mithridates magna cum prudentia consuetudine nostra castris vallatis sustinuit and see section 5.3, p. 161 with n. 31 on Cicero’s depreciatory comments about Mithridates. 149 Cf. 40.3: quae [i. e. the 36th legion] tamen fortiter vincentium impetum sustinuit, magnis copiis hostium circumdata praesentissimo animo pugnans in orbem se recepit ad radices montium. Remarkable is also the emphasis on the high social status of the Roman casualties at 40.5: ceciderunt eo proelio splendidi atque inlustres viri nonnulli, equites Romani. Both splendidus and inlustris are common honorific epithets for the members of the ordo equester: see TLL s.v. eques 716.14–24, 716.38 for parallels. 150 Cf. also 42.3: quae [sc. praeda] etsi erat tenuis, tamen in tanta provinciae despera­ tione erat grata, praesertim virtute parta (of Cornificius’ distribution of the booty among his soldiers). 151 Like Caesar’s generals, the inhabitants of Iader and Salona, who supported them, are praised, cf. 42.3: Iadestinorum, quorum semper in rem publicam singulare constiterat officium and 43.2: Salonam se recipiens in oppidum maritumum, quod cives Romani fortissimi ­fidelissimique incolebant. 152 Cf. e. g. 51.2: insolenti voluptate efferebatur and 56.2: sic erat dubius animi utrum n ­ ihil timere an omnia licere mallet. Just as negative is the characterization at 48.3, 49.1–3, 55.4–5, 56.4, 57.6, 58.4, 59.1, 64.2. 153 Cf. 59.2–60.1: ipse [i. e. Cassius Longinus] hostili modo Cordubensium agros vastat, aedi­ ficia incendit. (60.1) cuius rei deformitate atque indignitate legiones, quae Marcellum sibi ducem ceperant, ad eum concurrerunt; ut in aciem educerentur orant, priusque confligendi sibi potestas fieret quam cum tanta contumelia nobilissimae carissimaeque possessiones Cordubensium in conspectu suo rapinis ferro flammaque consumerentur. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

Concepts of historical change: human and divine agency   

111

change and the relation of human and divine agency. The narrator of the early chapters of the Bellum Alexandrinum presents events as causally determined. He views man as the primary historical agent and highlights the importance of scien­ tific knowledge (8.1, 9.2), rational evaluation and flexibility,154 military training and tactical skill (12.1, 15.2, 15.6), courage and bravery (15.7, 16.5), and mass psychology (18.2). Divine interventions are not mentioned, and there are only two passages where the author speaks of fortuna: 10.3: ex his [i. e. ex captivis] cognoverunt Caesarem ipsum in classe venisse nec ullos milites in navibus habere. qua re comperta magnam sibi facultatem fortunam obtulisse bene gerendae rei crediderunt. From these [i. e. the captives] they learned that Caesar himself had come with the fleet and had no soldiers in the ships. After this had been discovered, they believed that fortune had given them a great opportunity of doing something well. 16.1: … illi [i. e. Alexandrini], si superassent navibus, omnia tenerent, si inferiores fuissent, reliquam tamen fortunam periclitarentur. … whereas those [i. e. the Alexandrians] would control everything, if they prevailed with the ships, and if they were inferior, they could still try their luck in other ways.

In the latter of these two passages, fortuna simply means ‘luck’ (cf. OLD s.v. 1d) and clearly lacks metaphysical resonances. In the former, fortuna could refer to the deity Fortuna, but the narrator merely reports (or rather speculates about) the thoughts of the Alexandrians; he neither speaks for himself nor credits Fortune with a decisive influence on the historical events. The rational approach to history in B.Alex. 1–21 resembles Caesar’s attitude in the Bellum Gallicum and Bellum Civile. In these works, too, the course of events is presented as a result of physical, economic, and social circumstances (geo­graphy, weather, population, etc.) and human factors such as personal p ­ rowess, clever­ ness, or industry.155 When Caesar refers to the importance of fortuna in war, he, too, does not think of a divinity, but rather of events that can be rational­ized, but not predicted. Thus at Gal. 6.30.2 fortuna refers to the unexpectedly quick arrival 154 Cf. e. g. 10.5–6 and 15.3, where Caesar does not want to give battle, because the situation seems disadvantageous. 155 Cf. La Penna 1952: 218: “Cesare … spiega … le cose umane secondo motivi interni, senza far ricorso alla divinità” and L. G. H.  Hall 1998: 19–20. An exception is the enumeration of prodigies announcing Caesar’s victory at Pharsalus (Civ. 3.105.3–6), which, however, is likely to be an interpolation (see Reggi 2002 for a detailed analysis of the language and contents; cf. also Lehmann 1951: 79–84 (on Caesar’s treatment of religion) and the earlier doubts about the ­authenticity of the words quo praeter … appellant (Civ. 3.105.5) expressed by E. Fraenkel 1949: 152–3 and Pascucci 1960). The same rational perspective also prevails in Sallust’s works, cf. Vretska 1955: 146, 153–6 and Schweicher 1963: 69–72. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

112

Literary technique and historiographical method  

of Basilus at Ambiorix’s house and to the fact that the Belgic prince nevertheless manages to escape to the surrounding forests;156 at 6.35.2 it points to the unforeseen appearance of the Sugambri in northern Gaul;157 and at Civ. 3.68.1 and 3.70.2 fortuna is associated with apparently insignificant factors (parva momenta; parvae res), which Caesar and Pompey had not taken into account, but which proved decisive in the fighting at Dyrrhachium: Civ.  3.68.1: sed fortuna, quae plurimum potest cum in reliquis rebus tum praecipue in bello, parvis momentis magnas rerum commutationes efficit, ut tum accidit: ­munitionem, quam pertinere a castris ad flumen supra demonstravimus, dextri Cae­ saris cornus cohortes ignorantia loci sunt secutae … But fortune, which is most powerful also in other matters, but particularly so in war, produces big changes of circumstance by small factors, as happened then: because of their ignorance of the place the cohorts of Caesar’s right wing followed the fortification that extended from the camp to the river, as we have shown above, … Civ. 3.70.2: ita parvae res magnum in utramque partem momentum habuerunt: munitiones enim a castris ad flumen perductae expugnatis iam castris Pompei prope iam expeditam Caesaris victoriam interpellaverunt, eadem res celeritate insequentium tardata nostris salutem attulit. So, small things had a huge effect in both directions: for the fortifications extending from the camp to the river prevented Caesar’s victory that had been almost accomplished after the capture of Pompey’s camp, (and) the same thing reduced the speed of the pursuers and thus saved our troops.158 156 Cf. Gal. 6.30.2: multum cum in omnibus rebus, tum in re militari potest fortuna: nam ut magno accidit casu, ut in ipsum incautum etiam atque imparatum incideret, priusque eius adventus ab hominibus videretur, quam fama ac nuntius adferretur, sic magnae fuit fortunae … ipsum effugere mortem, 6.30.4: sic et ad subeundum periculum et ad vitandum multum fortuna valuit. 157 Cf. 6.35.2: hic, quantum in bello fortuna possit et quantos adferat casus, cognosci potuit. 158 For further examples and detailed discussion see W. W. Fowler 1903: 155, Craig 1931: 108, Tappan: 1931: 6–8, Ericsson 1944, Lehmann 1951: 72–9, Erkell 1952: 160–2, Rambaud 1953: 256–64 (especially pp. 257–8), Giomini 1956: 32, 34, Brutscher 1958: 82–3, Schweicher 1963: 89–127, Canali 1963: 61–118, Bömer 1966a: 72, Murphy 1986: 307–8, Wistrand 1987: 88 n. 4, Mantovanelli 2000, Welch 2008: 195–203, Grillo 2012: 155–6. Weinstock (1971: ­115–117) wrongly reads the concept of a divine Fortuna Caesaris (cf. pp. 115–16 with n. 169 below) into the relevant passages of the Bellum Gallicum and Bellum Civile. Rambaud (1953: 261) may be correct in assuming that Gal. 4.26.5: hoc unum ad pristinam fortunam Caesari defuit and Gal. 6.43.5: paulum ad summam felicitatem defuisse allude to a propagandistic exploitation of Caesar’s luck and success, but there is not even a hint of divine support in these passages; the same objection applies to Champeaux’s theory (1982–1987: vol. 2, 262–7) of an early phase of Caesar’s writing (Gal. 1–5), during which he expressed belief in a quasi-providential Fortuna. Caesar’s reflections about fortuna closely resemble Polybius’ remarks about the importance of καιροί and συμφοραί, cf. e. g. Polyb. 2.4.5: Αἰτωλοὶ δὲ τῇ παραδόξῳ χρησάμενοι © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

Concepts of historical change: human and divine agency   

113

Quite a different view of historical change emerges from the later chapters of the Bellum Alexandrinum. There human success and failure are attributed not to personal prowess or inability, but to the favour of the gods. At 75.3 we are explicitly told that the vicissitudes of war often cannot be controlled by human reason and depend not so much on superior strength, virtue, or the natura loci as on the immortal gods: insequitur has acies hostium et clamore sublato confligitur multum adiuvante natura loci, plurimum deorum immortalium benignitate, qui cum omnibus casibus belli intersunt, tum praecipue eis, quibus nihil ratione potuit administrari. belli Beroaldus, Landgraf, Klotz  bellicis R. Stephanus bellis codd.159 The army of the enemies follows them and after the battle cry has been raised the fighting begins, and (our side) is greatly favoured by the nature of the place, but most of all by the benevolence of the immortal gods, who are involved in all unexpected events of war, but particularly in those in which nothing could be accomplished with human reason.

The same perspective also surfaces a few lines later, when the success of Caesar’s left wing is brought about by the help of the gods.160 Moreover, we are told in an

συμφορᾷ πάντας ἐδίδαξαν μηδέποτε βουλεύεσθαι περὶ τοῦ μέλλοντος ὡς ἤδη γεγονότος, μηδὲ προκατελπίζειν βεβαιουμένους ὑπὲρ ὧν ἀκμὴν ἐνδεχόμενόν ἐστιν ἄλλως γενέσθαι, νέμειν δὲ μερίδα τῷ παραδόξῳ πανταχῇ μὲν ἀνθρώπους ὄντας, μάλιστα δ’ ἐν τοῖς πολεμικοῖς, 9.12.2, 10.43.2: ὁ καιρὸς ἐν πᾶσι μεγάλην ἔχει μερίδα πρὸς τὰς ἐπιβολάς, μεγίστην δ’ ἐν τοῖς πολεμικοῖς, 27.20.1, and Preiswerk 1945: 222, Mantovanelli 2000: 221, 223. Polybius’ and Caesar’s statements contrast sharply with Thucydides’ account of the Peloponnesian War, in which chance and unexpected events play a far less prominent role (cf. Herter 1976 and Erbse 1989: 163–6) and Nicias’ hope for a reversal of fortune is disappointed (cf. 7.77.3 and Lloyd-Jones 1971: 137). A close parallel, however, can be found in Clausewitz’s Vom Kriege, cf. book 1, chapter 1, section 20 (1832/1980: 207): “Es gibt keine menschliche Tätigkeit, welche mit dem Zufall so beständig und so allgemein in Berührung stände als der Krieg. Mit dem Zufall aber nimmt das Ungefähr und mit ihm das Glück einen großen Platz in ihm ein”. Clausewitz is likely to draw directly from Caesar, to whom he also refers elsewhere (cf. Vom Kriege book 3, ch. 5 = 1832/1980: 364 and the curriculum for the instruction of the crown prince, 1810–12/1980: 1071, 1085) and with whom he shares a conspicuous interest in psychological factors and a distaste for purely geometrical or mathematical theories of war (cf. Lendon 1999: 277, 304, 324). The links with Polyb­ ius and Caesar are overlooked in Böhme 2011 and other recent discussions of Clausewitz’s theory of ‘Zufall’, which credit the Prussian general with a ‘Copernican Revolution’ in the theory of warfare. 159 Cf. Beroaldus 1504: s.p., Landgraf 1891a: 22, Klotz 1926–27: vol. 3, 57 (without acknowledging his predecessors: “belli A[lfred]Kl[otz]”), and R. Stephanus 1544: 435. Contrast ­casibus bellis in the editions of A. P. Manutius (1513: 218 recto), Giunta (1514: 211 recto), Pan­ aetius (1517: xcii recto), P. Manutius (1569: 223 recto), and Strada (1575: 224F). 160 Cf. 76.1: … sed tamen eisdem dis adiuvantibus sinistro cornu mediaque acie totae pro­ fligantur copiae regis. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

114

Literary technique and historiographical method  

earlier passage that the victory over Pompey was not Caesar’s achievement, but was given to him by the immortal gods.161 Apart from the importance of the immortal gods, another characteristic theme of the later chapters is the influence of Fortune. Like other inconsistencies of the Bellum Alexandrinum, this shift is already reflected by the lexicon. Except for feliciore exitu (20.6) and the references to fortuna at 10.3 and 16.1 (see p. 111 above), forms of fortuna, felix, and their cognates feature only in the later chapters.162 Moreover, fortuna no longer refers to rational, but unpredictable developments; rather, it becomes a quasi-divine force that shapes the course of history. At 62.3, Fortuna grants victory by turns to Marcellus and king Bogus (Fortuna saepe ad utrumque victoriam transferente), thus playing a role very similar to that of the immortal gods at 70.4, 75.3, and 76.1 (see pp. 113–14 with n.161 above).163 At 43.4, Fortuna is placed next to diligentia Cornificii and virtus Vatinii as one of the three factors that prevent the Pompeian general Octavius from exploiting the favourable situation after Gabinius’ death: cuius [sc. Gabini] et infelicitas vivi et subita mors in magnam spem Octavium adduxit provinciae potiundae. quem tamen diutius in rebus secundis et Fortuna, quae plurimum in bellis potest, diligentiaque Cornificii et virtus Vatinii versari passa non est. whose [i. e. Gabinius’] lack of success during his lifetime and whose sudden death led Octavius to entertain high hopes of seizing the province. Yet Fortune, who is most powerful in war, and the attentive care of Cornificius and the valour of Vati­ nius did not allow him to be in favourable circumstances for a longer period of time.

Since no unexpected events are mentioned, Fortuna cannot simply refer to the incalculable element in war, but rather points to an irrational power that intervenes 161 Cf. 70.4: sibi [sc. Caesari], cui di immortales victoriam tribuissent. The references to the immortal gods have been highlighted already by Giomini (1956: 32, 36), who compares B.Afr. 82.2: victoriam sibi propriam a dis immortalibus portendi. Pötter (1932: 64) believes that chapters 65–78 were drafted by Caesar and interprets the passages as a reflection of Caesar’s self-perception after Pharsalus; in so doing, he ignores that chapters 22–78 show a similar propagandistic tendency. For further objections to Pötter’s thesis see p. 53 n. 100 above. 162 Cf. fortuna (10.4, 16.1, 25.4, 41.1, 43.1, 43.4, 62.3, 66.4), fortuitus (46.1), felix (32.4), felicior, -ius (20.6, 41.1, 72.3), feliciter (25.3, 46.5, 48.1, 78.2), felicissime (32.1, 78.5), felicitas (25.6, 74.3), and infelicitas (43.4, 72.2). At 46.1 the manuscript transmission is split between fortuitae dimicationi [-nis R] fortunae rem committere maluit [S N L W U V R] and fortunae rem committere noluit [T]. E. Hoffmann (1857: vol. 2, lxxxii–lxxxiii and 167, 1890: vol. 2, lv–lvi), R. Schneider (1888a: 38), Klotz (1926–27: vol. 3, 35), Andrieu (1954: 46), and Giomini (1956: 153) delete fortunae, because it is likely to be an explanatory gloss on fortuitae dimicationi. E. Hoffmann and R. Schneider also insert a tamen after fortuitae. 163 For the expression cf. Curt. 5.2.10: opes victi ad victorem transferente Fortuna (cf. Curt. 4.1.40, 7.8.25) and Flor. Epit. 2.14.7: imperium Romanum iam ad Caesarem transferente Fortuna (cf. the personification of Fortuna at Flor. Epit. 1.1.2, 1.40.21, 1.45.1, 2.13.1, 2.13.87). © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

Concepts of historical change: human and divine agency   

115

in the course of events. In addition, the expression in rebus secundis … Fortuna … versari passa non est implies a reversal of fortune and suggests that Fortuna acts as an equalizing force that counteracts any accumulation of power, wealth, or happiness. The same concept is expressed more clearly at 25.4: at Fortuna, quae plerumque eos, quos plurimis beneficiis ornavit, ad duriorem ­casum reservat, superiorum temporum dissimilis Euphranorem prosequebatur. But Fortune, who often reserves those whom she has furnished with the greatest number of favours for an even harder downfall, followed Euphranor with an intention that was unlike that which she had had in earlier times.164

Less explicit is 41.1: Pharnaces rebus secundis elatus … Pontum omnibus copiis occupavit ibique et ­victor et crudelissimus rex, cum sibi fortunam paternam feliciore eventu destinaret, multa oppida expugnavit … Elated with the favourable circumstances, Pharnaces occupied Pontus with all his troops and there, being the victor and a most cruel king, he seized many cities, because he intended for himself the greatness of his father, but with a more fortunate outcome …

In this passage fortuna is primarily used in the sense of ‘fortunate circumstances’ or ‘greatness’, ‘high position’.165 However, the phrasing resembles that at 43.4 (­rebus secundis, cf. p. 114), and the idea that wealth and power are ephemeral and may soon be taken away by Fortune is present (feliciore eventu, cf. 20.6: feliciore exitu) and subtly foreshadows Pharnaces’ later defeat. Quite a different concept of Fortune underlies the reference to a Fortuna victoris Caesaris at 43.1: … sive copiosiorem provinciam existimans sive multum Fortunae victoris Caesaris tribuens sive virtute et scientia sua confisus … … either because he supposed that the province had more resources, or because he put great faith in the Fortune of the victorious Caesar, or because he trusted his own valour and knowledge …

Here, too, Fortune is envisaged as something supernatural, but she is no longer impartial. Instead, she becomes a mystic force that supports Caesar and his 164 Cf. the detailed discussion of this passage in section 4.5d, pp. 140–43 below. 165 See OLD s.v. 9, 11b. Cf. also B.Alex. 66.4: propter adversam fortunam maiorum suorum, B.Hisp. 17.2: neque in illius prospera acie primam fortunam neque in adversa secundam obtinuimus, and Sis. fr. 125 (B/W = HRR fr. 67 / Barabino 1967: fr. 115): victoribus propriae spem, victis adversae fortunae maiorem formidinem obiecit (of the emotional effect of one of Rome’s victories in 89 B. C., cf. Chassignet 1996–2004: vol. 3, 219, Beck/Walter 2004–5: vol. 2, 303). © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

116

Literary technique and historiographical method  

generals.166 This concept is at odds with the references to fortuna in the Bellum Gallicum, the Bellum Civile,167 Hirtius’ eighth book of the Bellum Gallicum,168 and B.Alex. 1–21. However, the mystic Fortuna Caesaris may have been part of Caesar’s propaganda during and after the Civil War.169 166 Cf. Giomini 1956: 35–6 and Murphy 1986: 312: “Caesar’s good fortune as a victor is a mystic resource upon which his subordinates can draw”. Wistrand (1987: 88 n. 4) compares Plut. Vit. Ant. 67.3 and Tac. Ann. 14.6.2: misitque [sc. Agrippina] libertum Agermum, qui nuntiaret filio benignitate deum et fortuna eius evasisse gravem casum. 167 Cf. p. 112 with n. 158 above. One may contrast B.Alex. 43.1 with Civ. 3.106.3: sed Caesar con­fisus fama rerum gestarum infirmis auxiliis proficisci non dubitaverat aeque omnem sibi locum tutum fore existimans. Cf. also Civ. 2.38.2, where Caesar explains Curio’s fateful decisions not by his faith in the Fortuna victoris Caesaris, but by his young age, his courage, his previous successes, and his confidence to do things well: adulescentia, magnitudo animi, superioris temporis proventus, fiducia rei bene  gerendae. 168 Already Murphy (1986: 309–313) observed that the representation of fortune in the Bellum Alexandrinum (or more precisely in B.Alex. 22–78) is markedly different from that in Gal. 8, because fortuna occurs much more frequently in the Bellum Alexandrinum, functions as a leitmotif that connects different sections within the work, is presented as a mystic force (see n. 166), and is not qualified by superlatives or other intensifiers when referring to the luck of Caesar’s lieutenants (contrast Gal. 8.31.3: summa felicitas, 8.36.1: magnae felicitatis, and 8.37.1: felicissime re gesta). Given that there are only six references to fortuna (8.24.4, 8.34.1), felicitas (8.31.3, 8.36.1), and related words (feliciter/-issime: 8.37.1, 8.46.2) in Gal. 8, the observations are only a minor argument against Hirtian authorship of the Bellum Alexandrinum. 169 Cf. Rambaud 1953: 261, Giomini 1956: 35–6, Weinstock 1971: 112–127 (especially pp. 115–18, with abundant evidence from Cicero’s correspondence and later historians and biographers). For the Hellenistic and oriental background of the personalized, divine Fortuna ­Caesaris see von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff 1931–2: vol. 2, 306–8, Bömer 1966b: 82–7, Weinstock 1971: 126–7, Champeaux 1982–1987: vol. 2, 49–59 (especially pp. 49, 56–9), and cf. e. g. Philemon fr. 9 (Kassel/Austin), Orientis Gr. Inscr. Selectae 229.60–1 (treaty between Smyrna and Magnesia; reign of Seleucus II Callinicus, 246–226 B. C.): ὀμνύω Δία, Γῆν, Ἥλιον, … καὶ τὴν τοῦ βασιλέως Σελεύκου τύχην, Strabo 12.3.31: ἐτίμησαν δ’ οἱ βασιλεῖς τὸ ἱερὸν τοῦτο οὕτως εἰς ὑπερβολὴν ὥστε τὸν βασιλικὸν καλούμενον ὅρκον τοῦτον ἀπέφηναν „τύχην βασιλέως” καὶ „Μῆνα Φαρνάκου”, and CIG 2693b = Inscr. Mylas. 339: ὁ δῆμος Τύχηι Ἐπιφανεῖ (dated to Imperial times, cf. Wilhelm 1898: 157 with n. 27, Hornblower 1982: 253 n. 241, Blümel 1987: 135–6, contra Boeckh and Champeaux). A particularly close parallel is the anecdote narrated at Plut. Vit. Caes. 38.4–5: καὶ τραχὺς [sc. ὁ ποταμός] ἅμα καὶ κτύπῳ μεγάλῳ καὶ σκληραῖς ἀνακοπτόμενος δίναις, ἄπορος ἦν βιασθῆναι τῷ κυβερνήτῃ, καὶ μεταβαλεῖν ἐκέλευσε τοὺς ναύτας, …. (5) αἰσθόμενος δ’ ὁ Καῖσαρ ἀναδείκνυσιν ἑαυτόν καὶ … “ἴθι” ἔφη “γενναῖε, τόλμα καὶ δέδιθι μηδέν· Καίσαρα φέρεις καὶ τὴν Καίσαρος Τύχην συμπλέουσαν.” Some scholars have argued that the “ultimate source of the story is Greek poetry” (Weinstock 1971: 123, with reference to Pind. Ol. 12.2: σώτειρα Τύχα (~ Hor. Carm. 1.35.29), fr. 40 Snell/Maehler, Aesch. Ag. 664, Thuc. 5.112.2) or that Caesar could not have used Latin and said “Caesarem fers et Caesaris Fortunam”, because the underlying religious concept is of Greek origin (cf. Bömer 1966a: 71, with a review of earlier literature on pp. 64–8), but B.Alex. 43.1 shows that the notion of a personalized, mystic Fortuna Caesaris must have been common in Rome in the 40s B. C. (cf. Champeaux 1982–1987: vol. 2.  267–91, especially pp.  271, 275). Quite  a different matter is the oath by the Καίσαρος Τύχη (i. e. Caesaris genius) mentioned by Cassius Dio (44.6.1), cf. Bömer 1966b and Weinstock 1971: 212 (especially n. 9). © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

The temporal perspective   

117

4.4. The temporal perspective A further inconsistency of the Bellum Alexandrinum concerns the temporal perspective of the narrative. By the time the Bellum Alexandrinum was put together and circulated, the Civil War had been over for more than a year, and its outcome was known both to the continuators of the Caesarian commentarii and to their readers.170 Hence, it would not be surprising if the events were consistently narrated from a retrospective vantage-point. This, however, is not the case. In B.Alex. 1–21 the narrator does not anticipate future events, but sticks to the chronological order of events.171 Moreover, he even tries to create the impression that the outcome of the war is still open. For this purpose, he employs several narrative devices. First of all, he presents the events from two perspectives and often shifts between the viewpoint of the Caesarians and the Alexandrians.172 This technique not only conveys the impression of a balanced and objective presentation, but also invites the reader to evaluate the situation himself and speculate about the further developments. Thus, he is drawn into the historical narrative and starts to view the events from the perspective of the past. In addition, the frequent changes of perspective often delay the outcome of the respective operations and thereby keep up the reader’s suspense.173 Secondly, the narrator not only mentions the strategic considerations which led to military and political decisions,174 but time and again he focuses on the 170 It is commonly agreed that the Bellum Alexandrinum was released some time after ­Caesar’s death on the Ides of March in 44 B. C., i. e. at least one year after the last battle of the Civil War (viz. the Battle of Munda on March 17, 45 B. C.) and at least two and a half years after the events mentioned at B.Alex. 72–8 (viz. the defeat of Pharnaces at Zela and Caesar’s return to Rome in August/September, 47 B. C.). For a detailed discussion of the genesis and time of composition of the Bellum Alexandrinum see chapter 5 (pp. 155–63) below. 171 The outcome of military operations and other undertakings is regularly presented last, cf. e. g. B.Alex. 9.2: quo suscepto negotio atque omnium animis ad laborem incitatis, magna una nocte vis aquae dulcis inventa est. ita operosis Alexandrinorum machinationibus maximisque conatibus non longi temporis labore occursum est (conclusion of 5.1–9.1), 16.6–7 (conclusion of the battle in the Eunostos harbour, B.Alex. 12–16), and 21.4–5 (conclusion of the fighting on and near the Heptastadium, B.Alex. 19–21). 172 In B.Alex. 1.1–5, 6.2–10.2, 10.5–11.6, 13.5–21.5 the events are told from Caesar’s vantage point; in 2.1–6.1, 10.3–4, 12.1–13.4 the narrative focuses on the plans and actions of the Alexandrians. 173 This is best illustrated by the problem of Caesar’s insufficient supply of water and fodder: the issue is first raised at B.Alex. 1.5 and then supplanted by the activities of the Alexandrians (­ 2.1–3.4) and the conflict between Achillas and Arsinoe (4.1–2) before coming back to the fore in chapters 5–9. Another example is the account of the first sea battle (10–11): the thoughts and preparations of the Alexandrians at 10.3–4 foreshadow the imminent confrontation, but before the battle narrative (11.1–6) begins, the focus first shifts back to the Caesarians and the author dwells on Caesar’s tactical considerations (10.5–6). 174 See section 4.1a, especially pp. 74 and 77 with nn. 2, 12, and 13. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

118

Literary technique and historiographical method  

hopes, fears, and expectations of the historical actors and thereby makes the reader see the events through their eyes. At 3.2–4, for example, we are allowed to peep in on the assemblies of the Alexandrians and get an impression of their longing for independence and their anti-Roman feelings. A few chapters later, the narrator graphically describes the fear of the Roman soldiers after finding out that the Alexandrians are spoiling their fresh water supply (6.2–7.1; cf. 8.1, 9.1), and at 16.1–4 he contrasts the hopes and expectations of the Alexandrians and the Caesarians during the naval battle in the Eunostos harbour.175 A third device is counterfactual or virtual history. On several occasions the narrator of chapters 1–21 draws attention to the fact that the war in Alexandria could have developed differently. For this purpose he either comments directly on the events or makes the historical actors reflect on the historical situation and debate about different courses of action. A good illustration of the former phenomenon is B.Alex. 11.5, where the narrator remarks that Caesar would have captured the whole fleet of the enemy, if night had not fallen (quod nisi nox pro­e­ lium diremisset, tota classe hostium Caesar potitus esset).176 Another example can be found at 16.1: minime autem par erat proelii certamen. nostris enim pulsis neque terra neque mari effugium dabatur [victis], omniaque victoribus erant futura in incerto, illi, si superassent navibus, omnia tenerent, si inferiores fuissent, reliquam tamen fortunam periclitarentur.177 The contest of the battle, however, was not in the least even. For our troops had no escape on land or sea, if they were defeated, and if they prevailed, everything would still be uncertain, whereas those [i. e. the enemies] would control everything, if they prevailed with the ships, and if they were inferior, they could still try their luck in other ways.

Far more prominent and frequent are hypothetical reflections by the historical actors. The best example comes from chapters 7 and 8. Worried by the shortage of fresh water, Caesar’s soldiers call for an immediate withdrawal from Alexan 175 Cf. also B.Alex. 10.3, 12.1–3, 14.4 (hopes of the Alexandrians) and contrast the different temporal perspective at Sis. fr. 125 (B/W = HRR fr. 67 / Barabino 1967: fr. 115), quoted in n. 165. 176 The sentence is a classic example of ‘Beinahe-Episode’ or ‘if-not-situation’. The phenomenon is characteristic of epic poetry (cf. de Jong 1987/2004: 68–81, Nesselrath 1992: ­passim), and is later taken up in Greek tragedy (cf. Nesselrath 1992: 152–4) and historiography: cf. nn. 180, 182 (on Caesar), p. 136 n. 226 (on Thucydides) and e. g. Suerbaum 1997 (on counterfactual speculation at Liv. 2.1, ­9.17–19, Tac. Hist. 2.37–8), Pelling 2011: 266 (on Plut. Vit. Caes. 26.2). See also n. 188 (on B.Alex. 63.5, 63.6, 76.4). A similar effect is created by B.Alex. 12.3: ac tametsi amplius CX navibus longis in portu navalibusque amiserant, non tamen reparandae classis cogitationem depo­suerunt; the sentence implies the expectation that the Alexandrians give up and suggests that the events could have easily developed differently (cf. the end of n. 226 on p. 136). 177 On the text see pp. 125–6 with nn. 194 and 196. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

The temporal perspective   

119

dria (7.1). Addressing their fears, Caesar weighs alternative courses of action and points out that a withdrawal would put his troops in great danger and could produce many Roman casualties (8.1–6).178 His speech reminds the reader that the tactic adopted by the Alexandrians could have easily been successful and could have turned Caesar’s Egyptian campaign into  a fiasco. Something similar happens before the battle in the Eunostos harbour: at 14.5 we are first informed by the narrator about the dangerous shallows and then witness the decision making process and see how the Rhodian admiral Euphranor persuades Caesar to give battle.179 In his speech Euphranor mentions the risks of the military operation and sketches an alternative to the historical course of events (15.3): “videris mihi,” inquit “Caesar, vereri, si haec vada primis navibus intraris, ne prius dimicare cogaris quam reliquam classem potueris explicare. …” “Caesar,” he said, “you seem to me to fear that, if you have entered these shallows with your first ships, you may be forced to fight, before you can deploy the remaining fleet. …”

Caesar’s hesitation and Euphranor’s speech highlight that it was by no means ­certain that the sea battle would take place at all, let alone that it would end with Caesar’s victory. By inserting this brief episode, the narrator deliberately recreates the openness of the past.180 By suggesting that the outcome of the war is open, the three devices allow the reader to adopt the perspective of the past and relive the historical events.181 This narrative technique is also characteristic of Caesar’s Bellum Gallicum and B ­ ellum Civile,182 but it does not feature in the last third of the Alexandrian campaign 178 Contrast, however, Pompey’s rather successful retreat from Brundisium at Civ. 1.27–8. 179 Cf. Lendon 1999: 311–12 on the “challenge to masculinity” that underlies the confrontation and prompts Euphranor’s intervention. 180 Another example can be found at B.Alex. 10.5–6, where, too, Caesar does not want to give battle; cf. also the hypothetical considerations of the Alexandrians at 12.4: videbant enim non auxilia Caesari, non commeatus subportari posse, si classe ipsi valerent and 3.4: quem [i. e. Caesarem] si non expulissent, futuram ex regno provinciam (contrary to the expectations of the Alexandrians, this fear did not become reality after Caesar’s victory, but only later after the death of Cleopatra in 30 B. C.). A similar effect is created by the war councils described at Caes. Gal. 5.28–31 and Tac. Hist. 2.32–33 (cf. Suerbaum 1997: 44–6). 181 On the relation of history, narrative perspective, and ‘experientiality’ see Grethlein 2010a, who takes up Morson’s concept of ‘side-shadowing’ (1994: 117–233, cf. especially pp. 117–19) to describe “attempts to recreate the presentness of the past in narrative”. Cf. also Grethlein’s analysis of ‘side-shadowing’ in Thucydides’ account of the Sicilian expedition (2010b: 240–54). 182 Switches of perspective and focalization occur e. g. in Caesar’s accounts of the events near Avaricum (Gal. 7.13–28), the sieges of Alesia (Gal. 7.68–89, cf. H. A. Gärtner 1975: 93 on 7.76.7) and Massilia (Civ. 1.34–6, 1.56–8, 2.1–16, 2.22), the fighting at Dyrrhachium (Civ. 3.­62–71, cf. especially 3.69.2–4 with Grillo 2011: 256), and the Battle of Pharsalus (Civ. 3.82–96, cf. Grillo 2011: 260, 263); see also Fränkel 1933: 31 (~ 1968: 300): “Caesars typische Erzählweise ist die, © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

120

Literary technique and historiographical method  

(22–33) nor in the accounts of Domitius’ campaign against Pharnaces (34–41) or the events in Illyricum (42–7). In these sections, there is no counterfactual speculation or virtual history, the events are consistently presented from  a Caesarian perspective, and the account contains only very few and short references to plans, expectations, or emotions.183 Consequently, the readers are not drawn into the narrative and invited to see the events through the eyes of the historical actors, but they view them from their own distant and retrospective vantage point. This effect is further increased by several prolepses. At 24.6 we are told that Caesar’s decision to let the young king Ptolemy go to the Alexandrians was  a prudentissimum consilium; this clearly implies that Caesar’s decision will pay off and that he will eventually prevail over the Alexandrians. In the next chapter, the statement that Euphranor was pursued by bad luck (25.4: Fortuna … superiorum temporum dissimilis Euphranorem prosequebatur) foreshadows his imminent death, and at 42.1 the account of the events in Illyricum opens with the words sub idem tempus in Illyrico est incommodum acceptum and thus anticipates Gabinius’ failure and death.184 After chapter 47, the temporal perspective changes once more, and in the following description of Cassius Longinus’ cruel regime in Spain (48–64) and ­Caesar’s campaign against Pharnaces (65–78) we encounter again many of the devices that are characteristic of B.Alex. 1–21. As in the early chapters, the events are presented from different angles and with frequent changes of perspective. The prime examples of this are Caesar’s negotiations with Deiotarus and Pharnaces daß er seinen Bericht zweisträngig hält. Zwei Parteien agieren mit- und gegeneinander”. ‘Bei­ nahe-Episoden’ can be found at e. g. Civ. 1.80.5, 3.70.2, 3.73.5 (cf. H. A. Gärtner 1975: 129), and (less explicitly) at Civ. 1.74–5 (cf. Nesselrath 1992: 95–6). For the chronological presentation of the information cf. e. g. Gal. 5.47.4–48.2 and H. A. Gärtner 1975: 76 (on Gal. 5.2.3), 74–7 (on Gal. 7.22–8), 84 (on Gal. 7.44–6), and Laistner 1947: 39 (on Civ. 3.111). See also n. 180 above with Gal. 5.28–31. The passages which Grillo (2011: 246–8, 2012: 33–4) connects with the concepts of “prolepsis” or “superior knowledge” hardly qualify as counter-evidence, because they do not anti­ cipate a future event, but merely “prepare the audience” (Grillo 2011: 246) for the things that follow (contrast the usage of ‘prolepsis’ by e. g. Genette 1972: 105–15 (especially p. 112) = 1980: 67–79 (especially p. 75), de Jong 1987/2004: 81–90 (especially pp. 81–3)). A good illustration is the use of temere at Civ. 2.38.2: the adverb indicates that Curio acts ‘sine ratione’ (cf. LC s.v. 2134), but this does not necessarily entail that his decision is poor or that the reader can now predict the disastrous outcome of the campaign (cf. Grillo 2012: 33–4: “grants the a­ udience a ­superior knowledge”). One may compare Civ. 1.45: there Caesar’s men act without due thought (1.45.2: temere insecuti longius fugientis, 1.45.6: inconsultius) and have to fight under unfavourable circumstances, but in the end their own losses are much smaller than those of the Pompeians (cf. Civ. 1.46.4–5) and the operation can still be regarded as a success (1.47.1–3). 183 Cf. the description of the superior morale of the Roman troops at B.Alex. 22.1–2 and the glimpses of emotions at 24.5–6, 25.1, 37.1–2, 41.1–2. 184 This is a case of what Pigoń aptly calls ‘headline prolepsis’: cf. Pigoń 2004: 88–9, 170 on Tacitus’ use of this device (e. g. at Ann. 4.46.1, 14.29.1: Caesennio Paeto et Petronio Turpiliano consulibus gravis clades in Britannia accepta) and see p. 121 n. 189 and p. 153 n. 284. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

The temporal perspective   

121

in chapters 67–8 and 69–70, which contrast the viewpoints of the historical actors.185 In addition, much attention is paid to emotions and expectations. This is particularly true of chapters 48–64, where the mutual hatred of civilians and soldiers on the one hand and Cassius Longinus on the other occupies a large part of the narrative.186 Moreover, chapters 48–78 of the Bellum Alexandrinum also offer several examples of counterfactual history: at 61.4 we learn that Marcellus could not have restrained his soldiers from battle, if the theatre of war had been more favourable to an attack;187 at 63.6 much more blood would have been shed, had not Lepidus intervened and stopped the fighting between the troops of Marcellus and king Bogus, and at 76.4 the narrator informs us that after the Battle of Zela, Pharnaces escaped only because the Caesarian troops concentrated on attacking his camp.188 The device of prolepsis, on the contrary, features only once towards the end of Caesar’s war against Pharnaces: at 76.1 the narrator marks the turning point of the Battle of Zela by saying dextro cornu … initium victoriae natum est (‘the beginning of victory started on the right wing’).189 Thus, on the whole, chapters 48–78 resemble the early chapters of the Bellum Alexandrinum and try to describe the historical events from a contemporary rather than a retrospective vantage point. 185 The phenomenon is also frequent in chapters 48–64: cf. e. g. the shift between the tactical considerations of Cassius Longinus and Marcellus at 61.2, 61.4, 61.6 and the different views on Cassius Longinus’ flight from Spain at 64.2. 186 Cf. especially B.Alex. 48.1, 49.2–50.3, 53.4–5, 58.4–59.1. The emotions and expectations of the historical actors are also described in the account of Caesar’s war against Pharnaces, cf. e. g. 71.1, 74.1–4, 75.1, 77.1. 187 Cf. 61.4: cuius si rei [i. e. confligendi] facultas esset, resistere incitatis militibus non poterat. Another example of such counterfactual speculation can be found at 60.2: quod et victoris et victi detrimentum ad eundem Caesarem esset redundaturum. Cf. also 53.4–5, where the narrator describes the premature jubilation of L. Laterensis and the indigenous troops, who believe that Cassius Longinus has been assassinated. 188 Cf. 63.6: quod nisi celeriter indignatione et auxilio Lepidi proelium esset diremptum, maior calamitas esset accepta and 76.4: cui nisi castrorum oppugnatio facultatem attulisset liberius profugiendi, vivus in Caesaris potestatem adductus esset. Both passages are ‘Beinahe-Episoden’ (cf. n. 176). Another example is 63.5: non tantum indutiis factis, sed prope iam constituta [suppl. Castiglioni (1924: 239–40), cf. Nipperdey’s proposal (1847: 200, 657) i. c.] …, auxilia regis … impetum fecerunt. 189 The words function as a ‘headline’ to the following sentences (on this type of prolepsis see n. 184 above). Pharnaces’ defeat is prepared, but not anticipated by a few earlier passages. The fact that Caesar considers Pharnaces’ preparations for battle mere ostentation (74.1) and even laughs at them (74.4) suggests that the foreign king may be about to make a fatal mistake (cf. also 74.4: quem in locum nemo sanus hostis subiturus esset, 75.1: incredibili eius vel temeritate vel fiducia, and the description of Pharnaces’ misjudgement of the situation at 74.3, which has a close parallel in the characterization of Gabinius at 43.1). This impression, however, is balanced by the references to the lack of preparation and the panic on Caesar’s side, cf. neque opinans i­mparatusque oppressus (75.1), subita trepidatio magnum terrorem attulit nostris (75.1), and nondum ordinibus instructis (75.2). Thus, before the explicit prolepsis at 76.1, the outcome of the battle still appears open. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

122

Literary technique and historiographical method  

The evidence presented in the preceding paragraphs shows that the temporal perspectives adopted in the various parts of the Bellum Alexandrinum differ sharply. This fact lends further support to the view that the Bellum Alexandrinum consists of several narratives that were originally composed independently and by different authors. Moreover, the analysis of the different temporal perspectives reveals that chapters 1–21 and some of the later portions of the Bellum Alexandrinum were never intended to be simple accounts of facts, but were deliberately designed in such a fashion as to entertain and captivate the reader.

4.5. The Bellum Alexandrinum and earlier historiography So far, the examination of the historical data and their presentation has focused on the inconsistencies within the Bellum Alexandrinum and occasionally involved comparisons with Caesar’s narrative technique in the Bellum Gallicum and Bellum Civile. In the present section we shall widen the focus of our analysis and try to determine how the Bellum Alexandrinum relates to earlier and roughly contemporary historiography. For this purpose, we shall examine the descriptions of two sea battles in chapters 13–16 and 25 and analyse how they employ techniques, themes, and motifs which we also find in earlier historians. The analysis will force us to revisit some of the questions of the preceding sections and will allow us to connect our previous observations into a coherent picture.

(a) Caesarian diction and Thucydidean motifs in B.Alex. 13–16 One of the key passages for exploring the historiographical orientation of the ­Bellum Alexandrinum is the dramatic account of  a sea battle between Caesar’s forces and the Alexandrians in the Eunostos harbour of Alexandria in chapters 13–16. As has been observed already by Landgraf, Schiller, Pötter, and Seel, the whole episode has a close parallel in Caesar’s190 account of a sea battle out 190 The claim of R. Menge (1873, 1894: 37–9), Kraner/Hofmann/Meusel (1906: ix), P. Menge (1911), and Canfora (1999: 396, 2000: 424) that much of the second book of the Bellum Civile was written by someone other than Caesar fails to convince us. The linguistic evidence mostly concerns the fairly technical description of the siege works around Massilia in Civ. 2.9– 10, which could indeed be based on an officer’s report but does not prove that the entire account of the siege of Massilia is un-Caesarian (cf. Frese 1900: 4, Dernoscheck 1903: 13, 18, Klotz 1911: 82–5, Paslay 1918: 347–51, Fabre 1936: vol. 1, xxxvii–xl). Moreover, several of the literary and narratological arguments are unfounded. The most obvious example is Canfora’s statement (1999: 396 ~ 2000: 424): “II, 24–33 sono opera di Curione; II, 34–43 di altri (II,32: discorso di Curione in oratio recta. Questo è il colmo: Cesare parla sempre in oratio obliqua!)”. This argument is inaccurate, because Caesar speaks in oratio recta at Civ. 3.85.4. Moreover, even if Caesar only spoke in oratio obliqua, there would still be numerous examples of orationes ­rectae by other © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

The Bellum Alexandrinum and earlier historiography 

123

side Massilia in Civ. 2.4–7.191 Both passages begin with a description of preparations for a sea battle. First we are told how the Massiliots and the Alexandrians haul dismantled vessels out of the dockyards and repair them with great zeal and inventiveness: B. Alex. 13.1–2: erant omnibus ostiis Nili custodiae exigendi portorii causa dispositae; naves veteres erant in occultis regiae navalibus, quibus multis annis ad navigandum non erant usi: has reficiebant, illas Alexandriam revocabant. (2) deerant remi: porticus, gymnasia, publica aedificia detegebant; asseres remorum usum obtinebant; aliud naturalis sollertia, aliud urbis copia subministrabat.

Civ. 2.4.1: Massilienses post superius incommodum veteres ad eundem numerum ex navalibus productas navis refecerant summaque industria armaverant— remigum, gubernatorum magna copia subpetebat – …

At all mouths of the Nile there were watchboats for the collection of toll money; old ships, which had not been used for sailing for many years, were in the secret dockyards of the royal palace; the latter they repaired, the former they called back to Alexandria. (2) Oars were lacking: they unroofed the porticoes, the gymnasia, the public buildings; beams began to be used in place of oars; some things were supplied by their native ingenuity, others by the resources of the city.

After their previous set-back the Massiliots moved as many old ships as they had had before out of the dockyards, repaired them, and armed them with extreme industry—a large number of rowers and steersmen was at hand— …

historical figures (cf. Gal. 4.25.3, 5.30.1–3, 5.44.3, 6.8.3–4, 6.35.8–9, 7.20.8, 7.20.12, 7.38.2–3, 7.38.6–8, 7.50.4, 7.50.6, 7.77.3–16 and Civ.  2.31.2–8, 2.34.4, 2.39.2–3, 3.18.4, 3.19.8, 3.64.3, 3.85.4, 3.86.2–4, 3.87.1–4, 3.91.2, 3.91.3, 3.94.5), so that Curio’s speech at Civ. 2.32 would still have many parallels in the Caesarian commentarii. Finally, Canfora’s views are also incompatible with the dramatic structure of Civ. 1–2: Mutschler (1975: 15–116), H. A. Gärtner (1975: 122–7), Grillo (2012: 32–6), and others have shown that the account of Curio’s campaign is not a patchwork of ‘Legatenberichte’, but a carefully devised narrative. 191 Cf. Landgraf 1888a: 96, Schiller 1891a: 1293, Pötter 1932: 13–5, Seel 1935: 21, Andrieu 1954: 16 n. 1, and Giomini 1956: 33. Richter (1977: 203) compares the end of chapter 15 with the references to onlooking comrades and relatives at Caes. Gal. 7.45.4, 7.47.5 (siege of Gergovia), Sal. Jug. 60 (siege of Zama), Liv. 1.25.2,4 (combat of the Horatii and the Curatii), 5.42.3–4 (Gallic siege of the Capitol), 23.47.3 (duel of Cerrinus Vibellius and Claudius Asellus), 26.46.4–5 (siege of Nova Carthago), and 44.35.18 (battle near Phila in Macedonia); cf. also Livy’s account of the duel between Manlius Torquatus and the Gaul, in which we find three references to the onlooking soldiers (7.10.6,9,12), as opposed to just one in the corresponding fragment of Claudius Quadrigarius (fr. 10b B/W = HRR fr. 10b: utroque exercitu inspectante). Another Caesarian parallel is the account of a sea battle against the Veneti at Gal. 3.14.8–9. Townend (1988: 45) briefly points to Thuc. 7.71, a passage that we will discuss in detail on pp. 130–33 below. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

124

Literary technique and historiographical method  

At the same time many smaller, non-military boats are converted into military ships and equipped accordingly: B.Alex. 13.4: ad has [sc. naves] minores apertasque complures adiecerunt, et in portu periclitati remigio, quid quaeque earum efficere posset, idoneos milites imposuerunt seque ad confligendum omnibus rebus paraverunt.

Civ. 2.4.2: … piscatoriasque adiecerant atque contexerant, ut essent ab ictu telorum remiges tuti; has sagittariis tormentisque conpleverunt.

To these ships they added many smaller and open boats, and, after they had tried in the harbour what each of these ships could accomplish with regard to the oarage, they manned them with suitable soldiers and prepared themselves in all respects for battle.

… and they had added fishing-boats and had covered them, so that the oarsmen were safe from being hit by missiles; these they filled with archers and catapults.

Next, the crews are selected and exhorted by the commanders and by the non-combatant comrades and civilians:192 B.Alex. 16.3–4: haec superioribus diebus saepenumero Caesar suis exposuerat, ut hoc maiore animo contenderent, quod omnium salutem sibi commendatam viderent. (4) eadem suum quisque contubernalem, amicum, notum prosequens erat obtestatus, ne suam atque omnium falleret opinionem, quorum iudicio delectus ad pugnam proficisceretur. Caesar had often pointed out these things to his men on the previous days so that they would fight all the more courageously, because they saw that the welfare of all was entrusted to them. (4) Every single soldier had followed his tent-companion, friend, acquaintance and had implored him for the same things, that he should not disappoint his own opinion or that of every­one else, by whose judgement he had been selected and was to go forth into the battle.192

Civ. 2.4.3: tali modo instructa classe omnium seniorum, matrum familiae, virginum precibus et fletu excitati, extremo tempore civitati subvenirent, non minore animo ac fiducia quam ante dimicaverant, naves conscendunt. After the fleet had been prepared in such a fashion, they were fired up by the prayers and tears of all the old people, matrons, and virgins, that they should succour the city in an extreme situation, and boarded the ships with no less courage or confidence than they had had during the last battle. Civ. 2.5.2: itaque suos cohortatus [sc. Brutus], quos integros superavissent, ut victos contemnerent, … So, after [sc. Brutus] had encouraged his men that they should now despise the men who had already been beaten and whom they had vanquished even when they [i. e. the enemies] were undiminished, … Civ. 2.5.5: nam et honesti ex iuventute et cuiusque aetatis amplissimi nominatim

192 Cf. also Euphranor’s exhortatory speech at B.Alex. 15.3–4, which is placed before the start of the battle. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

The Bellum Alexandrinum and earlier historiography 

125

evocati atque obsecrati navis conscenderant, ut … For the noble men of the younger generation and the most wealthy of any age group had been called up by name and had boarded the ships after they had been admonished that … .

Then the ships are manned and soon the battle begins (Civ. 2.6.1, B.Alex. 15.5). Before and during the battle description both accounts stress the importance of the conflict and draw attention to the non-combatant spectators:193 194 195 B.Alex. 15.8–16.2: (15.8) neque vero Alexandriae fuit quisquam aut nostrorum aut oppidanorum ,193 qui aut in opere aut in pugna occupatum animum haberent, quin altissima tecta peteret atque ex omni prospectu locum spectaculo caperet precibusque et votis victoriam suis ab dis inmortalibus exposceret. (16.1) minime autem par erat proelii certamen. nostris enim pulsis neque terra neque mari effugium dabatur [victis],194 omniaque victoribus erant futura in incerto,

Civ. 2.5.3–2.6.1: (2.5.3) facile erat ex castris C. Treboni atque omnibus superioribus locis prospicere in urbem, ut omnis iuventus, quae in oppido remanserat, omnesque superioris aetatis cum liberis atque uxoribus publicis 195 custodiisque aut muro ad caelum manus tenderent aut templa deorum immortalium adirent et ante simulacra proiecti victoriam ab dis exposcerent. (2.5.4) neque erat quisquam omnium, quin in eius diei casu suarum omnium

193 Suppl. Gaertner/Hausburg, cf. p. 129 with n. 211. 194 The qualification of nostris by two uncoordinated participles that express the same content (pulsis … victis) sounds feeble. Gruter (in his unpublished notes, cf. Oudendorp 1737: vol. 1, praef. pp. 6–7 and vol. 2, 791 n. 2) considers dabatur victis an interpolation; Dübner (1867: vol. 2, 217) and R. Schneider (1888a: 12) delete victis; Nipperdey (1847: 632) and Klotz (1926–27: vol. 3, 11–12) bracket pulsis; Strada (1575: 206K) prints ullum in place of victis; R. Stephanus (1544: 397), Clarke (1720: 365 n. 32), and others change pulsis to prorsus, and Landgraf (1888a: 101) conjectured paucis instead. Of these suggestions prorsus would be unparalleled in the entire Corpus Caesarianum, and paucis does not quite fit the train of thought (despite 16.2: perpaucos). Moreover, the fact that victis and pulsis are near synonyms suggests that we may be dealing with a gloss rather than a textual corruption. The deletion of victis seems on the whole preferable, for the rhetorical effect of the antithesis victis—victoribus (highlighted by Clarke, Landgraf, et al.) hardly outweighs the heavy hyperbaton nostris … victis. In addition, it seems more likely that victis entered the text as a gloss on pulsis than vice versa (cf. Andrieu 1954: 17). 195 ex has been supplemented by Beroaldus (1504: s.p.), R. Stephanus (1544: 291), and Strada (1575: 152I); locis was added by Kindscher (1860: 13 (uxoribus publicis viis locisque aut in foro)), Wölffel (1865: 14 (uxoribus ex publicis locis aut muro)), and Buecheler (apud Holder 1898: 53 (uxoribus publicis locis custodiisque aut muro)). The text adopted above is that of Kraner/Hofmann/Meusel (1906: 116, 316), who attribute the emendation to R. Menge; Menge himself (1893: 97), however, had printed uxoribus ex publicis custodiis aut muro. For further suggestions see Menge/Preuss 1885–1890: 283–4 s.v. custodia and LC vol. 2.2, “tabula coniectu­ rarum” p. 55. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

126

Literary technique and historiographical method  

illi,196 si superassent navibus, omnia tenerent, si inferiores fuissent, reliquam tamen fortunam periclitarentur. (16.2) simul illud grave ac miserum videbatur, perpaucos de summa 197 ac de salute omnium decertare; quorum si qui aut animo aut virtute cessisset, reliquis etiam esset cedendum,198 quibus pro se pugnandi facultas non fuisset. 196 197 198

fortunarum eventum consistere existimaret. (2.5.5) nam et honesti ex iuventute et cuiusque aetatis amplissimi nominatim evocati atque obsecrati navis conscenderant, ut siquid adversi accidisset, ne ad conandum quidem sibi quicquam reliqui fore viderent; si superavissent, vel domesticis opibus vel externis auxiliis de salute urbis confiderent. (2.6.1) commisso proelio Massiliensibus res nulla ad virtutem defuit. sed memores eorum praeceptorum, quae paulo ante ab suis acceperant, hoc animo decertabant, ut nullum aliud tempus ad conandum habituri viderentur, et quibus in pugna vitae periculum accideret, non ita multo se reliquorum civium fatum antecedere existimarent, quibus urbe capta eadem esset belli fortuna patienda.

196 Since the sentences in chapters 1–21 are usually connected with much care, the asyndeton between minime ... incerto and illi ... periclitarentur is striking. Just as odd is the switch from the indicative (dabatur ... erant) to the subjunctive (tenerent ... periclitarentur). As elsewhere (cf. e. g. 12.1, 17.6), the transmitted text may be lacunose. We follow Klotz (1926–27: vol. 3, 12) and adopt Clarke’s supplement cum (cf. Clarke 1720: 365 n. 33). 197 rerum has been supplemented by humanist scribes, who correctly observed that summa requires a qualification. Cf. Caes. Civ. 2.30.1: de summa rerum deliberare incipit, Liv. 33.3.11–12: Philippus cognita profectione ab Elatia Romanorum, ut cui de summa rerum adesset certamen, adhortandos milites ratus, multa iam saepe memorata de maiorum virtutibus simul de militari laude Macedonum cum disseruisset, ad ea quae tum maxime animos terrebant quibusque erigi ad aliquam spem poterant venit, Vell. 2.68.1: dum in acie Pharsalica acri feraque de summa rerum Caesar dimicat, …, Fron. Str. 3.6.1, Tac. Hist. 3.50.3, 3.70.3. 198 The manuscripts unanimously transmit cavendum, but the statement that the reliqui will have to be on their guard (cf. OLD s.v. 1) is a bizarre understatement of the dire consequences of a defeat. The sense is hardly any better, if we interpret reliquis as a dativus commodi (cf. KS vol. II.1, 313–14) and translate reliquis … esset cavendum as ‘care would have to be taken for the others’ (cf. TLL s.v. caveo 636.30–41), for the troops on the ships have a responsibility for the rest of the army, regardless of whether they fall back in valour or fight most bravely (cf. si qui aut animo aut virtute cessisset). A. P. Manutius (1513: 199 recto), Giunta (1514: 192 recto), Panaetius (1517: lxxxiiii verso; contrast Panaetius 1511: 84 verso (cavendum)), R. Stephanus (1544: 397), and other early editors printed cadendum, but this emendation is not particularly attractive, because a defeat at sea would not automatically lead to the death of the remaining army on land, and even if that was a plausible scenario, one would rather expect reliqui etiam caderent instead of reliquis etiam esset cadendum. A better solution is cedendum, which was suggested by Clarke (1720: 365 n. 35) and earlier already by J. Rossetus (1571: s.p., “libellus variarum lectionum” on 488.41)—not by an otherwise unknown “Bosset” as printed by R. Schneider (1888a: 13), Klotz (1926–27: vol. 3, 12), Andrieu (1954: 17), Icart/Dolç (1987: 65). The conjecture makes good sense, for a defeat at sea would have put immense pressure on Caesar’s troops on land and could have easily forced them to ‘fall back’ (OLD s.v. cedo 3, cf. TLL s.v. 720.79–83, LC s.v. 498–9) or © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

The Bellum Alexandrinum and earlier historiography 

(15.8) And indeed there was no one in Alexandria among our troops or the inhabitants of the town apart from those who had their minds fixed on the defensive works or the fighting [sc. in the streets of the city], who did not seek the highest rooftops and tried to obtain from every vantage point199 a place for (watching) the spectacle and implored the immortal gods by means of prayers and vows to give victory to his own side. (16.1) The contest of the battle, however, was not in the least even. For our troops had no escape on land or sea, if they were defeated, and if they prevailed, everything would still be uncertain, whereas those [i. e. the enemies] would control everything, if they prevailed with the ships, and if they were inferior, they could still try their luck in other ways. (16.2) At the same time it also appeared unpleasant200 and lamentable that a rather small number were fighting for everything and for the welfare of all; if any of them were falling back in courage

199 200 201 202 203

127

(2.5.3) From C. Trebonius’ camp and all places that lay above (the city of Massilia) it was easy to look into the city (and see) how the entire youth, which had remained in the city, and all those of a more advanced age together with children and wives raised their hands to the sky from public places, from watch-houses, or from the city-wall or went to the temples of the immortal gods and prostrated themselves before the images and implored the gods for victory. (2.5.4) And there was no one of them all who did not believe that the outcome201 of all his fortunes rested202 on the uncertain result203 of that day. (2.5.5) For the noble men of the younger generation and the most wealthy of any age group had been called up by name and had boarded the ships after they had been admonished that if some setback occurred, the others would not find anything left for them to try; if they should prevail, they could— with regard to the welfare of the city—have some confidence in their own resources

give up their resistance and surrender (cf. TLL s.v. 726.25–727.75, OLD s.v. 10a). Moreover, cedendum produces a deft antithesis, which can be compared to Civ. 1.22.6: quod de sua salute inpetraverit [sc. Lentulus], fore etiam reliquis ad suam spem solacio and 3.51.2: primisque deiectis reliqui se verterunt et loco cesserunt; see also Lendon 1999: 301–2 on the idea that terror and low morale are “contagious” (with parallels from Xenophon and the Corpus Caesarianum). 199 Cf. TLL s.v. prospectus 2206.27–41 and e. g. Cic. Dom. 116: in Palatio pulcherrimo prospectu porticum … concupierat, Plin. Nat. 21.10: flores e prospectu omni sparsit [sc. populus], Tac. Ann. 15.42.1: hinc silvae, inde aperta spatia et prospectus. 200 Cf. TLL s.v. gravis 2288.40: “molestus, iniquus, malignus” and 2291.61–7 as well as Ter. Hec. 125, Cic. Mur. 84, Sull. 85, Caes. Gal. 7.14.10: haec si gravia aut acerba videantur, multo illa gravius aestimari debere: liberos coniuges in servitutem abstrahi, ipsos interfici, Liv. 3.39.10, 30.31.9. 201 Cf. TLL s.v. eventus 1020.16–17: “accedit genet. … rei, quae evēnit, evenire solet, eventura est” and Caes. Gal. 2.22.2: fortunae … eventus varii, Liv. 5.45.8: cetera eodem ordine eodemque fortunae eventu gesta. 202 Cf. TLL s.v. consisto 467.41: “positum esse, niti” and e. g. Caes. Gal. 3.14.7: cum omnis Gallicis navibus spes in velis armamentisque consisteret, 7.86.3, Civ. 3.14.3, 3.111.5, and B.Alex. 15.7: omne certamen in virtute constitit. 203 Cf. TLL s.v. casus 582.21–3: “c. genet. rerum incorporalium, ad quas casus pertinet … i. q. fors, incertus eventus” and e. g. Civ.  2.14.6: proximi diei casu or Gal.  5.30.3: belli casum (~ Civ. 3.72.4, B.Alex. 23.1). © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

128

Literary technique and historiographical method  

or valour, the others, too, who had never had an opportunity to fight for themselves, would have to give ground.

or help from outside. (2.6.1) After the battle had begun, the Massiliots lacked nothing with regard to courage. Rather, they remembered the precepts that they had received from their fellow-citizens just a little earlier, and fought with such courage that they seemed to have no other opportunity to make an attempt [sc. to break the blockade], and that those who faced a danger for their lives in the course of the battle thought that they were anticipating by a little the fate of the remaining citizens, who had to suffer the same misfortune of war once the city was taken.

Apart from the similarities in structure and narrative motifs, the battle descriptions in the Bellum Civile and Bellum Alexandrinum also show some parallels in phrasing. Thus one may compare B.Alex. 13.1: naves veteres erant in occultis regiae navalibus, …; has reficiebant with Civ. 2.4.1: Massilienses … ex navalibus productas navis refecerant, B.Alex. 13.2: aliud naturalis sollertia, aliud urbis copia subministrabat with Civ.  2.4.1: remigum, gubernatorum magna copia subpetebat, B.Alex. 13.4: ad has [sc. naves] minores apertasque complures adiecerunt with Civ.  2.4.2: piscatoriasque adiecerant [sc. ad productas et refectas naves], B.Alex. 13.4: seque ad confligendum omnibus rebus paraverunt with Civ. 2.4.5: rursusque se ad confligendum animo confirmant,204 and B.Alex. 15.8: neque vero Alexandriae fuit quisquam aut nostrorum aut oppidanorum …, quin altissima tecta peteret … with Civ. 2.5.4: neque erat quisquam omnium, quin in [σ, quin π ρ, qui non in W] eius diei casu suarum omnium fortunarum eventum consistere existimaret.205 The most remarkable similarity, however, is the prayers mentioned in B.Alex. 15.8: quin … precibusque et votis victoriam suis ab dis inmortalibus exposceret and Civ. 2.5.3: ut … ad caelum manus tenderent aut templa deorum immortalium adirent et ante simulacra proiecti victoriam ab dis exposcerent and especially the identical phrase victoriam ab dis (immortalibus) exposcere, which (of all Latin literature) is attested only in these two passages.206 204 Elsewhere ad confligendum is used with  a verb indicating preparation only at Sis. fr. 105 (B/W = HRR fr. 63 / Barabino 1967: fr. 56): exercitum dispertiunt, ad confligendum se componunt. The use at Cic. Phil. 13.6, Fam. 12.19.2 (= 206.2 SB), Lucr. 3.833 is not quite parallel. 205 The resemblance is significant, because the combination of neque quisquam with a following quin-clause is fairly rare in Latin; the only other attestations in Latin literature down to Apuleius are Cic. Fam. 2.3.1 (= 47.1 SB): neque quisquam est, quin satietate iam defessus sit and Quint. Inst. 3.11.24: neque est fere quisquam …, quin sciat … . 206 See TLL s.v. exposco 1772.10–26,46–51. One may further compare Verg. A. 3.260–2: nec iam amplius armis, / sed votis precibusque iubent exposcere pacem, / sive deae seu sint dirae obscenaeque volucres and Liv. 1.16.3: pacem precibus exposcunt (~ 3.5.14, 3.7.7, 4.30.10, 7.2.2), 9.2.15: milites … opem, quam vix di immortales ferre poterant, ab ducibus exposcunt. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

The Bellum Alexandrinum and earlier historiography 

129

The parallels in contents, structure, and even vocabulary are too close to be mere products of chance. Seel (1935: 23) suggested that the author of the Bellum Alexandrinum had deliberately imitated the passage of the Bellum Civile. This interpretation accords well with the conventional attribution of the Bellum Alexandrinum to Hirtius or an anonymous dilettante (cf. pp. 31–9 above), but there are several details that contradict it. To begin with, Seel’s explanation of the similarities between B.Alex. 13–16 and Civ. 2.4–7 is closely connected with his view that the author of the Bellum Alexandrinum systematically imitated Caesar’s style. As we have seen in chapter 3, this hypothesis is fairly implausible, because Seel cannot explain why the cluster of Caesarian expressions ends abruptly after chapter 21.207 Furthermore, Seel’s attempt to show that the passage in the Bellum Alexandrinum is vastly inferior to the corresponding passage in the Bellum Civile remains unconvincing. Seel emphasizes the poor logic of the transmitted text of B.Alex. 15.8 and claims that its author was not competent enough to imitate his model and produce a coherent text at the same time. This argument is clearly biased, for Seel is willing to assume that the text of the Bellum Civile is damaged by lacunae,208 but does not reckon with the possibility that the text of the Bellum Alexandrinum, which has been transmitted by the same manuscripts and is just as lacunose as the Bellum Civile,209 might be damaged too. If we assume a comparatively210 small lacuna and read neque … fuit quisquam aut nostrorum aut oppidanorum qui aut in opere aut in pugna occupatum animum haberent, quin altissima tecta peteret …, the train of thought is impeccable and the syntax would have a close parallel at Civ. 3.81.2: nulla Thessaliae fuit civitas p­ raeter Larisaeos, qui magnis exercitibus Scipionis tenebantur, quin Caesari parerent atque imperata facerent.211 207 Cf. the discussion in section 3.4c (pp. 46–7) above. 208 Compare Seel 1935: 21 and Civ. 2.5.3: publicis custodiisque. 209 Cf. Andrieu 1954: lxiii and e. g. B.Alex. 13.5: Ponticas VIII, licias V (suppl. Schneider), 15.3: ubi Caesaris (suppl. Landgraf) animum advertit, 21.4: ex numero legionariorum militum circiter CCCC et paulo (suppl. Beroaldus) eum numerum classiarii et remiges, 38.3: aequissimum ad dimicandum (suppl. Schneider) nostris videbat, 47.2: posteroque ibi die, dum suas captivas naves reficeret, (suppl. codd. recentiores), 56.2: licentiam (suppl. Dübner) temporum, 57.4: Marcellum quae (suppl. Forchhammer); for further examples see p. 38 n. 45. 210 Cf. the examples in n. 209 above. 211 Cf. also Gal.  4.20.3: neque enim temere praeter mercatores illo adit quisquam, 5.24.7: praeter eam, quam …, Civ. 3.111.1: praeter eam oppidi partem, quam …, 3.111.3: praeter has XXII, quae …. An attractive alternative is the supplement , which has been suggested by Fleischer (1879: 854): cf. e. g. Gal. 1.30.5: ne quis enuntiaret, nisi quibus communi consilio ­mandatum esset, inter se sanxerunt and the omission of subjunctions at Civ. 1.83.3 (ut ?), 3.10.6 (cum ?), 3.30.1 (ut ?), 3.79.3 (cum ?), and B.Alex. 63.5 (cum ?). Pötter’s suggestion (1932: 32–3) neque vero Alexandriae fuit quisquam … quin [qui codd.] aut in opere aut in pugna occupatum animum haberet [haberent codd.], quin altissima tecta peteret … is closer to the transmission, but stylistically feeble and has been rightly discarded by Seel (1935: 22). © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

130

Literary technique and historiographical method  

Finally, Seel also turns a blind eye to the literary background of Civ. 2.4–7 and B.Alex. 13–16. As has been pointed out by Schönberger, Carter, Powell, ­Lendon, and Reggi, Caesar’s account of the sea battle outside Massilia in Civ.  2.4–7 is modelled on Thucydides’ famous description of the sea battle between Athenian and Sicilian forces in the harbour of Syracuse in 413 B. C..212 Caesar’s emphasis on the importance of the battle for the inhabitants of the city at Civ. 2.5.5: ut si quid adversi accidisset, ne ad conandum quidem sibi quicquam reliqui fore vide­ rent (~ 2.5.4, 2.6.1, see pp. 126–8) can be compared to Thuc. 7.71.2: πάντων γὰρ δὴ ἀνακειμένων τοῖς ᾿Αθηναίοις ἐς τὰς ναῦς ὅ τε φόβος ἦν ὑπὲρ τοῦ μέλλοντος οὐδενὶ ἐοικώς (‘since for the Athenians everything depended on their ships, the fear concerning the future was like none (they had experienced before)’). Moreover, the reference to the calling up and admonishing of the wealthiest citizens in Civ. 2.5.5: nam et honesti ex iuventute et cuiusque aetatis amplissimi no­minatim evocati atque obsecrati navis conscenderant (cf. pp. 126–7) resembles Thuc. 7.69.2: ὁ δὲ Νικίας … αὖθις τῶν τριηράρχων ἕνα ἕκαστον ἀνεκάλει, πατρόθεν τε ἐπονομάζων καὶ αὐτοὺς ὀνομαστὶ καὶ φυλήν (‘but Nicias … once again appealed to each of the trierarchs individually, calling him by his father’s name, his own name, and that of his tribe’).213 Furthermore, Civ. 2.5.3: ut … templa deorum immortalium adirent et ante simulacra proiecti victoriam ab dis exposcerent (‘how … (they) went to the temples of the immortal gods and prostrated themselves before their images and implored the gods for victory’) seems to be modelled on Thucyd­ ides’ vivid account of the desperation and bravery of the Athenians, cf. especially 7.71.3: καὶ πρὸς ἀνάκλησιν θεῶν μὴ στερῆσαι σφᾶς τῆς σωτηρίας ἐτρέποντο (‘and they turned to an appeal to the gods not to rob them of salvation’). 212 Cf. Schönberger 1984: 379, Carter 1991: 217 on Civ. 2.5.3, Powell 1998: 134 n. 34, Lendon 1999: 322, and Reggi 2002/2003: 73. C. S. Kraus (2007: 376–7) mentions Thuc. 7.71 as the “historiographical locus classicus” and assumes a tradition of “rhetorical descriptions of sieges”; however, Quint. Inst. 8.3.67–9 (adduced by Kraus as evidence) is about the fall of a city (­eversio) and is influenced by Roman epic rather than  a rhetorical tradition: G. A. Kennedy (1954: 325–6) accentuates the poetic flavour of fragor and refers to Verg. A. 2.298–804 (cf. also the quotations from Vergil at 8.3.70–73); M. Winterbottom (per litteras) compares Il. 9.590–94 and points to Ogilvie’s remarks (1965: 120, 320) about the influence of Ennius and tragedy on Liv. 1.29 (the fall of Alba) and 2.33.8 (the capture of Corioli). The dramatic events in the harbour of Syracuse are, of course, also narrated by Diodorus Siculus (13.14.1–17.5), but the links with Thuc. 7.69–71 are much closer; see also section 4.5c (pp.  137–9) on the popularity of Thucydides in the first century B. C. and cf. Dion. Hal. De Thuc. 26–7 (vol. 1, pp. 370–71 Usener/Radermacher), where Thucydides’ account of the battle in the harbour of Syracuse is explicitly recommended as a model for future historiographers (27): ἐμοὶ μὲν δὴ ταῦτα καὶ τὰ παραπλήσια τούτοις ἄξια ζήλου τε καὶ μιμήσεως ἐφάνη. 213 ἀνακαλεῖν is used in the sense of ‘appeal to’, not ‘summon’ (see Gomme/Andrewes/Dover 1970: 446 and Hornblower 1991–2008: vol. 3, 691), and the Athenian trierarchy was a liturgy imposed on the wealthiest citizens (cf. e. g. Hornblower 1991–2008: vol. 1, 280 on Thuc. 2.24.2). Hence, amplissimi … evocati atque obsecrati is fairly close to τῶν τριηράρχων ἕνα ἕκαστον ἀνεκάλει . © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

The Bellum Alexandrinum and earlier historiography 

131

Apart from the appeals to the wealthiest citizens and trierarchs, all these elements can also be found in the similar account of the Bellum Alexandrinum. Thus, if we ignore for a moment the evidence presented in chapter 3, it would seem that Seel could still be correct and that the author of B.Alex. 13–16 might have inherited the Thucydidean motifs by imitating the similar passage in the Bellum Civile. However, if we look more closely at the three passages, this possibility becomes extremely unlikely, for the account in B.Alex. 13–16 stands much nearer to the Thucydidean passage than its putative model in the Bellum Civile. First of all, the theatre of war and the military actions in the Bellum Alexandri­ ellum num resemble Thucydides’ account more closely than the passage in the B Civile. Whereas chapters 2.4–7 of the Bellum Civile are about a battle on the open sea, the accounts in the Bellum Alexandrinum and in Thucydides are about a sea battle in a harbour, and both Thucydides and the author of the Bellum Alexandrinum emphasize that the lack of sea-room renders manoeuvring very difficult and that the valour of the infantry troops on the ships becomes more important than the nautical skill of the helmsmen, boatswains, and rowers, cf. Thuc. 7.70.4–6: (4) ξυμπεσουσῶν δὲ ἐν ὀλίγῳ πολλῶν νεῶν … αἱ μὲν ἐμβολαὶ διὰ τὸ μὴ εἶναι τὰς ἀνακρούσεις καὶ διέκπλους ὀλίγαι ἐγίγνοντο, αἱ δὲ προσβολαί, ὡς τύχοι ναῦς νηὶ προσπεσοῦσα ἢ διὰ τὸ φεύγειν ἢ ἄλλῃ ἐπιπλέουσα, πυκνότεραι ἦσαν. (5) καὶ ὅσον μὲν χρόνον προσφέροιτο ναῦς, οἱ ἀπὸ τῶν καταστρωμάτων τοῖς ἀκοντίοις καὶ τοξεύμασι καὶ λίθοις ἀφθόνως ἐπ’ αὐτὴν ἐχρῶντο· ἐπειδὴ δὲ προσμείξειαν, οἱ ἐπιβάται ἐς χεῖρας ἰόντες ἐπειρῶντο ταῖς ἀλλήλων ναυσὶν ἐπιβαίνειν. (6) ξυνετύγχανέ τε πολλαχοῦ διὰ τὴν στενοχωρίαν τὰ μὲν ἄλλοις ἐμβεβληκέναι, τὰ δὲ αὐτοὺς ἐμβεβλῆσθαι … καὶ τὸν κτύπον μέγαν ἀπὸ πολλῶν νεῶν ξυμπιπτουσῶν ἔκπληξίν τε ἅμα καὶ ἀποστέρησιν τῆς ἀκοῆς ὧν οἱ κελευσταὶ φθέγγοιντο παρέχειν. (4) Since many ships had clashed in a small place …, attacks by ramming were few because backing water or breaking the enemy’s line was impossible, but collisions in which one ship collided with another either in escaping from or moving against a third ship were more numerous. (5) And as long as a ship was coming near, the men on the decks used plenty of spears and arrows and stones against it; but whenever they came to close quarters, the marines tried to board each other’s ship and fought hand to hand. (6) Because of the lack of room it often happened that some were attacking others but were themselves attacked (by a third vessel) … and that the huge noise rising from the many ships hitting each other drove the men out of their minds and prevented them from hearing what the boatswains were shouting.214

and B.Alex. 15.7: 214 Cf. also Thuc. 7.70.3: οἵ τε ἐπιβάται ἐθεράπευον, ὁπότε προσπέσοι ναῦς νηί, μὴ λείπεσθαι τὰ ἀπὸ τοῦ καταστρώματος τῆς ἄλλης τέχνης. The narrowness of the place and the importance of the infantry troops are also highlighted in the exhortatory speeches preceding the sea battle (7.62.1, 7.67.3) and in the account of an earlier sea battle in the harbour of Syracuse (7.36.3–4, 7.40.5, cf. de Romilly 1956: 159–60). © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

132

Literary technique and historiographical method  

tum necessario discessum ab arte est propter angustias loci atque omne certamen in virtute constitit. Then, because of the narrowness of the place, they necessarily had to abandon their skill and the whole contest hung on valour.

Secondly, in the Bellum Civile the motif of the prayers uttered by comrades and fellow-citizens is situated before the beginning of the battle (cf. Civ. 2.5.3, 2.6.1: commisso proelio); in Thucydides’ account and the Bellum Alexandrinum, however, the comrades and citizens pray, while the battle is at its peak (cf. Thuc. 7.71.3, B.Alex. 15.8). Obviously, the latter arrangement is not only psychologically more probable, but also dramatically more effective, because it postpones the conclusion of the episode and thereby keeps up the suspense.215 A third difference between Thucydides’ account and the Bellum Alexandrinum on the one hand and the passage in the Bellum Civile on the other hand concerns the spectator motif. Thucydides describes in great detail how the comrades standing on the shore follow the sea battle with great anxiety, but are unable to help or change the course of events, how they cheer their men, rejoice at their successes, and lament their losses (Thuc. 7.71.3): δι’ ὀλίγου γὰρ οὔσης τῆς θέας καὶ οὐ πάντων ἅμα ἐς τὸ αὐτὸ σκοπούντων, εἰ μέν τινες ἴδοιέν πῃ τοὺς σφετέρους ἐπικρατοῦντας, ἀνεθάρσησάν τε ἂν καὶ πρὸς ἀνάκλησιν θεῶν μὴ στερῆσαι σφᾶς τῆς σωτηρίας ἐτρέποντο, οἱ δ’ ἐπὶ τὸ ἡσσώμενον βλέψαντες ὀλοφυρμῷ τε ἅμα μετὰ βοῆς ἐχρῶντο καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν δρωμένων τῆς ὄψεως καὶ τὴν γνώμην μᾶλλον τῶν ἐν τῷ ἔργῳ ἐδουλοῦντο. Since the spectacle was only a little away and not everyone was looking at the same part of the action at the same time, some took courage, when some saw that somewhere their own side was prevailing, and they turned to an appeal to the gods that they should not rob them of their salvation, others, however, who looked towards the section that was losing, lamented with loud cries and from the mere sight of the events became more enslaved in their minds too than those who were engaged in the fighting.216

Similarly, in the Bellum Alexandrinum, fellow-inhabitants and comrades rush onto the rooftops in order to see the battle and watch the events with great a­ nxiety (15.8): neque vero Alexandriae fuit quisquam aut nostrorum aut oppidanorum … quin ­altissima tecta peteret atque ex omni prospectu locum spectaculo caperet precibus­ que et votis victoriam suis ab dis inmortalibus exposceret. 215 Cf. Pötter 1932: 14 n. 8: “retardierendes Moment” (with reference to the differences between Civ. 2.4–7 and B.Alex. 13–16). 216 Cf. also Thuc. 7.23.1, where the Athenians watch an earlier sea battle in the harbour and are surprised by Gylippus. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

The Bellum Alexandrinum and earlier historiography 

133

And indeed there was no one in Alexandria among our troops or the inhabitants of the town … who did not seek the highest rooftops and tried to obtain from ­every vantage point a place for (watching) the spectacle and implored the immortal gods by means of prayers and vows to give victory to his own side.

Thus, in both texts the battle is turned into a touching spectacle, a θέα (cf. Thuc. 7.71.3) or a spectaculum (cf. B.Alex. 15.8).217 By focalizing the events through the eyes of an internal audience Thucydides and the author of B.Alex. 13–16 give their readers the impression that they, too, are directly looking onto the events as they occur218 and invite them to identify with the historical figures. The corresponding passage of the Bellum Civile does not contain anything which resembles this emotive zooming in on the spectators.219 217 In Thucydides, the macabre spectacle in the harbour of Syracuse corresponds to the description of the Athenians’ departure from the Piraeus (cf. especially Thuc. 6.31.1–4 ~ ­7.70.3–71.3 and see B. Jordan 2000: 76–9, Grethlein 2010b: 247–8). The use of spectaculum has a parallel in Sallust’s account of a battle near Cirta at Jug. 101.11: tum spectaculum horri­bile in campis patentibus: sequi, fugere, occidi, capi (cf. Vretska 1955: 143). Moreover, Sallust also imitates Thucydides’ graphic account of the sea battle in the harbour of Syracuse when describing the siege of Zama at Jug. 60: cf. Latte 1935: 43, Perrochat 1949: 18–9, W. Avenarius 1957: 51, G. M. Paul 1984: 161, and especially Scanlon 1980: 150–1, who compares the emphasis on the zeal and eagerness of the soldiers (Jug. 60.1: magna vi ~ Thuc. 7.70.3: πολλὴ … προθυμία), their physical and mental efforts (Jug. 60.4 ~ Thuc. 7.71.4), and the noise and empathy of the spectators (Jug. 60.2,4 ~ Thuc. 7.71.3,4). On the popularity of the spectator motif in later Roman historiography see Rosen 1968: 117–18, 195–6, Borzsák 1973, Mutschler 1975: 57–8, Leigh 1997: 234–91, especially p. 250 with n. 48. In Greek literature, the zooming in on the spectators can be found as early as Homer’s Iliad: cf. Il. 3.146–244 and the moving conversation between Hector and his parents at Il. 22.38–89. These precedents have been overlooked in recent discussions of the epic colouring in Thucydides’ account of the Sicilian expedition (cf. Reinhardt 1960: 210, Hunter 1982: 40–1, Hornblower 1991–2008: vol. 3, 699 (with reference to Il. 23.881), 1994a: 67–9, and 2004: 343–4, Rood 1998: 173 with n. 57, 197, Kallet 2001: 97–115, Grethlein 2010b: 257–61; see also Strasburger 1958: 32 (= 1968: 519), 1966: 62–3, 68 and Rengakos 2006). On the uses of the spectator motif in Thucydides and later Greek historiography cf. Walker 1993. See also Chaniotis 1997 on the theatricalization of public life in the Hellenistic period. 218 Cf. the remarks about narrative time and perspective in section 4.4, pp.  117–19. Thucyd­ides’ deft exploitation of internal audiences was already observed by Plutarch (De Glor. Ath. 347a): ὁ γοῦν Θουκυδίδης ἀεὶ τῷ λόγῳ πρὸς ταύτην ἁμιλλᾶται τὴν ἐνάργειαν, οἷον θεατὴν ποιῆσαι τὸν ἀκροατὴν καὶ τὰ γινόμενα περὶ τοὺς ὁρῶντας ἐκπληκτικὰ καὶ ταρακτικὰ πάθη τοῖς ἀναγινώσκουσιν ἐνεργάσασθαι λιχνευόμενος. See also Connor 1985: 10–13, Davidson 1991: 23–4, Walker 1993: 355–61, Hornblower 1991–2008, vol. 3, 19 and 699, 1994b: 164, and 2004: 342–6, B. Jordan 2000: 68–9, Greenwood 2006: 19–41, and Grethlein 2010b: 248–9. 219 Caesar’s remark at Civ. 2.5.3: facile erat ex castris C. Treboni atque omnibus superioribus locis prospicere in urbem is not comparable. The phrasing vaguely resembles Thuc. 7.71.3: δι’ ὀλίγου γὰρ οὔσης τῆς θέας, but the context is different, for at Civ. 2.5.3 the spectators are not fellow-inhabitants or comrades, but enemy forces (the Caesarian troops beleaguering Massilia). In the account of the fighting around Alesia, however, there is a similar focus on the onlooking soldiers and civilians and their emotions: cf. p. 137 with n. 230 below. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

134

Literary technique and historiographical method  

The close links between chapters 13–16 of the Bellum Alexandrinum and Thucydides’ account of the Sicilian expedition have several implications. First of all, they shed an interesting light on the composition and the intended reception of the Bellum Alexandrinum. The Thucydidean motifs in B.Alex. 13–16 and the sophisticated use of the spectator motif and other dramatic devices reveal that at least some of the early chapters of the Bellum Alexandrinum were not conceived as a bare account of facts, but as a literary text that exploits the techniques of earlier historiography and wants to captivate and entertain the reader. Consequently, we should neither use the Bellum Alexandrinum simply as a historical source nor assume that ancient readers interpreted it in that way. Just as the author of chapters 13–16 refashioned his experience according to the Thucydidean narrative, readers acquainted with the famous account of the Sicilian expedition are likely to have measured Caesar’s exploits against the foil of the less successful Athenian general Nicias. Reading the episode in this way, they would have been subtly convinced of Caesar’s superior leadership and foresight.220 Furthermore, the comparison of B.Alex. 13–16, Civ. 2.4–7, and Thuc. 7.59.2– 71.7 also has important consequences for the question of authorship. The preceding analysis has shown that the early chapters of the Bellum Alexandrinum are written neither by a literary dilettante nor by a slavish imitator of Caesar’s style,221 but by someone who had literary ambitions and was both creative and well-read. In addition, the similar use of Thucydidean motifs in Civ. 2.4–7 and B.Alex. 13– 16 reveals that the early chapters of the Bellum Alexandrinum are ‘Caesarian’ not only with regard to their language and style (cf. pp. 39–41, 219–23, 246–65), but also with regard to their literary technique. This fact is most easily and naturally explained by the assumption that both passages are by the same author.

(b) Further Thucydidean elements in B.Alex. 1–21 and 22–78 The Thucydidean motifs identified in chapters 13–16 immediately raise the question of whether other sections of the Bellum Alexandrinum, too, are influenced by the Athenian historian. If we look for further Thucydidean elements in B. Alex. 1–21, we may first of all note several other episodes that have close paral 220 Caesar surpasses Nicias in many ways: he can keep up the morale and discipline of his troops in a precarious situation (cf. B.Alex. 9.1 and Thuc. 7.55.1), has the necessary scientific know­ledge to remedy the shortage of fresh water (cf. B.Alex. 8.1–2; contrast Nicias’ superstitious reaction to the lunar eclipse, Thuc. 7.50.4), rightly objects to plans for withdrawal (cf. B.Alex. 8.3–5 and Thuc. 7.48.1), and firmly controls the harbour entry, thus securing the supply lines (contrast Thuc. 7.22.1, 7.23.1–2, 7.24.1–3 (Gylippus’ capture of Plemmyrium) and 7.59.2–60.2 (blockade of the harbour entry)). For further “cardinal mistakes of Nicias” see the summary in Smith 1903: 382–3. 221 For proponents of these views see pp. 36–9 and 46–7 above. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

The Bellum Alexandrinum and earlier historiography 

135

lels in Thucydides’ account of the Peloponnesian War. For example, we can compare the sentiments expressed in the Alexandrians’ consilia contionesque (B.Alex. 3.2–4) with the description of the Sicilian assemblies at Thuc. 6.33–41222 and contrast the debate about a secret withdrawal (B.Alex. 7.1, 8.1–9.1) with similar discussions in Thucydides’ account of the Sicilian expedition (cf. Thuc. 7.47–9).223 Far more important than these parallels of motifs are the similarities in historiographical outlook and narrative technique. Like the author of B.Alex. 1–21 (cf. pp. 110–12), Thucydides tries to explain historical developments rationally and does not reckon with divine interventions or a quasi-divine Fortuna or Tyche.224 Moreover, the author of B.Alex. 1–21 (cf. pp.  96–7) and Thucydides225 share  a conspicuous preference for indirect characterization and largely avoid explicit and subjective comments on the behaviour, character, or private life of the historical actors. Furthermore, like the author of B.Alex. 1–21 (cf. pp. 117– 19 above), Thucydides, too, strives to recreate the openness of the past by avoiding prolepses, narrating the historical facts from different perspectives, focusing on the expectations of the historical actors, and highlighting that the events could have easily developed differently.226 222 Cf. especially Thuc. 6.33.2, 6.33.5, 6.34.4–6. 223 Cf. in particular Thuc. 7.48.1: οὐδ’ ἐμφανῶς σφᾶς ψηφιζομένους μετὰ πολλῶν τὴν ἀναχώρησιν τοῖς πολεμίοις καταγγέλτους γίγνεσθαι· λαθεῖν γὰρ ἄν, ὁπότε βούλοιντο, τοῦτο ποιοῦντες πολλῷ ἧσσον ~ B.Alex. 7.1: … quod neque celari Alexandrini possent in apparanda fuga, cum tam parvo spatio distarent ab ipsis, neque illis inminentibus atque insequentibus ullus in naves receptus daretur. Likewise, the detailed description of the Alexandrians’ attempts to spoil the Roman water supplies (5.1–9.1) bears some resemblance to Thucydides’ account of the plague, cf. Thuc. 2.48.2 (reservoirs of the Piraeus, lack of wells: … ἐς τὰ φρέατα· κρῆναι γὰρ οὔπω ἦσαν αὐτόθι) ~ B.Alex. 5.1–3 (reservoirs and other water supplies; cf. especially 5.2: … quod fons urbe tota nulla est), Thuc. 2.48.2 (rumours that the Peloponnesians have poisoned the reservoirs) ~ B.Alex. 6.2– 7.1 (anxiety and speculations among Caesar’s troops), Thuc. 2.62.2 (Pericles reminds the Athenians of their sea power): ἐγὼ δὲ ἀποφαίνω … τοῦ ἑτέρου [i. e. τῆς θαλάσσης] ὑμᾶς παντὸς κυριωτάτους ὄντας, … καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν ὅστις τῇ ὑπαρχούσῃ παρασκευῇ τοῦ ναυτικοῦ πλέοντας ὑμᾶς οὔτε βασιλεὺς οὔτε ἄλλο οὐδὲν ἔθνος τῶν ἐν τῷ παρόντι κωλύσει ~ B.Alex. 8.2 (Caesar reminds his soldiers of their superiority at sea): … tamen quoniam mare libere tenerent neque hostes classem haberent, prohiberi sese non posse, quominus cotidie navibus aquam peterent). Cf. also Thuc. 4.26.2–4 (shortage of water during the siege of Pylos). 224 Cf. e. g. Strasburger 1954: 407–8, 417–18 (= 1968: 435–6, 453–4), Lloyd-Jones 1971: 137, Schuller 1991: 101, Crane 1998: 5, Rubel 2000: 129–34, Grethlein 2010b: 252–5 on the absence of divine agency from Thucydides’ account. In addition, Thucydides also plays down the religious aspects of the Peloponnesian War: cf. Hornblower 1992. 225 Cf. e. g. Bruns 1896: 1–34 (especially pp. 8–9), Smith 1903, de Romilly 1956: 84–9, 106, Westlake 1968: 3, 5, passim, Pitcher 2007: 105, 107, 111, 115. The similarity gains additional weight when we consider the penchant for direct characterization and explicit comment in the later chapters of the Bellum Alexandrinum (cf. pp. 93–5, 99–106, 109–10) and some of the Hellenistic and early Roman historians (cf. pp. 152–3). 226 Cf. Grethlein 2010a: 324–7, 2010b: 241–54. On the chronological organization of the narrative and the avoidance of prolepses see also de Romilly 1956: 52–8, Delebecque 1965: © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

136

Literary technique and historiographical method  

Finally, Thucydides’ account of the Peloponnesian War also provides a close parallel for the use of literary and historical precedents in B.Alex. 1–21. Both the author of B.Alex. 1–21 and Thucydides evoke earlier war narratives and employ them as foils for their own accounts: just as the early chapters of the Bellum Alexandrinum allude to Thucydides’ account of the disastrous Sicilian expedition and thereby throw into relief Caesar’s own leadership and success (cf. p. 134), Thu­cyd­ ides alludes to the Greek expedition against Troy and uses the Homeric account of this successful campaign to accentuate the failure of the Athenians in Sicily.227 The parallels of motifs and the similarities in historiographical outlook and narrative technique show that Thucydides’ influence may not be confined to the description of the sea battle in B.Alex. 13–16. Rather, Thucydides’ account of the Peloponnesian War seems to have been an important model for the whole narrative of B.Alex. 1–21 and may have influenced it on several levels.228 31–7, Kitto 1966: 298–9, Finley 1967: 127, Connor 1984: 110–13, Erbse 1989: 45–6, Rengakos 2006: 284–8, 295 and 2011: 403, Dunn 2007: 114–16. For the switching between different perspectives cf. e. g. Thuc. 3.2–19 (switches between the perspectives of the Mytileneans, Spartans, Athenians), 6.30–52 (advance of the Athenian fleet and debates in Syracuse), 6.94–7.2 (Athenian siege of Syracuse and progress of Gylippus), 7.20–42 (successes of the Syracusans and progress of the reinforcements sent by the Athenians), de Romilly 1956: 56–64, 72–6, Delebecque 1965: 26–9, 37–54, Connor 1984: 185–92, Rood 1998: 171–3, 259–2, Rengakos 2006: 292–5 and 2011: 402, and the recommendations of Lucian at Hist. Conscr. 49 (on the Thucydidean background of this passage see G. Avenarius 1956: 122–5, 166–7). On ‘Bei­nahe-Episoden’ / ‘if-not-situations’ (e. g. Thuc. 1.74.4, 4.106.4, 8.86.4–5, 8.87.4) and other forms of counterfactual speculation (e. g. Thuc. 7.42.3, 8.96.4) see especially Dover 1981/1988, Hornblower 1994b: 158–9 and 1991–2008: vol. 2, 18, 338, 405, 427, Rood 1998: 11, 19, 173, 278–80, Gray 2011: 77– 82. A similar effect is created by negative expressions which suggest that the historical events developed differently than one might have expected, cf. e. g. Thuc. 1.105.4: οἱ δὲ Ἀθηναῖοι τὸ μὲν πρὸς Αἰγίνῃ στράτευμα οὐκ ἐκίνησαν (sc. to check the Corinthian attack on the Megarid, as the Corinthians had hoped and as one might have expected); Hornblower (1994b: 152–8) compares Il. 11.255: ἀλλ’ οὐδ’ ὧς ἀπέληγε [sc. Ἀγαμέμνων, after being wounded] μάχης ἠδὲ πτολέμοιο (cf. de Jong 1987/2004: 61–8) and supplies further examples from Thucydides; for a parallel in B.Alex. 1–21 see p. 118 n. 176. 227 Cf. e. g. Grethlein 2010b: 259: “the foil of an expedition that succeeded throws into relief the failure of the Athenian invasion” and see p. 133 n. 217 for further literature on Thucydides’ use of Homer. It is also tempting to compare the dislocation of information in the two historiographical works. As we have seen above, Caesar and the author of B.Alex. 1–21 neither comment directly on the events nor (as far as we can tell) propagate blatant falsehoods, but prefer to put Caesar’s deeds into a more positive light by suppressing historical details or postponing them to a later point in the narrative (cf. pp. 96–8). According to Badian (1990/1993) and Hornblower (1994b: 139–48, 165–6), Thucydides does something quite similar in his account of the outbreak of the Peloponnesian War: he omits or dislocates aggressive actions of the Athenians and thereby creates the impression that the Spartans were far more hostile and eager to go to war. However, this interpretation has been forcefully challenged by Rood (1998: 205–24). 228 Thucydidean influence may also account for the constructio ad sensum at B.Alex. 20.6: see appendix I.1, p. 264 ad loc.. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

The Bellum Alexandrinum and earlier historiography 

137

Some of the Thucydidean features identified in chapters 1–21 also occur in two later sections of the Bellum Alexandrinum. As pointed out above (pp. 120–21), the account of the events in Spain (B.Alex. 48–64) and the narrative of Caesar’s campaign against Pharnaces (B.Alex. 65–78) are similar to the early chapters of the Bellum Alexandrinum in that they present the historical events from different perspectives, focus on emotions and expectations, contain counterfactual speculations, and avoid prolepses. These traits, too, could be attributed to Thucydidean influence, but on the whole the differences far outweigh the similarities: the references to divine interventions and supernatural powers (cf. pp. 113–16), the overtly biased presentation of the events, and the moralizing and propagandistic tone (cf. pp. 94–5, 99–110) have little in common with Thucydides and reveal the influence of another current of ancient historiography, to which we shall turn in section (d); before that, however, it is time to contextualize the preceding observations and take a brief look at the reception of Thucydides in the first century B. C..

(c) The Bellum Alexandrinum and the ‘Thucydidean fashion’ of the 50s and 40s B. C. As we have seen above (pp. 130–34), the imitation of Thucydides’ famous description of the sea battle in the harbour of Syracuse at B.Alex. 13–16 has a close parallel in Caesar’s account of the siege of Massilia in the Bellum Civile. This, however, is not the only passage in the Bellum Gallicum and Bellum Civile that seems to be influenced by the Greek historian. Thucydides’ technique of focalizing a battle through the eyes of an internal audience (cf. pp. 132–3) can also be observed in Caesar’s accounts of the sea battle against the Veneti229 and the fighting around Alesia.230 In addition, the narratives of Curio’s campaign in Africa (Civ. 2.23–44) and the decisive battle at Pharsalus (Civ. 3.82–99), too, contain several features that are reminiscent of the Greek historian.231 Further similarities between Thucyd­ides and Caesar have been detected in the treatment of emotions,232 229 Cf. Gal. 3.14.8–9 and see Oppermann 1933: 42–3, Schönberger 1988: 145. 230 Cf. Gal. 7.79.3, 7.80.2, 7.80.4–5 and H. A. Gärtner 1975: 94, Schönberger 1990: 611. 231 See H. A. Gärtner 1975: 124 n. 161, 132 on the under-estimation of the enemy at Civ.  2.23.1, 3.87.1 and Thuc. 5.6.3, Grillo 2011: 261 on the technique of strengthening one’s credibility by admitting uncertainty about minor details (cf. Civ. 3.92.2 and e. g. Thuc. 3.87.3 with Hornblower 1994b: 150–1), and more generally Carter 1991: 26 on Caesar’s narrative technique in the Curio episode (Civ. 2.23–44). 232 Cf. Maurach 1974: 52 n. 17, 54 n. 23, 63 and 1982: 477 with reference to Gal. 7.47.3, 7.52.1–2 ~ Thuc. 3.39.4, 3.45.4–6 (cf. de Romilly 1951: 274 = 1963/1988: 329) and the similar use of efferri (Gal. 5.47.4: quos recenti victoria efferri sciret, 7.47.3: elati spe celeris victoriae, Civ. 3.79.6, al.) and ἐπαίρεσθαι (Thuc. 3.37.5, 7.41.3: δύο δὲ νῆες τῶν Συρακοσίων ἐπαιρόμεναι τῇ νίκῃ). See also Powell 1998: 134 n. 34, who compares Civ. 2.4.4 with Thuc. 5.103.2, 7.50.4 (“excessive trust in, or fear of, the unknown”). © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

138

Literary technique and historiographical method  

the exploitation of verbal echoes to connect different historical events,233 and the use of a third-person narrative for events that were experienced and influenced by the authors themselves.234 Finally, also many of the features shared by B.Alex. 1–21 and Thucydides such as the rational explanation of historical events, the preference for indirect characterization, or the avoidance of explicit comment and prolepses are also characteristic of the Bellum Gallicum and Bellum Civile and may partly stem from Thucydidean influence.235 Caesar’s choice of Thucydides as one of his main models236 may partly result from the fact that Thucydides, too, had been  a general and politician and had written about contemporary events.237 A more important factor, however, may have been Thucydides’ growing popularity in late Hellenistic and Imperial times. 233 Maurach (1982: 474 with n. 24) compares the similar phrasing of Gal. 6.4.1 and 6.44.2 (beginning and end of the insurrection led by Acco) with the verbal echoes between Thuc. 5.113 and 6.9.3 (irrational hopes of the Melians and Athenians). 234 Cf. Maurach 1974: 54 n. 23 and Grillo 2011: 266. Marincola (1997: 196–7) and Bartley (2008: 362–3) believe that Caesar follows the example set by Xenophon. See also p. 195 n. 35 on the presentation of simultaneous events and cf. Grillo 2012: 38–9 on the use of “superlative amplification … for extolling the unprecedented nature” of the events in Civ. 1.6.6–7 and Thuc. 2.94.1 (with reference to Marincola 1997: 35–6). Less significant is the tripartite structure of geographical regions at Caes. Gal. 1.1.1 and Thuc. 3.92.2 (observed by L. Edmunds according to C. S. Kraus 2009: 164). Canfora (2006b: 729) draws attention to the fact that both Thucydides and Caesar divide their accounts by campaign years (cf. appendix C, pp. 189–203 with n. 41 on the book divisions in Caesar and Thucydides). This similarity, however, should not be attributed to Caesar’s imitation of Thucydides. First, the annual structure of the Caesarian commentarii can also be explained by the influence of Roman annalistic historiography and by the tradition of official litterae in which the Roman magistrates reported their achievements to the Senate (cf. e. g. Caes. Gal.  2.35.4, 4.38.5, Suet. Jul. 56.6, and Vatinius apud Cic. Fam. 5.9.1 = 255.1 SB); and secondly, the annual pattern is a natural consequence of the fact that winter usually put an end to military operations and thus imposed a year-by-year structure. 235 Cf. pp. 96–9, 111–12, 119–20 and Grillo 2011: 247 (characterization). 236 Although Lendon (1999) admits that Caesar’s account of the sea battle near Massilia is influenced by Thucydides (see p. 130 n. 212), he concentrates on Xenophon and Polybius and accentuates the differences between the Roman and the Greek depiction of warfare. He correctly points out that Caesar attaches a far greater importance to virtus than any of his Greek predecessors (1999: 304–16), but his claim that Caesar’s interest in morale and psychological factors reflects the influence of Xenophon (cf. 1999: 290–304) seems too narrow, for Thu­ cydides’ interest in these factors is just as keen as that of Xenophon. Surprisingly, Thucydides’ influence on Caesar is passed over in silence by Strebel (1935: 27–40), Schmid (1948: 211–16), and Batstone/Damon (2006: 144–5). 237 Cf. Grillo 2011: 249. Powell (1998: 134 n. 34, with reference to Thuc. 3.82.4–5 and Civ.  3.32.3) observes that Thucydides was similarly sensitive to the moral and psychological corruption that is produced by civil war. H. J. Tschiedel (per litteras) suggests that Caesar may also have regarded Thucydides’ fate as similar to his own: just as the Athenians did not honour Thucydides’ loyal service as a politician and general in the Peloponnesian War, but forced him to go into exile (cf. Thuc. 4.104.4–106.4, 5.26.5 and Dillery 2007: 58–9), Caesar felt that he did not receive the respect and gratitude he deserved (cf. Civ. 1.7.7 and Raaflaub 1974: 143– 7, 149–52). © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

The Bellum Alexandrinum and earlier historiography 

139

Starting with Polybius238 and Agatharchides239 in the second century B. C., we can observe Thucydides’ increasing influence on Greek historians,240 rhetoricians,241 and fiction writers.242 At Rome, his influence was particularly strong in the 50s and 40s B. C.. On several occasions Cicero polemicizes against the movement of the Thucydidii, who advocated a plain, ‘Attic’ style and chose the Greek historian as their chief model for imitation.243 Shortly after the composition of the Corpus Caesarianum and Cicero’s death, the historians Sallust244 and Aelius Tubero245 emulated Thucydides’ style and historiographical technique. If we consider the Thucydidean elements of B.Alex. 1–21 against this literary-historical background, it becomes clear that they are not the result of isolated, individual preferences. Rather, the early chapters of the Bellum Alexandrinum continue the ‘Thucydidean’ narrative of the Bellum Gallicum and Bellum Civile and are part of a broader literary and intellectual current that was quite prominent at the time.

238 Cf. Polyb. 1.44 with Walbank 1957–79: vol. 1, 109, Canfora 2006b: 724–7. 239 Cf. Phot. Bibl. 213 p. 171b = FGrHist 86 T 2.6 and Strasburger 1966: 89 with n. 2. 240 Cf. e. g. Lucian’s remarks at Hist. Conscr. 42: ὁ δ’ οὖν Θουκυδίδης εὖ μάλα τοῦτ’ ἐνομοθέτησεν καὶ διέκρινεν ἀρετὴν καὶ κακίαν συγγραφικήν and see Thackeray 1929/1967: 110–14, 120, Richards 1939: 39, Ladouceur 1981: 28–9, Bernardi 1987: 22, Price 2007: 6–8 on Josephus’ imitation of Thucydides. 241 Apart from the detailed discussion of Thucydides’ achievement and style by Dio­nysius of Halicarnassus (De Thucydide), one may compare the references to the Greek historian in Demetrius (Eloc. 45–7, 48–9, al.), Pseudo-Longinus (Subl. 14.1, 22.3, 38.3), Dio Chrysostomus (Or. 18.10), and the rhetorical exercise preserved in PYale inv. 1729 (first cent. A. D.; cf. Stephens 1985: 57, 72–3 on lines 34–8, 42–3). 242 Cf. e. g. Cobet 1859: 231–2, 236, 237, passim, Rohde 1914: 529, Perry 1930: 100 n. 11, and Luginbill 2000 on Chariton, Luginbill 2002 on Longus, T. Gärtner 2010 on Achilles Tatius, and Trzaskoma 2011 on Chariton, Xenophon, and Achilles Tatius. For further material on the reception of Thucydides in Imperial Greek literature see Strebel 1935: 41–72, Schmid 1948: 211–16, and Canfora 2006b. 243 Cf. Cic. Brut. 287: ‘Thucydidem’ inquit [sc. an imaginary adherent of Atticism] ‘imitamur’ and Orat. 30: ecce autem aliqui se Thucydidios esse profitentur, novum quoddam imperitorum et inauditum genus; see also Cic. De Orat. 2.56–7 and Dion. Hal. Thuc. 2 (vol. 1, pp. 326.22– 327.13 Usener/Radermacher). 244 See p. 133 n. 217 for examples and literature; on differences in the narrative technique of the two authors cf. Grethlein 2006. 245 Cf. fr. 1 B/W (= HRR fr. 1) ~ Thuc. 1.20.1, Dionysius’ dedication of his work on Thucydides to Aelius Tubero (cf. Thuc. 1 and 25, vol. 1, pp.  325.5–6, 364.10–16 Usener/Radermacher), Kierdorf 2003: 56, and Reichardt 2008: 307–8. For other Republican historians imitating ­Thucydides see Canfora 2006b: 727–8 (on Coelius Antipater), Kornemann 1904: 148–9 (on ­Asinius Pollio), and generally Strebel 1935: 27–40, W. Avenarius 1957: 55–6 as well as Flach 1973: 33–40 and 1998: 108–9. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

140

Literary technique and historiographical method  

(d) The account of Euphranor’s death (B.Alex. 25) The ‘Thucydidean’ narrative of the sea battle in the Eunostos harbour (B.Alex. 13–16) can be contrasted with the description of another sea battle in chapter 25 of the Bellum Alexandrinum: (3) … proficiscuntur in ea classe Rhodiae naves atque in his Euphranor, sine quo nulla umquam dimicatio marituma, nulla etiam parum feliciter confecta erat. (4) at ­Fortuna, quae plerumque eos, quos plurimis beneficiis ornavit, ad duriorem casum reservat, superiorum temporum dissimilis Euphranorem prosequebatur. (5) nam cum ad Canopum ventum esset instructaque utrimque classis conflixisset et sua consuetudine Euphranor primus proelium commisisset et quadriremem hostium perforasset ac demersisset, proximam longius insecutus parum celeriter insequentibus reliquis circumventus est ab Alexandrinis. (6) cui subsidium nemo tulit, sive quod in ipso satis praesidii pro virtute ac felicitate eius putarent esse, sive quod ipsi sibi timebant. ita, qui unus ex omnibus eo proelio bene rem gessit, solus cum sua quadriremi victrice periit. (3) With this fleet also the Rhodian ships set out and in these Euphranor, without whom no naval battle, not even a less successful one, had been fought. (4) But Fortune, who often reserves those whom she has furnished with the greatest number of favours for an even harder downfall, followed Euphranor with an intention that was unlike that which she had had in earlier times. (5) For when they had come to Canopus and the two fleets had been drawn up on either side and had clashed, and when Euphranor, according to his habit, had been the first to start the battle and had pierced and sunk a quadrireme of the enemies, he followed the next ship too far and was encircled by the Alexandrians, because the other ships followed him too slowly. (6) No one brought help to him, either because they thought that he had enough protection in himself because of his valour and (previous) good fortune, or because they feared for themselves. So he, who was the only one of them all who did his job well in this battle, died alone with his victorious quadrireme.

In several ways the passage marks a significant departure from the mode of presentation in the early chapters of the Bellum Alexandrinum. To begin with, the narrative does not give  a clear and detailed account of the tactical considerations and manoeuvres. Instead, it is completely focused on the courageous behaviour and character of the Rhodian admiral Euphranor and breaks off with his death, without even informing us about the outcome of the battle. This stands in stark contrast to the earlier battle descriptions in chapters 11, 13–16, 17.1–18.4, 19.2–21.4, which concentrate on events rather than persons and try to give a rational account of how different factors interact and influence the outcome of the war. Three further differences concern the sentence Fortuna … plerumque eos, quos plurimis beneficiis ornavit, ad duriorem casum reservat (25.4). First, as has © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

The Bellum Alexandrinum and earlier historiography 

141

been pointed out above (pp. 114–15), the strong emphasis on the influence of the goddess Fortune is at variance with the rational account of chapters 1–21. Secondly, the statement foreshadows Euphranor’s imminent death, thus presenting the events from the perspective of someone who knows the outcome and narrates retrospectively; this mode of presentation differs sharply from chapters 1–21, where the events are reported from the perspective of someone who seems to be watching them as they occur.246 The different handling of information and narrative time is closely connected with a third difference. By anticipating Euphranor’s death and introducing his account of Euphranor’s end with the words Fortuna … plerumque eos, quos plurimis beneficiis ornavit, ad duriorem casum reservat, the narrator first names the general principle which in his eyes determined the course of events. Thereby he turns Euphranor’s courageous struggle, his bravery, and his death into an exemplum of the instability of Fortune and man’s dependence on divine support. Thus, instead of reporting the events in a matter-of-fact way or turning them into a captivating narrative, the author uses the historical facts to teach his readers a philosophical lesson. Finally, if we turn once more to the battle description as a whole, the episode also has a distinctly tragic flavour. The narrative emphasizes the sudden reversal of Euphranor’s fortune and suggests that his overconfidence and courage made him under-estimate the dangers.247 Both details activate the theme of human hybris and resemble the plots of Greek tragedies, in which heroes such as Aga­ memnon or Pentheus overestimate their power.248 Moreover, Greek tragedy also provides precedents for the sentiment Fortuna … plerumque eos, quos plurimis beneficiis ornavit, ad duriorem casum reservat. One close parallel can be found in Euripides’ Troades (1203–6): θνητῶν δὲ μῶρος ὅστις εὖ πράσσειν δοκῶν βέβαια χαίρει· τοῖς τρόποις γὰρ αἱ τύχαι, ἔμπληκτος ὡς ἄνθρωπος, ἄλλοτ’ ἄλλοσε πηδῶσι,

246 See pp. 117–19, 132–3, and 135–6 with n. 226 (Thucydidean influence). 247 Cf. 25.5: longius insecutus and the emphasis on Euphranor’s previous exploits (25.3: sine quo nulla umquam dimicatio marituma, nulla etiam parum feliciter confecta erat) and courage (25.5: cum … sua consuetudine Euphranor primus proelium commisisset). That Euphranor may have been overconfident is also implied by the fact that the commanders of the other ships are more cautious, cf. 25.6: cui subsidium nemo tulit, sive quod in ipso satis praesidii pro virtute ac felicitate eius putarent esse, sive quod ipsi sibi timebant. 248 Cf. also Aristotle’s description of the ideal tragic plot at Poet. 1453a12–17: ἀνάγκη ἄρα τὸν καλῶς ἔχοντα μῦθον … μεταβάλλειν … ἐξ εὐτυχίας εἰς δυστυχίαν μὴ διὰ μοχθηρίαν ἀλλὰ δι’ ἁμαρτίαν μεγάλην. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

142

Literary technique and historiographical method  

Whoever among mortals rejoices, because he thinks that his well-being is stable, is foolish. For the habits of Fortune’s dispensations are like those of a madman, and they leap now in this direction and now in that.249

The account of Euphranor’s death is not the only passage in chapters 22–78, where retrospective narration is combined with  a tragic lens and where the themes of human hybris, delusion, and the instability of Fortune are evoked. Two chapters later, the narrator describes an unsuccessful attack by the Egyptians and highlights that they were too confident of victory and did not take the necessary precautions (27.4–5): (4) quae primae copiae flumen  a Delta transire et Mithridati occurrere potuerunt, proelium commiserunt festinantes praeripere subsequentibus victoriae societatem. (5) … cum vero incaute atque insolenter succedere eos munitionibus videret, eruptione undique facta magnum numerum eorum interfecit [sc. Mithridates]. (4) The first troops that could cross the river from the Delta and confront Mithridates joined battle and hurried to steal the common possession of the victory from those that followed. (5) … However, as he [i. e. Mithridates] saw that they were advancing arrogantly and without taking precautions, he made a sortie on all sides and killed a large number of them.

An even closer parallel is the account of Gabinius’ defeat and death in chapter 43. It begins by describing how the Caesarian general misjudged the situation and placed too much confidence in the Fortuna Caesaris and his personal excellence and experience (43.1): Gabinius ut in Illyricum venit hiberno tempore anni ac difficili, sive copiosiorem provinciam existimans sive multum Fortunae victoris Caesaris tribuens sive virtute

249 Biehl (1989: 420 ad loc.) compares the similar remarks at Eur. fr. 1074 (Kannicht), Hec. 282–3, H. F. 511–12, Ion 381–3, Hipp. 981–2, and Or. 340. There are, of course, numerous other parallels. For the instability of Fortune cf. also Hdt. 1.32, Eur. frr. 536, 549, 554, 661.1 (Kannicht), Diphilus fr. 109 (Kassel/Austin), Men. fr. 94 (Kassel/Austin), von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff 1931–32: vol. 2, 298–303, Wankel 1976: vol. 2, 909–10 on Dem. Or. 18.192, Vogt-Spira 1992: 60–74, passim, and the passages from Hellenistic historiography cited on pp. 144–5 below. Man’s limited understanding and intelligence are also highlighted at Theo­gnidea 327–8, Soph. Ant. 1023–4: ἀνθρώποισι γὰρ / τοῖς πᾶσι κοινόν ἐστι τοὐξαμαρτάνειν, Xen. Cyr. 5.4.19, Nicostratus fr. 18.4–5 (Kassel/Austin): τύχη τὰ θνητῶν πράγμαθ’, ἡ πρόνοια δὲ / τυφλόν τι κἀσύντακτόν ἐστιν, ὦ πάτερ, Men. fr. 389 (Kassel/Austin): ἄνθρωπος ὢν ἥμαρτον∙ οὐ θαυμαστέον, fr. 452 (Kassel/Austin): τὸ μὲν ἐξαμαρτάνειν ἅπασιν ἔμφυτον / καὶ κοινόν, ἀναδραμεῖν δὲ τὴν ἁμαρτίαν / οὐ τοῦ τυχόντος ἀνδρός, ἀλλ’ ἀξιολόγου, Aspis 411: τύχη τὰ θνητῶν πράγματ’, οὐκ εὐβουλία (= Chaeremon TrGF 71 F 2 (Snell)). Cf. also Kassel/Austin on Baton fr. 1.1 and see Otto s.v. homo 2 for Latin parallels. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

The Bellum Alexandrinum and earlier historiography 

143

et scientia sua confisus, qua250 saepe in bellis periclitatus magnas res et secundas ductu auspicioque251 suo gesserat … . When Gabinius came to Illyricum in a winterly and difficult time of the year, either because he supposed that the province had more resources, or because he put great faith into the Fortune of the victorious Caesar, or because he trusted his own valour and his knowledge, with which he had often taken risks in wars and had conducted important and successful operations with his leadership and authority … .252

The parallels show that the tragic focus on human hybris and unexpected re­versals of fortune which we find in chapter 25 is quite typical of the later chapters of the Bellum Alexandrinum.253 In the early sections of the work and in the other books of the Corpus Caesarianum, however, there is no close parallel for this phenomenon.254 250 Many of the early editors from Ursinus (1570: 360), A. Manutius (1575: 474), Lipsius (1586: 319, 1620: 344) down to e. g. Oudendorp (1737: vol. 2, 815), Nipperdey (1847: 647), and R. Schneider (1888a: 36) read quam instead of que (S), quibus (L N), or qua (M U² R T V, adopted by A. P. Manutius 1513: 208 recto, Giunta 1514: 201 verso, Panaetius 1517: lxxxviii recto, R. Stephanus 1544: 415, P. Manutius 1569: 213, Strada 1575: 215B). However, the in­transitive use of periclitari with an ablative of respect has close parallels at B.Alex. 13.4: in portu peri­clitati remigio, quid quaeque earum [i. e. navium] efficere posset and Liv. 29.7.2, 38.25.7: donec res suas, quibus periclitari nolebant, … trans Halyn flumen traicerent, 40.15.12, Epist. imp. Aug. apud Suet. Tib. 21.7: ne … summa imperi sui populus Romanus periclitetur [because of Tiberius’ poor health]; cf. also the intransitive use without a non-prepositional ablative at Gal. 6.34.8, 7.56.1, B.Afr. 28.2, Curt. 9.3.5 and TLL s.v. 1447.71–1451.42, especially 1449.37–51, 1449.66–1450.3, 1450.13–25. 251 ausioque (T V) is a vox nihili; ausuque (S L N M U R) would suit the characterization of Gabinius, but the noun ausus is unparalleled in Latin prose and verse before Petronius (cf. TLL s.v. ausus 1563.34–7). Already Lipsius (teste Oudendorp 1737: vol. 2, 815 n. 3: “margini adlevit”) saw that the manuscript tradition is corrupt and restored ductu auspicioque, which is a common formula in Roman historiography: cf. TLL s.v. auspicium 1547.19–23, s.v. ductus 2171.7–27. 252 Instructive is a comparison with Civ. 2.38.2: multum ad hanc rem probandam adiuvat adu­lescentia, magnitudo animi, superioris temporis proventus, fiducia rei bene gerendae and 3.106.3: sed Caesar confisus fama rerum gestarum infirmis auxiliis proficisci non dubitaverat aeque omnem sibi locum tutum fore existimans. Caesar does not refer to the instability of Fortune or a quasi-divine Fortuna Caesaris, and in 3.106.3 Caesar’s self-confidence neither activates the theme of human hybris nor dramatizes the account in a tragic fashion, but merely explains his actions. 253 Apart from ‘tragic’ themes and motifs, there are also passages that resemble scenes of Greco-Roman comedy: cf. p. 75 n. 6 above on B.Alex. 24.3 and Pl. Mil. 1339–43, 1354–77. 254 Wyss (1930: 60), Rowe (1967), and H. A. Gärtner (1975: 63–134, passim) have identified dramatic structures in the Bellum Gallicum and Bellum Civile, and the account of Curio’s disastrous campaign in Africa (Civ. 2.23–44) in particular is sometimes called a ‘drama’ or ‘tragedy’ (cf. Rowe 1967: 412: “tragic victim”, Mutschler 1975: 52–81, H. A. Gärtner 1975: 116, 122– 7, Grillo 2012: 32, 167). However, the evidence adduced in favour of such interpretations (e. g. the motifs of hybris and delusion or the Aristotelian properties τελεία καὶ ὅλη πρᾶξις ἔχουσά τι μέγεθος, περιπέτειαι, and χρηστότης of the protagonist) are not confined to tragedy or ‘tragic’ historiography, but also apply to many other historians (cf. p. 147 with n. 260) and to a number of other genres; hence, they hardly establish that ‘tragic’ historiography had a strong influence © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

144

Literary technique and historiographical method  

(e) The influence of Hellenistic historiography If we look for similar tendencies outside the Corpus Caesarianum and try to connect the account of Euphranor’s death with the larger currents of Greek and Roman historiography, an important precedent is the strong interest in Fortune and the tragic reworking of historical events in some Hellenistic historians. To begin with, the themes of human delusion and the capricious nature of Fortune in B.Alex. 25 have close parallels in the historical works of Demetrius of Phalerum, Polybius, and Diodorus Siculus. Cf. e. g. Demetr. fr. 81 Wehrli (~ Polyb. 29.21. 3–6, Diod. Sic. 31.10.1–2): εἰ γὰρ λάβοιτ’ ἐν μὴ χρόνον ἄπειρον μηδὲ γενεὰς πολλὰς, ἀλλὰ πεντήκοντα μόνον ἔτη ταυτὶ τὰ πρὸ ἡμῶν, γνοίητ’ ἂν ὡς τὸ τῆς τύχης χαλεπὸν ἐνταῦθα. πεντηκοστὸν γὰρ ἔτος οἴεσθ’ ἂν ἢ Πέρσας ἢ βασιλέα τῶν Περσῶν ἢ Μακεδόνας ἢ βασιλέα τῶν Μακεδόνων, εἴ τις θεῶν αὐτοῖς προύλεγε τὸ μέλλον, πιστεῦσαί ποτ’ ἂν ὡς εἰς τοῦτον τὸν καιρὸν Περσῶν οὐδ’ ὄνομα λειφθήσεται τὸ παράπαν, οἳ πάσης τῆς οἰκουμένης ἐδέσποζον, Μακεδόνες δὲ πάσης κρατήσουσιν, ὧν οὐδ’ ὄνομα πρότερον ἦν; ἀλλ’ ὅμως ἡ πρὸς τὸν βίον ἡμῶν ἀσύνθετος τύχη, καὶ πάντα παρὰ λογισμὸν τὸν ἡμέτερον καινοποιοῦσα καὶ τὴν αὑτῆς δύναμιν ἐν τοῖς παραδόξοις ἐνδεικνυμένη, καὶ νῦν, ὡς ἐμοὶ δοκεῖ, δείκνυσι πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις Μακεδόνας εἰς τὴν Περσῶν εὐδαιμονίαν εἰσοικίσασα, διότι καὶ τούτοις ταῦτα τἀγαθὰ κέχρηκεν, ἕως ἄλλο τι βουλεύσηται περὶ αὐτῶν. For if you take into consideration not an endless period of time nor many generations, but just the fifty years before us, you would realize that the impact of fortune is severe there. For do you think that in the fiftieth year (before today), if some god had foretold them the future, the Persians or the king of the Persians or the Macedonians or the king of the Macedonians would for a moment have believed that by this point in time not even the name of the Persians, who were masters of almost the whole inhabited world, would survive at all, and that the Macedonians, whose name did not even exist before, would actually be in control of virtually the whole world. But nevertheless Fortune, who makes no formal agreements with our life and always creates new situations against our rational predictions and demonstrates her might in unon Caesar (contra Mutschler 1975: 80–1, H. A. Gärtner 1975: 85, 110; cf. also Schönberger 1984: 384: “Auch die Curio-Episode besitzt keinen dramatischen Aufbau im Sinne kunstmäßiger Steigerung; das Geschehen selbst hat eine Dramatik, die Caesar wiedergibt”). Also, the Curio episode lacks a metaphysical dimension (cf. n. 252 above), and the characteristic themes of ‘tragic’ historiography—hybris and fortune—are far less obvious than in B.Alex. 25. A closer parallel to the tragic themes in B.Alex. 25 is the explicit epic reworking of the historical events in the Bellum Hispaniense: cf. the quotations from Ennius and the allusion to Furius Bibaculus’ epic on Caesar’s Gallic War at B.Hisp. 23.3, 25.4, 31.7 and see Gaertner 2010: 244 with nn. 6–7. In the Bellum Alexandrinum epic language and motifs are extremely rare. A possible exception is the simile of a horse leaving its stable (B.Alex. 24.5), which may be proverbial (see Otto s.v. calx 3), but could also come from Ennius’ Annals, cf. Enn. Ann. 80–1, 463–4 (Skutsch), Hor. S. 1.1.113–16, Verg. G. 1.511–14, and Fraenkel 1931: 125–6 n. 1, Pötter 1932: 30 n. 1. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

The Bellum Alexandrinum and earlier historiography 

145

expected events, shows (her might) to everyone this time, too, as I believe, by putting the Mace­donians into the fortunate situation of the Persians, because255 she has treated these too in this advantageous way until she has some other plan for them.

Polyb. 29.22.2: ἱκανὴ γὰρ ἡ τύχη τοῖς παρὰ λόγον τὰ κατὰ λόγον ἐπιτρῖψαι, κἄν τινι συνεργήσῃ καὶ προσθῆται τὴν αὑτῆς ῥοπήν, αὖθις οἷον ἐκ μεταμελείας ἀντισηκοῦν καὶ λυμαίνεσθαι τὰ κατορθώματα παρὰ πόδας. For Fortune is capable of destroying rational considerations by unexpected occurrences and, if she collaborates with someone and turns her scales to his favour, of counterbalancing this as if she thought better of and spoiling imminent successes.256

and Diod. Sic. 13.21.5: οὐθεὶς γάρ ἐστιν οὕτω φρόνιμος, ὥστε μεῖζον ἰσχῦσαι τῆς τύχης, ἣ φύσει ταῖς ἀνθρωπίναις ἡδομένη συμφοραῖς ὀξείας τῆς εὐδαιμονίας ποιεῖ τὰς μεταβολάς. For nobody is so prudent that he is stronger than Fortune, who, by nature, enjoys ­human misfortunes and so produces sharp reversals of happiness.257 255 It seems preferable to interpret διότι as causal. This usage is common in Polybius (cf. Mauersberger et al. 2003: 543–4 s.v.) and suits the context better than the interpretation of Shuckburgh (1889: vol. 2, 401): “is even now I think, showing all mankind, by her elevation of the Macedonians into the high prosperity once enjoyed by the Persians, that she has merely lent them these advantages …” (cf. also Boeckh 1852/1859: 72: “Und dennoch zeigt das … Glück …, daß es …” and Paton 1927: 79). First, καὶ νῦν, ὡς ἐμοὶ δοκεῖ, δείκνυσι seems to take up the immediately preceding words τὴν αὑτῆς δύναμιν ἐν τοῖς παραδόξοις ἐνδεικνυμένη (on the fact that the object is not repeated see KG vol. 2, 561–3). Secondly, Demetrius is not yet aware of any downfall suffered by the Macedonians (cf. ἕως ἄλλο τι βουλεύσηται περὶ αὐτῶν); hence, he can hardly say that Tyche is now (νῦν!) “showing all mankind … that she has merely lent them [i. e. the Macedonians] these advantages”. 256 For Fortune as an equalizing force and an instrument of just retribution cf. also Polyb. 1.35.2–3 (of Regulus’ defeat in the Battle of Tunis): καὶ γὰρ τὸ διαπιστεῖν τῇ τύχῃ, καὶ μάλιστα κατὰ τὰς εὐπραγίας, ἐναργέστατον ἐφάνη πᾶσι τότε διὰ τῶν Μάρκου συμπτωμάτων· (3) ὁ γὰρ μικρῷ πρότερον οὐ διδοὺς ἔλεον οὐδὲ συγγνώμην τοῖς πταίουσι παρὰ πόδας αὐτὸς ἤγετο δεησόμενος τούτων περὶ τῆς ἑαυτοῦ σωτηρίας, 4.81.5 (of Chilon killing the Spartan Ephors): πάντας … κατέσφαξε, τῆς τύχης τὴν ἁρμόζουσαν αὐτοῖς ἐπιθείσης δίκην· καὶ γὰρ ὑφ’ οὗ καὶ περὶ οὗ ταῦτ’ ἔπαθον, δικαίως αὐτοὺς ἄν τις φήσειε πεπονθέναι, 20.7.2 (of the Boeotians’ former luck being balanced by misfortune): ἔν γε μὴν τοῖς ἑξῆς οὐ διέφυγον [sc. οἱ Βοιωτοί], ἀλλ’ ὥσπερ ἐπίτηδες ἀνταπόδοσιν ἡ τύχη ποιουμένη βαρέως ἔδοξεν αὐτοῖς ἐπεμβαίνειν and see Walbank 1945: 6, 9. 257 Cf. also Diodorus’ account (20.70) of the vicissitudinous life of Agathocles of Syracuse and see Walbank 1945: 6. Apart from the passages from Demetrius, Polybius, and Diodorus Siculus, one may also compare Polybius’ remarks about previous accounts of the deeds of Scipio Africanus (10.2.5–6: οἱ μὲν οὖν ἄλλοι πάντες αὐτὸν ἐπιτυχῆ τινα καὶ τὸ πλεῖον αἰεὶ παραλόγως καὶ ταὐτομάτῳ κατορθοῦντα τὰς ἐπιβολὰς παρεισάγουσι …) and the death of Agathocles (15.34.2: τινὲς μὲν ἐπὶ τὴν τύχην ἀναφέροντες τὰ γεγονότα καὶ τιθέντες ὑπὸ τὴν ὄψιν τὸ ταύτης © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

146

Literary technique and historiographical method  

Apart from the themes of Fortune and delusion, Hellenistic historiography also provides precedents for other characteristic features of B.Alex. 22–78. A key passage for analysing these links is Polybius’ attack on the Hellenistic historian Phylarchus (2.56.7–13 = FGrHist 81 T 3/F 53): (7) σπουδάζων δ’ εἰς ἔλεον ἐκκαλεῖσθαι τοὺς ἀναγινώσκοντας καὶ συμπαθεῖς ποιεῖν τοῖς λεγομένοις, εἰσάγει περιπλοκὰς γυναικῶν καὶ κόμας διερριμμένας καὶ μαστῶν ἐκβολάς, πρὸς δὲ τούτοις δάκρυα καὶ θρήνους ἀνδρῶν καὶ γυναικῶν ἀναμὶξ τέκνοις καὶ γονεῦσι γηραιοῖς ἀπαγομένων. (8) ποιεῖ δὲ τοῦτο παρ’ ὅλην τὴν ἱστορίαν, πειρώμενος ἐν ἑκάστοις ἀεὶ πρὸ ὀφθαλμῶν τιθέναι τὰ δεινά. (9) τὸ μὲν οὖν ἀγεννὲς καὶ γυναικῶδες τῆς αἱρέσεως αὐτοῦ παρείσθω, τὸ δὲ τῆς ἱστορίας οἰκεῖον ἅμα καὶ χρήσιμον ἐξεταζέσθω. (10) δεῖ τοιγαροῦν οὐκ ἐκπλήττειν τὸν συγγραφέα τερατευόμενον διὰ τῆς ἱστορίας τοὺς ἐντυγχάνοντας, οὐδὲ τοὺς ἐνδεχομένους λόγους ζητεῖν καὶ τὰ παρεπόμενα τοῖς ὑποκειμένοις ἐξαριθμεῖσθαι, καθάπερ οἱ τραγῳδιογράφοι, τῶν δὲ πραχθέντων καὶ ῥηθέντων κατ’ ἀλήθειαν αὐτῶν μνημονεύειν πάμπαν, κἂν πάνυ μέτρια τυγχάνωσιν ὄντα. (11) τὸ γὰρ τέλος ἱστορίας καὶ τραγῳδίας οὐ ταὐτόν, ἀλλὰ τοὐναντίον. ἐκεῖ μὲν γὰρ δεῖ διὰ τῶν πιθανωτάτων λόγων ἐκπλῆξαι καὶ ψυχαγωγῆσαι κατὰ τὸ παρὸν τοὺς ἀκούοντας, ἐνθάδε δὲ διὰ τῶν ἀληθινῶν ἔργων καὶ λόγων εἰς τὸν πάντα χρόνον διδάξαι καὶ πεῖσαι τοὺς φιλομαθοῦντας, (12) ἐπειδήπερ ἐν ἐκείνοις μὲν ἡγεῖται τὸ πιθανόν, κἂν ᾖ ψεῦδος, διὰ τὴν ἀπάτην τῶν θεωμένων, ἐν δὲ τούτοις τἀληθὲς διὰ τὴν ὠφέλειαν τῶν φιλομαθούντων. (13) χωρίς τε τούτων τὰς πλείστας ἡμῖν ἐξηγεῖται τῶν περιπετειῶν, οὐχ ὑποτιθεὶς αἰτίαν καὶ τρόπον τοῖς γινομένοις, ὧν χωρὶς οὔτ’ ἐλεεῖν εὐλόγως οὔτ’ ὀργίζεσθαι καθηκόντως δυνατὸν ἐπ’ οὐδενὶ τῶν συμβαινόντων. (8) ἐν add. Ernesti, teste Pédech (1970: 104)  (10) ἐκπλήττειν Casaubonus, Schweig­ häuser ἐπιπλήττειν codd.258 (7) But eager to provoke his readers to feel pity and to make them sympathize with what is being narrated, he brings in women’s embraces and hair tossed in disarray and breasts exposed, on top of this (he brings in) tears and lamentations of men and women, who are being led away together with their children and their old parents. (8) And he does this throughout the whole history and always tries in every single episode to put the terrible events before our eyes. (9) The ignoble and womanish character of his choice of presentation may be left aside, but we must assess the element that is the particular feature of historiography and is also useful. (10) Accordingly, the writer should not astonish his readers by presenting wonders in his history, nor must he seek to give the possible utterances [sc. of the historical figures] or list the concomitant circumstances of the things in question, like the writers of tragedies, but he must record the things done and said just as they really happened, even if they happen to be very common. (11) For the aim of history and tragedy is not the same, but the opposite: for there [i. e. in the genre of tragedy], one must use ἀβέβαιον καὶ δυσφύλακτον). On fortune and Hellenistic historiography cf. e. g. Rösiger 1880, Erkell 1952: 136–46, Walbank 1957–79: vol. 1, 16–26, and Zegers 1959: 19–20. 258 Cf. the discussion in Schweighäuser 1789–1795: vol. 5, 467. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

The Bellum Alexandrinum and earlier historiography 

147

the most persuasive words to shock and manipulate the audience temporarily; here, however, one must teach and convince forever those who are eager to learn by means of real actions and words, (12) for in those matters [i. e. the theatre] the main thing is the plausibility, even if it is false, in order to deceive the spectators, in these matters [i. e. historiography] the main thing is the truth to benefit those eager to learn. (13) And apart from these things he relates at length most of the sudden reversals (of fortune), adding neither their cause nor how they unfolded, without which one cannot have a rational response of pity or an appropriate response of anger to anything of what is happening.259

Traces of the ‘tragic’ presentation which Polybius criticizes can be found already in some passages of Herodotus and Thucydides,260 but the phenomenon was much more prominent in later, Hellenistic historians. Several of the surviving fragments show that ‘tragic’261 or sensational historiography became a widespread literary fashion and prove that Polybius’ remarks about Phylarchus and other writers (cf. n. 259) are more than just slanderous attacks. Among the re 259 Polybius’ distinction between tragedy and history resembles Aristotle’s comments about the different tasks of a ἱστορικός and a ποιητής at Poet. 1451a36–b7 (cf. Ullman 1942: 43). Moreover, the passage can be compared to the critique of Phylarchus at Plut. Vit. Arat. 38.12, Vit. Them. 32.4–5 and to similar remarks about other Hellenistic historians at Polyb. 2.16.13–14, 3.47.6–48.12, 7.7.1–2: ὅτι τινὲς τῶν λογογράφων τῶν ὑπὲρ τῆς καταστροφῆς τοῦ Ἱερωνύμου γεγραφότων πολύν τινα πεποίηνται λόγον καὶ πολλήν τινα διατέθεινται τερατείαν, … τραγῳδοῦντες … τὴν ὠμότητα τῶν τρόπων καὶ τὴν ἀσέβειαν τῶν πράξεων, 12.24.5, 12.26b.4–5, 15.34.1–36.11, 16.12.7–11, 16.18.2: περὶ μὲν τὴν τῆς λέξεως κατασκευὴν δῆλός ἐστιν [sc. Ζήνων, in his description of the Battle of Panium, 201 B. C., cf. FGrHist 523 F 6] ἐπὶ τοσοῦτον ἐσπουδακὼς ὡς ὑπερβολὴν τερατείας μὴ καταλιπεῖν τοῖς τὰς ἐπιδεικτικὰς καὶ πρὸς ἔκπληξιν τῶν πολλῶν συντάξεις ποιουμένοις, 29.12.2–4: ὅταν γὰρ … βούλωνται μὴ τοῖς πράγμασιν, ἀλλὰ τῷ πλήθει τῶν βύβλων ἱστοριογράφοι νομίζεσθαι καὶ τὴν τοιαύτην ἐφέλκεσθαι φαντασίαν, ἀναγκαῖόν ἐστι τὰ μὲν μικρὰ μεγάλα ποιεῖν, …. (3) πολιορκίας μὲν γὰρ καὶ τοπογραφίας καὶ τὰ παραπλήσια τούτοις οὐκ ἂν εἴποι τις ἀξίως ἐφ’ ὅσον ἐξεργάζονται διὰ τὴν ἀπορίαν τῶν πραγμάτων, 29.12.8. For further parallels and discussion see Walbank 1938: 56–58, 1945: 8–9, 1957–79: vol. 1, 259–60 and 262, Ullman 1942: 41–3, Ollier 1933–43: vol. 2, 88–9, Strasburger 1966: 82–3, Flach 1973: 22–4, and Rodríguez Alonso 1991: 280–4. 260 Cf. Fohl 1913, Ullman 1942: 27, Laistner 1947: 2, 14–15, Stahl 1968, Flach 1973: 22, Rieks 1975: 23–44 (with further literature on pp. 24–5), Kebric 1977: 16–17, and Dillery 2011: 183. See also Reinhardt 1960: 208–12 (on Thucydides’ account of the Sicilian expedition) and Cornford 1907: 124–6, 146–52, 153–73, de Romilly 1956: 58, 85–6, 93–8, 106, 161–4, Strasburger 1958: 38–40 (= 1968: 527–30), Lloyd-Jones 1971: 142, 204 (on Thucydides in general) as well as Hornblower 1991–2008: vol. 3, 12–21, especially pp. 15–17, 19–20 (on theatricality as a distinctive feature of Sicilian culture and Sicilian historiography) and Walbank 1955 (especially pp. 8–11). 261 The term ‘tragic history’ was first coined by Eduard Schwartz (cf. e. g. 1897: 562–3, ­573–4). Despite its vagueness, it remains a useful concept: cf. Scheller 1911: 65–71, passim, Walbank 1938: 56–8, 1955, 1960, Ullman 1942: 38–44, Zegers 1959, von Fritz 1956: 106–27, Brink 1960, Strasburger 1966: 78–92, Flach 1973: 15–24, Kebric 1977: 15–17, Rodríguez Alonso 1991, Dillery 2011: 183–4. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

148

Literary technique and historiographical method  

mains of Phylarchus we find the narrative of the wife of Ariston, who first asked the tyrant Phayllus of Phocis to give her the necklace of Eriphyle from the sanctuary of Athena at Delphi and was later punished for her hybristic request by suffering a fate that was similar to that of the mythical Eriphyle (FGrHist 81 F 70). Although we do not have Phylarchus’ own words, it is clear that the ‘tragic’ themes of hybris, divine punishment, and the reversal of fortune must have played a prominent role in this story.262 The same can also be said of an aetiological tale, by which Phylarchus explains the name of a part of the Aegean Sea near the Chersonesus Thracica (FGrHist 81 F 69): in this story the daughter of a certain Mastusius is sacrificed by the local tyrant Demophon to placate the gods and avert a plague that has befallen the city of Elaeusa; her father later takes revenge by slaughtering the daughters of the tyrant, mixing their blood with wine, and serving it to their father. Again, we do not have Phylarchus’ own words, but the tale resembles the myth of the Thyestean Feast and thus brings to mind one of the most popular themes of fifth and fourth century Attic tragedy.263 In addition to these ‘tragic’ themes, Phylarchus also seems to have been fond of enriching his historical narrative with scandalous or novelesque elements such as the account of incest and necrophilia in the house of Dimoites (FGrHist 81 F 71) or the tale of the Seleucid commander Sophron, who was saved by the courtesan Danae from being murdered by queen Laodice I (FGrHist 81 F 24).264 Another illustrative example of ‘tragic’ or sensational historiography during the Hellenistic age is Duris of Samos. He not only seems to have given a graphic description of how Philip of Macedon lost his eye when hit by a javelin (FGrHist 76 F 36) and is said by Plutarch (Vit. Per. 28.2–3) to have added many tragic features to his account of the Samian War (FGrHist 76 F 67), but he even attacked his predecessors Ephorus and Theopompus for providing only bare facts and not 262 Cf. FGrHist 81 F 70.3: ἐπεὶ δὲ διεκομίσθη εἰς οἶκον τὸν Ἀρίστωνος, χρόνον μέν τινα ἐφόρει αὐτὸν ἡ γυνὴ μάλα περίπυστος οὖσα, μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα παραπλήσιον αὐτῇ πάθος συνέβη τῶν περὶ τὴν Ἐριφύλην γενομένων. ὁ γὰρ νεώτερος τῶν υἱῶν αὐτῆς μανεὶς τὴν οἰκίαν ὑφῆψε καὶ τήν τε μητέρα καὶ τὰ πολλὰ τῶν κτημάτων κατέφλεξεν and Stelluto 1995: 70–1 (with further literature). Other ancient accounts seem to have lacked this ‘tragic’ flavour. According to Ephorus’ son Demophilus (FGrHist 70 F 96), there was a quarrel between the wives of Onomarchus, Phayllus, and Phalaecus about who would receive which piece of jewelry. Athenaeus’ paraphrase of a passage from Theopompus (Athen. 13.83 p. 605A–D = FGrHist 115 F 248) mentions Phayllus’ addiction to women and the fact that he and Onomarchus gave away the ornaments of the sanctuary to their favourites, but it does not provide any details on the fate of Ariston’s wife. 263 Cf. FGrHist 81 F 69 and Soph. fr. 247–69 (Radt), Eur. fr. 391–7 (Kannicht), Agathon TrGF 39 F 3, Apollodorus TrGF 64 T 1, Carcinus TrGF 70 F 1, Chairemon TrGF 71 F 8, Cleo­ phon TrGF 77 F 7, Diogenes TrGF 88 F 1 and 1d. On the popularity of the Thyestes myth in Greek and Roman tragedy see Seidensticker 1985: 118–19 = 2005: 422 (with further literature). 264 For further examples and discussion see Ullman 1942: 39–40, 49, Ollier 1933–43: vol. 2, 88–93, Flach 1973: 19–20, and Stelluto 1995: 59 with n. 32. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

The Bellum Alexandrinum and earlier historiography 

149

paying attention to the entertainment of their readers (FGrHist 76 F 1: οὔτε γὰρ μιμήσεως μετέλαβον οὐδεμιᾶς οὔτε ἡδονῆς ἐν τῷ φράσαι).265 The examples from Phylarchus and Duris show that Polybius’ criticism was at least in part well-grounded and that ‘tragic’ or sensational historiography was quite a common phenomenon in the Hellenistic period. If we combine the various fragments and testimonies of the preceding paragraphs and compare them with our observations on the account of Euphranor’s death (pp.  140–43) and other parts of B.Alex. 22–78 (cf. pp. 94–5, 99–110, 113–16), we find that most of the characteristic features of the later sections of the Bellum Alexandrinum have close parallels in Hellenistic historiography. Polybius’ observation that Phylarchus primarily tries to stir the hearts of his readers and enlist their sympathies (2.56.7, cf. p.  146) also applies to the overtly biased narrative of B.Alex. 22–78 (cf. pp. 94–5, 99–110). Likewise, Polybius’ remark that Phylarchus fails to explain how the historical events have been brought about (2.56.13: οὐχ ὑποτιθεὶς αἰτίαν καὶ τρόπον τοῖς γινομένοις) also describes one of the main weaknesses of the account of Euphranor’s death.266 Moreover, Polybius’ emphasis on the differences between history and tragedy (2.56.10–12, cf. pp. 146–7),267 Plutarch’s remarks about Duris’ account of the Samian War (Vit. Per. 28.2 = FGrHist 76 F 67: ἐπιτραγῳδεῖ), and the narratives at FGrHist 81 FF 69 and 70 strongly suggest that Phylarchus and Duris have employed tragic techniques and motifs in a way that is similar to the later chapters of the Bellum Alexandrinum (cf. pp. 140–43). 265 Cf. Ullman 1942: 38–9; see also Strasburger 1966: 80–82, 85, Flach 1973: 19–20, 3­ 0–2, Kebric 1977: 13–15, 17–18, Rodríguez Alonso 1991: 281, and Dillery 2011: 184 (with reference to Duris’ characterization of Demetrius at FGrHist 76 F 10). For further examples of Hellenistic historians writing in  a ‘tragic’ or sensational manner see Walbank 1945: 11–15 (on the treatment of the First Punic War by Philinus of Agrigentum) and Dillery 2011: 180–1 (on Callisthenes, with reference to FGrHist 124 F 31 (of the sea moving out of Alexander’s way)). Cf. also Ullman 1942: 48–50 on the Phocian War as a “gold mine” for sensational historiography exploited among others by Callisthenes of Olynthus (cf. FGrHist 124 F 1 with Jacoby ad loc.), Ephorus’ son Demophilus (FGrHist 70 F 93–6; cf. Schwartz 1909: 482–4, 488–90), Leo of Byzantium (FGrHist 132 T 1–2), Cephisodorus (FGrHist 112 F 1), Duris (FGrHist 76 F 2), Phylarchus (FGrHist 81 F 70), Anaximenes of Lampsacus (FGrHist 72 F 8), and Agatharchides of Cnidus (cf. e. g. FGrHist 86 F 2–3, 7, 10–13, GGM vol. 1, pp. 124–9 fr. 24–9 and Strasburger 1966: 88– 92). As Strabo (8.6.23), Ullman (1942: 43–4), Walbank (1938: 58–63, 1945: 8–9, 13, 1957–79: vol. 1, 260), Strasburger (1966: 83), Kebric (1977: 12), and others point out, Polybius, too, at times writes in a ‘tragic’ manner. 266 See p. 140 above. Cf. also Duris’ emphasis on pleasure rather than truth (FGrHist 76 F 1, pp. 148–9 above). 267 Cf. also Polybius’ pointed use of εἰσάγειν (2.56.7: εἰσάγει περιπλοκὰς γυναικῶν …), which is likely to imply  a comparison with the staging of  a play; Walbank (1957–79: vol. 1, 261 ad loc.) compares Plat. Ap. 35B and Resp. 381D: μηδ’ ἐν τραγῳδίαις μηδ’ ἐν τοῖς ἄλλοις ποιήμασιν εἰσαγέτω Ἥραν ἠλλοιωμένην. The use of ἐκπλήττειν (2.56.10) and ἐκπλῆξαι (2.56.11), too, may have theatrical resonances: cf. Ullman 1942: 41–2, Walbank 1957–79: vol. 1, 261 and 262 ad loc., and e. g. Aristot. Poet. 1455a16–17: πασῶν δὲ βελτίστη ἀναγνώρισις ἡ ἐξ αὐτῶν τῶν πραγμάτων, τῆς ἐκπλήξεως γιγνομένης δι’ εἰκότων. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

150

Literary technique and historiographical method  

Furthermore, we may compare the account of Cassius Longinus’ outrageous conduct in Spain and the graphic description of the assassination attempt at B.Alex. 52–6 (cf. pp. 89–90) with Duris’ fondness for gruesome details (FGrHist 76 F 36) and Phylarchus’ penchant for scandalous anecdotes (FGrHist 81 FF 24 and 70). Finally, also the descriptions of lamenting civilians, which Phylarchus is said to have used to render his account more touching (cf. FGrHist 81 T 3/F 53 = Polyb. 2.56.7), offer  a close precedent for the crowds of submissive Alexandrians and jubilant Roman soldiers in chapter 32 of the Bellum Alexandrinum.268

(f) The influence of earlier Roman historiography The links with Hellenistic historiography are striking and show that chapters 22– 78 stand in a literary tradition that is different from that of chapters 1–21. However, it would be wrong to conclude that the author(s) of the later portions of the Bellum Alexandrinum must have been (an) avid reader(s) of Hellenistic Greek historians, for ‘tragic’ or sensational historiography had been popular at Rome a long time before the composition of the pseudo-Caesarian supplements. Already the first Roman historian Fabius Pictor gave an account of Rome’s foundation that was heavily influenced by Hellenistic historiography and has rightly been called a “pure drama in prose”.269 Later historians of the second and first centuries B. C. such as Coelius Antipater, Claudius Quadrigarius, Valerius Antias, Cornelius Sisenna, and others likewise succumbed to the temptation of fashioning their narratives in a sensational or ‘tragic’ manner.270 Just as their Hellenistic pre 268 Cf. the discussion of this passage in section 4.2b (pp. 99–101) and see n. 110 on p. 101 for the similar effect of B.Alex. 58.4. 269 Walbank 1945: 12; cf. Plutarch (Vit. Rom. 8.9): δραματικὸν καὶ πλασματῶδες. A good example of the ‘tragic’ and Hellenistic influence is the erotic element and tragic reversal in the narrative of Tarpeia (cf. Fabius Pictor fr. 10 B/W = HRR fr. 8 / FGrHist 809 F 6; contrast Calp. Piso fr. 7 B/W = HRR fr. 5 / Forsythe 1994: fr. 11), which can be compared to Phylarchus FGrHist 81 F 70 (cf. p. 148 above, Picklesimer Pardo 1981 (sadly not available to us), Forsythe 1994: 150–3 and see Burkert 1979: 76 on the “sexual tension inherent in the very tale structure”). On this and other debts to Hellenistic Greek historiography cf. e. g. Trieber 1888: 570–81, Gelzer 1933: 129, Zimmermann 1933: 257–60, Momigliano 1960: 315–16 and 1990: 88–91, 100–2, Walsh 1961: 118, Naudé 1961: 54, 60, Gabba 1967, Timpe 1972: 940–8 and 1988: 275–81, Flach 1973: 24–6, Manganaro 1976: 87–93, Frier 1979: 260–5, Gentili/Cerri 1988: 38–49, U. W. Scholz 2000: 145–9, Dillery 2002: 18–23, Kierdorf 2002: 405, 409, 2003: 11–15, Rei­chardt 2008: 43–7. Some of the ‘tragic’ and sensational features in Fabius’ account of the Romulus legend ultimately go back to Ionic historiography: cf. Hdt. 1.107–13 and Schlegel 1846–48: vol. 12, 489, Trieber 1888: 572–3, 581, Dillery 2002: 21, Zwierlein 2003: 26–30, especially pp. 26–7. 270 Cf. e. g. W. Hoffmann 1942: 122–5, Badian 1966: 16, Flach 1973: 26–7, Herrmann 1979: 91–2, 183–4, passim, Gentili/Cerri 1988: 48, 51, 59–60, Kierdorf 2003: 37–8, Reichardt 2008: 180–3 on Coelius Antipater; Badian 1966: 19, Kierdorf 2003: 51 on Claudius Quadrigarius; © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

The Bellum Alexandrinum and earlier historiography 

151

decessors, they showed a keen interest in novelesque episodes and sexual scandals,271 dreams and prodigies,272 botanical and other paradoxa,273 dramatic duels and Einzelszenen,274 and graphic depictions of physical torture,275 mutilation,276 or emotions.277 Moreover, they often explained striking events by divine inter-

Mommsen 1866: 206 = 1864–1879: vol. 2, 493, Laistner 1947: 28–9, Badian 1966: 21–2, Rei­ chardt 2008: 269–91 on Valerius Antias; Candiloro 1963, Flach 1973: 29–30, Rawson 1979: 336, 338–41, Kierdorf 2003: 69, Reichardt 2008: 322–7 on Cornelius Sisenna, and more generally Timpe 1979: 97–8, 102–3, Oakley 1997–2005: vol. 1, 72–99, especially pp. 94–6, each with further literature. 271 Claudius Quadrigarius fr. 81 B/W (= HRR fr. 80) is a self-contained novella within the historical narrative. Valerius Antias (fr. 49 B/W = HRR fr. 48) gave an account of how Q. Flaminius abused his powers as consul to impress a prostitute; this resembles the similar incident narrated by Phylarchus at FGrHist 81 F 70 (see p. 148 above). Likewise, Cornelius Sisenna’s words mulierem missa fide ac pietate propter amoris nefarii lubidinem exstitisse (fr. 17 B/W = HRR fr. 13 / Barabino 1967: fr. 19) may point to a ‘second Tarpeia’ (cf. Fabius Pictor fr. 10 B/W = HRR fr. 8 / FGrHist 809 F 6, Cincius Alimentus fr. 7 B/W = HRR fr. 5 / FGrHist 810 F 3) or to an incident like the Sophron narrative in Phylarchus FGrHist 81 F 24 (cf. p. 148 above and see Rawson 1979: 340, Chassignet 1996–2004: vol. 3, 55, Sensal 2003, especially pp. 34–5, and Beck/Walter 2004– 5: vol. 2, 259; for a different reconstruction see Barabino 1967: 99–100). In view of this fragment and Cornelius Sisenna’s poeticizing tendencies (cf. frr. 117, 120, 121, 132 B/W = HRR frr. 80, 104, 103, 130 = Barabino 1967: frr. 93, 75, 114, 132) it is hardly surprising that he is also credited with translating Aristides’ garland of novellas (cf. Ov. Tr. 2.443–4 and Aragosti 2000: 32–6; contra Rawson 1979: 331–3 and Sensal 2003: 27 n. 5, who suspect that Ovid may refer to a different author). 272 Cf. e. g. Coelius Antipater fr. 11 B/W = HRR fr. 11 (Hannibal’s dream after the capture of Saguntum; cf. Hdt. 7.12,14,17, Silenus FGrHist 175 F 2 and Herrmann 1979: 73–86, Pelling 1997b: 201–3, Weber 2000: 567–8, Beck/Walter 2004–5: vol. 2, 46–7), fr. 41 B/W = HRR fr. 34 (Juno warns Hannibal not to steal the golden column from her shrine near Croton; cf. Herrmann 1979: 176–8), fr. 58 = HRR fr. 50 (dream of G. Gracchus), Sulla HRR frr. 16, 18, 21 (cf. Pascucci 1975: 292–3, Weber 2000: 122–4), Sis. fr. 5 B/W = HRR fr. 5 / Barabino 1967: frr. 6 and 10 (Caecilia’s dream and various prodigies; cf. Candiloro 1963: 218, Barabino 1967: 84–5). 273 Cf. e. g. Cato Orig. 2.8a, 2.20, 5.2, Coelius Antipater frr. 33 and 46 B/W (= HRR frr. 51 and 39), Aelius Tubero fr. 9 B/W (= HRR fr. 8; cf. Blättler 1945: 55–8) and e. g. Duris FGrHist 76 F 7, Callias of Syracuse FGrHist 564 F 3. 274 Cf. Claudius Quadrigarius frr. 10a/b, 55, 70 B/W (= HRR frr. 10a/b, 56, 69), Anon. apud Gel. 9.11.1–9 (= Quad. fr. 12 B/W = HRR fr. 12), Sis. fr. 131 B/W (= HRR fr. 129 / Barabino 1967: fr. 130): proelio [i. e. in a battle on the Ianiculum in the year 87 B. C.] … Pompeianus miles fratrem suum, dein cognito facinore se ipsum interfecit and see Oakley 1985 on the frequency and socio-political background of single combat at Rome. 275 Cf. e. g. Sis. fr. 140 B/W (= HRR fr. 138 / Barabino 1967: fr. 140): vitam cum dolore et insigni cruciatu carnificatus amisit, Aelius Tubero fr. 10 B/W (= HRR fr. 9) and e. g. Phylarchus FGrHist 81 F 69. 276 Cf. Claudius Quadrigarius fr. 10b.18 B/W (= HRR fr. 10b): ubi eum evertit, caput praecidit, torquem detraxit eamque sanguinulentam sibi in collum imponit. 277 Cf. e. g. Sempronius Asellio fr. 8 B/W (= HRR fr. 7), Claudius Quadrigarius fr. 19 B/W (= HRR fr. 19), Sis. frr. 15 and 125 B/W (= HRR frr. 47 and 67 / Barabino 1967: frr. 45 and 115; cf. p. 115 n. 165). © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

152

Literary technique and historiographical method  

ventions278 and drew connections between arrogance or a lack of religious observance and unexpected reversals of fortune.279 A good summary of these tendencies and an important testimony to their popularity at Rome in the first century B. C. can be found in a letter by Cicero. In Fam. 5.12 (= 22 SB, dated April 12, 55 B. C.), the Roman orator asks the historian Lucceius to write an account of the Catilinarian conspiracy and its aftermath. In his attempt to demonstrate that this event would be a worthwhile topic, Cicero points to several characteristic features of ‘tragic’ or sensational historiography.280 First, he expresses the belief that a historical account should entertain the reader and will be particularly appealing to him, if it contains ‘varieties of circumstance and vicissitudes of fortune’ (5.12.4: temporum varietates fortunaeque vicissitudines);281 this view sounds like Duris’ critique of Ephorus and Theopompus (FGrHist 76 F 1) and is clearly influenced by the representation of τύχη/ fortuna in Hellenistic and early Roman historiography.282 Secondly, Cicero explicitly compares his personal experiences to a drama (5.12.6: fabula) and thus takes up the tragic perspective on history that is characteristic of many Hellenistic and early Roman historians. And finally, Cicero’s letter to Lucceius also provides a blueprint for the emotive and overtly subjective presentation in some of 278 Cf. e. g. Cassius Hemina’s account (fr. 22 B/W = HRR fr. 19 / Santini 1995: fr. 23) of the Roman priest Dorsuo walking through the crowd of the beleaguering Gauls: ὃ μὲν δὴ κινδυνεύειν ὑπὲρ τῶν ἱερῶν ἑλόμενος ὑπ’ αὐτῶν ἐσώζετο τῶν ἱερῶν and see Reichardt 2008: 183 (on Coelius Antipater). Cf. also Sulla HRR fr. 8: τῇ τύχῃ τῆς ἀρετῆς πλέον ἔοικε [sc. Σύλλας ἐν τοῖς ὑπομνήμασι] νέμειν καὶ ὅλως ἑαυτὸν τοῦ δαίμονος ποιεῖν. 279 Cf. e. g. Calpurnius Piso fr. 28 B/W = Forsythe 1994: fr. 33 (Aremulus Silvius is struck by lightning), Coelius Antipater fr. 20 a–b B/W = HRR frr. 19–20 (death of C. Flaminius in the Battle of Lake Trasimene), Claudius Quadrigarius fr. 10b B/W = HRR fr. 10b (duel with an overconfident Gaul; cf. especially 10b.12: deinde Gallus inridere coepit et linguam exertare), fr. 68 B/W = HRR fr. 67 (arrogant peace embassy sent by the Rhodians to Rome), Anon. apud Gel. 9.11.1–9 = Quad. fr. 12 B/W = HRR fr. 12 (another duel with an overconfident Gaul), and Valerius Antias fr. 64 = HRR fr. 63 (Gnaeus Mallius and Quintus Caepio are defeated dum inter se gravissima invidia et contentione disceptant). The reverse mechanism can be observed at Cato Orig. 4.7a.(19): di immortales tribuno militum fortunam ex virtute eius dedere: … (cf. von Albrecht 1971: 49, Astin 1978: 231–2, Pianezzola 1975, Calboli 1996, and n. 284 below); contrast Claudius Quadrigarius fr. 9 B/W (= HRR fr. 9): nam haec maxime versatur deorum in­ iquitas, quod deteriores sunt incolumiores neque optimum quemquam inter nos sinunt diurnare (possibly from the proem of Quadrigarius’ work, see Zimmerer 1937: 171–2). 280 On the historiographical orientation of this letter see Reitzenstein 1906: 84–91, Ullman 1942: 44–53, Laistner 1947: 34–5, Walbank 1955: 4–5, Zegers 1959: 80–2, Flach 1973: 30–3 and 1998: 92–5, Gentili/Cerri 1988: 56–8, Woodman 1988: 70–74, 101 n. 4, 116 n. 151, Rodríguez Alonso 1991: 287–9, Petrone 2004: 81–92, and p. 159 with nn. 16–18 below. Οn its political and social context see J. Hall 1998, Fantham 2004: 157–9, and Kurczyk 2006: 67–72 (with further bibliography). 281 We adopt the translation of Shackleton Bailey (2001: vol. 1, 161). 282 The same notion also underlies Horace’s ode to the historian Asinius Pollio (Carm. 2.1.2–3: bellique causas et vitia et modos / ludumque Fortunae) and Livy’s ‘preface’ to the Second Punic War (21.1.2: adeo varia fortuna belli ancepsque Mars fuit), cf. Ullman 1942: 50–51. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

The Bellum Alexandrinum and earlier historiography 

153

the fragments discussed above. Instead of insisting on the truth, the Roman orator encourages his addressee to ignore the laws of history, give a biased account (5.12.3), and comment freely on the events (5.12.4: et reprehendes ea, quae vituperanda duces, et, quae placebunt, exponendis rationibus comprobabis). The fragments of the early Roman historians and Cicero’s letter to Lucceius not only reflect the huge impact which Hellenistic historiography had on the shaping of Roman literature,283 but they also constitute another (and in fact much closer) precedent for some of the characteristic features of the historical narrative in B. Alex. 22–78. The emphasis on divine agency, the interest in ‘tragic’ reversals of fortune, the overtly subjective presentation, and the disregard for precise and accurate information that we find in the later sections of the Bellum Alexandrinum need not be inspired by Hellenistic models, but are more likely to be influenced by earlier or roughly contemporary Roman historiography.284

(g) Consequences for the composition, aims, and target audience of B.Alex. 22–78 Like the Thucydidean elements identified in B.Alex. 1–21, the links with Hellenistic and early Roman historiography have a number of further consequences. Our observations show that the author(s) of the later sections of the Bellum Alexandrinum did not produce unadorned reports of historical facts, but made extensive use of motifs and themes which they knew from earlier historiography. Consequently, even for the less refined narrative of B.Alex. 22–78, the view that the author of the Bellum Alexandrinum was a dilettante without literary ambitions is misleading. In addition, the links with earlier Greek and Roman historiography

283 Cf. Kroll 1924: 351 (“die römischen Historiker [sc. stehen] auf den Schultern der hellenistischen”) and the literature cited in nn. 269–70. 284 Apart from the general similarities listed above, there are also three smaller points of contact. In fr. 77 B/W (= HRR fr. 76), Claudius Quadrigarius points to the crowd accompanying Metellus in order to underline his popularity and enlist the reader’s sympathy: contio­ne dimissa Metellus in Capitolium venit cum mortalibus multis; inde domum proficiscitur, tota civitas eum reduxit; this can be compared to similar scenes in Phylarchus (FGrHist 81 T 3/F 53 = Polyb. 2.56.7) and at B.Alex. 32 and 58.4 (cf. pp. 99–101). Furthermore, Valerius Antias’ account of the rivalry and envy between the Roman commanders Gnaeus Mallius and Quintus Caepio and their later disaster in the Battle of Arausio (fr. 64 B/W = HRR fr. 63) reveals a dramatic structure that is quite similar to B.Alex. 27.4 (on this passage see already p. 142 above). Finally, we may also compare Cato’s words at Orig. 4.7a.(19): di immortales tribuno militum fortunam ex virtute eius dedere…, which serve as an introductory headline to the following events (cf. von Albrecht 1971: 49 (“überschriftartig”)), with the similar function of the words at Fortuna … superiorum temporum dissimilis Euphranorem prosequebatur at B.Alex. 25.4 (see pp. 120–21 with nn. 184, 189 above). © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

154

Literary technique and historiographical method  

reveal that the work was originally aimed at readers that would appreciate a certain degree of dramatization and literary polish. Furthermore, our analysis forces us to qualify our earlier negative verdict on the density and quality of the information in B.Alex. 22–78 (pp. 81–93). The parallels in Hellenistic and early Roman historiography show that the author(s) of the later sections of the Bellum Alexandrinum may not only have lacked information on certain events in Egypt and Illyria, but also followed a literary tradition that attached greater importance to the emotive effect than to the accuracy of the historical narrative. This fact may explain why some of the gaps in the narrative have not been filled. Finally, the links with Hellenistic and early Roman historiography have allowed us to synthesize the observations of the preceding sections (4.1–4.4) into a coherent whole and locate the later portions of the Bellum Alexandrinum within the development of Greco-Roman historiography. The consistent picture that emerges from our investigation corroborates the individual observations. At the same time, it also lends further support to the view that the Bellum Alexandrinum is a heterogeneous patchwork, for the text no longer appears as a series of unconnected experiments in the writing of historiographical prose; rather, we can discern two parts that belong to two different literary traditions.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

5. The publication of the Bellum Alexandrinum and its historical context

Hirtius’ words in the Epistula ad Balbum, the clustering of Caesarian expressions in B.Alex. 1–21, and the differences in language, historical accuracy, historiographical outlook and method all add up to a plausible and coherent picture. They suggest that chapters 1–21 of the Bellum Alexandrinum are part of the novissimus imperfectus commentarius, which Hirtius mentions in the Epistula ad Balbum, and that this unfinished draft was later continued by Hirtius in order to give a full account of Caesar’s deeds right down to the end of his life.1 More than eighty years ago, this conclusion had already been reached by Landgraf, Zin­ gerle, Dahms, and Pötter.2 Their argument, however, was almost entirely based on the Caesarian expressions in chapters 1–21 and did not include any analysis of the historiographical outlook or the Thucydidean background of chapters 13– 16. Moreover, they paid little attention to the historical and political context in which the continuation and publication of the Bellum Alexandrinum took place and gave an inaccurate account of the relation between the Bellum Civile, the Bellum Alexandrinum, and Caesar’s novissimus imperfectus commentarius. On the following pages we shall try to shed some light on these questions.

5.1. The book division after Civ. 3.112 and its political significance In the preceding chapters of this book, we have concentrated on the differences between B.Alex. 1–21 and 22–78 in order to demonstrate that Caesar’s draft extends to the end of chapter 21. The question of where the novissimus imperfectus commentarius begins, however, has received little attention in our analysis. Zin­ gerle, Dahms, and Kalinka assumed that the Bellum Civile had already been published during Caesar’s lifetime and that the first chapter of the Bellum Alexandrinum is also the beginning of the novissimus imperfectus commentarius.3 This is rather improbable. First, as pointed out above,4 the political tendency and im 1 Cf. Gal. 8.pr.2 and section 2.2b, pp.  22–30 above. 2 Cf. Landgraf 1888a: 14, 83–107, Zingerle 1892, Dahms 1906, and Pötter 1932: 10–23. 3 Cf. Zingerle 1892: 76–9, 117–18, Dahms 1906: 6, 8–9, 15, and Kalinka 1912, especially pp. 206–7. 4 Cf. section 2.1, pp.  15–21. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

156

The publication of the Bellum Alexandrinum and its historical context

perfect state of the Bellum Civile suggest that the work was not published during Caesar’s lifetime. Secondly, each of the other Caesarian commentarii comprises the events of one calendar year. Thus, Caesar probably would have closed the third (or rather second)5 book of the Bellum Civile with the last events of the year 48 B. C. (i. e. the arrival of the 37th legion narrated at B.Alex. 9.3–11.6).6 Consequently, the novissimus imperfectus commentarius did not open with the events narrated in the first chapter of the Bellum Alexandrinum, which belong to the months of November and December 48 B. C.;7 either it started with the beginning of the new administrative year in January 47 B. C. (i. e. at B.Alex. 12–16) or Caesar had not yet thought about the book division and the draft comprised not just B.Alex. 1–21 but also Civ. 3.105–12 or even Civ. 3.1–112. This raises the question of who made the Bellum Civile end with the execution of Pothinus (cf. Civ. 3.112.12) and why he thought that this event would be an apt closure. Since both the posthumous edition of the Bellum Civile and the continuation of the Caesarian draft must have taken place in the thirteen months between Caesar’s and Hirtius’ deaths, it is highly probable that both projects were part of the same plan to edit and complete the Caesarian account of the Civil War.8 Hirtius, who was one of Caesar’s closest associates and who explicitly claims to have finished Caesar’s account, must have been the central figure of this literary enterprise and is likely to have been the one responsible for the transmitted book division after Civ. 3.112.12. One of the factors that impelled Hirtius to make the Bellum Civile end with the execution of Pothinus in November 48 B. C. (Civ. 3.112.12) was certainly the fact that death is a common closural motif in classical literature.9 Moreover, earlier events that would have made for an equally effective closure are at hand, but have severe drawbacks. A book division right after the Battle of Pharsalus (cf. Civ. 3.88–99) would have drawn out the conflict between Caesar and Pompey into the early chapters of the next volume, thus leaving the book incomplete and even open-ended. If, on the contrary, Hirtius had made the Bellum Civile end 5 Civ. 1–2 should originally form a single book covering the events of the year 49 B. C.: cf. p. 30 n. 64 above and appendix C, pp. 189–203. 6 This event probably occurred in mid-December (pre-Julian calendar): cf. Judeich 1885: 71–3 and “Synchronistische Tabelle”, Stoffel 1887: vol. 2, 431, R. Schneider 1888a: vii–viii, and the “tableau chronologique” in Andrieu 1954. 7 Cf. Judeich 1885: 70–3 and “Synchronistische Tabelle”, Stoffel 1887: vol. 2, 431, R. Schneider 1888a: vii, and the “tableau chronologique” in Andrieu 1954. 8 Cf. Patzer 1993: 119–20 and section 2.2b, pp. 24–5 above. 9 Cf. Gaertner 2005: 221 (on Ov. Pont. 1.2.150) with reference to P. Fowler 1997: ­114–18, Hardie 1997: 143–4, 153–4, Barchiesi 1997: 189; see also D. P. Fowler 1989: 81 (on the Iliad), Pelling 1997a: 230 (on Plutarch’s Lives), and Harrison 2007 (on Tac. Ag. 46). Within the Corpus Caesarianum we may compare Gal. 5.58.6 (persecution and death of Indutiomarus), 6.44.2 (prosecution and execution of Acco), and the closural use of perire at B.Alex. 25.6, 31.6, 43.3, 64.3 (highlighted by Giomini 1956: 32). © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

The Bellum Alexandrinum and three pieces of biographical information 

157

right after Pompey’s death (cf. Civ. 3.104), Caesar’s chief opponent would have occupied a prominent place at the end of the book. This is unlikely to have been to Hirtius’ liking. By placing the execution of the fairly unimportant figure Pothinus at the end of the Bellum Civile, Hirtius has achieved exactly the opposite effect: the death of Caesar’s chief opponent is presented as one occurrence among many others and receives no prominence at all. Apart from the closural motif of death and the wish to give less weight to Caesar’s enemy Pompey, a third factor that favoured a book division at Civ. 3.112.12 was the nature of the subsequent events. A caesura after Pothinus’ death had the advantage of separating the initial skirmishes from the more serious military action in B.Alex. 1–33 and offered a good point of departure for the next volume (cf. B.Alex. 1.1: bello Alexandrino conflato). In addition, Hirtius may have felt that the contents of B.Alex. 1–33 (and, in fact, much of the action contained in the later chapters of the Bellum Alexandrinum) was quite different from the events narrated in Civ. 1–3, because Caesar was no longer waging war against Roman citizens, but against foreign rulers.10 By placing the book division after Civ. 3.112.12 and not after B.Alex. 11, 21, or 33, Hirtius highlighted the distinction between internal and foreign affairs and at the same time also downplayed the true extent of the Civil War.

5.2. The Bellum Alexandrinum and three pieces of biographical information If we move on to the continuation of the Caesarian account and its historical context, we must first turn to three pieces of biographical information which square well with our analysis of the language and historiographical method in the preceding chapters. The first is Hirtius’ death in the Battle of Mutina on April 21, 43 B. C.. The short period of just thirteen months, in which the continuation of the Caesarian commentarii was accomplished, strongly suggests that Hirtius may have relied on the help and contributions of other Caesarians. This not only explains how the Bellum Africum and Bellum Hispaniense, which are clearly not by Hirtius, became included in the Corpus Caesarianum, but also accounts for the heterogeneous character of the Bellum Alexandrinum, in which Hirtius made extensive use of drafts written by Caesar himself and by other Caesarians.11 The second piece of biographical information that accords rather well with our analysis of the Bellum Alexandrinum comes from the Epistula ad Balbum. 10 Cf. the similar explanation given by Canfora (2000: 427): “Chi ha voluto staccare il ­Bellum Alexandrinum da BC ha voluto dare a BC il senso limitato di guerra contro Pompeo”. Of course, Canfora does not attribute the book division to Hirtius: cf. appendix A, pp. 169–84. 11 Cf. pp. 27–9 and chapters 3–4. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

158

The publication of the Bellum Alexandrinum and its historical context

According to this prefatory letter, Hirtius did not participate in the Alexandrian and African wars, but learned about these events partly through private communication with Julius Caesar; however, he did not memorize every detail, because at the time he was struck with admiration and did not yet know that one day he would have to transmit Caesar’s deeds to posterity (Gal. 8.pr.8): quae bella quamquam ex parte nobis Caesaris sermone sunt nota, tamen aliter audimus ea, quae rerum novitate aut admiratione nos capiunt, aliter quae pro testimonio sumus dicturi. Although these wars are known to us partly through Caesar’s own oral account, we nevertheless perceive in one way the things that fascinate us because of the novelty of the events or our admiration, and in another way the things that we will one day have to say in testimony.12

Although ex parte implies that Hirtius also consulted other sources, his words clearly indicate that his continuation of the Caesarian draft was partly based on vague memories of his conversations with Caesar. This testimony tallies with our observations about the rather imprecise and at times confused account of the last phase of the Alexandrian campaign (B.Alex. 22–33).13 The third piece of biographical information that is of some interest for the interpretation of the Bellum Alexandrinum comes from Cicero’s correspondence. In several letters dating from July 46 to May 44 B. C., we are informed that Aulus Hirtius, who originally was a military man and had devoted little time to arts and letters, sought the advice of Cicero to improve his rhetorical skills and had private tutorials with the senior statesman.14 These lessons must have focused primarily on the composition and delivery of political speeches, but the intellectual contact with Cicero in the years 46–44 B. C.15 also squares with the fact that the later chapters of the Bellum Alexandrinum which were added by Hirtius can be read as an application of Cicero’s views on historiography. In section 4.5f (pp. 151–2) we have seen that Cicero’s letter to Lucceius (Fam. 5.12 = 22 SB) provides a sort of outline of the historiographical technique of B.Alex. 22–78, because it mentions some of the most characteristic features of the later chapters such as the overtly subjective presentation of the events, the references to divine influence, and the 12 On the meaning of ex parte see already p. 23 with n. 34 above. 13 See pp. 81–7 above and cf. Pötter 1932: 24–5. 14 Cf. Fam. 7.33.1, 9.16.7, 9.18.1,3 (= 192.1, 190.7, 191.1,3 SB, all written in July 46 B. C.), Att. 14.22.1: meus … discipulus (May 44 B. C.), Fat. 2–3; later sources are Quint. Inst. 12.11.6, Suet. Gram. 25.3. See also von der Mühll 1913: 1957–8, Bojkowitsch 1924–7: 182–3, 187–8, Olivier 1937: 77, and Kerschensteiner 1986: 565–6. 15 Cf. also Fam. 9.7.1 (= 178.1 SB), 9.20.2 (= 193.2 SB), Att. 12.44.1, 13.21.1, 14.11.2, 15.1.2, 15.6.1–4, and Hier. Adv. Iovin. 1.48 (p. 390.20–3 Bickel; Hirtius offers his sister to Cicero as a wife) and von der Mühll 1913: 1957, Kerschensteiner 1986: 565–74. Because of his contact with Hirtius, Cicero was asked by Brutus and Cassius to persuade him to join the republican cause (cf. Att. 14.20.4, 14.21.4, 15.1.3, 15.5.1, 15.6.1, Fat. 2). © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

The Bellum Alexandrinum and three pieces of biographical information 

159

tragic reversals of fortune. Of course, this letter should primarily persuade Lucceius to write a historical monograph on Cicero’s achievements and was never intended to be a literary manifesto;16 in fact, it was probably not even available to Hirtius in 44 B. C..17 However, the underlying idea that historiography is similar to judicial and epideictic oratory and may therefore elaborate on the facts by means of inventio, arouse feelings, or explicitly comment on the historical events is also central to Cicero’s more theoretical discussions in De Oratore and Orator.18 It is possible that Cicero touched on these issues when practicing the composition and delivery of epideictic speeches with his student, or Hirtius may have come across Cicero’s views when reading some of his teacher’s rhetorical works.19 In any case, it may be more than just a coincidence that Cicero’s ‘pupil’ Hirtius writes in a fashion that is in keeping with the views of his teacher.20

16 See also Woodman 1988: 101 n. 4, who emphasizes the humorous touches in this letter. 17 The Epistulae ad Familiares were published after Cicero’s death in 43 B. C., cf. Büchner 1939: 1211–1223, especially col. 1222. 18 Cf. especially De Orat. 2.62–4, Orat. 37, 66, and Woodman’s detailed discussion of these passages (1988: 83–98; see also Woodman 2008). Woodman (1988: 96–7) rightly compares De Orat. 2.63: vult etiam [sc. rerum ratio] … et de consiliis significari quid scriptor probet with Fam. 5.12.4 (= 22.4 SB): et reprehendes ea, quae vituperanda duces, et quae placebunt, exponendis rationibus comprobabis. Cf. also Leg. 1.5 (Atticus encourages Cicero to take up historiography): … quippe cum sit opus, ut tibi quidem videri solet, unum hoc oratorium maxime. 19 That Hirtius should have asked Cicero directly for instruction on how to extol Caesar seems rather unlikely. 20 The connection between Cicero’s views on historiography and B.Alex. 22–78 has not been observed before. Earlier scholars occasionally speculate about a Ciceronian influence on the style of the later sections of the Bellum Alexandrinum (cf. Landgraf 1888a: 66, Schiller 1890: 398, Dahms 1906: 21). However, given the size of Cicero’s oeuvre, it is hardly surprising that some of the expressions of the Bellum Alexandrinum have close parallels in the works of the Roman orator. Superficially, the last observations seem to be contradicted by the fact that chapters 22–78 are likely to contain also material written by other Caesarians (cf. pp. 53, 88–93). However, the last third of the campaign in Alexandria (B.Alex. 22–33) was probably written by Hirtius himself (cf. the remarks about his conversations with Caesar at Gal. 8.pr.8, quoted on p. 158). Moreover, even where Hirtius is using drafts written by other Caesarians, he may still be responsible for some of the dramatization and evaluation of the historical events. Unfortunately, the precise extent of Hirtius’ contribution to chapters 34–78 cannot be determined with certainty (cf. pp. 53–4 (with nn. 101–2), 88–94 (with nn. 45, 51, 63, 72), and the tentative remarks by Pötter 1932: 34–64). A detailed philological commentary on the Bellum Alexandrinum might shed some light on the problem. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

160

The publication of the Bellum Alexandrinum and its historical context

5.3. The political context and function of the Corpus Caesarianum Apart from the links with Hirtius’ biography, the heterogeneous character and complex genesis of the Bellum Alexandrinum also fit the wider political context and tell us something about the purpose and early reception of the Corpus ­Caesarianum. If the reconstruction developed in the earlier parts of this book is correct, Hirtius did not consider it necessary to mark off the Caesarian novissimus imperfectus commentarius or other drafts which he may have used, nor did he undertake a careful revision of the material and turn it into a stylistically coherent whole. This shows that, like many other ancient writers, Hirtius was not too worried about questions of authorship or intellectual property.21 In addition, the exploitation and hasty continuation of the Caesarian draft reveals that ­Hirtius was less concerned about Caesar’s literary achievements, such as his elegant prose style, his imitation of Thucydides, or his seminal use of the spectator motif.22 Instead, his primary objective was simply to make the great deeds of the Roman statesman known to the Roman public as quickly as possible. The rapid pace at which Hirtius worked may partly reflect his sense of ­loyalty towards Caesar and his fear that his health and his impending consulate in 43 B. C. might thwart the completion of the Caesarian commentarii.23 A much greater incentive for the speedy conclusion of this project was, however, the contemporary political debate about Caesar’s legacy and the negative image of Caesar that was propagated by Cicero, Brutus, and other republicans. On March 17, the second day after Caesar’s assassination, the conspirators had published a declaration in which they specified their objectives,24 and both on this and on the following day the evaluation of Caesar’s political life played a crucial role in the debates of the Roman Senate.25 In late April 44 B. C. Dolabella, one of the two consuls of 44 B. C., suppressed public lamentation of Caesar’s death,26 and during the

21 Cf. Petersdorff 1880: 217 and Seel 1935: 98. Greek and Roman authors knew the concept of intellectual property (cf. e. g. Ter. Eun. 23–6, Plin. Nat. praef. 23, and Sommerstein 1992: 17), but the legal protection of intellectual property was only developed in modern times, cf. Rigamonti 2001: 12–36. 22 On later uses of the spectator motif see p. 133 n. 217. 23 On the biographical details see pp. 25–6 with n. 46. 24 Cassius Dio (44.34.3) explicitly mentions that the conspirators promised not to take away property or alter Caesar’s provisions regarding the Roman veterans. It is unlikely that they only pointed out what they would not do, without indicating their real objectives. On the use and effect of political pamphlets in the late Republic see Yavetz 1974: 42–3 and 1979: 207, 223. 25 Cf. App. B. C. 2.127–8 and the reconstruction of the events in Gotter 1996: 24–7. 26 Cf. Cic. Phil. 1.5, 2.107, Att. 14.15.1–2, 14.16.2, Fam. 11.2.2 (= 329.2 SB), Cass. Dio 44.51.2, and Alföldi 1976: 56–7, Gotter 1996: 69. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

The political context and function of the Corpus Caesarianum  

161

summer of 44 B. C., Brutus and Cassius published several edicts in which they justified Caesar’s assassination and explained their political agenda.27 Moreover, Cicero was planning to write  a philosophical dialogue, in which he wanted to discuss Caesar’s assassination,28 and his friend Atticus encouraged him to turn to historiography and write an account of the contemporary events.29 In view of these attacks on the dead dictator and his followers, his former friends and associates must have felt that there was an urgent need to counter the negative image of Caesar propagated by the Republicans. As in the year 46 B. C., when Cicero had published an encomium of Caesar’s enemy Cato the Younger,30 it was Hirtius who quickly responded to the republican propaganda and defended the Caesarian cause.31 Despite the speedy composition and the rather uneven style and mode of presentation, Hirtius’ intervention in the war of words after Caesar’s death

27 Cf. Cic. Att. 14.20.3, 15.1.3, 15.1a.2, 16.7.1,7, Fam. 11.2.1 (= 329.1 SB), 11.3.3 (= 336.3 SB), Phil. 10.8, Nep. Att. 8.5, Vell. 2.62.3, Cass. Dio 47.20.3. 28 Cf. Cic. Att. 15.3.2, 15.4.3, 15.27.2, 16.2.6, 15.13.3, Fam. 12.16.4 (= 328.4 SB), and Häfner 1928: 54–61. 29 Cf. Cic. Att. 14.14.5, 14.17.6, 16.13a.2, and Häfner 1928: 55, 61, 68–73, 79, 91–3. Cf. also Cicero’s comments about Caesar’s assassination in his private correspondence (e. g. Cic. Att. 12.45.2, 13.40.1, 14.6.1, 14.13.2, 14.14.2, epist. apud Amm. 21.16.13), his negative remarks about Caesar in De Officiis (e. g. 1.26, 2.23, 2.84, 3.82–5), his criticism of the honours conferred on Caesar after his death (Phil. 1.13), the attacks on the loyal Caesarian C. Matius mentioned at Cic. Fam. 11.27.1,7, 11.28 (= 348.1,7, 349 SB), and the controversy whether the  games given by the praetor Brutus would take place on the Nonis Iuliis or Nonis Quintilibus (Att. 16.1.1, 16.4.1, cf. Alföldi 1976: 57, Gotter 1996: 74). 30 On this encomium see Cic. Orat. 35, Att. 12.4.2 (May/June 46 B. C.), and the other testimonia and fragments collected by Fehrle (1983: 322–4). At the time of its publication in November or December 46 B. C., Caesar was already on his way to Spain (cf. O. E. Schmidt 1893: 245, 264, Kumaniecki 1970: 169–71, Kierdorf 1978: 169–70, Tschiedel 1981: 8–9, Fehrle 1983: 290–1). First, Hirtius circulated  a response in late April or early May 45 B. C. (cf. Cic. Att. 12.40.1, 12.41.4, 12.44.1, 12.45.2, 12.48.1 and p. 180 with n. 49 below), and then Caesar published his own Anticato in the summer of 45 B. C. after the end of the Spanish campaign (cf. Cic. Att. 12.41.4, 13.50.1 and Klotz 1910: 153, Kumaniecki 1970: 172, Berthold 1971, Tschiedel 1981: 9–10). This first round of verbal sparring was followed by two further encomia by M. Fabius Gallus (cf. Cic. Fam. 7.24.2, 7.25.1 = 260.2, 261.1 SB) and Brutus (cf. Cic. Att. 12.21.1, 13.46.2) and by Octavian’s Rescripta Bruto de Catone (cf. Suet. Aug. 85.1). For the details of these controversies see Kalinka 1910: 479–82, Olivier 1937: 67–76, Tschiedel 1981: 6–12, Fehrle 1983: 285– 302, and Goar 1987: 13–18. 31 Apart from casting a favourable light on the dead dictator, the Bellum Alexandrinum also combats some of the attacks against his friends and allies. For example, one may compare the positive characterization of Mithridates of Pergamum at 26.1,3, 27.5, and 78.2 with Cicero’s derogatory remarks at Div. 2.79: is [i. e. Caesar], cum ei [i. e. Deiotaro] Trocmorum tetrarchiam eripuisset et adseculae suo Pergameno, nescio cui, dedisset eidemque detraxisset Armeniam a senatu datam, … spoliatum [sc. Deiotarum] reliquit et hospitem et regem. Cicero’s De Divinatione was published soon after Caesar’s assassination and may have been known to Hirtius, when he continued the Caesarian commentarii. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

162

The publication of the Bellum Alexandrinum and its historical context

must be regarded as  a full success, for the pro-Caesarian account of the Civil War which he published is still one of the most important sources on the Roman Civil War and has influenced the perception of Caesar from 43 B. C. to the present day. Hirtius was, however, not the only Caesarian who responded to the republican propaganda. Already five days after Caesar’s assassination Mark Antony held his famous funeral speech, in which he inflamed the crowd against the assassins,32 and five months later, in early August, he issued an edict full of reproaches of M. Brutus and C. Cassius.33 Although the effect on public opinion may have been similar, Mark Antony and Hirtius are unlikely to have cooperated or followed a common agenda. In  a letter preserved in Cicero’s correspondence, D. Brutus mentions Hirtius’ thorough dislike of Mark Antony,34 and Balbus, who encouraged Hirtius to continue and publish the Caesarian commentarii (Gal. 8.pr.1), is known to have supported Mark Antony’s rival Octavian.35 In view of these facts, it is far more plausible to connect Hirtius’ continuation of the Caesarian commentarii with Octavian’s rise to power. Such a connection would also square well with the contents of the Bellum Alexandrinum and the other pseudo-Caesarian works. Octavian’s political influence was to a great extent based on the fact that he was Caesar’s heir and that Caesar’s former soldiers felt strongly attached to their dead general.36 By publishing the Bellum Civile and adding the pseudoCaesarian commentarii, Hirtius not only propagated a Caesarian view of the Roman Civil War, but also advertised Caesar’s superior leadership and foresight, his clementia and fortuna, and the outstanding prowess and loyalty of his troops.37 32 Cf. Nic. Dam. FGrHist 90 F 130.xvii (50), Plut. Vit. Brut. 20.4, Vit. Ant. 14.5–7, Suet. Jul. 84.2–3, App. B. C. 2.145–7 and the reconstruction of the events in Gotter 1996: 26–7. 33 Cf. M. Brutus and C. Cassius apud Cic. Fam. 11.3 (= 336 SB, especially § 2; dated 4 Aug. 44 B. C.), Cic. Att. 16.7.7 (19 Aug. 44 B. C.), and Gotter 1996: 80. Another piece of pro-Caesarian propaganda are the coins minted after Caesar’s death, cf. e. g. the denarius issued by Sepullius Macer in April 44 B. C., which carried the inscription Clementiae Caesaris (RRC 480.21), and see Alföldi 1974: 5–8, Hill 1975: 158, 162 and 1980: 47, Lott 2004: 109, 232–3 n. 148, Grillo 2012: 105 n. 92. One could be tempted to add Sallust’s positive presentation of Caesar in the Bellum Cati­ linae, but there the characterization is fairly nuanced and not propagandistic, cf. Last 1948: 361– 9, Becker 1973: 732–7, Büchner 1976, especially pp. 54–5, Vretska 1976: vol. 2, 618–22 (with further literature). 34 Cf. D. Brutus apud Cic. Fam. 11.1 (= 325 SB, late March 44 B. C.); cf. also Cic. Att. 15.8.1 (31 May 44 B. C.) and 15.6.1 (early June 44 B. C.): Antonio est enim fortasse iratior [sc. Hirtius]. 35 Cf. Syme 1939: 131, Alföldi 1976: 43–54, Gotter 1996: 61 (with further material). 36 Cf. Alföldi 1976: 60–75, Gotter 1996: 62, 76, 79, 82, 94–5, 98–9, passim and e. g. App. B. C. 3.31 and Nic. Dam. FGrHist 90 F 130.xxxi (131, 136, 139). 37 See pp. 96–7, 99–106 (Caesar), 109–10 (Caesar’s officers), 98 n. 96 (soldiers) above and n. 38 below. The theme of loyalty plays a prominent role in the Curio episode (Civ. 2.23–44), cf. Grillo 2012: 33–5. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

The political context and function of the Corpus Caesarianum  

163

In so doing, Hirtius reinforced the emotional bond between the veterans and the assassinated dictator and thus automatically supported the political strategy of Caesar’s heir.38

38 In the light of this political context it is interesting to note that the Bellum Alexandrinum accentuates the virtuous conduct of Carfulenus (cf. his aristeia at 31.1–2). He sided with Octavian and fell with Hirtius and Pansa at Mutina in April 43 B. C. (cf. Pollio apud Cic. Fam. 10.33.4 (= 409.4 SB), App. B. C. 3.66–70). Likewise Domitius, whose loyalty to Caesar and the Roman people is emphasized at 34.2–3, 36.2, 39.1 (cf. p. 88 n. 45), later supported Octavian (cf. App. B. C. 4.115–16). Furthermore, one may compare chapters 44–6, where the narrator repeatedly draws our attention to Vatinius’ virtus; at the time when the Bellum Alexandrinum was written, Vatinius was in Illyricum and tried to secure the province against Caesar’s assassin M. Iunius Brutus (cf. Marasco 1995: 293). Octavian himself is not mentioned in the Corpus Caesarianum. According to Suetonius (Aug. 8.1), he took part in Caesar’s triumph after the African campaign, despite the fact that he had been too young to fight in this war; in addition, Nicolaus of Damascus (FGrHist 90 F 127.x (21–2); cf. p. 180 with n. 49 below) records that Octavian wanted to take part in the Spanish campaign, but arrived only after the fighting had already ended. Both facts could have been mentioned in the final chapters of the Bellum Africum and Bellum Hispaniense, but they would not have enhanced Octavian’s reputation and may have been deliberately omitted. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

6. Conclusion

The preceding chapters show that the Bellum Alexandrinum is a heterogeneous assemblage of various reports by different authors. Its germ was the novissimus imperfectus commentarius, which Hirtius found in Caesar’s Nachlass and mentions in the Epistula ad Balbum. Hirtius divided it into two parts. The first of these (Civ.  3.1–112) was issued together with Caesar’s unpublished account of the first year of the Civil War (i. e. Civ. 1–2) and formed one of two posthumous volumes of Caesaris commentarii rerum gestarum. The second part of the novissimus imperfectus commentarius became the starting point of the Bellum Alexandrinum (i. e. B.Alex. 1–21) and was supplemented by Hirtius on the basis of faint memories of Caesar’s oral accounts of the Alexandrian campaign and short reports written by other Caesarians. The differences with regard to the linguistic form, the quality of the information, the narrative technique, and the historiographical outlook show that Hirtius refrained from  a thorough revision of the material and wanted to publish the work as quickly as possible. These observations accord well with the fact that Hirtius was preoccupied with the political aftermath of Caesar’s assassination and his duties as Roman consul in 43 B. C.. Apart from the immediate consequences for the composition of the Corpus Caesarianum, the analysis has a number of further implications. First, the heterogeneous character of the Bellum Alexandrinum has important consequences for the establishment of the text. In editing chapters 1–21 we certainly must reckon with the possibility of minor alterations by Hirtius or another later redactor,1 but generally the points of reference for establishing the text must be the Bellum Gallicum and Bellum Civile.2 In the later sections, on the contrary, there is no such yard-stick; rather, an editor should keep an eye on Hirtius’ usage in the eighth book of the Bellum Gallicum, but must also bear in mind that Hirtius may not be writing independently but rather adapting testimonia or written accounts by Caesarian officers.3 Secondly, the analysis of the Bellum Alexandrinum offers a plausible explanation for the stylistic hotchpotch of the Corpus Caesarianum. In order to disburden himself and speed up the process of publication, Hirtius not only integrated 1 See p. 45 with n. 73 (changes made by Hirtius) and p. 111 n. 155 (on Civ. 3.105.[3–6]). 2 Cf. e. g. the discussion of B.Alex. 15.8 on p. 129 above. 3 On Hirtius’ contributions to the later chapters see pp. 53–4 and 159 with n. 20 above. Cf. also pp. 88–94 with nn. 45, 51, 63, and 72 for some speculations on Hirtius’ contributors. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

Conclusion

165

shorter reports by other Caesarians into his narrative of the years 48 to 47 B. C., but also added the much longer accounts of the Bellum Africum and Bellum Hispaniense to the Corpus Caesarianum. Thirdly, the observations of the preceding chapters also offer new insights into the political context of the Epistula ad Balbum and the pseudo-Caesarian supplements. The hasty composition of the Corpus Caesarianum, the overtly propagandistic elements in the later chapters of the Bellum Alexandrinum, and the links with the historical context explored in chapter 5 all suggest that Hirtius was less intent on shaping the opinion of later generations than on countering the negative representation of Caesar by some of his contemporaries. Finally, our analysis also sheds new light on the historiographical method of Caesar and the continuators. It corroborates Maurach’s, Gärtner’s, Carter’s, Powell’s, and Reggi’s view of an increasing Thucydidean influence in Caesar’s later commentarii and shows how Caesar veers away from the tradition of the commentarius and moves in the direction of the historical monograph.4 Moreover, the examination of chapters 22–78 has revealed that the later, post-Caesarian bits of the Bellum Alexandrinum are not subliterary war diaries or simple propagandistic pamphlets.5 Rather, they are influenced by the tradition of ‘tragic’ or sensational historiography, strive for dramatic effect, and convey the image of a world dominated by Fortune and other divinities. The heterogeneous character of the Bellum Alexandrinum thus not only illustrates, but in a sense contains the contemporary debate about how to write history: on the one hand, the work attests to the great popularity and influence of Thucydides in the time immediately preceding Sallust,6 but on the other hand it also reflects the huge impact which the Hellenistic Greek historians have had on the shaping of Roman historiography.7

4 Cf. pp. 131–6 and 137–9 with nn. 229–37. 5 For exponents of this traditional view see p. 27 n. 51 above. 6 On the dates of composition see p. 13 n. 2 above. On the popularity of Thucydides in the 50s and 40s B. C. at Rome see pp. 138–9 above. 7 Cf. Kroll 1924: 351. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

Appendices

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

Appendix A: The authorship and authenticity of the Epistula ad Balbum and Gal. 8

Most scholars today attribute both the eighth book of the Bellum Gallicum and the prefatory letter preceding it to Caesar’s friend and follower Aulus Hirtius.1 This view can be supported by the fact that Suetonius quotes parts of the Epistula ad Balbum and explicitly attributes them to Hirtius.2 Since the preface refers to the task of completing Caesar’s commentarii, it is only natural to assume that the subsequent commentarius is part of this project and was written by the same person as the preface. In addition, several of the transmitted subscriptiones of Gal. 73 and 84 attribute the eighth book to ‘Hirtius’ or ‘Hirtius Pansa’. 1 Cf. e. g. Nipperdey 1846: 3–12 ~ 1847: 8–15, Schiller 1891–3, Klotz 1910: 154, Bojkowitsch 1924–7: 178, passim, Andrieu 1954: xvii, Wykes 1958: xx–xxiii (with some doubts), Townend 1988: 2–4, Rüpke 1997: 202, Batstone/Damon 2006: 30, Cluett 2009: 193–4. 2 Cf. Gal. 8.pr.5–6 ~ Suet. Jul. 56.3 (quoted on p. 175 below) and see Nipperdey 1846: 4 ~ 1847: 9. 3 The earliest independent manuscripts of the Bellum Gallicum fall into the three families α (represented by A = cod. Amstelodamensis 73 (now ms. XV. G.1), 2nd quarter of the 9th cent., from Fleury, and B = cod. Parisinus Lat. 5763, first quarter of the 9th cent., French, later at ­Fleury), σ (S = cod. Laur. Ashburnhamensis 33, 10th cent., from France (?)), and β (represented by U = cod. Vaticanus Lat. 3324, 11/12th cent., written in France (?); T = cod. Parisinus Lat. 5764, 2nd half of the 11th cent., from France; V = cod. Vindobonensis 95, first half of the 12th cent., written in Trier (?)). The manuscripts of the α family read Hirtii Pansae [H. P. om. B] incipit liber VIII feliciter; β is split between Hirtii Pansae lib. belli Gallici VIII incipit feliciter (U) and A. Hirtii Pansae rerum gestarum C. Caesaris incipit liber octavus eiusdem operis (T; the subscriptio of V provides no information on the authors of Gal. 7 and Gal. 8: explicit liber septimus, incipit liber octavus). Codex L (British Library, Add. 10084, 11/12th cent., from Gembloux (?)), a codex descriptus of S, has prologus Q. Hirtii Pansae at the beginning of book eight and later adds Q. Hirtii Pansae lib. VIII incipit de Bello Gallico after the Epistula ad Balbum; manuscript N (Naples, Bibl. Nazionale IV. C.11, 11th cent., from France), another descendant of S, has Auli Hirtii prologus [A. H. p. in rasura manu recentiore] viri clarissimi lib. VIII incipit belli eiusdem. The information regarding the subscriptiones is taken from Klotz 1952: 216, Andrieu 1949: 148, Seel 1961: cxvii, and Hering 1987: xvii; on the provenance and classification of the manuscripts see Hering 1963, Brown 1972, Winterbottom 1983, Diouron 1999: lxxxiv–cvi, and Tschiedel 2010: 598–600. 4 At the end of Gal. 1–8, one codex of the α family (B) mentions Julius Caesar as the ­author of the entire Bellum Gallicum (G. Caesaris pont. max. ephimeris rerum gestarum belli Gallici liber VIII explicit feliciter); in the other codex (A) the end of Gal. 8 (fol. 99r-v) has been added by a different, late medieval hand, and the subscriptio attributes Gal. 8 to A. Hyrtius. Manuscript S has a lacuna of five lines, and the manuscripts of the β family read A. Hirtii rerum gestarum … © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

170

Appendix A  

Although ‘Hirtius Pansa’ is an invention that combines the names of the two consuls of the year 43 B. C.,5 these indications nevertheless corroborate that there was a tradition of attributing the eighth book to Hirtius.6 Moreover, there is no other historical person known to us whose biography is more consonant with the contents of the Epistula ad Balbum: Aulus Hirtius was not only a close associate of Caesar’s, but also published a reply to Cicero’s encomium of the Republican hero Cato Uticensis7 and thus played a significant role in Caesar’s public relations effort during and after the Civil War. Hence, he was the most obvious man to continue Caesar’s account of the Gallic and Civil Wars. Furthermore, the author’s statement that he did not take part in the operations in Egypt and Africa (Gal. 8.pr.8) squares well with other ancient testimonia which indicate Hirtius’ absence from these wars.8 lib. VIII explicit (T) and Hircii Pansae rerum gestarum … lib. VIII explicit feliciter (U; V does not contain any indication of authorship). At the end of Civ. 1, U repeats parts of the subscriptio to Gal. 8: Hircii Pansae belli civilis Gaii Caesaris liber I explicit. Cf. Klotz 1950: 53, 1952: 250, Fabre 1936: vol. 1, 68, Andrieu 1949: 148, Seel 1961: cxviii–cxix, Hering 1987: xvii. 5 Andrieu (1949: 148) suspects that the error may have been provoked by Cic. Phil. 13.46– 47, but the two consuls are also named together in many other passages (see also Patzer 1993: 121, Lieberg 1998: 165). Canfora’s view (1970: 421) that the attribution to Hirtius Pansa stems from Suet. Jul. 56 is improbable, for Suetonius only mentions Hirtius, not Pansa. 6 Canfora (1970: 421; cf. 1993: 84–5) has discarded the subscriptiones as worthless and cites Andrieu (1949: 149): “Ainsi nous distinguons dans la tradition des éléments localisés et tardifs: Julius Constantinus César, Suétone, Hirtius Pansa, qui n’ont aucune valeur d’authenticité”. This is misleading, for on the preceding page Andrieu writes (1949: 148): “le nom d’Hirtius est suggéré par la lettre-préface du livre VIII, celui de Pansa n’est qu’une fantaisie, inspirée peut-être à quelque réviseur par la treizième Philippique”. Hence, Andrieu considers Pansa a later addition, but thinks that the attribution to Hirtius could go back much further. Since Suetonius attributes parts of the Epistula ad Balbum explicitly to Hirtius, this is a sensible assumption. However, contrary to what Andrieu seems to imply, there is no reference to Hirtius in the transmitted text of the Epistula ad Balbum. If the subscriptiones in our manuscripts are not based on Suetonius’ remarks in the Vita Divi Iulii, we have to assume that the Epistula ad Balbum originally started with a greeting such as Hirtius Balbo suo salutem dicit or that the titulus or epigramma (cf. Kenney 1982: 16, 31–2) on the outside of the volumen containing Gal. 8 named Hirtius as the author. This conclusion is not contradicted by Sidonius Apollinaris’ words quisve ad extremum [codd., -am Canfora 1970: 427] Balbi ephemeridem fando adaequaverit? (Epist. 9.14.7). The rhetorical question does not prove that Sidonius attributed the last book of the Bellum Gallicum to Balbus (as claimed by Canfora 1970: 427, 1993: 84), for ad extremum must function adverbially and introduce the last item in a catalogue of historical works dealing with Caesar (Sidonius’ preceding words prove that Sidonius constructs adaequare with a non-prepositional accusative). Moreover, as in the case of Sidonius’ earlier reference to a Iuventii [M P, Viventii F] Martialis historiam, we have to reckon with the possibility that the transmission is corrupt or that Sidonius is referring to a work that has left no other traces (cf. Loyen 1960–70: vol. 3, 173 n. 63). 7 See p. 161 with n. 30. 8 Cicero’s correspondence shows that Hirtius was in Greece at the time of Caesar’s stay in Alexandria and that he only later joined him in Antiochia in the summer of 47 B. C. (cf. Nipper­dey 1846: 5–6 ~ 1847: 10 with Cic. Att. 11.20.1 (15 Aug. 47 B. C.)). At the time of the African War, Hirtius held the praetorship at Rome and visited the ludi at Praeneste, cf. Cic. Att. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

Authorship and authenticity of the Epistula ad Balbum  

171

Despite these facts, Heidtmann, Vogel, and Canfora have claimed that the Epistula ad Balbum was  a forgery and that Hirtius was not the author of the eighth book of the Bellum Gallicum.9 Whereas Heidtmann and Vogel attribute the eighth book to an anonymous follower of Caesar,10 Canfora believes that most of the eighth book was written by Caesar himself and that only the last chapters (Gal. 8.48.10–55.2) were added by Hirtius or another of Caesar’s friends and followers.11 Although Heidtmann, Vogel, and Canfora reach incompatible conclusions, their arguments partly overlap. All three authors argue that Hirtius’ political activities and ill health in the years 44–43 B. C. left little time for writing the eighth book of the Bellum Gallicum, let alone finishing a full account of Caesar’s deeds after Pharsalus as the author of the Epistula ad Balbum claims to have done.12 Moreover, Heidtmann and Canfora point out that the eighth book of the Bellum Gallicum, the Bellum Alexandrinum, Bellum Africum, and Bellum Hispaniense form several commentarii (rather than  a single continuation usque ad exitum … vitae Caesaris (Gal. 8.pr.2)) and are stylistically so diverse,13 that they cannot have been written by  a single author; consequently, they argue, the Epistula ad Balbum is not a suitable preface to the supplements of the Caesarian commentarii.14 Both arguments touch on serious problems, which have been central to any interpretation of the Epistula ad Balbum since Nipperdey;15 however, these problems can also be plausibly explained otherwise (see pp.  25–9, 157–8, and 164–5) and hardly suffice to prove that the letter is inauthentic. To further strengthen their forgery argument, Canfora and Vogel have adduced a number of further arguments. Both scholars assert that the Epistula ad Balbum 12.2.2 (April (?) 46 B. C.), Fam. 9.6.1 (= 181 SB, June (?) 46 B. C.), and Drumann 1834–44: vol. 3, 69–70 ~ Drumann/Groebe 1899–1929: vol. 3, 66–7, Nipperdey 1846: 6 ~ 1847: 10. 9 Cf. Heidtmann 1867: 4–6, F. Vogel 1900: 217–18, Canfora 1970, 1993 (Canfora 2000 repeats the conclusions of his previous publications (pp. 421, 422–3, 427, 428) without offering any substantial new evidence). For similar doubts see already Drumann 1834–44: vol. 3, 76 (contrast Drumann/Groebe 1899–1929: vol. 3, 73). 10 Cf. Heidtmann 1867: 5–6, F. Vogel 1900: 218. 11 Cf. Canfora 1993: 82–4. In his earlier publication (1970: 422, passim), Canfora distinguishes between “Cesare” and “l’autore dell’ottavo commentario”. 12 Cf. Hirt. Gal. 8.pr.2: novissimumque imperfectum [sc. commentarium, cf. p. 23 n. 32] ab rebus gestis Alexandriae confeci usque ad exitum … vitae Caesaris and Heidtmann 1867: 4–5, F. Vogel 1900: 217–18, Canfora 1970: 421–2, 1993: 88. The meaning of confeci is discussed on pp. 23 (with n. 33) and 25–9. 13 That the eighth book of the Bellum Gallicum and the Bellum Alexandrinum, Bellum Africum, and Bellum Hispaniense are  a stylistically diverse hotchpotch is commonly agreed: cf. e. g. Nipperdey 1846: 8–30 ~ 1847: 12–30, Seel 1935: 13–65, Barwick 1938: 193, 210–12, Andrieu 1954: xiii–xiv, Richter 1977: 201–2, 211–13, Cluett 2009: 194–9. 14 Cf. Heidtmann 1867: 5–6, Canfora 1970: 422–4 with n. 7, 1993: 83–4, 87. 15 Cf. Nipperdey 1846: 31–2 ~ 1847: 32–3 (Hirtius’ illness), 1846: 12–29 ~ 1847: 15–30 (stylistic diversity) and see pp. 25–9 above for further literature. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

172

Appendix A  

is incompatible with Hirtius’ biography, because it implies that its author took part in the Spanish campaign which lasted from December 46 to May 45 B. C., whereas Hirtius must have been in Rome until December 46 B. C. and in trans­ alpine Gaul from spring 45 B. C. until the beginning of the year 44 B. C..16 Furthermore, Canfora states (a)  that the subjunctive suppleverit at Suet. Jul. 56.1: Hirtium, qui etiam Gallici belli novissimum imperfectumque librum suppleverit is a “con­giuntivo obliquo” and shows that Suetonius hesitates to attribute Gal. 8 to Hirtius (1970: 419 with n. 4, 1993: 80–1, 96); (b)  that the Epistula ad Balbum lacks the customary introductory formula Hirtius Balbo suo salutem dicit vel sim. (1970: 426); (c)  that it merely recycles passages from Suetonius’ Vita Divi Iulii and works of Cicero (Brut. 262, Att. 15.6),17 but contains no individual ideas or independent pieces of information (1970: 426, 1993: 89–92); (d) that the style of Gal.  8 hardly differs from that of Gal.  1–7 (1993: 83); and (e) that the point where Caesar’s account of his deeds in Gaul ends is not marked by the Epistula ad Balbum, but by the ‘second preface’ at Gal. 8.48.10–11 (1993: 82, 84). Since the question of authenticity is central to the interpretation of the Epistula ad Balbum and since Vogel’s and Canfora’s arguments have been accepted or at least considered “substantial” by some scholars,18  a detailed discussion is in place. Canfora’s remarks concerning the language of Gal. 8 and Gal. 1–7 are based on two general statements in the editions of Kraner/Dittenberger/Meusel (1913–20)

16 Cf. F. Vogel 1900: 218 and Canfora 1970: 422, 1993: 103. Vogel also contends that in view of his long illness in 44 B. C. and his consulship in 43 B. C. Hirtius did not have to fear reproaches for inertia (cf. Gal. 8.pr.1) and that the positive representation of Mark Antony at Gal. 8.50.2 does not square with Cicero’s remark (Att. 15.6.1) Antonio est [sc. Hirtius] … fortasse iratior, causae vero amicissimus. Neither of these points bears scrutiny. The fear that he could be accused of ignavia is mentioned by Hirtius also in a letter to Cicero (cf. Cic. Att. 15.6.2–3) and probably alludes to his reputation of being a bon vivant (cf. e. g. Cic. Att. 12.2.2, Fam. 9.16.7, 9.18.3, 9.20.2 (= 190.7, 191.3, 193.2 SB), Phil. 1.37). At Gal. 8.50.2 the expression pro homine sibi coniunctissimo is not intended as praise of Mark Antony, but highlights Caesar’s concern for his followers and explains why he had to take the political opposition against Mark Antony personally (tum acriter [sc. contendebat Caesar] contra factionem et potentiam paucorum, qui M. Antonii repulsa Caesaris decedentis gratiam convellere cupiebant). 17 Canfora (1993: 92) also compares ne scientia tantarum rerum … deesset (Gal 8.pr.5) with ne quis tamen ignoraret (Gal. 8.48.10) and accentuates that Gal. 8.pr.2 and Gal. 8.48.10 both contain the expressions conficere, insequens, and res Galliae gestae. Apart from the genitive Galliae, all of these expressions are common ingredients of Roman prefaces; none of them establishes a particularly close link between the two passages or proves that the Epistula ad Balbum imitates Gal. 8.48.10–11. 18 The view that the Epistula ad Balbum might be a forgery is accepted by Richter (1977: 195–6) and Mehl (2001: 68, 226 n. 18). Tschiedel (2010: 596) speaks of “beachtliche[n] Argumente[n]”; cf. also Mayer 2011: 220. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

Authorship and authenticity of the Epistula ad Balbum  

173

and Andrieu (1954),19 but ignore the considerable differences in vocabulary and syntax that have been collected by Nipperdey, Klotz, Richter, and others.20 Moreover, Canfora’s view that originally there was only one preface, viz. Gal. 8.48.10– 11, and that these lines indicate the end of Caesar’s own account, is contradicted by the very first words of this passage: scio Caesarem singulorum annorum singulos commentarios confecisse; quod ego non existimavi mihi esse faciendum, propterea quod insequens annus L. Paulo C. Marcello consulibus nullas res Galliae habet magno opere gestas. I know that Caesar produced individual commentarii for each year; I did not think that I should do this, because there were no important events in Gaul in the following year, when L. Paulus and C. Marcellus were consuls.

The author of these lines clearly implies that he has written both the preceding account of the year 51 B. C. and the following chapters on the events of the year 50 B. C.. For if he had composed only Gal. 8.48.10–55.2, he could simply say that he appended these parts to the Caesarian account, and there would be no need to refer to Caesar’s practice of treating each year in a separate commentarius. In addition, quod ego non existimavi mihi esse faciendum takes up singulorum annorum singulos commentarios confecisse and thus indicates that the author did not sim-

19 Cf. Canfora 1993: 83: “Per il peso che hanno considerazioni del genere, si può aggiungere che i moderni studiosi non mancano di constatare che lo ‘stile’ dell’VIII commentario ‘non si discosta in nulla da quello di Cesare’ (F. Kraner—W. Dittenberger—H. Meusel, […] 191317, p. 34), ovvero che—come ha scritto J. Andrieu—‘imita particolarmente lo stile del VII commentario’ (César, La guerre d’Alexandrie, Paris 1954, IX)”. Canfora clearly misrepresents Kraner/Dittenberger/Meusel 1913–20: vol. 1, 34: “Sein [i. e. Hirtius’] Stil entbehrt zwar mancher Vorzüge der caesarischen Schreibart und zeigt eine gewisse Monotonie in Satzbau und Wortstellung: aber die Sprache hat im allgemeinen nichts abweichendes von der gebildeten Redeweise der damaligen Zeit und des Caesar insbesondere”. Also, he fails to mention that Andrieu is merely referring to Hirtius’ efforts of linking Gal. 8 to Gal. 7 (the sentence quoted by Canfora continues “auquel [i. e. to the 7th commentarius] sont faits des renvois du type: ‘superiore commentario demonstratum est’ (VIII, 4, 3 = VII, 90, 7)”). Neither Kraner/Dittenberger/Meusel nor Andrieu question the stylistic and linguistic differences between Gal. 1–7 and Gal. 8, nor do they think that the eighth book could have been written by Caesar. 20 Cf. Nipperdey 1846: 8–10 ~ 1847: 12–14, Klotz 1910: 160–180, Richter 1977: 196–9, Buffa 1986. In addition, there are several differences concerning the narrative technique. In contrast to Gal. 1–7, the eighth book is less influenced by the tradition of earlier Greco-­Roman historiography, lacks direct speeches and ethnographical excursuses, and depicts the Gauls in a less nuanced and overtly negative fashion (cf. B. Scholz 1956, H. A. Gärtner 1975: 118–122, Kremer 1994: 196–201). Also, the style of cross-references in Gal. 8 differs from that in Gal. 1–7: when referring to himself as the narrator (as opposed to the historical figure), Caesar uses the first person (cf. e. g. Gal.  4.27.2: una cum his legatis Commius Atrebas venit, quem supra de­ monstraveram a Caesare in Britanniam praemissum and Frese 1900: 5; see also Civ. 3.17.1 and pp. 269–70 on B.Alex. 4.1); hence, he would not have written superiore commentario Caesar exposuit (Gal. 8.38.3, cf. Kierdorf 2003: 65 n. 6). © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

174

Appendix A  

ply make a minor supplement, but wrote a whole commentarius.21 Also, it is remarkable that right in the middle of a third person narrative on the events in Gaul the author of these lines suddenly speaks of himself in the first person. The shift is far less surprising, if the second preface has been preceded by an earlier first preface, in which the ‘I’ of 8.48.10 has already introduced himself to the reader.22 This fact clearly contradicts Canfora’s hypothesis and supports the view that the Epistula ad Balbum was written by the same person as Gal. 8.48.10–11 and the rest of the eighth book.23 Similar contradictions and improbabilities also come up in Canfora’s treatment of Suetonius’ Vita Divi Iulii. Neither his claim that the Epistula ad Balbum is based on Suet. Jul. 5624 nor his view that Suetonius did not know the epistolary preface25 stand up to scrutiny. If we juxtapose the corresponding passages, we easily see that the conventional chronology is much more probable:26 Gal. 8.pr. (2) Caesaris nostri commentarios rerum gestarum Galliae, non competentibus superioribus atque insequentibus eius scriptis, contexui novissimumque imperfectum ab rebus gestis Alexandriae c o n f e c i usque ad exitum non quidem civilis dissensionis, cuius finem nullum videmus, sed vitae Caesaris. …

Suet. Jul. 56 (1) … nam Alexandrini Africique et Hispaniensis incertus auctor est: alii Oppium putant, alii Hirtium, qui etiam Gallici belli novissimum imperfectumque librum s u p p l e v e r i t . … suppleverit] supplevit C. G. Müller (1804: 6)

competentibus Bernhardy, Schiller conpa­ ren­tibus A conparantibus Q B M S L, β26 21 Hence, the following words (8.48.11): pauca esse scribenda coniungendaque huic commentario statui cannot mean that the author merely adds material to a commentarius that was written by someone else. Note also that hic is  a first-person demonstrative and can stand in place of meus: cf. KS vol. II.1, 619, HS 180, TLL s.v. hic 2703.82–2704.34. 22 This was already observed by Pelling (1995: 270); see also Lieberg 1998: 164. 23 If the Epistula ad Balbum was a forgery, the interpolator must have either replaced an authentic preface by his own prefatory letter or he must have inserted both the Epistula ad Balbum and the second preface at 8.48.10–11. Neither of these scenarios is particularly plausible. 24 Cf. Canfora 1993: 89: “è un pezzo retorico … costruito essenzialmente coi materiali e le notizie del ricchissimo capitolo 56 della vita cesariana di Svetonio. … Lì trovava l’elogio dell’ elegantia di Cesare come prosatore” and 91. With this hypothesis, Canfora tacitly abandoned his earlier suggestion (1970: 420, 424) that the quotation of Hirtius at Suet. Jul. 56.3, too, might be a forgery. The latter idea was based on the observation that the content of Suet. Jul. 56.3 has a close parallel at Brut. 262 and that idem (cf. Jul. 56.3: de isdem commentariis …) features in several passages that have been suspected of interpolation, viz. Cic. Ver. 2.23 (dixit hoc idem … cognosse om. C O, del. Canfora), Off. 1.142 (ita videtur eadem … locis del. Canfora), 3.24 (detrahere autem … eiusdem del. Gruterus), 3.112 (atque … in filium del. Ernestus), Tac. Dial. 1.3 (vel easdem sed probabiles del. Canfora, vel easdem del. iam Muretus et Lipsius). 25 Cf. Canfora 1993: 80–1, 96. 26 On the text see pp. 22–3 above. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

Authorship and authenticity of the Epistula ad Balbum  

(5) qui [sc. commentarii] sunt editi ne scientia tantarum rerum scriptoribus deesset, adeoque probantur omnium iudicio, ut praerepta, non praebita facultas scriptoribus videatur. (6) cuius tamen rei maior nostra quam reliquorum est admiratio; ceteri enim quam bene atque emendate, nos etiam quam facile atque celeriter eos p e r f e c e r i t scimus.

175

(3) de isdem commentariis Hirtius ita praedicat: “adeo probantur omnium iudicio, ut praerepta, non praebita facultas scriptoribus videatur. nos etiam, quam facile atque celeriter eos p e r s c r i p s e r i t , scimus.” post videatur codd. recc. add. cuius tamen rei maior nostra quam reliquorum est admiratio; ceteri enim, quam bene atque emendate, eadem verba adscripsit m. recens in margine codicis O  || perscripserit] pr(a)escripserit M G P Υ δ

Turning to the second pair of parallels first, the discrepancies between the two texts strongly contradict Canfora’s hypothesis. In the transmitted text of Suetonius, etiam does not make sense because there is nothing in the preceding lines that corresponds to quam facile atque celeriter eos perscripserit. Hence, the quotation in the Vita Divi Iulii must be incomplete. Some of the humanists who produced the codices recentiores of Suetonius already realized that the gap can be fittingly supplemented by the Epistula ad Balbum,27 and there is a priori no reason why we should doubt that Hirtius’ remarks originally contained also the words cuius tamen rei maior nostra quam reliquorum est admiratio; ceteri enim, quam bene atque emendate.28 If the Epistula ad Balbum was a forgery based on Suet. Jul. 56, we would have to assume that its author had access to a much better text of Suetonius than the archetype of the medieval manuscript tradition. This is not particularly probable. Instead, it seems more likely that Suetonius adjusted the quotation to his collection of ancient verdicts on the Caesarian commentarii and cut both the remarks about the ceteri and the –que that linked the quoted words with the preceding sentence.29 The Epistula ad Balbum is then not based on 27 Cf. Suet. Jul. 30.5, where the humanist scribes of the codices recentiores have corrected the unmetrical verse quotation of Cic. Off. 3.82 by adding regnandi. 28 Canfora (1993: 80) simply mentions the lacuna, the supplements made in the humanist manuscripts, and the fact that in his apparatus M. Ihm (1907: 29 = 1908: 29) remarks “lacuna, si modo fuit”, but he does not discuss whether the words cuius tamen rei maior nostra quam reliquorum est admiratio; ceteri enim, quam bene atque emendate are part of what Hirtius originally wrote or not. Ihm, to be sure, did not question the authenticity of these words (cf. 1907: 29: “expleta ex Hirtio in ς”) but simply suspected (correctly, as we think) that Suetonius deliberately quoted only parts of his source; cf. also Gascou 1984: 561: “tout porte à croire que le biographe a de lui-même procédé à une coupure”. 29 One may compare Jul. 56.2, where Suetonius condenses atque etiam commentarios, quos idem scripsit rerum suarum. – Valde quidem, inquam, probandos; nudi enim sunt … (Cic. Brut. 262) to commentarios scripsit valde quidem probandos: nudi sunt, … (cf. Gascou 1984: 560–1). See also Lossmann 1957: 48 n. 4 (on Suetonius’ reference to Cic. Brut. 261 at Jul. 55.1), Gascou 1984: 558–60 (on Jul. 30.5 ~ Cic. Off. 3.82, Jul. 55.1 ~ Cic. Brut. 261), and W. Müller 1972: 101 (on Suetonius’ use of quotations to mark a climax or round off subsections). © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

176

Appendix A  

Suetonius, but either Suetonius must have used the Epistula ad Balbum or both texts must be based on a common source that is no longer extant. The last point immediately draws our attention to another problem: if the Epistula ad Balbum was a forgery based on Suet. Jul. 56, as Canfora claims, where did Suetonius find Hirtius’ verdict on Caesar’s style? Outside the Corpus Caesarianum and apart from his Anticato, we know of no literary works or projects undertaken by Hirtius. Moreover, the tone of the lines does not sound like that of a speech or political pamphlet which Suetonius might have found in the imperial libraries or archives. Canfora (1993: 91–2) believes that the remarks come from a letter which Hirtius wrote to Cicero and which Suetonius later found in a collection of their correspondence: Si può immaginare una situazione analoga  a quella in cui Cicerone approva il giudizio del fratello Quinto sui versi di Lucrezio (ad Q.fr. 2, 9, 3: ). Qui Irzio—è l’ipotesi che mi sembra preferibile—, evidentemente in reazione positiva a quanto scritto nel Brutus, dà conferma a Cicerone dell’esattezza del suo giudizio sui commentarii cesariani, ne riprende intenzionalmente le parole (Cic.: ; Irzio: ), e aggiunge un suo apporto specifico su di un punto di cui lui può essere testimone (ben più che Cicerone): la velocità compositiva di Cesare.

Even if we ignore for a moment the completely speculative character of this reconstruction,30 the scenario envisaged by Canfora still remains highly implausible, because it does not fit Hirtius’ words. Unlike Cicero, who refers to his brother in the second person (ut scribis) and explicitly confirms the latter’s verdict on Lucretius (see above), Hirtius does not address Cicero or point to his praise of the Caesarian commentarii, but generally speaks of omnium iudicio and ceteri. Such a vague reference in the third person does not square with the situation of a letter. Moreover, if the remarks really came from a letter to Cicero, they would not confirm Cicero’s verdict but almost amount to saying that what Cicero writes in his Brutus is merely what everyone says about the commentarii anyway. Such a remark would not be particularly flattering and is difficult to reconcile with Hirtius’ role as Cicero’s discipulus of rhetoric.31 Just as questionable is Canfora’s interpretation of the first pair of parallels. To begin with, it is improbable that  a forger, who carefully collected information 30 The only piece of evidence is Nonius Marcellus’ reference (p. 450.2 M. = p. 721.20–21 Lindsay) to a ninth book of letters written by Cicero to Hirtius. That this collection also contained letters written by Hirtius is merely a conjecture of Gurlitt (1901: 546): he thought that Cicero’s letters to Hirtius could not have filled nine papyrus rolls and argued that the words luta et limum adgerebant, which Nonius attributes to the same work (aput Ciceronem in epistulis ad Hirtium, cf. Non. p. 212.14–16 M. = 313.1–3 Lindsay), are likely to come from a letter in which Hirtius described the siege of Mutina. 31 On Cicero’s role as Hirtius’ teacher of rhetoric see p. 158 with nn. 14–15 above. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

Authorship and authenticity of the Epistula ad Balbum  

177

on Hirtius from Cicero’s correspondence, Suetonius, and other ancient sources (cf. Canfora 1993: 89–93), should have completely misunderstood or distorted Suetonius’ words in such a way as to deprive Caesar of his claim to authorship of most of Gal. 8. In view of the cuts which Suetonius is likely to have made at Jul. 56.3 (see above), it is far more plausible that here, too, he slightly misremembers or misquotes his source.32 Such inaccuracies are not uncommon in Suetonius,33 and the fact that Suetonius employs the very same expression novissimum imperfectum librum supplere elsewhere34 shows that he may simply have been using his own words rather than copying or paraphrasing a source in front of him.35 Finally, we must turn to the interpretation of suppleverit (56.1). According to Canfora, the word is a “congiuntivo obliquo” and indicates that Suetonius is not convinced that the eighth book of the Bellum Gallicum was written by ­Hirtius. Consequently, Canfora argues, Suetonius did not read the Epistula ad Balbum in his edition of the Caesarian commentarii.36 This interpretation is syntactically acceptable, but by no means certain. Other scholars have interpreted the subjunctive as having argumentative force, which is equally possible.37 In favour of the latter interpretation, Nipperdey (1846: 4 ~ 1847: 9) and Klotz (1910: 154) once pointed out that it would be absurd if Suetonius expresses doubts about Hirtius’ authorship at 56.1, but a few lines later, at 56.3, quotes several lines that we also find in the Epistula ad Balbum and explicitly attributes them to Hirtius. Canfora would probably object to this argument that Suetonius may quote Hirtius from some source outside the Corpus Caesarianum. As we have seen above, however, Canfora’s reconstruction of such a source is fraught with contradictions and improbabilities. Hence, the objection is invalid and it remains preferable to interpret suppleverit as having argumentative force.

32 This conclusion was already reached by e. g. F. Vogel (1900: 217), Olivier (1937: 82–3), Andrieu (1954: xxi n. 1), and Patzer (1993: 117). 33 Cf. Lossmann’s discussion of Suet. Jul. 55–6 (1957) and Gascou 1984: 557–62. 34 Cf. Gram. 12.2 (quoted in n. 26 on p. 21 above). 35 This solution also seems preferable to Heidtmann’s unwarranted suggestion (1867: 6) that Suet. Jul. 56.1, too, might be interpolated. 36 Cf. Canfora 1970: 419 and 1993: 80–1, 96. 37 Cf. Klotz 1910: 154 n. 2: “Der Konjunktiv steht natürlich [our emphasis], weil der Relativsatz begründend ist” and Pelling 1995: 270 (“argumentative force…: ‘on the grounds that he also supplied’”, without reference to Klotz). Klotz compares Suet. Gram. 1.3: nam quod nonnulli tradunt duos libros de litteris syllabisque, item de metris, ab eodem Ennio editos, iure arguit L. Cotta non poetae sed posterioris Ennii esse, cuius etiam de augurali [X U Δ, Wessner 1926: 1226, augurandi cett. codd. et plerique edd.] disciplina volumina ferantur [codd. plerique, feruntur E], where, however, the subjunctive could also be oblique. A better parallel is Suet. Tib. 49.1: satis constat Cn. Lentulum Augurem, cui census maximus fuerit, metu et angore ad fastidium vitae ab eo actum et ut ne quo nisi ipso herede moreretur, where Lentulus’ affluence is the reason why Tiberius drove him to commit suicide; see also KS vol. II.2, 292–4. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

178

Appendix A  

As the preceding paragraphs have shown, both Canfora’s claim that Suetonius never read the Epistula ad Balbum and his contention that the Epistula ad ­Balbum is based on Suetonius’ Vita Divi Iulii are unfounded. The same also applies to the other putative sources postulated by Canfora and to his theory of patchwork composition as a whole. The close thematic and linguistic links between the Epistula ad Balbum, Cicero’s Brutus (262), and a letter written by Hirtius to Cicero in June 44 B. C. (Att. 15.6) contradict neither the authenticity of the epistolary preface nor its attribution to Hirtius. Since Cicero was Hirtius’ teacher of rhetoric during the last years of their lives,38 it is only natural that Hirtius knows Cic­ero’s famous evaluation of the Caesarian commentarii at Brut. 262 and alludes to it at Gal. 8. pr.5. Likewise, the fact that both Hirtius (apud Cic. Att. 15.6) and the author of the Epistula ad Balbum open their letters with a reference to their ignavia and point to the tensions and conflicts following Caesar’s death need not result from slavish imitation, but could simply be a natural consequence of the fact that the Epistula ad Balbum and the letter preserved at Cic. Att. 15.6 are by the same author.39 Hence, neither of the two parallel texts adduced by Canfora (Cic. Brut. 262, Att. 15.6) forces us to question the authenticity of the Epistula ad Balbum. Moreover, some details of the Epistula ad Balbum are difficult to square with Canfora’s hypothesis of a late forgery. If the letter was written by an interpolator whose main source was the Vita Divi Iulii, one could easily understand that its ­author adopted ‘Hirtius’ as his persona and used some of the ideas and expressions contained in the letter written by Hirtius to Cicero in June 44, but it would be difficult to account for the reference to Hirtius’ absence from the Egyptian and African campaigns or the statement quae bella … ex parte nobis Caesaris sermone sunt nota (Gal. 8.pr.8). While the latter of these two pieces of information is at least not contradicted by any evidence available to us today,40 the first one is even corroborated by other sources.41 If the letter was inauthentic, as Canfora claims, the forger must have either made some very lucky guesses or he must have carefully analysed the pseudo-Caesarian works and other ancient sources to re­ construct Hirtius’ whereabouts during the years 49 to 46 B. C.. Neither of these scenarios has a strong claim to probability. Instead of offering a plausible explanation for the accurate information, Canfora tries to undermine the general credibility of the respective passage by arguing that the words mihi ne illud quidem accidit, ut Alexandrino atque Africano bello interessem (Gal. 8.pr.8) show striking signs of forgetfulness and are incompatible with Hirtian authorship (1993: 102–3): 38 See p. 158 with nn. 14–15 for references and literature. 39 In addition, real or imagined reproaches of ignavia or inertia are a fairly common motif in Roman letters, cf. e. g. Cic. Fam. 2.1.1 (= 45.1 SB), Q.fr. 1.1.28 (= 1.28 SB), Plin. Epist. 2.10.8, 3.1.12. 40 Cf. the discussion on p. 158 above. 41 Cf. pp. 170-71 with n. 8. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

Authorship and authenticity of the Epistula ad Balbum  

179

Alexandrino atque Africano bello: improvvisamente, dopo aver parlato di “com­ pletamento dell’ultimo e incompiuto commentario”, l’autore della lettera parla in termini di Bella. Ha, cioè, presente il corpus cesariano così come lo abbiamo noi, o meglio, ancora una volta Svetonio (Alexandrini, Africique et Hispaniensis). Ma, mentre è ovvio che Svetonio si esprima in quel modo perché parla delle monografie così intitolate che costituiscono il supplemento del corpus, l’autore della lettera dovrebbe parlare degli eventi (cui si duole di non aver preso parte). E poiché, per esprimersi, si riferisce ai Bella, finisce col trascurare del tutto la campagna di Zela …. Dimenticanza non giustificabile: tra l’altro Cesare celebrerà, al termine della guerra civile, cinque trionfi, uno dei quali appunto ex Ponto.

This argument is based on several false assumptions. To begin with, it is fairly improbable that Alexandrino atque Africano bello refers not to the wars in Alexandria and Africa in the strict sense, but to all events narrated in the homonymous pseudo-Caesarian commentarii, as Canfora assumes. Cicero’s correspondence and other ancient testimonia show that the historical Hirtius met Caesar in ­Antioch in July 47 B. C.42 and most probably took part in the campaign against Pharnaces that is narrated at B.Alex. 69–78. Hence, neither the historical Hirtius nor Canfora’s well-read interpolator, who studied Cicero’s correspondence in order to produce a particularly plausible forgery, would have intended Alexandrino … bello to refer to all of the events narrated in the Bellum Alexandrinum; both would have wanted Alexandrino … bello to mean ‘in the war waged in and around Alexandria’. Consequently, there is no reason to speculate that the author may have forgotten Caesar’s impressive victory over Pharnaces at Zela. Furthermore, the fact that the author of the Epistula ad Balbum only mentions his absence from the Egyptian and African campaigns does not mean that he claims wholeheartedly to have taken part in the Spanish campaign.43 Rather, he may deliberately avoid the topic, because he arrived in Spain at a time when most of the fighting was over or because his support of Caesar during the Spanish campaign had forced him to temporarily neglect his duties as propraetor of transalpine Gaul. Vogel and Canfora argue that Hirtius cannot have been present in Spain at any time of the campaign (i. e. early December 46 B. C. to early May 45 B. C.), because he held the office of praetor in Rome during the year 46 B. C., obtained the propraetorship of transalpine Gaul for the year 45 B. C., and was in Narbo on April 18, 45 B. C..44 This reasoning, however, does not stand up to scrutiny. Since Cicero in March 45 B. C. repeatedly asks whether Pansa (who also took part in the Spanish campaign) has finally taken up his post as propraetor of Gal 42 Cf. Cic. Att. 11.20.1 (15 August 47 B. C.). 43 Contrast F. Vogel 1900: 218, Canfora 1993: 103: “L’autore della lettera, che intende impersonare Irzio, vuol suggerire di essere stato però presente alla campagna spagnola culminata nella vittoria cesariana a Munda”. 44 Cf. the letter by Hirtius that is mentioned at Cic. Att. 12.37a and see F. Vogel 1900: 218, Canfora 1993: 103. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

180

Appendix A  

lia Cisalpina,45 it is plausible that Hirtius, too, could have started his propraetorship as late as early April46 and may have taken part in the important battle near Munda on March 17, 45 B. C.. Moreover, Hirtius could have left his province and joined Caesar in Spain after writing to Cicero, or he could have been in Spain both before and after April 18, 45 B. C..47 Further support for Hirtius’ presence in Spain in 45 B. C. comes from a passage in Suetonius’ Vita Divi Augusti. In Aug. 68 the biographer reports defamatory rumours about  a sexual association between the young Octavian and Hirtius in Spain.48 The homosexual relationship may be fiction, but for the slander to have been invented and circulated, the two men must have met in Spain at some point during 45 B. C..49 Hence, even the im 45 Cf. Cicero’s inquiries at Att. 12.14.4 (5 March 45), 12.17 (12 March 45), 12.19.3 (14 March 45), 12.27.3 (23 March 45). Since Pansa had left Rome in military clothing in December 46 B. C. (cf. Cic. Fam. 15.17.3 (= 214.3 SB): Pansa noster paludatus a. d. III K. Ian. profectus est and O. E. Schmidt 1893: 271–3, Bojkowitsch 1924–7: 181) and Caesar travelled from Rome to Obulco in southern Spain in 27 or even 24 days (cf. Strabo 3.4.9, App. B. C. 2.103, Suet. Jul. 56.5, and Rambaud 1976, especially pp. 846–8, 853–4, Diouron 1999: 47), Schmidt (1893: 272) already concluded that Pansa must have joined Caesar in Spain before taking up his post in northern Italy. 46 This may also explain some curious numismatic finds: cf. Leidig 1998: 218. 47 According to Cicero, Hirtius delegated his duties as governor to a certain Aurelius, cf. Att. 14.9.3 (17 April 44): Germanos illasque nationes re audita de Caesare legatos misisse ad Aurelium, qui est praepositus ab Hirtio, se quod imperatum esset esse facturos. However, it is more likely that Hirtius appointed Aurelius as a sort of interim governor when he left the province in order to return to Rome in late 45 or early 44 B. C.: cf. Ruete 1883: 31–2 (with reference to Fam. 2.15.4 (= 96.4 SB), 3/4 August 50 B. C.) and Bojkowitsch 1924–7: 183–4 (contra von der Mühll 1913: 1958). 48 Sextus Pompeius [sc. Octavium] ut effeminatum insectatus est; M. Antonius adoptionem avunculi stupro meritum; item L. Marci frater, quasi pudicitiam delibatam a Caesare Aulo etiam Hirtio in Hispania trecentis milibus nummum substraverit solitusque sit crura suburere nuce ardenti, quo mollior pilus surgeret. 49 Cf. Nipperdey 1846: 6 ~ 1847: 10–11, Seel 1935: 96. While Nipperdey, Klotz (1909: 568– 9, 1910: 150), and Bojkowitsch (1924–7: 180–3) assume that Hirtius was in Spain only in the time preceding his letter to Cicero, von der Mühll (1913: 1958) and Seel (1935: 96) have correctly pointed out that Octavian is unlikely to have reached Spain before April 45 B. C. (cf. Nic. Dam. FGrHist 90 F 127.x (21–2), Suet. Aug. 8.1 and Drumann 1834–44: vol. 4, 251–2 ~ Drumann/Groebe 1899–1929: vol. 4, 263–4, Woodman 1983: 117 on Vell. 2.59.3). If we take into account (a) Pansa’s departure for Spain in late December, (b) the strategic importance of transalpine Gaul as the land bridge and supply line between Italy and Spain, and (c) the approximate travel time from Rome to Narbo and southern Spain, it seems plausible that Hirtius travelled twice to southern Spain. Recently Tschiedel (2010: 597) objected that it is difficult to imagine that Hirtius wrote his Anticato in Spain in Caesar’s presence and that the dictator later wrote his own Anticato, because he was dissatisfied with Hirtius’ product. This argument, however, has little force. First, despite his alleged ability to compose literary works even inter tela volantia (cf. Fro. Parth. 9, p. 224.15 van den Hout), he is likely to have been preoccupied with the campaign and probably had little time for reading and correcting the drafts of his friends and officers (cf. Klotz 1910: 153). Secondly and more importantly, Hirtius may have composed his Anticato when he was outside the theatre of war. In the letter which he wrote to Cicero in mid-April 45 (Att. 12.37a) there is no mention of the Anticato, and Cicero seems to have received the work in the first days of May 45 B. C.; cf. Cic. Att. 12.40.1 (9 May 45), 12.41.4 (11 May 45), 12.44.1 (13 May 45) and Bojkowitsch 1924–7: 182 and 71, Kumaniecki 1970: 171–2, Tschiedel 1981: 8–9. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

Authorship and authenticity of the Epistula ad Balbum  

181

plicit information contained in the Epistula ad Balbum is corroborated by other historical sources. Moving from the contents to the form of the Epistula ad Balbum, we must confront the thorny question of its genre. Canfora regards the Epistula ad Balbum as a letter and accentuates that instead of the customary greeting (Lucius Titius Gaio Seio salutem dicit) the recipient is addressed “inconsuetamente” in the v­ ocative at the beginning of the text;50 as a further argument against the authenticity Richter later added that epistolary prefaces were uncommon in Rome before the first century A. D..51 These observations fail to do justice to the complexity of the issue. First of all, the texts printed in the modern editions need not reflect the original form of the Epistula ad Balbum. The closing formula vale is absent from one branch of the manuscript tradition (β), and we know from the trans­mission of Cic­ero’s correspondence that manuscripts occasionally omit the customary greeting of letters.52 Hence, it may well be that the text was originally a complete letter which lost the introductory greeting in the process of transmission,53 or that the text originally was merely a preface and lacked both the greeting and the final vale.54 In addition, even if we could be certain that the author of the Epistula ad Balbum fashioned his preface as a letter, the address to the recipient at the be 50 Canfora (1970: 426) writes: “A differenza delle altre superstiti epistole prefatorie—di Archi­mede … Fozio ecc.—la lettera di Balbo manca del normale prescritto epistolare … e termina con la formula di saluto. Il nome del destinatario figura, inconsuetamente, al vocativo, dopo poche parole”. 51 Cf. Richter 1977: 193 n. 7; contrast Barwick 1938: 179 and Patzer 1993: 113, who do not question the authenticity of the Epistula ad Balbum, but point to Greek precedents such as the epistolary prefaces in the treatises of Archimedes (cf. n. 61 below), Apollonius of Perge (cf. n. 61), and Hipparchus of Nicaea or the opening letter of Parthenius’ Erotica Pathemata. A passage in Plutarch (Vit. Luc. 1.4 = Sulla HRR fr. 1) suggests that already Sulla’s Commentarii may have been preceded by a dedicatory letter (cf. Peter 1901: 243, Janson 1964: 106 n. 1). On the evolution of epistolary prefaces cf. Peter 1901: 242–9, Sykutris 1931: 205–6, Janson 1964: 19–24, 106– 112, Moraux 1973–84: vol. 2, 59–60, Stroup 2010: 179–89 and see also Harder 1926: 40, Speyer 1971: 79–81 (on forged epistolary prefaces as a means of authentication), Langslow 2007 (on letters in scientific and technical literature), Netz 2009: 104–5 (on the construction of an authorial persona in Hellenistic prefatory letters). 52 For the omission of the greeting cf. Shackleton Bailey’s critical apparatus on Cic. Fam. 1.2–8 (= 13–19, 56 SB), 3.4 (= 67 SB), 4.15 (= 241 SB), 12.22a–28 (= 357, 347, 361, 430, 373, 383, 431, 432, 374 SB), 12.30 (= 417 SB), 13.33–4 (= 304–5 SB), 13.36–9 (= 307–10 SB) and Patzer 1993: 112. One may also compare the prefatory letter of Seneca’s Controversiae, which opens like a letter (Seneca Novato, Senecae, Melae filiis salutem) but lacks the conventional vale(te) at the end. 53 Thus e. g. Barwick 1938: 179, Patzer 1993: 112. 54 In view of some of the other corruptions in the Corpus Caesarianum (e. g. the lost end of Gal. 8, cf. p. 189 n. 4), these scenarios seem more plausible than the explanations proposed by Langslow (2007: 215 n. 18), viz. “authorial or editorial incompetence” or the existence of a “mixed type” that combines features of letters and (non-epistolary) prefaces. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

182

Appendix A  

ginning would be nothing unusual, for it has close parallels in Cicero’s correspondence and later epistolographers.55 Furthermore, the seemingly unorthodox shape of the transmitted text appears much less striking when considered in its wider literary context. Since one of the principal models of Latin prose prefaces was the dedicatory letters of the Hellenistic period,56 letters and prefaces are fairly similar in form and contents57 and it would be wrong to consider the Epistula ad Balbum only in the context of Roman epistolography. If we take into account the letter-like prefaces of Cicero’s rhetorical and philosophical works, we immediately find close parallels. For example, we may compare the address to Balbus in Gal. 8.pr.1: coactus adsiduis tuis vocibus, Balbe, cum cotidiana mea recusatio non difficultatis excusationem, sed inertiae videretur deprecationem habere, difficillimam rem suscepi with the similar addresses to relatives or friends in Cic. Tusc. 1.1: cum defensionum laboribus senatoriisque muneribus aut omnino aut magna ex parte essem aliquando liberatus, rettuli me, Brute, te hortante maxime ad ea studia …, Orat. 1: utrum difficilius aut maius esset negare tibi saepius idem roganti an efficere id, quod rogares, diu multumque, Brute, dubitavi, and De Orat. 1.1: cogitanti mihi saepenumero et memoria vetera repetenti perbeati fuisse, Quinte frater, illi videri solent … .58 Apart from the vocative, the Ciceronian parallels also contain similar protestations of reluctance and modesty59 and share the motif of incessant requests,60 which is  commonplace in Hellenistic dedicatory

55 See Patzer 1993: 112 and cf. e. g. Attice at the beginning of Att. 12.3, 12.23, 14.12, mi frater at the beginning of Q.fr. 1.3, 1.4 (= 3, 4 SB), and Fam. 6.12.1 (= 226.1 SB): mi Balbe, 11.14.1 (= 413.1 SB): mi Brute, 12.1.1 (= 327.1 SB): Cassi. Further parallels can be gleaned from the philosophical letters of Seneca (Ep. 1.1, al.) and the correspondence of Pliny: cf. e. g. Ep. 10.1.1, 10.2.1, al. (letters written by Pliny) and 10.16.1, 10.20.1, al. (letters written by Trajan). 56 Cf. Janson 1964: 19–24, 27, 32, passim, Stroup 2010: 179, 181–8. 57 Seel (1935: 67 n. 1) and Johannsen (2006: 26–35) rightly emphasize that epistles and prefaces have many common properties and are hard to distinguish; Peter (1901: 242–9) does not differentiate between the two. 58 Cf. also Rhet. Her. 1.1 (cf. n. 60), Cic. Off. 1.1, Fin. 1.1, Top. 1 (cf. n. 60), Var. R. 1.1.1, Nep. pr.1, Vitr. 1.pr.1. 59 One may compare Hirt. Gal. 8.pr.1 (quoted above), 3: quos utinam qui legent scire possint, quam invitus susceperim scribendos, quo facilius caream stultitiae atque arrogantiae crimine, 9: sed ego nimirum, dum omnes excusationis causas colligo, ne cum Caesare conferar, hoc ipsum crimen arrogantiae subeo, quod me iudicio cuiusquam existimem posse cum Caesare comparari with Cic. Orat. 1 (quoted above). See Janson 1964: 120–1, 124–7, 130–41, 145–7 for further examples and cf. also [Sal.] Rep. 2.1.1: scio ego, quam difficile atque asperum factu sit consilium dare regi aut imperatori. 60 Cf. Hirt. Gal. 8.pr.1, Tusc. 1.1, Orat. 1 (all quoted above) and De Orat. 1.4: tibi vero, frater, neque hortanti deero neque roganti, 1.5: vis enim, ut mihi saepe dixisti, … aliquid eisdem de rebus politius a nobis perfectiusque proferri, Amic. 4: cum enim saepe mecum ageres, ut de amicitia scriberem aliquid, digna mihi res cum omnium cognitione, tum nostra familiaritate visa est, Top. 1: maiores nos res scribere ingressos, C. Trebati, … e cursu ipso revocavit voluntas tua, Rhet. Her. 1.1: …, tamen tua nos, Gai Herenni, voluntas commovit, ut de ratione dicendi conscri­ © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

Authorship and authenticity of the Epistula ad Balbum  

183

letters.61 The only detail that distinguishes the Epistula ad Balbum from the Cic­ eronian prefaces is the closing formula vale (Gal. 8.pr.9) in the manuscripts of the α and σ families. Thus, contrary to what Canfora and Richter claim, the form of the Epistula ad Balbum fits rather well into the context of the 40s B. C. The discussion on the preceding pages has not only shown that Canfora’s line of argument is extremely fragile and that his observations lack conclusive force, but it has also revealed that his hypothesis is fraught with implausibilities. As we have seen, the accurate and fairly specific historical information, the coherence of the two prefatory passages at Gal. 8.pr. and Gal. 8.48.10–11, and the fact that there is no plausible alternative source for the quotation of Hirtius at Suet. Jul. 56.3 all speak against the view that the Epistula ad Balbum is a forgery. In addition to these points of detail, one may also wonder what motive could have inspired an interpolator to compose the Epistula ad Balbum and insert it into the Corpus Caesarianum. Canfora (1993: 92) compares the preface to the eighth book with forged letters of Augustus or Caesar that were composed in Late Antiquity, the Middle Ages, or the Renaissance.62 However, these epistles are not an apt comparandum, for unlike Caesar, Augustus, or other great men of antiquity,63 ­Aulus Hirtius hardly qualifies as an outstanding statesman or intellectual and is unlikely to have inspired later scholars and admirers to fantasize about his life and thoughts. If the letter was a forgery, it would be more plausible to assume that it had been invented to lend the pseudo-Caesarian supplements the credibility of a link with one of Caesar’s closest associates. This, however, presupposes that Aulus Hirtius’ name was familiar and meaningful to contemporary readers and that the forger took a personal interest in strengthening the credibility of the Corpus Caesarianum. In Late Antiquity, when Caesar’s deeds during the Civil War had long lost their political relevance, these conditions are unlikely to have been beremus, ne aut tua causa noluisse aut fugisse nos laborem putares, Janson 1964: 116–20. The motif also features in Cicero’s correspondence, cf. Fam. 1.9.23 (= 20.23 SB), 12.16 (= 328 SB), Att. 1.16 and Stroup 2010: 182, 184. For later examples of this topos see Curtius 1948: 91–2. 61 Cf. Archimedes, De sphaera et cylindro (vol. 1, p.  101 Mugler): Ἀρχιμήδης Δοσιθέῳ χαίρειν. Πρότερον μὲν ἐπέστειλάς μοι γράψαι τῶν προβλημάτων τὰς ἀποδείξεις, ὧν αὐτὸς τὰς προτάσεις ἀπέστειλα Κόνωνι, De lineis spiralibus (vol. 2, p.  8 Mugler): Ἀρχιμήδης Δοσιθέῳ χαίρειν. Τῶν ποτὶ Κόνωνα ἀποσταλέντων θεωρημάτων, ὑπὲρ ὧν ἀεὶ τὰς ἀποδείξιας ἐπιστέλλεις μοι γράψαι, τῶν μὲν πλείστων ἐν τοῖς ὑπὸ Ἡρακλείδα κομισθέντεσσιν ἔχεις γεγραμμένας, τινὰς δὲ αὐτῶν καὶ ἐν τῷδε τῷ βιβλίῳ γράψας ἐπιστέλλω τοι, Apollonius of Perge, Conica 1.praef. (Heiberg 1891–3: vol. 1, p. 2, lines 2–7 = Decorps-Foulquier/Federspiel 2008: p. 2, lines 1–5): Ἀπολλώνιος Εὐδήμῳ χαίρειν. … καθ’ ὃν δὲ καιρὸν ἤμην μετά σου ἐν Περγάμῳ, ἐθεώρουν σε σπεύδοντα μετασχεῖν τῶν πεπραγμένων ἡμῖν κωνικῶν, as well as Janson 1964: 21–3 and Stroup 2010: 181. 62 Cf. Canfora 1993: 92. 63 Cf. Peter 1901: 168–77, Sykutris 1931: 210–14, and Speyer 1971: 22, 32–3, 79–81, passim on the forged letters of Anacharsis, Hippocrates, Plato, Diogenes, Alexander the Great, and other great men. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

184

Appendix A  

fulfilled. More probable would be a composition during the months or years following Caesar’s assassination. In that case, the alleged forger of the Epistula ad Balbum would be a contemporary of Hirtius. We would have to reckon with a Doppelgänger who played a key role in the circulation of the Caesarian and pseudo-Caesarian commentarii and was intimately familiar with Hirtius’ correspondence, social contacts, and career. Apart from the fact that there is no evidence for the existence of such a person, the assumption of such a scenario would also be questionable on methodological grounds, for there is no good reason why one should artificially postulate the existence of a person, if all known properties of this person are also characteristics of a securely attested historical figure. In this book we therefore follow the testimony of Suetonius and the medieval manuscripts and attribute the Epistula ad Balbum and the eighth book of the Bellum Gallicum to Aulus Hirtius.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

Appendix B: hostis, inimicus, and the date of composition of the Bellum Civile

In an article on the date of composition of the Bellum Civile, Macfarlane (1996) has analysed the terminology of enmity. He observes that inimicus is confined to Civ. 1.1–33 and a sententia at 3.104.1, whereas in the intervening chapters Caesar’s enemies are referred to as adversarii or hostes. According to Macfarlane, the distribution of inimicus, adversarius, and hostis reflects the fact that “Caesar’s perspective on the Civil War changes” (1996: 131). In the first months of the Civil War Caesar still harboured hopes for reconciliation and believed that the conflict was merely a matter of personal rivalries; hence he only employed the term for personal enmity (inimicus). In April 49, however, his hopes for peace were shattered, for Pompey declared that he would regard all senators who had stayed in Rome as enemies, thus discouraging them from undertaking an embassy and negotiating a settlement. Realizing that a peaceful solution was no longer possible, Caesar starts to view and represent the Pompeians as external enemies and begins to use the corresponding word hostis. Consequently, Macfarlane argues, the first 33 chapters of the Bellum Civile must have been written “as one unit during April 49”. This argument has been accepted by Barry1 and is paraphrased or cited without objections by Raaflaub, Yates, and Grillo,2 but contains several inaccuracies. First, the usage of inimicus and hostis is not as strict, as Macfarlane suggests. There are quite a few examples of hostis being used for personal rivals or opponents,3 and likewise inimicus occasionally refers to public or external enemies.4 1 Cf. Barry 2005: 17–18, 331–2, 346, al.. 2 Cf. Raaflaub 2009: 182, Yates 2010: 173 n. 21, and Grillo 2012: 82 n. 14, 142–3 n. 29. 3 Cf. TLL s.v. hostis 3057.79–3058.23, 3061.70–3062.80 and e. g. Cic. Mil. 39: Cn. Pompeius, auctor et dux mei reditus, illius [i. e. Clodii] hostis, 56, Fam. 5.7.1 (= 3.1 SB, written in April 62 B. C.): tuos [i. e. Pompei] veteres hostis, novos amicos, Pis. 80: vides me tibi non inimicum, sed hostem, Phil. 12.19: sed quo modo aspiciam mihi uni crudelissimum hostem …?, Att. 15.21.1 (written in late June 44 B. C.): ex eo sibi illum hostem [sc. esse] (of an alleged personal enmity between Mark Antony and Cicero’s nephew Quintus iunior). See also Jal 1963: 72–8 on the complex and manipulative usage of hostis in Cicero’s speeches against Catiline and Mark Antony. 4 Cf. TLL s.v. inimicus 1625.19–84, 1626.42 and e. g. Cic. Catil. 1.33: homines bonorum ini­ micos, hostis patriae, latrones Italiae, Dom. 72: inimicus patriae, 113: inimicos rei publicae (~ Phil. 12.23, al.), Fam. 12.28.3 (= 374.3 SB, written in late March 43 B. C.): omnibus inimicis rei publicae esse me acerrimum hostem. Caesar, too, employs inimicus when referring to the hostile disposition of external enemies, cf. Gal. 1.7.5, 1.10.2: homines bellicosos, populi Romani inimicos, 2.31.5, 5.4.4; see also Gal. 6.12.7: propter veteres inimicitias (of the enmity between different Gallic tribes). © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

186

Appendix B  

The reason for this is not carelessness. Rather, the semantic difference between inimicus and hostis is not only about private and public enemies,5 but also about the difference between a hostile disposition and actual hostilities: inimicus and its cognates are primarily employed where the attitude of a person or group is at issue; hostis, on the contrary, mostly features in the context of a direct and violent confrontation.6 Since Caesar tries to create the impression that there was no direct confrontation in a battle during the first few months of the war, but only a series of desertions, negotiations, and sieges, it is only natural that there are no attestations of hostis in Civ. 1.1–33.7 Secondly, Macfarlane’s statistics are misleading because they only include hostis, inimicus, adversarius, but ignore the corresponding cognates hostilis, inimicitiae, etc., and other related terms. A look at the cognates of inimicus easily shows that the topic of personal enmity also surfaces in the later sections of the Bellum Civile.8 Moreover, Caesar avoids hostis not only in the early sections of the 5 Cf. Macfarlane 1996: 113: “He [i. e. Caesar] limits himself, though, to specifically defined terminology: using inimicus for his discussion of domestic opponents, adversarius and hostis when he discusses external enemies”. Macfarlane may be influenced by the use of hostis and ini­ micus in modern political philosophy, cf. e. g. Schmitt 1932/1963: 29: “Feind ist nur der öffentliche Feind, … Feind ist hostis, nicht inimicus im weiteren Sinne; πολέμιος, nicht ἐχθρός”, Nippel 2003: 62–5 (on Schmitt’s misleading use of ancient sources and terminology), and E. Kennedy 1998. 6 Cf. the attestations of inimicus in n. 4 above, Forcellini s.v. hostis p. 320, section 2: “Hostis is, est, cum quo publice bellum habemus … in quo ab inimico differt, qui est is, quocum habemus privata odia. Distingui etiam sic possunt, ut inimicus sit qui nos odit; hostis qui oppugnat”, Doederlein 1826–39: vol. 4, 394: “der Unterschied von hostis, dem Feind im Feld oder dem offenen Feind des Vaterlandes, oppos. civis, und inimicus, dem Feind im Herzen oder dem Feind im Privatverhältnis, oppos. amicus”, J. H. H. Schmidt 1889: 768–74, especially pp. 770, 773, Antibarbarus vol. 1, 662 s.v. hostis: “[sc. hostis] unterscheidet … sich von inimicus so, dass es denjenigen bedeutet, welcher gewalttätig [author’s emphasis] gegen andere verfährt, wie die Kriegführenden”, Menge/Schönberger 1959: 98, Hellegouarc’h 1972: 188–9, Bleicken 1975: 508 with n. 444, and TLL s.v. inimicus 1624.9–14: “stricte opp. hostis sive not. q.e. ‘perduellis’ … sive c. respectu turbatae rei publicae … vel ecclesiae” with reference to Cic. Man. 28: saepius cum hoste conflixit, quam quisquam cum inimico concertavit, plura bella gessit, quam ceteri legerunt, Sest. 48: ne videret victorem vivus inimicum, eadem sibi manu vitam exhausisse, qua mortem saepe hostibus obtulisset, Liv. 5.8.11: huius adrogantiam pertinacia alterius aequabat, qui, ne quam opem ab inimico videretur petisse, vinci ab hoste quam vincere per civem maluit, and 38.47.5: quem non bellum iniustum gessisse, sed hostem omnino non vidisse inimici iactabant. 7 The first attestation of hostis in the Bellum Civile is at 1.41.4 in a description of the first major battles in open terrain. One may compare the first book of the Bellum Gallicum, in which Caesar first employs only inimicus when describing the Helvetii’s hostile disposition and the situation before the actual war (Gal. 1.7.5, 1.10.2), but later switches to hostis in his account of the first direct confrontations of the war (Gal. 1.11.4, al.). Cf. also Raaflaub 1974: 237: “im BC [sc. verwendet Caesar] für die Pompeianer nur im Zusammenhang mit den militärischen Aktionen die Bezeichnung ”. 8 Cf. Civ. 3.16.3: inimicitias … privatas cum Caesare, 3.83.4: postremo omnes aut de honoribus suis aut de praemiis pecuniae aut de persequendis inimicitiis agebant (of personal rivalries in the Pompeian camp) and appendix L.4 (pp. 293–4). © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

The date of composition of the Bellum Civile  

187

Bellum Civile but also in the rest of the work and generally shuns expressions that could evoke the notion of ‘war’.9 Instead of hostes, he often speaks of adversarii (26×),10 employs the demonstrative pronoun ille,11 or uses expressions referring to the respective general such as Pompeiani, Domitiani, vel sim..12 The latter type of expression, which is completely absent from the Bellum Gallicum, is almost entirely confined to Caesar’s enemies13 and thus mostly functions as a circumlocution for hostes.14 The last point leads us to a third objection. Since personal enmity and rivalry are presented by Caesar as the principal causes of the Civil War and thus naturally constitute one of the central themes of the entire work,15 it seems highly arbitrary to determine the major caesura in Caesar’s representation of the war solely on the basis of the distribution of the two lexemes hostis and inimicus. Nothing in the transmitted text indicates that the debates in the Roman Senate in April 49 brought about  a fundamental change in Caesar’s perception of the conflict. A much more plausible caesura would be Caesar’s reflections during the siege of Brundisium, cf. Civ.  1.26.6: ita saepius rem [i. e.  a peaceful settlement with Pompey] frustra temptatam Caesar aliquando dimittendam sibi iudicat et de bello agendum.16 9 This was already observed by Jal (1963: 64) and Raaflaub (1974: 235–7). 10 The frequent use of adversarius in the Bellum Civile stands in stark contrast to the Bellum Gallicum, where the noun occurs only at 7.4.4 and points to Vercingetorix’s enemies in his own tribe, who expelled him from Gergovia. Jal (1963: 64) and Raaflaub (1974: 237 with n. 55) contrast the 26 attestations of adversarius (noun) in Civ. 1–3 with 19 passages, where hostis is used to designate the Pompeiani. The latter figure, however, presupposes the exclusion of an unidentified number of “expressions stéréotypées où le mot perd sa valeur propre”; this procedure lacks transparency and does not inspire confidence. If we take the absolute numbers, hostis occurs about three times more frequently in Gal. 1–7 (285×, i. e. 6.31×/1000 words) than in Civ. 1–3 (70×, i. e. 2.15×/1000 words). Cf. appendix L.4 (pp. 293–4). 11 Cf. e. g. Civ. 1.44.1: militum illorum, 1.45.3: rursus illi ex loco superiore nostros premebant. 12 Cf. the use of Attianus (1.13.5, 2.34.6), Pompeianus (37×), Domitianus (1.16.3, 1.22.2, 1.23.5, 1.25.1, 3.36.8, 3.37.3), Afranianus (1.43.5, 1.46.5, 1.47.2, 1.54.1, 1.69.1, 1.70.2, 1.71.3, 1.78.1, 1.83.1), Gabinianus (3.4.4, 3.110.2), Octavianus (3.9.6) and Nasidianae naves (2.7.1,2), Laelianae naves (3.100.2), Cassiana classis (3.101.6). 13 While it is used 60 times of Caesar’s enemies (see the preceding note), it refers just six times to Caesar’s troops: cf. Fabianae legiones at 1.40.3, 1.40.4, Antoniani milites at 3.4.2, and the references to the fleets of Pomponius (3.101.2: Pomponianam classem), Sulpicius (3.101.4: Sulpicianam … classem), and Mark Antony (3.24.3: Antonianae scaphae). 14 In addition, the opposition of Pompeiani, Domitiani, etc. and nostri, nos, vel sim. lures the reader to identify with Caesar and his troops: cf. Grillo 2011: 252 n. 29. 15 See pp. 104–5 with n. 123 for references. 16 This is the first time that Caesar is presented as referring to the conflict as a bellum. In the preceding chapters of the Bellum Civile, the noun is attested three times, but it refers to the campaign against the Parthians allegedly planned by Pompey (1.9.4), is used in a general sententia (1.21.1), and occurs in a speculative reflection about Pompeius’ motives for staying in Brundisium (1.25.3). Caesar’s avoidance of the word in the early chapters of the Bellum Civile is consonant with his self-presentation and behaviour in the first months of the Civil War: © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

188

Appendix B  

Finally, there is also  a methodological objection. Macfarlane’s argument ­ eavily relies on the assumption that the Bellum Civile reflects Caesar’s state of h mind at a given point in time. It does not consider the possibility that Caesar may deliberately manipulate his readers by suggesting that at the beginning of the conflict he had still hoped for a peaceful settlement. Such a manipulative strategy is not tied to a particular moment in time but can be adopted a long time after the historical events. As the preceding paragraphs have shown, the distribution of hostis, inimicus, and adversarius can hardly be used as firm evidence for the dating of the Bellum Civile or some of its parts, and there are far more plausible explanations for Caesar’s choice of vocabulary than the one proposed by MacFarlane.

cf. Caes. apud Cic. Att. 10.8b.2 (dated April 16, 49 B. C.): civilibus controversiis … contentione and Cic. Lig. 19: secessionem tu illam existimavisti, Caesar, initio, non bellum, nec hostile odium, sed civile discidium, utrisque cupientibus rem publicam salvam, sed partim consiliis, partim ­studiis a communi utilitate aberrantibus. According to Knoche (1951: 145, 155–6) and Raaflaub (1974: 235–6), when bellum is used in the Bellum Civile with regard to Caesar’s perspective, it always points to specific military operations, but never to the conflict as a whole. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

Appendix C: The book division between Civ. 1 and Civ. 2

In an article of 1892 Zingerle argued that the book division between Civ. 1.87.5 and 2.1.1 did not go back to Caesar but had been introduced at a later stage. In support of his thesis Zingerle stated that Civ. 1 and 2 are each only about half as long as Civ. 3 and that this lack of proportion is rather striking; in addition, Zingerle drew attention to Stangl’s description of the oldest surviving manuscript of the Bellum Civile, the Codex Ashburnhamensis (S), which contains no book division between Civ. 1.87.5 and Civ. 2.1.1.1 Neither of these arguments has conclusive force,2 but a few years later, Zingerle’s hypothesis was adopted and forcefully corroborated by Kelsey.3 First of all, Kelsey pointed out that Civ. 2.1.1: dum haec in Hispania geruntur does not conform to the usual pattern of Caesarian book openings. Apart from the general introduction at the beginning of Gal. 1 and the fragmentary opening of Civ. 1,4 Caesar always starts his books by repeating the 1 Cf. Zingerle 1892: 83 and Stangl 1886: 213–15. 2 The argument bearing on the Codex Ashburnhamensis has been accepted by Kelsey (1906: 57), Klotz (1910: 197), Fabre (1936: vol. 1, xvii), and Richter (1977: 173–4), but was proved inconclusive by Andrieu (1949: 141–6), see pp. 195–6 below. The book length, too, has little argumentative value, since the size of the individual books of the Bellum Gallicum varies considerably, see n. 13 below. 3 Cf. Kelsey 1906: 52–8; see also Kelsey 1905: 235, 236. Kelsey seems to have been unaware of Zingerle’s publication. His discussion is more detailed than the similar arguments by Klotz (1910: 197, 1926–27: vol. 2, vi–viii, 1950: vi; all without reference to Kelsey), Fabre (1936: vol. 1, xvi–xviii and 68; Fabre duly acknowledges his debt to Kelsey), and Richter (1977: 172–4, without a reference to Kelsey). 4 It is difficult to determine whether the first lines of the Bellum Civile were lost (thus e. g. Glandorp 1574: 102, R. Menge 1893: 19, Kübler 1893–1897: vol. 2, xv, Holder 1898: 1, Walther 1903: 20, Oppermann 1933: 14 n. 1, with reference to the lost end of Gal. 8) or whether its abrupt beginning merely results from the fact that Caesar did not complete the work (thus e. g. Klotz 1950: 1, Fabre 1936: vol. 1, 2 n. 1). Batstone and Damon (2006: 43), followed by Grillo (2012: 184), see a “pointed contrast” between Gal. 7.90.8: huius anni rebus cognitis [β, Kübler 1893–1897: vol. 1, 197, Seel 1961: 278, Hering 1987: 147; his litteris cognitis α; his rebus ex litteris Caesaris cognitis Dinter 1887: vol. 1, 184; huius anni rebus ex C. l. c. Klotz 1952: 216; cf. Gal.  2.35.4, 4.38.5] Romae dierum viginti supplicatio redditur and Civ.  1.1.1: litteris [a Fabio, del. Vossius 1697: 275–6] C. Caesaris consulibus redditis aegre ab his impetratum est summa tribunorum plebis contentione, ut in senatu recitarentur, but the text is uncertain, and even if we adopt Klotz’s text, the similarity amounts to little more than the mention of a letter by Julius Caesar. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

190

Appendix C  

last pieces of information of the preceding volume,5 outlining a new situation,6 or naming the respective Roman consuls to date the subsequent events,7 but he never simply continues the narrative or assumes that the reader has the last lines of the preceding book in front of him.8 One reason for this is the physical shape of books at the time: since each liber of the Caesarian commentarii filled a different papyrus roll, contemporary readers could not simply go back a few lines, but each book had to be a self-contained unit.9 The beginning of the second book of the Bellum Civile disregards these physical constraints and diverges from the Caesarian pattern, because the narrative just moves on and haec even points back to the last lines of Civ. 1.87.10 The anaphoric haec strongly suggests that Civ. 1.87 immediately preceded Civ. 2.1.1 and belonged to the same papyrus roll.11 5 Cf. Gal. 1.54.3: ipse in citeriorem Galliam ad conventus agendos profectus est ~ 2.1.1: cum esset Caesar in citeriore Gallia, 2.35.4: legionibus in hiberna deductis in Italiam profectus est ~ 3.1.1: cum in Italiam proficisceretur Caesar, 6.44.3: frumentoque exercitui proviso, ut instituerat, in Italiam ad conventus agendos profectus est ~ 7.1.1: quieta Gallia Caesar, ut constituerat, in Ita­ liam ad conventus agendos proficiscitur, and the delayed recapitulation at Gal. 6.2.1: interfecto Indutiomaro, ut docuimus, … (~ Gal. 5.58.6: Indutiomarus interficitur, cf. Oppermann 1933: 11). See also Oppermann 1933: 8–10 and Birt 1882: 145–6 (with parallels in Strabo, Pliny the Elder, and other authors). 6 Cf. 5.58.7: hac re cognita omnes Eburonum et Nerviorum, quae convenerant, copiae dis­ cedunt, pauloque habuit post id factum Caesar Galliam quietiorem and 6.1.1: multis de causis Caesar maiorem Galliae motum exspectans …. On the end of Gal. 5 see also p. 201 with n. 61 below. 7 Cf. Gal. 3.29.3: Caesar exercitum … in hibernis conlocavit and 4.1.1: ea quae secuta est hieme, qui fuit annus Gnaeo Pompeio Marco Crasso consulibus …, 4.38.5: his rebus gestis ex litteris Caesaris dierum viginti supplicatio ab senatu decreta est and 5.1.1: Lucio Domitio Appio Claudio consulibus discedens ab hibernis Caesar in Italiam …, Civ. 2.44.3: ipse [sc. Iuba] … diebus aeque post paucis se in regnum cum omnibus copiis recepit and 3.1.1: dictatore habente comitia Caesare consules creantur Iulius Caesar et P. Servilius; is enim erat annus, quo per leges ei consulem fieri liceret. 8 Cf. Kelsey 1906: 50–53. dum haec geruntur/haec dum geruntur is a frequent, almost formulaic expression in the Caesarian commentarii (e. g. Gal. 1.46.1, 3.17.1, 4.34.3, 5.22.1, 6.7.1, 7.37.1, 7.42.1, 7.57.1, 7.66.1, 7.75.1, Civ. 1.56.1; cf. also dum ea geruntur at Gal. 4.32.1); elsewhere in Caesar, it commonly links simultaneous events, but it never connects two books. On the use and distribution of the expression see already Kelsey 1906: 53, Fabre 1936: vol. 1, xvii, Richter 1977: 173. 9 Cf. Birt 1882: 145–6. Contrast Kelsey 1906: 52, who speaks of  a “feature of [Caesar’s] literary style”. 10 Cross-references of the type ut supra demonstravimus/demonstratum est are quite a different matter, because the relevant information is repeated and there is no need to open the preceding volume, cf. e. g. Gal. 2.1.1: cum esset Caesar in citeriore Gallia, ita uti supra demonstravimus, crebri ad eum rumores adferebantur … (on the text see p. 51 n. 91). A simple demonstrative pronoun, on the contrary, assumes that the reader is familiar with the preceding text and knows what haec refers to. 11 Later authors sometimes organize their work in larger units. Livy, for example, partly structures his account in pentads and decades (cf. e. g. Syme 1959: 30, Walsh 1961: 5–8, Briscoe 1973: 49 on 31.1.1–5) and connects the individual books by spreading out closely connected © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

The book division between Civ. 1 and Civ. 2

191

A second argument adduced by Kelsey is the fact that Civ. 1 and Civ. 2 each only cover some of the events of 49 B. C., whereas Caesar usually treats the events of each year in a separate commentarius. In the Bellum Gallicum, the rule is fairly strictly12 observed, although this principle leads to serious discrepancies in the length of the individual books,13 and in the Bellum Civile the incomplete third book can hardly be adduced as evidence for a change in Caesar’s practice of composition. Moreover, if Caesar had wanted to change his pattern, there would have been more suitable places for a book division. For example, instead of interweaving the roughly contemporary events around Massilia (Civ.  1.34–36, 1.56–58, 2.1–16, 2.22) and in Spain (Civ.  1.37–55, 1.59–87, 2.17–21), he could have introduced a book division after the end of the Spanish campaign and the siege of Massilia (2.21.5 or 2.22.6, see pp. 198–9 below),14 or he could have organized his narrative geographically according to the different theatres of war.15 Finally, Kelsey also adduced Hirtius’ remarks at Gal. 8.48.10–11. In this passage, Caesar’s continuator feels obliged to justify the treatment of two years in a single commentarius and explicitly states (Gal. 8.48.10): scio Caesarem singulorum annorum singulos commentarios confecisse. When writing these words, ­Hirtius must have known Caesar’s account of the first years of the Roman Civil War, for his preface to Gal. 8 explicitly refers also to the commentarii of the Bellum Civile (cf. Hirt. Gal. 8.pr.2 and pp. 22–5 above). If there had been a book division right in the middle of Caesar’s account of the year 49 B. C., i. e. if Caesar himself had abandoned the annual pattern of his accounts in the commentarius immediately following Gal. 8, then there would not have been any need for Hirtius to defend the inclusion of two years in a single commentarius, nor could he have claimed that Caesar treated the events of each year in a separate volume. Consequently, in 44 or early 43 B. C., when Hirtius was writing Gal. 8, the first events over two consecutive books (cf. e. g. Ogilvie 1965: 528 on Liv. 4.1.1, C. S. Kraus 1994: 333 on 6.42.14). Consequently, there are several examples of demonstrative pronouns pointing back to events narrated in a preceding book, cf. the beginnings of books 4, 9, 25, 27, 33, 35, 39, 43, 44 and the phrasing at 25.1.1: dum haec in Africa atque in Hispania geruntur, Hannibal …, 33.1.1: haec per hiemem gesta. initio autem veris …, 39.1.1: dum haec, si modo hoc anno acta sunt, Romae aguntur, consules ambo in Liguribus gerebant bellum. 12 For one certain and one possible exception see p. 193 with n. 25 below. 13 Cf. Kelsey 1905: 221, Fabre 1936: vol. 1, xvi. The first book of the Bellum Gallicum contains about 8200 words, the second 4200, the third 3600, the fourth 4600, the fifth 7400, the sixth 5500, and the seventh 11600. 14 Another suitable place for a book division would have been just before Caesar’s journey to the West (i. e. after Civ. 1.33), cf. Kelsey 1906: 56. 15 Cf. Fabre 1936: vol. 1, xvii: “le livre II n’a plus d’unité logique que d’unité chronologique: si, du ch. 23 à la fin, s’y déroule sans interruption la désastreuse campagne de Curion en Afrique, les événements que racontent les 22 premiers chapitres, siège et reddition de Marseille, affaires d’Espagne, ont, les uns comme les autres, leur origine au livre I” and the similar remarks by Richter (1977: 173). © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

192

Appendix C  

book of Caesar’s Bellum Civile must have contained Civ. 1 and 2, thus covering all the events of the year 49 B. C..16 The view of Zingerle and Kelsey has been widely accepted and was for a long time the communis opinio.17 More recently, however, the traditional three-book format has been resuscitated by Boatwright (1988: 37–8), by Batstone and ­Damon (2006: 10, 42, 75–88), and by Grillo (2012: 87–8, 158–177, 181–4).18 Boatwright’s argument is based on four observations. She states (a) that Andrieu’s re-examination of the rubrics in the manuscripts “prove[s] conclusively that Caesar’s work originally appeared in the three books of the modern editions”; (b) that the treatment of the consular elections at the beginning of Civ. 3 is incompatible with an annalistic format, because “consular elections and other official acts in Rome … [are] customarily included in later annalistic works at the end of a year’s narration”; (c) that book 2 does not end with the events immediately preceding December 49 B. C., but with events that occurred in August 49 B. C., thus contradicting an annalistic format; and (d) that the Bellum Civile has a “rational and dramatic organization”, because the first book terminates with  a “victorious speech in self-justification by Caesar”, book 2 concludes with the “foolhardy but courageous defeat of C. Curio”, and the end of book 3 “shows Caesar acting as Roman consul”, thus “vindicating Caesar’s claims to Republican honos and dignitas”.19 As has been pointed out already above,20 Caesar’s role as consul at the end of book 3 is only a minor detail in the narrative of the first hostilities in Alexandria and therefore hardly proves that the Bellum Civile is finished and forms a “complete narrative” (Boatwright 1988: 38). Just as weak are the other arguments adduced by Boatwright. To begin with,  a historical narrative can have both  a year-by-year structure and a “rational and dramatic organization”. The best example is Caesar’s Bellum Gallicum, which culminates in the dramatic events of 52 B. C.,21 but nevertheless treats the events of each year in a separate commentarius. Moreover, the Bellum Gallicum also shows that a book which covers the events of one administrative year can be composed of several narrative blocks containing their own dramatic structures and effective closures. Books 1, 4, 5, and 6 of the B ­ ellum Gallicum each contain at least two major narrative blocks,22 16 Cf. Kelsey 1906: 55; see also Klotz 1910: 197, Fabre 1936: vol. 1, xviii, and Richter 1977: 173. 17 Apart from the literature cited in the previous notes cf. also Seel 1935: 69–70 and Andrieu 1949: 146 n.1. 18 Boatwright’s views are repeated by Raaflaub (2009: 183). 19 According to Boatwright (1988: 38), the work is also designed in such  a way that the deeds of Caesar’s generals in book 2 are framed and surpassed by his own victories. 20 See p. 20 with n. 25 above. 21 Cf. Rasmussen 1963: 103–4, H. A. Gärtner 1975: 63, 105, and Schönberger 1988: 142. 22 Cf. Gal.  1.2–29 (war against the Helvetii; March to late June 58 B. C.), 1.30–54 (war against Ariovistus; August to September 58 B. C.), 4.1–19 (war against Usipetes and Tencteri, first expedition across the Rhine; summer 55 B. C.), 4.20–36 (first expedition to Britain; late © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

The book division between Civ. 1 and Civ. 2

193

and all of these units are well-rounded narratives.23 Hence, Caesar’s speech at Civ. 1.85 can function as a closure to one phase of the war, but it need not serve to conclude a book.24 Furthermore, the mention of the consular elections at the beginning of Civ. 3 does not constitute a significant departure from the chronological organization of Caesar’s earlier commentarii. The year-by-year structure of the Bellum Gallicum is based not so much on the Roman calendar as on campaign seasons; consequently, events that happen in the period between late autumn and early spring can be treated as belonging to either the preceding or the following year.25 In particular, preparations which are begun in autumn or early winter, but will be relevant to the campaigns of the subsequent summer are commonly described by Caesar in the first chapters of the following book.26 In the light of these facts, it is hardly surprising that the months of November and December 49 B. C. are treated not at the end of Civ. 2, but at the beginning of Civ. 3. Moreover, all of the motifs and themes of the early chapters of Civ. 3 can be paralleled with the similar opening of book 5 of the Bellum Gallicum, cf. Civ. 3.1.1, 3.2.1 ~ Gal. 5.1.1. (consular elections/mention of new consuls as a marker of a new incipit), Civ. 3.1.2–5 ~ Gal. 5.1.5–9 (administrative and judicial duties, especially Civ. 3.1.2: constituit August to September 55 B. C.), 4.37–8 (war against the Morini and Menapii; September to October 55 B. C.), 5.1–23 (second expedition to Britain; late July to late September 54 B. C.), 5.24–58 (wars against the Eburones, Nervii, Senones, and Treveri; autumn 54 B. C.), 6.1–6 (submission of the Nervii, Senones, Menapii; late winter and spring 53 B. C.), 6.7–8 (submission of the Treveri by Labienus; spring 53 B. C.), 6.9–28 (second expedition across the Rhine; spring/summer 53 B. C.), 6.29–43 (war against the Eburones and Ambiorix, late summer and autumn 53 B. C.). 23 Cf. e. g. Schönberger 1990: 676–7. 24 See also pp. 198–9 on the closural motifs at Civ. 2.20.7–2.21.5 and 2.22.1–6. 25 The best example is Galba’s campaign against the Nantuates, Veragri, and Seduni. In ­autumn 57 B. C., Caesar had ordered his legate to pacify the region along the route that connects northern Italy across the Great St. Bernard Pass with the Rhône valley and Lake Geneva. Instead of narrating this unsuccessful enterprise at the end of the second book, which is devoted to the year 57 B. C., Caesar postpones the account to the beginning of the next book (Gal. 3.1– 6), which treats the events of the year 56 B. C. (cf. Oppermann 1933: 10, Rambaud 1978: 17, Schönberger 1990: 530). Something similar may have happened at the beginning of book four, for the invasion of the Tencteri and Usipetes (4.1–4) is likely to have started already in the last months of 56 B. C. and not in the first months of 55 B. C. (cf. especially 4.1.1 and 4.4.7: flumen transierunt atque omnibus eorum [i. e. Menapiorum] aedificiis occupatis reliquam partem hiemis se eorum copiis aluerunt). 26 The fifth book, which describes the events of 54 B. C., begins with a reference to the consuls of that year, but continues with Caesar’s preparations for his second invasion of Britain. Given the scale of this enterprise, his instructions for the building of ships are likely to have been issued already in the late autumn of 55 B. C. and strictly belong into the previous commentarius. Another example is the beginning of the sixth book, which starts with Caesar’s efforts to recruit new troops (6.1) and with a punitive expedition against the Nervii (6.3.1–3) undertaken in the middle of the winter 54/53 B. C.. Both are direct consequences of the insurrection of the Eburones (Gal. 5.26–37), Nervii (5.38–52), and Treveri (5.53–8) in the late autumn of 54 B. C.. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

194

Appendix C  

ut arbitri darentur ~ Gal. 5.1.9: arbitros inter civitates dat), Civ. 3.2.2 ~ Gal. 5.1.1–4 (preparations for the next campaign).27 Hence, the beginning of Civ. 3 squares well with the year-by-year structure of the earlier commentarii. The same also holds for the end of Civ. 2. Boatwright (1988: 37) observes that the book terminates with events that happened in the late summer or early autumn of 49 B. C., but does not treat “the noteworthy events just prior to December 49”. This fact, however, hardly establishes that Caesar abandons the year-by-year structure of the earlier commentarii: one need only compare the second book of the Bellum Gallicum, which concludes with a reference to Caesar’s early return to northern Italy some time between August and October 57 B. C.,28 and not with the last events of that year (i. e. Galba’s campaign in the Alps).29 Likewise, the fact that Civ.  2 terminates with Curio’s disastrous campaign in Africa (Civ. 2.23–44) and not with Varro’s capitulation in Hispania ulterior (Civ. 2.17–21) or the end of the siege of Massilia (Civ. 2.22) does not mean that Caesar deviates from his practice of presenting the events chronologically.30 First, the chronology of the three events is far from certain. Boatwright (1988: 37) follows Wistrand (1963) in assigning the surrender of Varro and the Massiliots to September and October 49 B. C., and Curio’s campaign in Africa to August 49 B. C.. However, the only basis for this chronology consists in two passages in the Bellum Civile, the precise meaning of which has been contested in the past: depending on how we interpret the evidence, Curio’s campaign might just as well have happened after Varro’s surrender and be roughly contemporary with the capitulation of the Massiliots.31 Secondly, the composition of Civ. 1–2 should not be measured against modern reconstructions of the historical chronology, but against the chronology of Caesar’s text. Since Caesar explicitly states that Curio’s campaign in Africa happened at the same time (cf. 2.23.1: isdem temporibus) as the capitulation of the Massiliots, he must have either thought that the events happened at the same time or he regarded the deviation from the historical chronology as negligible, but in either case he did not consciously abandon the practice of organizing his material in a chronological fashion.32 Thirdly and finally, we may compare Civ.  1–2 to Caesar’s treatment 27 Similar parallels can be drawn between the opening of Civ. 3 and the beginning of Gal. 4: cf. Kelsey 1906: 54. 28 Cf. Gal. 2.35.3: … quas legationes Caesar, quod in Italiam Illyricumque properabat, initio proximae aestatis ad se reverti iussit. Another early departure is attested for the end of Caesar’s first year in Gaul, cf. 1.54.2: maturius paulo, quam tempus anni postulabat. 29 Cf. n. 25 above. 30 Apart from Boatwright (1988: 37) this has also been claimed by H. A. Gärtner (1975: 126–7) and Grillo (2012: 159: “greatest discrepancy between narrative and chronological order in Caesar”). 31 For a detailed discussion of these problems see appendix D, pp. 204–14 below. 32 In addition, isdem temporibus at Civ. 2.23.1 as well as 1.56.1: dum haec ad Ilerdam geruntur and 2.1.1: dum haec in Hispania geruntur also contradict another claim made by Grillo (2012: 168): “While the narrative of Books One and Two concentrates on one episode, as if each © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

The book division between Civ. 1 and Civ. 2

195

of parallel events in the third book of the Bellum Gallicum. There, Caesar’s war against the Veneti (3.11–16), the deeds of his legates Sabinus in the area of modern Normandy (3.17–19) and Crassus in Aquitania (3.20–27), and Caesar’s final campaign against the Morini and Menapii in the far north of Gaul (3.28–29) are told consecutively and connected by expressions which suggest that the events took place simultaneously.33 Thus, as in Civ. 1–2, Caesar first narrates what happened in the main theatre of war and then adds the deeds of his legates in other areas.34 Moreover, as later in the Bellum Civile, he sacrifices strict chronology for geographical coherence and narrative unity and parallelizes events which may not have been exactly contemporary with one another: the four operations narrated in Gal. 3.11–29 certainly did not take place simultaneously, for Caesar cannot have personally conducted the campaigns against the Veneti in the west and the Morini and Menapii in the far north at the same time. As the comparison with Gal. 3 shows, there is no significant difference between Caesar’s organization of the narrative in Civ. 1–2 and his procedure in the earlier commentarii.35 Finally, Boatwright’s brief summary of Andrieu’s article is misleading. Of the two branches transmitting the Bellum Civile (σ and β),36 the first (represented by manuscript S and its descendants N and L) contains no book division a­ fter Civ. 1.87,37 whereas the second unanimously transmits a new incipit after 1.87.5.38 Andrieu has correctly observed that the manuscripts of the σ branch also lack the first words of Civ. 2.1: dum haec in Hispania geruntur, C. Trebonius legatus and has plausibly argued that the missing book division merely results from campaign were the entire war, in Book Three after Pharsalus the focus broadens to the whole Mediterranean, and the language insists on the simultaneity of actions that take place in different places (eodem tempore, 3.100.1, and isdem fere temporibus, 3.101.1)”. 33 Cf. Gal. 3.17.1: dum haec in Venetis geruntur, 3.20.1: eodem fere tempore, 3.28.1: eodem fere tempore. 34 The same procedure can be observed at Gal. 2.34: there the detailed narrative of Caesar’s exploits is followed by a brief account of P. Crassus’ campaign against the tribes living on the seashore. 35 In view of the similarities to Thucydides collected on pp. 137–8 above, it may be worth pointing out that Caesar’s organization of the material in Gal. 3 and Civ. 1–2 is similar to the socalled “desultory method” of Thucydides: he “describes action A until it reaches a stable state, then puts it aside and starts describing action B. When the latter itself reaches a stable state, he returns to A and so forth” (Rengakos 2006: 289). Also, the transitional formulae indicating simultaneity (dum haec geruntur, eodem tempore, vel sim.; cf. nn. 8, 32, 33 above and ChausserieLaprée 1969: 30–32) can be compared to the Thucydidean κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸν χρόνον (cf. e. g. Thuc. 3.7.1, 3.18.1, 4.7.1, 4.46.1, 4.78.1 and see Delebecque 1965: 48–9). 36 On the manuscript tradition cf. p. 169 n. 3 above. 37 In S and N tituli and colophons have been inserted at a later date, cf. Andrieu 1949: 141, Brown 1972: 84–5. Grillo’s account (2012: 182–3) is confusing, because he acknowledges the lack of a book division in S, N, and L, but prints the tituli in S without indicating that they were added two centuries later. 38 Cf. Klotz 1950: 53, Fabre 1936: vol. 1, 68, Andrieu 1949: 141–6, Brown 1972: 82–7, and Grillo 2012: 181–4. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

196

Appendix C  

the fact that there was a lacuna in the original that was copied by the scribe of S.39 In addition, Andrieu (1949: 142–6) has demonstrated that the book numbers transmitted in both branches of the manuscripts do not provide evidence for a two-book format. His observations show that the archetype of the extant manuscripts must have divided the Bellum Civile into three books, but they do not “prove conclusively that Caesar’s work originally appeared in the three books of the modern editions” (Boatwright 1988: 37).40 This fact was emphasized by Andrieu himself, who also points to a similar change of book divisions in the transmission of Suetonius (1949: 146 n. 1): Ces faits ne prouvent d’ailleurs pas que dans sa rédaction originale le B. C. n’ait pas été réparti en deux livres; les excellents arguments avancés par M. P. Fabre, loc. cit., p. xvii sq., gardent toute leur valeur. Il serait seulement dangereux de les appuyer par des arguments paléographiques qui se dérobent. Il existe, d’ailleurs, un autre exemple de changement de la répartition en livres d’un ouvrage: la division en douze livres de la Vie des douze Césars de Suétone succède dans la tradition manuscrite à une organisation en huit livres.41 39 Cf. Andrieu 1949: 141–2; see also Stangl 1886: 214 on various other lacunae in the text of S. Brown (1972: 85) and Grillo (2012: 182) suggest that the lack of a book division in S may be connected to the fact that in this manuscript the text of Civ. 1.79.4–2.18.6 is misplaced after Civ. 3.43.2. This hypothesis has failed to convince us. According to Brown (1972: 18), to whose analysis Grillo refers, S “is probably a page-by-page copy of its exemplar” and the task of copying was “parceled out among several scribes”; this policy led to the “confusion in continuity”: “After fol. 88 [i. e. two folia before the confusion], the scribe appears to lose all interest in making a page-by-page copy and concentrates instead on producing continuously written folia. The page of his exemplar that corresponded to fol. 90 in S may have contained only a few lines, and rather than leave blank in his copy almost the whole page, he filled it up with the wrong section and persisted in his error to the end of the gathering (fol. 94v). The next two gatherings, each written by a different scribe (fols. 95–102v, 103–108v), also contribute to the confusion”. It is not quite clear to us, how this process could have led to an omission of the book division at 1.88.5/2.1.1, for fols. 103–108v (i. e. Civ. 1.79.4: sese in vallis … 2.18.6: rebus fave-) were written by the same scribe and continuously copied from the exemplar of S. 40 Boatwright’s misinterpretation of Andrieu is repeated by Raaflaub (2009: 183). Cf. also Grillo 2012: 159: “the manuscript tradition … supports the division into three books”. 41 With regard to Suetonius, Andrieu refers to Ailloud 1931–32: vol. 1, xix; cf. also Suda τ 895 (attesting the original eight-book structure), Casaubonus 1605: s.p. (title, contents, passim), Roth 1862: xi–xii, M. Ihm 1907: vii–ix and see Power (2009) on the Ringkomposition of books 7 (Galba, Otho, Vitellius) and 8 (Vespasianus, Titus, Domitianus). Birt (1882: 371–84) plausibly argues that the change from papyrus to codex, especially during the fourth and fifth centuries A. D., often led to arbitrary alterations of the book divisions. Apart from numerous examples of the suppression of book divisions (e. g. Claudianus’ De raptu Proserpinae 3 and 4, Seneca’s Naturales Quaestiones 3 and 4, Seneca’s Epistulae, Juvenal, Demosthenes, Plutarch’s Βίοι παράλληλοι), he also points to Ovid’s Heroides as another example illustrating that the book divisions were sometimes altered during the Middle Ages; cf. Dörrie 1971: 93, 150, 193 on the book divisions after epistles 5 (Ri = Florentinus Riccardianus 489, 13th cent.), 10 (Ri, Gu  = Guelferbytanus Gudeanus 297, 15th cent.), and 15 (paris helene secundus [!] liber, Pa = Parisinus Bibl. Nat. Lat. 7993, 13th cent.) and see Birt 1877: 395 and Pulbrook 1977, especially © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

The book division between Civ. 1 and Civ. 2

197

Batstone and Damon (2006) are more cautious in their evaluation of the medieval codices and correctly state that the manuscript tradition contains no traces of a two-book format.42 Their argument primarily rests on the themes and contents of the first book and is similar to one of the points raised by Boatwright (cf. (d)  on p.  192 above). According to Batstone and Damon the year-by-year structure of the earlier commentarii was not suited to the Civil War which lasted several years and continued even in winter. In particular, Caesar’s preparations for his decisive campaign against Pompey in December 49 B. C. marked the beginning of a new phase of the war and were not apt material for the closure of a book. Hence, Caesar deliberately departed from the year-by-year structure and made the first book end after the capitulation of Afranius and Petreius and the dismissal of their troops (Civ.  1.84–7).43 To demonstrate that the transmitted book division after Civ. 1.87.5 goes back to Caesar, Batstone and Damon have accumulated two types of evidence. First, they have identified several closural signs that prepare for the end of the book: at 1.68.3 Caesar mentions that his soldiers assiduously endured severe hardships, because they thought that the end of the campaign was near (sed hunc laborem recusabat nemo, quod eum omnium laborum finem fore existimabant, si hostem Hibero intercludere et frumento prohibere potuissent); when Caesar’s officers urge him to seek a decisive battle against Afranius (1.71.2), we are informed of Caesar’s hope to ‘put an end to the matter’ (rem conficere) without bloodshed (1.72.1); and at 1.84.1 the enemies’ willingness to negotiate with Caesar is introduced by tandem.44 In addition, the restoration of peace and order (cf. 1.86.3–4, 1.87.1), the resolution of disputes (cf. 1.87.2–3), and the dismissal of troops (cf. 1.85.5,12, 1.86.2,3, 1.87.5) are motifs that often occur at the ends of books in the Bellum Gallicum, and generally the peaceful solution of the confrontation in Spain is an apt closure.45 The second type of evidence consists of links between the beginning and end of Civ. 1. Batstone and Damon argue that Afranius’ and Petreius’ capitulation responds to the initial political problems and themes put forth by Caesar pp. 33–40 and 43 n. 12. The uncertainty of book divisions in Late Antiquity can be further illustrated by the scholarly debate whether the verses Aen. 6.1–2 originally belonged to the fifth or the sixth book of the Aeneid (cf. Serv. Aen. 6.praef.). Moreover, even before the change from papyrus to codex, book divisions were occasionally altered: two famous examples are the historical works of Herod­otus (cf. Legrand 1932: 224–7, Hemmerdinger 1955: 16–18, Rosén 1962: 193–205, Baldwin 1984: 31–3, and Asheri 1988: xxi–ii = 2007: 11) and Thucydides (cf. Hemmerdinger 1948, 1955: 18–19, Canfora 2006a: 14, 23–4, 2006b: 728–31; see also Hemmerdinger 1963, Higbie 2010: 14–16). 42 Cf. Batstone/Damon 2006: 42 and 188, with reference to the catalogue of manuscripts in Brown 1972: 82–7, which does not contain the observations and inferences of Andrieu (1949). 43 Cf. Batstone/Damon 2006: 10, 42, 75–6. 44 Cf. Batstone/Damon 2006: 77, 78, 76, 79. 45 Cf. Batstone/Damon 2006: 79–80. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

198

Appendix C  

in the first chapters of book 1, thus creating a sort of Ringkomposition. Whereas the opening sections stress the intimidation of the Senate by Caesar’s enemies and their obstruction of all attempts to negotiate  a settlement, the final chapters emphasize reconciliation (cf. 1.86.1), the recovery of free speech (cf. 1.74.1, 1.85.2–3), and Caesar’s leniency (cf. 1.74.7, 1.77.1–2, 1.85.5,12, 1.87.1) and fairness (cf. 1.87.1). According to Batstone and Damon, this Ringkomposition is part of a narrative pattern of alternating movements towards reconciliation and war, which are also reflected by the distribution of the Latin words for controversy, leniency, etc..46 Neither of these two types of evidence has conclusive force. As regards the alleged closural signals, sine pugna et sine vulnere suorum rem conficere (1.72.1) has its closest parallels at Civ. 1.29.1: ad spem conficiendi negotii (of the possibility of putting a swift end to the war by pursuing Pompey to Greece) and 3.51.6: spe … conficiendi negotii (of the Pompeians’ hope of a decisive victory during the blockade at Dyrrhachium);47 it therefore hardly qualifies as a marker of an imminent book end. The same holds for tandem (Civ. 1.84.1), which elsewhere never features in the vicinity of a book end (Gal. 1.25.5, 1.40.4, 3.21.1, 5.7.4, 5.31.3, 7.67.5), and for finis laborum (Civ.  1.68.3), which occurs once in the last chapters of Vercingetorix’ revolt (Gal. 7.85.3, five chapters before the end of the book) and once at the beginning of a new phase of the Civil War (Civ. 3.6.1). Furthermore, the dismissal of armies and the administration of justice are key themes of the Bellum Civile and usually do not point to a book division.48 Particularly significant are three passages. The first is Caesar’s account of the events ­after the Battle of Pharsalus. Just as in the narrative of the capitulation of Afranius and Petreius, Caesar here, too, accepts the surrender of the desperate Pompeians (3.97.5–98.2), shows his leniency (3.98.2), restores order (3.105.1–2), and administers justice (3.107.2). However, there is no book division. Instead, Caesar moves on to narrate the subsequent events of 48 B. C..49 The other two passages that contain closural motifs but are not followed by  a book division can be found at Civ.  2.20.7–2.21.5 and 2.22.1–6. The former is  a sequel to the last chapters of Civ.  1 and concludes the war in Spain. After Afranius’ and Petreius’ capitulation near Ilerda in Nearer Spain (Hispania citerior; Civ.  1.84–7), Caesar moves to Further Spain (Hispania ulterior; 2.18.7–19.1), where the Pompeian governor Varro had tried to mobilize an army

46 Cf. Batstone/Damon 2006: 81–4 and 86–8 (statistics and diagram). 47 Cf. also Caesar apud Cic. Att. 9.13a.1 (written in March 49 B. C.): cum in spem venero de compositione aliquid me conficere, statim vos certiores faciam. 48 Apart from Civ. 1.85.10,12 and 1.87.4,5, the expression dimittere exercitum (vel sim.) ­also occurs at Civ. 1.2.6, 1.9.5, 1.10.3, 1.32.4,5, 3.10.9, 3.107.2. 49 That the abrupt end of the third book after Civ. 3.112.12 is not a deliberate closure has been argued above (p. 20) and is also the view of Batstone and Damon (2006: 29–32). © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

The book division between Civ. 1 and Civ. 2

199

against him (Civ. 2.17.1–18.6). Without bloodshed the province sides with Caesar (2.19.2–20.5); Varro is isolated, capitulates, hands over his troops (2.20.6–8), and, just as at Civ. 1.84–5, Caesar inserts the description of a meeting at which the historical figure ‘Caesar’ comments on the events and highlights that the civilians, the troops, and the officers in Hispania ulterior had all been interested in a peaceful settlement (2.21.1).50 This is followed by a description of Caesar’s administrative measures in Hispania ulterior (2.21.2–4), his journey to Massilia in transalpine Gaul, and his designation as dictator by the praetor Lepidus in Rome (2.21.5). All of these elements, especially the departure from the theatre of war and the shift to administrative decisions made in Rome, create an impression of closure,51 but there is no book division. Instead, there is another closural passage (2.22.1–6), in which we are informed about the end of the siege of Massilia: like Afranius, Petreius, and Varro, the inhabitants of the city are unable to continue their resistance, capitulate (2.22.1), hand over weapons, ships, and money (2.22.5), and enjoy Caesar’s clemency (2.22.6). Like the preceding chapter 2.21 and like several books of the Bellum Gallicum, Civ. 2.22 ends with the stationing of troops52 and Caesar’s departure, this time for Rome.53 Despite all these closural motifs and the fact that two major episodes of the Civil War have come to an end, there is again no book division, but Caesar immediately54 moves on to describe Curio’s disastrous campaign in Africa (Civ. 2.23–44).55 The preceding paragraphs have shown that in the Caesarian commentarii closural motifs do not necessarily precede a book division but often serve to round off sections within a book. Moreover, we have seen that the main motifs which Batstone and Damon adduce in support of the Ringkomposition of book 1 also occur at 2.20.7–2.21.5; consequently, one could just as well regard Civ. 1.1–2.21 as a distinct 50 The implicit point of comparison is, of course, Pompey’s legate Varro. At Civ. 1.85.1–4 Caesar explicitly contrasts Afranius and Petreius with their officers and soldiers. 51 One may compare the end of books 1, 2, 4, 6, and 7 of the Bellum Gallicum, cf. 1.54.3: ipse in citeriorem Galliam ad conventus agendos profectus est, 2.35.3–4: ipse … in Italiam profectus est. ob easque res ex litteris Caesaris dies quindecim supplicatio decreta est, quod ante id tempus accidit nulli, 4.38.5: his rebus gestis ex litteris Caesaris dierum viginti supplicatio ab senatu decreta est, 6.44.3: in Italiam ad conventus agendos profectus est, and 7.90.8: huius anni rebus cognitis Romae dierum viginti supplicatio redditur. 52 Cf. the stationing of troops at Gal.  1.54.2–3, 2.35.4, 3.29.3, 4.38.4, 6.44.3, 7.90.4–7 (all at the end of the respective books) and Civ. 2.21.4: provinciae Q. Cassium praeficit; huic IIII legiones adtribuit. 53 Cf. Civ. 2.22.6. One may compare this with Caesar’s departures to Massilia (Civ. 2.21.5) and Gallia cisalpina (Gal. 1.54.3, 2.35.4, 6.44.3). 54 Like haec at Civ. 2.1.1 (see p. 190 above), isdem (Civ. 2.23.1) refers the reader to the preceding lines and thus tightly links the two narratives. 55 Some scholars hold that the narrative of Curio’s campaign (Civ. 2.23–44) was originally preceded by an account of P. Cornelius Dolabella’s and C. Antonius’ unsuccessful operations in the Adriatic Sea (cf. n. 60 below); even if correct, this hypothesis does not diminish the value of the arguments set out above. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

200

Appendix C  

unit and argue that a strong book division at 1.87.5/2.1.1 would disrupt the narrative of the operations in Spain (as, indeed, it does). Hence, the type of argument employed by Batstone and Damon is highly arbitrary and lacks conclusive force. Many of the preceding observations also apply to Grillo’s treatment of the book divisions (2012: 87–8, 158–77, 181–4). Grillo primarily expands on the arguments advanced by Batstone and Damon56 and tries to strengthen their case for a three-book structure of the Bellum Civile by (a) identifying further closural signals in Civ. 1.74–87, (b) accentuating the importance of Caesar’s speech at Ilerda (Civ. 1.85), and (c) arguing that the ends of Civ. 1, 2, and 3 form a kind of triptych that depicts three possible outcomes of the Roman Civil War. Regarding the first class of arguments (a), the additional closural signals identified by Grillo are fairly common phenomena that do not necessarily point to a closure;57 moreover, as we have seen already above (cf. pp. 198–9), even a dense clustering of closural motifs need not necessarily coincide with a book division in Caesar’s Bellum Gallicum and Bellum Civile. Likewise, the fact that Caesar’s speech at Iler­da treats some of the key issues of the war and thus has a significance that goes far beyond its immediate context (cf. (b))58 hardly proves that we are dealing with a major caesura and that the end of the book must be near. One may compare Civ. 1.7.1–7 (Caesar’s speech to his soldiers) and 1.32.2–9 (Caesar’s speech in the Senate) where Caesar also dwells on the injustices done to him and the disrespectful treatment of Roman customs and institutions.59 Finally, there are also several objections that can be raised against Grillo’s interpretation of the thematic links between the ends of Civ. 1, 2, and 3 (cf. (c)). First of all, it is quite bold to base any argument on the structure of a work which most scholars—including Grillo (2012: 179) himself—regard as unfinished.60 56 Grillo paraphrases the discussion of Batstone and Damon on pp. 87–8 and 160. The arguments bearing on the chronology of the events in Civ. 1 and 2 are very similar to those put forth by Boatwright and have already been dealt with above (cf. pp. 194–5 with nn. 30, 32). The same applies to Grillo’s treatment of the manuscript evidence, cf. pp. 195–6 with n. 40. 57 Grillo refers to “a strong sense of satisfaction, another typical mark of closure” (p. 161), the recapitulation of central themes of Civ. 1 in Caesar’s speech at Ilerda (Civ. 1.85; pp. 161– 2), and to the device of “false closure”, i. e. the fact that the first peace arranged by the soldiers (Civ. 1.74) is later rescinded by the Pompeian generals (Civ. 1.75–6; pp. 162–3). Cf. pp. 119–20 with n. 182 above on this ‘Beinahe-Episode’. 58 As Grillo (2012: 161–2) points out, Caesar discusses the origins of the war and the injustices done to him by his personal enemies in Rome (cf. Civ. 1.85.8–10). 59 Cf. especially Civ.  1.7.1: omnium temporum iniurias inimicorum in se commemorat, 1.7.2: novum in re publica introductum exemplum queritur, 1.7.4: Pompeium, qui amissa restituisse videatur bona, etiam, quae ante habuerint, ademisse, 1.32.2: iniurias inimicorum comme­ morat, 1.32.6: iniuriam in eripiendis legionibus praedicat, crudelitatem et insolentiam in circumscribendis tribunis plebis, and see Oppermann 1933: 26–7 n. 3 on the thematic links between Civ. 1.32.2–9 and the opening chapters of Civ. 1. 60 Cf. pp. 15–21 and the explicit testimony of Hirtius, Gal. 8.pr.2, discussed on pp. 22–5 above. Moreover, entire episodes which once stood in Caesar’s account may have been lost in © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

The book division between Civ. 1 and Civ. 2

201

Given the fairly abrupt end of Civ. 3 (acknowledged by Grillo 2012: ­167–8),61 it seems unlikely that Civ. 3.112.12 is the point where Caesar wanted his work to end and that he planned Civ. 1.1.1–3.112.12 as a unit.62 If we further consider that the process of transmission. Cf. e. g. Nipperdey 1847: 161–2, Kraner/Hofmann/Meusel 1906: 225, Oppermann 1933: 30–31 n. 6 on the account of the first battle at Dyrrhachium that is missing between Civ. 3.50.2 and 3.51.1. Based on the cross-reference at Civ. 3.67.5 (cf. also Civ. 3.4.2, 3.10.4–5) and the historical accounts of the events in Livius’ Periochae, Lucan, Florus, Appian, Cassius Dio, and Orosius, Zippel (1877: 203–5), Basiner (1883: 19), and Avery (1993: 457–60) argue that the surrender of Massilia was originally followed by a narrative of the defeats suffered by P. Cornelius Dolabella and C. Antonius in the Adriatic Sea. That some such account may have been lost is plausible (cf. also Oppermann 1933: 30–31 n. 6), but that it stood between Civ. 2.22 and 2.23 is far from certain, for one would expect that the end of the Massilia episode and the beginning of Curio’s campaign in Africa would have been damaged too (cf. e. g. Civ. 3.50.2–51.1). Other scholars (e. g. Nipperdey 1847: 160–1, Kraner/Hofmann/Meusel 1906: 174–5, Schönberger 1984: 330) have suggested that the account of Dolabella’s campaign once stood between Civ. 3.8.4 and 3.9.1, where the transmitted text is evidently lacunose (contra Zippel 1877: 203, Basiner 1883: 16–18, Avery 1993: 458); other possible places are between Civ. 2.16.3 and 2.17.1 or after Civ. 2.44.3. Depending on which of these scenarios (if any) one adopts, one arrives at quite different conclusions regarding the structure of the work. Consequently, Avery’s claim (1993: 466–9) that Civ. 2 combines the structure of a diptych of two successes (Hispania ulterior, Massilia) and two set-backs (Adriatic Sea, Africa) with a chiastic arrangement of the themes of unfaithfulness (false surrender of the Massiliots, treachery of T. Puleio) and hybris or overconfidence (Varro, Curio) is pure speculation. 61 Cf. also pp. 18–20 (with n. 25) and 155–7 above. Grillo (2012: 173) claims that the end of Gal. 5 is similarly abrupt, but this is incorrect. First of all, Gal. 5 does not “lack marks of closure”: cf. the killing of Indutiomarus in Gal. 5.58.6 and see p. 156 with n. 9 on death as a common closural motif (see also Oppermann 1933: 11, who interprets the military preparations in Gal. 6.1 as marking a new incipit). Secondly, the last words pauloque habuit post id factum Caesar Galliam quietiorem (5.58.7) should not be paraphrased as “Gaul was more peaceful for  a while” (Grillo’s emphasis; similarly Oppermann 1933: 11), but must mean ‘Gaul was a bit more peaceful’: cf. LC s.v. paulum 1027–8 (2.B.a), TLL s.v. paulus 830.42–3 and 832.1–2; also, the -que attached to paulo is more likely to introduce a corollary of the success indicated by the preceding words hac re [i. e. Indutiomarus’ death] cognita omnes Eburonum et Nerviorum, quae convenerant, copiae discedunt than a qualification or reservation. Consequently, the end does not “underscor[e] the unsatisfactory and momentary nature of this stability”, but marks a further step towards the pacification of Gaul. Finally, the military situation is not comparable: at the end of Civ. 3 Caesar and his troops continue to be besieged by the Alexandrians and find themselves in rather unfavourable terrain; at the end of Gal. 5, however, Labienus and his troops occupy a superior strategic position in et loci natura et manu munitissimis castris (5.57.1), and their successful sortie not only leads to the killing of their main opponent Indutiomarus and many of his troops (5.58.6), but also drives away his allies (5.58.7). 62 These objections also apply to Grillo’s claim (2012: 172) that Civ. 1 and Civ. 3 have been structured in the same fashion. Besides, some of the similarities adduced by Grillo are simply central themes of the Bellum Civile (e. g. Caesar’s attempts to avoid bloodshed) or common patterns of story-telling that can also be found in Civ.  2 (e. g. the sequence of hope/success, set-backs, and victory). Moreover, many of Grillo’s observations could also be used in support of Gärtner’s structural analysis, which assumes that there is no book division after Civ. 1.87.5 (see p. 202). © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

202

Appendix C  

the book division between Civ. 1 and 2 is a matter of debate, two of the three elements of Grillo’s triptych stand on rather shaky ground. Secondly, even if we could be certain that 3.112.12 was the point where C ­ aesar had wanted his work to end, one could easily argue for other thematic connections that are just as significant and produce an equally artistic structure, but square well with a two-book structure. For example, H. A. Gärtner (1975: 127, 133) has suggested that Civ. 1–2 and Civ. 3 were composed as diptychs and each contrasted a major success with a major set-back for Caesar, so that Caesar’s success in Spain (Civ. 1.37–87), Curio’s failure in Africa (Civ. 2.23–44), the defeat at Dyrrhachium (Civ. 3.59–72), and the victory at Pharsalus (Civ. 3.82–97) form the chiastic pattern A–B–B–A. Moreover, Grillo himself (2012: 165–6) has drawn attention to thematic connections between the beginning of Civ. 1 and the end of Civ. 2;63 hence, one could also argue that the text transmitted as Civ. 1–2 is held together by a Ringkomposition and was originally designed as a unit.64 A third and last objection concerns the effect of the triptych structure on the reader. According to Grillo, Caesar placed the peaceful settlement at Ilerda, the slaughtering of Roman citizens by Pompey’s ally king Juba in Africa, and his own victory at Pharsalus at the end of books 1, 2, and 3 so that his readers may reflect about the possible outcomes of the Civil War: comparing Caesar’s victory at Pharsalus, which fails to put an end to the war, with the peaceful settlement at Ilerda in book 1, the readers will “see Pharsalus as a failed Ilerda” and it will seem to them “that neither Caesar nor Pompey succeed in bringing the war to a conclusion” (Grillo 2012: 172, 174). Confronted with this “end without con­ clusion” (Grillo 2012: 172), they will consider the alternative of a peaceful, ‘Caesarian’ end (as at the end of Civ. 1) and a bloody, ‘Pompeian’ victory (as at the end of Civ. 2), “and the very narrative construction advocates that more power be conferred upon Caesar” (Grillo 2012: 174). This sounds as if Caesar’s primary objective in writing the Bellum Civile was to influence his contemporaries and lure them to support his side in the Civil War. Caesar’s debts to historiography (cf. pp. 137–9) rather speak against such a propagandistic purpose and suggest that he also wanted to record his deeds for posterity. But, even if his aims were primarily political ones and if (as Grillo believes) Civ.  3.112.12 was the point where Caesar wanted the Bellum Civile to end, why was the work published only several years after it had been written?65 And even if the Bellum Civile had been published right after it had been written, why did Caesar not present his victory 63 He compares Civ. 1.4.2: Lentulus … se … alterum fore Sullam inter suos gloriatur, 1.6.3: refertur etiam de rege Iuba, ut socius sit atque amicus, and the slaughter of Roman citizens by Juba at the end of Civ. 2. 64 Grillo (2012: 169–70) also identifies thematic links between the beginning of Civ. 1 and Civ. 3 on the one hand and the end of Civ. 3 on the other.  65 Grillo (2012: 179) assumes (rightly, we think: cf. pp. 15–21) that the Bellum Civile was published after Caesar’s death in March 44 B. C.. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

The book division between Civ. 1 and Civ. 2

203

at Pharsalus in a more favourable light, but even alert his readers to the ineffectiveness of his operations, as Grillo argues? Could Caesar, the artful reporter and subtle manipulator, not have constructed his narrative in such a way as to highlight the success of his policy and call for more powers to be conferred upon him? It seems that Grillo’s interpretation of the transmitted three-book structure produces several contradictions and implausibilities. It is time to review the preceding pages and draw a conclusion. The discussion above has demonstrated that closural signals and thematic connections cannot prove the existence of a book division. Although some readers may regard the observations made by Boatwright, Batstone and Damon, or Grillo more valuable than we did or find some of our objections too pedantic, it remains an in­ controvertible fact that even a clustering of closural signals does not necessarily have to coincide with a book division. Moreover, various grids of thematic relations can be identified in the Bellum Civile, leading to quite different conclusions with regard to the structure of the work. As far as solid evidence is concerned, we have seen that the medieval manuscript tradition cannot be adduced in support of a two-book structure. At the same time, however,  a glance at the transmission of Herodotus, Thucydides, Ovid, Suetonius, and other ancient authors has shown that the book divisions which we find in papyri and medieval manuscripts need not necessarily reflect the original structure of a work; consequently, the transmitted three-book structure of the Bellum Civile hardly proves that Caesar had intended Civ. 1–2 to form two separate books. Thus, on the whole, the transmission provides no firm basis for determining the original form of the Bellum Civile. Although we have discarded many of the arguments advanced for or against a book division at Civ. 1.87.5/2.1.1, in the end three facts remain indisputable: first, the narratives of Caesar’s deeds and those of his generals in Spain, Africa, and Gaul are interwoven and closely connect Civ. 1 and 2 (cf. p. 191); secondly, in the year 44 or 43 B. C., Hirtius explicitly states that the Caesarian commentarii were each treating the events of a whole year and thus attests that Civ. 1–2 originally formed a single book (cf. p. 191); and thirdly—and most importantly—dum haec … geruntur (cf. Civ. 2.1.1) is elsewhere in Caesar always used as a transitional formula within a book, and an anaphoric usage across a book division would have been highly impractical in the days of the papyrus roll (cf. pp. 189–90 with nn. 8–9). In view of these facts, it seems virtually certain to us that Caesar did not want the text of Civ. 1 and 2 to be written on two separate papyrus rolls and that, just as in the case of Suetonius’ De vita Caesarum and Ovid’s Heroides, the switch from volumina to codices caused an alteration of the book divisions.66

66 Cf. pp. 196–7 with n. 41 above. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

Appendix D: The chronology of the events in the two Hispaniae, Africa, and at Massilia in 49 B. C.

Today, Curio’s campaign is almost unanimously dated to August 8–20, 49 B. C., while Caesar’s activities in Hispania ulterior and the capitulation of Massilia are assigned to September 7–30 and October 25, 49 B. C..1 This chronology, which was first developed by Stoffel in 1887 and later defended by Wistrand (1963), is based on three pieces of evidence: (1) In the Fasti Maffeiani (ILS 8744 = CIL 1², part 1, p. 225) we find the explanation hoc die Caesar in Hispan. cit. vicit (‘On this day Caesar was victorious in Nearer Spain’) attached to August 2.2 (2) In his account of the events in Africa, Caesar has Curio give an exhortatory speech to his troops (Civ. 2.32.2–14), in which he says: (5) an vero in Hispania res gestas Caesaris non audistis? duos pulsos exercitus, duos superatos duces, duas receptas provincias? haec acta diebus XL, quibus in conspectum adversariorum venerit Caesar? … (13) hac vos fortuna atque his ducibus repudiatis Corfiniensem ignominiam, Italiae fugam, Hispaniarum deditionem— Africi belli praeiudicia—sequimini! (5) Or have you indeed not heard of Caesar’s deeds in Spain? (Have you not heard that) two armies have been beaten, two commanders have been overcome, two provinces have been seized? That all this was done within 40 days after Caesar had come before the eyes of his enemies? … (13) Despise this fortune [i. e. Curio’s earlier successes] and these leaders and follow the disgrace of Corfinium, the flight from Italy, (and) the surrender of the Spanish provinces, (which are all) forebodings of what is going to happen now in Africa.

(3) A few chapters later, Caesar mentions that Curio received reports indicating the arrival of king Juba, but did not believe them (Civ. 2.37.1–2): 1 Cf. Stoffel 1887: vol. 1, 254–6, 282–3, 287–8, 305–8 and e. g. Kraner/Hofmann/Meusel 1906: 148 (on Civ. 2.32.5) and 371–2, Münzer 1921: 873–5, Drumann/Groebe 1899–1929: vol. 3, 402–7, Klotz 1950: xii, Rice Holmes 1923: vol. 3, 421–9, H. A. Gärtner 1975: 127, Schönberger 1984: 403, Boatwright 1988: 37, Grillo 2012: 175–6. 2 Similar notes can be found in several other calendars, cf. the Fasti Amiternini (CIL 1², part 1, p. 244): feriae quod eo die C. Caes. C. f. in Hispan. citer. et quod in Ponto eod. die regem Pharnacem devicit, the Fasti Vallenses (CIL 1², part 1, p. 240): feriae quod hoc die imp. Caes. Hispaniam citeriorem vicit, and the Fasti Antiates (CIL 1², part 1, p. 248): divus Iul. Hisp. vic.. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

The chronology of the events in 49 B. C.

205

(1) nuntiabantur haec eadem Curioni, sed aliquamdiu fides fieri non poterat; tantam habebat suarum rerum fiduciam. (2) iamque Caesaris in Hispania res secundae in Africam nuntiis ac litteris perferebantur. quibus omnibus rebus sublatus nihil contra se regem nisurum existimabat. (1) These same things were reported to Curio, but for some time there could be no belief (in these reports); so great was his confidence in his circumstances. (2) And (news of) Caesar’s successes in Spain was already being brought to Africa by messengers and letters. Uplifted by all these things, he reckoned that the king [i. e. Juba] would not endeavour anything against him.

The interpretation of the first item poses no serious problems: the surrender of Afranius and Petreius, which Caesar describes at Civ. 1.84.3–5, took place on August 2, 49 B. C. of the pre-Julian calendar. Far more difficult is the interpretation and evaluation of the other two pieces of evidence. Stoffel (1887: vol. 1, 254) interprets Civ. 2.32.5: duos pulsos exercitus, duos superatos duces as referring to the capitulation of Afranius and Petreius and concludes from 2.32.5: haec acta diebus XL, quibus in conspectum adversariorum venerit Caesar that the surrender happened 40 days after Caesar first faced the armies of Afranius and Petreius. Moreover, he claims that the news of Caesar’s successes mentioned at Civ. 2.32.5, 2.37.2 can only refer to vague rumours, but not to an official dispatch which Caesar sent to Curio after Afranius and Petreius had surrendered, for a letter written by Caesar would have been mentioned in different terms. If, right until the end of his campaign in Africa, Curio had not yet received official news of Afranius’ and Petreius’ surrender, and if a message sent from Hispania citerior would have arrived in Africa some 20 days later, the 20th of August is about the last day on which Curio’s final battle could have taken place. Consequently, he must have died on or before August 20, and his campaign, which lasted only 12 days,3 must have begun on or before August 8.4 3 Kraner/Hofmann/Meusel (1906: 371) assume  a slightly shorter duration of ten days (­arrival on August 11, death on August 20). 4 Stoffel’s words are these (1887: vol. 1, 305–6): “En effet, on y lit (Guerre civile, II, 32) que Curion, dans une harangue adressée aux troupes campées à Utica, leur demanda si elles n’avaient pas déjà entendu parler de la défaite d’Afranius et de Petreius, et, plus loin (Guerre ­civile, II, 36, 37), que peu de jours après, lorsqu’il se disposait à assiéger la place, la nouvelle des succès remportés en Espagne par César commençait à circuler en Afrique. On doit conclure de là qu’à l’époque où Curion tenait ce langage, il n’avait pas encore été officiellement informé des succès de César en Catalogne et qu’il faisait allusion à un de ces bruits qui précèdent souvent l’arrivé de l’avis certain des grands événements. Il ne semble pas, au récit des Commentaires, que Curion ait reçu un pareil avis avant la catastrophe du Bagrada; or il fallait une vingtaine de jours pour qu’il lui parvînt depuis Ilerda en passant par Rome et la Sicile. Si donc on considère qu’Afranius et Petreius capitulèrent le 2 août, on voit que d’après les probabilités il convient de placer la date du désastre et de la mort de Curion avant le 22 août, soit le 20, par exemple”. The date, which Stoffel gives exempli gratia, has become a precise fact in later studies: see n. 1 above for references. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

206

Appendix D  

This line of argument, which is the basis for the commonly accepted chronology of events (see p. 204), contains several contradictions and implausibilities. To begin with, it seems inconsistent to regard Civ. 2.32.5 and 2.37.2 as referring to mere rumours circulating in Curio’s camp and at the same time use these unwarranted “bruits” (Stoffel) to determine the duration and beginning of Caesar’s campaign in Hispania citerior. Moreover, the Latin text of Civ. 2.32.5 an 2.37.1–2 contains no indication whatsoever that Curio was referring to mere rumours and not to an established fact that had been communicated to him by Caesar himself.5 And finally, Stoffel’s reading of Civ. 2.32.5 is highly selective. While there are good grounds for identifying Afranius and Petreius with the two duces supera­ tos, the immediately following words duas receptas provincias do not quite fit Stoffel’s interpretation. By forcing Afranius and Petreius to surrender in Hispania citerior ­Caesar had gained control of Hispania citerior, but Hispania ulterior was still held by Varro. If one wants to maintain Stoffel’s chronology and assume that Civ. 2.32.5 refers only to the news of Afranius’ and Petreius’ surrender on August 2, 49 B. C., one would have to assume that Curio is ill-informed, exaggerates the effects of the surrender, or is simply bluffing. In the Latin text there is nothing that supports any of these three possibilities. The contradiction between Stoffel’s chronology and duas receptas provincias has been observed already by Klotz (1950: xii). He believed that Caesar’s account was inconsistent and that Caesar would have corrected it, if he had revised and finished the Bellum Civile. Barwick (1951: 100–101), however, realized that Klotz’s argument was illogical and that it was not Caesar who was to blame, but Stoffel, whose chronology simply did not square with our main source, the ­Bellum Civile. Against Stoffel, Barwick argued that Civ. 2.32.5 also presupposes Varro’s surrender in Hispania ulterior and that accordingly Curio’s campaign is likely to have taken place in September rather than in early August.6 Before turning to some of the objections raised against Barwick’s thesis, it is worth dwelling a bit more on its chronological implications. What Barwick either did not see or did not consider worth pointing out is that his interpretation of Civ. 2.32.5 also has important consequences for the dating of the events in Spain. If we accept his argument, then haec acta diebus XL, quibus in conspectum adversariorum venerit Caesar must refer not only to Caesar’s campaign against Afranius and Petreius, but also to his march to Hispania ulterior. Consequently, we can no longer date Caesar’s arrival near Ilerda simply by counting back 40 days from Afranius’ and Petreius’ surrender. Rather, we first have to approximate the time span between the capitulation at Ilerda and Varro’s surrender in Hispania ulterior. Stoffel correctly states that Caesar wanted to settle the affairs in Spain as



5 Cf. Barwick 1951: 99–100. 6 Cf. Barwick 1951: 100–1. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

The chronology of the events in 49 B. C.

207

quickly as possible and rushed from Ilerda to Corduba with his cavalry;7 nevertheless, he reckons that Caesar departed from Ilerda on August 9 (i. e. seven days after Afranius’ and Petreius’ surrender) and that it took him 28 days to travel the 870 to 900 km from Ilerda to Corduba.8 This is fairly unlikely. There is no reason why Caesar should not have departed already on August 4,9 and his cavalry certainly did not travel at a maximum speed of about 30 km per day. If we follow Rambaud (1976: 848) and assume an average speed of 50 km per day for cavalry10 and twice that speed for messengers,11 the news of Afranius’ and Petreius’ surrender would have reached Corduba around August 10 or 11, Italica and H ­ ispalis (today’s Sevilla)  around August 12 or 13, and Gades (today’s Cádiz) around ­August 13 or 14.  According to Caesar’s account, the inhabitants of these cities immediately decided to side with Caesar. Varro, who seems to have been in Corduba at the time and must have heard the news around August 10 or 11, was shut out of the city and tried to move to Gades. On his way, possibly around August 16 or 17, he was informed that Gades had sided with Caesar and changed his direction towards Italica. Learning that this city, too, had shut its gates, he wrote a letter to Caesar and surrendered. This letter, which marked the end of the war in Spain, may have been written around August 18. At about the same time, Caesar and his cavalry, who travelled magnis itineribus (Civ. 2.19.1), i. e. at a speed of 50 km per day or more, must have arrived at Corduba.12

7 Cf. Stoffel (1887: vol. 1, 282) and Civ. 2.19.1: itaque duabus legionibus missis in ulteriorem Hispaniam cum Q. Cassio, tribuno plebis, ipse cum DC equitibus magnis itineribus praegreditur edictumque praemittit, ad quam diem magistratus principesque omnium civitatum sibi esse ­praesto Cordubae vellet. 8 The exact distance depends on the route chosen. Stoffel (1887: vol. 1, 282) plausibly suggests that Caesar travelled along the coast, but his figure of 786 km seems too small. 9 After Afranius’ and Petreius’ capitulation Caesar must have spent two more days at ­Ilerda: cf. Civ. 1.87.4. 10 Cf. also Fröhlich 1891: 209 with further material. Arrian’s remarks about the cavalry of Alexander the Great (Anab. 3.15.3–5, 3.21.7–9, 3.25.6) show that an average speed of 25 to 40 miles (i. e. 40 to 65 km) per day could be maintained for a longer period of time (cf. Gaebel 2002: 138 n. 31). According to Diodorus Siculus (18.44.2), Antigonus Monophthalmus even advanced 287 miles (i. e. 460 km) in seven days, travelling on an average 41 miles (or 67 km) per day, and beat his enemies on the eighth day at Cretopolis (cf. Gaebel 2002: 210 n. 26). 11 This is a rather conservative estimate, and the news of the capitulation may have reached southern Spain much more quickly. According to ancient sources, an experienced messenger could walk 60 km per day (cf. e. g. Cic. Att. 12.39.1, Ov. Pont. 4.5.5–8, Liv. 9.9.13, Plin. Nat. 7.84, and Kolb 2000: 310, 322–3), a rider who changed mounts easily did 110 km per day (cf. Plut. Vit. Cat. mai. 14.3–4, Suet. Jul. 56.5), in particularly urgent cases even as much as 294 km in 24 hours (cf. V.Max. 5.5.3, Plin. Nat. 7.84, and Kolb 2000: 22–3, 313–4), and (depending on the weather conditions) a boat could travel up to 220 km per day (cf. Weeber 2001: 858). 12 These estimates largely tally with the reconstruction of Kraner and Hofmann (1868: 139–40), who assume that Caesar arrived at Gades on August 22 or one of the following days. This would mean that he reached Corduba around August 18. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

208

Appendix D  

If we count back 40 days from August 18 and take into consideration that in the pre-Julian calendar the month of July (or rather Quintilis) had 31 days, C ­ aesar would have arrived in Afranius’ field of vision on July 10. The crucial question is whether the events narrated by Caesar can all have occurred within the 24 days between July 10 and the capitulation on August 2. As observed by Stoffel, Caesar’s account of his campaign in northern Spain falls into three parts: the first section (Civ. 1.41.2–48.1) begins with the construction of a camp by Caesar and ends with the great storm on the 5th or 6th day;13 the second phase of the war (Civ. 1.48.2– 55.2, 1.59–62) is of indeterminate length and includes the destruction of two bridges by torrential rain and floods (Civ. 1.48.2), the disruption of the supply lines (Civ. 1.48.3–7, 1.52), the building of a provisional bridge in two days (Civ. 1.54), some minor skirmishes (1.55, 1.59) and diplomatic achievements (1.59), and the preparations on both sides for the departure from Ilerda (Civ. 1.61–2); the third part of the narrative (Civ. 1.63.1–1.84.5) once again contains clear indications of time and describes the last eight14 days of the campaign, starting with Afranius’ and Petreius’ march to Octogesa and ending with their capitulation on August 2.  Based on the assumption that the entire campaign lasted 40 days, Stoffel (1887: vol. 1, 255) calculated the duration of the second phase by subtracting the duration of the first and third section of the narrative; according to this reasoning, the intermediate phase would have lasted almost a month (“presque un mois”). Given the speed of Caesar’s earlier and later operations, such a long period of relative inactivity—especially when there is no security of supplies (Civ. 1.51.1)—does not seem very plausible. If, however, we assume that the confrontation with Afranius and Petreius lasted only 24 days, the intermediate phase would have occupied ten or eleven days. This time period would square well with Caesar’s account. Me­ teorological studies on floods in Catalonia suggest that the rainfall which Caesar encountered in July 49 B. C. (pre-Julian calendar, i. e. June of the Julian calendar) continued for just six to 72 hours, i. e. less than three days.15 Moreover, Caesar’s 13 After Caesar’s arrival and a first confrontation (1.41.2–5), a ditch is dug and completed on the evening of the first day (1.41.6: sub vesperum). The next day (1.42.1: postero die) Caesar’s men continue to fortify the camp, and on the third day (1.42.4: tertio die) a palisaded wall is built. On that same day or on the following day (i. e. the third or fourth day), there is a first battle (1.43–7). Within two days (1.48.1: biduo), i. e. on the fifth or sixth day, the torrential rainfall occurs. Stoffel (1887: vol. 1, 255) vaguely speaks of “quelques jours”. 14 Cf. the indications of time at Civ.  1.64.7, 1.65.5, 1.66.3, 1.67.6, 1.73.1, 1.76.4, 1.81.3, 1.81.5, 1.82.1, 1.83.4 and see Stoffel 1887: vol. 1, 255, Kraner/Hofmann/Meusel 1906: 371, Schönberger 1984: 318–21. 15 Llasat, Barriendos, Barrera, and Rigo (2005) have analysed the floods that have been recorded in Catalonia since the 14th century and distinguish between three types of torrential rainfall episodes (p. 34): „(1) Episodes of very short duration (less than 6h) …; (2) Episodes of short duration (between 6 and 72h) …; (3) Episodes of long duration (approximately 1 week).“ Types (1) and (2) are typical of spring, summer, and autumn, while type (3) is rare and usually occurs in winter; type (2) is the most frequent and catastrophic phenomenon in this region. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

The chronology of the events in 49 B. C.

209

words at Civ. 1.52.3: et tam paucis diebus magna erat rerum facta commutatio ac se fortuna inclinaverat, ut nostri magna inopia necessariarum rerum conflictarentur indicate that the short-fall of supplies which was caused by the floods must have occurred soon after the successful battle narrated at Civ. 1.43–7,16 and the second unexpected change of fortune, which leads to Afranius’ and Petreius’ departure for Octogesa, is said to have happened swiftly, cf. Civ. 1.59.1: celeriter fortuna mutatur, 1.60.5: magna celeriter commutatio rerum. Also, the fact that the floods remain for several days (Civ. 1.50.1: hae permanserunt aquae dies complures) does not mean that Caesar was inactive during this time period. On the contrary, his counter-measures are likely to have begun as soon as the rain had stopped, and the building of a new bridge could have been accomplished, while some of the surroundings were still flooded. Furthermore, we may compare ­Caesar’s efforts to Civ. 1.40.3 and 1.41.1, where Fabius rebuilds one of the bridges across the Sicoris river after a similar flood in just two days. Thus, on the whole the events between the torrential rainfall and Afranius’ and Petreius’ departure to Octogesa can be fitted quite well into a period of ten or eleven days. To illustrate this, we give a tentative reconstruction of the eleven days:17 1–2

Torrential rainfall destroys the bridges and supply lines (1.48.1–2).

3

As soon as the rain stops, Caesar attempts to repair the bridges and restore the supply lines (1.50.1), at first unsuccessfully. The fact that the supply lines are interrupted leads to a rise in the price of grain in Caesar’s camp (1.52.1–2).17

4

Afranius and Petreius attack Caesar’s reinforcements and supplies (1.51); Caesar’s calamity makes them overconfident (1.53.1–2, 2.17.4). Meanwhile Caesar orders his troops to build ships for a pontoon-like bridge (1.54.1–2).

5

At night, the pontoons are transported 22 miles away from the camp. Caesar leads one legion across the river, fortifies the place and starts to build a bridge (1.54.3–4).

16 One may compare the shortage of supplies in Afranius’ and Petreius’ army: on the day of the capitulation their troops had been without pabulum for four days and were suffering from frumenti inopia (Civ. 1.84.1), but just eight days before they had departed from a camp that had contained ample supplies of grain and fodder (cf. Civ. 1.49.1–2, 1.52.3). 17 Caesar explicitly states that this happened not only because his camp was running out of supplies, but because people were expecting that there would be  a shortage in the future (Civ.  1.52.1): his tamen omnibus annona crevit. quae fere res non solum inopia praesenti, sed etiam futuri temporis timore ingravescere consuevit. Such fears could have arisen soon after the bridges had been destroyed by the floods. The actual shortage mentioned at 1.52.2–3 may have begun to make itself felt on one of the following days (cf. also n. 16 above). One may compare the description of the water shortage in B.Alex. 5.1–9.2: when the water becomes putrid and salty, Caesar’s troops start to panic and urge immediate departure (7.2). However, Caesar solves the problem in a single night (9.2): ita operosis Alexandrinorum machinationibus maximisque conatibus non longi temporis labore occursum est. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

210

Appendix D  

7

Within two days the bridge is finished (1.54.4); Caesar receives the supplies waiting on the other side (1.54.5) and sends his cavalry across the river to harass Afranius’ and Petreius’ troops (1.55.1–2). On the same day Caesar hears the news of Brutus’ victory at Massilia (1.59.1) and receives delegations from various cities, which are willing to support him (1.60.1–4).

8

The success of Caesar’s cavalry inspires fear in Afranius’ and Petreius’ troops. On this and the following days they avoid gathering fodder or do so only at night (1.59.3).18 Meanwhile Caesar’s legions start to build canals to partly divert the Sicoris river (1.61.1).

9

Worried by the change of fortune and by Caesar’s efforts to partly divert the Sicoris, Afranius and Petreius decide to retreat towards Celtiberia (1.61.2); they gather ships at Octogesa and send two legions across the Sicoris river to establish a camp opposite Ilerda (1.61.5). When Caesar hears of this, he immediately orders his ­troops to work day and night to finish the canals (1.62.1).

10

The Illurgavonenses decide to support Caesar, and a cohort of them deserts Afranius and Petreius and joins Caesar’s troops (1.60.2–3). More cities side with Caesar (1.60.5). — In the evening, the pontoon bridge across the Hiberus is finished; at the same time, Caesar finds a ford over the Sicoris river (1.62.3).

11

During the night Afranius and Petreius depart for Octogesa (1.63); Caesar’s cavalry crosses the river at the ford and harries Afranius’ and Petreius’ troops.

18 Apart from leading to a new chronology of the events in Spain, Barwick’s interpretation of Civ. 2.32.5 also affects the dates of Curio’s campaign in Africa and the surrender of the Massiliots. After arriving at Corduba around August 18 (see p. 207) and staying there for only two days (cf. Civ. 2.21.3), Caesar would have reached Gades around August 23 to 25.19 There he appointed Q. Cassius, who was following behind him with two legions (cf. Civ.  2.19.1), as governor of Hispania ulterior and also put him in charge of the two legions that had been under the command of Varro (cf. Civ.  2.18.6, 2.21.4). Towards the end of August, after attending to further administrative duties and resting for a short period, Caesar took the ships which the inhabitants of Gades had built for Varro and sailed to Tarraco (cf. Civ.  2.21.4). The journey probably lasted five or six days,20 and so Caesar must have entered the port of Tarraco before Sep-

18 Caesar’s words postremo et plures intermittere dies et praeter consuetudinem omnium noctu constituerant pabulari do not just refer to the period at Ilerda, but also to the following days before the capitulation, cf. 1.66.1, 1.73.2, 1.78.1, 1.81.5,7, 1.84.1. 19 This accords with the reconstruction of Kraner and Hofmann, see n. 12 above. 20 This is Stoffel’s estimate (1887: vol. 1, 283); Kraner and Hofmann (1868: 140) reckon that Caesar’s stay at Gades and his journey to Tarraco lasted a total of eight days. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

The chronology of the events in 49 B. C.

211

tember 6.21 Continuing his journey overland,22 he may have arrived at Massilia around September 14, but certainly not later than September 18.23 According to the Bellum Civile, the Massiliots surrendered first to Caesar’s legate (Civ. 2.11.4– 13.2), because Caesar himself had not yet arrived. There is no means of determining precisely when this happened, but in any case the siege of Massilia must have ended before September 18.  More serious are the consequences for the dating of Curio’s campaign. Barwick simply moved it from the middle of August to September 49 B. C., but the matter is more complex. As we have seen (cf. p. 205), Stoffel interpreted Civ. 2.32.5, 2.32.13, and 2.37.2 as referring to mere rumours and held that right until the end of the campaign Curio had received no official report about Caesar’s victory in Hispania citerior; on this basis, he constructed a terminus ante quem for Curio’s death. Barwick rightly rejects the idea of a rumour, because it is not supported by the text of Civ. 2.32.5,13 and 2.37.2, but he does not seem to have realized that this means that there is no terminus ante quem any more: Curio’s rhetorical questions an vero in Hispania res gestas Caesaris non audistis? duos pulsos exercitus, duos superatos duces, duas receptas provincias? at Civ. 2.32.5 could refer to information that arrived a few hours, a few days, or even a few weeks ago, and the same also holds for the similar references at Civ. 2.32.13 and 2.37.2.24 Consequently, we can only calculate a terminus post quem. If we adopt Barwick’s interpretation of Civ. 2.32.5, reconstruct the events in Spain accordingly, and assume that a message from Corduba or Gades must have taken ten to twenty days to arrive near Utica,25 then the news mentioned at Civ. 2.32.5 and 2.37.2 could have reached Curio some time between the beginning and the middle of September. Whether the news encouraged him to set sail for Africa, or whether he had already arrived

21 According to the pre-Julian calendar, the month of August had 29 days. Kraner and Hofmann (1868: 140) assume that Caesar arrived at Gades already on August 22 and date his arrival at Tarraco to September 1. 22 pedibus (Civ. 2.21.5) does not indicate that Caesar walked the distance, but means ‘by land’: cf. Kraner/Hofmann/Meusel 1906: 136 ad loc. with reference to Civ. 2.23.3, 2.32.12. 23 Kraner and Hofmann (1868: 140) estimate that Caesar travelled from Tarraco to Massilia in eight days and arrived on September 9. Stoffel (1887: vol. 1, 288), on the contrary, states that Caesar covered the roughly 600 km between Tarraco and Massilia in 23 days. Even if we suppose with Stoffel that the distance was 670 km, the estimated travel time appears far too long (Caesar would have travelled at a speed of just 29 km per day). Assuming a distance of 600 km and a speed of 50 to 80 km per day (cf. n. 11 above), we end up with a journey of 8 to 12 days. 24 Barwick (1951: 100) rightly draws attention to the fact that the imperfect at Civ. 2.37.2: iamque Caesaris in Hispania res secundae in Africam nuntiis ac litteris perferebantur implies repetition or duration; this suggests that over a period of at least several days Curio had received several reports on Caesar’s successes in Spain. 25 Stoffel (1887: vol. 1, 306) assumes that the messenger would have travelled overland all around the western Mediterranean Sea; by his reckoning, the journey from Ilerda to Africa would have taken 20 days. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

212

Appendix D  

there, cannot be said with certainty, but in any case his campaign could have taken place roughly at the same time as the surrender of Massilia. The preceding paragraphs have shown that the chronology that results from Barwick’s interpretation of Civ.  2.32.5 does not produce any contradictions or implausibilities, but makes good sense. Moreover, it is also supported by the text of the Bellum Civile, for Caesar explicitly states that Curio sailed to Africa when Caesar left Massilia and travelled back to Rome (cf. Civ.  2.23.1: isdem ­temporibus).26 Nevertheless, Barwick’s views have been rejected by Wistrand (1963).27 His defence of Stoffel’s chronology has been accepted or repeated by many later scholars28 and consists of the following four arguments: (1) At Civ. 2.32.5 and 2.37.2 Curio regards the news of Caesar’s success in Spain “as a decisive turn of the war” that will make his troops “anxious to be on ­Caesar’s side” and deter king Juba from attacking him; while “the victory at Ilerda was certainly such  a momentous event”, Varro’s capitulation at Corduba, on the contrary, “was just a corollary, an epilogue of Ilerda”. According to Wistrand, “it would not have been reasonable for Curio to expect that the announcement of the conclusion of the war in Spain would have much effect on those who had been unmoved by the Pompeians’ catastrophe at Ilerda. For it is inconceivable that Afranius’ and Petreius’s defeat should not have been generally known in Africa at the time when the news of Varro’s capitulation, which happened about  a month later, arrived there” (Wistrand 1963: 42). (2) If duas receptas provincias at 2.32.5 includes Varro’s surrender of Hispania ulterior, “it is very difficult to understand why Varro and his army should have been so conspicuously left out in the proud proclamation duos pulsos exercitus, duos superatos duces. … Even if Varro did not show any fight, it is incomprehensible why Curio should vaunt only the defeat of Afranius and Petreius and how he could have resisted the temptation to make the most of Caesar’s performance by stating—quite truthfully—tres pulsos exercitus, tres superatos duces” (Wistrand 1963: 42–3). (3) Klotz, Holmes, and Barwick were wrong to interpret duas receptas pro­vincias (2.32.5) and Hispaniarum deditionem (2.32.13) as including Varro’s surrender at Corduba. The expressions are to be explained by the fact that before the outbreak of the hostilities Petreius “was governor of about half of Hispania ulterior and had recruited his cavalry and auxiliary troops there”; consequently, “it might be claimed that the capitulation at Ilerda comprised 26 It may be worth pointing out that elsewhere Caesar sometimes qualifies the simultaneity by inserting fere, cf. e. g. eodem fere tempore at Gal. 3.20.1, 3.28.1, Civ. 1.18.6, 1.62.3, 3.30.1. 27 Contrast, however, the remarks of Knoche (1954: 378): “seine [i. e. Barwick’s] Datierung von Curios Tod auf den September, nicht den August, des Jahres 49 [ist mir] ganz plausibel”. 28 Cf. the literature cited in n. 1 above. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

The chronology of the events in 49 B. C.

213

more than one of the Spanish provinces”, and, “in reality, of course, the decision that fell at Ilerda determined the fate of all Roman Spain” (Wistrand 1963: 43). The exaggeration involved can be compared to similar inaccuracies in Caesar’s speech at Ravenna (Civ. 1.7.7): cuius imperatoris ductu … omnem Galliam Germaniamque pacaverint (cf. Wistrand 1963: 43–4). (4) “An incontrovertible argument against Barwick’s interpretation is provided by the concluding sentence in the passage about in Hispania res gestas Caesaris, namely haec acta diebus XL, quibus in conspectum adversariorum venerit Caesar. For nobody has ever contended that the 40 days could mean anything else than the time between Caesar’s arrival in the theatre of war and the capitulation at Ilerda, nor would such a proposition be arguable” (Wistrand 1963: 44). None of these objections survives a careful examination. As regards the fourth argument, we have already seen above that the events narrated by Caesar in Civ. 1.41.2–55.2, 1.59.1–87.5, and 2.17.1–20.8 can be easily fitted into a 40-day period. In addition, Wistrand’s argument is a petitio principii, because he tries to refute Barwick’s attack on Stoffel’s chronology by an argument that relies heavi­ly on Stoffel’s interpretations, calculations, and guesses. The latter also holds for Wistrand’s first point, for we have seen that the time span between Afranius’ and Petreius’ capitulation and Varro’s surrender may have been much shorter than suggested by Stoffel; consequently, the news of the first surrender is unlikely to have reached Curio’s camp a whole month before reports of the second. Furthermore, we have seen (p. 211) that none of the references in Civ. 1.23–44 implies that the news of Caesar’s deeds had just arrived a few hours or days ago; in particular, Curio’s rhetorical questions (2.32.5) an vero in Hispania res gestas Caesaris non audistis? duos pulsos exercitus, duos superatos duces, duas receptas provincias? do not lose any of their effectiveness, if the news of these events had already arrived several days or weeks ago. Finally, we may turn to Wistrand’s second and third points, which are closely connected and concern the logic of Civ.  2.32.5. His interpretation of this passage is open to several objections. First, Wistrand’s argument is slightly contradictory, because on the one hand he repeatedly stresses that the surrender at Ilerda already “determined the fate of all Roman Spain” and that Varro’s opposition to Caesar “was just a corollary, an epilogue of Ilerda”, but on the other hand he argues that, despite his insignificance, Varro should have been named among the duces superatos. Secondly, just as Wistrand argues that Varro’s capitulation was only a matter of time after Ilerda and is anticipated by the words duas receptas provincias, one could say that Varro’s capitulation is implied in duas receptas provincias, but his opposition was so insignificant that it did not have to be mentioned. Thirdly, Wistrand’s claim that if Caesar had wanted to point also to Varro’s surrender, he would have written “tres pulsos exercitus, tres superatos © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

214

Appendix D  

duces” is contradicted by Latin usage and the historical facts: exercitum pellere always means to overcome an army in battle or force it to retreat,29 but this has not happened—Varro’s army deserted and disintegrated before Caesar had even arrived.30 Fourthly, Wistrand’s explanation that “the capitulation at Ilerda comprised more than one of the Spanish provinces”, because Petreius “was governor of about half of Hispania ulterior” is not supported by our ancient texts. The fasti dating from the early Principate connect Caesar’s victory on August 2, 49 B. C. with Hispania citerior only (cf. p. 204), and Caesar’s narrative does not create the impression that Varro’s surrender was merely a corollary to the events near Ilerda: at Civ. 1.41.1–2 we are informed that Varro was left in charge of the whole province of Hispania ulterior; in the course of Caesar’s campaign in northern Spain there seems to be no link between Petreius’ and Afranius’ war and Hispania ulterior; in the description of Afranius’ and Petreius’ surrender (1.84–7), Caesar simply orders Afranius and Petreius to leave the provinces (1.85.12: provinciis excederent), but there is no indication that Caesar gains control over Hispania ulterior; later, in the account of Caesar’s activities in southern Spain, Varro is repeatedly presented as the man in charge of the whole province of Hispania ulterior,31 and once he has surrendered to Caesar, we are explicitly told (2.21.4): provinciae [i. e. Hispaniae ulteriori] Q. Cassium praeficit. Any reader who is ignorant of the modern chronologies and reads Caesar’s text continuously from 1.41 to 2.32 will therefore naturally take duas receptas provincias (2.32.5) and Hispaniarum de­ ditionem (2.32.13) as pointing back to both Afranius’ and Petreius’ surrender in Hispania citerior and Varro’s capitulation in Hispania ulterior. In the light of these weaknesses, Wistrand can hardly be said to have produced a convincing defence of Stoffel’s chronology.32 On the contrary, Barwick’s interpretation of Civ. 2.32.5 remains unrefuted. It fits the transmitted text better, is consistent, and produces a sequence of events that is consonant with the structure of Caesar’s narrative (cf. p. 212).

29 Cf. TLL s.v. pello 1010.61–1011.71, especially 1010.61–2: “hostes, sive ipso proelio repelluntur sive cladibus sim. e quadam regione cedere coguntur sive omnino vincuntur”. 30 A similar argument can be made for superatos duces. The verb superare usually implies a struggle or contest, but before even entering into a competition or fight with Caesar, Varro already had to surrender. 31 Cf. especially Civ.  2.18.5–6: provinciam omnem [i. e. Hispaniam ulteriorem] in sua et Pompei verba ius iurandum adigebat. cognitis iis rebus, quae sunt gestae in citeriore Hispania, bellum parabat. Further examples can be found at 2.17.1, 2.17.2, 2.18.1, 2.18.4, and 2.18.6. 32 Cf. H. A. Gärtner 1975: 127 (“überzeugend behauptet”). © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

Introduction to appendices E–J

The following appendices E through J are intended to complement our discussion of the language and style of the Bellum Alexandrinum (pp. 31–73 above), but may also provide useful material for future research on Caesar, Hirtius, and the other authors of the Corpus Caesarianum. Appendices F and J are explained on pp. 225 and 268 below. The evidence in appendices E, G, H, and I comes from three different sources: some observations have been gleaned from earlier publications; others have been compiled with the aid of lexica (TLL, OLD, LC) and by searching the electronic databases of the Packard Humanities Institute (PHI), the Bibliotheca Teubneriana Latina 4 (BTL), and Brepols’ Library of Latin Texts Online; a third group of observations consists of chance discoveries that we made when reading the Latin texts. Phenomena that were already observed by Nipperdey (1846, 1847), Vielhaber (1869), Fischer (1880), Fröhlich (1887), Landgraf (1888a), ­Zingerle (1892), Dahms (1906), Klotz (1910), Pötter (1932), Barwick (1938), Andrieu (1954), Giomini (1956), or Canali (1966) are followed by the corresponding sigla [N.], [V.], [Fi.], [Fr.], [L.], [Z.], [D.], [K.], [P.], [B.], [A.], [G.], or [C.]; material not contained in these publications is marked by an asterisk [*]. Although our appendices E, G, H, and I are more exhaustive than similar collections in earlier publications, they are still incomplete.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

Appendix E: The vocabulary of Hirt. Gal. 8 and the Bellum Alexandrinum The vocabulary of Hirt. Gal. 8 and the B.Alex.

1. Expressions attested in the Bellum Alexandrinum, but not in the Caesarian commentarii or Hirt. Gal. 8 a. Lexemes absumere (7.2, †) [C.]. — accessio (22.1, 48.1, †) [C.]. — accessus, -us m. (26.2, 30.5, 38.3; cf. also B.Afr. 5.1, 58.3, B.Hisp. 29.2, 30.6, 38.3, 38.5, †) [*]. — acervatim (31.4, †) [C.]. — adfirmare (8.1, 24.4, †; but see p. 280 (on 8.1) with Caes. Gal. 6.37.9) [C.]. — adlevare (20.6, †) [*]. — adnatare (20.6, 21.2, 31.6, 46.6; cf. adnare at Civ. 2.44.1 and p. 283) [*]. — adsignare (50.2; cf. also B.Afr. 3.4, †) [L.]. — adsumere (25.1; cf. also B.Afr. 85.5, †) [*]. — ambitio (65.1, †) [C.]. — ambulatorius (2.5, †) [C.]. — angiportum (2.4, †) [C.]. — aptare (1.2, †; but cf. pp. 48–9 with n. 87) [C.]. — area (19.6, †) [C.]. — asperitas (17.4, †) [C.]. — aspernari (36.2, B.Afr. 93.3,  †) [L.].  — asportare (78.2, cf. also B.Afr. 91.3,  †) [*].  — auspicium (43.1, 74.3, †; cf. p. 143 n. 251) [C.]. — basilica (52.2, †) [C.]. — benignitas (75.3, †) [C.]. — bibere (6.3, †) [C.]. — carcer (24.5, †) [C.]. — castellanus (42.3, †) [C.]. — celeber (2.3,  †) [L., C.].  — certare (29.3, 55.5,  †) [Fr., B., C.].  — circum­ponere (72.2, †) [C.]. — claustrum (26.2, †) [C.]. — coarguere (68.1, †) [L., C.]. — co­ artatio (74.4, †) [C.].— compensare (48.1, †) [C.]. — complanare (63.5, †) [C.]. — confidentia (52.4, †) [L., C.]. — conquisitor (2.1, †) [Fi.]. — contubernalis (16.4, †) [C.]. — convena (24.1, †) [C.]. — crebritas (69.1, †) [C.]. — dea (66.3, †) [C.]. — debilitare (18.2, †) [C.]. — deformare (24.2, †) [L., C.]. — deformitas (60.1, †) [L., C.].  — degenerare (24.3,  †) [C.].  — degustare (6.2,  †) [C.].  — demergere (25.5, 31.6, 64.3, †) [C.]. — detegere (13.2, †) [C.]. — detrudere (76.1, †) [Fr.]. — dicrota (47.2, †) [C.]. — dissimilis (18.1, 25.4; cf. also B.Afr. 54.3, 88.5, †) [B.]. — dulcis (8.1 (bis), 9.2; cf. also B.Afr. 24.4, †) [*]. — educare (78.2, †) [C.]. — effugium (16.1, †) [L., C.]. — egerere (21.5, †) [C.]. — enatare (18.3, †) [C.]. — epibata (11.4; also 4× B.Afr., †) [*]. — erudire (24.3, †) [C.]. — Eurus (9.4, †) [C.]. — evidens (49.2, †) [L., C.]. — evocatio (56.6, †) [C.]. — expendere (49.2, 56.3, †) [C.]. — exsecare (70.6, †) [C.]. — exsolvere (49.1, †) [C.]. — fal­catus (75.2, †) [C.]. — fallacia (24.6; cf. B.Hisp. 22.6, †) [*]. — fallax (7.2, 24.1,3, †) [B., C.]. — festinare (27.4, 71.1, †) [Fr., L., B.]. — fidus (57.6; cf. also B.Afr. 79.2, †) [L.]. — figere (30.6; cf. also B.Hisp. 31.3, †) [Fr.]. — fornix (1.3, 19.4, †) [C.]. — forsitan (58.2; cf. also B.Afr. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

The vocabulary of Hirt. Gal. 8 and the B.Alex.

217

25.4, 61.1, †) [L.]. — fortuitus (46.1: fortuitae dimicationi; on the text see p. 114 n. 162; cf. fortuito [fortuitu A1 Bc] at Gal. 7.20.2, †) [C.]. — fovere (62.2, †) [L., C.]. — frustrari (71.1, †) [L.]. — funditus (27.6; also 3× B.Afr., †) [*]. — gaudium (24.5; cf. also B.Afr. 61.5, †) [*]. — grex (49.2, †) [L., C.]. — gymnasium (13.2, †) [C.]. — habitus, -us m. (67.1, †) [L., C.]. — hibernus (adj., as opposed to the noun hiberna, -orum: 43.1, 64.3, †) [L., B.]. — hortatio (10.5, 22.2, †) [L., B., C.]. — hostilis (58.4, 59.2, 69.2, †) [Fr., L., B., C.]. — ignavia (29.2, †) [C.]. — inpensa, -ae f. (50.3, †) [L., C.]. — inpotens (33.2, †) [Fi.]. — indignatio (63.6, †) [C.]. — infamis (34.2, †) [C.]. — infelicitas (43.4, 72.2, †) [B., C.]. — infestare (3.1, †) [Fr., L., K., C.]. — ingeniosus (3.1, †) [C.]. — innumerabilis (2.1; cf. also B.Afr. 10.3, 19.2, †) [L.]. — inscribere (58.3; cf. also B.Hisp. 13.3, 18.5, †) [*]. — inspicere (56.6, †) [L., C.]. — instaurare (42.5, †) [L., C.]. — intercĭdere (50.2, †) [C.]. — intersaepire (6.1, †) [C.]. — involare (52.4, †) [Fr., L., C.]. — iugulare (46.5; also 11× B.Hisp., †) [Fr., K.]. — laetari (24.6, 32.4; cf. also B.Hisp. 29.5, †) [L.]. — large (1.5, †) [C.]. — largitor (49.1, †) [Fi.]. — lassus (30.2, †) [L., C.]. — libellus (52.2, †) [C.]. — limosus (5.2, †) [L., C.]. — liquescere (5.1, †) [L., C.]. — malleolus (14.4, †) [C.]. — mergere (46.5, †) [C.]. — miscere (56.2, †) [L., C.]. — multiplex (26.2: multiplici prae­ sidio, del. Gemoll 1879: 269, †) [C.]. — mutuo (adv., 48.1, †) [L., C.]. — myoparo, -onis m. (46.6, †) [L., C.]. — obsequium (63.2, †) [L., C.]. — obversari (36.4, †) [L., C.]. — officiosus (70.3, †) [L., C.]. — opinari (63.5, 73.2, 75.1; cf. also B.Afr. 7.5, 66.1, 4× B.Hisp., †) [*]. — paganus (36.4, †) [L., C.]. — perforare (25.5, 46.5, †) [L., C.].— pertendere (30.1, †) [C.]. — pertemptare (17.5, †) [C.]. — pertimescere (29.5, †) [L., C.]. — plaga (52.4, †) [L., C.]. — postmeridianus (52.2, †) [C.]. — praeclarus (24.2, 30.1, 47.5, †) [C.]. — praeparatio (44.1, †) [C.]. — praetextatus (58.4, †) [C.]. — praevallare (19.4, †) [K.]. — precari (32.3, †) [C.]. — processus, -us m. (29.2, †) [L., C.]. — promissum, -i n. (71.1, †) [C.]. — propensus (26.1, †) [L., C.]. — prudens (24.6, †) [C.]. — puella (23.2, †) [C.]. — pugio (52.2; cf. also B.Hisp. 18.2, †) [*]. — quadriga (75.2, †) [*]. — quandocumque (22.2, †) [C.]. — rapere (20.4, 50.2,  †) [C.].  — recordatio (77.1,  †) [C.].  — redemptio (56.4,  †) [C.]. — redundare (60.2, †) [L., C.]. — remigium (13.4, †) [C.]. — reparare (12.3, †) [L., C.]. — requies (50.3, †) [L., C.]. — reus (49.3, 67.1, †) [C.]. — sacer (32.3, †) [*]. — sapor (6.2, †) [C.]. — salsus (6.2, 6.3, †) [C.]. — sauciare (52.4, †) [Fr., L., C.]. — servitia, -orum n. (‘slaves’, 73.3; cf. also B.Afr. 85.2, 88.1, †) [L.]. — simplex (37.4 (bis); cf. also B.Afr. 13.2, 59.1, †) [*]. — sordidus (49.2, †) [C.]. — speciosus (48.3, 49.1; cf. also B.Afr. 48.5, †) [L., C.]. — spectaculum (15.8, †) [C.]. — splendidus (24.1, 40.5, †) [C.]. — subgerere (3.1, †) [L.]. — tabellarius (38.1; also 4× B.Hisp., †) [*]. — taedium (23.2, †) [C.]. — tetrarchia (78.3, †) [C.]. — totiens (77.1, †) [C.]. — transilire (46.4, †) [*]. — trepidatio (75.1, †) [C.]. — tumultuarius (34.5, †) [L., C.]. — turbare (56.6; cf. also B.Afr. 15.1, †) [*]. — usquam (78.4, †) [C.]. — vadimonium (49.3, †) [C.]. — vallare (27.5, 30.2, †) [Fr.]. — vetustus (66.4; cf. also B.Afr. 27.2, †) [*]. — vicatim (5.3, †) [L., C.]. — victrix (11.6, 25.6, 40.3, †) [B.]. — vigilantia (51.4, †) [C.]. — virilitas (70.6, †) [C.]. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

218

Appendix E  

b. Collocations and usages aggerem (com)portare (73.1, 73.3, 74.3, †; contrast Gal. 3.25.1: ad aggerem caespitibus comportandis) [L.]. — armatura + disciplina (34.4, 68.2, †) [L.]. — at contra (37.2, †) [L.]. — bra(c)chium (‘line of fortification’, 30.3; cf. also B.Afr. 38.2, 49.1, 51.2, 56.1, B.Hisp. 5.3, 6.3, 13.1, 23.1, 24.1, 40.1, †) [L.]. — colligere reliquias (40.5, 42.4; cf. also B.Afr. 22.2,  †) [Fr., L.].  — comminus facere magnum proe­ lium (46.3, 76.1, †) [Fr.]. — concedere praemia (48.3; contrast tribuere praemia at Civ. 2.21.3, 3.4.5, 3.59.2, Hirt. Gal. 8.46.5, B.Alex. 65.4, B.Afr. 86.3, 97.1) [L.]. — coniuratus (52.3, 55.3; but cf. coniurare at Gal. 2.1.2, al.) [C.]. — conlocare praesidium (26.2; contrast ponere p. at Civ. 3.112.5, B.Alex. 19.1) [L.]. — conlocare spem salutis (29.5, †; contrast ponere spem salutis at Gal. 3.5.3, 5.34.2, al.) [L.]. — conponere contentiones (63.1, †) [L.]. — creare odium (56.4; in the Corpus Caesarianum there are no parallels for this use of creare with emotions, but cf. Cic. De Orat. 2.208: odium creatur and TLL s.v. creo 1160.48–1161.8) [L.]. — credere promissis (71.1, †) [L.]. — cupiditas proficiscendi (66.3, †) [L.]. — dare signum pug­ nae (15.5, †) [K., B.]. — dare signum pugnandi (45.3, †) [K., B.]. — decertare de (16.2, †) [L.]. — de gradu deicere (54.3, †) [L.]. — depellere ab opere/-ibus (62.3; cf. also B.Afr. 39.2, †) [L.]. — disponere legiones in hiberna (49.1, †; see the note below on distribuere l. i. h.) [L.].  — dissolvere disciplinam/severitatem (65.1, †; cf. Cic. Mur. 65: in dissolvenda severitate, Liv. 39.37.2: ad dissolvendam … dis­ ciplinam, and TLL s.v. dissolvo 1499.43–60) [L.].  — distribuere legiones in hiberna (64.2,  †) [L.]. Contrast Hirt. Gal.  8.54.4: ipse exercitui distribuit hiberna and cf. the expressions exercitum/legiones in hiberna de-/reducere (Gal.  2.35.4, 6.3.3, Hirt. Gal. 8.46.3), legionum hiberna constituere (Gal. 4.38.4), exercitum/legiones in hibernis conlocare (Gal. 5.24.1, 6.44.3, Hirt. Gal. 8.6.1), legiones in hiberna remittere (Gal. 5.53.3, Hirt. Gal.  8.4.1). — sine dubio (27.2, 67.1; cf. also B.Afr. 45.1, 58.2, †) [L., B.]. — editissimus (28.3, 31.3, 72.2, †; cf. editus and editior at Gal. 2.8.3 al., Civ. 1.7.5 al.) [B.]. — educere in aciem (39.1, 60.1, 60.5; cf. also B.Afr. 31.9, †) [Fr., B.]. — expertus (‘well-proved, tested’, 61.1: veteranas multisque proeliis expertas legiones; cf. also B.Afr. 43.1, OLD s.v., and Liv. 6.9.6: expertum exercitum adsuetumque imperio) [L.]. — felix (20.6, 32.4, 41.1, 72.3; but cf. feliciter at Gal. 4.25.3, al.) [C.]. — in incerto esse (16.1, †) [L.]. — inutiliter (65.1; but cf. inutilis at Gal. 2.16.5, al.) [C.]. — iuste (35.2; but cf. iustus at Gal. 1.43.6, al.) [C.]. — lente agere (71.1, †; but cf. e. g. Cic. S.Rosc. 26) [*]. — longe superior (46.4; cf. also B.Hisp. 7.5, †) [L.]. — hac/ea/qua mente (‘hoc consilio’, 58.2, 63.1; cf. also B.Afr. 19.2, †) [L.]. — neque opinans (63.5, 73.2, 75.1, cf. also B.Afr. 7.5, 66.1, B.Hisp. 2.1, 15.2, 16.3, †) [*]. — neque quicquam divisi habere (63.3, †; cf. TLL s.v. divido 1604.32–4 with Liv. 27.22.9: in Sicilia ita divisa res est) [L.]. — non dubitanter (14.3, †) [L.]. — non morari quin (55.2, †) [L.]. — opprimere ruina (31.5, 76.2, †) [L.]. — pellere gradu (76.2, †) [Fr.]. — percutere foedus (44.1, †; cf. e. g. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

The vocabulary of Hirt. Gal. 8 and the B.Alex.

219

Fest. p. 304.3 Lindsay, Sen. Con. 9.2.15, and TLL s.v. percutio 1248.30–35) [L.]. — perforare (‘hole (a ship)’, 25.5, 46.5, †; cf. Cic. or. fr. B.13 (Schoell = inc. orat. fr. 11 Puccioni) and TLL s.v. 1399.37–43) [L.]. — periculosius (adv., 64.3; but cf. the use of the adjective at Gal. 1.33.3, al.) [C.]. — permixti milites (75.2, †) [*]. — planus locus (18.3, 36.3, 72.1, †; but cf. Gal. 4.23.6: plano litore) [B.]. — potestas confligendi (46.4, 60.1, †) [B.]. — prae se ferre (‘exhibit’, ‘display’, 58.2; cf. prae se gerere at B.Afr. 10.3, †) [L.]. — praeferre + inf. (65.1, †; cf. e. g. Hor. Ep. 2.2.126 and TLL s.v. 617.75–80) [L.]. — praesenti animo (40.3; cf. also B.Afr. 46.1, 88.4, †) [L.]. — quod nisi celeriter (63.6 = B.Afr. 26.3, †; cf. also B.Afr. 85.7: n. c.) [L.]. — redigere (‘repel’, ‘drive back’, 19.3; cf. also B.Hisp. 15.4, 34.6, †) [Fr., K.]. — resistere incitatis militibus (61.4; cf. also B.Afr. 83.1, †) [L.]. — retinere in potestate (57.4, †) [L.]. — si tamen (63.5, †) [L.]. — sub idem tempus (26.1, 28.1, 40.1, 42.1, 64.2, †) [L.]. — terrestri itinere (25.1, 32.1, [33.5, del. Nipperdey 1847: 195], 34.3, †; later e. g. at Liv. 21.21.10; cf. Civ. 3.15.6: praesidiis terrestribus) [*]. — trahere tempus (38.2, †) [L.].

2. Expressions attested in the Bellum Alexandrinum and the Caesarian commentarii, but not in Hirt. Gal. 8 accuratius (12.2 and Gal. 6.22.3) [L.]. — ad bellum gerendum (24.1, 66.3, 68.2 and Gal. 1.41.2, 2.9.5, 4.20.2, 7.32.2, †) [L.]. — adaugere (12.2 and Civ. 3.58.4) [L.]. — adiudicare (66.4, 78.3 and Gal. 7.37.1, †) [L.]. — adolescere (24.2 and Gal. 6.18.3) [*]. — adversus (adj., ‘facing’, 8.4, 14.1, 15.6, 20.5, 30.6, 45.2, 46.2 and 6× Gal., 3× Civ.) [Fr.]. — aeque (58.1 and Civ. 2.10.2, 2.29.3, 2.44.3, 3.106.3, †) [L.]. — amplus (adj., 56.3 and 9× Gal., 4× Civ., B.Afr. 22.4, 96.2, †; cf. 8× amplius (adv.) in Hirt. Gal. 8) [L.]. — angustiae, -arum f. (15.7, 17.4, 19.3, 36.5 and 34× Caes.) [Fr.]. — animi magnitudo (15.1, 15.2, 31.1, 32.3 and Gal. 2.27.5, 7.52.3, 7.52.4, Civ. 2.38.2, B.Afr. 22.2, 22.5, †) [B.]. — animum advertere (15.3, 31.1, 36.5, 45.2, 46.1, 48.1 and 3× Gal., 8× Civ.) [*]. — anteire (38.4 and Civ. 1.32.9, †) [L.]. — apertum latus (20.3, 40.2 and 10× Caes.) [Fr.]. — apparare (7.1 and Gal. 7.17.1, Civ. 2.7.4, 3.21.5) [D.]. — adpetere (39.1 and 6× Gal., 2× Civ.) [L.]. — adplicare (17.6 and Gal. 6.27.3, Civ.  3.101.4, B.Hisp. 37.3,  †) [D.].  — aversus (adj., 30.6, 40.1 and 4× Caes.) [Fr.]. — castra habere (57.1 and Gal. 1.44.3, Civ. 1.43.1, 3.85.1, B.Afr. 34.5, 76.2, †; cf. c. h. posita/constituta at B.Hisp. 7.3, 8.6, 28.3) [Fr., L.]. — castra movere (57.6 and 15× Gal., 7× Civ., 3× B.Afr., 3× B.Hisp., †) [Fr., L.]. — castra transferre (60.5 and Civ. 3.66.4, †) [Fr.]. — certe (58.2 and 4× Gal., 4× Civ., †) [L.]. — circumsistere (‘surround’, ‘encircle’, 15.5 and Gal.  3.15.1, 4.26.3, 4.37.1, 5.7.9, 5.44.8, 7.8.4, 7.43.5) [P.]. — circumvehi (14.1, 28.2 and Gal. 7.45.2, Civ. 3.63.6) [*]. — commotus + abl. (24.4, 59.1, 75.1 and Gal. 1.13.2, 1.37.4, 2.2.1, 2.31.1, Civ. 2.13.1) [Fi.]. — communire (19.1 and 3× Gal., 7× Civ., B.Afr. 47.2, †). [L.]. — communis (58.2 and 30× Gal., 6× Civ., B.Afr. 27.2, 33.1, †) [L.]. — concurrere (‘clash’, 40.1, 46.2, 46.3 and 4× Civ.) [Fr.]. — condonare (‘grant pardon for’, 70.3 and Gal. 1.20.5,6, †; con© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

220

Appendix E  

trast Hirt. Gal.  8.4.1: milia nummum praedae nomine condonata, B.Alex. 77.2: praeda omni regia militibus condonata) [L.]. — se conferre (‘move to’, 40.4, 42.3, 42.4, 46.6, 53.3, 64.3 and 5× Gal., 7× Civ.) [Fr.]. — conficere bellum (56.2, 77.1 and 14× Caes.) [Fr.]. — conficere iter (36.3, 66.3, 66.5 and 16× Caes., 4× B.Afr., †; cf. also Civ. 1.68.2: magnam partem itineris conficerent, TLL s.v. conficio 197.25–45) [Fr.]. — configere (2.5, 40.2 and Gal. 3.13.4, B.Afr. 59.5, †) [Fr.]. — confirmare + acc. c. inf. (12.2 and 14× Caes.) [L.].  — conscribere (42.4, 50.3, 56.4 and 13× Caes.) [Fr.]. — conserere manum (71.2 and Civ. 1.20.3, †) [Fr.]. — consilium habere (‘take counsel’, 57.4 and Gal. 4.14.2, B.Hisp. 36.2, †) [L.]. — constituere aliquid/aliquem ad + acc. (19.5 and Gal. 2.8.4, 4.25.1, †) [*]. — constituere naves/navigia (14.1, 14.3, 19.5 and Gal. 4.23.6, 4.24.2, 4.25.1) [*]. — constitutum habere aliquid (‘to have stationed’, ‘to have set up’, 34.4, 68.2 and Civ. 3.89.2, B.Hisp. 8.6, 28.3, †) [*]. — continenter (9.4 and Gal. 1.1.3, 1.26.5, 3.5.1, Civ. 1.44.2, 1.46.1, †) [Fi., L.].  — se continere (18.1 and Gal.  4.34.2, 7.19.2, Civ.  3.37.4, B.Afr. 41.1, B.Hisp. 20.1, †) [L.]. — contio (3.2, 52.1, 52.2, 57.6, 13× Caes.; cf. especially contionem habere at B.Alex. 57.6 and Gal. 5.52.5, 7.53.1, Civ. 2.18.3, 2.21.1, 3.73.2, 3.74.1, B.Afr. 88.6, B.Hisp. 18.6, †) [Fr., L.]. — contumelia (11.2, 60.1 and 7× Gal., 9× Civ., B.Afr. 44.2, †) [L.]. — corripere (52.2, 64.2 and Civ. 1.2.4, 1.66.1, 3.109.5, †) [L.]. — cruciatus, -us m. (55.3 and 9× Gal., †; cf. especially cruciatu/-ibus afficere at 55.3 and Gal. 5.56.2) [L.]. — crudelis (23.2, 41.1 and 2× Gal., 4× Civ., B.Hisp. 15.6, †) [*]. — cum … tum maxime (11.3 and Gal. 5.54.5, 7.56.2; cf. also Gal. 2.4.7: cum … tum etiam) [*]. — custodia (13.1, 17.6, 63.5 and 28× Caes.) [Fr.]. — se dedere (23.2, 32.3, 47.4 and 10× Gal., 5× Civ.,  †) [Fr.].  — dediticius (9.3 and Gal.  1.27.4, 1.44.5, 2.17.2, 2.32.2,  †) [L.].  — defensor (16.6 and 11× Caes., 5× B.Afr., B.Hisp. 35.2, †) [Fi.]. — deficere (‘perire’, 13.5 and Civ. 3.2.3, †) [P.]. — de­ icere (‘knock down’, ‘overthrow’ (a building vel sim.), 1.2 and Gal. 3.15.1, 4.17.10, Civ.  2.22.1, B.Afr. 47.6, B.Hisp. 13.4, 13.7, †; cf. also TLL s.v. deicio 395.26–7) [*]. — depellere (19.3, 42.4, 62.3 and 6× Caes., B.Afr. 39.2, B.Hisp. 38.4, †) [Fr.]. — deprecari periculum (57.6 and Civ. 1.5.1, †) [*]. — descendere (60.3, 74.3, 74.4 and 10× Caes.) [Fr.]. — desiderare (‘to have lost’ (soldiers, ships, vel sim.), 21.4, 40.4 and 9× Caes., B.Hisp. 23.8, 31.10, †) [Fr.]. — di inmortales (15.8, 70.4, 75.3 and 8× Caes.; cf. also B.Afr. 82.2, B.Hisp. 17.1, 29.4,  †) [*].  — difficulter (48.1 and Gal.  7.58.2, Civ.  1.62.1,  †) [Fi., L.].  — dirimere proelium (11.5, 46.7, 63.6 and Civ. 1.40.7, B.Afr. 19.1, †) [L.]. — diripere (19.1, 36.5, 41.1, 58.4 and 18× Caes.) [Fr.]. — disciplina (24.3, 34.4, 48.3, 65.1, 68.2, 78.2 and 10× Caes., †) [Fr.]. — dis­ par (15.6 and Gal. 5.16.2, 7.39.1) [L.]. — diu (positive, not comparative or superlative, 9.4, 14.5, 29.3, 33.2, 55.2, 63.4 and 5× Gal., 2× Civ., 6× B.Afr., †; Hirtius only employs the comparative diutius (4×)) [Fi.]. — editus (‘high’, 18.1, 28.3, 31.3, 35.3, 42.3, 61.3, 72.2 and 10× Caes., B.Hisp. 8.1, †) [Fr.]. — se eicere (17.6, 19.5, 20.1 and Gal. 4.15.1, 5.15.3, 7.28.5, Civ. 3.96.3, †) [L.]. — electus (16.5, 17.3, 30.6 and 6× Caes., B.Afr. 18.1, 32.4, B.Hisp. 15.2, †) [Fr.]. — emittere (19.5, 24.5, 61.6 and 10× Caes., †) [Fr.]. — eo biduo (9.3, 59.2 and Gal. 7.11.1, Civ. 1.41.1, 1.87.4, †) © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

The vocabulary of Hirt. Gal. 8 and the B.Alex.

221

[P.]. — eruptionem facere (27.5 and 9× Gal., Civ. 2.2.6, 3× B.Afr., 9× B.Hisp., †) [Fr.]. — excludere (1.4, 6.1 and 8× Caes., 5× B.Afr., 3× B.Hisp., †) [Fr.]. — excursus (19.2, Civ. 3.92.2, †) [*]. — expedire (verb, as opposed to the adjective expeditus, 25.3 and 2× Gal., 6× Civ.,  †) [Fr.]. — exprimere (6.1, 56.2 and Gal.  1.32.3, 7.22.4, †) [L.]. — expugnare (22.1, 30.3, 41.1, 42.3, 43.2, 48.2 and 24× Caes., 4× B.Afr., †) [Fr.]. — facilis aditus (17.4, 30.6 and Gal. 3.25.2, †) [*]. — foramen (1.2 and Civ. 3.53.4, †) [D.]. — fortiter (positive, not comparative or superlative, 40.3 and 4× Gal., 2× Civ., 2× B.Afr.; Hirtius only employs the superlative: Gal. 8.19.8, 8.28.4, 8.29.3) [Fi.].  — frons (‘front line’, 14.3, 37.4, 39.2 and Gal.  2.8.3, 7.23.2, Civ. 1.80.2, B.Afr. 59.2, †) [L.]. — impedimento esse (23.2, 61.6 and Gal. 1.25.3, 2.25.1, Civ.  3.17.4, 3.46.5, B.Afr. 58.5,  †) [*].  — aliquem imperatorem appellare (48.2 and Civ. 2.26.1, 3.31.1, 3.71.3, B.Afr. 45.2, B.Hisp. 19.6, †; cf. also imperatoris nomine a. at Civ. 2.32.14) [L.]. — impulsus + abl. (74.3 and Civ. 2.38.3) [Fi.]. — incolumis (16.6, 20.6, 28.2, 47.1, 47.5 and 39× Caes.) [Fi.]. — incommodum/-a accipere (40.5, 42.1, 43.2 and Gal.  5.10.3, 7.14.1, 7.29.4, 7.30.1, 7.30.3, Civ.  3.10.4, 3.73.5, 3.77.2, †; cf. also Gal. 6.13.7: ne quid … incommodi a.) [*]. — inductus + abl. (74.3 and Gal. 1.2.1, 1.27.4) [Fi.]. — infra (13.5 and 4× Gal., 2× Civ., B.Afr. 78.1, †) [*]. — iniquitas loci/locorum (40.3, 74.1, 76.2 and 5× Gal., 2× Civ., B.Hisp. 29.2, †) [Fr.]. — insinuare (52.2 and Gal. 4.33.1, †) [L.]. — intercludere (3.4, 5.3, 20.5, 27.3, 43.1, 53.2, 56.2 and 27× Caes.) [Fr.]. — intermittere + inf. (‘to cease doing something’, 6.1, 37.1 and Gal. 4.31.1, 8× B.Afr., †) [L.]. — interpellare (50.2 and Gal. 1.44.8, 6× Civ., †) [L.]. — intra munitionem/-es (73.1 and 7× Gal., 5× Civ., 7× B.Afr., †) [L.]. — inutilis (61.6, 65.1 and 6× Caes., B.Afr. 54.4, †) [Fi.]. — laborare (1.4, 21.3 and 18× Caes.) [Fr.]. — legionarius (21.4, 29.4, 60.4, 63.1 and 13× Caes., 17× B.Afr., 3× B.Hisp.,  †) [Fi.].  — leniter (11.6 and 4× Caes., 5× B.Afr., †) [Fi.]. — liberaliter (71.1 and 3× Gal., 3× Civ.; cf. especially liberaliter polliceri at 71.1 and Gal. 4.21.6, †) [Fi., L.]. — licentia (56.2 and Gal. 7.52.3, 5× Civ., B.Afr. 54.1, 85.8, †) [L.]. — lictor (52.3 and Civ. 1.6.7, 3.32.4, †) [Fi.]. — loco alicuius ducere (38.2 and Gal. 5.5.4, †) [L.]. — longior dies (‘a more remote day’, 71.1 and Gal. 1.40.14, †; cf. also TLL s.v. longus 1641.64–70 and e. g. Cic. Att. 13.3.1, Liv. 38.52.1) [L.]. — maturus (3.4 and 8× Gal., 3× Civ., †) [*]. — mens (9.1, 18.2, 58.2, 63.1 and 8× Gal., 4× Civ., 3× B.Afr., 3× B.Hisp.; Hirtius only employs animus (9×)) [L.]. — meritum, -i n. (11.2 and 8× Gal., 2× Civ., †) [L.]. — militaris (31.1, 34.2, 48.3, 65.1, 74.1 and 36× Caes.) [Fr.]. — militia (56.4 and Gal. 6.14.1, 6.18.3, 7.14.9,  †) [L.].  — mitis (70.2 and Gal.  7.43.4,  †) [*].  — mobilis (17.4 and Gal. 3.10.3, 4.5.1, †) [Fi., L.]. — movere (2.5, 7.2, 57.6 and 35× Caes.) [Fr.]. — munitiones proferre (1.2 and Civ. 1.81.3, †) [D.]. — naturalis (8.1, 12.4, 13.2, 72.1 and Civ. 3.40.2, 3.92.4, †) [Fi.]. — negotium (2.1, 8.4, 9.1, 9.2, 51.3, 70.5 and 25× Caes.) [Fr.]. — neque/nec vero (2.1, 15.8, 18.1 and 12× Civ., †) [L.]. — notitia (8.5, 10.5, 27.6 and Gal. 6.21.5, 6.24.5, Civ. 1.31.2, 3.104.3, †; cf. especially locorum n. at 8.5, 10.5, 27.6, Civ. 1.31.2, †) [B., *]. — obducere (2.4 and Gal. 2.8.4 [obduxit α, duxit β], Civ. 3.46.1, †) [L.]. — obsidio (61.2, 61.6 and 7× Gal., 7× Civ., †; contrast obses© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

222

Appendix E  

sio at Hirt. Gal.  8.14.1, 8.34.1 and Caes. Gal.  6.36.2, 7.36.1, Civ.  3.24.4,  †) [Fr., L.]. — obtestari (16.4, 33.1 and 5× Gal., 1× Civ.) [D.]. — occīdere (4.2, 57.1 and 6× Caes., 6× B.Afr., 3× B.Hisp., †) [Fr.]. — occultus (13.1, 23.1, 48.3 and 14× Caes., B.Afr. 50.2, †) [*]. — offensio (48.1 and Gal. 1.19.5, Civ. 3.47.2, 3.60.2, †) [L.]. — omni ratione (8.6, 17.1 and Civ. 1.65.5, 1.67.5, †) [L.]. — omnino (1.5, 6.3, 18.4, 19.5, 20.5 and 35× Caes., 3× B.Afr., †) [Fi., Z.]. — opplere (19.4 and Civ. 3.73.3, †) [L., D.]. — ornare (25.4, 50.3 and Gal. 7.33.1, B.Afr. 72.4, 86.1, B.Hisp. 29.4, †) [L.].  — se parare (13.4, 13.6, 45.4 and Gal.  7.41.4 [parare β, apparare α],  †) [Fr.]. — pariter (17.4 and Civ.  3.52.1, B.Afr. 69.4, †) [Fi., D.]. — pecunia (34.1, 34.2, 49.2, 51.3, 55.4, 55.5, 56.3, 56.6, 64.2 and 46× Caes.) [*]. — pedester (26.1, 26.2, 44.1, 61.1 and 9× Caes., 3× B.Afr., 2× B.Hisp., †) [Fr.]. — penes (preposition, 70.7 and Gal. 7.21.3, Civ. 1.76.4, 1.87.1, 2.20.8, †) [L.]. — periclitari (13.4, 16.1, 43.1 and 6× Caes.; contrast periculum facere at Hirt. Gal. 8.34.1) [Fi., Fr.]. — per­ ire (‘to die’, 25.6, 31.6, 43.3 and 5× Caes.) [G.]. — perpaucus (16.2 and 7× Gal., Civ. 2.42.5, 3.38.4, †) [D.]. — perturbare milites (20.5, 22.1, 75.2 and Gal. 1.39.5, 2.21.2, †) [*]. — planus (18.3, 36.3, 72.1 and Gal. 3.13.1, 4.23.6) [Fr.]. — post(ea)­ quam (12.2, 14.1, 20.3, 21.1 and 20× Caes.) [L., Z.]. — potens (58.1 and 9× Gal., Civ. 1.4.3, †) [L.]. — potestas (‘facultas, ‘occasio’, 46.4, 60.1 and 4× Caes., cf. LC s.v. 1156 (B)) [Fr.].  — praecipitare (18.3, 31.4, 46.5 and 5× Caes., B.Hisp. 5.5,  †) [Fr.]. — praeesse (4.1, 15.1, 65.1 and 31× Caes.) [Fr.]. — praeoccupare animum/-os (63.2 and Gal. 6.41.3, Civ. 2.34.6, †) [L.]. — praesertim (8.5, 42.3, 51.4 and 15× Caes., 2× B.Afr., †) [*]. — praeterea (2.2, 2.5, 11.4, 12.4, 14.4, 46.5, 48.3 and 27× Caes., 17× B.Afr., 9× B.Hisp., †) [Fi.]. — praetermittere (49.2 and 3× Gal., 3× Civ., 3× B.Afr., B.Hisp. 41.2, †) [L.]. — praetor (42.3, 48.1, 53.4, 59.1 and Gal. 1.21.2, 17× Civ., 3× B.Afr.,  †) [Fi.].  — pressus + abl. (43.3 and Gal.  4.24.2,  †) [Fi.].  — prima luce (73.2, 74.1 and 13× Gal., 7× Civ., B.Afr. 63.5, 95.2, †) [L.]. — proficere (3.3, 12.4, 20.2, 25.1, 30.6, 31.1, 76.2 and 14× Caes.) [Fi.]. — profiteri (55.3, 59.1 and 4× Gal., 2× Civ., †) [L.]. — proinde (8.6 and 12× Caes., †) [Fi., P.]. — properare + inf. (20.4 and Gal. 2.11.1, 5.33.6, Civ. 2.43.2, 3.33.1, 3.36.6, †; contrast fes­ tinare + inf. at B.Alex. 27.4 (†)) [*].  — propugnare (17.4, 26.2, 30.6 and 6× Caes., †) [Fr.]. — pugna (15.5, 15.8, 16.4 and 52× Caes., 5× B.Afr., 10× B.Hisp., †) [Fi., Fr., Z.].  — quod si/nisi (8.2, 11.5, 27.6, 63.6 and 19× Caes., 2× B.Afr.,  †) [V.]. — receptus, -us m. (7.1, 14.5, 47.1 and 17× Caes., B.Afr. 40.5, B.Hisp. 25.8, †) [Fr.]. — reicere (39.1 and 7× Gal., 2× Civ., †) [L.]. — reliquae copiae (19.3, 43.3 and 7× Gal., 4× Civ., 4× B.Afr., †) [*]. — repellere (20.2, 20.4, 21.2, 30.6 and 16× Caes.) [Fr.]. — repraesentare (70.1 and Gal. 1.40.14, †) [L.]. — saepenumero (16.3 and Gal. 1.33.2, 1.39.1, 1.40.7, 6.8.4, 7.62.2, B.Afr. 35.4, †) [L.]. — scienter (17.4 and Civ. 1.55.1) [Fi., L.]. — scutum (20.6, 58.3, 59.1 and 12× Caes.) [Fr.]. — semotus (2.3 and Civ. 1.84.1, †) [*]. — signum inferre (54.2 and 5× Gal., 2× Civ., B.Afr. 69.2, 82.4, †) [Fr., L.]. — sig­num tollere (57.1 and Civ. 2.20.4, B.Hisp. 40.5, †) [Fr., L.]. — simultas (49.2 [simultatium codd., simulationis Schneider, Klotz] and Gal. 5.44.2, Civ.  2.25.4,  †) [L.].  — sollertia (3.1, 13.2, 15.6, 16.5 and Gal.  7.22.1, Civ.  2.8.3, © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

The vocabulary of Hirt. Gal. 8 and the B.Alex.

223

2.15.4, †) [*]. — studium (12.4, 20.2, 22.2, 31.1, 63.1 and 41× Caes., 3× B.Afr., †) [*].  — subminis­trare (13.2, 35.3 and Gal.  1.40.11, 3.25.1, 4.20.1, 3× B.Afr.,  †) [Fr.]. — subicere (2.5, 26.2, 28.3, 35.2, 35.3 and 14× Caes., 2× B.Afr., †) [G.]. — subsidiarius (14.3 and Civ.  1.83.2, B.Afr. 59.2, †; contrast auxiliarius at B.Alex. 62.1, Hirt. Gal. 8.5.3) [L.]. — subsidium (11.2, 14.2, 21.3, 25.6, 37.4, 38.1, 39.2, 59.2 and 27× Gal., 20× Civ., 7× B.Afr., 5× B.Hisp.; Hirtius only employs auxilium) [Fi., Fr., L.]. — tergum (17.5, 20.5 and 26× Caes., 6× B.Afr., B.Hisp. 40.5, †; cf. especially terga vertere: 17.5 and 6× Gal., 8× Civ., B.Afr. 70.4, †) [Fr., D.]. — terres­ tris (25.1, 32.1, [33.5, del. Nipperdey 1847: 195], 34.3 and Civ.  3.10.11, 3.15.6) [*]. — totae copiae (instead of omnes copiae, 76.1 and Civ. 3.44.6, B.Hisp. 16.2, †) [L.]. — transitu prohibere (29.2 and Gal. 7.57.4, †) [L.]. — transmarinus (3.4, 56.4 and Gal.  6.24.5, Civ.  1.29.1,  †) [L., Z.].  — tribunus (43.3, 57.1 and 56× Caes.) [Fr.]. — turbidus (5.2 and Civ. 2.22.2, †) [*]. — ubi primum (17.5 and Gal. 4.12.1, 7.51.3, Civ. 3.18.3, †) [L.]. — urbanus (65.1, 78.4 and Gal. 7.1.2, 7.6.1, Civ. 1.85.8, 3.20.1, 3.83.1, B.Afr. 85.6,  †) [*].  — vallus (= vallum, 2.4 and Civ.  3.63.1,6,7) [P.]. — vehementer (positive, not comparative or superlative: 46.2, 56.6, 65.3 and 7× Gal., 2× Civ., B.Afr. 72.1, 4× B.Hisp., †); Hirtius only employs the comparative (Gal. 8.48.3; also 2× Gal., 3× Civ., †) and superlative (Gal. 8.36.4; also 2× Civ., 2× B.Hisp.,  †) of the adverb [*].  — vernaculus (53.4, 53.5, 54.3, 57.1, 57.3 and Civ. 2.20.4, 6× B.Hisp., †) [Fr.]. — versari (21.1, 36.5, 38.1, 43.4, 50.2 and 11× Gal., 2× Civ., B.Afr. 16.1, B.Hisp. 24.4, †) [Fi.]. — veteranus (2.3, 4.1, 33.3, 44.4, 61.1, 69.1, 74.3, 76.1 and 9× Caes., 19× B.Afr., †) [Fr.].

3. Expressions attested in the Bellum Alexandrinum and Hirt. Gal. 8, but not in the Caesarian commentarii adiungere (with an emotion as object, 49.3: sollicitudo and Gal.  8.48.2: odium, †; cf. appendix H on 49.3, p.  243) [L.].  — admiratio (6.2 and Gal.  8.pr.6,8,  †) [B.]. — admonere + acc. c. inf. (5.3 and Gal. 8.12.7) [*]. — auxiliarius (62.1 and Gal. 8.5.3, †) [*]. Contrast subsidiarius (see appendix E.2 above) and auxiliaris at Gal. 3.25.1, Civ. 1.63.1, 1.78.1, B.Afr. 59.3, B.Hisp. 7.5, 30.1 (†). — calliditas (71.2 and Gal.  8.16.3,  †) [B.].  — causam defendere (59.1 and Gal.  8.52.4,  †) [B.].  — condonare (‘to present as a gift’, 77.2 and Gal. 8.4.1, †) [B.]. — conflare (1.1 and Gal. 8.6.1; see also appendix H on 1.1, p. 239 below) [L.]. — consolatio (8.1 and Gal. 8.38.2, †) [B.]. — cum interim (74.4 and Gal. 8.19.8, †) [L., D., B.]. — decursio (42.3 and Gal. 8.24.3, †) [L.]. — dominatio (23.2 and Gal. 8.52.4, †) [*]; contrast dominatus, -us m. at Civ. 1.4.5. — inertia (10.5 and Gal. 8.pr.1, B.Afr. 31.5, †) [L., B.].  — externus hostis (65.1 and Gal.  8.27.2, 8.37.1,  †) [L., B.].  — inservire (12.2 and Gal. 8.8.1) [L., B.]. — intercīdere (72.2, 73.3 and Gal. 8.14.4, 8.43.4, †) [B.]. — libentius facere (70.3 and Gal. 8.48.2; cf. also B.Afr. 7.1: libenter … facturos, 33.1: libenti animo facturos, †) [B.]. — lustrare (56.5 and Gal. 8.52.1; cf. also B.Afr. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

224

Appendix E  

75.1, †) [L., B.]. — non tantum …, sed etiam (32.4, 34.2, 42.1, 49.2 and Gal. 8.6.2, 8.41.6; cf. also neque t. …, s. e. at B.Alex. 58.4, 67.1, Gal. 8.52.5 and non tantum …, sed prope iam at B.Alex. 63.5) [L., B.]. — odio esse (53.4 and Gal. 8.7.4, †) [B.]. — operosus (9.2 and Gal. 8.pr.4, †) [*]. — optare (27.3, 41.1 and Gal. 8.9.2, 8.41.2) [D.]. — pertinaciter (26.2 and Gal. 8.13.2, 8.22.1, 8.41.3, 8.43.4, †) [*]. — acriter proeliari (30.4, 31.1 and Hirt. Gal. 8.19.5, 8.42.1) [Fr.]. — prohiberi … quominus (8.2 and Gal. 8.34.3, †) [L.]. — quamquam (11.2, 42.2 and Gal. 8.pr.8, 8.42.3, 8.52.3, 8.55.2; cf. R. Menge 1889: 153) [B.]. — consuevisse semper + inf. (53.1 and Gal.  8.47.2, †) [L.].  — summa velocitas (8.5 and Gal.  8.36.2, †) [B.]. — tam … quam (55.2, 59.1 and Gal. 8.23.6) [L., B.]. — vena (8.1 and Gal. 8.41.4, 8.43.4, †) [B.].

4. Words attested several times in Hirt. Gal. 8, but absent from the Bellum Alexandrinum aestiva (3×) [Fr.]. — collocare legiones (‘to station legions’, 5×) [Fr.]. — concitator (2×) [Fi.]. — in conspectum venire (4×) [Fr.]. — contemnere paucitatem (3×) [Fr.]. — convenire in unum locum (3×) [Fr.]. — convertere equum (2×) [Fr.]. — cuniculus (2×) [Fr.]. — deditio (3×) [Fr.]. — deprimere fossam (2×) [Fr.]. — descensus, -us m. (2×) [Fr.]. — devincere (4×) [Fr.]. — diffugere (3×) [Fr.]. — discessio (2×, †) [*]. — disiectus (‘scattered’, ‘dispersed’, 3×) [Fr.]. — dimittere in omnes/ plures partes (3×) [Fr.]. — dividere (of troops, 2×) [Fr.]. — elicere (3×) [Fr.]. — eques­tre proelium (4×) [Fr.]. — equus (10×) [Fr.]. — evitare (3×) [Fr.]. — explorare (3×) [Fi.]. — explorator (2×) [Fi.]. — frumentaria res (2×) [Fr.]. — graviter (2×) [Fi.]. — hibernare (2×) [Fr.]. — hiemare (2×) [Fr.]. — importare frumentum (2×) [Fr.]. — in vicem (4×) [Fi.]. — incursio (2×) [Fr.]. — libenter (positive, as opposed to comparative and superlative, 2×) [Fi.]. — obses (10×) [Fr.]. — pabulatio (4×) [Fr.]. — pabulator (2×) [Fi.]. — percellere (3×) [Fr.]. — perfidia (2×) [Fi.]. — prae­ fectus (7×) [Fr.]. — praeda magna potiri (3×) [Fr.]. — praemittere (5×) [Fr.]. — recedere (2×) [Fr.]. — renuntiare (2×) [Fr.]. — speculari (2×) [Fr.]. — spoliare (2×) [Fr.]. — testatus (‘well-known’, 2×) [Fr.]. — togatus (3×) [*]. — turma (7×) [Fi.]. 

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

Appendix F: The distribution of hapax legomena in the Caesarian commentarii

The following table indicates the number and frequency of hapax legomena in Caesar’s Bellum Gallicum and Bellum Civile. The statistics are followed by a list of the respective lexemes, which was compiled with the aid of the lexica of Meusel (1887–1893) and Eichert (1883). Adverbs and adjectives are not counted separately, but as a single lexeme. Numbers, proper names, toponyms, and ethnica have been excluded. The list contains several words which feature in Civ. 3.105.3–6 (cf. p. 111 with n. 155 above) or other passages that have been suspected of interpolation. Furthermore, we have also included lexemes that are attested only in one branch of the manuscript tradition or have been rejected by some modern critics (in these cases we cite the manuscript evidence or the relevant modern editions). The exclusion of some or all of these words would lead to slightly different frequencies,1 but four basic facts would still remain: (a) Caesar’s vocabulary is much larger than is commonly stated and comprises more than 3200 lexemes;2 (b) there is considerable variation in the frequency of hapax lego­mena in the individual Caesarian commentarii; (c)  the frequency of hapax legomena is naturally much higher in books that contain many ethnographic or technical descriptions; and (d) Eden’s claim that the frequency of hapax lego­mena is generally higher in the Bellum Civile is incorrect.3 1 If we exclude Civ. 3.105.3–6, there would be 176 hapax legomena in Civ. 3 and the book would contain 15046 words. This would yield a frequency of 11.7 hapax legomena per 1000 words. 2 We have counted a total of 3251 lexemes. Fränkel (1933: 38 ~ 1968: 308), L. G. H. Hall (1998: 17), Willi (2010: 229), Mayer (2011: 209), and many others speak of 1200 to 1300 lexemes. This figure ultimately goes back to Hubbell (1902: 161): “In considering the vocabulary of the Bellum Gallicum as a whole, we are dealing with about twenty-six hundred different words … Of this number seven hundred and eighty-eight are used but once …. Further, six hundred and fourteen words occur only two or three times, over two-thirds of these being used but twice. We may, therefore, consider as the working vocabulary of the seven books between twelve and thirteen hundred words.” Cf. also Dennison 1906: 138 and Kalinka 1929: 97–8. 3 These observations are also supported by the statistics of Ehrenfried (1888: 30), Frese (1900: 8), and Hubbell (1902: 161). Ehrenfried and Frese give higher figures for the total of hapax legomena in Gal. 1–7 (590) and Civ. 1–3 (410), but the corresponding frequencies of 13.07 and 12.59 are not too far apart and show that the Bellum Civile does not contain a significantly higher number of hapax legomena. Hubbell discusses only the hapax legomena of the Bellum Gallicum. Since many of these lexemes are also attested in the Bellum Civile and therefore absent © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

226

Appendix F  

Number of words Number of hapax legomena Frequency as per 1000 words Gal. 1

8227

76

9.24

Gal. 2

4189

35

8.36

Gal. 3

3615

40

11.07

Gal. 4

4605

46

9.99

Gal. 5

7436

81

10.89

Gal. 6

5514

98

17.77

Gal. 7

11570

142

12.27

Gal. 1–7

45156

518

11.47

Civ. 1

10992

123

11.19

Civ. 2

6437

104

16.16

Civ. 3

15148

188

12.41

Civ. 1–3

32577

415

12.74

Total:

77733

933

12.00

Bellum Gallicum 1: praecedere (Gal.  1.1.4)  — dives (Gal.  1.2.1)  — fortitudo (Gal.  1.2.5)  — sementis (Gal.  1.3.1)  — dictio (Gal.  1.4.2)  — obaeratus (Gal. 1.4.2) — exsequi (Gal. 1.4.3) — molere (Gal. 1.5.3) — reditio (Gal. 1.5.3) — exurere (Gal.  1.5.4)  — persolvere (Gal.  1.12.6)  — socer (Gal.  1.12.7)  — reminisci (Gal.  1.13.4)  — conscius (Gal.  1.14.2)  — num (Gal.  1.14.3)  — inpunus (Gal.  1.14.4)  — inpunitas (Gal.  1.14.5)  — populatio (Gal.  1.15.4: rapinis pabu­lationibus populationibusque codd., r. populationibus­que Panaetius 1511: 3 recto (et al. edd. vett.), r. pabulationibusque Oudendorp 1737: vol. 1, 27)  — rapina (Gal.  1.15.4)  — subvehere (Gal.  1.16.3)  — vergobretus (Gal.  1.16.5)  — seditiosus (Gal.  1.17.2)  — liceri (Gal.  1.18.3)  — largus (Gal.  1.18.6)  — nubere from our lists, Hubbell’s total (784) is much higher than ours (482). However, the figures which he gives for the individual books of the Bellum Gallicum reveal discrepancies that are quite similar to those in our table, viz. Gal. 1: 122 hapax legomena (frq. 14.82), 2: 50 (frq. 11.94), 3: 66 (frq. 18.26), 4: 65 (frq. 14.12), 5: 135 (frq. 18.15), 6: 129 (frq. 23.39), 7: 221 (frq. 19.1). The statistics given by Richter (1977: 183–4) would lead to similar conclusions, but are fraught with inaccuracies. E.g., according to Richter, there are slightly fewer than 400 words that occur once or several times in the Bellum Gallicum, but are absent from the Bellum Civile. This figure is much too low, for there are about 480 words which are unattested in the Bellum Civile and occur once in the Bellum Gallicum. If one adds the lexemes that occur several times in the Bellum Gallicum, but not in the Bellum Civile, the total would be well above 500 words. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

Hapax legomena in Caesar 

227

(Gal.  1.18.7)  — temperantia (Gal.  1.19.2)  — commonefacere (Gal.  1.19.4)  — amor (Gal.  1.20.3)  — copiosus (Gal.  1.23.1)  — conligare (Gal.  1.25.3)  — evellere (Gal.  1.25.3)  — praeoptare (Gal.  1.25.4)  — matara (Gal.  1.26.3)  — sepultura (Gal.  1.26.5)  — resciscere (Gal.  1.28.1)  — frux (Gal.  1.28.3)  — bonitas (Gal.  1.28.4)  — senex (Gal.  1.29.1)  — census (Gal.  1.29.3)  — fructuosus (Gal.  1.30.3)   — potentatus, -us m. (Gal.  1.31.4)  — adamare (Gal.  1.31.5)  — super­bus (Gal. 1.31.12) — iracundus (Gal. 1.31.13) — emigrare (Gal. 1.31.14) — intueri (Gal.  1.32.2)  — tristis (Gal.  1.32.2)  — tacitus (Gal.  1.32.3)  — tris­titia (Gal.  1.32.3)  — velut (Gal.  1.32.4)  — horrere (Gal.  1.32.4)  — molimentum (Gal. 1.34.3) — deterior, -ius (Gal. 1.36.4) — invictus (Gal. 1.36.7) — praecavere (Gal. 1.38.2) — circinus (Gal. 1.38.4) — convincere (Gal. 1.40.12) — innocentia (Gal. 1.40.13) — repraesentare (Gal. 1.40.14) — respuere (Gal. 1.42.2) — inridiculus (Gal. 1.42.6) — terrenus (Gal. 1.43.1) — honorificus (Gal. 1.43.7) — dependere (Gal. 1.44.4: dependerint β, pependerint α) — remunerari (Gal. 1.44.13) — adequitare (Gal.  1.46.1)  — speculari (Gal.  1.47.6)  — decĭdere (Gal.  1.48.6; cf. Gal.  4.12.6: cecidisset α, decidisset β)  — iuba (Gal.  1.48.7)  — declarare (Gal.  1.50.4)  — necne (Gal.  1.50.4)  — vaticinatio (Gal.  1.50.4)  — desuper (Gal. 1.52.5) — insilire (Gal. 1.52.5) — tran(sn)atare (Gal. 1.53.2: tranare α, tranatare T, transnatare U; cf. tranare at Civ. 1.48.7) — vincire (Gal. 1.53.5). Bellum Gallicum 2: molestus (Gal.  2.1.3)  — fertilitas (Gal.  2.4.2)  — ferax (Gal.  2.4.6)  — prudentia (Gal.  2.4.7)  — supersedere (Gal.  2.8.1)  — paululum (Gal. 2.8.3; cf. Gal. 7.50.5: paulum α U, paululum T) — pavor (Gal. 2.12.1: pavore β, terrore α) — relanguescere (Gal. 2.15.4) — patrius (Gal. 2.15.5) — incīdere (Gal. 2.17.4) — enasci (Gal. 2.17.4: ramis enatis α E, ramis β) — rubus (Gal. 2.17.4) — munimentum (Gal. 2.17.4) — sentis (Gal. 2.17.4) — aequalis (Gal. 2.18.1) — acclivitas (Gal. 2.18.2) — identidem (Gal. 2.19.5) — porrigere (Gal. 2.19.5) — provolare (Gal. 2.19.6) — successus, -us m. (Gal. 2.20.2: successus α, incursus β) — laxare (Gal.  2.25.2)  — navare (Gal.  2.25.3)  — inniti (Gal.  2.27.1)  — turpitudo (Gal. 2.27.2) — obitus, -us m. (Gal. 2.29.5) — excursio (Gal. 2.30.1) — inridere (Gal. 2.30.3) — contemptus, -us m. (Gal. 2.30.4) — despoliare (Gal. 2.31.4) — invidere (Gal. 2.31.5) — dominari (Gal. 2.31.6) — acervus (Gal. 2.32.4) — intexere (Gal. 2.33.2) — sectio (Gal. 2.33.6) — hibernaculum (Gal. 2.35.3: hibernacula α, hiberna β). Bellum Gallicum 3: culmen (Gal.  3.2.5)  — ministrare (Gal.  3.4.1 (administrandis α)) — gaesum (Gal. 3.4.1) — nauticus (Gal. 3.8.1) — inviolatus (Gal. 3.9.3) — concludere (Gal. 3.9.7) — lingula (Gal. 3.12.1) — extrudere (Gal. 3.12.3) — decessus, -us m. (Gal. 3.13.1) — prora (Gal. 3.13.2) — configere (Gal. 3.13.4) — pollex (Gal. 3.13.4) — transtrum (Gal. 3.13.4) — aluta (Gal. 3.13.6) — linum (Gal. 3.13.6) — pulsus, -us m. (Gal. 3.13.7) — copula (Gal. 3.13.8) — cautes (Gal. 3.13.9: cotes β] cautes α)  — extimescere (Gal.  3.13.9)  — saevire (Gal.  3.13.9: se vento dedissent © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

228

Appendix F  

β, se [om. A] saevire ventus coepisset vento dedissent α, saevire ventus coepisset Barwick 1938: 119 n. 1) — absimilis (Gal. 3.14.5) — adfigere (Gal. 3.14.5) — in­ serere (Gal.  3.14.5)  — praerumpere (Gal.  3.14.6)  — praecidere (Gal.  3.14.7: abscisis α, praecisis β)  — malacia (Gal.  3.15.3 (malic/tia E T))  — interventus, -us m. (Gal.  3.15.5)  — callidus (Gal.  3.18.1)  — pergere (Gal.  3.18.8)  — sarmentum (Gal. 3.18.8) — defatigatio (Gal. 3.19.3) — evadere (Gal. 3.19.4) — promptus (Gal. 3.19.6) — adulescentulus (Gal. 3.21.1) — sectura (Gal. 3.21.3) — soldurii (Gal.  3.22.1)  — frui (Gal.  3.22.2)  — intritus (Gal.  3.26.2: intritae ς, Kraner/ Dittenberger/Meusel 1913–20: vol. 1, 431, integrae V, interritae ω)  — prorumpere (Gal.  3.26.3, cf. Gal. 3.14.6: praerumpebantur] prorump- β)  — continuatio (Gal. 3.29.2). Bellum Gallicum 4: lavare (Gal.  4.1.10)  — frigidus (Gal.  4.1.10)  — inpensus (Gal. 4.2.2: inpenso α, inmenso β) — ephippium (Gal. 4.2.4) — iners (Gal. 4.2.4) — ephippiatus (Gal. 4.2.5) — quamvis (Gal. 4.2.5) — remollescere (Gal. 4.2.5) — sinere (Gal. 4.2.5: sinunt α E, patiuntur β) — captus, -us m. (Gal. 4.3.3) — triennium (Gal.  4.4.1)  — viator (Gal.  4.5.2)  — permulcere (Gal.  4.6.5)  — possidĕre (Gal.  4.7.4)  — profluere (Gal.  4.10.1)  — diffluere (Gal.  4.10.4: diffluit β, defluit α E) — avis (Gal. 4.10.5) — ovum (Gal. 4.10.5) — piscis (Gal. 4.10.5) — aquatio (Gal. 4.11.4) — subfodire (Gal. 4.12.2) — dementia (Gal. 4.13.2) — gaudere (Gal.  4.13.6)  — confluens (noun, Gal.  4.15.2)  — festucula (Gal.  4.17.4: festuculisque β, fistucisque α, sistucisque E)  — perpendiculum (Gal.  4.17.4)  — pronus (Gal.  4.17.4)  — fibula (Gal.  4.17.6)  — iunctura (Gal.  4.17.6)  — exportare (Gal.  4.18.4) — anteponere (Gal.  4.22.2)  — instabilis (Gal.  4.23.5)  — ignotus (Gal. 4.24.2) — insuefactus (Gal. 4.24.3) — contestari (Gal. 4.25.3: contestatus α, obtestatus U, obtestatur T) — evenire (Gal. 4.25.3) — speculatorius (Gal. 4.26.4) — orator (Gal. 4.27.3) — delitescere (Gal. 4.32.4) — demetere (Gal. 4.32.4) — metere (Gal.  4.32.5)  — insinuere (Gal.  4.33.1)  — auriga (Gal.  4.33.2)  — stabilitas (Gal. 4.33.3) — temo (Gal. 4.33.3) — perfugium (Gal. 4.38.2). Bellum Gallicum 5: monstrare (Gal. 5.1.2 (demon- α)) — subductio (Gal. 5.1.2) — adportare (Gal.  5.1.4)  — lis (Gal.  5.1.9)  — tangere (Gal.  5.3.1)  — familiaritas (Gal. 5.3.5: familiaritate α, auctoritate β) — exardescere (Gal. 5.4.4) — obstinatus (Gal. 5.6.4) — sevocare (Gal. 5.6.4) — sanus (Gal. 5.7.7) — remigare (Gal. 5.8.4) — vectorius (Gal. 5.8.4) — annotinus (Gal. 5.8.6) — expeditio (Gal. 5.10.1) — exami­ nare (Gal.  5.12.4)  — abies (Gal.  5.12.5)  — plumbum (Gal.  5.12.5)  — albus (Gal.  5.12.5)  — mediterraneus (Gal.  5.12.5)  — fagus (Gal.  5.12.5)  — anser (Gal. 5.12.6) — gallina (Gal. 5.12.6) — gustare (Gal. 5.12.6) — lepus (Gal. 5.12.6) — temperatus (Gal. 5.12.6) — triquetrus (Gal. 5.13.1) — bruma (Gal. 5.13.3) — cae­ ruleus (Gal. 5.14.2) — inficere (Gal. 5.14.2) — vitrum (Gal. 5.14.2) — promittere (Gal. 5.14.3) — radere (Gal. 5.14.3.) — absistere (Gal. 5.17.2: absisterent codd., abstinerent Vielhaber 1866: 233) — provenire (Gal. 5.24.1) — confinium (Gal. 5.24.2) — © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

Hapax legomena in Caesar 

229

mederi (Gal. 5.24.6) — regnare (Gal. 5.25.3) — impulsus (Gal. 5.25.4) — lignator (Gal. 5.26.2) — coactus, -us m. (Gal. 5.27.3) — porro (Gal. 5.27.4) — pietas (Gal.  5.27.7)  — ignobilis (Gal.  5.28.1)  — quantusvis (Gal.  5.28.4)  — pertimes­ cere (Gal. 5.29.7 (timenda α)) — reposcere (Gal. 5.30.2) — sapere (Gal. 5.30.2) — perendinus (Gal.  5.30.3)  — relegare (Gal.  5.30.3)  — languor (Gal.  5.31.5)  — obire (Gal.  5.33.3)  — lignatio (Gal.  5.39.2)  — adipisci (Gal.  5.39.4)  — attexere (Gal. 5.40.6) — exhaurire (Gal. 5.42.3) — ferramentum (Gal. 5.42.3) — sagulum (Gal. 5.42.3) — argilla (Gal. 5.43.1) — casa (Gal. 5.43.1) — fervens (Gal. 5.43.1) — fusilis (Gal. 5.43.1) — conflagrare (Gal. 5.43.4) — torrere (Gal. 5.43.4) — constipare (Gal. 5.43.5) — recessus, -us m. (Gal. 5.43.5) — introire (Gal. 5.43.6) — percutere (Gal. 5.44.6) — balteus (Gal. 5.44.7) — vagina (Gal. 5.44.8) — interitus, -us m. (Gal. 5.47.4) — suadere (Gal. 5.48.3 (per- α)) — amentum (Gal. 5.48.5) — demere (Gal. 5.48.8) — cautus (Gal. 5.49.3) — praeco (Gal. 5.51.3) — intro­rumpere (Gal. 5.51.4) — laetatio (Gal. 5.52.6: laetatio α, laetitia β) — suspectus, -a, -um (Gal. 5.54.4) — haud (Gal. 5.54.5) — instigare (Gal. 5.56.1) — gener (Gal. 5.56.3). Bellum Gallicum 6: resarcire (Gal.  6.1.3: tempore sarciri β, tempore resarciri α) — ver (Gal. 6.3.4) — confinis (Gal. 6.3.5) — suggestus, -us m. (Gal. 6.3.6) — aestivus (Gal. 6.4.3) — concertare (Gal.  6.5.3: contenturum β, concertaturum A, concertaturum tenturum B)  — devocare (Gal.  6.7.6)  — placidus (Gal.  6.8.2)  — comitari (Gal.  6.8.8)  — nocens (Gal.  6.9.7)  — perquirere (Gal.  6.9.8)  — penitus (Gal.  6.10.4)  — nativus (Gal.  6.10.5)  — inperfectus (Gal.  6.12.5: infecta β, inperfecta α)  — interpretari (Gal.  6.13.4)  — contagio (Gal.  6.13.7 (cogitatione α))  — impius (Gal.  6.13.7)  — adlegere (Gal.  6.13.9: adlegitur β, om. α)  — immunitas (Gal. 6.14.1) — vacatio (Gal. 6.14.1) — ediscere (Gal. 6.14.3) — versus, -us m. (Gal.  6.14.3)  — perdiscere (Gal.  6.14.4)  — anima (Gal.  6.14.5)  — mundus, -i m. (Gal.  6.14.6)  — sidus (Gal.  6.14.6)  — ambactus (Gal.  6.15.2)  — administer (Gal. 6.16.2) — victima (Gal. 6.16.2) — vovere (Gal. 6.16.2) — numen (Gal. 6.16.3) — placare (Gal. 6.16.3) — furtum (Gal. 6.16.5) — ars (Gal. 6.17.1) — inventor (Gal. 6.17.1) — mercatura (Gal. 6.17.1) — caelestis (Gal. 6.17.2) — natalis (Gal. 6.18.2) — adolescere (Gal. 6.18.3) — adsistere (Gal. 6.18.3) — puerilis (Gal. 6.18.3) — dos (Gal. 6.19.1) — coniunctim (Gal. 6.19.2) — cor (Gal. 6.19.4) — funus (Gal.  6.19.4)  — magnificus (Gal.  6.19.4)  — sumptuosus (Gal.  6.19.4)  — funebris (Gal. 6.19.4: funebribus Ursinus 1570: 38, funeribus codd.) — duritia (Gal.  6.21.3)  — occultatio (Gal.  6.21.5)  — perluere (Gal.  6.21.5)  — promiscuus (Gal. 6.21.5) — reno (Gal. 6.21.5: rhenorum A, rhenonum B U, renorum T, renonum Q V) — caseus (Gal. 6.22.1) — alio (adv., Gal. 6.22.2) — accuratus (Gal. 6.22.3) — desidia (Gal.  6.23.6)  — derogare (Gal.  6.23.8)  — desertor (Gal.  6.23.8)  — proditor (Gal.  6.23.8)  — egestas (Gal.  6.24.4)  — sinistrorsus (Gal.  6.25.3)  — diffundere (Gal. 6.26.2) — mas (Gal. 6.26.3) — alces (Gal.  6.27.1)  — articulus (Gal. 6.27.1) — capra (Gal. 6.27.1) — crus (Gal. 6.27.1) — mutilus (Gal. 6.27.1) — nodus (Gal.  6.27.1)  — cubile (Gal.  6.27.3)  — accīdere (Gal.  6.27.4)  — venator © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

230

Appendix F  

(Gal. 6.27.4) — taurus (Gal. 6.28.1) — urus (Gal. 6.28.1) — fovea (Gal. 6.28.2) — velocitas (Gal.  6.28.2)  — durare (Gal.  6.28.3)  — adsuescere (Gal.  6.28.4; cf. Gal.  5.1.2: utimur maribus α, maribus uti adsueverant β)  — mansuefacere (Gal. 6.28.4) — epulae (Gal.  6.28.6)  — poculum (Gal.  6.28.6)  — detestari (Gal. 6.31.5) — taxus (Gal. 6.31.5) — adiacere (Gal. 6.33.2; cf. Civ. 2.1.2: a­ digit codd., adiacet Nipperdey 1847: 146, alii alia) — vicinitas (Gal.  6.34.3)  — fortunatus (Gal.  6.35.8)  — sectari (Gal.  6.35.8)  — seges (Gal.  6.36.2)  — siquidem (Gal. 6.36.2) — convalescere (Gal. 6.36.3) — subsidere (Gal. 6.36.3) — adfirmare (Gal. 6.37.9: confirmatur α, adfirmatur T, affirmabatur U1(R), affirmatur Uc) — discrimen (Gal. 6.38.2) — cuneus (Gal. 6.40.2) — prodesse (Gal. 6.40.6) — latebra (Gal. 6.43.6) — damnum (Gal. 6.44.1). Bellum Gallicum 7: adfingere (Gal. 7.1.2) — recĭdere (Gal.  7.1.4)  — agitare (Gal. 7.2.1) — patruus (Gal. 7.4.2) — severitas (Gal. 7.4.9) — delictum (Gal. 7.4.10; cf. Gal. 6.17.5: ei rei supplicium] ibi supplicium horum delictorum β) — antevertere (Gal. 7.7.3) — provincialis (Gal. 7.7.4) — discindere (Gal. 7.8.2: discissa β, dis­ cussa α) — sudor (Gal. 7.8.2 (labore β)) — pervagari (Gal. 7.9.2, but cf. Gal. 7.45.1: pervagentur] vagarentur α, pervagerentur U)  — subvectio (Gal.  7.10.1)  — secare (Gal. 7.14.4) — detractare (Gal. 7.14.9) — coniunx (Gal. 7.14.10) — perangustus (Gal. 7.15.5) — dissuadere (Gal. 7.15.6) — tenuitas (Gal. 7.17.3) — nus­ quam (Gal. 7.17.5 (numquam β)) — parentare (Gal.  7.17.7)  — haesitare (Gal. 7.19.3) — condemnare (Gal. 7.19.5) — concessus, -us m. (Gal. 7.20.2) — fortuitus (Gal.  7.20.2)  — mollities (Gal. 7.20.5) — sincerus (Gal.  7.20.8)  — sufficere (Gal. 7.20.11) — adprobare (Gal. 7.21.1) — concrepare (Gal. 7.21.1) — ferraria, -ae f. (Gal. 7.22.2) — laqueus (Gal. 7.22.2) — usitatus (Gal. 7.22.2) — effarcire (Gal. 7.23.2) — extrorsus (Gal. 7.23.2: extrorsus α U, introrsus T) — coagmentare (Gal. 7.23.3) — alternus (Gal. 7.23.5) — linea (Gal. 7.23.5) — fumare (Gal. 7.24.2) — fax (Gal. 7.24.4) — currere (Gal. 7.24.4: occurreretur β, curreretur α) — deurere (Gal. 7.25.1) — dignus (Gal. 7.25.1) — sebum (Gal. 7.25.2: sebi] sevi α, saevi T) — glaeba (Gal. 7.25.2) — fungi (Gal. 7.25.3) — perstare (Gal. 7.26.4) — cuneatim (Gal. 7.28.1) — depugnare (Gal. 7.28.1) — disparare (Gal. 7.28.6) — obsequentia (Gal. 7.29.4) — obsistere (Gal. 7.29.6) — adfirmatio (Gal. 7.30.4) — consternere (Gal. 7.30.4) — subdolus (Gal. 7.31.2) — permagnus (Gal. 7.31.4) — detrimentosus (Gal. 7.33.1) — praevertere (Gal. 7.33.1) — nimis (Gal. 7.36.6) — adiudicare (Gal.  7.37.1: adiudicatum α, adsignatum β)  — disceptator (Gal.  7.37.5)  — lacrimare (Gal. 7.38.1) — indictus (Gal. 7.38.2) — -met (Gal. 7.38.6) — pravus (Gal.  7.39.3)  — nefas (Gal.  7.40.7)  — ortus, -us m. (Gal.  7.41.5)  — proclinare (Gal.  7.42.4: proclinatam α, inclinatam β, inclitam T1)  — contaminare (Gal.  7.43.3)  — mitis (Gal.  7.43.4)  — confluere (Gal. 7.44.2) — dorsum (Gal. 7.44.3) — tumultuosus (Gal. 7.45.1) — cassis, -idis f. (Gal. 7.45.2) — ­mulus (Gal. 7.45.2) — mulio (Gal. 7.45.2) — amfractus, -us m. (Gal. 7.46.1) — m ­ ollire (Gal.  7.46.2)  — prominere (Gal.  7.47.5)  — vestis (Gal.  7.47.5)  — exceptare © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

Hapax legomena in Caesar 

231

(Gal. 7.47.7) — spargere (Gal. 7.48.3 (passum α)) — praemetuere (Gal. 7.49.1) — exserere (Gal.  7.50.2)  — intolerans (Gal.  7.51.1)  — continentia (Gal.  7.52.4 (om. β))  — modestia (Gal.  7.52.4)  — admaturare (Gal.  7.54.2: admaturari α, maturari β)  — avehere (Gal.  7.55.8)  — abiungere (Gal.  7.56.2)  — replere (Gal.  7.56.5)  — infidelis (Gal.  7.59.2)  — adquirere (Gal.  7.59.4)  — transmittere (Gal.  7.61.2)  — tumultuari (Gal.  7.61.3)  — indulgentia (Gal.  7.63.8)  — residĕre (Gal.  7.64.7)  — excubitor (Gal.  7.69.7)  — inruptio (Gal.  7.70.2)  — viritim (Gal.  7.71.7)  — parcus (Gal.  7.71.8)  — derivare (Gal. 7.72.3 (dirivata α T))  — commissura (Gal.  7.72.4)  — materiari (Gal.  7.73.1)  — cacumen (Gal.  7.73.2)  — delibrare (Gal.  7.73.2)  — complicare (Gal. 7.73.4 (implicati α)) — cippus (Gal. 7.73.4) — teres (Gal. 7.73.6) — exculcare (Gal. 7.73.7) — stabilire (Gal. 7.73.7) — flos (Gal. 7.73.8) — lilium (Gal. 7.73.8) — disserere (Gal. 7.73.9) — hamus (Gal. 7.73.9) — infigere (Gal. 7.73.9) — infodire (Gal. 7.73.9) — confundere (Gal. 7.75.1) — inmunis (Gal. 7.76.1) — consensio (Gal. 7.76.2) — incumbere (Gal. 7.76.2) — recensere (Gal. 7.76.3) — consobrinus (Gal. 7.76.4) — foris (adv., Gal. 7.76.6) — residēre (Gal. 7.77.4) — iste (Gal. 7.77.5) — mollitia (Gal. 7.77.5 (molestia α)) — exspoliare (Gal. 7.77.9) — prosternere (Gal. 7.77.9) — stultitia (Gal. 7.77.9) — subigere (Gal. 7.77.12) — aeternus (Gal. 7.77.15) — securis (Gal. 7.77.16) — maestus (Gal. 7.80.9) — proturbare (Gal. 7.81.2; cf. Gal. 2.19.7: proturbatis α, perturbatis β) — librilis (Gal. 7.81.4) — tenebrae (Gal. 7.81.5) — transfodire (Gal. 7.82.1) — circumplecti (Gal. 7.83.2) — pactum (Gal. 7.83.5) — declivitas (Gal. 7.85.4; cf. Gal.  2.18.2: adclivitate α, declivitate β) — succumbere (Gal. 7.86.3) — devexus (Gal. 7.88.1). Bellum Civile 1: minae (Civ. 1.2.6) — segnis (Civ. 1.3.1) — censor (Civ. 1.3.6) — repulsa, -ae f. (Civ. 1.4.1) — adulatio (Civ. 1.4.3) — pollere (Civ. 1.4.3) — exae­ quare (Civ.  1.4.4)  — dominatus, -us m. (Civ.  1.4.5)  — raptim (Civ.  1.5.1)  — actio (Civ.  1.5.2)  — turbulentus (Civ.  1.5.2)  — lator (Civ.  1.5.3: latorum codd., paucorum Nipperdey 1847: 127, alii alia)  — comitialis (Civ.  1.5.4)  — saltem (Civ.  1.6.2)  — properus (Civ.  1.6.3: propere codd. (om. N2), A. P. Manutius 1513: 121 recto, al. edd. vett., pro praetore A. Manutius 1575: 276)  — nuncupare (Civ.  1.6.6)  — paludatus (Civ.  1.6.6)  — votum (Civ.  1.6.6)  — depravare (Civ. 1.7.1) — obtrectatio (Civ. 1.7.1) — perniciosus (Civ. 1.7.5) — quotienscumque (Civ. 1.7.5) — irasci (Civ. 1.8.3) — semenstris (Civ. 1.9.2) — quonam (Civ. 1.9.4) — posteritas (Civ. 1.13.1) — invadere (Civ. 1.14.1) — adventare (Civ. 1.14.1) — collega (Civ. 1.14.2) — ludus (Civ. 1.14.4) — praefectura (Civ. 1.15.1) — exaedificare (Civ. 1.15.2) — iugerum (Civ. 1.17.4) — reri (Civ. 1.17.4) — arcanus (Civ. 1.19.2) — circummunitio (Civ. 1.19.4) — divulgare (Civ. 1.20.1) — conserere (Civ. 1.20.3) — collegium (Civ. 1.22.4) — petitio (Civ. 1.22.4) — pontifex (Civ. 1.22.4) — lucescere (Civ.  1.23.1)  — advehere (Civ.  1.23.4)  — quattuorviri (Civ.  1.23.4)  — vadosus (Civ.  1.25.5)  — adornare (Civ.  1.26.1)  — disturbare (Civ.  1.26.1)  — platea (Civ.  1.27.3)  — inaequare (Civ.  1.27.4)  — caecus (Civ.  1.28.4)  — longinquitas © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

232

Appendix F  

(Civ. 1.29.1) — extraordinarius (Civ. 1.32.2) — legitimus (Civ. 1.32.2) — contradicere (Civ. 1.32.3) — circumscribere (Civ. 1.32.6) — expetere (Civ. 1.32.6) — insolentia (Civ. 1.32.6) — reformidare (Civ. 1.32.8) — anteire (Civ. 1.32.9) — libertus (Civ. 1.34.2) — officina (Civ. 1.34.5) — merx (Civ. 1.36.3) — scutatus (Civ. 1.39.1) — pignus (Civ. 1.39.4) — inconsultus (Civ. 1.45.6) — coniti (Civ. 1.46.3) — deiectus (adj., Civ. 1.46.3) — hastatus (Civ. 1.46.4) — proluere (Civ. 1.48.2) — exinanire (Civ.  1.48.5)  — proclivis (Civ.  1.48.7)  — uter, utris m. (Civ.  1.48.7)  — tranare (Civ. 1.48.7; but cf. also Gal. 1.53.2: tranare α, tranatare T, transnatare U) — rapidus (Civ. 1.50.3) — ingravescere (Civ. 1.52.1) — denarius (Civ. 1.52.2) — inclinare (Civ. 1.52.3; cf. Gal. 7.42.4: proclinatam α, inclinatam β) — tutari (Civ. 1.52.4) — uber (adj., Civ.  1.53.1)  — statumen (Civ.  1.54.2)  — centuriare (Civ. 1.55.1: cen­ turiatis codd., caetratis A. Manutius 1575: 308) — detergere (Civ.  1.58.1)  — eludere (Civ.  1.58.1)  — trans­currere (Civ.  1.58.1)  — nequedum (Civ. 1.58.3) — tarditas (Civ. 1.58.3) — (h)umidus (Civ. 1.58.3) — vocabulum (Civ. 1.58.3) — contribuere (Civ.  1.60.1)  — obscurus (Civ.  1.61.3)  — subfragari (Civ.  1.61.3)  — circulari (Civ.  1.64.2)  — adaquari (Civ.  1.66.1: adaquandi codd. (adquandi T), aquandi Kindscher 1860: 17)  — argumentum (Civ.  1.67.2)  — evincere (Civ. 1.67.6 (vincit ς)) — albere (Civ.  1.68.1)  — con­tumeliosus (Civ.  1.69.1)  — visere (Civ. 1.69.1) — retorquere (Civ. 1.69.3) — degredi (Civ. 1.72.4: digreditur V, degreditur ceteri codd.) — aquator (Civ. 1.73.2) — provocare (Civ. 1.74.3) — commendatio (Civ. 1.74.5) — sagum (Civ. 1.75.3) — centuriatim (Civ. 1.76.3) — edicere (Civ.  1.76.4)  — explicitus (Civ.  1.78.2)  — peragitare (Civ.  1.80.2)  — sarcinarius (Civ.  1.81.7)  — subsidiarius (Civ.  1.83.2)  — semotus (Civ.  1.84.1)  — suscensere (Civ.  1.84.3: suscensendum] succensendum L T1 V, succendendum N)  — ingressus, -us m. (Civ. 1.84.4) — miseratio (Civ. 1.85.1) — querimonia (Civ. 1.85.1) — abhorrere (Civ.  1.85.3)  — igitur (Civ.  1.85.4)  — praesidere (Civ.  1.85.8)  — pridem (Civ.  1.85.8)  — iucundus (Civ.  1.86.1)  — missio (Civ.  1.86.1)  — pergratus (Civ. 1.86.1) — dissolvere (Civ. 1.87.1). Bellum Civile 2: ostium (Civ. 2.1.2) — adluere (Civ. 2.1.3) — asser (Civ. 2.2.2) — cuspis (Civ. 2.2.2) — balista (Civ. 2.2.2) — convolvere (Civ. 2.2.4) — iactus, -us m. (Civ. 2.2.4) — aeratus (Civ. 2.3.1) — pervehere (Civ. 2.3.1) — piscatorius (Civ. 2.4.2) — invisus (Civ.  2.4.4: invisis latitatis codd., invisitatis Elberling 1828: 84–5, alii alia) — externus (Civ. 2.5.5) — agnoscere (Civ. 2.6.4) — conlabefieri (Civ. 2.6.5) — praefringere (Civ.  2.6.5)  — effundere (Civ.  2.7.3; cf. Gal. 5.19.2: effunderet β, eiecerat α) — adstruere (Civ. 2.9.2) — axis (Civ. 2.9.2) — latericulus (Civ. 2.9.2) — praependere (Civ. 2.9.3) — tabulatio (Civ. 2.9.4) — catapulta (Civ. 2.9.4) — discutere (Civ. 2.9.4; cf. Gal. 7.8.2: discissa β, discussa α) — ancorarius (Civ. 2.9.5) — demissio (Civ. 2.9.7) — fenestra (Civ. 2.9.9) — columella (Civ. 2.10.2) — lamina (Civ. 2.10.3) — quadratus (Civ.  2.10.4)  — regula (Civ.  2.10.4)  — ordinatim (Civ.  2.10.5)  — canalis (Civ. 2.10.6) — diluere (Civ. 2.10.6) — phalanga (Civ. 2.10.7) — firmitas (Civ. 2.11.1) — cupa (Civ. 2.11.2) — furca (Civ. 2.11.2) — refertus (Civ. 2.11.2) — © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

Hapax legomena in Caesar 

233

delabi (Civ. 2.11.2; cf. Gal. 7.82.1: delati α, delapsi β) — convellere (Civ. 2.11.3) — fundamentum (Civ.  2.11.3)  — direptio (Civ.  2.11.4)  — infula (Civ.  2.11.4)  — ruina (Civ.  2.11.4)  — exoriri (Civ.  2.12.3)  — minari (Civ.  2.13.4)  — languere (Civ. 2.14.1) — congesticius (Civ. 2.15.1) — inauditus (Civ. 2.15.1) — inrisus, -us m. (Civ. 2.15.1) — perdolescere (Civ. 2.15.1) — contignare (Civ. 2.15.2) — firmamentum (Civ. 2.15.2) — pila (Civ. 2.15.2) — traversarius (Civ. 2.15.2) — obiectus, -us m. (Civ.  2.15.3)  — reconciliare (Civ.  2.15.4)  — fiduciarius (Civ.  2.17.2)  — pondo (Civ. 2.18.4) — triticum (Civ. 2.18.4) — addicere (Civ. 2.18.5; cf. Gal. 7.77.9: subicere α, addicere β)  — pervulgare (Civ.  2.19.2)  — colonicus (Civ.  2.19.3)  — adstare (Civ. 2.20.4) — vernaculus (Civ. 2.20.4) — monimentum (Civ. 2.21.3) — conclusio (Civ. 2.22.1) — labefacere (Civ. 2.22.1) — panicum (Civ. 2.22.1) — turbidus (Civ. 2.22.2) — praestolari (Civ. 2.23.3) — peridoneus (Civ. 2.24.2) — restagnare (Civ.  2.24.4)  — substructio (Civ.  2.25.1)  — paternus (Civ.  2.25.4)  — pronun­ tiatio (Civ.  2.25.7)  — conclamatio (Civ.  2.26.1)  — appellatio (Civ.  2.28.2)  — unus­quisque (Civ.  2.29.1)  — permanare (Civ.  2.29.2)  — commiles (Civ.  2.29.3: commilites codd. et edd. vett., commilitones A. Manutius 1575: 350)  — pudens (Civ.  2.31.4: pudentis Ciacconius apud Jungermann 1606: part 2, 310, prud- codd.)  — demovere (Civ.  2.32.3)  — iratus (Civ.  2.32.4)  — nonne (Civ.  2.32.8)  — qui (adv., Civ. 2.32.9)  — deminutio (Civ.  2.32.10)  — advenire (Civ.  2.32.12)  — sinus (Civ.  2.32.12)  — equidem (Civ.  2.32.14)  — infidelitas (Civ. 2.33.1) — eloqui (Civ. 2.34.5) — turba (Civ. 2.35.3) — indigere (Civ. 2.35.4) — bucinator (Civ.  2.35.6)  — congerere (Civ.  2.37.5)  — sal (Civ.  2.37.5)  — salinae, -arum (Civ.  2.37.5)  — somnus (Civ.  2.38.5)  — spolium (Civ.  2.39.5)  — dum­ taxat (Civ. 2.41.2) — proterere (Civ. 2.41.5) — lenunculus (Civ. 2.43.3) — adnare (Civ. 2.44.1). Bellum Civile 3: creditor (Civ.  3.1.2)  — ambitus, -us m. (Civ.  3.1.4)  — i­udex (Civ. 3.1.4) — rogatio (Civ. 3.1.4) — praeripere (Civ. 3.1.5) — abdicere (Civ. 3.2.1) — dictatura (Civ.  3.2.1)  — feriae (Civ.  3.2.1)  — infrequens (Civ.  3.2.3)  — saluber (Civ.  3.2.3)  — otiosus (Civ.  3.3.1)  — dynastes (Civ.  3.3.2)  — numerare (Civ.  3.3.2)  — tetrarches, -ae m. (Civ.  3.3.2)  — gemellus (Civ.  3.4.1)  — hippotoxota (Civ.  3.4.5)  — mercennarius (Civ.  3.4.6)  — mancipium (Civ.  3.6.1)  — aura (Civ. 3.8.2) — complexus, –us m. (Civ. 3.8.4) — denuntiatio (Civ. 3.9.2) — crinis (Civ.  3.9.3)  — ligneus (Civ.  3.9.3)  — praesecare (Civ.  3.9.3)  — neglegens (Civ. 3.9.6) — ideo (Civ. 3.11.1) — antequam (Civ. 1.2.2: ante … quam; at Civ. 3.11.1 both the text and the interpretation are uncertain: non minus …, ante [ante del. Ciacconius apud Jungermann 1606: part 2, 315; cf. also Agustín/Orsini 1595: 236–7] quam …)  — metari (Civ.  3.13.3)  — ros (Civ.  3.15.4)  — aedilitas (Civ.  3.16.3)  — cogitatio (Civ.  3.17.6; cf. Gal.  6.13.7: contagione β, cogitatione α) — pactio (Civ. 3.19.1) — frequentia (Civ. 3.19.6) — altercari (Civ. 3.19.6) — desinere (Civ.  3.19.8)  — sella (Civ.  3.20.1)  — solutio (Civ.  3.20.1)  — clemens (Civ.  3.20.2)  — moderatus (Civ.  3.20.2)  — auctionari (Civ.  3.20.3)  — fari © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

234

Appendix F  

(Civ.  3.20.3)  — impudentia (Civ.  3.20.3)  — conductor (Civ.  3.21.1)  — habitatio (Civ. 3.21.1) — gladiatorius (Civ. 3.21.4) — reliquiae (Civ. 3.21.4) — apparere (Civ. 3.21.5: appareret codd. (apparere β), appararet Kraner/Hofmann 1864: 188, 294 et al. edd. rec.) — ergastulum (Civ. 3.22.2) — icere (Civ. 3.22.2) — sollicitus (Civ. 3.22.4) — propinquare (Civ. 3.24.2) — severus (Civ. 3.25.3) — in­crebescere (Civ. 3.26.2) — perseverantia (Civ. 3.26.3) — intro (adv., Civ. 3.26.5) — ­adlidere (Civ.  3.27.2)  — elidere (Civ.  3.27.2)  — naufragium (Civ.  3.27.2)  — s­copulus (Civ.  3.27.2)  — incolumitas (Civ.  3.28.2)  — nausia (Civ.  3.28.4)  — salum (Civ.  3.28.4)  — sentina (Civ.  3.28.5)  — tractare (Civ.  3.28.5)  — ponto, -onis m. (Civ.  3.29.3)  — transvehere (Civ.  3.29.3)  — quia (Civ.  3.30.4)  — tyrannus (Civ.  3.31.2)  — columnarium (Civ.  3.32.2)  — ostiarium (Civ.  3.32.2)  — differtus (Civ.  3.32.4)  — exactor (Civ.  3.32.4)  — praescriptio (Civ.  3.32.4)  — donatio (Civ. 3.32.5) — multiplicare (Civ. 3.32.5) — prolatio (Civ. 3.32.5) — promutuus (Civ.  3.32.6)  — posthabere (Civ.  3.33.1: posthaberet A. P. Manutius 1513: 169 verso, Giunta 1514: 163 verso, et al. edd., post ea haberet L N, post ea quae ­haberet ceteri codd.) — enixus (Civ. 3.35.2) — progressus, -us m. (Civ. 3.37.3) — libra (Civ.  3.40.1)  — biremis (Civ. 3.40.2) — scutula (Civ.  3.40.2)  — horreum (Civ.  3.42.3)  — permultus (Civ.  3.43.1)  — tertio (adv., Civ.  3.43.3)  — amplecti (Civ.  3.44.3)  — pascere (Civ.  3.44.3)  — coacta, -orum n. (Civ.  3.44.6)  — tunica (Civ.  3.44.6)  — locare (Civ.  3.46.1)  — percellere (Civ.  3.47.2)  — legumen (Civ. 3.47.6) — obiectare (Civ. 3.48.2) — odor (Civ. 3.49.2) — taeter (Civ. 3.49.2) — specus, -us m. (Civ.  3.49.3: ad specus codd., def. Nipperdey 1847: 172–3 et Dinter 1864–76: vol. 2, LVIII, asperae Wölffel 1866: 14, alii alia)  — adgerere (Civ. 3.49.3 (adiecerat T)) — puteus (Civ. 3.49.4) — exarescere (Civ. 3.49.4) — imperatorius (Civ.  3.51.5)  — foramen (Civ.  3.53.4)  — renumerare (Civ.  3.53.4)  — subnubilus (Civ. 3.54.2) — compellare (Civ. 3.57.3 (compellere V)) — (h)arundo (Civ.  3.58.3)  — contundere (Civ.  3.58.3)  — folium (Civ.  3.58.3)  — adaugere (Civ.  3.58.4; cf. Gal. 6.1.3: augeri α, adaugeri β)  — herba (Civ.  3.58.5)  — frons, –ndis f. (Civ.  3.58.5: fructus codd., frons Cellarius 1705: 484)  — macies (Civ.  3.58.5)  — pecuniarius (Civ.  3.59.2)  — stultus (Civ.  3.59.3)  — animad­ versio (Civ.  3.60.1)  — obiectatio (Civ.  3.60.2)  — mutuari (Civ.  3.60.5)  — prout (Civ.  3.61.3)  — vimineus (Civ.  3.63.7)  — comprimere (Civ.  3.65.2)  — ignorantia (Civ.  3.68.2)  — laurea (Civ.  3.71.3)  — salutare (Civ.  3.71.3)  — concelebrare (Civ.  3.72.4)  — opplere (Civ.  3.73.3)  — error (Civ.  3.73.5)  — recreare (Civ.  3.74.3)  — extendere (Civ.  3.77.3)  — praegredi (Civ. 3.77.3) — opulentus (Civ.  3.80.6)  — classicum (Civ.  3.82.1)  — consideratus (Civ.  3.82.2)  — ­tabella (Civ.  3.83.3)  — pernicitas (Civ.  3.84.3)  — insolitus (Civ.  3.85.2)  — detendere (Civ.  3.85.3: detensis] detentis U1)  — hortatus, -us m. (Civ. 3.86.1) — adtenuare (Civ.  3.89.1)  — abuti (Civ.  3.90.2)  — alteruter (Civ.  3.90.2)  — privare (Civ. 3.90.2) — hodie (Civ. 3.91.3) — admonitus, -us m. (Civ. 3.92.2) — distendere (Civ. 3.92.2) — excursus, -us m. (Civ. 3.92.2) — praedicere (Civ. 3.92.2) — incitatio (Civ.  3.92.4)  — concinere (Civ.  3.92.5)  — profundere (Civ.  3.93.3)  — © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

Hapax legomena in Caesar 

235

t­ urmatim (Civ. 3.93.4) — fatigare (Civ. 3.95.2) — hedera (Civ. 3.96.1) — trichila (Civ.  3.96.1)  — recusatio (Civ.  3.98.2)  — requiescere (Civ.  3.98.3)  — classiarius (Civ.  3.100.2)  — stuppa (Civ.  3.101.2)  — serpere (Civ.  3.101.5)  — quantuscum­ que (Civ.  3.102.1)  — conrogare (Civ.  3.102.4)  — negotiator (Civ.  3.103.1)  — curatio (Civ. 3.104.1: procuratione] curatione T; cf. Civ. 3.108.1: procuratione] procurationi T and the discussion on pp.  249–50)  — enumerare (Civ.  3.105.3)  — valvae, -arum (Civ. 3.105.3) — limen (Civ. 3.105.3) — discurrere (Civ. 3.105.4) — reconditus (Civ. 3.105.5) — adyton (Civ. 3.105.5) — tympanum (Civ. 3.105.5) — sonare (Civ. 3.105.5) — statua (Civ. 3.105.6) — consecrare (Civ. 3.105.6) — coagmentum (Civ. 3.105.6) — pavimentum (Civ. 3.105.6) — coniectare (Civ. 3.106.1) — concitatio (Civ.  3.106.5)  — etesiae (Civ.  3.107.1)  — procuratio (Civ.  3.108.1: procuratione] procurationi T, but cf. 3.104.1: procuratione] curatione T) — eunu­ chus (Civ.  3.108.1)  — inflare (Civ.  3.108.3)  — heres (Civ.  3.108.4)  — dediscere (Civ.  3.110.2)  — fidere (Civ.  3.111.1)  — mirificus (Civ.  3.112.1)  — habitare (Civ. 3.112.8) — tractus, -us m. (Civ. 3.112.8) — indicare (Civ. 3.112.12) — procurator (Civ. 3.112.12).

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

Appendix G: Expressions occurring several times in B.Alex. 1–78

Recurrent expressions in B.Alex. 1–78

1. Expressions that are attested in B.Alex. 1–21 and 22–78 ab latere aperto (20.3, 40.2; common in Caesar, but unattested in Hirt. Gal.  8, cf. appendix I.1 on 20.3, p. 262 below) [L.]. —adfirmare (8.1, 24.4; cf. appendix J.2, p. 280 on 8.1) [*]. — adgredi + inanimate object (17.3: alteram insulae partem, 19.2: eum [sc. pontem], 26.2: oppidum, 30.3: castellum, 31.1: summum locum, 76.2: ­munitiones) [K., B.]; but cf. appendix J.1 on 17.3 (pp. 274–5 below). — adnatare ad (20.6, 21.2, 31.6, 46.6; unattested in Hirt. Gal. 8; contrast Civ. 2.44.1: naves adnare possent and see appendix J.2, p.  283 on 20.6) [*].  — animi magnitudo + virtus (15.1, 32.3; cf. Gal. 7.52.4: virtutem atque animi magnitudinem, †) [L.]. — committere rem alicui (15.3, 46.1; absent from Hirt. Gal. 8, but 3× Caes., cf. appendix I.1, p. 257 on 15.3) [L.]. — dare alicui negotium, ut (9.1, 51.3; cf. Gal. 2.2.3; Hirtius avoids negotium) [L.]. — dirimere proelium (11.5, 46.7, 63.6 and Civ. 1.40.7, B.Afr. 19.1,  †) [L.].  — dissimilis (18.1, 25.4; absent from Gal., Civ., and Hirt. Gal.  8) [B.]. — hortatio (10.5, 22.2; absent from Gal., Civ., and Hirt. Gal. 8) [B.]. — incitare animos (9.2, 31.3; for parallels in Caesar and Hirtius see appendices I.1 and J.2 on 9.2, pp. 251 and 281 below) [L.]. — instruere navem propugnatoribus (10.4, 45.2, †) [L.]. — intercludere tempestatibus (3.4, 43.1, †; no other attestations in Latin literature down to Apuleius) [L.].  — interficere multitudinem (11.4, 29.5, 31.3, 76.3; cf. Gal.  2.11.6: eorum multitudinem nostri interfecerunt,  †) [*]; see also appendix I.1 on 11.4 (p. 253 below). — notitia locorum (8.5, 10.5, 27.6; cf. Civ. 1.31.2, not attested in Hirt. Gal. 8) [B.]. — omnes incolumes (16.6, 47.1; also 6× Gal., 5× Civ., 2× B.Afr., †) [L.]. — perturbare milites (20.5, 22.1, 75.2; cf. also Gal. 1.39.5, 2.21.1, †) [*]. — planus locus (18.3, 36.3, 72.1; absent from Gal., Civ., and Hirt. Gal. 8; see appendix J.2 on 18.3, p. 283) [B.]. — proficere multum (20.2, 31.1; cf. Gal. 7.82.1 and appendix J.1 on 20.2, p. 275) [B.]. — rapere (20.4, 50.2, †; cf. raptare at B.Afr. 73.3) [*]. — scientia + virtus (11.3, 12.1, 26.1, 43.1; the expression is generally common, cf. p. 37 n. 38) [L., A., G.]. — studium spectandi (20.2, 31.1, †) [L.]. — versari in periculo (21.1, 38.1; also at Gal. 2.26.5, 6.16.2, but absent from Hirt. Gal. 8; see appendix J.1, p. 276 on 21.1) [*]. — victrix (11.6, 25.6, 40.3; absent from Gal., Civ., and Hirt. Gal. 8; cf. appendix J.1, pp. 272–3 on 11.6) [B.]. — virtute confisus (13.6, 43.1; cf. Civ. 3.24.1, absent from Hirt. Gal. 8) [L.]. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

Recurrent expressions in B.Alex. 1–78

237

2. Expressions that occur several times in B.Alex. 22–78, but are absent from B.Alex. 1–21 acies utrimque instruitur/instructa (39.2, 45.4, †; later at Liv. 23.16.4, 37.38.8) [L.].  — ad auxilia arcessenda (26.1, 34.5; cf. also 51.3 and see p.  240 on 26.1) [*].  — adductus voluntate … necessitate (35.2: non v. adductum, sed n., 57.5: aut v. aut n. adductum) [L., B.]. — adiudicare alicui aliquid (66.4, 78.3; cf. also Gal.  7.37.1, no other attestations of adiudicare in the Corpus Caesarianum) [L.]. — captivae naves (42.3, 47.2, †) [L.]. — celerior/-ius omnium opinione (51.3, 71.2, 78.5; also at Gal. 2.3.1, Hirt. Gal. 8.8.4, see pp. 279–80 on 71.2) [N., Fi., L.]. — circumdatum esse magnis copiis (26.2, 40.3; no other attestations of m. c. circumdare in the Corpus Caesarianum) [L.]. — cognoscere de controversiis (65.4, 68.1; cf. pp. 33 (with n. 13) and 244 ad locc.) [L., A.]. — commemorare officium (68.1, 70.4; cf. also Gal. 1.43.4: beneficia commemoravit) [L.]. — se concedere (68.1, 70.5) [A.]. — cum … cumque (31.1, 68.1; no other attestations in the Corpus Caesarianum) [B.]. — delecti pedites (29.2, 36.4; cf. also Hirt. Gal. 8.21.3 (~ 8.12.1), †; see pp. 240–41 on 29.2) [Fi.]. — disciplina severitasque (48.3, 65.1) [B.]. — disciplinis eru­ditus/educatus (24.3, 78.2; disciplina erudire is unparalleled in the Corpus Caesarianum, but features e. g. at Rhet. Her. 4.66, Cic. De Orat. 1.180: disciplina iuris civilis eruditissimus, Nep. Iph. 2.4, Ep. 1.4; disciplina educare has its closest parallel at Cic. Ver. 3.161: sed tantum in furis ac divisoris disciplina educatus; cf. also Liv. 24.4.5: disciplinae, in qua eductus [Tan. Faber, edoctus codd.] esset) [L.]. — editissimus locus (28.3, 31.3; cf. also 72.2: editissimus unus [sc. collis]) [L.].  — festinare (27.4, 71.1, †) [L.]. — fore impedimento (23.2, 61.6) [L.]. — gerere rem feliciter (32.1, 46.4, 48.1, 78.2, 78.5; cf. p. 241 on 32.1) [*]. — habere legionem/-es constitutam/-as disciplina et armatura (34.4 (d. atque a.), 68.2 (a. d.que); there are no other attestations of armatura + disciplina in the Corpus Caesarianum; constitutum habere is absent from Gal. 8, but cf. Civ. 3.89.2: cohortes in acie LXXX constitutas habebat, B.Hisp. 8.6, 28.3) [L.]. — his responsis datis (35.3, 70.8; cf. p. 267 on 70.8) [*]. — idoneis locis (25.2, 61.5) [L.]. — infelicitas (43.4, 72.2, †) [L.]. — locus/oppidum nobilissimus/-um regionum illarum (27.1, 47.3) [L.]. — magnum proelium comminus factum esse (46.3, 76.1; no other attestations of proelium comminus facere in the Corpus Caesarianum, but cf. magnum proelium facere at B.Hisp. 4.2 and proelium facere at Caes. Civ. 1.7.7, 2.18.3, 3.84.5, 3.105.3 al.). [L.]. — ne dissensio/-nis initium nasceretur/natum videretur (33.2, 58.1) [L.]. — non magno intervallo relicto (30.2, 38.3) [L.].  — occupare copiis (41.1, 72.3; cf. also Hirt. Gal. 8.32.2, †) [L.]. — omnis multitudo (23.2, 29.5, 32.3, 76.3; cf. appendix J.2 on 76.3, pp. 284–5) [L., B.]. — oppidum in Ponto/Armenia minore po­ situm … (in) plano loco (36.3, 72.1) [L.]. — perire demersa/-o nave/navigio (31.6, 64.3) [B.]. — potestas confligendi (46.4, 60.1; no other attestations of this iunctura in Latin literature down to Apuleius) [L.]. — procedere ad dimicandum (39.2, © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

238

Appendix G  

47.1; cf. also B.Hisp. 29.3, 29.6, †) [L.]. — propter locorum difficultatem/-es (31.1, 60.5) [L.]. — prudentia ac diligentia (42.2, 68.1, †) [L., A.]. — quo ut venit/ventum est (31.2, 47.4) [L.]. — re bene gesta (26.3, 47.1; see p. 240 on 26.3) [N., L.]. — re praeclarissime gesta (30.1, 47.5) [L.].  — res secundae (23.1, 41.1, 43.1, 43.4; cf. pp. 239–40 on 23.1) [*]. — ruina oppressis (31.5, 76.2; no other parallels for ruina opprimere in the Corpus Caesarianum) [B.].  — seditiosus (33.2, 58.1) [L.]. — supplicium gravius/miserius morte (41.2, 70.6; no close parallels in the rest of the Corpus Caesarianum) [L.]. — victor(em) (aliquem) incolumi exercitu (ad) se recipere (28.2, 47.5) [L.].

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

Appendix H: Significant phrases shared by the Bellum Alexandrinum and Hirt. Gal. 8

Parallels between the B.Alex. and Hirt. Gal. 8 1.1: bello Alexandrino conflato ~ Gal. 8.6.1: nullum summum bellum posse conflari (no parallels in Caesar, but generally common in classical prose, cf. e. g. Cic. Phil. 2.70 and TLL s.v. conflo 242.16–18, Bojkowitsch 1924–1927: 79) [N., L., K., B.]. — 1.1: auxilia adduci iubet (cf. 51.3: ad … auxiliaque adducenda) ~ Gal. 8.7.5: ad auxilia Germanorum adducenda [Fr., L., B.]. There are no Caesarian parallels for auxilia adducere, but cf. Gal.  3.23.3: inde auxilia ducesque arcessuntur, 6.1.4: adduc­tis legionibus. — 2.3: ad auxilium ferendum (= 54.2, cf. 44.1: ad auxilium provinciae ferendum) ~ Gal. 8.27.1: ad auxilium Duratio ferendum [L., B.], but cf. also the Caesarian parallels cited in appendix J.2 ad loc. (p.  280 below).  — 8.1: aquae dulcis venas habere ~ Gal. 8.43.4: venae fontis intercisae sunt [B.]. — 8.2: prohiberi … quominus ~ Gal. 8.34.3 [L.], but cf. pp. 280–81 ad loc.. — 8.6: loca excelsiora atque aedificia occupaturos ~ Gal. 8.7.4: locum … excelsum, 8.42.4: excelso loco [L.]; cf. also B.Alex. 28.3: loco natura munito, quod erat … excelsior, 31.1: excelsissimum locum (~ Gal. 8.33.1: excelsissimo loco) and see appendix J.2 on 8.6 (p. 281) — 9.4: omni illa regione (cf. 42.5: omnem enim illam partem regionemque) ~ Gal. 8.46.4: omnem illam regionem (no other parallels before Apul. Met. 8.29) [L., B.].  — 10.5: nox … adlatura videbatur maiorem fiduciam illis ~ Gal. 8.10.1: operum magnitudinem et timorem suum sperabat fiduciam barbaris adlaturum [Fi., L.]; there are no other attestations of fiduciam adferre in the Corpus Caesarianum, but cf. Gal. 1.53.6: quae quidem res Caesari non minorem quam ipsa victoria voluptatem adtulit, Civ. 1.11.3: magnam pacis desperationem adferebat and e. g. V.Max. 2.6.2: ne hostibus fiduciae aliquid adferret. — 11.1: erat una navis … longe ab reliquis collocata ~ Gal.  8.2.1: proficiscitur ad legionem XIII, quam non longe a finibus Haeduorum collocaverat [*]. — 11.3: proelium commissum est magna contentione Rhodiorum ~ Gal. 8.19.1: fit magna contentione diversum proelium, 8.19.3: pugnatur aliquamdiu pari contentione, 8.29.1: cum aliquam­ diu summa contentione dimicaretur [Fr., L., B.].  — 19.2: repentina latrocinia sublatum iri videbat ~ Gal. 8.24.3: qui repentino latrocinio atque impetu illorum erant oppressi (no other attestations of repentinum latrocinium in Latin literature down to Apuleius) [B.]. — 23.1: cum Romanos et secundis rebus confirmari et adversis incitari viderent ~ Gal. 8.13.4: utrum secundis parvulis rebus insolentiores an adverso mediocri casu timidiores essent [L.]; there are no other exact parallels for the opposition of res secundae and res adversae in the Corpus Caesarianum, but © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

240

Appendix H  

cf. Civ.  3.73.2: hortatusque est … neve his rebus terrerentur, multisque secundis proe­liis unum adversum et id mediocre opponerent and B.Hisp. 17.2. The expression res secunda is fairly rare in Caesar (only Gal. 1.14.5, Civ. 2.37.2) and absent from the Bellum Africum and Bellum Hispaniense, but it occurs once in Hirtius (8.13.4, see above) and four times in the Bellum Alexandrinum (23.1, 41.1, 43.1, 43.4). — 23.2: facere id, quod rex imperasset ~ Gal. 8.48.8: se … ea facturum, quae imperavit [L.]; Caesar prefers imperata facere (e. g. Gal. 2.3.3; cf. also Gal. 8.23.2, 8.25.2, 8.31.4) and only employs a relative clause when referring to orders that have not been issued yet, cf. e. g. Civ. 1.15.2: ad eum legati veniunt, quaeque im­ peraverit, se cupidissime facturos pollicentur, 3.6.1, 3.12.4. — 23.2: nullius periculi timorem ~ Gal. 8.5.4: terrore periculi [L., D.]; there are no other close parallels in the Corpus Caesarianum, but cf. Cic. Part. 112: periculi timor.  — 25.1: com­ meatum … intercipere statuerunt ~ Gal. 8.30.1: impedimenta et commeatus Romanorum interceperat, 8.47.2: commeatus complures … intercipiebat (†) [L., D.]; contrast commeatu intercludere (Gal.  1.48.2, 3.23.6, Civ.  1.43.2) and commeatu prohibere (Gal.  1.49.1, 2.9.5, 4.30.2, 7.14.2, Civ.  3.111.4).  — 25.2: navigiis locis idoneis ad Canopum in statione dispositis ~ Gal. 8.15.3: equites … in stationibus ­disponit, 8.28.2: turmas … idoneis locis disponit [Fr., L., D.]; cf. also B.Afr. 38.2: ­equitatu in statione disposito. There are no other parallels for i. s. disponere in the Corpus Caesarianum, but cf. the use of in statione with ponere (Civ. 3.94.5), con­ locare (Gal. 5.15.3), and esse (Gal. 4.32.1, 6.38.3, Civ. 1.43.4, 1.75.3). — 25.3: nulla [sc. dimicatio] … parum feliciter confecta erat ~ 8.46.2: sicuti cetera celeriter fe­ liciterque confecit [L.]; see also the note on 32.1 below. — 26.1: ad auxilia arcessenda (= 34.5, ~ 51.3: ad legiones arcessendas) ~ Gal. 8.10.4: ad auxilia Germa­ norum arcessenda [L., B.]; cf. also Gal.  2.20.1: milites … arcessendi [sc. erant], 5.58.1: quos [sc. equites] arcessendos curaverat, B.Afr. 8.1: ad secundum commea­ tum arcessendum (no other attestations of the gerundive of arcessere in the Corpus Caesarianum). — 26.3: re bene gesta (= 47.1) = Gal. 8.27.5, 8.36.1 [N., L.]. — 27.1: pars quaedam fluminis Nili ~ Gal. 8.26.1: pars quaedam civitatis eius [L., D.]; there are no other attestations of pars quaedam + gen. in the Corpus Caesarianum. — 27.1: diversissimo ad litus intervallo (cf. 42.4: diversissima parte orbis terrarum) ~ Gal. 8.24.2: in diversissimam partem Galliae (no other attestations of the superlative diversissimus in the Corpus Caesarianum) [L.]. — 27.3: optabat eum vinci ~ Gal. 8.41.2: hoc fonte prohiberi posse oppidanos cum optarent reliqui [L., A.]; cf. also Gal. 8.9.2: dimicare optaverat. There are no other attestations of optare + inf./acc. c. inf. in the Corpus Caesarianum, but cf. praeoptare + inf. at Gal. 1.25.4: ut … praeoptarent scutum manu emittere. — 27.4: victoriae societatem (cf. 50.2: in illa societate … rapinarum) ~ Gal. 8.3.3: societate consiliorum [B.]. — 27.7: ab illo timore se recrearunt ~ Gal. 8.1.1: Caesar cum … milites … reficere a tantis laboribus vellet [D.]. Caesar uses the preposition ex, cf. Gal. 3.5.3: se … ex labore re­ ficerent, 7.32.1, 7.83.7. — 29.2: delectos pedites (= 36.4) ~ Gal. 8.21.3: delectorum peditum [Fi.]. Cf. also 8.12.1: delecta manu peditum (no other parallels for d. p. in © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

Parallels between the B.Alex. and Hirt. Gal. 8

241

the Corpus Caesarianum, but cf. e. g. Gal. 4.7.1: equitibusque delectis. — 29.2: qui … proelium inpar inirent ~ Gal. 8.19.2: quod [sc. proelium] cum diutius pari Marte iniretur [L.]; Caesar prefers proelium committere (34×, cf. LC s.v. proelium 1231– 2). proelium inire also occurs at B.Afr. 71.2 (†) and is quite common outside the Corpus Caesarianum (cf. TLL s.v. ineo 1297.30–33). (in)par proelium also features at 29.3 (see below; †). Elsewhere (in)par does not qualify proelium itself, but accompanying factors or particular aspects of the respective battle, cf. Gal. 5.16.3: equestris autem proelii ratio et cedentibus et insequentibus par atque idem periculum inferebat, Civ. 1.47.3: nostri autem, quod iniquo loco atque impari congressi numero quinque horis proelium sustinuissent, B.Alex. 16.1: minime … par erat proe­lii certamen (‘the contest of the battle was not in the least even’; see p. 282 ad loc.), B.Afr. 72.1: quotienscumque proelium erat commissum, equitatu suo sine legionario milite hostium equitatui levique armaturae eorum nullo modo par esse ­poterat [sc. Caesar], and B.Hisp. 15.1: cum eques ad dimicandum dimisso equo cum pedite congreditur, nequaquam par habetur [sc. eques]. — 29.3: quod tam diu pari proelio cum Alexandrinis certaretur ~ Gal. 8.19.2: fit magna contentione diversum proelium, 8.19.4: pugnatur … pari contentione [L., K.]; cf. the note on 29.2 above. — 29.5: sed id frustra: namque … ~ Gal. 8.3.4: frustra: nam …, 8.5.3: nec frustra: nam … (†) [L.]; cf. also Gal.  8.19.6: nequiquam: nam …(†) and see pp. 93–4 with n. 74 above. — 30.2: cum … armatorum multitudinem conlocatam in vallo videret ~ Gal. 8.9.4: alter [sc. ordo propugnatorum], qui propior hostem in ipso vallo conlocatus esset [Fr.]. Contrast Gal. 7.78.5: at Caesar dispositis in vallo custodiis recipi prohibebat.  — 30.4: acerrime eminus proeliari coeperunt ~ Gal. 8.41.3: eminus … proeliantur, 8.19.5: acerrime proeliantur (= 8.42.1), and B. Alex. 31.1: acrius proeliari [L.]. There are no other attestations of acriter proeliari in the Corpus Caesarianum. Caesar and the authors of the Bellum Africum and Bellum Hispaniense employ acriter pugnare (Gal.  1.26.1, 1.50.3, 2.10.2, 2.33.4, 3.21.1, 4.26.1, 5.15.4, 5.43.4, 5.44.3, 7.50.1: cum acerrime comminus pugnaretur, Civ. 1.57.3, 1.80.5, B.Afr. 78.4, B.Hisp. 11.2, 12.5, 19.2), which is also attested at B.Alex. 31.2, 40.1, 62.3. — 31.1: propter locorum difficultatem (~ 60.5: p. l. difficultates) ~ Gal.  8.19.6: difficultatibus locorum, 8.41.3: locorum vincere difficultates [L., B.]; cf. also B.Hisp. 9.1, 38.3, 39.1 (all loci d.) (†) and see TLL s.v. difficultas 1094.82–1095.2 for parallels outside the Corpus Caesarianum. Caesar twice employs the expression viarum difficultas (Gal. 7.56.2, Civ. 1.70.1). — 31.1: excelsissimum locum ~ Gal. 8.7.4, 8.33.1, 8.42.4 [L.], see the note on 8.6 above.— 31.2: nostris contra militibus acerrime pugnantibus ~ Gal. 8.42.3: milites contra nostri … omnia fortissimo sustinebant animo [L.]; for acriter pugnare see the note on 30.4 above.  — 32.1: re felicissime celerrimeque gesta (cf. 46.4, 48.1, 78.2, 78.5) ~ Gal. 8.37.1: felicissime re gesta, 8.46.2: quam rem sicuti cetera celeriter feliciterque confecit, 8.31.3: felicitas celeritasque [N., Fi., L., B.]; Caesar never uses celeriter/­ celeritas in conjunction with feliciter/felicitas, but cf. Civ.  1.85.10: rebus feliciter gestis. — 32.3: omnis multitudo … advenienti Caesari occurrerunt ~ Gal. 8.51.3: © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

242

Appendix H  

cum liberis omnis multitudo obviam procedebat [L.]. Cf. the discussion on pp. 99– 100 with n. 109 above; for omnis multitudo see appendix J.2, pp. 284–5 on 76.3. — 33.2: ne qua rursus nova dissensio … per homines seditiosos nasceretur ~ Gal. 8.38.1: ne qua rursus novorum consiliorum capiendorum Belgas facultas daretur (the only other attestation of ne qua rursus nov- in Latin literature down to Apuleius), Gal. 8.6.1: ne quod initium belli nasceretur [L.]. Cf. also Gal. 6.22.3: qua ex re factiones dissensionesque nascuntur, B.Alex. 58.1: dissensionis initium natum (see the note ad loc., p. 243 below) and contrast Civ. 1.20.3: dissensio exsistit, B.Alex. 4.1: dissensione orta (~ Cic. Part. 41, B.Afr. 95.3). — 33.3: vetustatis auctoritatem ~ Gal. 8.8.2: vetustatis … opi­nionem [L.]. — 33.4: simul ad imperii nostri dignitatem utilitatemque publicam pertinere existimabat ~ Gal. 8.6.2: cum … pertinere … non tantum ad dignitatem, sed etiam ad salutem suam iudicaret [L.]. There are no other parallels for ad dignitatem pertinere in the Corpus Caesarianum, but the expression is attested at Cic. Prov. 26 and Liv. 28.44.12, 36.26.3, 37.56.9. Cf. also Gal. 5.36.2: quod ad militum salutem pertineat (~ Gal. 6.34.3), Civ. 3.19.2: ad pacem pertinere and especially Civ. 3.107.2: interim controversias regum ad populum Romanum et ad se, quod esset consul, pertinere existimans. It is probably not accidental that the end of Caesar’s campaign at B.Alex. 33 echoes its beginning at Civ. 3.107; cf. the allusion to Gal. 1.1.1: Gallia est omnis divisa at Gal. 8.1.1: omni Gallia devicta. — 34.2: ad explicandos sumptus rei militaris ~ Gal. 8.4.3: explicandae rei frumentariae causa [L.]. The use of explicare in the sense of ‘disentangle (a difficulty, uncertainty)’ (OLD s.v. 3) does not occur elsewhere in the Corpus Caesarianum; see also TLL s.v. explico 1730.15–1731.32, especially 1731.17–32 and 1730.38–40. — 34.2: ab externo rege: see the note on 65.1: externorum hostium below. — 34.5: ad auxilia arcessenda ~ Gal. 8.10.4, see on 26.1 above. — 36.3: magnis et continuis itineribus confectis ~ Gal. 8.41.2: magno cum labore et continua dimicatione [L.] (no other parallels for the collocation of magnus and continuus in the Corpus Caesarianum). — 36.4: in insidiis delectos pedites omnesque paene disposuit equites ~ Gal. 8.16.4: cum saepe in insidiis equites peditesque disponerent, 8.18.1: hostes in insidiis dispositi [Fr., L.]. There are no other attestations of in insidiis disponere in the Corpus Caesarianum; for delectos pedites see the note on 29.2 above. — 41.1: rebus secundis elatus: for elatus cf. the note on 76.2 below; for res secundae see the note on 23.1 above. — 41.1: Pontum omnibus copiis occupavit (cf. 72.3: hunc locum … copiis suis omnibus occupavit) ~ Gal. 8.32.2: Uxellodunum … occupat suis et Drappetis copiis [L.] (no other attestations of copiis occupare in the Corpus Caesarianum).  — 42.3: ad decursiones faciendas ~ Gal.  8.24.3: de­ cursione barbarorum (no other attestations of decursio in the Corpus Caesarianum) [L.]. — 42.4: diversissima parte orbis terrarum ~ Gal. 8.24.2, see the note on 27.1 above. — 42.5: omnem enim illam partem regionemque ~ Gal. 8.46.4; see the note on 9.4 above. — 43.1: hiberno tempore anni ac difficili ~ Gal. 8.6.1: tempore anni difficillimo [N., L.]. There are no other attestations of tempus anni difficile in the Corpus Caesarianum, but cf. Civ. 1.48.5: tempus erat autem difficillimum. — © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

Parallels between the B.Alex. and Hirt. Gal. 8

243

43.2: durissimis tempestatibus ~ Gal.  8.5.4: tempestatibus durissimis (the only parallel for dura tempestas in the Corpus Caesarianum) [N., L.].  — 44.1: ad auxilium provinciae ferendum ~ Gal.  8.27.1 [L.], see the note on 2.3 above.  — 44.1: difficultates … hiemis ~ Gal. 8.5.4: hiemis difficultate [L.]. These passages are the only attestations of difficultas hiemis in Latin literature down to Apuleius, cf. TLL s.v. difficultas 1099.53–4. — 46.4: rem feliciter gerebant: see the note on 32.1 above. — 47.1: re bene gesta (= 26.3) = Gal. 8.27.5, 8.36.1 [N., L.]. — 47.3: no­ bilissimum regionum earum oppidum coniunctissimumque Octavio ~ Gal. 8.50.2: pro homine sibi con­iunctissimo (the only other attestation of coniunctissimus in the Corpus Caesarianum) [L.]; for the use of nobilissimus cf. B.Alex. 27.1, 66.2 and p. 57 with n. 122. — 48.1: rem feliciter gerebat: see the note on 32.1 above. — 49.3: magna … sollicitudo periculorum ad iacturas et detrimenta … adiungebatur ~ Gal. 8.48.2: ad eam virtutem … magnum odium Commii adiungebat [B.]. This is the only parallel for the use of adiungere with emotions in the Corpus Caesarianum; cf. TLL s.v. 711.16–33 for parallels in Cicero. — 51.3: ad legiones arcessendas ~ Gal. 8.10.4, see the note on 26.1 above. — 53.4: odio … esse ~ Gal. 8.7.4: esse odio (the only parallel in the Corpus Caesarianum) [B.]. — 54.2: ad auxilium fe­ rendum imperatori suo ~ Gal. 8.27.1 [L., B.], see the note on 2.3 above. — 54.2: facit hoc idem XXI [sc. legio] ~ Gal. 8.48.4: faciunt hoc idem omnes eius equites [B.], see p. 283 ad loc.. — 56.5: exercitum lustrat ~ Gal. 8.52.1: exercitum lustravit (both times at the end of a sentence) [L., B.]. The only other attestation of lustrare in the Corpus Caesarianum is B.Afr. 75.1: lustrato exercitu. — 58.1: ne dissensionis initium natum … videretur (cf. 76.1: initium victoriae natum est) ~ Gal. 8.6.1: ne quod initium belli nasceretur [L., B.], but cf. also Civ.  3.20.2:  a quibus initium appellandi nasceretur (no other parallels for initium nascitur in the Corpus Caesarianum). See also B.Alex. 33.2: ne … dissensio nasceretur and the note ad loc. above. — 58.4: obviam prodit ~ Gal. 8.51.3: obviam procedebat [L.], but cf. also e. g. Gal. 7.12.1: obviam Caesari proficiscitur (~ B.Afr. 88.7). — 59.1: nihil opus esse Cn. Pompei nomine et memoria ~ Hirt. apud Cic. Att. 15.6.2: nihil enim iam video opus esse nostra cura [B.]; Caesar avoids nihil opus esse + abl.. — 59.1: se Caesaris causam defensurum ~ Gal. 8.52.4: cum Caesaris causam … defendendam suscepisset [B.] (no other attestations of causam defendere in the Corpus Caesarianum). — 59.2: loco excelso facit castra ~ Gal. 8.33.1: excelsissimo loco castra fecit [L., B.]; cf. also Gal. 7.83.2: necessario paene iniquo loco et leniter declivi castra fecerant (no other attestations of loco castra facere in the Corpus Caesarianum). — 60.1: prius … quam … rapinis, ferro flammaque consumerentur ~ Hirt. apud Cic. Att. 15.6.3: quae … rapinis, incendiis, caedibus pervertuntur, Gal. 8.25.1: cum … omnia caedi­ bus, incendiis, rapinis vastasset [L.]. — 60.5: locorum difficultates ~ Gal. 8.19.6, 8.41.3, see the note on 31.1 above. — 61.2: see the note on 61.5 below. — 61.5: in circuitu oppidi ~ Gal. 8.33.2: in oppidi circuitum (†) [L., B.]. — 61.5: munitionibus clausit ~ Gal. 8.11.1: munitionibus claudi (†) [Fr., L., K., B.]; cf. also B.Alex. 61.2: veritus, ne genere quodam obsidionis clauderetur and Gal.  8.40.1: oppidumque © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

244

Appendix H  

operibus clausum. The expression claudere aliquid aliqua re is absent from the Caesarian commentarii. — 62.1: cohortes auxiliarias ~ Hirt. Gal. 8.5.3: auxiliarios pedites [K., B.]. Contrast Civ. 1.63.1: duabus auxiliaribus cohortibus … relictis and see pp. 283–4 ad loc.. — 62.3: crebroque id accidit ~ Gal. 8.17.1: quod cum crebrius accideret (no other attestations of c. a. in the Corpus Caesarianum) [L.]. — 63.2: sine dubitatione = Gal. 8.44.3 [B.]; contrast Gal. 7.40.1: nulla interposita dubitatio­ne. — 63.4: neque ullum exitum consilii sui reperiret ~ Gal. 8.44.1: neque exitum consiliorum suorum animadverteret [L., B.], but cf. also Gal.  5.29.7: qui dissentirent, consilium quem haberet exitum.  — 65.1: contra … consuetudinem = Gal. 8.50.1 [L., B.]. Contrast praeter consuetudinem at B.Alex. 6.1, Gal. 7.61.3 and see appendix I.1 on 6.2 (p. 249). — 65.1: externorum hostium (cf. 34.2: ab externo rege) ~ Gal. 8.27.2: externum … hostem, 8.37.1: externo … hoste [L., B.]; Caesar employs externus only once at Civ. 2.5.5: externis auxiliis. — 65.3: secundo proelio … inflatus ~ Gal.  8.12.6: inflantur [β, inflammantur α] … secundo proelio [L., B.]. — 65.4: commoratus fere in omnibus civitatibus … praemia bene meritis … tribuit, de controversiis veteribus cognoscit ac statuit ~ Gal. 8.46.5: ipse paucos dies in provincia moratus, cum … publicas controversias cognosset, bene meritis praemia tribuisset [L., B.]. Cf. also B.Alex. 68.1: de controversiis … cogniturum esse, 78.1: de controversiis cognoscit, B.Afr. 86.3: praemia fortissimo cuique ac bene merenti pro suggestu tribuit and see p. 33 with n. 13 on the construction of cog­ noscere.  — 67.1: exercitibus imperiisque coactus [coactus add. Glandorp 1574: 175] ~ Gal. 8.25.2: neque imperata umquam [sc. civitas Treverorum] nisi exercitu coacta faciebat [L.]. — 68.1: excusationem imprudentiae recipere ~ Gal. 8.pr.1: difficultatis excusationem … habere [L.]; an even closer parallel is Cic. or. fr. D.II.2 (Schoell = Puccioni 1963: 129–30): imprudentiae vel … neglegentiae excusatione. Cf. also Gal. 8.12.5: neque aetatis excusatione … usus erat and Civ. 1.85.9: in se aetatis excusationem nihil valere, B.Afr. 26.3: nulla excusatione hiemis ventorumque, and TLL s.v. excusatio 1298.55–82.  — 68.1: de controversiis tetrarcharum postea se cogniturum esse ~ Gal. 8.46.5 [L., B.], see the note on 65.4 above. — 69.1: periculis functam [sc. legionem] ~ Gal. 8.7.2: equites officio functi [L.]; a more remote parallel is Gal. 7.25.3: unus [sc. Gallus] … eodem illo munere fungebatur. — 69.1: eo proelio quod Cn. Domitium fecisse cum Pharnace scripsimus ~ Gal. 8.31.1: eo proe­lio quod cum Dumnaco fecerat [L., B.]; cf. proelium facere contra + acc. at 65.3 and p. f. adversus + acc. at 73.2 and see p. 32 with n. 12. — 70.3: libentius facere ~ Gal. 8.48.2: quo libentius … faceret [B.]. — 72.2: magni multique intercisi vallibus colles ~ Gal. 8.14.4: mediocri valle … intercisum [sc. iugum] [L., B.]. Cf. also B.Alex. 73.3: spatio non amplius passuum [codd. recent., om. cett.] intercisa vallis (no other parallels for valles intercidit(ur) in the Corpus Caesarianum). — 72.2: qui [i. e. editissimus unus collis] … magnam in illis partibus habet nobilitatem ~ Gal. 8.45.2: qui [i. e. Surus Haeduus] … summam nobilitatem habebat [Fi.]; cf. also p.  57 with n. 122.  — 72.3: hunc locum … copiis suis omnibus occupavit ~ Gal. 8.32.2, see the note on 41.1: Pontum omnibus copiis occupavit © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

Parallels between the B.Alex. and Hirt. Gal. 8

245

above.  — 73.3: spatio … intercisa vallis ~ Gal.  8.14.4, see the note on 72.2 above. — 74.2: prima acie pro vallo instructa ~ Gal. 8.15.3: pro vallo legiones instructas [L., D., B.]. There are no other attestations of pro vallo instruere in the Corpus Caesarianum; later parallels are Liv. 28.14.2, Fro. Str. 3.17.9. Contrast pro vallo constituere legiones at Gal. 7.70.5. — 74.4: cum interim = Gal. 8.19.8 (†) [L., D., B.]. — 75.3: acies hostium = Gal. 8.29.2 [*]; Caesar and the author of the Bellum Africum prefer the inverse word order, cf. Gal. 1.52.6, 7.62.1, B.Afr. 39.2. — 76.1: initium victoriae natum est: the expression initium nascitur is also attested at Hirt. Gal. 8.6.1: ne quod initium belli nasceretur and B.Alex. 58.1: ne dissensionis initium natum … videretur (see the note ad loc. on p. 243 above), but the sentence has an even closer parallel at Civ. 3.94.3 (quoted in appendix I.2 ad loc., p. 267 below). — 76.2: quam facile …, tam celeriter. The comparison has no exact parallel in the Corpus Caesarianum, but Landgraf (1888a: 133) compares Hirt. apud Cic. Att. 15.6.2: Brutus et Cassius utinam quam facile a te de me impetrare possunt, ita per te exorentur, ne quod calidius ineant consilium. Cf. also Gal. 8.pr.6: ceteri enim, quam bene atque emendate, nos etiam, quam facile atque celeriter eos perfecerit, scimus [*]. — 76.2: at nostri victoria elati ~ Gal. 8.29.3: at nostri equites … laetitia victoriae elati [N., L.], but cf. also Gal. 5.47.4: recenti victoria efferri and the use of elati at Gal. 7.47.3 (spe celeris victoriae), Civ. 1.45.2 (studio), 3.59.3 (adrogantia), and 3.79.6 (gloria). — 77.2: praeda omni regia militibus condonata ~ Gal. 8.4.1: centurionibus tota [Havet 1906, tot codd.; cf. Catul. 41.2: tota milia me decem poposcit, B.Afr. 70.1, OLD s.v. totus 1b] milia nummum praedae nomine condonata pollicetur [L., B.]. Within the Corpus Caesarianum, the verb condonare is used in the sense of ‘present as a gift’ only in these two places. — 78.1: de controversiis cognoscit et statuit ~ Gal. 8.46.5, see the note on 65.4 above. — 78.2: rem feliciter celeriterque gestam ~ Gal.  8.46.2: celeriter feliciterque, see the note on 32.1 above. — 78.5: rebus felicissime celerrimeque confectis ~ Gal. 8.37.1, 8.46.2 [Fr.], see the note on 32.1 above.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

Appendix I: Significant parallels between the Bellum Alexandrinum and the Caesarian commentarii .

Parallels between the B.Alex. and Caesar

1. Significant parallels between the Caesarian commentarii and B.Alex. 1–21 1.1: equites … evocat = Gal.  5.57.2 [*]; cf. also Civ.  3.106.1: altera [sc. legione], quam ex Achaia  a Q. Fufio legato evocaverat, 3.108.2: exercitum  a Pelusio clam Alexandriam evocavit [Z.], and Hirt. Gal. 8.11.2: quorum [i. e. equitum] magnum numerum evocaverat. — 1.1: tormenta undique conquiri … iubet ~ Civ. 1.60.3: omnibus undique conquisitis iumentis, 1.61.5: navis conquiri … iubent [*]. — 1.2: interim munitiones cotidie operibus augentur ~ Civ.  3.112.9: has munitiones insequentibus auxit diebus [L.]. — 1.2: munitiones proferuntur ~ Civ. 1.81.3: munitiones proferunt castraque castris convertunt (no other parallels for munitiones proferre, cf. TLL s.v. profero 1682.75–1683.15) [D.]. — 1.4: quam angustissimam partem oppidi palus … efficiebat ~ Civ. 3.40.2: molem … quae paene insulam oppidum effecerat [*]. Apart from these two passages, efficere is also used in connection with  a topographical description at Gal.  1.38.6, 4.10.1, 4.10.4, 6.31.3, and B.Afr. 37.4 (†); see also OLD s.v. 4. — 1.5: illud spectans [Vascosan 1543: 95K, expectans codd.] …, ut ~ Civ.  3.85.2: haec spectans [(hoc)  spectans R. Stephanus 1544: 369, sperans codd.], ut … [L., Z.]; cf. also Civ.  3.43.3: haec spectans [(hoc) spectans Vascosan 1543: 85B, ex(s)pectans codd.] …, quo [Z., P.]. — 1.5: cum in duas partes esset urbs divisa ~ Gal. 1.1.1: Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres, 1.12.4: nam omnis civitas Helvetia in quattuor pagos divisa est, 3.1.6: cum hic [sc. vicus] in duas partes flumine divideretur [*]. — 1.5: ut … acies uno consilio atque imperio administraretur ~ Gal.  7.76.4: quorum consilio bellum administraretur, Civ.  3.14.2: una [sc. navis] … privato … consilio administrabatur [L.]. Cf. also Gal.  5.11.8: summa imperii bellique administrandi communi consilio permissa Cassivellauno and Civ. 1.20.5: uno consilio. — 1.5: ut laborantibus succurri … posset ~ Civ. 2.6.2: suis laborantibus succurrebant [L.]; cf. also Gal. 5.44.9: succurrit … et laboranti subvenit and see the note on 21.3: suis laborantibus subsidio scaphas mittens (p.  265 below).  — 1.5: inprimis vero ut ~ Gal.  3.10.2: inprimis ne [L.]; cf. also Gal. 7.1.6: inprimis rationem esse habendam … ut, 7.45.8: inprimis monet ut, Civ. 1.26.3: inprimis ut … postulat, B.Alex. 69.2: inprimis deprecantur ne (no other parallels of inprimis ut/ne in the Corpus Caesarianum). — 1.5: alterius rei © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

Parallels between the B.Alex. and Caesar

247

[i. e. aquae] copiam exiguam … habebat ~ Gal. 5.12.5: sed eius [sc. ferri] exigua est copia [L.]; cf. also Civ. 2.39.2: exiguas esse copias missas (no other attestations of exigua copia in the Corpus Caesarianum). — 1.5: alterius [sc. rei, i. e. pabuli] nullam omnino facultatem habebat ~ Gal.  3.9.6: neque ullam facultatem habere navium, 3.12.3: cuius rei [i. e. navium] summam facultatem habebant, Civ. 3.14.1: quantam navium facultatem habebat [L.]. This use of facultas for ‘copia’ is absent from Hirt. Gal. 8 (see also TLL s.v. facultas 147.51–69). Likewise, the collocation (n)ullus omnino is attested in Caesar (Civ. 2.32.12) and B.Alex. 1–21, but does not occur in the rest of the Corpus Caesarianum: see pp. 261–2 on 19.5: nulla omnino scapha. — 2.1: neque vero Alexandrinis in gerendis negotiis cunctatio ulla aut mora inferebatur ~ Civ. 3.75.3: neque vero Pompeius … moram ullam ad insequendum intulit, 3.77.3: mora inlata, 3.97.1: ne … negotii gerendi facultatem dimitterent, and Gal. 3.18.5: occasionem negotii bene gerendi amittendam non esse [L.]. See also appendix J.1ad loc. (p. 268). Observe that Hirtius uses rem gerere (8.19.5, 8.20.1, al.) and that neque/nec vero is confined to Civ. 1–3 and B.Alex. 1–21 (see appendix E.2, p. 221). — 2.1–2: magnumque numerum in oppidum telorum atque tormen­ torum convexerant et innumerabilem multitudinem adduxerant. nec minus in urbe maximae armorum erant institutae officinae ~ Civ. 1.34.5: frumentum … in urbem convexerant, armorum officinas in urbe instituerant (no other attestations of officina in the Corpus Caesarianum) [L., D.]. — 2.2: nec/neque minus (‘and likewise’, OLD s.v. neque 4c) = Civ. 3.32.6, 3.65.3 (†) [*]; cf. TLL s.v. parvus 577.29–40. — 2.2: servos praeterea puberes armaverant ~ Civ.  3.9.3: servosque omnes puberes liberaverunt (no other parallels for servus puber in Latin literature down to Apuleius) [*].  — 2.4: omnibus viis atque angiportis triplicem vallum obduxerant ~ Civ.  3.63.2: duplicem eo loco fecerat vallum and Gal.  2.8.4: transversam fossam obduxit [α, duxit β], Civ. 3.46.1: fossam … obduci iussit (no other attestations of obducere in the Corpus Caesarianum) [L.].  — 2.4:  partes urbis inferiores ~ Gal. 1.1.6: ad inferiorem partem fluminis Rheni, 4.28.2: ad inferiorem partem insulae [*].  — 2.4: has altissimis turribus denorum tabulatorum munierant ~ Civ. 1.25.10: turres binorum tabulatorum excitabat, Gal. 6.29.3: in extremo ponte turrim tabulatorum quattuor constituit [*]. Klotz (1910: 170) points out that Hirtius uses cardinal rather than distributive numerals when speaking of several siege towers, cf. Gal. 8.9.3: turres excitari crebras in altitudinem trium tabulatorum. Caesar only employs cardinal numbers when referring to a single tower, cf. Gal. 6.29.3 (quoted above). — 2.5: in quamcumque erat visum partem [sc. turres] movebant ~ Civ. 2.41.4: quamcumque in partem impetum fecerant [L.]. See also appendix J.1 ad loc. (pp.  268–9) on the word order.  — 3.1: urbs fertilissima et copiosissima ~ Gal. 1.23.1: a Bibracte, oppido Haeduorum longe maximo et copiosissimo [D.]. — 3.1: urbs … omnium rerum apparatus subgerebat ~ Civ. 2.2.1: sed tanti erant … in oppido omnium rerum ad bellum apparatus [P.]. — 3.1: quae a nobis fieri viderant, ea sollertia efficiebant, ut nostri illorum opera imitati viderentur ~ Gal.  7.22.1: consilia … Gallorum occurrebant, ut est summae genus sollertiae © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

248

Appendix I.1

atque ad omnia imitanda et efficienda, quae ab quoque traduntur, aptissimum [L.]. — 3.1: unoque tempore = Civ. 3.21.5 [*]. The only other parallel in Latin literature down to Apuleius is Cic. Catil. 3.26; the usual phrase is atque/et uno tempore. Within the Corpus Caesarianum, the sequence uno tempore et A et B is confined to the Caesarian commentarii and B.Alex. 1–21: see the note on 17.4, p.  260.  — 3.2: populum Romanum paulatim in consuetudinem eius regni occupandi venire ~ Civ. 3.110.2: in consuetudinem Alexandrinae vitae ac licentiae vene­ rant [L.]. in consuetudinem venire is not attested in Hirtius, but cf. e. g. Cic. Tul. 10, Ver. 2.169, Inv. 2.160, Amm. 31.1.2 and see TLL s.v. consuetudo 557.4–6. — 3.3: Pompeium se ex fuga eodem recepisse ~ Civ. 3.102.1: Caesar … persequendum sibi Pompeium existimavit, quascumque in partes se ex fuga recepisset [*]. The expression se recipere ex does not feature in Gal. 8, B.Afr., or B.Hisp., but is also attested at Gal.  2.12.2, 4.27.1, 6.41.3, 7.20.12, Civ.  3.102.6 (all ex fuga s.r.), and Civ. 2.42.5 (ex proelio). Contrast Hirtius’ usage at Gal. 8.20.2: ex fuga paucis atque his vulneratis receptis. — 3.4: idque agendum mature ~ Gal. 1.33.4: quibus rebus quam maturrime occurrendum putabat, 6.2.3: maturius sibi de bello cogitandum putavit [*]. Within the Corpus Caesarianum, the lexemes maturare, maturitas, and maturescere are confined to the Caesarian commentarii, and maturus occurs only in Gal. 1–7 (8×), Civ. 1–3 (3×), and at B.Alex. 3.4. — 3.4: namque eum interclusum … recipere transmarina auxilia non posse ~ Civ. 1.70.2: quibus interclusis exercitu Caesaris auxilium ferri nulla ratione poterat [*], Civ. 1.29.1: priusquam ille sese transmarinis auxiliis confirmaret [Z.]. In Latin literature down to Apuleius, the only other parallel or near parallel is Cic. Phil. 11.26: sed ut ea ipsa acies subsidium haberet etiam transmarinum. — 4.1: minorem filiam ~ Civ. 3.112.10: filia minor [*]. — 4.1: ut supra demonstratum est = Civ. 1.39.1, 1.48.3, 2.34.1, 3.6.2, 3.15.1, 3.39.1; cf. the detailed discussion in appendix J.1 ad loc. (pp. 269–70). — 4.1: cum uterque utrique insidiaretur ~ Gal. 7.35.1: cum uterque utrique [β, utrimque α] in conspectu esset exercitui [L.]. — 4.2: suscepto officio ~ Civ. 3.18.1: neque susceptum officium deserere vellet [*]. — 4.2: largitionem in militem [milites M R] auget ~ Civ. 3.112.11: quae res apud milites largitiones auxit [L., Z.]. For the collective singular miles see TLL s.v. 945.18–946.13 and cf. e. g. Gal. 6.34.8, 7.52.4, Civ. 1.67.3, 2.15.3. — 5.1: spatio temporis (cf. 6.3: parvo vero temporis spatio) ~ Civ. 2.30.3: maiore spatio temporis interiecto, 3.84.1: satis longo spatio temporis … intermisso, 3.93.1: parvoque intermisso temporis spatio. For the omission of the participle cf. Gal. 3.12.1: horarum XII spatio, 6.36.3: hoc spatio dierum and see Zingerle 1892: 105 (contra Landgraf 1888a: 88). — 5.2: quae flumine Nilo fertur ~ Civ. 1.40.4: ex … cratibus, quae flumine ferebantur (the only parallel for flumine ferri in the Corpus Caesarianum) [*]. — 6.1: hoc probato consilio = Civ. 1.78.3, ~ Gal. 3.23.4: hoc consilio probato (all at the beginning of a sentence, †) [*]. Cf. also Gal. 5.48.1: Caesar consilio eius probato, Civ. 2.38.1: his constitutis rebus probatisque consiliis, Hirt. Gal. 8.21.1: hoc omnibus probato consilio, 8.34.2: eo consilio probato, B.Alex. 23.1: consilio … regi probato, B.Afr. 77.2: Caesar eorum consilio pro© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

Parallels between the B.Alex. and Caesar

249

bato. — 6.1: magnum ac difficile opus adgreditur ~ Civ. 3.80.7: oppidum altissimis moenibus oppugnare adgressus [Z.]; cf. also B.Hisp. 15.6: nefandum … facinus sunt adgressi. There are no other parallels for this use of adgredi in the sense of ‘to set about (a task etc.)’ (OLD s.v. 4) in the Corpus Caesarianum. Cf. also TLL s.v. aggredior 1318.83–1321.24 (especially 1319.36–40, 1320.66–7) and Zingerle 1892: 106 (contra Landgraf 1888a: 89). — 6.1: aquae magnam vim (cf. 9.2: magna … vis aquae) ~ Civ. 2.6.3: magna vis … telorum, 2.37.5: cuius [sc. salis] magna vis, 3.5.1: frumenti vim maximam [Z.]. Cf. also Gal.  6.36.3, Civ.  2.26.2, B.Alex. 20.5: magnam vim telorum, B.Afr. 1.4: levis armaturae magna vis, 14.1: cum suorum paucitate contra magnam vim hostium. The use of vis for ‘quantity’ is not attested elsewhere in the Corpus Caesarianum. — 6.2: praeter consuetudinem = Gal. 7.61.3, Civ. 1.19.3, 3.61.1 [L.]. Cf. also Civ. 1.45.1: praeter opinionem consuetudinemque, 1.59.3: praeter consuetudinem omnium and contrast Hirt. Gal. 8.50.1: contra consuetudinem, B.Alex. 65.1: contra morem consuetudinemque militarem.  — 6.2: quantum inter se differrent aquae ~ Gal. 1.1.2: hi … inter se differunt, 6.11.1: quo differant hae nationes inter sese [*] (no other attestations of differre inter in the Corpus Caesarianum). — 6.3: tem­poris spatio: see the note on 5.1: spatio temporis above. — 7.1: tantus incessit timor, ut … ~ Civ. 3.101.3: tantusque eo facto timor incessit, ut …, 2.29.1: magnus omnium incessit timor animis, 3.44.6: magnusque incesserat timor sagittarum [L.] and 3.74.2: exercitui quidem omni tantus incessit ex incommodo dolor …, ut [P.]. — 7.1: ut ad extremum casum periculi omnes deducti viderentur ~ Gal. 3.5.1: resque esset iam ad extremum perducta casum, 5.31.1: ne … rem in summum periculum deducant, Civ. 1.19.4: sese rem in summum periculum deducturum non esse [L.] and Gal.  2.31.6: si in eum casum deducerentur [*]. — 7.1: quin naves conscendere iuberet ~ Gal. 4.23.1: naves conscendere … iussit, 5.7.4: conscendere naves iubet, Civ. 1.27.5: naves conscendere iubet [*]. There are no other attestations of this expression in the Corpus Caesarianum, but cf. Liv. 22.19.8, 37.11.8, Juv. 6.98. — 7.1: alii multo graviorem [graviorem A. Manutius 1575: 447, Landgraf 1888a: 90, Dahms 1906: 11, gravius codd. et edd. vett.] extimescerent casum ~ Gal. 3.13.9: nostris navibus casus erant extimescendi [L., D.]. gravior casus is unattested in Gal. and Civ., but occurs e. g. at Cic. Phil. 1.13: si qui accidisset gravior rei publicae casus (for further parallels see TLL s.v. casus 580.52– 7). It may be preferable to keep the transmitted adverb gravius and delete casum instead (thus Haupt apud Nipperdey 1847: 189, Klotz 1926–27: vol. 3, 5, Andrieu 1954: 7). The words extremum casum a few lines earlier may have provoked the insertion of an additional casum after extimescerent. The use of graviter with a verb expressing fear has a close parallel at Gal. 5.30.2: qui gravissime ex vobis mortis periculo terrear. — 7.1: in naves receptus daretur ~ Civ. 2.30.3: in Siciliam receptus daretur [*]. — 7.2: in parte Caesaris = Civ. 3.112.12 [L., D.]. Kraner (1861: lviii, 288), W. T. Paul (1889: 135), Kraner/Hofmann/Meusel (1906: 299, 344), and Klotz (1950: 159) delete nutricius pueri et procurator regni, in parte Caesaris (Civ. 3.112.12), because the words nutricius pueri et procurator regni have a close © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

250

Appendix I.1

parallel at Civ. 3.108.1: erat in procuratione regni propter aetatem pueri nutricius eius, ­eunuchus nomine Pothinus. However, the transmitted text has been defended by Kraffert (1865: 502–3, 1883: 75) and Barwick (1938: 134 n. 1), who point out that Caesar may deliberately remind the reader of Pothinus’ official function at the Ptolemaic court. Moreover, even if nutricius pueri et procurator regni was interpolated, the words in parte Caesaris could still be genuine. In his apparatus, Klotz (1950: 159) wrongly attributes the deletion to Kraffert and does not mention Kraner at all. — 7.2: quod ea [i. e. multitudo oppidanorum in parte Caesaris] se fidelem palam nostris esse simulabat ~ Civ. 3.21.4: ille … palam se proficisci ad Caesarem simulavit [*]. — 7.3: uno tempore et … et: within the Corpus Caesarianum, this pattern occurs only in the Caesarian commentarii and B.Alex. 1–21: see the note on 17.4, p.  260.  — 7.3: aptissimum esse hoc genus ad proditionem ~ Gal. 7.22.1: est … genus … ad omnia imitanda et efficienda … aptissimum [*]; cf. also Gal. 5.16.1: nostros … minus aptos esse ad huius generis hostem and see p. 68 n. 185.  — 8.1: Caesar suorum timorem consolatione et ratione minuebat ~ Civ. 1.72.4: paulum ex eo loco digreditur [sc. Caesar], ut timorem adversariis minuat, 3.1.3: ad timorem novarum tabularum tollendum minuendumque [P.]. These parallels are closer than Hirt. Gal. 8.38.2 (quoted in appendix J.1 ad loc., p. 271 below). — 8.2:  quae diversae navigationes numquam uno tempore adversis ventis praecluderentur (cf. 11.6: adverso vento) ~ Gal.  5.9.6: crebris arboribus succisis omnes introitus erant praeclusi, Civ. 3.107.1: adversissimi venti [*]. Cf. also diversum iter at Gal. 7.16.3, Civ. 3.41.4, 3.67.3 and see the note on 17.4, p. 260 below (uno tempore). — 8.3: fugae … consilium ~ Civ. 1.19.2, 1.20.2, 3.102.3 (†) [*]. — 8.3: fugae vero nullum esse consilium non solum iis, qui primam dignitatem habe­ rent, sed ne iis quidem, qui nihil praeterquam de vita cogitarent ~ Civ. 1.9.2: sibi semper primam fuisse dignitatem vitaque potiorem [P.]. — 8.4: magno negotio impetus hostium … sustineri ~ Gal. 5.11.2: ut … reliquae [sc. naves] tamen refici posse magno negotio viderentur [*]; cf. p. 221 (on negotium) and see appendix J.1 ad loc. (p. 271). — 8.4: nec loco nec numero pares esse posse ~ Gal. 7.48.4: erat Romanis nec loco nec numero aequa contentio [*]. Cf. also Gal. 5.34.2: erant et numero et virtute [et numero et virtute R. Stephanus 1544: 113, et v. et n. codd. et edd. vett.] pugnandi pares. The latter sentence has been deleted by Apitz (1835: 46–7), Meusel (1910: 57, cf. also Kraner/Dittenberger/Meusel 1913–20: vol. 2, 483), and Fuchs (1944: 96), but was retained by Klotz (1926–27: vol. 1, 132 ~ 1952: 119) and Hering (1987: 80). Thus, Barwick’s claim (1938: 184) that Caesar employs “par = ἀντίπαλος” only in conjunction with a defining dative does not stand on firm ground. Moreover, it is clear from the context of B.Alex. 8.4 that hostibus is implied: cf. TLL s.v. par 268.34–5, 40–42 and Cic. Fam. 1.8.2 (= 19.2 SB): cum pares esse non possent [sc. Pompeio]. — 8.5: magnam autem moram ~ Civ. 1.64.7: magnaque … mora (†) [*]. — 8.5: locorumque et aedificiorum notitiam ~ Civ. 1.31.2: hominum et locorum notitia [*]; cf. also locorum notitia at B.Alex. 10.5, 27.6. Observe that notitia is confined to Gal. 1–7, Civ. 1–3, and the Bellum Alexandri© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

Parallels between the B.Alex. and Caesar

251

num, see appendix E.2, p. 221. — 8.6: in victoria insolentes ~ Gal. 1.14.4: quod sua victoria tam insolenter gloriarentur [*]; cf. also Civ. 3.46.3: Pompeiani hoc [i. e. because of the retreat of the Caesarian troops] insolentius atque audacius nostros premere … coeperunt and see Zingerle 1892: 109–10 on Caesar’s use of insolenter, insolentia, and related terms. The Caesarian parallels are closer than Hirt. Gal. 8.13.4: secundis parvulis [β, minimisque α] rebus insolentiores (adduced by Landgraf 1888a: 92). — 8.6: proinde [sc. Caesar hortatus est] eius consilii obliviscerentur atque omni ratione esse vincendum cogitarent (cf. 17.1: omni ratione Caesar contendendum existimavit) ~ Civ. 1.65.5: quod fuit illis conandum atque omni ratione efficiendum, 1.67.5: quare omni ratione esse interdiu perrumpendum [L.]. There are no other attestations of omni ratione in the Corpus Caesarianum, but the expression is quite common in Cicero and other contem­porary authors (cf. e. g. Nep. Di. 5.1, Cic. Div. Caec. 72: omni ratione erit dimicandum, al., Vitr. 7.2.2). Note also that proinde is absent from Gal. 8, B.Afr., B.Hisp., and B.Alex. 22–78, but common in Caesar: see appendix E.2, p. 222. — 9.1: hac oratione apud suos habita atque omnium mentibus excitatis ~ Gal. 1.32.1: hac oratione ab Diviciaco habita, 1.41.1: hac oratione habita mirum in modum conversae sunt omnium mentes [L.]. Cf. also hac oratione habita at Gal.  1.33.1, 5.27.11 and hac habita oratione at Civ. 2.28.4, 3.90.3. The metaphorical use of excitare (‘rouse’, ‘stir’) has close parallels in Caesar and the Bellum Africum, but does not feature in Gal. 8, B.Alex. 22– 78, and the Bellum Hispaniense: cf. e. g. Gal. 7.79.3: omnium animi … excitantur, Civ. 3.21.1: ad hominum excitanda studia, B.Afr. 81.1: animos eorum excitabat and see TLL s.v. excito 1259.32–69. Also, Hirtius employs only animus, but not mens: cf. e. g. Gal. 8.8.3: animos multitudinis confirmat and see appendix E.2, p.  221. — 9.1: dat centurionibus negotium, ut … (cf. 51.3: certis hominibus dat negotium, ut …) ~ Gal. 2.2.3: dat negotium Senonibus reliquisque Gallis…, uti … [L.]. Hirtius completely avoids negotium. — 9.1: reliquis operibus intermissis ~ Civ. 1.42.2: opus intermittit [L.], Gal.  3.29.2: uti opus necessario intermitteretur [*].  — 9.1: neve quam partem nocturni temporis intermittant ~ Gal.  5.40.5: nulla pars nocturni temporis ad laborem intermittitur [P.], Gal. 5.11.6: ne nocturnis quidem temporibus ad laborem militum intermissis [*]. Cf. also noctem intermittere at Gal. 1.27.4, 5.38.1. — 9.2: omnium animis ad laborem incitatis (cf. 31.3: animi adeo sunt incitati, ut …) ~ Gal. 7.79.3: omnium animi ad lae­titiam excitantur [L.], Gal. 3.10.1: ad id bellum incitabant, Civ. 3.92.4: quaedam animi incitatio [*]. Cf. also the discussion in appendix J.2 ad loc. (p. 281 below). — 9.2: magna … vis aquae: see the note on 6.1 above.  — 9.3: legio XXXVII ex de­diticiis Pompeianis militibus ~ Gal. 2.17.2: cum ex dediticiis Belgis reliquisque Gallis complures Caesarem secuti una iter facerent [*]. Hirtius does not employ dediticius. — 9.3: legio XXXVIII … inposita in naves ~ Civ. 3.14.1: legionibus equitibusque … in naves inpositis [*]. Cf. also Civ. 3.6.2: inpositae [sc. in naves] … legiones VII. — 9.3: cum frumento, armis, telis, tormentis ~ Civ. 3.44.1: tela, arma, tormenta ibi conlocaverat [*]. — 9.3–4: legio … paulo supra Alexandriam delata est. hae naves … portum capere prohibe© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

252

Appendix I.1

bantur ~ Gal. 4.36.4: onerariae duae [sc. naves] eosdem portus, quos reliquae [sc. naves], capere non potuerunt et paulo infra delatae sunt [P.], Gal. 6.9.3: paulo supra eum locum [*]. — 9.4: Euro, qui multos dies continenter flabat ~ Civ. 3.26.5: Auster, qui per biduum flaverat [P.]. — 9.4: cum … aquae inopia premerentur ~ Gal. 7.20.11: simili omnem exercitum inopia premi, Civ. 1.84.1: aquae, lignorum, frumenti inopia, 3.49.2: aquae summa inopia adfectos [*]. inopia premi is also attested at B.Afr. 24.3, 67.1, Vitr. 7.pr.8.  — 10.1: navem conscendit atque omnem ­classem se sequi iussit ~ Gal. 4.23.1: naves conscendere et se sequi iussit [*]; cf. also the note on 7.1: quin naves conscendere iuberet (p.  249).  — 10.1: munitiones nudare nolebat (cf. 11.4: duae [sc. naves] omnibus epibatis nudatae [sc. sunt]) ~ Gal. 7.70.7: ne castra nudentur, Civ. 3.15.5: neque sibi nudanda litora … existimabant [L.], Gal. 2.6.2: murusque defensoribus nudatus est, 2.23.4: totis fere castris a fronte et a sinistra parte nudatis, 3.4.2: pars castrorum nudata defensoribus, 5.35.2: eam partem nudari necesse erat, 7.44.1: animadvertit collem … nudatum hominibus [*]. — 10.2: cumque ad eum locum accessisset, qui appellatur Chersonensus ~ Civ. 3.6.3: ad eum locum, qui appellabatur Palaeste [L.], Civ. 2.23.1: ad eum locum, qui appellatur Anquillaria, 2.25.1: ad portam, quae appellatur Belica, 3.26.4: nacti portum, qui appellatur Nymphaeum, 3.42.1: edito loco, qui appellatur Petra [*]. — 10.2: cumque … aquandique causa remiges in terram exposuisset, …, cum longius a navibus praedatum processissent ~ Civ. 1.66.1: qui aquandi causa longius a castris processerant [L.]. Instead of aquandi causa (B.Alex. 10.2, Civ.  1.66.1, 1.81.5, †) or aquandi gratia (B.Afr. 24.2, †), Hirtius uses aquatum, cf. Gal. 8.41.1: quorum [i. e. oppidanorum] omnis … multitudo aquatum [T, aquatorum codd. cett.] … conveniebat (~ B.Afr. 7.5). The phrase in terra(m) exponere recurs at 19.3 and also features at Civ. 1.31.3, 3.23.2 (†); on the syntax (ablative/accusative) cf. p. 59 with n. 133 above. — 10.3: magnam sibi fa­cultatem fortunam obtulisse bene gerendae rei crediderunt [sc. Alexandrini] (cf. 51.2: quod sibi … tanta oblata esset facultas) ~ Gal. 7.44.1: haec cogitanti accidere visa est facultas bene gerendae rei, Civ.  1.28.2: ne quam rei gerendae facultatem dimittat, 1.71.1: erat occasio bene gerendae rei, 1.72.5: oblata facultate [L.]; cf. also Gal. 5.57.1: ne quam occasionem rei bene gerendae dimitteret and Hirt. Gal. 8.18.3: sibi … oblatam occasionem rei gerendae. — 10.4: itaque naves omnes, quas paratas habuerant ad navigandum, propugnatoribus instruxerunt ~ Gal. 5.5.2: reliquas [sc. naves] paratas ad navigandum atque omnibus rebus instructas invenit [*]. Cf. also the use of instruere naves (vel sim.) + abl. at Civ. 1.36.2, 1.56.4, 2.5.1, 3.111.3 and B.Alex. 45.2: navem … instructam propugnatoribus. — 10.5: duabus de causis eo die dimicare nolebat, quod et … et ~ Gal. 6.14.4: id mihi duabus de causis instituisse videntur, quod neque … neque [P.]. — 10.5: locorum notitia: see the note on 8.5 above. — 11.1: erat una navis Rhodia in dextro Caesaris cornu longe ab reliquis collocata ~ Civ. 3.88.3: Cili­ ciensis legio coniuncta cum cohortibus Hispanis … in dextro cornu erant conlocatae [*]. — 11.1: hanc [sc. navem] conspicati hostes non tenuerunt sese ~ Civ. 2.6.4: conspicataeque naves triremes duae navem D. Bruti … duabus ex partibus sese in eam © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

Parallels between the B.Alex. and Caesar

253

incitaverant, 2.22.3: hunc [i. e. the fleeing Domitius] conspicatae naves … sequi coe­perunt [L.]. — 11.2: ne turpem in conspectu hostium [hostium M, deest codd. cett.] contumeliam acciperet ~ Gal. 5.29.4: tot contumeliis acceptis, 7.10.2: tanta contumelia accepta (the only parallels for contumeliam accipere in the Corpus Caesarianum) [L.]. — 11.2: si quid gravius illis accidisset, merito casurum iudi­ cabat ~ Gal. 1.20.4: si quid ei a Caesare gravius accidisset, 5.30.2: si gravius quid acciderit, Civ. 2.30.3: si quid gravius accidisset, 3.94.5: si quid durius acciderit [L.]. Within the Corpus Caesarianum, the noun meritum is confined to B.Alex. 11.2 and the Caesarian commentarii: cf. LC s.v. mereo(r) 563 and e. g. Gal. 1.14.1: eo gravius [sc. se] ferre, quo minus [sc. eae res] merito populi Romani accidissent [A, accidisset codd. cett.]. — 11.3: qui … in omnibus dimicationibus et scientia et virtute praestitissent ~ Gal. 1.2.2: cum virtute omnibus praestarent [*]; cf. the discussion in appendix J.1 ad loc. (p. 272). — 11.3: ne quod suorum culpa detrimentum acceptum videretur ~ Gal.  5.52.6: quod [rel. pron.] detrimentum culpa et teme­ ritate legati sit acceptum [*].  — 11.4: proelium secundissimum est factum ~ Gal. 7.62.2: secundissimorum proeliorum and Gal. 3.1.4: secundis aliquot proeliis factis (~ 6.12.3, 7.53.2), Civ. 1.7.7: plurimaque proelia secunda fecerint (~ 3.84.5, 3.105.3) [*]. See also appendix G.2 (magnum proelium comminus factum esse) and the discussion in appendix J.1, p.  272 on 11.4.  — 11.4: capta est una hostium quadriremis, depressa est altera, duae omnibus epibatis nudatae ~ Civ.  3.101.6: quinqueremes duas … ceperunt. … praeterea duae sunt depressae triremes, Civ. 2.7.2: itaque ex eo numero navium nulla desiderata est; ex Massiliensium classe V sunt depressae, IIII captae, una cum Nasidianis profugit [*]. Cf. also B.Alex. 16.6: capitur hoc proelio quinqueremis una et biremis cum defensoribus remigibusque et deprimuntur tres. On the word order see pp.  65–6 with nn. 170, 174.  — 11.4: magna praeterea multitudo … propugnatorum … est interfecta (cf. 14.4: magnum praeterea numerum minorum navigiorum et scapharum) ~ Gal. 3.17.4: magnaque praeterea multitudo … perditorum hominum latronumque, 6.36.3: magna praeterea multitudo calonum [*]. Before Apul. Met. 11.9: magnus praeterea sexus utriusque numerus, the only other attestations of the sequence magn- praeterea + quantifying noun are Cic. Catil. 2.19: magnas praeterea militum copias and Liv. 27.11.15: magnum praeterea numerum eorum. The phrase multitudinem inter­ ficere has a close parallel at Gal. 2.11.6: tantam eorum multitudinem nostri interfecerunt [B.] and later recurs at B.Alex. 29.5, 31.3, 76.3 (†); see also appendix J.2 on 76.3 (pp. 284–5). — 11.6: adverso vento leniter flante (cf. 8.2: adversis ventis) ~ Civ. 3.107.1: qui navigantibus Alexandria flant adversissimi venti [*]. — 12.1: eo detrimento adeo sunt fracti Alexandrini ~ Gal. 1.31.7: quibus proeliis calamitatibusque fractos [sc. Haeduos] [*]. — 12.1: cum … non virtute propugnatorum, sed scientia classiariorum se victos viderent ~ Gal.  7.29.2: non virtute neque in acie vicisse Romanos, sed artificio quodam et scientia oppugnationis [*]. — 12.2: confirmavit sese et eas [sc. naves], quae essent amissae, restituturum et numerum adaucturum ~ Civ. 1.7.4: Pompeium, qui amissa restituisse videatur bona, etiam, quae © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

254

Appendix I.1

ante habuerint, ademisse [*]. Cf. also naves amittere at Gal.  3.16.3, 4.31.3, Civ. 3.100.3. — 12.2: magna spe et fiducia ~ Civ. 1.20.2: spe atque fiducia [L.]. — 12.2: veteres reficere naves … instituerunt (cf. 13.1: naves ve­teres …, quibus … non erant usi; has reficiebant) ~ Gal.  5.1.1: uti … veteresque [sc. naves] reficiendas ­curarent, Civ. 1.30.4: Cato … naves longas veteres reficiebat, 2.4.1: veteres … navis refecerant [*]. — 12.3: ac tametsi = Gal. 7.50.2, Civ. 1.26.2 [*]. Cf. also Sal. Jug. 25.11, 33.2, 34.1 (no other attestations in Latin literature down to Apuleius). — 12.4: videbant enim non auxilia Caesari [R. Stephanus 1544: 394, Caesaris codd.], non commeatus subportari posse, si classe ipsi valerent ~ Gal. 3.3.2: cum … neque commeatus subportari interclusis itineribus possent, Civ. 3.43.3: quodque Pompeius multitudine equitum valebat, quo minore periculo undique frumentum commeatumque exercitui subportare posset, 3.112.6: ut tuto frumentum auxiliaque navibus ad eum subportari possent [*]. — 12.4: homines urbis et regionis maritimae ~ Gal. 5.14.1: longe sunt humanissimi qui Cantium in­colunt, quae regio est maritima omnis [*]. — 12.4: cotidianoque usu a pueris exercitati ~ Gal. 4.33.3: usu cotidiano et exercitatione [*]. Cf. also Hirt. Gal. 8.25.2: cotidianis exercitata [sc. civitas] bellis and see appendix J.1 ad loc. (p. 273 below). — 12.4: ad parandam classem ~ Civ. 1.85.6: tot tantasque classis paratas [*]. Cf. also B.Alex. 28.2: paratam classem, 56.6: classem quam parabat (no other at­testations of parare classem in the Corpus Caesarianum). — 13.1: erant omnibus ostiis Nili custodiae exigendi portorii causa dispositae ~ Gal.  7.55.9: praesidia custodiasque ad ripas Ligeris disponere equitatumque omnibus locis … ostentare coeperunt, 7.78.5: dispositis in vallo custodiis [*]. — 13.1–4: naves veteres erant in occultis regiae navalibus, quibus multis annis ad navigandum non erant usi: has reficiebant ~ Civ. 2.4.1: Massilienses … veteres ad eundem numerum ex navalibus productas navis refecerant [L.]. Cf. also B.Alex. 13.2: copia subministrabat ~ Civ. 2.4.1: copia subpetebat [L.], B.Alex. 13.4: ad has [sc. naves] minores apertasque conplures [sc. naves] adiecerunt ~ Civ. 2.4.2: piscatoriasque [sc. naves] adiecerant, B.Alex. 13.4: seque ad confligendum omnibus ­rebus paraverunt ~ Civ.  2.4.5: rursusque se ad confligendum animo confirmant [L.]. See the detailed discussion on pp. 122–8. — 13.3: praesentis temporis necessitati serviebant ~ Gal. 2.22.1: necessitas temporis [P.], 4.5.3: cum incertis rumoribus serviant, 7.34.1: ut … huic bello servirent [D.], Civ. 2.40.3: praesentis temporis opinione [*]. — 13.4: itaque paucis diebus contra omnium opinionem quadriremes XXII … confecerunt ~ Gal. 6.30.1: celeriter contraque omnium opinionem confecto itinere [*], 7.56.3: itaque admodum magnis diurnis nocturnisque itineribus confectis contra omnium opinionem ad Ligerim venit [L.]. Apart from these passages, contra opinionem is also attested at Gal. 3.9.6, Civ. 1.82.2 (†). — 13.4: in portu periclitati remigio, quid quaeque earum [i. e. navium] efficere posset ~ Gal. 2.8.2: quid hostis virtute posset et quid nostri auderent, periclitabatur [L.], 3.21.1: cum … nostri autem, quid … efficere possent, perspici cuperent, 7.36.4: quin equestri proelio interiectis sagittariis, quid in quoque esset animi ac virtutis suorum, periclitaretur [P.]. — 13.4: seque ad confligendum omnibus rebus paraverunt ~ Gal. 7.41.4: © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

Parallels between the B.Alex. and Caesar

255

se … similem ad casum parare [D.]. For seque ad confligendum cf. Civ. 2.4.5 (†) and see the note on 13.1–4 above. — 13.5: reliquae [sc. naves] erant infra hanc magnitudinem ~ Gal. 6.28.1: hi [sc. uri] sunt magnitudine paulo infra elephantos [*]; cf. also Gal. 4.24.2: propter magnitudinem [sc. navium]. There are no other close parallels before Plin. Nat. 10.135: infra columbas magnitudine and Tac. Ann. 14.54.1: infra tuam magnitudinem. — 13.6: virtute militum confisus = Civ. 3.24.1 [*]. — 13.6: se ad dimicandum parabat ~ Gal. 2.21.5: paratus ad dimicandum ani­ mus (~ 7.19.3, Civ. 3.85.4) [*]; cf. also B.Afr. 41.3: arbitratus Scipionem ad dimicandum paratum … venire, B.Hisp. 25.2: paratissimos … ad dimicandum. There are no other attestations of ad dimicandum parare in the Corpus Caesarianum. — 14.1: postquam eo ventum est, ut ~ Gal. 6.43.4: saepe in eum locum ventum est …, ut [D.]. Cf. also Gal. 1.43.4: ubi eo ventum est. R. Menge (1889: 154) observes that venire is employed metaphorically at B.Alex. 14.1 and claims that this usage is unparalleled in Caesar. However, the use of venire in the sense of ‘to come (to a stage in an action)’ is generally common in late Republican and early imperial prose (see OLD s.v. 8a, 11 and cf. e. g. Cic. Brut. 244, Caec. 24, Vell. 2.123.1: venitur ad tempus, in quo fuit plurimum metus). More importantly, Menge seems to have misinterpreted the two Caesarian passages cited above. At Gal. 6.43.4, the words in eum locum do not refer to a location, but to a ‘state’ or ‘condition’ (cf. Kraner/ Dittenberger/Meusel 1913–20: vol. 2, 232: “bis auf den Punkt” and TLL s.v. locus 1583.58–77 (“respicitur status, condicio”)); hence, venire must be used metaphorically. The same is likely to apply to Gal. 1.43.4: at 1.43.2 the expression eo, ut erat dictum, ad conloquium venerunt clearly points back to the preceding words hic locus aequum fere spatium a castris utriusque aberat (1.43.1) and indicates Caesar’s and Ariovistus’ arrival at their agreed meeting place. This is followed by further details of procedure such as the distance of their accompanying troops, the size of their entourage, and the fact that they will speak to each other on horseback (1.43.2–3). When we reach the words ubi eo ventum est (1.43.4), the nearest antecedent of eo is not the topographical reference tumulo (1.43.2) but the abstract indication ad conloquium (cf. 1.43.3: Ariovistus …, ut … praeter se denos ad conloquium adducerent, postulavit). Cf. also Caesar’s use of venire with dies (Gal. 1.8.3: ubi ea dies, quam constituerat cum legatis, venit, 7.3.1, Civ. 1.87.3) and tempus (Gal. 7.66.3). Outside the Corpus Caesarianum, the exact phrase eo ventum est occurs six more times in Latin literature down to Apuleius: four times indicating motion (Sal. Cat. 60.2, Liv. 1.59.6, 30.10.4, Cels. 7.7.14e) and twice used in an abstract or metaphorical fashion (Liv. 7.30.9, Sen. Ben. 3.16.3). — 14.1: ut sibi uterque eorum confideret ~ Civ.  3.10.7: dum sibi uterque confideret [L.].  — 14.1:  adversasque naves hostibus constituit (cf. 14.3: reliquas subsidiarias [sc. naves] … constituunt) ~ Gal. 3.14.2: naves … nostris adversae constiterunt [*]. In military contexts, consistere can function as a mediopassive of constituere, cf. TLL s.v. consisto 463.64: “I. assistere, se sistere constituere” and the passages cited at TLL s.vv. 465.68–466.67 and 513.44–514.14.  — 14.1: in dextro cornu Rhodias © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

256

Appendix I.1

[sc. naves] conlocat, in sinistro Ponticas ~ Civ. 3.89.1: X legionem in dextro cornu, nonam in sinistro conlocaverat [*]. — 14.1: inter has [sc. naves] spatium CCCC passuum relinquit, quod satis esse ad explicandas naves videbatur ~ Civ. 3.92.1: inter duas acies tantum erat relictum spatii, ut satis esset ad concursum utriusque exercitus; cf. also the use of explicari at Civ. 2.26.4: priusquam plane legiones explicari et consistere possent, 3.93.4: equitesque Pompei … se turmatim explicare … coeperunt [*]. — 14.2: reliquas naves subsidio distribuit ~ Gal. 4.22.3: quicquid praeterea navium longarum habebat, id quaestori, legatis praefectisque distribuit [L.]. sub­ sidium is unattested in Gal. 8: see appendix E.2, p. 223. — 14.2: quae quamque earum sequatur et cui subveniat, constituit atque imperat ~ Civ. 2.44.3: quae fieri vellet, Uticae constituit atque imperavit [L.]. There is no other parallel for the collocation of constituere and imperare in Latin literature down to Apuleius, but cf. Gal. 5.22.4–5: quid … penderet, constituit; interdicit atque imperat Cassivellauno, ne … (~ 7.4.7–8).  — 14.3: Alexandrini classem producunt atque instruunt ~ Gal. 1.48.3: pro castris suas copias produxit et aciem instructam habuit [*]. Within the Corpus Caesarianum, the only other parallels or near parallels for this collocation of producere and instruere are B.Afr. 30.2, 48.5, 58.2, 73.4. — 14.4: magnum praeterea numerum minorum navigiorum et scapharum producunt … si quid ipsa multitudo et clamor et flamma nostris terroris adferre possent ~ Civ. 1.56.2: multa huc minora navigia addunt, ut ipsa multitudine nostra classis terreatur. magnum numerum sagittariorum, magnum Albicorum … inponunt [L.]; see also the note on 11.4: magna praeterea multitudo … propugnatorum … est interfecta above (p. 253). — 14.5: erant inter duas classes vada transitu angusto … satisque diu inter ipsos est exspectatum, ab utris transeundi fieret initium, propterea quod ei, qui intrassent … impeditiores fore videbantur ~ Gal. 2.9.1: palus erat non magna inter nostrum atque hostium exercitum. hanc si nostri transirent, hostes exspectabant; nostri autem, si ab illis initium transeundi fieret, ut impeditos adgrederentur, parati in armis erant [L., D.], 2.9.2: ubi neutri transeundi initium faciunt [L.]. — 14.5: ad receptum … impeditiores fore videbantur ~ Civ.  3.51.6: Pompeianis magnam res ad receptum difficultatem adferebat [*] (no other attestations of ad receptum in the Corpus Caesarianum). — 14.5: si durior accidisset casus ~ Civ. 1.75.1: ut, quicumque accidisset casus, hunc … ferret, 3.94.5: si quid durius acciderit [L.].  — 15.1: Rhodiis navibus praeerat Euphranor ~ Civ. 3.5.3: praeerat Aegyptiis navibus Pompeius filius, Asiaticis D. Laelius et C. Triarius, Syriacis … [*]. — 15.1: animi magnitudine ac virtute magis cum nostris hominibus quam cum Graecis com­ paran­dus ~ Gal. 6.24.6: ne se quidem ipsi cum illis virtute comparant [*], 7.52.4: virtutem atque animi magnitudinem [L.]. Cf. also B.Alex. 32.3: virtutis et animi magnitudinis (no other parallels for the collocation of virtus and animi magnitudo in the Corpus Caesarianum). — 15.2: qui imperium classis obtineret ~ Gal. 2.4.7: qui … Britanniae imperium obtinuerit, 5.20.3: qui praesit imperiumque obtineat [*]. — 15.3: si haec vada primis navibus intraris ~ Civ. 3.38.3: cum … primae … tur­ mae insidias intravissent [*]. There are no other examples of primus + intrare in © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

Parallels between the B.Alex. and Caesar

257

the Corpus Caesarianum; for the instrumental ablative navibus cf. e. g. Civ. 1.36.1: navibus Massiliam pervenit.  — 15.3: ne prius dimicare cogaris quam reliquam ­classem potueris explicare ~ Gal.  7.35.6: ne contra suam voluntatem dimicare cogeretur, Civ. 2.26.4: priusquam … legiones explicari et consistere possent [*]. — 15.3: nobis rem committe ~ Civ. 2.33.2: proelio rem committere (= 2.38.2), 3.74.2: cum … rem proelio committendam existimarent [L.]; cf. also B.Alex. 46.1: fortuitae dimicationi [fortunae] [del. E. Hoffmann, cf. p. 114 with n. 162 above] rem committere maluit. — 15.4: nos proelium sustinebimus ~ Gal. 6.38.3: proelium sustinent, Civ. 1.47.3: nostri …, quod … proelium sustinuissent [*] (no other parallels for proelium sustinere in the Corpus Caesarianum). — 15.4: neque tuum iudicium fallemus (cf. 16.4: ne suam atque omnium falleret opi­nionem) ~ Civ.  3.86.5: ne suam neu reliquorum opinionem fallerent [L.]. — 15.4: magno nobis et dedecori et dolori est ~ Gal. 5.29.3: magno esse Germanis dolori [*] (no other attestations of dolori/dedecori esse in the Corpus Caesarianum). — 15.5: Caesar illum adhortatus atque omnibus laudibus prosecutus dat signum pugnae ~ Gal. 2.5.1: Caesar Remos cohortatus liberaliterque oratione prosecutus, 7.62.2: Labienus milites cohortatus … dat signum proelii [L.], Civ. 3.90.3: hac habita oratione exposcentibus militibus et studio pugnae ardentibus tuba signum dedit [*]. On signum pugnae see pp. 43–4 with n. 66 above. — 15.5: in eas [sc. naves] impetum faciunt ~ Civ. 2.6.6: in eas inpeditas [sc. naves] impetum faciunt [*].  — 15.6: tantum doctrina potuit ~ Gal. 7.77.6: tantum apud me dignitas potest [L.]. Cf. also Gal. 2.8.4: quod tantum multitudine poterant [sc. hostes] and contrast Hirt. Gal. 8.22.2: neminem … tantum pollere. — 15.6: ut … nullius remi detergerentur ~ Civ. 1.58.1: remos transcurrentes detergere … contendebant [L.]. — 15.6: ut … semper venientibus adversae occurrerent ~ Civ. 3.79.7: Caesari venienti occurrit [not of a battle, but of a gathering of troops] [L.], Gal. 2.24.1: equites nostri levisque armaturae pedites … adversis hostibus occurrebant [*]. — 15.7: tum necessario discessum ab arte est … atque omne certamen in virtute constitit ~ Gal. 2.33.4: cum in una virtute omnis spes salutis consisteret, Civ. 1.58.2: cum propius erat necessario ventum, ab scientia gubernatorum atque artificiis ad virtutem montanorum confugiebant, 1.70.1: erat in celeritate omne positum certamen, 3.14.3: ita exiguo tempore magnoque casu totius exercitus salus constitit [L.], Gal. 3.14.8: reliquum erat certamen positum in virtute [P.]. — 15.7: angustias loci (cf. 17.4, 19.3) ~ Civ. 3.49.2: angustiis loci (~ 3.112.7) [L.]; cf. also Civ. 1.17.1: locorum angustiis. There are no other parallels for angustiae loci/locorum in the Corpus Caesarianum, but cf. e. g. Sal. Cat. 58.20 and see TLL s.v. angustia 59.44–8.  — 15.8: neque vero Alexandriae fuit quisquam …, quin  … ~ Civ.  1.69.3: nemo erat adeo tardus aut fugiens laboris, quin …, 2.5.4: neque erat quisquam omnium, quin …, 3.53.3: nemo fuit omnino militum, quin … [L.].  — 15.8: qui aut in opere aut in pugna occupatum animum haberent ~ Gal.  2.19.8: qui in opere occupati erant, 7.22.4: milites occupatos in opere, Civ. 3.112.5: hostibus in pugna occupatis [L.]. Cf. also Gal. 5.15.3: occupatis in munitione, 4.32.5: in metendo occupatos, Civ. 3.97.1: in praeda occupati, and the note © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

258

Appendix I.1

on 20.1 (p. 262). — 15.8: quin … precibusque et votis victoriam suis ab dis inmortalibus exposceret ~ Civ.  2.5.3: ut … victoriam ab dis exposcerent [L.]. Cf. also Gal. 2.13.3: pueri mulieresque ex muro passis manibus … pacem ab Romanis petierunt [*] and see p. 128 with n. 206 above. — 16.1: par erat proelii certamen ~ Civ. 1.51.4–5: Galli equites … proelium … committunt. ii, dum pari certamine res geri potuit [“so long as an encounter on equal conditions was possible”, Peskett 1914: 75], … [*]. Cf. the discussion in appendix J.2 ad loc. (pp. 282–3). In the later chapters of the Bellum Alexandrinum we find (in)par proelium: see appendix H on 29.2: qui … proelium inpar inirent (p. 241 above). — 16.1: si inferiores fuissent ~ Gal. 2.8.3: ubi nostros [sc. milites] non esse inferiores intellexit, Civ. 1.47.2: Afra­ niani, … cum esse omnium iudicio inferiores viderentur [D.]. — 16.1: si …, reliquam tamen fortunam periclitarentur ~ Civ. 1.72.2: cur denique fortunam periclitaretur?, 3.10.3: neque amplius fortunam periclitari [P.]. Contrast Hirt. Gal. 8.34.1: qui fortunae illius periculum fecerat. Cf. also the similar train of thought at Civ. 3.111.4–5 [*]. — 16.2: illud grave ac miserum videbatur ~ Gal. 1.32.4: hoc esse miseriorem et graviorem fortunam, 7.14.10: si gravia aut acerba videantur [D.]. — 16.2: pugnandi facultas ~ Civ. 1.71.4: pugnandi facultatem [*]. There are no other attestations of this phrase in Latin prose down to Apuleius, but cf. the (unparalleled) expression expugnandi facultas at Liv. 31.26.6. — 16.3: haec superioribus diebus saepenumero Caesar suis exposuerat ~ Civ. 3.86.1: in consilio superioribus diebus dixerat [L.], Civ. 3.63.2: hoc enim superioribus diebus timens Caesar … (also at the beginning of a new sentence) [*]. — 16.3: ut hoc [abl.] maiore animo contenderent, quod … ~ Gal.  5.52.6: [sc. detrimentum] hoc [abl.] aequiore animo ferundum docet, quod … [L.]. See LC s.v. hic 1488–9 (E.c) for further parallels. — 16.4: suum quisque contubernalem, amicum, notum prosequens erat obtestatus, ne … ~ Civ. 1.74.1: quem quisque in [suppl. W. T. Paul 1898: 63] castris notum aut municipem habebat conquirit atque evocat, 1.74.5: hi suos notos hospitesque quaerebant, per quem quisque eorum aditum commendationis haberet ad Caesarem [L.]. — 16.4: erat obtestatus, ne suam atque omnium falleret opinionem ~ Gal.  7.47.5: obtestabantur Romanos, ut sibi parcerent, neu … ne  a mulieribus quidem atque infantibus abstinerent, 7.71.3: obtestaturque, ut suae salutis rationem habeant, neu se … hostibus in cruciatum de­dant, Civ. 3.86.5: ne suam neu [Landgraf, Klotz, Fabre: ne usu manu codd.] reliquorum opinionem fallerent [L.]; cf. also B.Alex. 15.4: neque tuum iudicium fallemus. — 16.4: ad pugnam proficisceretur ~ Civ. 3.99.3: in pugnam proficiscens [L.]. There are no other attestations of in/ad pugnam proficisci before Tac. Hist. 2.40. On the different prepositions see p. 40 with n. 52 above. — 16.5: itaque hoc animo est decertatum, ut … ~ Civ. 2.6.1: hoc animo decertabant, ut … [L.]. There are no other attestations of animo + decertare in Latin literature down to Apuleius. — 16.5: ut neque … neque numero navium praestantibus multitudo prodesset ~ Civ.  3.44.5: numero militum praestabant, 3.47.2: cum ipsi numero equitum militumque praestarent [L.]. — 16.5: neque … viri virtuti nostrorum possent adaequare ~ Civ. 2.16.3: se virtute nostris adaequare © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

Parallels between the B.Alex. and Caesar

259

non posse intellegunt [L.]. On the use of the dative virtuti see p. 43 n. 65 above. — 16.6: capitur hoc proelio quinqueremis una et biremis cum defensoribus remigibusque et deprimuntur tres ~ Civ. 3.24.3: unam ex his quadriremem cum remigibus defensoribusque suis ceperunt [L.], Civ.  1.58.4: partem navium deprimunt, non­ nullas cum hominibus capiunt, reliquas in portum compellunt, 2.7.2: itaque ex eo numero navium nulla desi­derata est; ex Massiliensium classe V sunt depressae, IIII captae, una cum Nasidianis profugit [*]. Cf. the note on 11.4: capta est una hostium quadriremis above and see pp. 65–6 with nn. 170, 174 on the word order. — 16.6: nostris [sc. navibus] incolumibus omnibus ~ Civ. 3.6.3: omnibus navibus ad unam inco­lumibus [*], Civ. 2.35.5: suis omnibus praeter Fabium incolumibus [of persons] [L.]. Despite the fact that Caesar often shifts the focus from a ship to its complement (see the note on 20.6, pp. 263–4), the context strongly suggests that 16.6 refers to the ships (cf. also 16.7: reliquae [sc. naves]). The same applies to B. Alex. 47.1: at Vatinius re bene gesta receptui cecinit suisque omnibus incolumibus in eum se portum victor recepit, quo ex portu classis Octavii ad dimicandum processerat. Within the Corpus Caesarianum, the expression omnes incolumes is confined to Caesar (6× Gal., 5× Civ.), the Bellum Alexandrinum (2×, see above), and the Bellum Africum (70.5, 78.9). — 16.7: quas [sc. naves] protexerunt ex molibus ~ Civ. 1.79.2: ex locis superioribus … ascendentis [acc. pl.] protegebant [L.]. Cf. also Civ. 3.55(56).2: ut … exercitus telis ex vallo abiectis protegi posset. — 16.7: nostros adire propius prohibuerunt ~ Civ. 2.43.4: ut … reliqui … propius adire tardarentur [L.]. — 17.1: hoc ne sibi saepius accidere posset, omni ratione Caesar contendendum existimavit, ut … ~ Gal. 1.38.2: id ne accideret, magnopere sibi praecavendum Caesar existimabat [L.]. For omni ra­tione see the note on 8.6 (p. 251). — 17.2: magna ex parte = Gal. 1.16.6, Civ. 2.31.8, 3.53.5 (cf. also B.Afr. 31.6, not in Hirt. Gal. 8) [*]. — 17.2: et … et … uno tempore ~ Gal. 4.23.6 (†) [*], see the note on 17.4 below. — 17.2: urbem … temptari posse confidebat ~ Gal. 1.23.3: sive eo, quod re frumentaria intercludi posse confiderent, 3.9.5: neque nostros exercitus … morari posse confidebant, 5.27.4: ut … populum Romanum superari posse confidat, 6.40.2: reliquos servari posse confidunt, 7.37.6: civitatem temere ad suscipiendum bellum adduci posse non confidebant [L.], Civ. 1.69.2, 2.10.1, 2.31.2 [D.] (no other attestations of confidere posse + inf. in the Corpus Caesarianum). — 17.3: quo capto consilio ~ Civ. 3.51.7: ita … capto consilio, 3.62.1: eruptionis … capto consilio [*]. Cf. also capto consilio at Liv. 33.9.8, Apul. Met. 4.3 and consilio capto at Cic. N. D. 3.71 (the only other attestations of this ablative absolute in Latin literature down to Apuleius). — 17.3: levis armaturae electos … in navigia minora scaphasque imponit ~ Civ.  3.62.2: magnum numerum levis armaturae et sagittariorum … in scaphas et naves actuarias inponit [L.]. — 17.3: quos idoneos ex equitibus Gallis arbitrabatur ~ Gal. 4.21.1: idoneum esse arbitratus Gaium Volusenum cum longa nave praemittit, 4.23.4: hunc ad egrediendum nequaquam idoneum locum arbi­ tratus [*].  — 17.3:  alteram insulae partem … constratis navibus adgreditur ~ Civ. 3.40.1: navem … pluribus adgressus navibus (no other attestations of navibus © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

260

Appendix I.1

adgredi in the Corpus Caesarianum).  — 17.3: distinendae manus causa = Civ. 3.52.1; cf. also Gal. 7.50.1: manus distinendae causa [L.]. manum/manus distinere is also attested at Gal.  2.5.2, 3.11.4, 7.84.3 (†).  — 17.3: praemiis magnis propositis, qui primus insulam cepisset ~ Gal.  7.27.2: iis, qui primi murum ascendissent, praemia proposuit [L.], Gal. 5.40.1: magnis propositis praemiis, si [sc. litteras ad Caesarem] pertulissent, 5.58.5: magna proponit iis, qui occiderint [sc. Indutiomarum], praemia [*]. — 17.4: uno enim tempore et … et … (cf. 3.1, 7.3) ~ Gal. 3.19.5, 4.29.2, Civ. 2.32.4: uno tempore et nos circumire et vos nefario scelere obstringere [*]. Cf. also uno tempore A et B (Civ. 2.14.2, 3.9.4, 3.21.5, 3.45.3, †), uno tempore A et B et C (Gal. 7.61.3, †), uno tempore et A et B et C (Gal. 2.19.7, †), uno tempore A et B C-que (Civ. 3.73.2, †), et A et B uno tempore (B.Alex. 17.2, Gal.  4.23.6,  †), A atque B uno tempore (B.Afr. 6.1,  †), and B.Afr. 42.1: simul et oppidum uno tempore oppugnare et in acie … pugnare (†). — 17.4: ex tectis aedificiorum propugnabant ~ Gal. 5.9.6: ipsi ex silvis rari propugnabant, 7.86.5: ex turribus propugnantes [L.]. There are no other attestations of propugnare ex in the Corpus Caesarianum. — 17.4: angustias loci: see the note on 15.7: angustias loci (p. 257). — 17.5: locis cognitis ~ Gal. 4.20.2: si modo … loca, portus, aditus cognovisset [L.].  — 17.5: omnes Pharitae terga verterunt ~ Gal.  1.53.1: omnes hostes terga verterunt [L.]. — 17.6: naves ad litora et vicum adplicarunt ~ Civ. 3.101.4: adplicatisque nostri [coni. Oudendorp 1737: vol. 2, 766, nostris codd.] ad terram navibus [L.]. — 17.6: seque ex navibus … eiece­runt ~ Gal. 4.15.1: se ex castris eiece­ runt, 5.15.3: se ex silvis e­ iecerunt, 5.21.5: seseque ex alia parte oppidi eiece­runt, 7.28.5: se ex oppido eiecerant, 7.47.4: sese ex oppido eiecerunt, Civ. 3.96.3: se ex castris eiecit [L.]; cf. also B.Alex. 19.5: ex oppido se eiece­runt, 20.1: ex longis navibus nostris … se eiecit, 21.2: sese ex navigio eiecit. There are no other attestations of se eicere in the Corpus Caesarianum, but cf. Gal. 5.19.2: se … effunderet [β, eiece­rat α]. — 18.1: neque vero diutius ea munitione se continere potuerunt ~ Gal. 3.29.2: uti … diutius sub pellibus milites contineri non possent [*]. neque/nec vero and se continere occur in Gal. 1–7, Civ. 1–3 and B.Alex. 1–21, but are absent from the rest of the Corpus Caesarianum: see appendix E.2, pp. 220–21. — 18.1: neque nostri aut scalis aut cratibus aut reliquis rebus parati venerant ad oppugnandum ~ Gal.  7.84.1: crates, longurios, musculos, falces reliquaque, quae eruptionis causa paraverat, profert [L.], Civ. 3.80.5: scalas musculosque ad repentinam oppugnationem fieri et crates parari iussit [*]. — 18.2: ut tum accidit = Gal. 7.3.2, Civ. 1.80.1, 2.4.4, 3.68.1 [L.]. Apart from Quint. Inst. 6.1.24 there are no other attestations of this phrase in Latin prose down to Apuleius, but cf. sicut tum accidit at Nep. Alc. 7.2. — 18.3: qui se … pares esse confidebant ~ Gal. 7.80.4: cum suos pugna superio­ res esse Galli confiderent [L.], Civ. 3.10.7: dum sibi uterque confideret et pares ambo viderentur [*]. — 18.3: perterriti fuga suorum et caede paucorum ~ Gal. 1.18.10: eorum fuga reliquum esse equitatum perterritum, Civ. 2.34.6: praeoccupatus animus … timore et fuga et caede [L.], Gal. 7.88.5: conspicati … caedem et fugam suorum, Civ. 2.39.6: ex fuga perterritos [*]. — 18.3: in aedificiis consistere ausi non © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

Parallels between the B.Alex. and Caesar

261

sunt ~ Gal. 2.17.3: ut reliquae [sc. legiones] contra consistere non auderent, 6.38.5: ut in munitionibus consistere audeant [L.], Gal.  6.23.2: neque quemquam prope se audere consistere [*].  — 18.3: seque per molem in mare praecipitaverunt ~ Gal. 4.15.2: reliqui se in flumen praecipitaverunt, Civ. 3.69.3: munitione se in fossas praecipitabant [L.].  — 18.3: DCCCC passuum intervallum ad oppidum enata­ verunt ~ Civ. 2.38.3: VI milium passuum intervallo ab Saburra consederat [*]. — 18.4: sed numerus captivorum omnino fuit sex milium ~ Gal. 1.7.2: provinciae toti quam maximam potest militum numerum imperat—erat omnino in Gallia ulte­ riore legio una, 4.12.1: quorum erat V milium numerus [*]. Cf. also Caesar’s use of omnino with numbers at Gal. 1.6.1, 1.23.1, 4.19.4, 4.38.4, 5.18.1, 6.36.2, Civ. 1.23.5, 3.7.2, 3.46.6. Landgraf (1888a: 104) compares B.Afr. 12.3: quorum omnino numerus fuit XXX cohortium. — 19.1: praeda militibus concessa, aedificia diripi ­iussit ~ Gal. 6.3.2: ea praeda militibus concessa, 7.11.9: oppidum diripit atque incendit, praedam militibus donat [L.]. Contrast B.Alex. 77.2: praeda omni regia militibus condonata (~ Hirt. Gal. 8.4.1, see appendix H ad loc., p. 245 above). — 19.1: castellumque ad pontem … communivit atque ibi praesidium posuit ~ Gal. 1.8.2: praesidia disponit, castella communit, Civ.  3.43.1: hos [sc. colles] primum praesidiis ­tenuit castellaque ibi communiit [L.], Civ. 1.47.4: tumulum … magnis operibus muniverunt praesidiumque ibi posuerunt, 1.72.5: Caesar praesidiis in montibus dispositis … castra communit [*]. — 19.1: atque ibi praesidium posuit = Civ. 3.112.5 [L.]; cf. also Gal. 2.5.6: i. p. ponit [*] (no other attestations of this exact collocation in Latin prose down to Apuleius).  — 19.2: simili ratione = Gal.  7.4.1, 7.38.10, Civ. 3.76.2 (†) [L.]. — 19.3: qui praesidio eum locum tenebant ~ Gal. 7.36.6: sed is locus praesidio ab his non nimis firmo tenebatur, Civ. 1.18.1: qui id oppidum VII cohortium praesidio tenebant [L.]. But cf. also B.Alex. 32.1: ea parte … quae praesidio hostium tenebatur. — 19.3: cohortium trium instar in terram exposuerat ~ Civ. 3.66.1: cohortes quasdam, quod instar legionis videretur [L.]. Cf. also the note on 10.2: in terram exposuisset (p. 252) and see p. 59 with n. 133. — 19.3: angustiae loci: see the note on 15.7: angustias loci (p. 257). — 19.3: reliquae copiae in navibus stationem obtinebant ~ Civ. 1.56.4: hae [sc. naves] ad insulam … stationes obtinebant [L.]. There are no other attestations of stationem obtinere in Latin literature down to Apuleius. The collocation reliquae copiae is common in Caesar, but absent from Gal. 8: see appendix E.2, p. 222. — 19.4: pontem …, qua exitus navibus erat …, lapidibus oppleri atque obstrui ~ Civ. 3.73.3: oppletis … portibus [L.] (no other attestations of opplere in the Corpus Caesarianum). Cf. also Civ. 1.25.4: exitus … Brundisini portus inpedire instituit, 3.49.3: flumina … magnis operibus obstruxerat. — 19.5: altero opere effecto ~ Gal. 4.18.1: omni opere effecto, 7.35.5: celeriter effecto opere [L.]. The only other attestation of the ablative absolute o. e. in Latin literature down to Apuleius is Plin. Nat. 11.68.  — 19.5: nulla omnino scapha ~ Civ. 2.32.12: nulla omnino navi [L.]. Cf. also B.Alex. 1.5: nullam omnino facultatem and Gal.  1.32.3: neque ullam omnino vocem, 5.23.3: neque … ulla omnino navis. There are no other attestations of (n)ullus omnino + noun in the © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

262

Appendix I.1

Corpus Caesarianum. — 19.5: omnes Alexandrinorum copiae ex oppido se eiecerunt ~ Gal. 5.21.5: seseque alia ex parte oppidi eiecerunt, 7.28.5: se ex oppido eiece­ rant, 7.47.4: sese ex oppido eiecerunt [L.]. Within the Corpus Caesarianum, the expression se eicere is confined to the Caesarian commentarii and B.Alex. 1–21: see the note on 17.6 (p. 260). — 19.5: navigia … ad incendia onerariarum [sc. na­ vium] emittere ~ Civ. 3.101.2: completas onerarias naves taeda et pice et stuppa reli­ quisque rebus, quae sunt ad incendia, in Pomponianam classem immisit, 3.101.4: one­rarias naves … praeparatas ad incendium immisit [L., P.]. — 20.1: in his rebus occupato Caesare ~ Civ. 3.56.4: in his rebus fere erat Fufius occupatus [L.]; for further parallels see the note on 15.8 (pp. 257–8). — 20.1: ex longis navibus nostris in molem se eiecit: see the note on 17.6 (p. 260). — 20.2: pars eorum studio spectandi ferebatur, pars etiam cupiditate pugnandi ~ Gal. 4.32.1: cum pars hominum in agris remaneret, pars etiam in castra ventitaret, Civ. 2.12.1: militesque aversi a proelio ad studium audiendi et cognoscendi feruntur [L.]. Contrast the different construction (partim) at B.Alex. 31.1: studio partim pugnandi, partim spectandi decucurrissent and see p. 69 above. — 20.2: cupiditate pugnandi = Civ. 3.74.2 [L.]; cf. also B.Alex. 22.2: pugnandi … cupiditatem. — 20.2: hi … navigia hostium lapidibus ac fundis a mole repellebant ~ Gal. 4.25.1: fundis, sagittis, tormentis hostes propelli … iussit [*]. — 20.2: multum proficere multitudine telorum videbantur ~ Gal. 7.82.1: plus multitudine telorum proficiebant [L.].  — 20.3: ultra eum locum = Gal.  1.49.1, Civ. 3.66.4 [L.] (no other attestations of this collocation in Latin literature down to Apuleius). — 20.3: ab latere eorum aperto ~ Gal. 7.50.1: ab latere nostris aperto. Cf. also ab latere aperto (without qualifying genitive or dative)  at Gal.  1.25.6 (ab add. Meusel 1885: 201, 1894: 299, Kraner/Dittenberger/Meusel 1913–20: vol. 1, 130, 355), 4.26.3, 5.35.2, 7.82.2, Civ.  3.86.3, 3.93.4 and ab aperto latere at Gal. 2.23.5 (ab add. Meusel (see above)), Civ. 1.44.3, B.Alex. 40.2 (no other attestations in Latin literature down to Apuleius) [*]. — 20.3: ausi sunt egredi ex navibus ~ Gal.  6.35.9: neque quisquam egredi extra munitiones audeat, 7.1.7: quod neque legiones audeant … ex hibernis egredi [L.], Gal. 4.21.9: Volusenus … qui navi [α, ex nave β] egredi … non auderet [*]. In Gal. 1–7 and Civ. the verb egredi is constructed both with a non-prepositional ablative (Gal. 4.21.9, 4.24.1: navibus) and with e(x) + abl. (Gal. 4.26.2: ex navi [α, nave β], 4.27.3: e navi, Civ. 3.106.4: e navi [S L N, nave T V W U R]), cf. TLL s.v. egredior 279.82–3, 280.14–16,27,70–73 and LC s.v. egredior 1002–3 and s.v. navis 697 (I, on the ablative singular of navis). — 20.3: sine signis certisque ordinibus ~ Gal. 2.11.1: nullo certo ordine, Civ. 3.101.2: nullis custodiis neque ordinibus certis [L.], Civ. 1.44.3: ipsi autem suos ordines servare neque ab signis discedere … censuerant oportere, 1.71.3: quod … in unum ­locum signis conferti neque ordines neque signa servarent [*]. — 20.4: scalas rapere navesque a terra repellere properabant ~ Gal. 5.33.6: ut …, quaeque quisque eorum carissima haberet, … arripere properaret [L.]. Apart from B.Alex. 20.4 and Gal. 5.33.6, properare + inf. is also attested at Gal. 2.11.1, Civ. 2.43.2, 3.33.1, 3.36.6 (†); in the later chapters of the Bellum Alexandrinum, we find festinare + inf. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

Parallels between the B.Alex. and Caesar

263

i­ nstead (27.4,  †).  — 20.5: quibus omnibus rebus perturbati milites nostri ~ Gal. 4.34.1: quibus rebus perturbatis nostris [*]. — 20.5: cum post se clamorem exaudirent …, veriti, ne … ~ Civ. 1.66.2: illi exaudito clamore veriti, ne … [L.]. Before Paneg. 5(8).1.2, the only other attestations of clamorem exaudire in Latin prose are Gal. 2.11.5, 6.39.1, 7.48.1, 7.81.3, Civ. 3.105.4 and Rhet. Her. 2.8, Liv. 25.6.21, 25.37.11, 36.24.2, 36.24.6. — 20.5: magnam vim telorum ~ Civ. 2.6.3: magna vis eminus missa telorum [L.]. vis telorum later recurs at Liv. 26.5.17, al., Curt. 8.10.31, al., Sil. 15.765, 17.399, Tac. Ag. 36.1. See also the note on 6.1: aquae magnam vim (p. 249). — 20.5: veriti, ne ab tergo circumvenirentur, … munitionem … reliquerunt ~ Gal. 7.67.6: reliqui, ne circumvenirentur, veriti se fugae mandant, 7.82.2: veriti, ne ab latere aperto … circumvenirentur, se ad suos receperunt [L.], Civ. 3.44.4: ne … nostri … ipsos a tergo circumvenire possent, 3.86.3: circumventa a [L N V, ab S W ρ T] tergo acie [*]. — 20.5: ne … discessu navium omnino reditu intercluderentur ~ Gal. 4.30.2: his [V, i(i)s codd. cett.] superatis aut reditu interclusis [L.]. There are no other attestations of reditu intercludere in Latin literature down to Apuleius, but cf. reditum intercludere at Cic. Red. Pop. 14, Red. Sen. 6, Liv. 44.6.12. — 20.5: et magno cursu incitati ad naves contenderunt ~ Gal. 3.19.1: huc magno cursu contenderunt, Civ. 1.70.4: hunc [sc. montem] magno cursu concitatos iubet occupare [L.], Civ.  1.79.4: incitati cursu sese in vallis universi demitterent, 3.46.5: incitati cursu praecipites Pompeianos egerunt [P.], Gal.  7.48.1: primo ex­ audito clamore [~ B.Alex. 20.5: clamorem exaudirent, see above] inde etiam crebris nuntiis incitati … magno cursu eo contenderunt [*]. Landgraf (1888a: 106) contrasts Hirt. Gal. 8.15.6: vehementissimo cursu refugerunt. — 20.6: quorum pars … pars = Gal. 2.23.5, 6.31.2; cf. also Gal. 7.77.2: quarum pars … pars [*]. — 20.6: quorum pars proximas nacta naves multitudine hominum atque onere depressa est … nonnulli feliciore exitu expeditas ad ancoram naves consecuti incolumes discesserunt, pauci adlevatis scutis et animo ad conandum nisi ad proxima navigia ad­ natarunt ~ Civ. 2.43.4–44.1: sed tanta erat completis litoribus contentio, qui potissimum ex magno numero conscenderent, ut multitudine atque onere nonnulli deprimerentur, reliqui hoc timore propius adire tardarentur. quibus rebus accidit, ut pauci milites patresque familiae, qui aut gratia aut misericordia valerent aut naves adnare possent, recepti in Siciliam incolumes pervenirent [L.]. Barwick (1938: 188; cf. also Andrieu 1954: xxvi n. 3) has argued that the use of deprimere with persons instead of ships at B.Alex. 20.6 deviates from proper usage and that the author of B.Alex. 20.6 wanted to imitate Civ. 2.43.4 but wrongly interpreted ut multitudine atque onere nonnulli deprimerentur as referring to the troops and not to the ships. This view is flawed for several reasons. First, the hypothesis that the Caesarian chunks in chapters 1–21 result from a painstaking imitation of the Bellum Gallicum and Bellum Civile is implausible (cf. chapter 3.4c, pp. 46–7). Secondly, it is a fairly bold claim that the author of B.Alex. 20.6, who displays a good command of the Latin language, should have completely misunderstood Civ. 2.43.4. Thirdly, Barwick’s view that nonnulli points back to lenunculi at Civ. 2.43.4 and refers not © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

264

Appendix I.1

to persons but to ships is not convincing, because the following words reliqui hoc timore propius adire tardarentur most probably refer to persons (elsewhere in Caesar, adire always refers to animate subjects, not to things: cf. TLL s.v. adeo 626.41–627.8 and LC s.v. adeo 152–4). Finally, Barwick’s attempt to determine whether the verb deprimere is used with persons or ships does not take into account that Caesar often refers to the ships when actually meaning the persons travelling on them: cf. e. g. Civ. 2.7.1: non enim has [sc. Nasidianas naves] aut conspectus patriae aut propinquorum praecepta ad extremum vitae periculum adire cogebant [the ‘ships’ are not moved by patriotic feelings and exhortations], 2.22.3: hunc [sc. Domitium] conspicatae naves … sublatis ancoris sequi coeperunt [the ‘ships’ see Domitius (or rather his ship) and decide to follow him (it)], and 3.28.1: nostrae naves duae …, cum ignorarent, quem locum reliquae cepissent, contra Lissum in ancoris constiterunt [the ‘ships’ were ignorant]. In view of these passages it is hardly surprising that at Civ.  2.43.4 and B.Alex. 20.6 the narrative oscillates ­between ships and troops without signalling the change of focus or subject. In addition, the parallels also explain the abrupt change of subject from hae naves to hi at 9.4: hae naves … portum capere prohibebantur, sed loca sunt egregia omni illa ­regione ad tenendas ancoras. hi cum diu retinerentur atque aquae inopia premerentur, navigio actuario Caesarem faciunt certiorem. This type of constructio ad sensum has a close parallel at Thuc. 2.83.1: τὸ … ναυτικὸν … οὐ παραγίγνεται, ἀλλ’ ἠναγκάσθησαν … ναυμαχῆσαι πρὸς Φορμίωνα and could be part of Caesar’s imitation of Thucydides: cf. pp.  134–8 above and see Robolski 1881: 6 and Kroll 1927: 288–9 on the use of constructio ad sensum in Sallust and Thucydides. — 20.6: dubitans, quid esset capiendum consilii ~ Gal. 3.24.1: quid hostes consilii caperent, exspectabat, 5.53.4: quid reliqui consilii caperent …, explorabant [L.], Civ. 2.32.11: qui [i. e. eventus belli] qualis sit futurus, ne vos quidem dubitatis [*]. Barwick (1938: 188) compares B.Alex. 63.4: cum diu dubitasset Cassius, quid sibi faciendum quidve Lepido esset credendum and emphasizes that the indirect questions at Gal. 3.24.1, 5.53.4, Civ. 2.32.11 do not contain a gerundive. However, Caesar uses this type of construction elsewhere, cf. e. g. Gal.  5.33.3: cum … minus ­facile …, quid quoque loco faciendum esset, providere possent. — 20.6: nonnulli … incolumes discesserunt ~ Gal.  5.41.6: licere illis per se incolumibus ex hibernis discedere [L., P.]. The only other near parallel in Latin literature down to Apuleius is Liv. 10.2.14: Cleonymus vix quinta parte navium incolumi … discessit. — 20.6: ad conandum = Civ.  2.5.5, 2.6.1 (†) [*]. Outside the Corpus Caesarianum the phrase is attested at, e. g., Cic. Ver. 5, Liv. 43.20.2, 45.23.15. — 21.1: quoad potuit = Gal.  4.12.5 [P.] (the only parallel in the Corpus Caesarianum). The iunctura quoad possum/potes/potest etc. is most frequent in Cicero (26×, in varying moods and tenses), Vitruvius (5×) and the Rhetorica ad Herennium (2×); it also occurs once in Varro, Livy, and Columella. — 21.2: cum … neque administrandi neque repellendi a terra facultas daretur ~ Gal. 4.29.2: neque ulla nostris facultas aut administrandi aut auxiliandi dabatur, 5.44.6: neque dant progrediendi [β, regrediendi © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

Parallels between the B.Alex. and Caesar

265

α] facultatem [L.], Gal.  3.4.4: ne saucio quidem eius loci, ubi constiterat, relinquendi ac sui recipiendi facultas dabatur, 4.34.5, 5.17.4: neque sui colligendi neque consistendi aut ex essedis desiliendi facultatem dederunt (~ 7.80.8), Civ. 2.11.3 non datur libera muri defendendi facultas [*]. — 21.2: fore, quod accidit, suspicatus ~ Gal. 4.31.1: fore id, quod accidit, suspicabatur, Civ. 1.40.7: suspicatus fore id, quod accidit [L.] (no other parallels in Latin literature down to Apuleius). — 21.2: sese ex navigio eiecit: see the note on 17.6 (p. 260). — 21.3: suis laborantibus subsidio scaphas mittens ~ Gal. 1.52.7: tertiam aciem laborantibus nostris subsidio misit, 7.86.1: Caesar Labienum cum cohortibus sex subsidio laborantibus mittit, Civ. 3.64.1: Marcellinus cohortes subsidio nostris laborantibus submittit [L.]. There are no other parallels for aliquid/aliquem laboranti(bus) subsidio (sub)mittere in Latin literature down to Apuleius, and Hirtius avoids subsidium and subsidiarius (see appendix E.2, p.  223). Cf. also Gal.  4.26.4: quos [sc. milites] laborantes con­ spexerat, his subsidia submittebat, 7.13.1: laborantibus iam suis Germanos equites circiter CCCC submittit (~ 7.70.2), 7.85.1: laborantibus submittit [without an object], Civ. 1.45.4: ut neque subsidia a lateribus submitti neque equites laborantibus usui esse possent [L.]. — 21.4: hoc proelio desiderati sunt ex numero legionariorum militum circiter CCCC ~ Civ. 1.51.6: desiderati sunt eo die sagittarii circiter CC, equites pauci, calonum atque impedimentorum non magnus numerus [L.], ­ Gal. 7.51.4: eo die milites sunt paulo minus septingenti desiderati, Civ. 2.35.5: ex numero adversariorum circiter DC interfectis ac M vulneratis, 3.53.2, 3.99.1: in eo proelio non amplius ducentos milites desideravit, sed centuriones fortes viros circiter XXX amisit [*].

2. Parallels between the Caesarian commentarii and B.Alex. 22–78 24.1: Caesar etsi fallacem gentem … bene cognitam habebat, tamen petentibus dare veniam utile esse statuit ~ Gal.  7.54.2: etsi multis iam rebus perfidiam Haeduorum perspectam habebat, … tamen eos retinendos non censuit [T, constituit α U], 6.4.3: libenter Caesar petentibus Haeduis dat veniam, 7.15.6: datur petentibus venia [L.]; but cf. also Hirt. Gal. 8.48.9: veniam petenti dedit and see Pötter 1932: 25–6.  — 26.2: praesidiumque ibi suum conlocavit ~ Gal.  1.38.7: ibi praesi­dium conlocat [*]. Contrast B.Alex. 19.1: atque ibi praesidium posuit = Civ.  3.112.5 (~ Gal.  2.5.6, Civ.  1.47.4).  — 27.1: locus est fere regionum illarum nobilissimus ~ Gal. 5.20.1: prope firmissima earum regionum civitas [L.]; cf. also B.Alex. 47.3: nobilissimum regionum earum oppidum, 66.2: quod oppidum fere totius Ciliciae nobilissimum fortissimumque est and see p. 57 with n. 122. — 29.2: inter castra et Caesaris iter flumen intercedebat angustum ~ Civ. 3.19.1: inter bina castra Pompei atque Caesaris unum flumen tantum intererat Apsus [L.]; cf. also B.Hisp. 29.1: planities inter utraque castra intercedebat. — 29.2: qui transitu Caesarem prohi­be­ © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

266

Appendix I.2

rent ~ Gal. 7.57.4: nostros transitu prohibere instituit [L.]. — 30.3: ut ab ea victoria … protinus castra regis oppugnaret ~ Gal. 5.17.5: ex hac fuga protinus [L.]. — 31.3:  editissimum castrorum locum ~ Gal.  3.19.1: locus erat castrorum editus [L.]. Within the Corpus Caesarianum the phrase editus locus is also attested at Gal. 7.18.3, Civ. 1.7.5, 3.37.4, 3.42.1, but the superlative occurs only in the Bellum Alexandrinum (see appendix E.1b). — 32.2: neque … fefellit quin ~ Civ. 3.94.3: neque vero Caesarem fefellit quin [L.] (no other attestations of non fallere aliquem quin in the Corpus Caesarianum).  — 32.2: eo proelio audito ~ Gal.  3.27.1: hac audita pugna [L.]. — 32.2: de bello … cogitaturi ~ Gal. 6.32.1: nihil se de bello cogi­ tavisse (~ 6.2.3) [L.]; but cf. also Hirt. Gal. 8.3.4: spatium de aliena potius quam de domestica salute cogitandi. — 32.3: dignum … fructum virtutis et animi magnitudinis tulit ~ Civ. 1.74.7: magnum … fructum suae pristinae lenitatis … Caesar ferebat [L.]. However, fructum ferre is fairly common since Cato Agr. 93 (cf. TLL s.v. fructus 1398.62–3), and there is one important difference: whereas Caesar accentuates the size of the fructus, which is an objective observation, the author of B.Alex. 32.3 states that the reward was commensurate with Caesar’s valour, i. e. he makes a personal and subjective comment about Caesar’s character and deeds. Cf. p. 99. — 32.3: armis proiectis ~ Gal. 7.40.6: proiectis armis, 7.89.4: arma proiciuntur, Civ. 3.13.2, 3.98.1 [*]; but cf. also Hirt. Gal. 8.29.4: arma proiecerant (†). — 33.1: reges constituit, quos Ptolomaeus testamento scripserat atque obtestatus erat populum Romanum ~ Civ. 3.108.5: eodem testamento Ptolomaeus populum Romanum obtestabatur [G.]. — 34.1: dum haec in Aegypto geruntur ~ Civ. 2.1.1: dum haec in Hispania geruntur [G.]. For further parallels and discussion see pp. 190, 194–5 with nn. 8, 32, 33, and 35. — 35.3: his responsis datis ~ Gal. 1.14.7, see the note on 70.8 below. — 38.3: longius … producere aciem ~ Civ. 1.58.1: producta longius acie, 3.100.2 [*]. — 44.5: discedere ab oppugnatione ~ Civ. 2.31.3: ab oppugnatione castrorum discedimus [*]. Contrast Hirt. Gal. 8.40.1: ab oppugnatione recedi (adduced by Landgraf 1888a: 126).  — 52.1: exercitu coacto in unum locum ~ Civ.  3.73.2: coactoque in unum locum exercitu [*]; cf. the note on 69.1 below.  — 65.1: cum in Syriam Caesar ex Aegypto venisset ~ Gal.  3.1.1: cum in Italiam proficisceretur Caesar (both at the beginning of a new section of the narrative) [P.]. — 65.1: litterisque urbanis ~ Civ. 3.83.1: urbanam gratiam dignitatemque [P.]. There are no attestations of urbanus in Hirt. Gal. 8 and B.Hisp., see appendix E.2, p. 223. — 65.1: satis commode = Gal. 1.25.3, 1.39.6, 3.13.1, 3.14.4 (†) [P.]. — 65.4: commoratus fere in omnibus civitatibus … praemia bene meritis et viritim et publice tribuit, de controversiis veteribus cognoscit ac statuit ~ Civ. 2.21.3: tributis quibusdam publicis privatisque praemiis, Gal. 7.71.7: pecus … viritim distribuit [P.]; but Hirt. Gal. 8.46.5 (quoted in appendix H ad loc., p. 244) is a much closer parallel. — 66.5: qui sub eius imperio ac dicione esset ~ Gal. 1.31.7: quominus perpetuo sub illorum dicione atque imperio essent [P.]; cf. also B.Afr. 77.1: qui sub dicione et potestate Iubae esse consuessent. These are the only attestations of sub dicione esse in the Corpus Caesarianum, but sub imperio esse also occurs at © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

Parallels between the B.Alex. and Caesar

267

Gal. 5.24.4, 5.39.1, 6.10.1, 7.75.2, B.Alex. 78.2 (†). — 67.1: ad Caesarem venit ora­ tum, ut sibi ignosceret ~ Gal. 7.12.3: cum legati ad eum venissent oratum, ut sibi ignosceret [P.]; cf. also B.Afr. 92.3: ad Caesarem veniunt orantque, ut sibi ignoscat. — 69.1: cum … copiasque omnes in unum locum coegisset ~ Gal. 6.10.1: omnes in unum locum copias cogere [P.]; cf. also Gal.  2.5.4: copias in unum locum coactas, 6.7.1: magnis coactis peditatus equitatusque copiis, and the note on B.Alex. 52.1 above. — 70.2: monuit autem, ut solebat, mitibus verbis legatos ~ Gal. 7.43.4: quam mitissime potest legatos appellat [P.].  — 70.3: neque provinciarum publicas iniurias condonare iis posse, qui fuissent in se officiosi ~ Gal. 1.20.5: uti et rei publicae iniuriam et suum dolorem eius voluntati et precibus condonet [P.].  — 70.5:  civium Romanorum, qui in Ponto negotiati essent ~ Civ.  3.102.6: civium­ que Romanorum, qui illic negotiarentur [P.].  — 70.5: in integrum restituere ~ Civ. 3.1.4: in integrum restituit [P.] (no other attestations of in integrum restituere in the Corpus Caesarianum). — 70.7: quae penes eum essent ~ Civ. 2.20.8: quod penes eum est [P.].  — 70.8: his responsis datis legatos remisit ~ Gal.  1.14.7: hoc responso dato discessit [P.]; cf. also Gal. 5.58.3: nullo ab nostris dato responso and B.Alex. 35.3: his responsis datis (no other attestations of responso/-is dato/-is in the Corpus Caesarianum).  — 71.1: liberaliter omnia pollicitus ~ Gal.  4.21.6: liberaliter pollicitus [L.]. There are no other parallels for liberaliter polliceri in the Corpus Caesarianum, but cf. e. g. Nep. Lys. 4.2. — 74.1: munitione magis quam manu defendere locum ~ Gal.  5.7.8: se manu defendere … coepit [P.].  — 74.3: more operis cotidiani ~ Civ.  3.49.4: hunc laborem ad cotidiana opera addebant [P.] (no other attestations of opus cotidianum in the Corpus Caesarianum).  — 74.3–4: [sc. Pharnaces] descendere praerupta valle coepit. … cum interim Pharnaces eodem gradu, quo in praeruptam descenderat vallem, ascendere adversus arduum collem instructis copiis coepit ~ Gal.  2.19.7–8: [sc. Nervii] incredibili celeritate ad flumen decucurrerunt … . eadem autem celeritate adverso colle ad nostra castra … contenderunt [P.]. — 76.1: dextro cornu … initium victoriae natum est ~ Civ. 3.94.3: neque vero Caesarem fefellit, quin ab iis cohortibus … initium victoriae oriretur [*], but cf. also Justin. 31.8.7: legio … in proelium revertitur magnaque caede edita initium victoriae fuit and the parallels for initium nascitur collected in appendix H on B.Alex. 58.1 (p. 243). — 76.4: cui nisi …, vivus in Caesaris potestatem adductus esset ~ Civ. 1.20.5: L. Domitium vivum in eius potestatem tradere [P.]. — 77.1: quod victoria facilis ex difficillimis rebus acciderat ~ Gal. 2.27.5: quae facilia ex difficillimis animi magnitudo redegerat [L.]. These are the only attestations of facilis/-e ex difficillima re (vel sim.) in Latin literature down to ­Apuleius. Cf. also Liv. 25.38.15: eo ipso quod difficillimum videtur, facilius erit.   

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

Appendix J.: Expressions previously misidentified as Hirtian or un-Caesarian   

Previously misidentified expressions Below we list and discuss usages that have been wrongly classified as ‘Hirtian’ or ‘un-Caesarian’ by previous scholars. In so doing, we have omitted the alleged ‘unmilitary’ expressions identified by Klotz (1910: 183–191), because Klotz’s argument has already been refuted by Bojkowitsch (1924–1927; see also p. 32 with n. 9 above). Also, we do not discuss observations that are vague or lack conclusive force, cf. e. g. Klotz 1910: 183–4: “vacuus ‘unbeschäftigt’ findet sich außer bei Terenz und Cicero auch bei Liv. 3,40,10”.

1. Expressions that are paralleled in the Caesarian commentarii 1.2: interim munitiones cotidie operibus augentur. Landgraf (1888a: 84) compares B.Afr. 1.5: interim in dies naves longae adaugeri and believes that both passages were written by the same person (according to Landgraf: Asinius Pollio; cf. p. 20 n. 25 and p. 41 n. 54). Cf., however, Civ. 3.112.9 (quoted in appendix I.1 ad loc., p. 246 above). — 1.2: quantumque [sc. loci] … ruinis deicitur. Barwick (1938: 183, 192) compares 76.2: multis militibus … suorum ruina oppressis and stresses the fact that ruina opprimere/-i is unattested in the Caesarian works. In Hirt. Gal. 8, however, both the phrase ruina opprimere/-i and the noun ruina are unattested. Moreover, the use of ruina in connection with demolition works at B.Alex. 1.2 can be compared with Civ. 2.11.4: repentina ruina pars eius turris concidit. — 1.4: Andrieu (1954: xxxiv) considers the construction Caesar maxime studebat, ut un-Caesarian, but cf. Gal.  7.14.2: omnibus modis huic rei studendum, ut …, Civ.  3.79.1: uterque eorum celeritati studebat, et … ut … et … ne ….  — 1.4–5: Canali (1965: 137) objects to the polyptoton of pars, but cf. p. 38 with n. 39 for similar close repetitions in Caesar.  — 2.1: cunctatio ulla aut mora inferebatur. Barwick (1938: 183) claims that Caesar never uses mora in conjunction with another noun, but this rule only holds for Hirtius, not for Caesar: cf. Caes. Civ. 1.29.1: tamen eius rei moram temporisque longinquitatem timebat and Hirt. Gal. 8.1.3: si tali mora reliquae possent se vindicare in libertatem, 8.31.4: imperata sine mora faciunt. — 2.5: in quamcumque erat visum partem. Landgraf (1888a: 85) believes that the hyperbaton is typical of Hirtius, but Dahms (1906: 11) rightly points to the similar word order at Civ. 1.75.1: quicumque accidisset casus © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

Previously misidentified expressions  

269

and 1.87.2: quascumque postea controversias. Cf. also Gal. 5.57.4: timoris opinionem, quibuscumque poterat rebus, augebat. — 3.1: urbs fertilissima et copiosissima. Barwick (1938: 183) compares Hirt. Gal. 8.2.2: reliquum exercitum in copiosissimos agros Biturigum inducit, B.Alex. 42.2: quamquam erat provincia minime copiosa ad exercitum alendum, and 43.1: copiosiorem provinciam existimans and claims that copiosus occurs only once in Caesar. However, this single attestation provides  a much closer parallel than the passages adduced by Barwick, cf. Gal. 1.23.1: a Bibracte, oppido Haeduorum longe maximo et copiosissimo. This passage also contradicts Canali’s view (1965: 137) that the use of superlatives at 1.4: angustissimam partem, 2.3: in celeberrimis locis, 2.4: altissimis turribus, 3.1: urbs fertilissima et copiosissima, and 3.1: homines … acutissimi is un-Caesarian. — 3.3: Pompeium se ex fuga eodem recepisse. Barwick (1938: 183) compares these words to B.Alex. 47.2: quod eo se recepisse ex fuga credebat Octavium and states that Caesar employs ex fuga only once in  a completely different context (Civ. 1.31.2: ex fuga in Africam pervenerat). However, the phrase ex fuga occurs 21 times in Caesar and is often used in the same fashion as at B.Alex. 3.3, cf. e. g. Gal. 2.12.1: priusquam se hostes ex terrore ac fuga reciperent, 4.27.1: simul­atque se ex fuga receperunt, 6.41.3: ut … equitatum se ex fuga recepisse dicerent, 7.20.12: turpiter se ex hac fuga recipientem, Civ. 3.102.1: quascumque in partes se ex fuga recepisset, 3.102.6: qui se ex fuga in finitimas [ς, deest cett., regiones Fabre 1936: vol. 2, 94] recepisse dicerentur. — 3.3: Caesarem venisse cum copiis. Landgraf (1888a: 87) compares 62.1: rex Bogus cum copiis venit, 62.3: accedit cum copiis Bogus, and Barwick (1938: 183) writes that Caesar does not employ the phrase cum copiis venire. The latter claim is incorrect, cf. Civ. 1.19.4: Pompeius ­rescripserat … ad se cum omnibus copiis veniret [sc. Domitius] and the similar e­ xpressions at Civ.  3.33.1: ad se cum exercitu venire and 3.51.1: Caesar auxilio ­cohorti venit cum legionibus duabus. — 3.3: neque … quicquam profectum. The expression has a close parallel at B.Afr. 82.4: nec quicquam proficerent (~ B.Afr. 43.1: nihil, 91.3: parum, 93.3: nihil). However, this fact does not prove that B.Alex. 3.3 must have been revised by the author of the Bellum Africum (contra Landgraf 1888a: 87), for Caesar commonly employs nihil proficere (Gal.  3.21.3, 7.20.11, Civ. 3.22.2, 3.58.2), (ali)quid proficere (Gal. 6.29.4, Civ. 2.31.3, 3.15.8), and neque … quicquam (e. g. Gal. 1.53.6, 2.17.2, Civ. 2.16.1; Latin writers generally prefer to use neque quicquam instead of et nihil, see KS vol. II.1, 823).  — 4.1: ut supra demonstratum est. Seel (1935: 45), Kalinka (1939: 223), and Barwick (1938: 181–2) claim that this cross-reference conforms only to Hirtius’ but not to Caesar’s usage. A closer look at the Bellum Gallicum and ­Bellum Civile reveals that this assertion is incorrect. Caesar employs both impersonal cross-references (demonstratum est, e. g. Gal. 2.9.4, 4.28.1; cf. appendix I.1 on B.Alex. 4.1, p. 248 above)  and cross-references in the first person plural or (less frequently) the first person singular, cf. demonstravimus at Gal.  2.1.1, 2.22.1, al., dixeramus at Gal. 2.1.1, 2.28.1, al., diximus at Gal. 2.29.1, 3.5.2, al., and Gal. 2.24.1: quos primo © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

270

Appendix J.1

hostium impetu pulsos dixeram, 4.16.2: quam supra commemoravi, 4.17.1: his de causis, quas commemoravi, 4.27.2: quem supra demonstraveram  a Caesare … praemissum, Civ.  3.15.6: cum essent in quibus demonstravi angustiis (see Frese 1900: 5). Hirtius, on the contrary, uses the impersonal form only when referring to the preceding Caesarian books (Gal. 8.4.3, 8.30.1; cf. also 8.38.3: superiore commentario Caesar exposuit); when referring to earlier chapters of Gal. 8, he always employs personal cross-references in the first person singular (cf. Gal.  8.10.4, 8.19.2, 8.47.2 and see Fischer 1880: 6, Schiller 1899: 42–3). In the Bellum Alexandrinum we find 4.1: ut supra demonstratum est (i. e. at Civ. 3.112.10–11), 28.2: sicuti supra demonstravimus (i. e. at B.Alex. 14.5), 30.5: una [sc. pars], quam … demonstravi (i. e. at B.Alex. 28.3), 33.2: cuius nomine … docuimus (i. e. at B.Alex. 4.2, 23.2), 69.1: quae … scripsimus (i. e. at B.Alex. 40), 78.2: a quo … supra scripsimus (i. e. at B.Alex. 26–8). Of these passages, 4.1 and 30.5 are compatible with both Caesar’s and Hirtius’ pattern of cross-references. The remaining cross-references in the first person plural (28.2, 33.2, 69.1, 78.2) square with Caesar’s practice, but differ from Hirtius’ usage in Gal. 8. Pötter (1932: 32) has suggested that Hirtius uses the plural deliberately, because he does not want to claim authorship of the passages to which he refers. This must remain uncertain, but in any case the cross-references challenge rather than support the view that large portions of the Bellum Alexandrinum were written by Hirtius. — 6.1: Landgraf ’s claim (1888a: 89) that the use of adgredi and vis in this passage does not conform to Caesarian usage is incorrect: cf. the parallels quoted in appendix I.1 above (p. 249). Landgraf (1888a: 89) and Barwick (1938: 183) compare B.Alex. 37.1: numquam tamen intermittebat legatos … mittere and correctly point out that Caesar employs intermittere + inf. (‘to cease doing something’) only in sentences that are not negated. The argument has little weight, because intermittere + inf. occurs only once in the Caesarian commentarii (cf. Gal. 4.31.1: obsides dare intermiserant), and one attestation is hardly a sufficient basis for determining Caesar’s linguistic habits. Moreover, non intermittere + inf. is perfectly acceptable and fairly common in the prose of the first century B. C. (see TLL s.v. intermitto 2229.61–9 and cf. e. g. Cic. Phil. 1.32, Tusc. 1.69). For further objections see Zingerle 1892: 106. — 6.3: Barwick (1938: 184) writes that the comparative propior lacks a parallel in the Caesarian commentarii, because the text of Civ. 1.40.3 is uncertain (propiore ponte legiones Nipperdey 1847: 514, proprio religiones W1T1, prop(r)io legiones codd. cett.). However, Nipperdey’s emendation is virtually certain (cf. Civ.  1.40.7: ulteriore ponte and see Kraner/Hofmann/Meusel 1906: 63 ad loc.). In addition, Caesar frequently uses the comparative of the adverb (propius, e. g. Gal. 1.42.1). — 7.2: ut mihi defendendi essent Alexandrini, neque fallaces essent neque temerarii, multaque oratio frustra absumeretur. Pötter (1932: 22) attributes the faulty syntax of the transmitted text to Hirtius. However, the contents and the expressions in this passage have close parallels in Caesar (see p. 45 n. 73 and appendix I.1 on 7.3, p. 250), and a corruption is far more plausible, cf. Andrieu 1954: xxvii and p. 68 © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

Previously misidentified expressions  

271

with n. 185.  — 8.1: Caesar suorum timorem consolatione et ratione minuebat. Landgraf (1888a: 91) compares Gal. 8.38.2: timentes omnium animos consolatione sanat, but cf. Civ. 1.72.4: ut timorem … minuat and the note ad loc. in appendix I.1 (p. 250 above). — 8.3: non solum …, sed ne … quidem can be compared to Gal.  8.33.1: non modo …, sed ne … quidem (cf. Landgraf 1888a: 109) but also has a close parallel at Gal. 3.4.4: non modo …, sed ne … quidem (cf. also Gal. 5.43.4 and see Zingerle 1892: 109). — 8.4: [sc. Caesar adfirmabat] magno negotio impetus hostium adversos ex munitionibus sustineri [M U R T V, sustinere S, sustinerent L N]. Richter (1977: 202) follows Landgraf (1891b: 18) in reading the less well-­ attested sustinere and interprets magno negotio as a rare and unclassical use of the dativus finalis. It is far more natural to follow the majority of the manuscripts and interpret magno negotio as an ablativus modi. This interpretation is also supported by Gal. 5.11.2: reliquae [sc. naves] … refici posse magno negotio viderentur (the only other parallels for this usage of magno negotio in Latin literature down to Apuleius are Var. R. 3.13.1, Cels. 7.5.1a, 8.4.7). Klotz (1910: 184) objects to the use of adversus in connection with munitionibus and claims that Caesar employs the adjective only when referring to direct fighting “Mann gegen Mann”. This ­assertion is inaccurate, cf. Gal. 2.18.2: ab eo flumine pari acclivitate collis nasce­ batur adversus huic [sc. colli] et contrarius, 3.14.2: naves eorum … nostris [sc. na­ vibus] adversae constiterunt, Civ.  3.46.1: crates ad extremum tumulum contra hostem proferri et adversas locari … iussit, and the other passages listed in LC s.v. adversus 188–9. Also, Klotz (1910: 184) wrongly reads munitionibus (T) instead of ex munitionibus, although the latter has more support in the manuscript tradition and yields much better sense. Later, in his edition of 1926–27 (vol. 3, 4), Klotz, too, adopted ex munitionibus. For impetus … adversos cf. TLL s.v. adverto 865.80–866.7 and Sis. fr. 20 B/W (= HRR fr. 33 / Barabino 1967: fr. 24): plagis ­adversis icti (at Heges. 1.30.2 adverso exitu (codd. pler.) seems preferable to a. impetu (C, Vp.c.)). — 8.4: Barwick (1938: 184) claims that the use of par without a defining dative is un-Caesarian, but cf. Gal. 5.34.2 and the discussion in appendix I.1 ad loc. (p.  250 above).  — 8.5: moram et difficultatem: see the note on 2.1 (p. 268). — 8.6: in victoria insolentes resembles Gal. 8.13.4: secundis parvulis [β, minimisque α] rebus insolentiores (cf. Landgraf 1888a: 92), but has an even closer parallel in Caesar: cf. Gal. 1.14.4, quoted in appendix I.1 ad loc., p. 251. — 9.4: hae naves … portum capere prohibebantur, sed loca sunt egregia omni illa regione ad tenendas ancoras. hi cum diu retinerentur atque aquae inopia premerentur, navigio actuario Caesarem faciunt certiorem. Andrieu (1954: xxvi n. 3) objects to the fact that the masculine pronoun hi takes up the feminine hae naves, but this constructio ad sensum has close parallels in Caesar, see appendix I.1 on 20.6, pp. 263–4. — 10.1: ut per se consilium caperet, quid faciendum videretur. Andrieu (1954: xxvi n. 3) finds fault with the phrasing, probably because of the shift from a personal to an impersonal construction. This phenomenon, however, is by no means un-­ Caesarian, cf. Gal. 7.36.3: ad se convenire iubebat, seu quid communicandum seu © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

272

Appendix J.1

quid administrandum videretur and 7.52.1: quod sibi ipsi iudicavissent, quo procedendum aut quid agendum videretur. — 11.2: R. Menge (1889: 153) takes issue with the use of in conspectu without  a qualifying genitive. However, hostium (which is required by the context) is transmitted in manuscript M. As with many other variants contained in M, we cannot be certain whether hostium is an early conjecture or a good reading (cf. Andrieu 1954: lxxxi). Dahms (1906: 14) compares Gal.  7.35.1, where Caesar uses in conspectu with a dative: cum uterque utrique in conspectu esset exercitui. — 11.3: et scientia et virtute. Barwick (1938: 185) compares the collocation of scientia and virtus at B.Alex. 12.1, 26.1, 43.1 and claims that the phenomenon has no parallel in Caesar (cf. also Landgraf 1888a: 94). However, Gal. 7.29.2: non virtute neque in acie vicisse Romanos, sed artificio quodam et scientia oppugnationis and Civ. 1.58.2: ab scientia gubernatorum atque artificiis ad virtutem montanorum confugiebant provide close precedents for B.Alex. 12.1: cum … non virtute propugnatorum, sed scientia classiariorum se victos viderent and show that the collocation of scientia and virtus is consistent with Caesarian usage. Cf. also Liv. 32.12.2: virtute et scientia, 37.30.2: robore navium et virtute militum Romani longe Rhodios praestabant, Rhodiae naves agilitate et arte gubernatorum et scientia remigum. — 11.3: totum onus sustinere non recusabant. Landgraf (1888a: 94) compares Hirt. Gal.  8.15.1: cum dimicare non recusarent, and Klotz (1933: 1141) claims that the construction is un-Caesarian. However, non recusare + inf. is attested by the manuscripts of the α family at Gal. 3.22.3: neque adhuc hominum memoria repertus est quisquam, qui eo interfecto, cuius se amicitiae devovisset, mori [α, mortem β] recusaret. Moreover, the construction has several parallels in contemporary prose: see Landgraf 1888a: 94 and cf. Mark Anthony’s words at Cic. Phil. 8.25: privatus esse non recuso, and Plancus apud Cic. Fam. 10.8.6 (= 371.6 SB): ut … omnem impetum belli in me convertere non recusem, 10.17.2 (= 398.2 SB): ad omnia pericula princeps esse non recusabat.  — 11.4: proelium secundissimum est factum. Barwick (1938: 185) adduces Hirt. Gal. 8.45.1: equestre proelium facit secundum and writes that proelium secundum facere is unparalleled in Caesar. The statement is inaccurate, cf. Civ. 3.105.3: quo die proelium secundum Caesar fecisset and see the material collected in appendix I.1 on 11.4, p. 253. — 11.4: multitudo … est interfecta. Landgraf (1888a: 94–5) attributes these words to Hirtius, because the expression later recurs at 29.5, 31.3, 76.3. However, Caesar uses the same phrase at Gal. 2.11.6, and there is no parallel in Hirtius’ eighth book of the Bellum Gallicum. — 11.5: quod nisi nox proelium diremisset. Landgraf (1888a: 62, 95) compares 63.6: quod nisi celeriter … proelium esset diremptum and attributes both passages to Asinius Pollio (cf. also Barwick 1938: 185–6). The expression nox proelium dirimit is, however, generally common (cf. e. g. Pl. Am. 255, B.Alex. 46.7, Sal. Jug. 60.8, Liv. 7.33.15). Cf. also Caes. Gal.  1.46.4, Civ.  1.40.7: quarum [sc. legionum] adventu proelium dirimitur and TLL s.v. dirimo 1260.1–12. — 11.6: victricibus navibus. Barwick (1938: 186) compares 25.6: cum sua quadriremi victrice and states that Caesar employs only victor © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

Previously misidentified expressions  

273

(Gal. 1.31.10, 7.20.12, 7.62.8), but not victrix. The observation is correct, but insignificant, since Caesar simply obeys the rules of the Latin grammar: he has to use victor (and not victrix), because exercitus (Gal. 7.20.12), milites (Gal. 7.62.8), and Sequani (Gal. 1.31.10) are all masculine. — 12.1: virtute … scientia. See the note on 11.3 above. — 12.3: tametsi … tamen is paralleled at Hirt. Gal. 8.10.4, 8.20.1 (cf. Landgraf 1888a: 96), but also occurs six times in the Caesarian commentarii (e. g. Gal. 1.30.2, 5.34.2, 7.43.4) and thus hardly proves that B.Alex. 12.3 was written or revised by Hirtius. — 12.3: non tamen reparandae classis cogitationem deposuerunt. Landgraf (1888a: 96) adduces Gal. 8.10.4: cogitationes incitabat and B.Alex. 65.1: metum deponerent, but cf. also Caes. apud Cic. Att. 9.7.c.1: rogo vos ut cogitationem suscipiatis and Civ.  3.103.1: deposito adeundae Syriae consilio. — 12.4: cotidianoque usu a pueris exercitati. Landgraf (1888a: 96) compares Hirt. Gal. 8.25.2: cotidianis exercitata [sc. civitas] bellis, but Caes. Gal. 4.33.3: usu cotidiano et exercitatione is equally comparable. — 13.1: erant omnibus ostiis Nili custodiae exigendi portorii causa dispositae. R. Menge (1889: 153) highlights the fact that Caesar does not use custodiae for ships. However, as Menge himself admits, Caesar often equates ships with their crews and employs verbs commonly used for persons to describe the manoeuvres of a boat (cf. e. g. Civ. 2.7.1 and see appendix I.1, p.  264 for further examples). Hence, the use of custodiae is fully compatible with Caesarian style and diction. — 13.4: paucis diebus contra omnium opinionem quadriremes XXII, quinqueremes V confecerunt. Barwick (1938: 186) compares 26.1: copiis, quas … confecerat, 34.5: legionem …, quae … confecta erat, 45.1: classem … confectam, 53.5: legio … erat confecta, 64.2: pecunia … confecta and Gal. 8.23.1: obsides conficiunt, 8.54.2: legionem … confectam ex dilectu, but has to admit that conficere (‘amass (troops vel sim.)’) is also attested in Caesar, cf. Gal. 2.4.5: hos posse conficere armata milia centum, Civ. 1.24.1: ex his circiter CCC equites conficit, 1.25.1: cum legionibus …, quas … confecerat (~ 3.107.1). — 13.4: seque ad confligendum omnibus rebus paraverunt. R. Menge (1889: 153) considers the expression un-Caesarian, but cf. Gal. 7.41.4: Fabium … se in posterum diem similem ad casum parare. Moreover, Caesar commonly employs the participle paratus with a gerund, cf. e. g. Civ. 3.85.4: animo simus ad dimicandum parati.  — 13.5: ex his erant … reliquae infra hanc magnitudinem et pleraeque ­apertae. R. Menge (1889: 154) writes that pleraeque has adverbial force here and that this usage is unparalleled in Caesar, because Gal. 5.14.2: interiores plerique frumenta non serunt, sed lacte et carne vivunt is part of an interpolation (cf. Klotz 1910: 43–50). However, even if Gal.  5.14.2 was indeed interpolated, the use of pleraeque at 13.5 would still conform to classical and Caesarian usage: cf. TLL s.v. plerusque 2431.12–41 and Civ. 3.95.4: nam qui acie refugerant milites, et animo perterriti et lassitudine confecti, missis plerique armis signisque militaribus, magis de reliqua fuga quam de castrorum defensione cogitabant.  — 14.1: postquam eo ventum est, ut …: R. Menge (1889: 154) considers the metaphorical use of venire un-Caesarian, but see appendix I.1 ad loc. (p. 255 above). — 14.1: ut sibi © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

274

Appendix J.1

uterque confideret. R. Menge (1889: 154) remarks that one would expect utrique … confiderent, because the text is not about two individuals but two groups of people (he compares Gal. 5.50.1: utrique sese [α, se in β] suo loco continent). This objection is trivial, since uterque … confideret can be interpreted as a collective singular: cf. Klotz 1927: 107 on B.Hisp. 36.4, Löfstedt 1942: 12–26, and the use of miles for milites at Gal.  6.34.8, Civ.  2.15.3 and hostis for hostes at Gal.  7.51.3 (hostem β, hostes α; cf. Kraner/Dittenberger/Meusel 1913–20: vol. 2, 605 ad loc.). An even closer parallel, however, is Civ. 1.40.7, where the narrative shifts abruptly from a true plural, which refers to the troops, to a singular pointing to the commanding general: commisso ab equitibus proelio signa legionum duarum procul ab utrisque conspiciuntur, quas C. Fabius ulteriore ponte subsidio nostris miserat suspicatus fore id, quod accidit, ut duces adversariorum occasione et beneficio fortunae ad nostros opprimendos uterentur. quarum adventu proelium dirimitur ac suas uterque legiones reducit in castra. — 14.5: sic enim praedicant partem esse Alexandriae dimidiam Africae. Landgraf (1888a: 97–8) points to Gal.  8.54.5: sic enim [sc. Caesar] existimabat (+ acc. c. inf.) and claims that this piece of geographical information has been inserted by a later redactor of the Caesarian draft. However, there is a similar parenthesis at Civ. 3.99.3: sic enim Caesar existimabat (+ acc. c. inf.). — 15.8: Seel (1935: 21–2) and Barwick (1938: 187) follow the manuscripts and read neque … fuit quisquam …, qui …, quin. They emphasize the clumsy syntax and point to the similar construction at B.Alex. 49.3: nemo erat, qui …, quin. However, the text adopted by Seel and Barwick does not make sense and is likely to be corrupt: cf. p. 129 with n. 211 for an economical emendation and close Caesarian parallels.  — 16.2: simul illud grave ac miserum videbatur perpaucos de summa rerum ac de salute omnium decertare, quorum si qui aut animo aut virtute cessisset, reliquis etiam esset cedendum [cedendum Rossetus, Clarke, cavendum codd.; cf. p. 126 n. 198 above], quibus pro se pugnandi facultas non fuisset. Barwick (1938: 187) and Andrieu (1954: xxxiv) object that esset cedendum interrupts the oratio obliqua and that instead of a finite verb an infinitive is required here (i. e. fore or futurum fuisse). The argument is incorrect, for quorum si qui aut animo aut virtute cessisset can be regarded either as the beginning of a new sentence (cf. KS vol. II.2, 319: “relativischer Anschluß”) or as a case of “relative Verschränkung” (KS vol. II.2, 315) with quorum introducing  a relative clause, but logically belonging to a conditional clause that depends on the relative clause. In the latter case, reliquis etiam esset cedendum is not part of a main clause (which, as pointed out by Barwick and Andrieu, would call for an infinitive), but of a subordinate clause, which should (and does) have a finite verb in the subjunctive. — 16.7: propinquam fugam ad oppidum. Richter (1977: 202) considers the enallage unthinkable (“unvorstellbar”) for Caesar, but cf. Gal. 3.14.9: loca superiora, unde erat propinquus despectus in mare (see also TLL s.v. propinquus 2020.55–62). — 17.3:  alteram insulae partem … constratis navibus adgreditur ~ 19.2: eum [sc. ­pontem] … simili ratione adgreditur, 26.2: oppidum …, quo die est adgressus, in © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

Previously misidentified expressions  

275

suam redegit potestatem, 30.3: castellum … Caesar adgressus omnibus copiis ex­ pugnat, 76.2: munitionesque adgredi non dubitarunt. Klotz (1910: 184) argues that Caesar employs adgredi always with animate objects and oppugnare always with inanimate objects. However, there are several exceptions to Klotz’s rule, cf.  Gal.  1.44.3: omnes Galliae civitates ad se [sc. Ariovistum] oppugnandum venisse, 5.39.3: legionem oppugnare incipiunt and Civ. 3.40.3: naves longas adgressus, 3.40.5: naves onerarias … adgressus. Barwick (1938: 187) has adjusted Klotz’s rule and correctly writes that Caesar employs adgredi only with persons and ships; however, there is no reason why Caesar should treat ships and fortifications differently.  — 18.1: neque nostri aut scalis aut cratibus aut reliquis rebus parati venerunt ad oppugnandum. According to Klotz (1910: 185), Caesar would not use paratus with an ablative of instrument and a gerund, but he would write something like paratas [sc. naves] ad navigandum atque omnibus rebus instructas (Gal. 5.5.2). However, ad oppugnandum syntactically belongs with venerunt, not parati. Caesar often employs venire with ad + gerund(ive) (cf. e. g. Gal. 1.44.3, 5.26.2, Civ. 1.14.1), and paratus is commonly qualified by an ablative of instrument or respect, see TLL s.v. 429.51–76 and cf. e. g. Gal.  7.19.2: animo parati (~ 7.19.5, Civ.  3.86.5), Hirt. Gal.  8.18.2: ad proeliandum animo atque armis parati. — 19.1: propior. See p. 270 on 6.3. — 20.2: Barwick’s claim (1938: 188) that multum proficere has no parallel in the Caesarian commentarii is inaccurate, cf. Gal.  7.82.1, quoted in appendix I.1 ad loc. (p.  262 above).  — 20.4:  nostrosque acrius perturbantes insequebantur. Barwick (1938: 188) compares Hirt. Gal. 8.10.2: acriusque hostes insequebantur, but there are similarly close parallels in the Caesarian commentarii, cf. Civ.  1.45.1: hostem insolenter atque acriter nostros insequentem, 3.51.3: si acrius insequi voluisset. — 20.6: Barwick’s objections to the use of deprimere and dubitans, quid esset capiendum consilii do not bear scrutiny, see appendix I.1 ad loc. (pp. 263–4 above). — 20.6: Fleischer (1879: 857) and Landgraf (1888a: 106) suggest that adlevatis scutis et animo ad conandum nisi could be  a novelesque interpolation, but the closest parallel for this combination of animus and ad conandum is Civ. 2.6.1: hoc animo decertabant, ut nullum aliud tempus ad conandum habituri viderentur. For animo … nisi cf. Gal. 1.13.6, Civ. 1.45.6: virtute et patientia nitebantur, 3.43.3. Within the Corpus Caesarianum, the iunctura ad conandum recurs only at Civ. 2.5.5, 2.6.1 (see also appendix I.1 ad loc., p. 264 above). — 21.1: Caesar, quoad potuit cohortando suos … continere. Landgraf (1888a: 106–7) observes that cohortari + inf. is unattested in Gal. 1–7 and Civ. 1–3, and Andrieu (1954: xxxv) claims that the expression deviates from classical usage (“quelque peu irrégulier”). However, cohortando is used absolutely and continere depends on potuit, not on cohortando: see LC s.v. cohortor 595 (A) and cf. Gal.  5.54.1: Caesar … cohortando magnam partem Galliae in officio tenuit. There are no other parallels for the non-prepositional ablative cohortando in the Corpus Caesarianum, and the only other attestations in Latin literature down to Apuleius are Liv. 26.43.1 and Cic. Orat. 144 (cf. also in cohortando at Cic. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

276

Appendix J.1

Part. 91). — 21.1: eodem in periculo versatus est. Barwick (1938: 189) claims that there is only one parallel in Caesar, viz. Gal. 2.26.5: quantoque in periculo … imperator versaretur. This does not argue against Caesarian authorship. Besides, it is incorrect, cf. Gal.  6.16.2: in proeliis periculisque versantur.  — 21.5: Landgraf (1888a: 107) considers castellum munitionibus confirmare un-Caesarian, but the non-­metaphorical use of confirmare has its closest parallel at Gal. 7.73.7: simul confirmandi et stabiliendi causa singuli ab infimo solo pedes terra exculcabantur (cf. TLL s.v. confirmo 219.30–53). Cf. also Gal. 6.29.3: magnisque eum locum munitionibus firmat (the only parallel for munitionibus (con)firmare in Latin literature down to Apuleius) and Liv. 1.33.4: urbs tuta munitionibus praesidioque firmata valido erat. The fact that munitionibus is once employed with firmare and once with confirmare squares well with Caesar’s style: see pp. 43 (n. 62) and 280 (on 8.1). — 22.2: in proeliis cotidianis. Landgraf (1888a: 108) compares Gal. 8.13.1: cotidiana proelia, but cf. also Gal. 1.1.4: cotidianis proeliis and B.Hisp. 5.4: cotidiana minuta proe­lia (†). — 23.1: consilio … regi probato. The phrase consilium probare is paralleled at Gal. 8.21.1: hoc omnibus probato consilio (cf. Landgraf 1888a: 109), but also occurs in the Caesarian commentarii and is generally common: see pp. 248–9 on 6.1. — 25.2: locis idoneis (cf. 61.5: idoneis locis) can be compared not only to Hirt. Gal.  8.28.2: turmas partim idoneis locis disponit (thus Landgraf 1888a: 111) but also to Civ.  1.43.3: acie … in locis idoneis structa, 3.46.2: ipse idoneis locis funditores instruxit (cf. Barwick 1938: 205). For further attestations of idoneus locus in Caesar and other authors see TLL s.v. idoneus 231.44–8. — 25.5: cum ad Canopum ventum esset. Landgraf (1888a: 112) points to Hirt. Gal. 8.23.5: cum in conloquium ventum esset, but cf. also Civ. 3.33.1: cum in fanum ventum esset, 3.75.4: cum ventum esset ad flumen Genusum, and p. 255. — 26.2: velut (also at 72.1) is attested at Hirt. Gal. 8.9.1, 8.18.1, but occurs only once in Caesar (Gal. 1.32.4). This fact may cast doubt on Pötter’s view that B.Alex. 65–78 was written by Caesar (cf. Barwick 1938: 191 and see pp.  45–6 and 53 with n. 100), but it is not a conclusive argument for Hirtian authorship, because velut can also be found in many other authors. — 27.5: magnum numerum … interfecit. Landgraf (1888a: 114) compares Hirt. Gal. 8.25.1: magno numero hominum interfecto. However, magnum numerum interficere is fairly common, cf. e. g. Gal. 3.21.2, 4.15.2. — 32.3: armis proiectis (~ 76.2). Landgraf (1888a: 118) points to Hirt. Gal. 8.29.4: arma proiecerant, but one may just as well compare Gal. 7.40.6: proiectis armis, 7.89.4: arma proiciuntur, Civ. 3.13.2, 3.98.1 (†). — 38.1: proxima nocte. The phrase is also attested at Hirt. Gal. 8.34.2 and B.Alex. 73.2 (cf. Landgraf 1888a: 123), but it is far too common to possess any diagnostic value, cf. e. g. Gal.  1.40.14.  — 38.3: longius … producere aciem has been compared to Hirt. Gal. 8.48.3: ille … Volusenum produxisset longius (cf. Landgraf 1888a: 123); however, Civ. 1.58.1 and 3.100.2 are much closer, see appendix I.2 ad loc. (p. 266). — 39.2: … reliquit, reliquis cohortibus … conlocatis. The collocation of relinquere and reliquus has been compared to Hirt. Gal.  8.2.2: cohortibus … relictis reliquum © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

Previously misidentified expressions  

277

exercitum … (cf. Landgraf 1888a: 123), but this parallel is insignificant, because the phenomenon is fairly common in the Corpus Caesarianum; cf. e. g. Civ. 1.64.5: … relinquit, reliquas legiones, Hirt. Gal. 8.34.2: … relictis reliquos …, B.Afr. 80.5: classisque parte … relicta, reliquas …. — 40.1: secundum proelium fecit resembles Hirt. Gal. 8.45.1: proelium facit secundum (cf. Landgraf 1888a: 64, 123), but the expression is far too common to possess any diagnostic value, cf. Gal.  3.1.4, 6.12.3, 7.53.2, Civ. 1.7.7, 3.84.5, 3.105.3, Hirt. Gal. 8.48.2, B.Alex. 11.4, 65.3, 73.2, B.Afr. 61.4. — 41.2: nullo defendente has a close parallel at Hirt. Gal. 8.33.1: defendente nullo (adduced by Landgraf 1888a: 124), but the same words are also attested at Civ. 3.68.3: defendente nullo. — 42.2: ad exercitum alendum [S L N, exercitum -os U T V, exercitus -os M R]. Landgraf (1888a: 125) compares Hirt. Gal.  8.47.2: latrociniis se suosque alebat, but cf. also Gal.  1.18.5: magnum numerum equitatus … alere, Civ. 1.85.5: exercitus, quos … aluerint and see TLL s.v. alo 1707.54–74. — 44.1: crebris litteris. The words have an exact parallel at Hirt. Gal. 8.39.1 (cf. Landgraf 1888a: 126), but cf. also Gal. 5.45.1: tanto crebriores litterae, Civ. 3.25.2: crebris Pompei litteris. — 44.4: sibi … moram necessitatemque iniungebat. Landgraf (1888a: 126) points to Hirt. Gal.  8.6.4: onus iniungebat, 8.49.3: nulla onera nova iniungendo, but the use of iniungere for ‘impose (a burden vel sim.)’ also has close parallels in the Caesarian commentarii and various other texts, cf. Gal. 7.77.15: his aeternam iniungere servitutem, Civ. 2.18.5: gra­ viora onera iniungebat, and TLL s.v. iniungo 1666.40–1667.51. — 44.4: quam ce­ lerrime posset. Landgraf (1888a: 126) adduces Hirt. Gal. 8.11.1: quam celerrime posset, which is the only exact parallel in Latin literature down to Apuleius. Never­theless, the expression hardly qualifies as conclusive evidence for Hirtian authorship, because there are many similar passages in other authors of the first century B. C., cf. e. g. Gal.  1.37.5: quam celerrime potuit.  — 44.5: discedere ab oppugnatione. Landgraf (1888a: 126) compares Hirt. Gal. 8.40.1: ab oppugnatione recedi, but a much closer parallel is Civ. 2.31.3: ab oppugnatione castrorum disce­ dimus. — 45.4: paratior militum animis Vatiniana [sc. acies]. The words have been compared to Gal. 8.18.2: animo atque armis parati (see Landgraf 1888a: 127), but the phrase animo paratus is quite common: cf. Gal.  7.19.2, 7.19.5, Civ.  3.85.4: animo simus ad dimicandum parati, 3.86.5, 3.95.2 and see TLL s.v. paro 431.20– 23. — 47.2: postero … die … [add. codd. recent.]. Landgraf (1888a: 127) compares both this passage and 66.1: paucis diebus consumptis to Hirt. Gal. 8.14.1: compluribus diebus … consumptis, but similar expressions can also be found in the Caesarian commentarii (cf. e. g. Gal. 4.19.4, 5.11.6, Civ. 1.27.1, 1.33.4) and the use of consumere with dies (vel sim.) is generally common: see TLL s.v. consumo 614.58–616.26, especially 615.18–49, and p. 279 on 66.1 below. — 49.1: Klotz (1910: 167, 190) argues that Caesar employs se recipere only with places offering protection (“so, daß an eine Deckung zu denken ist, unter deren Schutz jemand zurückkehrt”) and that both Hirtius (Gal. 8.4.1, 8.46.6) and the author of B.Alex. 49.1, 52.2 use the expression much more loosely. This observation is em© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

278

Appendix J.1

ployed by Klotz and later also by Barwick (1938: 203) as an argument for attribut­ ing B.Alex. 49.1 and 52.2 to Hirtius. However, Bojkowitsch (1924–27: 78–9) has demonstrated that Caesar uses se recipere and reverti without any difference in meaning at Gal.  5.34.4, 5.35.3 and that se recipere simply means ‘return’ at Civ. 3.57.5 (of Clodius returning to Caesar’s camp after not being admitted to confer with Scipio). — 51.3: celerior omnium opinione: see the note on 71.2 below. — 52.2: se … recepit: see the note on 49.1 above. — 54.1: nuntiatur Laterensi vivere Cassium is considered “irrégulier” by Andrieu (1954: xxxv), but cf. LC s.v. nuntio 859–60 with Gal. 6.4.1: adesse Romanos nuntiatur and numerous other parallels; see also KS vol. II.1, 708–9. — 54.3: permansit in sententia. Landgraf (1888a: 54) and Barwick (1938: 204) compare 63.4: si permaneret in sententia, Hirt. Gal. 8.22.1, 8.43.4 and emphasize that Caesar employs the iunctura only at Gal. 4.21.6: ut in ea sententia permanerent. There are no other attestations of in sententia permanere in the Corpus Caesarianum, but the expression is so common in Latin that it hardly qualifies as an argument for Hirtian authorship: cf. TLL s.v. permaneo 1530.26–30 and see the note on 44.4: remanentes in suo consilio in appendix J.2 (p. 283 below). — 56.5: his rebus confectis. The ablative absolute is formulaic: cf. Hirt. Gal. 8.46.6: his confectis rebus (adduced by Landgraf 1888a: 55) and Caes. Gal. 5.56.4: his rebus confectis (= Gal. 7.90.1, Civ. 1.32.1, 3.1.2), Gal. 4.19.4: omnibus his rebus [β, rebus his α, iis rebus Kraner/Dittenberger/Meusel 1913–20: vol. 1, 447] confectis. — 58.1: dissensionis initium natum. Barwick (1938: 192, 204) compares 76.1: initium victoriae natum est, Hirt. Gal.  8.6.1: ne quod initium belli nasceretur and stresses that the only Caesarian parallel is Civ.  3.20.2 and that there initium is used with the genitive of the gerund: a quibus initium appellandi nasceretur. However, the expression is common and not characteristic of Hirtius, cf. e. g. Cic. Ver. 1.109 and TLL s.v. initium 1661.8–10; see also pp. 243 (on 58.1) and 267 (on 76.1). — 58.2: cuius nomen multum poterat apud eas legiones resembles Hirt. Gal. 8.32.2: cum Lucterius apud suos cives quondam … multum potuisset. According to Barwick (1938: 204), this fact corroborates the view that this section of the Bellum Alexandrinum was written by Hirtius. However, multum posse apud aliquem is generally common in Latin (cf. TLL s.v. possum 148.56– 149.22, 149.83–150.15) and also features in the Caesarian commentarii (contra Barwick (ibid.): “Cäsar meidet die Phrase multum posse apud”), cf. Gal.  1.9.3: Dumnorix … apud Sequanos plurimum poterat (~ 1.17.1). — 59.2: Barwick (1938: 204) compares in oppidi conspectu to Hirt. Gal. 8.13.1: in conspectu utrorumque castrorum and claims that in the Caesarian commentarii the genitives qualifying in conspectu never point to a place. This is inaccurate, cf. Gal. 5.6.5: quos in conspectu Galliae interficere vereretur. Cf. also Civ.  3.75.2: celeriter ex conspectu castro­rum discessit and see TLL s.v. conspectus 491.80–492.38.  — 61.2: castra ­castris conlata [R. Stephanus 1544: 426, conlocata codd.] and 61.4: castra castris confert resemble Hirt. Gal. 8.9.2: castra castris hostium confert (cf. Barwick 1938: 205). However, Civ.  3.79.3: quod … castris Scipionis castra conlata habuisset is © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

Previously misidentified expressions  

279

equally comparable. The rhetorical device of polyptoton is used by Hirtius several times (cf. also Gal. 8.14.4, 8.48.5 and see Fischer 1880: 28), but it is also common in the Bellum Hispaniense (5.6, 20.1, 23.1, 31.7; cf. Wölfflin 1901: 166, Gaertner 2010: 253), the late annalists (cf. e. g. Quad. fr. 10b.17 B/W = HRR fr. 10b: scuto scutum), and other Republican authors: see Landgraf 1888b for numerous examples and discussion. — 61.5: castellis idoneis locis conlocatis. The words have been compared to Hirt. Gal. 8.28.2: turmas … idoneis locis disponit (cf. Landgraf 1888a: 59–60), but there are two Caesarian parallels which are much closer, cf. Civ. 3.30.5: idoneum locum nactus ibi copias conlocavit and 3.38.1: loco idoneo et occulto omnem exercitum equitatumque conlocavit (no other attestations of i. l. conlocare in the Corpus Caesarianum). See also appendix H on 25.2: navigiis locis idoneis … dispositis (p. 240 above). — 61.6: Barwick (1938: 205) compares pabulari frumentarique to Hirt. Gal. 8.10.1: pabulatum frumentatumque and repeats Landgraf ’s assertion (1888a: 60) that Hirtius likes to attach –que to an infinitive. However, the latter claim is contradicted by the evidence of book 8 of the Bellum Gallicum (see p. 70 n. 200 above), and the collocation of pabulari and frumentari also has close parallels in Caesar and Livy, cf. Civ. 1.48.7: pabulandi aut frumentandi causa (= Liv. 91, fr. 21.10 Jal = fr. 22, lines 58–9 Weissenborn/Müller) and Gal. 7.64.2: frumentationibus pabulationibusque Romanos prohibere. — 63.4: si permaneret in sententia: see the note on 54.3 above. — 63.6: quodnisi … proelium esset diremptum: see the note on 11.5, p. 272. — 64.3: progressus secunda ut hiberna tempestate. Landgraf (1888a: 63) compares the use of ut at Hirt. Gal. 8.21.4: magnum ut in tanta calamitate … commodum, but ut is commonly employed in the sense ‘considering how’, cf. OLD s.v. 22 and LC s.v. 2391–2 (1.A.γ), with reference to Gal. 4.3.3, Civ. 2.42.1, 3.9.5. — 65.3: secundo proelio … quod … fecerat: see the note on 40.1, p. 277. — 66.1: According to Barwick (1938: 189), Caesar employs diem (vel sim.) consumere in + abl. only with an ablative indicating an activity (cf. e. g. Civ. 1.81.3: totumque in ea re diem consumunt), but never with an ablative indicating a place. This is incorrect, cf. Gal. 5.4.1: ne aestatem in Treveris consumere cogeretur. Cf. also Gal.  4.19.4: diebus omnino XVIII trans Rhenum consumptis, 5.58.2: ibi magnam partem diei consumit. — 67.1: Barwick (1938: 190) uses the words cum propius Pontum finesque Gallograeciae accessisset as an argument against Pötter, who attributed B.Alex. 65–78 to Caesar (cf. Pötter 1932: 44–64 and see pp. 45–6 and 53 with n. 100). However, the fact that propius accedere + acc. is also attested at 34.3, 37.3, 38.1, 45.2, and Hirt. Gal. 8.36.3 but “only three times” (“nur 3mal”) in Caesar (i. e. Gal. 1.46.1, 5.37.1, 7.20.3) does not prove anything. The expression is far too common to allow any inference (cf. also, e. g., Cic. Att. 11.13.2, Mil. 59). — 71.2: celerius omnium opinione (= 78.5, ~ 51.3: celerior o. o.). Nipperdey (1846: 11 ~ 1847: 14), Fischer (1880: 7), Landgraf (1888a: 51, 131), and others have pointed to Hirt. Gal.  8.8.4: celerius opinione eorum [i. e. hostium]. However, one could just as well compare Gal. 2.3.1: celeriusque omnium opinione. Cf. also Gal.  6.30.1: celeriter contraque omnium opinionem and © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

280

Appendix J.2

B.Hisp. 26.3: celerius quam vostra opinio fert. — 73.1: propiora: see the note on 6.3 (p. 270). — 73.2: secundum proelium … fecerat: see the note on 40.1 (p. 277). — 76.2: armis tamen proiectis: see the note on 32.3 (p. 276). —78.5: celerius omnium opinione: see the note on 71.2 above.

2. Expressions that can be compared to similar collocations in the Caesarian commentarii 1.4: palus  a meridie interiecta: see pp.  43 (with n. 61) and 80 (with n. 23).  — 2.3: ad auxilium ferendum. Barwick (1938: 183) adduces the other attestations of auxilium ferre in the Bellum Alexandrinum (44.1, 54.2), compares Hirt. Gal. 8.27.1: proficiscitur ad auxilium Duratio ferendum, and claims that Caesar employs auxilium ferre only once at Gal.  3.18.4: quin … ad Caesarem auxilii ferendi causa proficiscatur. The last statement is inaccurate (cf. e. g. Gal. 1.13.5, 2.10.5, 4.12.5, 4.16.5, 7.24.4, 7.66.5, Civ. 1.70.2, 3.36.7, 3.72.2, 3.78.3). — 3.4: eum [i. e. Caesarem] interclusum tempestatibus. Barwick (1938: 183) compares B.Alex. 43.1: intercluso mari tempestatibus and correctly states that the phrase tempesta­ tibus intercludere does not feature in the Caesarian commentarii. However, the use of intercludere at 3.4 (intercludere aliquem) differs from that at 43.1 (intercludere aliquid), and there are several passages where Caesar employs intercludere with an ablative of instrument or cause, cf. Civ.  1.17.1, 1.40.3: vi ventorum et aquae magnitudine pons est interruptus et reliqua multitudo equitum interclusa, 1.48.4: neque ii, qui pabulatum longius progressi erant, interclusi fluminibus reverti … poterant, 3.69.4. — 7.1: ut … alii morari Caesarem dicerent, quin naves conscendere iuberet. Barwick (1938: 182 n. 1) points out that morari + quin has no parallel in Caesar. However, we may compare Gal. 7.11.8: perpaucis … desideratis, quin cuncti caperentur, where perpaucis … desideratis must be understood as implying non multum aberat: cf. Kraner/Dittenberger/Meusel 1913–20: vol. 2, 266 ad loc.. Similarly, at B.Alex. 7.1, morari can be interpreted as non audere, non studere, non suscipere, non festinare vel sim..  — 8.1: adfirmare + acc. c. inf. recurs at 24.4. Landgraf (1888a: 91–2) and Barwick (1938: 184) claim that this usage is absent from Gal. 1–7 and Civ. 1–3. However, at Gal. 6.37.9, one branch of the manuscripts transmits adfirmare + acc. c. inf.: confirmatur [confirmatur α, adfirmatur T, affirmabatur U1(R), affirmatur Uc] opinio barbaris … nullum esse intus prae­ sidium. Moreover, adfirmare + acc. c. inf. is common in Cicero and other contemporary authors (cf. TLL s.v. 1222.77–1226.12), and on several occasions Caesar employs confirmare + acc. c. inf. (Gal.  1.41.2, al., Civ.  1.30.5, al.). As Zingerle (1892: 108) points out, Caesar often uses compounds of the same root without any difference in meaning, cf. e. g. attingere (Gal.  1.1.5, al.) and contingere (Gal. 1.38.3, al.), confirmatio (Gal. 3.18.6, †) and adfirmatio (Gal. 7.30.4, †). See also p. 43 n. 62. — 8.2: prohiberi … quominus. Landgraf (1888a: 92) and Barwick © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

Previously misidentified expressions  

281

(1938: 184) compare Hirt. Gal. 8.34.3: qui … cupiebant … prohibere, quominus …, but the use of quominus after prohibere, impedire, and other expressions of hindrance is generally common, see Zingerle 1892: 109, KS vol. II.2, 256–61, TLL s.v. prohibeo 1789.58–70, LC s.v. quominus 1613, and cf. e. g. Gal. 1.31.7: neque recusaturos, quominus …, 4.22.4: quae [sc. naves] … vento tenebantur, quominus …, Civ. 2.12.3: nullam ex­oriri moram posse, quominus …. — 8.5: summam esse contra in Alexandrinis velo­citatem ~ Hirt. Gal. 8.36.2: summae velocitatis homines. Although summa velocitas does not occur elsewhere in the Corpus Caesarianum, the expression can hardly be called un-Caesarian or typically Hirtian (contra Landgraf 1888a: 92, Barwick 1938: 184). Parallels such as Gal. 6.28.2: magna vis est eorum et magna velocitas and Gal. 1.41.1: summaque alacritas show that Caesar, too, could have written summam velocitatem (cf. Zingerle 1892: 109). — 8.6: loca excelsiora. Landgraf (1888a: 92) and Barwick (1938: 184) observe that this iunctura is paralleled at 28.3, 31.1, 59.2 and Hirt. Gal. 8.7.4, 8.33.1, 8.42.4, B.Afr. 49.1, B.Hisp. 29.1, 29.7. Caesar employs excelsus twice with mons, cf. Civ. 1.70.4: ex eo loco IIII caetratorum cohortis in montem, qui erat in conspectu omnium excelsissimus, mittit, 1.80.2. Cf. also Gal. 6.26.1: est bos cervi figura, cuius a media fronte inter aures unum cornu existit excelsius magisque derectum his, quae nobis nota sunt, cornibus. — 9.2: omnium animis ad laborem incitatis. Barwick (1938: 184) states that animum incitare is also attested at Hirt. Gal. 8.12.6: incitantur hostium animi secundo proelio and B.Alex. 31.3: animi adeo sunt incitati, but is not used by Caesar. This is correct, but Landgraf (1888a: 92) had already compared B. Alex. 9.2 to Gal. 7.79.3: atque omnium animi ad laetitiam excitantur, which (except for the prefix ex-) is a far closer parallel than the passages adduced by Barwick. There are many instances of the parallel use of different compounds with the same root in the Caesarian commentarii, see the note on 8.1 above. — 10.6: naves … ad terram detrahit. Landgraf (1888a: 93) compares Caesar’s use of subducere naves (in aridum) (‘to haul (ships) up on to dry land’, cf. OLD s.v. subduco 1b, Gal. 4.29.2, 5.11.5) and writes that the passage reflects Hirtius’ ignorance of nautical matters. However, in view of the strategic situation and the following sea battle, it is fairly unlikely that the ships were beached (cf. Zingerle 1892: 111–13; contra Landgraf and TLL s.v. detraho 832.11). According to Zingerle (1892: 112), naves ad terram detrahere points to a change of direction (“die Schiffe nach dem Lande zu lenken”), but there is no parallel for this usage of detrahere in the Corpus Caesarianum, and the material collected in the TLL and OLD does not support Zingerle’s interpretation. Caesar and other Roman writers commonly employ detrahere with military units in the sense of ‘withdraw’ or ‘take away’, cf. TLL s.v. detraho 823.56–825.30, especially 825.27–30, OLD s.v. 4, 5a, LC s.v. 877 (B), and Gal. 1.42.5, 3.2.3: quod legionem neque eam plenissimam detractis cohortibus duabus et compluribus singillatim … absentibus … despiciebant, Civ. 3.89.4: celeriter ex tertia acie singulas cohortes detraxit atque ex his quartam instituit. Consequently, it seems more plausible that Caesar divides his fleet into two parts. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

282

Appendix J.2

Unwilling to give battle (cf. 10.5), he does not attack the enemy straightaway, but merely regroups his fleet in order to be able to defend himself: those ships which would not be of much use in a sea battle (especially the naves onerariae mentioned at 9.4 and 11.6) are removed from the main body of the fleet and placed towards the shore (naves quas potuit … ad terram detrahit; cf. OLD s.v. ad 3: “towards”), while the remaining ships face the enemy fleet. Cf. the similar strategy of the Nervii at Gal. 2.16.5: mulieres quique per aetatem ad pugnam inutiles esse viderentur, in eum locum coniecisse, quo propter paludes exercitui aditus non esset [~ B.Alex. 10.6: ad terram …, quem in locum illos successuros non existimabat]. — 12.1: oppugnationem … verebantur. Landgraf (1888a: 95) compares Hirt. Gal. 8.14.1: veriti similem obsessionem, 8.34.1: cum … similem casum obsessionis vererentur, but Zingerle (1892: 114) has rightly drawn attention to Gal. 2.11.2: insidias veritus, 5.48.7: periculum veritus. — 12.2: For numerum adaugere see p. 43 with n. 62. — 13.2: The phrase naturalis sollertia has been classified as un-Caesarian by R. Menge (1889: 153), but cf. Civ. 3.92.4: alacritas naturaliter innata and the attestations of sollertia at Gal.  7.22.1, Civ.  2.8.3, 2.15.4.  — 14.2: R. Menge (1889: 154) considers the phrase subsidio distribuere un-Caesarian, but cf. exercitum (vel sim.) distribuere (Gal. 3.10.3, 5.24.1, al.) and Caesar’s use of subsidio with venire (Gal. 3.3.2, al.), mittere (Gal. 2.7.1, al.), ducere (Civ. 1.45.1), and submittere (Civ. 3.64.1). — 15.1: ob notissimam scientiam atque animi magnitudinem. Landgraf (1888a: 98) compares 31.1: et animi magnitudine et rei militaris scientia virum praestantem and emphasizes that Caesar employs causal ob only in a few fixed formulae, viz. ob eam rem, ob eas res, ob eam/hanc causam, ob eas/has causas, quam ob rem, and quam ob causam (cf. LC s.v. ob 863 and Wölfflin 1884: 164). However, there are quite a few other usages that occur only once in the Caesarian commentarii (cf. the examples in n. 59 on p. 42 above and see appendix F). In addition, the praise of Euphranor’s scientia and animi magnitudo at 15.1 can be compared to Gal. 1.47.4: et propter fidem et propter linguae Galliae scientiam. — 16.1: par erat proelii certamen. The phrase proelii certamen is not attested in Gal. and Civ., but recurs at Cic. Rep. 2.13 (cf. TLL s.v. proelium 1653.57–8). Landgraf (1888a: 101), Klotz (1910: 185), and Barwick (1938: 187) compare the passage to B.Alex. 29.3: quod tam diu pari proelio cum Alexandrinis certaretur and Hirt. Gal. 8.28.4: fit proelium acri certamine and argue that the expression is tautological and un-Caesarian. However, Civ. 1.51.4–5: Galli equites … proelium … committunt. ii, dum pari certamine res geri potuit, … (cf. p. 258) is just as close to the text of B.Alex. 16.1 as the passages adduced by Landgraf, Klotz, and Barwick. Hence, judging from the parallels, Caesarian authorship is just as plausible as Hirtian authorship. Moreover, Caesar, too, occasionally employs tautological expressions, cf. e. g. Gal. 1.26.1: ita ancipiti proelio diu atque acriter pugnatum est, 1.26.5: tota nocte continenter ierunt. nullam partem noctis itinere intermisso …, 5.44.14: in con­ten­tione et certamine, 6.22.3: factiones dissensionesque and see Hellwig 1889 for further examples. Finally, certamen and proelium are not exact syn© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

Previously misidentified expressions  

283

onyms: like contentio (cf. e. g. Cic. Off. 1.90: contentiones proeliorum), certamen is  a fairly general term (‘contest’) and connotes competition; proelium, on the contrary, is confined to the sphere of warfare and means ‘battle’. See also TLL s.v. proelium 1653.40–63 for further parallels. — 18.3: Barwick (1938: 187) observes that Caesar does not employ planus with locus, but cf. Gal.  4.23.6: plano litore (cited by Barwick himself). planus locus is attested in several contemporary or slightly later authors, cf. Cic. Caec. 50, Var. R. 1.13.1, Vitr. 5.3.3, Liv. 1.38.6, 23.18.7, 34.38.2. — 20.6: ad proxima navigia adnatarunt and 21.2: ad eas … naves adnatavit. Barwick (1938: 188) states that adnatare ad recurs at 31.6, 46.6 and that Caesar employs adnatare only once at Civ. 2.44.1 and uses it with an accusative object. Barwick’s argument is inaccurate and lacks conclusive force. First of all, at Civ.  2.44.1 the manuscripts unanimously transmit adnare, not adnatare (as claimed by Barwick); the fact that adnare is attested in the Bellum Civile, but adnatare in the Bellum Alexandrinum has little weight, for there is a similar discrepancy concerning tra(ns)na(ta)re: at Civ. 1.48.7 the manuscripts transmit tranare, but at Gal. 1.53.2 the transmission is split between tranare (α), tranatare (T), and transnatare (U). Secondly, the fact that an author employs one construction in one place does not exclude the possibility that he may employ a different construction in another place: Pliny the Elder uses adnatare both with ad (Nat. 9.86) and with a dative object (Nat. 8.93), and Caesar employs tra(ns)ducere sometimes with a river as accusative object (e. g. Gal. 1.31.16: ne maior multitudo Germanorum Rhenum traducatur) and sometimes with trans + acc. (e. g. Gal. 1.35.3: ne quam multitudinem hominum amplius trans Rhenum in Galliam traduceret); cf. also intrare intra + acc. at Gal. 7.8.1 and intrare + acc. at Civ. 1.65.4 (intrare cupiebant Nipperdey 1847: 143, 525, intra se recipiebant codd.), 3.38.3, 3.44.4, and see pp. 42–3 with n. 59. Finally, adnatare ad + acc. is generally more common than adnatare + acc. (cf. TLL s.v. 777.46–64), and intransitive compounds starting with the prefix ad- are mostly constructed with ad + acc. by Caesar: cf. e. g. adequitare ad (Gal. 1.46.1), advolare ad (Gal. 5.17.2, al.), and adire ad (Gal. 6.18.3, 6.25.4; at Gal. 2.7.3, quo adire (β) must be read, not quos adire (α): see Meusel 1894: 266– 7). Hence, the use of adnatare ad + acc. at B.Alex. 20.6 could almost be called ‘more Caesarian’ than adnare ali­quid at Civ. 2.44.1. — 29.5: see the note on 76.3 below. — 44.4: remanentes in suo consilio. Landgraf (1888a: 126) compares Hirt. Gal. 8.39.1: quo … in consilio permanerent, but Caes. Gal. 6.40.6: in eo … consilio permanere is just as close. See also appendix J.1 on 54.3: permansit in sententia (p. 278 above). — 54.2: facit hoc idem resembles Hirt. Gal. 8.48.4: faciunt hoc idem (cf. Barwick 1938: 204). Caesar prefers a different word order (i. e. hoc idem … facit, cf. p. 32 with n. 10). The sequence facit/fecit hoc idem has further exact parallels at Nep. Att. 18.3, Plin. Nat. 35.22, Hist. Aug. Heliog. 32.6. — 62.1: cohortes auxiliarias. Klotz (1910: 167) and Barwick (1938: 205) point to Hirt. Gal. 8.5.3: auxiliarios pedites and emphasize that Caesar only uses auxiliaris, -e, but not auxi­ liarius, -a, -um (cf. Civ. 1.63.1: duabus auxiliaribus cohortibus … relictis; see also © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

284

Appendix J.2

Bojkowitsch 1924–27: 79). However, auxiliarius is also used by other late Republican authors: see TLL s.v. 1615.29–42 and cf. e. g. Cic. Prov. 15, Cassius apud Cic. Fam. 12.13.4 (= 419.4 SB), Sal. Jug. 87.1, 93.2 (all cohors/cohortes auxiliaria(e)). — 72.1: excelsiore fastigio has its only close parallels at V.Max. 2.6.17: in excelso fastigio positum est, Sen. Ep. 76.31: in altiore fastigio, Plin. Nat. praef. 11: in excelsissimo generis humani fastigio; cf. also Man. 2.795: excelsi … fastigia caeli. Landgraf (1888a: 131) compares Hirt. Gal. 8.14.4: declivi fastigio, but Civ. 1.45.5: tenui fastigio, 2.10.3: molli fastigio, and 2.24.3: leniore fastigio, are just as close. — 74.1: consuetudine … pervulgata. Landgraf (1888a: 133) compares the similar tautologies at Hirt. Gal. 8.3.2: vulgare … signum, quod … intellegi consuevit and 8.17.2: qua consuetudine … consuerat, but neither of these passages is a close parallel. Cf. TLL s.v. pervulgo 1893.39–45 and Ter. Hau. 101: via pervolgata patrum, Cic. Phil. 14.11: usitatus honos pervulgatusque, De Orat. 1.248: vulgari hominum consuetudine, and Aug. Mus. 5.9: hanc … pervulgatissimam consuetudinem. — 75.1: incredibili … temeritate ~ 77.1: incredibili … laetitia. Landgraf (1888a: 133) compares Hirt. Gal. 8.51.1: incredibili honore atque amore and believes that all three passages must have been written by the same author. However, incredibilis also features in the Bellum Africum (3×) and in the Caesarian commentarii, cf. incredi­ bili celeritate (Gal. 2.19.7, 3.29.2, 5.40.2, 5.53.1), i. lenitate (Gal. 1.12.1), i. virtute (Gal. 1.39.1), i. felicitate (Civ. 3.26.5). The expression incredibilis temeritas is unparalleled before Aug. Contra Parm. 2.19.38, Contra Maximin. 2.23.7 (p. 802.6–7 Migne), but incredibilis laetitia occurs several times in Cicero’s correspondence (Fam. 10.5.1, 15.12.1 = 359.1, 102.1 SB) and in later authors (Vell. 2.103.1, Aug. Lib. Arb. 2.156); cf. also Cic. Red. Pop. 2: incredibili … laetitiae voluptate. — 75.1: imparatus. Landgraf (1888a: 133) compares Hirt. Gal. 8.3.1: imparatis disiectisque, but one could just as well compare Gal. 6.30.2, Civ. 1.30.5: Cn. Pompeio, qui omnibus rebus imparatissimis non necessarium bellum suscepisset, or B.Hisp. 37.3. — 75.2: quae tamen. According to Landgraf (1888a: 133), the use of tamen immediately after a relative pronoun is characteristic of Hirtius’ style. However, the phenomenon also occurs in Caesar (e. g. Civ.  1.85.11, 3.15.5) and various other authors (cf. e. g. B.Hisp. 29.6, Cic. Scaur. 5). — 76.3: interfecta multitudine omni suorum aut capta ~ 29.5: paene omni reliqua multitudine interfecta. Landgraf (1888a: 115, 134) and Barwick (1938: 192) attribute both passages to Hirtius and compare the former phrase to Hirt. Gal. 8.25.1: magno numero hominum interfecto aut capto, 8.36.5: omnibusque aut interfectis aut captis, and 8.51.3: omnis multitudo. However, there are also close parallels in the Caesarian commentarii, the Bellum Africum, and the Bellum Hispaniense, cf. Civ. 3.38.4: aut interfecerunt aut captos ad Domitium deduxerunt, Gal. 6.8.7: magno numero interfecto, compluribus captis (~ 5.22.2, 7.70.7, 7.88.7), B.Alex. 18.4: multi ex his capti interfectique sunt, B.Afr. 25.3: capti interfectique sunt omnes, B.Hisp. 9.3: multi sunt interfecti, complures capti (~ 13.3, 16.3, 21.2). Within the Corpus Caesarianum, the phrase omnis multitudo is not confined to Hirtius’ eighth book of the Bellum Gallicum © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

Previously misidentified expressions  

285

(8.6.2, 8.29.4, 8.41.1, 8.51.3) and the Bellum Alexandrinum (23.2, 29.5, 32.3, 76.3), but also occurs in the Caesarian commentarii (Gal. 2.12.4, 5.44.10, 5.49.3, 7.21.1, 7.24.5, Civ. 2.7.3, 3.80.3, 3.93.3, 3.106.4, †). — 76.4: facultatem … liberius profugiendi. Landgraf (1888a: 134), Dahms (1906: 22), and Barwick (1938: 192) compare these words to Hirt. Gal. 8.16.2: liberam facultatem sui recipiendi Bellovacis dederant and 8.32.1: libere vagandi latrociniorumque faciendorum facultatem. However, the passage also has close parallels in the Caesarian commentarii, cf. Gal. 1.32.5: propterea quod reliquis tamen fugae facultas daretur, 4.34.5: quanta praedae faciendae atque in perpetuum sui liberandi facultas daretur, Civ. 1.74.1, 2.11.3. — 77.1: incredibili … laetitia: see the note on 75.1: incredibili … temeritate above.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

Appendix K: Pronouns and connectives in Caesar, the Bellum Alexandrinum, and Hirtius

1. Relative and demonstrative pronouns Text (words)

qui frq.

hic frq.

ille frq.

Gal. 1 (8227)

214 26.01

88 10.7

18

2.19

267 32.45

17

2.07

46

5.59

Gal. 2 (4189)

109 26.02

51 12.17

5

1.19

96 22.92

8

1.91

14

3.34

Gal. 3 (3615)

97 26.83

52 14.38

5

1.38

70 19.36

11

3.04

9

2.49

Gal. 4 (4605)

152 33.01

70 15.2

12

2.61

111 24.1

12

2.61

14

3.04

Gal. 5 (7436)

160 21.52

108 14.52

28

3.77

167 22.46

10

1.34

26

3.5

Gal. 6 (5514)

142 25.75

98 17.77

18

3.26

113 20.49

17

3.08

18

3.26

Gal. 7 (11570)

287 24.81

157 13.57

35

3.03

184 15.9

30

2.59

59

5.1

1161 25.71

624 13.82

121

2.68

1008 22.32

105

2.33

186

4.12

Civ. 1 (10992)

270 24.56

128 11.64

45

4.09

200 18.2

36

3.28

44

4

Civ. 2 (6437)

173 26.88

82 12.74

20

3.11

94 14.6

20

3.11

23

3.57

Civ. 3 (15148)

359 23.70

199 13.14

56

3.7

301 19.87

56

3.7

56

3.7

Civ. 1–3 (32577)

802 24.62

409 12.55

121

3.71

595 18.26

112

3.44

123

3.78

1963 25.25

1033 13.29

242

3.11

1603 20.62

217

2.79

309

3.98

1–21 (2930)

74 25.26

40 13.65

17

5.8

39 13.31

7

2.39

12

4.1

22–78 (7583)

252 33.23

42

5.54

18

2.37

148 19.52

26

3.43

36

4.75

1–78 (10513)

326 31.01

82

7.8

35

3.33

187 17.79

33

3.14

48

4.57

Hirt. Gal. 8 (6539)

197 30.13

34

5.2

15

2.29

95 14.53

20

3.06

36

5.51

Gal. 1–7 (45156)

Total (77733)

is frq.

idem frq.

ipse frq.

B.Alex.

The numbers of occurrences of hic, ille, is, idem, and ipse in Gal.  and Civ.  are taken from Derno­scheck (1903). The figures for the relative pronoun qui were calculated by adding the occurrences of qui, quae, quod, cuius, cui, etc. and sub© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

287

Pronouns and connectives  

tracting the homophonous adverbs, subordinating conjunctions, indefinite pronouns, and interrogative pronouns (i. e. quam, quo, qua, quod, etc.; (ali)qui(s), qui/quae/quod …?). The pronoun iste has been excluded, because it occurs only once in the relevant texts (Gal. 7.77.5).

2. Copulative conjunctions and enim/nam Text (words)

et frq.

Gal. 1 (8227)

187 22.73

Gal. 2 (4189)

ac/at- frq. que 76

-que frq.

enim frq.

nam frq.

9.24

114 13.86

3 0.36

6 0.73

86 20.53

58 13.85

107 25.54

1 0.24

6 1.43

Gal. 3 (3615)

73 20.19

58 16.04

88 24.34

3 0.83

4 1.11

Gal. 4 (4605)

120 26.06

69 14.98

71 15.42

4 0.87

4 0.87

Gal. 5 (7436)

130 17.48

108 14.52

173 23.27

0 0

5 0.67

Gal. 6 (5514)

88 15.96

90 16.32

133 24.12

3 0.54

6 1.09

4 0.35

12 1.04

Gal. 7 (11570)

206 17.8

150 12.96

196 16.94

Gal. 1–7 (45156)

890 19.71

609 13.49

882 19.53

18 0.4

43 0.95

Civ. 1 (10992)

202 18.38

179 16.28

273 24.84

18 1.64

3 0.27

Civ. 2 (6437)

119 18.49

90 13.98

147 22.84

14 2.17

6 0.93

Civ. 3 (15148)

335 22.12

193 12.74

408 26.93

27 1.78

15 0.99

Civ. 1–3 (32577)

656 20.14

462 14.18

828 25.42

59 1.81

24 0.74

1546 19.88

1071 13.78

1710 21.99

77 0.99

67 0.86

62 21.16

8 2.73

5 1.71

Total (77733) B.Alex. 1–21 (2930)

72 24.57

22–78 (7583)

136 17.93

1–78 (10513)

208 19.79

Hirt. Gal. 8 (6539)

77 11.78

63 21.5 51

6.73

198 26.11

22 2.9

18 2.37

114 10.84

260 24.73

30 2.85

23 2.19

126 19.27

20 3.06

15 2.29

59

9.02

The numbers of occurrences of enim and nam in Gal. and Civ. are taken from Derno­scheck (1903).

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

288

Appendix K  

3. at, autem, sed, tamen, and vero Text (words)

at frq.

autem frq.

sed frq.

tamen frq.

vero frq.

Gal. 1 (8227)

2 0.24

8 0.97

21 2.55

9 1.09

3 0.36

Gal. 2 (4189)

2 0.48

2 0.48

7 1.67

2 0.48

3 0.72

Gal. 3 (3615)

0 0

3 0.83

6 1.66

8 2.21

3 0.83

Gal. 4 (4605)

7 1.52

3 0.65

10 2.17

12 2.61

3 0.65

Gal. 5 (7436)

14 1.88

5 0.67

23 3.09

20 2.69

6 0.81

Gal. 6 (5514)

4 0.73

2 0.36

19 3.45

2 0.36

4 0.73

Gal. 7 (11570)

13 1.12

6 0.52

21 1.82

22 1.9

Gal. 1–7 (45156)

42 0.93

29 0.64

107 2.37

75 1.66

27 0.6

Civ. 1 (10992)

5 0.45

9 0.82

32 2.91

24 2.18

19 1.73

Civ. 2 (6437)

9 1.4

6 0.93

24 3.73

5 0.78

14 2.17

Civ. 3 (15148)

11 0.73

15 0.99

70 4.62

20 1.32

15 0.99

Civ. 1–3 (32577)

25 0.77

30 0.92

126 3.87

49 1.5

48 1.47

Total (77733)

67 0.86

59 0.76

233 3.0

124 1.6

75 0.96

5 0.43

B.Alex. 1–21 (2930)

0 0

6 2.05

11 3.75

6 2.05

7 2.39

22–78 (7583)

8 1.05

15 1.98

17 2.24

28 3.69

4 0.53

1–78 (10513)

8 0.76

21 2

28 2.66

34 3.23

11 1.05

Hirt. Gal. 8 (6539)

6 0.92

15 2.29

18 2.75

27 4.13

2 0.31

The numbers of occurrences of tamen and vero in Gal. and Civ. are taken from Derno­scheck (1903). On the attestations of at in the Bellum Alexandrinum see p. 68 with nn. 185–6 above.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

289

Pronouns and connectives  

4. praeterea, ita, itaque, sic, and interim Text (words)

praeterea frq.

ita* frq.

itaque frq.

sic frq.

interim frq.

Gal. 1 (8227)

2 0.24

3 0.36

5 0.61

0 0

3 0.36

Gal. 2 (4189)

0 0

1 0.24

2 0.48

0 0

4 0.95

Gal. 3 (3615)

2 0.55

2 0.55

7 1.94

2 0.55

0 0

Gal. 4 (4605)

1 0.22

1 0.22

7 1.52

1 0.22

7 1.52

Gal. 5 (7436)

2 0.27

1 0.13

7 0.94

0 0

8 1.08

Gal. 6 (5514)

2 0.36

1 0.18

4 0.73

1 0.18

2 0.36

Gal. 7 (11570)

2 0.17

2 0.17

9 0.78

4 0.35

3 0.26

11 0.24

11 0.24

41 0.91

8 0.18

Civ. 1 (10992)

4 0.36

5 0.45

13 1.18

7 0.64

4 0.36

Civ. 2 (6437)

4 0.62

4 0.62

11 1.71

1 0.16

3 0.47

Civ. 3 (15148)

9 0.59

14 0.92

16 1.06

0 0

7 0.46

Civ. 1–3 (32577)

17 0.52

23 0.71

40 1.23

8 0.25

14 0.43

Total (77733)

28 0.36

34 0.44

81 1.04

16 0.21

41 0.53

1–21 (2930)

5 1.71

2 0.68

8 2.73

22–78 (7583)

2 0.26

9 1.19

1–78 (10513)

7 0.67

Hirt. Gal. 8 (6539)

0 0

Gal. 1–7 (45156)

27 0.6

B.Alex. 0 0

3 1.02

22 2.9

3 0.4

8 1.05

11 1.05

30 2.85

3 0.29

11 1.05

8 1.22

8 1.22

1 0.15

6 0.92

* Connecting two sentences.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

290

Appendix K  

5. post(ea)quam, cum + subj., and ut (temporale) Text (words)

post(ea)quam frq.

cum + subj. frq.

ut (temp.) frq.

Gal. 1 (8227)

4 0.49

42

5.11

2 0.24

Gal. 2 (4189)

1 0.24

35

8.36

0 0

Gal. 3 (3615)

1 0.28

25

6.92

0 0

Gal. 4 (4605)

1 0.22

34

7.38

0 0

Gal. 5 (7436)

3 0.4

43

5.78

0 0

Gal. 6 (5514)

3 0.54

14

2.54

0 0

Gal. 7 (11570)

3 0.26

54

4.67

1 0.09

16 0.35

247

5.47

3 0.07

Gal. 1–7 (45156) Civ. 1 (10992)

0 0

30

2.73

0 0

Civ. 2 (6437)

1 0.16

17

2.64

0 0

Civ. 3 (15148)

3 0.2

90

5.94

3 0.2

Civ. 1–3 (32577)

4 0.12

137

4.21

3 0.09

20 0.26

384

4.94

6 0.08

1–21 (2930)

4 1.37

11

3.75

0 0

22–78 (7583)

0 0

78 10.29

5 0.66

1–78 (10513)

4 0.38

89

8.47

5 0.48

Hirt. Gal. 8 (6539)

0 0

84 12.85

2 0.31

Total (77733) B.Alex.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

Appendix L: Political value terms and expressions pointing to emotions

1. Worthiness and good reputation 1 2 Caes. Gal. 1–7 Caes. Civ. (45156 words) (32577 w.)

Hirt. Gal. 8 (6539 w.)

B.Alex. 1–21 (2930 w.)

B.Alex. 22–78 (7583 w.)

dignitas

10×

9×

6× (6.2, 24.4, 50.4, 52.4, 53.1 (bis))

1× (8.3)

8× (26.1, 33.4, 36.2, 55.2, 58.1, 64.2, 65.4, 68.1)

dignus1

–

–

–

–

–

maiestas

1× (7.17.3)

1× (3.106.4)

–

–

2× (34.2, 66.3)

honor

9×

14×

3× (50.4 (bis), 51.1)

–

1× (77.2)

honestus

– 5× 3× (1.53.6, 5.45.2, (1.20.1, 7.3.1) 1.51.3, 2.5.5, 3.32.4, 3.61.1)

–

2× (24.1, 71.1)

nobilitas

7×

1× (3.35.2)

1× (45.2)

–

3× (26.1, 72.2, 78.2)

nobilis

10×

2× (1.34.3, 1.39.2)

–

–

1× (66.4)2

1 At Gal. 7.25.1: dignus memoria and B.Alex. 32.3: dignum adveniens fructum virtutis, the adjective is not used as a political value term, but as an indication of commensurability. 2 At B.Alex. 27.1, 47.3, 60.1, and 66.2 nobilis points to the importance or prominence of geographical locations; cf. p. 57 with n. 122. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

292

Appendix L  

Caes. Gal. 1–7 Caes. Civ. (45156 words) (32577 w.)

Hirt. Gal. 8 (6539 w.)

B.Alex. 1–21 (2930 w.)

B.Alex. 22–78 (7583 w.)

illustris

3× (6.19.3, 7.3.2, 7.32.4)

–

–

–

1× (40.5)

praeclarus

–

–

–

–

3× (24.2, 30.1, 47.5)

splendidus

–

–

–

–

2× (24.1, 40.5)

laus

12×

6×

–

1× (15.5)

1× (42.1)

laudare

1× (5.8.4)

2× – (1.3.1, 3.87.6)

–

–

conlaudare

4×

4×

–

–

–

admiratio

–

–

2× (pr.6, pr.8)

1× (6.2)

–

admirari

5×

2× (1.26.2, 3.86.2)

1× (9.2)

–

1× (46.4)

2. Unworthiness, indignity, disgrace Caes. Gal. 1–7 Caes. Civ. (45156 words) (32577 w.)

Hirt. Gal. 8 (6539 w.)

B.Alex. 1–21 (2930 w.)

B.Alex. 22–78 (7583 w.)

indignitas

2× – (2.14.3, 7.56.2)

1× (44.2)

–

1× (60.1)

contumelia

7×

10×

–

1× (11.2)

1× (60.1)

dedecus

1× (4.25.5)

1× (3.64.3)

–

1× (15.4)

–

ignominia

3× 8× (7.17.5, 7.17.6, 7.80.5)

–

–

1× (42.1)

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

293

Political value terms and expressions pointing to emotions   

3. Personal influence, power, might Caes. Gal. 1–7 Caes. Civ. (45156 words) (32577 w.)

Hirt. Gal. 8 (6539 w.)

B.Alex. 1–21 (2930 w.)

B.Alex. 22–78 (7583 w.)

auctoritas

29×

12×

6×

–

2× (26.3, 33.3)

potentia

7×

2× – (1.4.5, 3.35.2)

–

1× (66.3)

potens

8×

1× (1.4.3)

–

–

1× (58.1)

potestas

27×

25×

3× (24.4, 44.3, 45.1)

1× (17.1)

7× (26.2, 46.4, 57.4, 60.1,2 64.2, 76.4)

dominatio

–

–

1× (52.4)

–

1× (23.2)

dominatus, -us m.

–

1× (1.4.5)

–

–

–

dominari

1× (2.31.6)

–

–

–

1× (32.3)

4. Friendship and enmity Caes. Gal. 1–7 Caes. Civ. (45156 words) (32577 w.)

Hirt. Gal. 8 (6539 w.)

B.Alex. 1–21 (2930 w.)

B.Alex. 22–78 (7583 w.)

amicitia

29×

14×

3× (3.5, 26.1, 49.1)

–

6× (23.2, 26.1,3, 33.3, 37.1, 68.1)

amicus

12×

14×

1× (3.4)

1× (16.4)

11× (23.1, 24.6, 34.2, 36.5 (bis), 64.2, 65.4, 66.1, 68.1, 70.8, 78.2)

inimicus

7×

13×

4× (44.3, 48.3, 52.3, 53.2)

–

2× (36.5, 78.2)

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

294

Appendix L  

Caes. Gal. 1–7 Caes. Civ. (45156 words) (32577 w.)

Hirt. Gal. 8 (6539 w.)

B.Alex. 1–21 (2930 w.)

B.Alex. 22–78 (7583 w.)

inimicitiae

1× (6.12.7)

4× – (1.3.4, 1.4.1, 3.16.3, 3.83.4)

–

–

adversarius (noun)

1× (7.4.4)

26×

2× (50.4, 54.3)

–

4× (42.4, 47.5, 63.2, 67.1)

hostis

285×

70×

51×

14×

26×

hostilis

–

–

–

–

3× (58.4, 59.2, 69.2)

5. fides Caes. Gal. 1–7 Caes. Civ. (45156 words) (32577 w.)

Hirt. Gal. 8 (6539 w.)

B.Alex. 1–21 (2930 w.)

B.Alex. 22–78 (7583 w.)

fides

35×

19×

5× (3.5, 23.2, 27.1, 44.3, 48.3)

–

10× (23.2, 24.1,2, 26.1, 32.4, 33.2,4, 61.1, 63.3, 65.4)

fidus

–

–

–

–

1× (57.6)

fidelis

2× – (4.21.7, 7.76.1)

1× (3.4)

1× (7.2)

3× (33.3, 43.2, 61.2)

fidelitas

–

–

1× (46.6)

–

–

infidelis

1× (7.59.2)

–

–

–

1× (43.1)

infidelitas

–

1× (2.33.1)

1× (23.3)

–

–

perfidia

6×

2× (2.14.4, 2.16.1)

1× (23.3)

–

–

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

295

Political value terms and expressions pointing to emotions   

6. Virtues a) Manliness and valour Caes. Gal. 1–7 Caes. Civ. (45156 words) (32577 w.)

Hirt. Gal. 8 (6539 w.)

B.Alex. 1–21 (2930 w.)

B.Alex. 22–78 (7583 w.)

virtus

72×

30×

6×

9×

11×

fortitudo

1× (1.2.5)

–

–

–

–

fortis

25×

12×

6× (17.1, 19.8, 20.2, 28.4, 29.3, 42.3)

1× (19.2)

4× (40.3, 43.2, 46.2, 66.2)

b) Firmness, persistence, endurance 3 Caes. Gal. 1–7 Caes. Civ. (45156 words) (32577 w.)

Hirt. Gal. 8 (6539 w.)

B.Alex. 1–21 (2930 w.)

B.Alex. 22–78 (7583 w.)

constantia

2× 1× (1.40.6, 7.77.10) (1.6.1)

1× (39.2)

–

1× (26.1)

constanter3

1× (3.25.1)

–

3× (13.2, 18.4, 19.3)

1× (17.5)

1× (36.2)

1× (3.26.3)

–

–

1× (26.2)

perseverantia –

c) Carefulness Caes. Gal. 1–7 Caes. Civ. (45156 words) (32577 w.)

Hirt. Gal. 8 (6539 w.)

B.Alex. 1–21 (2930 w.)

B.Alex. 22–78 (7583 w.)

diligentia

17×

10×

1× (12.1)

1× (4.2)

4× (26.1, 42.2, 43.4, 68.1)

diligens

9×

4×

2× (7.2, 12.6)

–

–

3 At Gal. 2.2.4 constanter means ‘consistently’, ‘in agreement’ (cf. OLD s.v. 5) and does not connote endurance or persistence. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

296

Appendix L  

d) Intelligence, prudence, skill4 Caes. Gal. 1–7 Caes. Civ. (45156 words) (32577 w.)

Hirt. Gal. 8 (6539 w.)

B.Alex. 1–21 (2930 w.)

B.Alex. 22–78 (7583 w.)

prudentia

1× (2.4.7)

–

2× (8.1, 28.2)

–

3× (27.5, 42.2, 68.1)

prudens

–

–

–

–

1× (24.6)

calliditas

–

–

1× (16.3)

–

1× (71.2)

callidus

1× (3.18.1)

–

–

–

–

sollertia

1× (7.22.1)

2× – (2.8.3, 2.15.4)

4× (3.1, 13.2, 15.6, 16.5)

–

peritus

3× 8× (1.21.4, 3.21.3, 7.83.1)

–

–

–

ars

–4

–

3× (15.6, 15.7, 16.5)

–

–

e) Kindness, good behaviour 5 Caes. Gal. 1–7 Caes. Civ. (45156 words) (32577 w.)

Hirt. Gal. 8 (6539 w.)

B.Alex. 1–21 (2930 w.)

B.Alex. 22–78 (7583 w.)

benignitas

–

–

–

–

1× (75.3)

benignus

–

–

–

–

–

bonitas

–5

–

–

–

2× (24.6 (bis))

bonus (‘ethically good’)

–

1× (3.32.3)

1× (22.2)

–

–

4 Gal. 6.17.1: omnium inventorem artium does not refer to skill. 5 Gal. 1.28.4: propter bonitatem agrorum is not comparable. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

297

Political value terms and expressions pointing to emotions   

f) Sharpness, fierceness, vehemence Caes. Gal. 1–7 Caes. Civ. (45156 words) (32577 w.)

Hirt. Gal. 8 (6539 w.)

B.Alex. 1–21 (2930 w.)

B.Alex. 22–78 (7583 w.)

acer

16×

4×

3× (5.2, 19.5, 19.8)

1× (20.4)

8× (24.5, 30.4, 31.1,2, 40.1, 46.3, 62.3, 76.1)

vehemens

9×

7×

4×

–

4×

(adj.)

–

–

–

(adv.)

9×

7×

2× (15.6, 48.3) 2× (36.4, 48.3)

1× (64.3) 3× (46.2, 56.6, 65.3)

–

7. Vices and faults a) Deceitfulness, untrustworthiness Caes. Gal. 1–7 Caes. Civ. (45156 words) (32577 w.)

Hirt. Gal. 8 (6539 w.)

B.Alex. 1–21 (2930 w.)

B.Alex. 22–78 (7583 w.)

fallacia

–

–

–

–

1× (24.6)

fallax

–

–

–

1× (7.2)

2× (24.1,3)

fraus

1× (7.40.6)

2× (2.14.1, 2.22.1)

–

–

–

fraudare

–

2× (3.59.3, 3.60.5)

–

–

–

dolus

2× 1× (1.13.6, 4.13.1) (2.14.1)

–

–

–

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

298

Appendix L  

b) Cruelty Caes. Gal. 1–7 Caes. Civ. (45156 words) (32577 w.)

Hirt. Gal. 8 (6539 w.)

B.Alex. 1–21 (2930 w.)

B.Alex. 22–78 (7583 w.)

crudelitas

2× 2× (1.32.4, 7.77.2) (1.32.6, 1.76.5)

1× (44.1)

–

1× (55.5)

crudelis

2× (1.31.12, 7.38.9)

–

2× (23.2, 41.1)

4× – (1.2.8, 1.85.3, 3.28.4, 3.32.3)

c) Greed, avarice Caes. Gal. 1–7 Caes. Civ. (45156 words) (32577 w.)

Hirt. Gal. 8 (6539 w.)

B.Alex. 1–21 (2930 w.)

B.Alex. 22–78 (7583 w.)

avaritia

2× (1.40.12, 7.42.2)

1× (3.32.1)

–

–

1× (55.5)

avarus

–

–

–

–

–

d) Idleness, lack of spirit Caes. Gal. 1–7 Caes. Civ. (45156 words) (32577 w.)

Hirt. Gal. 8 (6539 w.)

B.Alex. 1–21 (2930 w.)

B.Alex. 22–78 (7583 w.)

ignavia

–

–

–

–

1× (29.2)

ignavus

–

–

–

–

–

e) Lack of restraint or discipline

licentia

Caes. Gal. 1–7 Caes. Civ. (45156 words) (32577 w.)

Hirt. Gal. 8 (6539 w.)

B.Alex. 1–21 (2930 w.)

B.Alex. 22–78 (7583 w.)

1× (7.52.3)

–

–

1× (56.2)

5×

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

299

Political value terms and expressions pointing to emotions   

f) Lack of knowledge, judgement, due care, or consideration Caes. Gal. 1–7 Caes. Civ. (45156 words) (32577 w.)

Hirt. Gal. 8 (6539 w.)

B.Alex. 1–21 (2930 w.)

B.Alex. 22–78 (7583 w.)

imperitia

–

–

–

–

–

imperitus

9×

1× (1.85.3)

1× (21.4)

–

–

imprudentia

2× (4.27.4,5)

1× (3.112.3)

–

–

1× (68.1)

imprudens

1× (5.15.3)

2× 4× (2.3.1, 2.6.3, (19.3, 36.3) 2.38.4, 3.30.2)

–

–

stultitia

1× (7.77.9)

–

1× (praef. 3)

–

–

stultus

–

1× (3.59.3)

1× (10.4)

–

–

temeritas

5× (5.52.6, 6.7.4, 7.42.2, 7.52.1, 7.77.9)

–

1× (8.1)

–

1× (75.1)

temerarius

2× (1.31.13, 6.20.2)

–

–

1× (7.2)

–

temere

4×

6×

–

1× (20.3)

1× (42.2)

g) Arrogance and obstinacy Caes. Gal. 1–7 Caes. Civ. (45156 words) (32577 w.)

Hirt. Gal. 8 (6539 w.)

B.Alex. 1–21 (2930 w.)

B.Alex. 22–78 (7583 w.)

ostentatio

1× (7.53.3)

2× – (1.4.3, 3.71.4)

–

2× (74.1,4)

arrogans

1× (1.40.10)

1× (3.1.5)

–

–

–

arrogantia

3× 2× (1.33.5, 1.46.4, (1.85.4, 7.52.3) 3.59.3)

2× (pr. 3, 9)

–

–

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

300

Appendix L  

Caes. Gal. 1–7 Caes. Civ. (45156 words) (32577 w.)

Hirt. Gal. 8 (6539 w.)

B.Alex. 1–21 (2930 w.)

B.Alex. 22–78 (7583 w.)

superbus

1× (1.31.12)

–

–

–

–

superbia

–

–

–

–

–

pertinacia

2× 3× 2× (1.42.3, 5.31.1) (1.85.4, (15.2, 39.2) 2.36.2, 3.10.3)

–

–

8. Emotions a) Joy and sorrow Caes. Gal. 1–7 Caes. Civ. (45156 words) (32577 w.)

Hirt. Gal. 8 (6539 w.)

B.Alex. 1–21 (2930 w.)

B.Alex. 22–78 (7583 w.)

laetitia

3× 2× (5.48.9, 5.52.6, (1.74.7, 7.29.3) 3.87.7)

2× (29.3, 51.3)

–

2× (56.2, 77.1)

laetari

–

–

–

–

2× (24.6, 32.4)

laetus

1× (3.18.8)

1× (1.69.1)

–

–

2× (53.4, 77.1)

gaudium

–

–

–

–

1× (24.5)

gaudere

1× (4.13.6)

–

–

–

–

dolor

10×

6×

2× (44.2, 48.8)

1× (15.4)

6× (25.1, 29.3, 54.1, 55.2,5, 56.2)

dolere

4× (1.14.5, 3.2.5, 5.54.5, 7.1.3)

2× – (1.9.2, 1.64.2)

–

–

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

301

Political value terms and expressions pointing to emotions   

b) Love, hatred, resentment Caes. Gal. 1–7 Caes. Civ. (45156 words) (32577 w.)

Hirt. Gal. 8 (6539 w.)

B.Alex. 1–21 (2930 w.)

B.Alex. 22–78 (7583 w.)

amor (no attes­ tations of amare)

1× (1.20.3)

–

1× (51.1)

–

4× (33.3, 48.1, 48.3, 58.2)

odium

2× (6.5.2, 6.9.7)

2× (2.13.3, 2.31.3)

3× (7.4, 24.4, 48.2)

–

10× (48.1 (3×), 50.2,3, 53.4,5, 56.4, 58.2, 59.1)

odisse

2× – (1.18.8, 3.10.3)

–

–

–

odiosus

–

–

–

–

–

indignatio

–

–

–

–

1× (63.6)

B.Alex. 1–21 (2930 w.)

B.Alex. 22–78 (7583 w.)

c) Fear, anxiety Caes. Gal. 1–7 Caes. Civ. (45156 words) (32577 w.)

Hirt. Gal. 8 (6539 w.)

vereri

23×

10×

3× 3× (14.1, 16.1,2) (12.1, 15.3, 20.5)

4× (37.2, 54.3, 61.2, 63.2)

timor

34×

36×

5×

2× (7.1, 8.1)

3× (23.2, 27.7, 54.3)

timere

12×

24×

3× (16.2, 27.2, 38.2)

–

2× (25.6, 56.2)

pertimescere

1× – (5.29.7 (dub.))

–

–

1× (29.5)

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

302

Appendix L  

Caes. Gal. 1–7 Caes. Civ. (45156 words) (32577 w.)

Hirt. Gal. 8 (6539 w.)

B.Alex. 1–21 (2930 w.)

B.Alex. 22–78 (7583 w.)

extimescere

1× (3.13.9)

–

1× (23.6)

1× (7.1)

–

metus

7×

5×

–

–

1× (65.1)

metuere

–

–

–

–

–

terror

5×

17×

3× 2× (3.4, 5.4, 52.4) (14.4, 18.2)

2× (30.1, 75.1)

terrere

4×

6×

1× (3.2)

–

1× (66.5)

deterrere

5×

1× (3.100.3)

2× (41.3, 42.1)

–

2× (22.2, 74.2)

exterrere

2× (7.43.3, 7.77.11)

3× (1.41.4, 1.75.3, 2.4.4)

–

–

–

perterrere

33×

30×

5×

2× (11.6, 18.3)

3× (30.3, 31.2, 56.4)

horror

–

–

–

–

–

horrere

1× (1.32.4)

–

–

–

–

horribilis

2× – (5.14.2, 7.36.2)

–

–

–

trepidatio

–

–

–

–

1× (75.1)

trepidare

2× – (5.33.1, 6.37.6)

–

–

1× (31.2)

trepidus

–

–

–

–

sollicitudo

2× 1× (5.53.5, 7.40.1) (3.31.4)

–

–

1× (49.3)

sollicitare

12×

2× (23.3, 52.3)

–

1× (66.5)

–

5×

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

Appendix M: Maps

The following two maps are intended to facilitate the understanding of the events in Alexandria and Lower Egypt. The first plan is a sketch of the Nile Delta and is based on an illustration by Bietak (1975: 147). The second map is a slightly modified version of a similar plan drawn by McKenzie (2007: 38, illustration 38: “Alexandria, plan of Ptolemaic city, archaeological remains”). It includes the street grid and the city-wall. Those streets and parts of the ancient fortifications of which remains have been found by Mahmoud-Bey (1872) or later archaeologists are marked by solid black lines. McKenzie’s information on mosaics, tombs, villas, etc. has mostly been omitted. Instead, we have indicated the area where the various royal palaces were situated, and we have marked a spot near the royal palaces where the massive theatre (cf. Civ. 3.112.8: theatrum …, quod arcis ­tenebat locum) may have stood.1 Moreover, the area controlled by Caesar at the beginning of the Alexandrian campaign (i. e. the theatre and parts of the royal palaces)2 is indicated by  a jagged line (VVVV). The grey area near the streets R1 and R2bis marks a long depression that was discovered and described by Mahmoud Bey (1872: 27–8, 109–10; cf. pp. 80–81 with n. 23).

1 The exact position of the theatre is unknown (cf. McKenzie 2007: 69). Judging from Strabo’s description (17.1.9), it must have stood close to the waterfront, southwards or southwestwards of the royal palaces: ἔστι δ’ ἐν τῷ Mεγάλῳ λιμένι κατὰ μὲν τὸν εἴσπλουν ἐν δεξιᾷ ἡ νῆσος καὶ ὁ πύργος ὁ Φάρος, κατὰ δὲ τὴν ἑτέραν χεῖρα αἵ τε χοιράδες καὶ ἡ Λοχιὰς ἄκρα ἔχουσα βασίλεια. εἰσπλεύσαντι δ’ ἐν ἀριστερᾷ ἐστι συνεχῆ τοῖς ἐν τῇ Λοχιάδι τὰ ἐνδοτέρω βασίλεια, πολλὰς καὶ ποικίλας ἔχοντα διαίτας καὶ ἄλση· τούτοις δ’ ὑπόκειται ὅ τε ὀρυκτὸς λιμὴν καὶ κλειστός, ἴδιος τῶν βασιλέων, καὶ ἡ Ἀντίρροδος, νησίον προκείμενον τοῦ ὀρυκτοῦ λιμένος βασίλειον ἅμα καὶ λιμένιον ἔχον …· ὑπέρκειται δὲ τούτου τὸ θέατρον. 2 Cf. Civ.  3.112.7–8: … Caesar loca maxime necessaria conplexus noctu praemuniit. in eo tractu oppidi pars erat regiae exigua, in quam ipse habitandi causa initio erat inductus, et theatrum coniunctum domui, quod arcis tenebat locum aditusque habebat ad portum et ad regia navalia. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

Map 1: The Nile Delta. Based on a plan drawn by Bietak (1975: 147, illustration 27), by courtesy of Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften.

304 Appendix M  

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

305

Map 2: Slightly modified version of a similar plan drawn by McKenzie (2007: 38), by courtesy of Yale University Press.

Maps  

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

Bibliography

Abel, K. (1958): “Zur Datierung von Cäsars Bellum Civile”, Museum Helveticum 15, 56–74. Agustín, A. and Orsini, F. (1595): Fragmenta Historicorum, Antwerpen. Adams, J. N. (2005): “The Bellum Africum”, in: Adams, J. N., Lapidge, M., and Reinhardt, T. (eds.), Aspects of the Language of Latin Prose, Oxford/New York, 73–96. Adams, J. N., Lapidge, M., and Reinhardt, T. (2005): “Introduction”, in: Adams, J. N., Lapidge, M., and Reinhardt, T. (eds.), Aspects of the Language of Latin Prose, Oxford/New York, 1–36. Adler, E. (2011): Valorizing the Barbarians. Enemy Speeches in Roman Historiography, Austin (TX). Ailloud, H. (1931–1932): Suétone: Vies des Douze Césars, 3 vols., Paris. Albrecht, M. von (1971): Meister römischer Prosa von Cato bis Apuleius, Heidelberg. Alföldi, A. (1974): Caesar in 44 v. Chr., vol. 2: Das Zeugnis der Münzen, Bonn. Alföldi, A. (1976): Oktavians Aufstieg zur Macht, Bonn. Alfonsi, L. (1954): “Nota irziana”, Aevum 28, 377. André, J. (1951): “Les adjectifs et adverbes à valeur intensive en per- et prae-”, Revue des études latines 29, 121–154. Andrieu, J. (1949): “La division en livres et les mentions d’auteur dans le corpus Césarien”, Revue des études latines 27, 138–149. Andrieu, J. (1954): Guerre d’Alexandrie, Paris. Apitzius, J. (1835): Schedarum criticarum in C. I. Caesaris commentarios De Bello Gallico et De Bello Civili particula prima, Leipzig. Aragosti, A. (2000): I frammenti dai Milesiarum libri di L. C. Sisenna, Bologna. Asheri, D. (1988): Erodoto: Le Storie. Libro 1, Milano. Asheri, D. (2007): “General introduction”, in: Asheri, D., Lloyd, A., Corcella, A., et alii (eds.), A Commentary on Herodotus. Books I–IV, Oxford/New York, 1–56. Astin, A. E. (1978): Cato the Censor, Oxford. Avenarius, G. (1956): Lukians Schrift zur Geschichtsschreibung, Meisenheim. Avenarius, W. (1957): “Die griechischen Vorbilder des Sallust”, Symbolae Osloenses 33, 48–86. Avery, H. C. (1993): “A lost episode in Caesar’s Civil War”, Hermes 121, 452–469. Axelson, B. (1945): Unpoetische Wörter, Lund. Badian, E. (1966): “The early historians”, in: Dorey, T. A. (ed.), Latin Historians, London, 1–38. Badian, E. (1990/1993): “Thucydides and the outbreak of the Peloponnesian War: A historian’s brief ”, in: Badian, E. (ed.), From Plataea to Potidaea: Studies in the History and Historio­ graphy of the Pentacontaetia, Baltimore/London 1993, 125–162 and 223–236 (originally published in: Allison, J. W. (ed.), Conflict, Antithesis, and the Ancient Historian, Columbus (OH) 1990, 46–91). Baldwin, B. (1984): “Herodotus and Tacitus: Two notes on ancient book titles”, Quaderni Urbinati di Cultura Classica 16, 31–34. Barabino, G. (1967): “I frammenti delle Historiae di Lucio Cornelio Sisenna”, in: Bertini, F. and Barabino, G. (eds.), Studi Noniani. Vol. I, Genova, 67–239. Barchiesi, A. (1997): “Endgames: Ovid’s Metamorphoses 15 and Fasti 6”, in: Roberts, D. H., Dunn, F. M., and Fowler, D. P. (eds.), Classical Closure. Reading the End in Greek and Latin Literature, Princeton (N. J.), 181–208. Barlow, J. (1998): “Noble Gauls and their other in Caesar’s propaganda”, in: Welch, K. E. and Powell, A. (eds.), Julius Caesar as Artful Reporter. The War Commentaries as Political Instruments, London/Swansea, 139–170. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

Bibliography

307

Barry, J. M. (2005): Fides in Julius Caesar’s Bellum Civile: A Study in Roman Political Ideology at the Close of the Republican Era, Ph.D.-thesis, University of Maryland. Bartley, A. (2008): “The Use of Rhetoric in Xenophon’s Anabasis and Caesar’s De bello Gallico”, Les Études Classiques 76, 361–381. Bartolini, G. (1963): “La lettera prefatoria di Irzio all’VIII libro del B. G.”, in: Lanx Satura Nicolao Terzaghi oblata. Miscellanea Philologica, Genova, 77–88. Barwick, K. (1938): Caesars Commentarii und das Corpus Caesarianum, Leipzig. Barwick, K. (1951): Caesars Bellum Civile: Tendenz, Abfassungszeit und Stil, Berlin. Basiner, O. (1883): De Bello Civili Caesariano. Quaestiones Caesarianae. Pars I, Dorpat. Batstone, W. W. and Damon, C. (2006): Caesar’s Civil War, Oxford. Beck, H.  and Walter, U. (2004–2005): Die frühen römischen Historiker, 2 vols., Darmstadt (vol. 1: 2nd edn. 2005, vol. 2: 1st edn. 2004). Becker, C. (1973): “Sallust”, Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt 1.3, 720–754. Bernardi, J. (1987): “De quelques sémitismes de Flavius Josèphe”, Revue des études grecques 100, 18–29. Bernhardy, G. (1865): Grundriss der römischen Literatur, 4th edn., Braunschweig. Beroaldus, P. (1504): Commentarii Caesaris recogniti per Philippum Beroaldum, Bologna. Berry, D. H. (1996): Cicero: Pro P. Sulla Oratio, Cambridge. Berthold, H.  (1971): “Cato von Utica im Urteil seiner Zeitgenossen”, in: Kumaniecki, C. F. (ed.), Acta conventus XI “Eirene” diebus XXI–XXV mensis Octobris anni MCMLXVIII habiti, Wrocław, 129–141. Bickel, E. (1915): Diatribe in Senecae philosophi fragmenta. Volumen I: Fragmenta de matrimonio, Leipzig. Biehl, W. (1989): Euripides: Troades, Heidelberg. Bietak, M. (1975): Tell el-Dab’a II. Der Fundort im Rahmen einer archäologisch-geographischen Untersuchung über das Ägyptische Ostdelta (= Untersuchungen der Zweigstelle Kairo des öster­ reichischen Archäologischen Institutes, vol. 1 / Denkschriften der Gesamtakademie, vol. 4), Wien. Birt, T. (1877): “Animadversiones ad Ovidi heroidum epistulas”, Rheinisches Museum 32, ­386–432. Birt, T. (1882): Das antike Buchwesen in seinem Verhältniss zur Litteratur, Berlin. Birt, T. (1913): Kritik und Hermeneutik nebst Abriss des antiken Buchwesens, München. Blättler, P. (1945): Studien zur Regulusgeschichte, Sarnen. Bleicken, J. (1975): Lex Publica: Gesetz und Recht in der römischen Republik, Berlin. Blümel, W. (1987): Die Inschriften von Mylasa. Teil I: Inschriften der Stadt, Bonn. Blum, K. L. (1828): Einleitung in Rom’s alte Geschichte, Berlin/Stettin. Boatwright, M. T. (1988): “Caesar’s second consulship and the completion and date of the Bellum Civile”, Classical Journal 84, 31–40. Boeckh, A. (1852/59): “Die Vorsehung, nicht der Zufall, regiert die Welt (Festrede gehalten auf der Universität zu Berlin am 15. October 1852)”, in: Ascherson, F. (ed.), August Boeckh’s gesam­melte kleine Schriften. Vol. 2: August Boeckh’s Reden gehalten auf der Universität und in der Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, Leipzig, 67–80. Böhme, H. (2011): “Krieg und Zufall. Die Transformation der Kriegskunst bei Carl von Clausewitz”, in: Böhme, H. and Formisano, M. (eds.), War in Words: Transformations of War from Antiquity to Clausewitz, Berlin/New York, 391–413. Bojkowitsch, A. (1924–1927): “Hirtius als Offizier und als Stilist”, Wiener Studien 44 (1924/1925), 178–188 and 45 (1926/1927), 71–81, 221–232. Bömer, F. (1957–1958): Die Fasten, 2 vols., Heidelberg. Bömer, F. (1966a): “Caesar und sein Glück”, Gymnasium 73, 63–85. Bömer, F. (1966b): “Der Eid beim Genius des Kaisers”, Athenaeum 44, 77–133. Borzsák, I. (1973): “Spectaculum: Ein Motiv der ‘tragischen Geschichtsschreibung’ bei Livius und Tacitus”, Acta Classica Universitatis Scientiarum Debreceniensis 9, 57–67. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

308

Bibliography

Bouvet, A. and Richard, J.-C. (1997): Pseudo-César. Guerre d’Afrique, Paris. Breccia, E. (1922): Alexandrea ad Aegyptum, Bergamo. Brink, C. O. (1960): “Tragic history and Aristotle’s school”, Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society 186, 14–19. Briscoe, J. (1973): A Commentary on Livy. Books XXXI–XXXIII, Oxford. Brown, V. (1972): The Textual Transmission of Caesar’s Civil War, Leiden. Bruns, I. (1896): Das literarische Porträt der Griechen im fünften und vierten Jahrhundert vor Christi Geburt, Berlin. Brunt, P. A. (1986): “Cicero’s officium in the Civil War”, Journal of Roman Studies 76, 12–32. Brutscher, C. (1958): “Cäsar und sein Glück”, Museum Helveticum 15, 75–83. Büchner, K. (1939): “M. Tullius Cicero (Briefe)”, RE 7.A.1, 1192–1235. Büchner, K. (1976): “Zur Synkrisis Cato – Caesar in Sallusts Catilina”, Grazer Beiträge 5, 37–57. Buffa, M. F. (1986): “Struttura e stile di BG VIII”, Studi e ricerche dell’Istituto di Civiltà Classica, Cristiana, Medievale (Genova) 7, 19–49. Burkert, W. (1979): Structure and History in Greek Mythology and Ritual, Berkeley/Los Angeles/London. Butterfield, D. J. (2008): “The poetic treatment of atque from Catullus to Juvenal”, Mnemosyne 61, 386–413. Calboli, G. (1996): “Die Episode des Tribunen Q. Caedicius (Cato, Orig. frg. 7–43 Peter)”, Maia 48, 1–32. Canali, L. (1963): Personalità e stile di Cesare, Roma. Canali, L. (1965): “Problemi della prefazione irziana”, Maia 17, 125–140. Canali, L. (1966): “Osservazioni sul Corpus cesariano”, Maia 18, 115–137. Candiloro, E. (1963): “Sulle Historiae di L. Cornelius Sisenna”, Studi Classici  e Orientali 12, ­212–226. Canfora, L. (1970): “Cesare continuato”, Belfagor 25, 419–429. Canfora, L. (1993): “La Lettera a Balbo e la formazione della raccolta cesariana”, Annali della Scuola Normale di Pisa 23, 79–103 (repr. in: Canfora, L. (ed.), Studi di Storia della Storio­ grafia Romana, Bari 1993, 39–62). Canfora, L. (1999): Giulio Cesare: Il dittatore democratico, Roma. Canfora, L. (2000): “Sulla formazione del Corpus Cesariano”, in: Cerri, G. (ed.), La letteratura pseudepigrafa nella cultura greca e romana: Atti di un incontro di studi, Napoli, 15–17 gennaio 1998, Napoli, 419–428. Canfora, L. (2006a): “Biographical obscurities and problems of composition”, in: Rengakos, A. and Tsakmakis, A. (eds.), Brill’s Companion to Thucydides, Leiden/Boston, 3–31. Canfora, L. (2006b): “Thucydides in Rome and Late Antiquity”, in: Rengakos, A. and Tsakmakis, A. (eds.), Brill’s Companion to Thucydides, Leiden/Boston, 721–753. Carcopino, J. (1950): Histoire Romaine. Tome II. Deuxième partie: César, 4th edn., Paris. Carter, J. M. (1991): Julius Caesar: The Civil War: Books I and II, Warminster. Casaubonus, I. (1605): C. Suetoni Tranquilli de XII Caesaribus libri VIII, Genève. Castiglioni, L. (1924): “Intorno a Caesare ed ai suoi continuatori”, Athenaeum 2, 229–240. Castiglioni, L. (1940): Review of Barwick (1938), in: Athenaeum 18, 65–69. Cellarius, C. (1705): C. Iulii Caesaris commentarii de Bello Gallico et Civili cum utriusque supplementis ab A. Hirtio vel Oppio adiectis, Leipzig. Champeaux, J. (1982–1987): Fortuna: Recherches sur le culte de la Fortune à Rome et dans le monde romain des origines à la mort de César, 2 vols., Roma. Chaniotis, A. (1997): “Theatricality beyond the theater: Staging public life in the Hellenistic world”, Pallas 47, 219–259. Chassignet, M. (1996–2004): L’ annalistique romaine, 3 vols., Paris. Chausserie-Laprée, J.-P. (1969): L’expression narrative chez les historiens latins. Histoire d’un style, Paris. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

Bibliography

309

Chrissanthos, S. G. (2004): “Freedom of speech and the Roman republican army”, in: Sluiter, I. and Rosen, R. M. (eds.), Free Speech in Classical Antiquity, Leiden/Boston, 341–367. Cipriani, G. (1986): Cesare e la retorica dell’assedio, Amsterdam. Clarke, S.  (1720): C. Julii Caesaris quae extant accuratissime cum libris editis et MSS optimis collata, recognita et correcta. Accesserunt annotationes Samuelis Clarke, London. Clausewitz, C. von (1810–12/1980): “Übersicht des Sr. Königl. Hoheit dem Kronprinzen in den Jahren 1810, 1811 und 1812 vom Verfasser erteilten militärischen Unterrichts”, in: Clausewitz, C. von, Vom Kriege, 19th edn., Bonn 1980, 1041–1095. Clausewitz, C. von (1832/1980): Vom Kriege, 19th edn., Bonn 1980 (originally published Berlin 1832). Cluett, R. (2003): “In Caesar’s wake: The ideology of the continuators”, in: Cairns, F. and Fantham, E. (eds.), Caesar Against Liberty? Perspectives on his Autocracy, Cambridge, 118–131. Cluett, R. (2009): “The continuators: Soldiering on”, in: Griffin, M. T. (ed.), A Companion to Julius Caesar, Chichester/Malden (MA), 192–205. Cobet, C. G. (1859): “Annotationes criticae ad Charitonem”, Mnemosyne 8, 229–303. Collins, J. H.  (1952): Propaganda, Ethics, and Psychological Assumptions in Caesar’s Writings, Frankfurt. Collins, J. H. (1959): “On the date and interpretation of the Bellum Civile”, American Journal of Philology 80, 113–132. Collins, J. H. (1972): “Caesar as political propagandist”, Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt 1.1, 922–966. Connor, W. R. (1984): Thucydides, Princeton (N. J.). Connor, W. R. (1985): “Narrative discourse in Thucydides”, in: Jameson, M. H. (ed.), The Greek Historians. Literature and History. Papers Presented to A. E. Raubitschek, Saratoga (CA), 1–17. Constans, L.-A. (1926): César: Guerre des Gaules, 2 vols., Paris. Constans, L.-A. (1933): Review of Pötter (1932), in: Revue des études latines 11, 257–259. Cornford, F. M. (1907): Thucydides Mythistoricus, London. Craig, J. D. (1931): “The general reflection in Caesar’s Commentaries”, Classical Review 45, 107–110. Cramer, F. H. (1945): “Bookburning and censorship in ancient Rome: A chapter from the history of freedom of speech”, Journal of the History of Ideas 6, 157–196. Crane, G. (1998): Thucydides and the Ancient Simplicity: The Limits of Political Realism, Berkeley/Los Angeles/London. Cuntz, O. (1929): Itineraria Romana, 2 vols., Leipzig. Curtius, E. R. (1948): Europäische Literatur und lateinisches Mittelalter, Bern. Dahms, W. (1906): Curae Hirtianae, Berlin. Daly, L. W. (1951): “Aulus Hirtius and the Corpus Caesarianum”, Classical Weekly 44, 113–117. Davidson, J. (1991): “The gaze in Polybios’ Histories”, Journal of Roman Studies 81, 10–24. Decker, J.-O. (2005): “Mediale Emotionen  — Emotionale Medien. Ideologisierte Bilder des Nationalsozialismus im NS-Film”, in: Aschmann, B. (ed.), Gefühl und Kalkül: Der Einfluss von Emotionen auf die Politik des 19. und 20. Jahrhunderts, Stuttgart, 48–73. Decorps-Foulquier, M. and Federspiel, M. (2008): Apollonios de Perge. Coniques. Tome 1.2: Livre I: Édition et traduction du texte grec, Berlin/New York. Delebecque, É. (1965): Thucydide et Alcibiade, Aix-en-Provence. Dennison, W. (1906): “Recent Caesar Literature”, Classical Journal 1, 131–145. Dernoscheck, O. (1903): De elegantia Caesaris sive de commentariorum de bello Gallico et de bello civili differentiis animadversiones, Leipzig. Devine, A. M. and Stephens, L. D. (2006): Latin Word Order: Structured Meaning and Information, Oxford/New York. Dillery, J. (2002): “Quintus Fabius Pictor and Greco-Roman historiography at Rome”, in: Damon, C., Miller, J. F., and Myers, K. S. (eds.), Vertis in usum: Studies in Honor of Edward Courtney, München, 1–23. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

310

Bibliography

Dillery, J. (2007): “Exile: the making of the Greek historian”, in: J. F. Gaertner (ed.), Writing Exile: the Discourse of Displacement in Greco-Roman Antiquity and Beyond, Leiden/Boston, 51–70. Dillery, J. (2011): “Hellenistic historiography”, in: Feldherr, A. and Hardy, G. (eds.), The Oxford History of Historical Writing, vol. 1: Beginnings to A. D. 600, 171–218. Dinter, B. (1864–76): C. Iuli Caesaris Commentarii cum A. Hirti aliorumque supplementis, 1st edn., 3 vols., Leipzig. Dinter, B. (1876): Quaestiones Caesarianae, Grimma. Dinter, B. (1887): C. Iuli Caesaris Commentarii cum A. Hirti aliorumque supplementis, 2nd edn., 3 vols., Leipzig. Diouron, N. (1999): Pseudo-César: Guerre d’Espagne, Paris. Dobesch, G. (2000): “Caesars monarchische Ideologie”, in: Urso, G. (ed.), L’ultimo Cesare. Scritti, riforme, progetti, poteri, congiure. Atti del convegno internazionale, Cividale del Friuli, 16–18 settembre 1999, Roma, 89–123. Doederlein, L. (1826–1839): Lateinische Synonyme und Etymologieen, 7 vols., Leipzig. Domaszewski, A. von (1894): “Die Heere der Bürgerkriege in den Jahren 49 bis 42 vor Christus”, Neue Heidelberger Jahrbücher 4, 157–188. d’Ooge, B. L. (1901): De particularum copulativarum apud Caesarem et Pseudo-Caesarianos scriptores usu, Bonn. Dörrie, H. (1971): P. Ovidii Nasonis Epistulae Heroidum, Berlin/New York. Douglas, A. E. (1966): M. Tulli Ciceronis Brutus, Oxford. Dover, K. J. (1981): “Thucydides’ historical judgement: Athens and Sicily”, Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy 81, 231–238 (repr. in: Dover, K. J. (ed.), The Greeks and their Legacy, vol. 2, Oxford 1988, 74–82). Dowling, M. B. (2006): Clemency and Cruelty in the Roman World, Ann Arbor. Drees, L. (1977/1978): “Cäsars Atuatuca: Das Problem der Lokalisierung  — Versuch einer Lösung”, Zeitschrift des Aachener Geschichtsvereins 84/85, 13–64. Drumann, W. (1834–1844): Geschichte Roms in seinem Übergange von der republikanischen zur monarchischen Verfassung, 6 vols., Königsberg. Drumann, W. and Groebe, P. (1899–1929): Geschichte Roms in seinem Übergange von der republi­kanischen zur monarchischen Verfassung, 2nd edn., 6 vols., Berlin. Du Pontet, R. (1900): C. Iuli Caesaris Commentariorum pars prior qua continentur libri VII de bello Gallico cum A. Hirti Supplemento, Oxford. Dübner, F. (1867): C. Julii Caesaris Commentarii de bellis Gallico et Civili, aliorum de bellis Alexandrino, Africano et Hispaniensi, 2 vols., Paris. Dunn, F. M. (2007): Present Shock in Late Fifth-Century Greece, Ann Arbor (MI). Ebert, C. (1909): Über die Entstehung von Caesars “Bellum Gallicum”, Nürnberg. Eden, P. T. (1962): “Caesar’s style: Inheritance versus intelligence”, Glotta 40, 74–117. Edmar, B. (1931): Studien zu den Epistulae ad Caesarem senem de re publica, Lund. Ehrenfried, G. (1888): Qua ratione Caesar in commentariis legatorum relationes adhibuerit, Würzburg. Eichert, O. (1883): Vollständiges Wörterbuch zu den Schriftwerken des Cajus Julius Cäsar und seiner Fortsetzer, 8th edn., Hannover. Elberling, C. G. (1828): Observationes criticae ad Caii Iulii Caesaris commentarios de bello civili, København. Erbse, H. (1989): Thukydides-Interpretationen, Berlin/New York. Ericsson, H. (1944): “Caesar und sein Glück”, Eranos 42, 57–69. Erkell, H. (1952): Augustus, felicitas, fortuna: Lateinische Wortstudien, Göteborg. Fabre, P. (1936): César: Guerre Civile, 2 vols., Paris. Faller, A. (1949) Sprachliche Interpretation zum Bellum Hispaniense, Freiburg. Fankhänel, H. (1938): Verb und Satz in der lateinischen Prosa bis Sallust: Eine Untersuchung über die Stellung des Verbs, Berlin. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

Bibliography

311

Fantham, E. (2004): The Roman World of Cicero’s De Oratore, Oxford. Fehrle, R. (1983): Cato Uticensis, Darmstadt. Finley, J. H. (1967): Three Essays on Thucydides, Cambridge (Mass.). Fischer, E. (1880): Das achte Buch vom Gallischen Kriege und das Bellum Alexandrinum: Eine Studie, Passau. Flach, D. (1973): Tacitus in der Tradition der antiken Geschichtsschreibung, Göttingen. Flach, D. (1998): Römische Geschichtsschreibung, 3rd edn., Darmstadt. Fleischer, C. (1879): “Zu Caesar und seinen Fortsetzern”, Jahrbücher für classische Philologie 25, 849–867. Flurl, W. (1969): Deditio in fidem: Untersuchungen zu Livius und Polybios, München. Fohl, H. (1913): Tragische Kunst bei Herodot, Rostock/Leipzig. Forchhammer, J. N. G. (1852): Quaestiones criticae de vera commentarios de bellis civili, Alexandrino, Africano, Hispaniensi emendandi ratione, København. Forsythe, G. (1994): The Historian L. Calpurnius Piso Frugi and the Roman Annalistic Tradition, Lanham (MD). Fowler, D. P. (1989): “First thoughts on closure: Problems and prospects”, Materiali e Discussioni 22, 75–122. Fowler, P. (1997): “Lucretian conclusions”, in: Roberts, D. H., Dunn, F. M., and Fowler, D. P. (eds.), Classical Closure. Reading the End in Greek and Latin Literature, Princeton (N. J.), 112–138. Fowler, W. W. (1903): “Caesar’s conception of fortuna”, Classical Review 17, 153–156. Fraenkel, E. (1931): “Das Reifen der horazischen Satire”, in: Fraenkel, E. and Fränkel, H. (eds.), Festschrift Richard Reitzenstein: zum 2. April 1931 dargebracht, Leipzig/Berlin, 119–136. Fraenkel, E. (1933): “Kolon und Satz: Beobachtungen zur Gliederung des antiken Satzes II”, Nach­richten der Göttinger Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften. Phil.-hist. Klasse, 319–354. Fraenkel, E. (1949): Review of E. K. Rand et al., Servianorum in Vergilii Carmina Commenta­ riorum editionis Harvadianae volumen II quod in Aeneidos libros I et II explanationes continet, Lancaster (PA) 1946, in: Journal of Roman Studies 39, 145–154. Fraenkel, E. (1956): “Eine Form römischer Kriegsbulletins”, Eranos 54, 189–194. Fraenkel, E. (1964): Kleine Beiträge zur Klassischen Philologie, 2 vols., Roma. Fraenkel, E. (1968): Leseproben aus Reden Ciceros und Catos, Roma. Fränkel, H.  (1933): “Über philologische Interpretation am Beispiel von Caesars Gallischem Krieg”, Neue Jahrbücher für Wissenschaft und Volksbildung 9, 26–41 (repr. in Fränkel, H. (ed.), Wege und Formen frühgriechischen Denkens. Literarische und philosophiegeschichtliche Studien, 3rd edn., München 1968, 294–312). Fraser, P. M. (1972): Ptolemaic Alexandria, 3 vols., Oxford. Frese, R. (1900): Beiträge zur Beurteilung der Sprache Caesars, München. Frier, B. W. (1979): Libri Annales Pontificum Maximorum: The Origins of the Annalistic Tradition, Roma. Frigell, A. (1861): C. Iulii Caesaris de bello Gallico libri septem cum libro octavo A. Hirtii, Uppsala. Fritz, K. von (1956): “Die Bedeutung des Aristoteles für die Geschichtsschreibung”, in: Durry, M. et al. (eds.), Histoire et historiens dans l’antiquité, Vandoeuvres/Genève, 85–145. Fröhlich, F. (1887): “Realistisches und Stilistisches zu Cäsar und dessen Fortsetzern”, in: Festschrift des Philologischen Kränzchens in Zürich zu der in Zürich im Herbst 1887 tagenden XXXIX. Versammlung deutscher Philologen und Schulmänner, Zürich, 1–55. Fröhlich, F. (1891): Das Kriegswesen Cäsars, Zürich. Fröhlich, F. (1903): Die Glaubwürdigkeit Caesars in seinem Bericht über den Feldzug gegen die Helvetier, 58 v. Chr., Aarau. Fuchs, H. (1944): Commentarii Belli Gallici cum A. Hirtii supplemento, Frauenfeld. Gabba, E. (1967): “Considerazioni sulla tradizione letteraria sulle origini della Repubblica”, in: Gjerstad, E. et al. (eds.), Les origines de la république romaine, Vandoeuvres/Genève, 135–174. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

312

Bibliography

Gaebel, R. E. (2002): Cavalry Operations in the Ancient Greek World, Norman (OK). Gaertner, J. F. (2005): Ovid. Epistulae ex Ponto. Book 1, Oxford. Gaertner, J. F. (2010): “The style of the Bellum Hispaniense and the evolution of Roman historiography”, in: Dickey, E. and Chahoud, A. (eds.), Colloquial and Literary Latin, Cambridge/ New York, 243–254. Gambetti, S.  (2009): The Alexandrian Riots of 38 C. E. and the Persecution of the Jews: A Historical Reconstruction, Leiden/Boston. Gärtner, H. A. (1975): Beobachtungen zu Bauelementen in der antiken Historiographie, besonders bei Livius und Caesar, Wiesbaden. Gärtner, T. (2010): “Eine übersehene Thukydides-Reminiszenz im Liebesroman des Achilles Tatius”, Wiener Studien 123, 95–100. Gascou, J. (1984): Suétone historien, Roma. Gelzer, M. (1933): “Römische Politik bei Fabius Pictor”, Hermes 68, 129–166. Gelzer, M. (1960): Caesar: Der Politiker und Staatsmann, 6th edn., Wiesbaden. Gemoll, W. (1879): “Zu Caesar und seinen Fortsetzern”, Jahrbücher für klassische Philologie 119, 267–270. Genette, G. (1972): Figures III, Paris. Genette, G. (1980): Narrative Discourse: An Essay in Method, Ithaca (N. Y.). Gentili, B. and Cerri, G. (1988): History and Biography in Ancient Thought, Amsterdam. Giomini, R. (1956): Bellum Alexandrinum, Roma (repr. Roma 1965). Giunta, F. de (1514): Commentaria Caesaris, Firenze. Glandorp, J. (1574): Annotationes doctiss. in C. Iulii Caes. et Hircii vel Oppii de bello Gallico, civili, Alexandrino, Africano et Hispaniensi Commentariorum ac Derelictorum libros, Leipzig. Goar, R. J. (1987): The Legend of Cato Uticensis from the First Century B. C. to the Fifth Century A. D., Bruxelles. Godvinus, J. (1731): C. Julii Caesaris quae exstant, interpretatione et notis illustravit Joannes Godvinus professor regius, 4th edn., London. Goerlitz, J. (1827): Emendationes Iulianae: Particula prima, Wittenberg. Goldsworthy, A. K. (1996): The Roman Army at War: 100 B. C.–A. D. 200, Oxford/New York. Gomme, A. W., Andrewes, A., Dover, K. J. (1970): A Historical Commentary on Thucydides. Volume IV. Books V 25–VII, Oxford. Gotter, U. (1996): Der Diktator ist tot! Politik in Rom zwischen den Iden des März und der Begrün­dung des Zweiten Triumvirats, Stuttgart. Graindor, P. (1931): La Guerre d’Alexandrie, Cairo. Gray, V. (2011): “Thucydides’ source citations: ‘It is said’”, Classical Quarterly 61, 75–90. Greenwood, E. (2006): Thucydides and the Shaping of History, London. Grethlein, J. (2006): “The Unthucydidean voice of Sallust”, Transactions of the American Philological Association 136, 299–327. Grethlein, J. (2010a): “Experientiality and ‘narrative reference’. With thanks to Thucydides”, History and Theory 49, 315–335. Grethlein, J. (2010b): The Greeks and Their Past: Poetry, Oratory and History in the Fifth Century BCE, Cambridge. Griffin, M. T. (2003): “Clementia after Caesar: from politics to philosophy”, in: Cairns, F. and Fantham, E. (eds.), Caesar Against Liberty? Perspectives on His Autocracy, Cambridge, ­157–182. Grillo, L. (2011): “Scribam ipse de me: The personality of the narrator in Caesar’s Bellum Civile”, American Journal of Philology 132, 243–271. Grillo, L. (2012): The Art of Caesar’s Bellum Civile: Literature, Ideology, and Community, Cambridge. Groebe, P. (1917): “Iulius 131)”, RE 10.1, 186–259. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

Bibliography

313

Grohs, H. (1884): Der Wert des Geschichtswerkes des Cassius Dio als Quelle für die Geschichte der Jahre 49–44 v. Chr., Züllichau. Gurlitt, L. (1901): “Die Entstehung der ciceronischen Briefsammlungen”, Neue Jahrbücher für das klassische Altertum, Geschichte und Deutsche Litteratur und für Pädagogik 7 (4), 532–558. Häfner, S. (1928): Die literarischen Pläne Ciceros, Coburg. Hall, J. (1998): “Cicero to Lucceius (Fam. 5.12) in its social context: Valde bella?”, Classical ­Philology 93, 308–321. Hall, L. G. H. (1996): “Hirtius and the Bellum Alexandrinum”, Classical Quarterly 46, 411–415. Hall, L. G. H. (1998): “Ratio and Romanitas in the Bellum Gallicum”, in: Welch, K. E., and ­Powell, A. (eds.), Julius Caesar as Artful Reporter. The War Commentaries as Political Instruments, London/Swansea, 11–43. Harder, R. (1926): “Ocellus Lucanus”: Text und Kommentar, Berlin. Hardie, P. (1997): “Closure in Latin epic”, in: Roberts, D. H., Dunn, F. M., and Fowler, D. P. (eds.), Classical Closure. Reading the End in Greek and Latin Literature, Princeton, 139–162. Harkness, A. G. (1910): “The final monosyllable in Latin prose and poetry”, American Journal of Philology 31, 154–174. Harrison, S. J. (2007): “From man to book: The close of Tacitus’ Agricola”, in: Heyworth, S. J., Fowler, P. G., and Harrison, S. J. (eds.), Classical Constructions. Papers in Memory of Don Fowler, Classicist and Epicurean, Oxford/New York, 310–319. Hartel, W. von (1891): “Die Cäsarausgabe des Hirtius”, in: Commentationes Woelfflinianae, Leipzig, 113–123. Haupt, H. (1884): “Dio Cassius. Jahresbericht. (Fortsetzung)”, Philologus 43, 678–701. Hausmann, M. (2009): Die Leserlenkung durch Tacitus in den Tiberius- und Claudiusbüchern der Annalen, Berlin/New York. Havet, L. (1906): “Hirtius, bell. Gall. 8,4,1.”, Revue de philologie 30, 104. Heiberg, I. L. (1891–1893): Apollonii Pergaei quae Graece exstant cum commentariis antiquis, 2 vols., Leipzig. Heidtmann, G. (1867): Haben wir ausreichende Garantien für die Aechtheit der dem C. Julius Cäsar zugeschriebenen Bücher De Bello Civili?, Essen. Heimbach, W. (1878): Quaeritur quid et quantum Cassius Dio in historia conscribenda inde a l. XL. usque ad l. XLVII. e Livio desumpserit, Bonn. Heinen, H. (1966): Rom und Ägypten von 51 bis 47 v. Chr.: Untersuchungen zur Regierungszeit der 7. Kleopatra und des 13. Ptolemäers, Tübingen. Heinen, H. (1994): “Mithradates von Pergamon und Caesars bosporanische Pläne: Zur Interpretation von Bellum Alexandrinum 78”, in: Günther, R. and Rebenich, S.  (eds.), E fontibus haurire: Beiträge zur römischen Geschichte und zu ihren Hilfswissenschaften, Paderborn et al., 63–79. Heinen, H. (2009): “Rom und Ägypten von 51 bis 47 v. Chr.: Untersuchungen zur Regierungs­ zeit der 7.  Kleopatra und des 13.  Ptolemäers”, in: Heinen, H.  (ed.), Kleopatra-Studien: Gesam­melte Schriften zur ausgehenden Ptolemäerzeit, Konstanz, 13–153. Held, J. C. (1832): Caii Julii Caesaris Commentarii de Bello Gallico, 2nd edn., Sulzbach. Held, J. C. (1839): Caii Julii Caesaris Commentarii de Bello Gallico, 3rd edn., Sulzbach. Hellegouarc’h, J. (1972): Le vocabulaire latin des relations et des partis politiques sous la ­république, 2nd edn., Paris. Hellwig, P. (1889): Über den Pleonasmus bei Cäsar, Berlin. Hemmerdinger, B. (1948): “La division en livres de l’oeuvre de Thucydide”, Revue des études grecques 61, 104–117. Hemmerdinger, B. (1955): Essai sur l’histoire du texte de Thucydide, Paris. Hemmerdinger, B. (1963): “Les livres ternaires des Alexandrins”, Scriptorium 17, 314. Henderson, J. (1996): “XPDNC / Writing Caesar (Bellum Civile)”, Classical Antiquity 15, ­261–288. Hering, W. (1963): Die Recensio der Caesarhandschriften, Berlin. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

314

Bibliography

Hering, W. (1987): C. Iulii Caesaris Commentarii rerum gestarum. Vol. I: Bellum Gallicum, Leipzig. Herrmann, W. (1979): Die Historien des Coelius Antipater: Fragmente und Kommentar, Meisen­ heim. Herter, H. (1976): “Thukydides und Demokrit über Tyche”, Wiener Studien 10, 106–128. Heusch, H. (1954): Das Archaische in der Sprache Catulls, Bonn. Higbie, C. (2010): “Divide and edit. A brief history of book divisions”, Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 105, 1–31. Hill, P. V. (1975): “Coin-symbolism and propaganda during the wars of vengeance (44–36 B. C.)”, Numismatica e antichità classiche 4, 157–207. Hill, P. V. (1980): “Buildings and monuments of ancient Rome on Republican coins, c. 135–40 BC”, Rivista Italiana di numismatica e scienze affini 82, 33–52. Hine, H. M. (2005): “Poetic influence on prose: The case of the younger Seneca”, in: Adams, J. N., Lapidge, M., and Reinhardt, T. (eds.), Aspects of the Language of Latin Prose, Oxford/ New York, 211–237. Hirschfeld, O. (1889): “Zu römischen Schriftstellern”, Hermes 24, 101–107. Hoffmann, E. (1857): C. Iulii Caesaris commentarii cum supplementis A. Hirtii et aliorum, 2 vols., Wien. Hoffmann, E. (1890): C. Iulii Caesaris commentarii cum supplementis A. Hirtii et aliorum, 2nd edn., 2 vols., Wien. Hoffmann, W. (1942): Livius und der zweite Punische Krieg, Berlin. Holder, A. (1882): C. Iuli Caesaris belli Gallici libri VII, accessit A. Hirti liber octavus, Freiburg/ Tübingen. Holder, A. (1898): C. Iuli Caesaris Belli Civilis libri III, Leipzig. Holtz, L. (1913): C. Iulius Caesar quo usus sit in orationibus dicendi genere, Jena. Holzberg N. (1987): “Die ethnographischen Exkurse in Caesars Bellum Gallicum als erzählstrategisches Mittel”, Anregung 33, 85–98. Hornblower, S. (1982): Mausolus, Oxford. Hornblower, S. (1991–2008): A Commentary on Thucydides, 3 vols., Oxford. Hornblower, S. (1992): “The religious dimension to the Peloponnesian War or What Thucyd­ ides does not tell us”, Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 94, 169–197. Hornblower, S. (1994a): “Introduction”, in: Hornblower, S. (ed.), Greek Historiography, Oxford, 1–72. Hornblower, S. (1994b): “Narratology and narrative techniques in Thucydides”, in: Hornblower, S. (ed.), Greek Historiography, Oxford, 131–166. Hornblower, S. (2004): Thucydides and Pindar: Historical Narrative and the World of Epinikian Poetry, Oxford/New York. Hosius, C. (1927): Geschichte der römischen Literatur: Erster Teil: Die römische Literatur in der Zeit der Republik, 4th edn., München. Hubbell, H. H. (1902): “Studies in the vocabulary of Caesar’s Gallic War”, Teachers College Record 3, 133–167. Hunter, V. J. (1982): Past and Process in Herodotus and Thucydides, Princeton (N. J.). Hutchinson, G. O. (1995): “Rhythm, style, and meaning in Cicero’s prose”, Classical Quarterly 45, 485–499. Hutchinson, G. O. (1998): Cicero’s Correspondence: A Literary Study, Oxford. Icart, J. and Dolç, M. (1987): [G. Juli Cèsar] Guerra d’Alexandria, Barcelona. Ihm, G. (1891–93): “Die stilistische Eigenart des VII. Buches von Caesars Bellum Gallicum”, Philologus Supplement 6, 767–777. Ihm, M. (1907): C. Suetoni Tranquilli Opera. Vol. I: De Vita Caesarum libri VIII, Leipzig. Ihm, M. (1908): C. Suetoni Tranquilli Opera. Vol. I: De Vita Caesarum libri VIII, editio minor, Leipzig. Jahn, O. and Kroll, W. (1908): Cicero: Brutus, 5th edn., Berlin (revised by B. Kytzler, Zürich/­ Berlin 1964). © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

Bibliography

315

Jal, P. (1963): “Hostis (publicus) dans la littérature latine de la fin de la République”, Revue des études anciennes 65, 53–79. Janson, T. (1964): Latin Prose Prefaces. Studies in Literary Conventions, Stockholm. Jehne, M. (2000): “Caesar und die Krise von 47 v. Chr.”, in: Urso, G. (ed.), L’ultimo Cesare. Scritti, ri­forme, progetti, poteri, congiure. Atti del convegno internazionale, Cividale del Friuli, 16–18 settembre 1999, Roma, 151–173. Johannsen, N. (2006): Dichter über ihre Gedichte: Die Prosavorreden in den “Epigrammaton libri” Martials und in den “Silvae” des Statius, Göttingen. Jong, I. J. F. de (1987): Narrators and Focalizers: The Presentation of the Story in the Iliad, Amsterdam (repr. London 2004). Jordan, B. (2000): “The Sicilian expedition was a Potemkin fleet”, Classical Quarterly 50, 63–79. Jordan, H. (1860): M. Catonis praeter librum De Re Rustica quae exstant, Leipzig (repr. Stuttgart 1967). Judeich, W. (1885): Caesar im Orient. Kritische Übersicht der Ereignisse vom 9.  August bis ­October 47, Leipzig. Jung, H. (1900): Caesar in Aegypten (48/47 v. Chr.): Historisch-kritische Untersuchung, Mainz. Jungermann, G. (1606): C. Iulii Caesaris quae exstant, Frankfurt. Kalinka, E. (1894): Review of Lange (1893), in: Zeitschrift für die österreichischen Gymnasien 45, 20–22. Kalinka, E. (1910): “Zu Cäsars Schriften”, Philologus 69, 479–488. Kalinka, E. (1912): “Die Herausgabe des Bellum Civile”, Wiener Studien 34, 203–207. Kalinka, E. (1928): Review of A. Klotz, C. I. Caesaris commentarii, vol. I², II, III, Leipzig, 1926/27, in: Philologische Wochenschrift 48, 660–4, 1059. Kalinka, E. (1929): “Cäsars und seiner Fortsetzer Schriften”, Jahresbericht über die Fortschritte der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft 224, 1–256. Kalinka, E. (1939): “Cäsar und die Fortsetzer seiner Werke”, Jahresbericht über die Fortschritte der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft 264, 169–256. Kallet, L. (2001): Money and the Corrosion of Power in Thucydides: The Sicilian Expedition and its Aftermath, Berkeley (CA). Kannicht, R. (2004): Tragicorum Graecorum fragmenta. Vol. 5: Euripides, Göttingen. Kebric, R. B. (1977): In the Shadow of Macedon: Duris of Samos, Wiesbaden. Kees, H. (1949): “Paraitonion”, RE 18.3, 1182–1184. Kelsey, F. W. (1905): “The title of Caesar’s work on the Gallic and Civil Wars”, Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association 36, 211–238. Kelsey, F. W. (1906): “The cues of Caesar”, Classical Journal 2, 49–58. Kelsey, F. W. (1907): “Hirtius’ letter to Balbus and the Commentaries of Caesar”, Classical Philology 2, 92–93. Kenawi, M. (2011a): “Beheira Survey—Rapporto Preliminare Sulle Missioni 2008–2010”, in Pirelli, R. (ed.): Ricerche Italiane e Scavi in Egitto 5, 187–200. Kenawi, M. (2011b): Archeological Survey in the Western Nile Delta: Rural and Urban Settlements in Beheira Province (Egypt), Ph.D.-thesis, Siena. Kennedy, G. A. (1954): Prolegomena and Commentary to Quintilian VIII (Pr. and 1–3), Ph.D.thesis, Harvard University. Kennedy, E. (1998): “Hostis not inimicus. Toward  a theory of the public in the work of Carl Schmitt”, in: Dyzenhaus, D. (ed.), Law As Politics: Carl Schmitt’s Critique of Liberalism, Durham (NC), 92–108. Kenney, E. J. (1982): “Books and readers in the Roman world”, in: Kenney, E. J. (ed.), The Cambridge History of Classical Literature. Vol. 2: Latin Literature, Cambridge, 3–32. Kerschensteiner, J. (1986): “Cicero und Hirtius”, in: Kalcyk, H., Gullath, B., and Graeber, A. (eds.), Studien zur Alten Ge­schichte. Siegfried Lauffer zum 70. Geburtstag am 4. August 1981 dargebracht von Freunden, Kollegen und Schülern, vol. 2, Roma, 559–575. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

316

Bibliography

Kieckers, E. (1911): Die Stellung des Verbs im Griechischen und in den verwandten Sprachen, Straßburg. Kierdorf, W. (1978): “Ciceros Cato. Überlegungen zu einer verlorenen Schrift Ciceros”, Rhei­ nisches Museum 121, 167–184. Kierdorf, W. (1980): “Catos Origines und die Anfänge der römischen Geschichtsschreibung”, Chiron 10, 205–224. Kierdorf, W. (2002): “Anfänge und Grundlagen der römischen Geschichtsschreibung”, Klio 84, 400–413. Kierdorf, W. (2003): Römische Geschichtsschreibung der republikanischen Zeit, Heidelberg. Kindscher, F. (1860): Emendationes Caesarianae, Zerbst. Kitto, H. D. F. (1966): Poiesis: Structure and Thought, Berkeley/Los Angeles. Klotz, A. (1909): “Die Schlacht von Munda”, Neue Jahrbücher für das Klassische Altertum, Ge­ schichte und Deutsche Literatur und für Pädagogik 23 (12), 560–573. Klotz, A. (1910): Cäsarstudien: nebst einer Analyse der Strabonischen Beschreibung von Gallien und Britannien, Leipzig/Berlin. Klotz, A. (1911): “Zu Caesars Bellum Civile”, Rheinisches Museum 66, 81–93. Klotz, A. (1927): Kommentar zum Bellum Hispaniense, Leipzig. Klotz, A. (1926–1927): C. Iuli Caesaris commentarii, 3 vols., 1st edn. of vols. 2–3, 2nd edn. of vol. 1, Leipzig. Klotz, A. (1928): “Zu Caes. bell. Gall. VII 75”, Philologus 83, 390–399. Klotz, A. (1933): Review of Pötter (1932), in: Philologische Wochenschrift 53, 1139–1148. Klotz, A. (1950): C. Iuli Caesaris commentarii. Vol. II: Bellum Civile, 2nd edn., Leipzig. Klotz, A. (1952): Commentarii Belli Gallici, 4th edn., Leipzig. Knoche, U. (1951): “Caesars Commentarii, ihr Gegenstand und ihre Absicht”, Gymnasium 58, 139–160. Knoche, U. (1954): Review of Barwick (1951), in: Gymnasium 61, 377–380. Köhler, A. (1889): Review of Landgraf (1888a), in: Blätter für das Bayerische Gymnasialschul­ wesen 25, 516–528. Kolb, A. (2000): Transport und Nachrichtentransfer im Römischen Reich, Berlin. Konstan, D. (2005): “Clemency as a virtue”, Classical Philology 100, 337–346. Kornemann, E. (1904): “Thukydides und die römische Historiographie”, Philologus 63, ­148–153. Kraffert, H. (1865): “Zu Cäsars Bellum Civile”, Neue Jahrbücher für Philologie und Paedagogik 35 (91), 499–503. Kraffert, H. (1883): Beiträge zur Kritik und Erklärung lateinischer Autoren, Aurich. Kraner, F. (1855): C. Iulii Caesaris commentarii De Bello Gallico erklärt von F. Kraner, 2nd edn., Berlin. Kraner, F. (1861): C. Iulii Caesaris commentarii cum supplementis A. Hirtii et aliorum, Leipzig. Kraner, F. and Hofmann, F. (1864): C. Iulii Caesaris commentarii De Bello Civili, 3rd edn., Berlin. Kraner, F. and Hofmann, F. (1868): C. Iulii Caesaris commentarii De Bello Civili, 4th edn., Berlin. Kraner, F., Hofmann, F., and Meusel, H. (1906): C. Iulii Caesaris commentarii De Bello Civili, 11th edn., Berlin (repr. Berlin 1959, with additions and corrections by H. Oppermann). Kraner, F., Dittenberger, W., and Meusel, H. (1913–20): C. Iulii Caesaris commentarii De Bello Gallico, 17th edn., 3 vols., Berlin (repr. Berlin 1960, with additions and corrections by H. Oppermann). Kraus, C. S. (1994): Livy. Ab Urbe Condita. Book VI, Cambridge. Kraus, C. S. (2007): “Caesar’s account of the battle of Massilia (BC 1.34–2.22): Some historiographical and narratological approaches”, in: Marincola, J. (ed.), A Companion to Greek and Roman Historiography, vol. 2, Oxford, 371–378. Kraus, C. S. (2009): “Bellum Gallicum”, in: Griffin, M. T. (ed.), A Companion to Julius Caesar, Chichester/Malden (MA), 159–174. Kraus, W. (1942): “Ovidius Naso”, RE 18.2, 1910–1986. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

Bibliography

317

Krebs, C. B. (2013): “Caesar, Lucretius and the dates of De Rerum Natura and the Commentarii”, Classical Quarterly [forthcoming]. Kremer, B. (1994): Das Bild der Kelten bis in augusteische Zeit: Studien zur Instrumentalisierung eines antiken Feindbildes bei griechischen und römischen Autoren, Stuttgart. Kromayer, J. and Veith G. (1928): Heerwesen und Kriegführung der Griechen und Römer, München. Kroll, W. (1918): “Anfangsstellung des Verbums im Lateinischen”, Glotta 9, 112–123. Kroll, W. (1924): Studien zum Verständnis der römischen Literatur, Stuttgart. Kroll, W. (1925): Die wissenschaftliche Syntax im lateinischen Unterricht, 3rd edn., Berlin. Kroll, W. (1927): “Die Sprache des Sallust”, Glotta 15, 280–305. Kroll, W. (1928): “Literaturbericht für das Jahr 1925: Lateinisch”, Glotta 16, 198–212. Kruschwitz, P. (2004): Römische Inschriften und Wackernagels Gesetz: Untersuchungen zur Syntax epigraphischer Texte aus republikanischer Zeit, Heidelberg. Kübler, B. (1893–1897): C. Iulii Caesaris Commentarii, 3 vols., Leipzig. Kumaniecki, K. (1970): “Ciceros Cato”, in: Wimmel, W. (ed.), Forschungen zur römischen Literatur: Festschrift zum 60. Geburtstag von K. Büchner, Wiesbaden, 168–188. Kunst, K. (1919): “Unvollendete Entwürfe”, Wiener Studien 41, 97–101. Kurczyk, S. (2006): Cicero und die Inszenierung der eigenen Vergangenheit. Autobiographisches Schreiben in der späten Römischen Republik, Köln. La Penna, A. (1952): “Tendenze e arte del Bellum Civile di Cesare”, Maia 5, 191–233. Ladouceur, D. J. (1981): “The death of Herod the Great”, Classical Philology 76, 25–34. Laistner, M. L. W. (1947): The Greater Roman Historians, Berkeley/Los Angeles/London. Landgraf, G. (1888a): Untersuchungen zu Caesar und seinen Fortsetzern, insbesondere über Autorschaft und Komposition des Bellum Alexandrinum und Africanum, Erlangen. Landgraf, G. (1888b): “Substantivische Parataxen”, Archiv für lateinische Lexikographie 5.2, ­161–191. Landgraf, G. (1889): Der Bericht des C. Asinius Pollio über die spanischen Unruhen des Jahres 48 v. Chr. (Bellum Alexandrinum 48–64) auf Grund des codex Asburnhamensis, Erlangen/ Leipzig. Landgraf, G. (1891a): “Das Bellum Alexandrinum und der codex Ashburnhamensis”, in: Programm des Kgl. Wilhelmsgymnasiums in München für das Studienjahr 1890/91, München, 1–23. Landgraf, G. (1891b): “Zum Bellum Alexandrinum”, in: Commentationes Woelfflinianae, Leip­ zig, 15–21. Lange, E. (1893): Thukydides und sein Geschichtswerk, Gütersloh. Langslow, D. R. (2007): “The epistula in ancient scientific and technical literature, with special reference to medicine”, in: Morello, R. and Morrison, A. D. (eds.), Ancient Letters. Classical and Late Antique Epistolography, Oxford/New York, 211–234. Larsen, S. C. (1887): “Studia in libellum incerti auctoris de bello Alexandrino”, in: Opuscula Phi­ lo­logica: Mindre Afhandlinger, København, 9–38. Last, H. (1948): “Sallust and Caesar in the Bellum Catilinae”, in: Mélanges de philologie, de littérature et d’histoire anciennes offerts à J. Marouzeau, Paris, 355–369. Latte, K. (1935): Sallust, Leipzig/Berlin. Lebreton, J. (1901): Caesariana syntaxis quatenus a Ciceroniana differat, Paris. Legrand, P. E. (1932): Hérodote. Introduction: Notice préliminaire sur la vie et la personnalité d’Hérodote et sur la présente édition, Paris. Lehmann, W. (1951): Die Methode der Propaganda in Caesars Schriften, Marburg. Lehnen, J. (1997): Adventus Principis. Untersuchungen zu Sinngehalt und Zeremoniell der Kaiserankunft in den Städten des Imperium Romanum, Frankfurt et al. Leidig, T. (1998): “C. Carrinas C. f.: Überlegungen zu zwei Bronzemünzen der Treverer”, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 122, 211–218. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

318

Bibliography

Leigh, M. (1997): Lucan: Spectacle and Engagement, Oxford. Lejay, P. (1914): Review of T. Rice Holmes, C. Iuli Caesaris commentarii rerum in Gallia gestarum VII, A. Hirti commentarius VIII, Oxford 1914, in: Revue des études anciennes 16, 466–469. Lendon, J. E. (1999): “The rhetoric of combat: Greek military theory and Roman culture in Julius Caesar’s battle descriptions”, Classical Antiquity 18, 273–329. Leumann, M. (1977): Lateinische Laut- und Formenlehre, München. Lieberg, G. (1998): Caesars Politik in Gallien: Interpretationen zum Bellum Gallicum, Bochum. Linde, P. (1923): “Die Stellung des Verbs in der lateinischen Prosa”, Glotta 12, 153–178. Lipsius, J. (1586): C. Iulii Caesaris Commentarii de bello Gallico et civili. Eiusdem librorum, qui desiderantur, fragmenta, Antwerpen. Lipsius, J. (1596): Poliorceticωn [sic!] sive de machinis tormentis telis libri quinque, Antwerpen. Lipsius, J. (1620): C. Iulii Caesaris omnia quae exstant opera et iudicio CL. V. Iustii Lipsii emendata et edita, Douai. Llasat, M.-C., Barriendos, M., Barrera, A. and Rigo, T. (2005): “Floods in Catalonia (NE Spain) since the 14th century. Climatological and meteorological aspects from historical documentary sources and old instrumental records”, Journal of Hydrology 313, 32–47. Lloyd-Jones, H. (1971): The Justice of Zeus, Berkeley (CA). Löfstedt, E. (1928–1933): Syntactica: Studien und Beiträge zur historischen Syntax des Lateins, 1st edn., 2 vols., Lund. Löfstedt, E. (1942): Syntactica: Studien und Beiträge zur historischen Syntax des Lateins. ­Erster Teil. Über einige Grundfragen der lateinischen Nominalsyntax. Zweite, erweiterte Auflage, Lund. Lossmann, F. (1957): “Zur literarischen Kritik Suetons in den Kapiteln 55 und 56 der Caesarvita”, Hermes 85, 47–58. Lott, J. B. (2004): The Neighborhoods of Augustan Rome, Cambridge/New York. Louis, N. (2010): Commentaire historique et traduction du Divus Augustus de Suétone, Bruxelles. Loyen, A. (1960–1970): Sidoine Apollinaire, 3 vols., Paris. Luginbill, R. D. (2000): “Chariton’s use of Thucydides’ History in introducing the Egyptian revolt (Chaireas and Callirhoe 6.8)”, Mnemosyne 53, 1–11. Luginbill, R. D. (2002): “A delightful possession: Longus’ prologue and Thucydides”, Classical Journal 97, 233–247. MacCormack, S. G. (1972): “Change and continuity in Late Antiquity: the ceremony of adventus”, Historia 21, 721–752. MacCormack, S. G. (1981): Art and Ceremony in Late Antiquity, Berkeley/Los Angeles/London. Macfarlane, R. T. (1994): Review of Carter (1991), in: Bryn Mawr Classical Review 94.02.12. Macfarlane, R. T. (1996): “Ab inimicis incitatus: On dating the composition of Caesar’s Bellum Civile”, Syllecta Classica 7, 107–132. MacMullen, R. (1963): “The Roman concept robber-pretender”, Revue internationale des Droits de l’Antiquité 10, 221–225. Macurdy, G. H.  (1932): Hellenistic Queens: A Study of Woman-Power in Macedonia, Seleucid Syria, and Ptolemaic Egypt, Baltimore (MD). Madvig, I. N. (1873): Adversaria critica ad scriptores Graecos et Latinos. Vol. II: Emendationes Latinae, København. Mahmoud-Bey (1872): Mémoire sur l’antique Alexandrie, ses faubourgs et environs découverts, par les fouilles, sondages, nivellements et autres recherches, København. Maittaire, M. (1716): C. Julii Caesaris et A. Hirtii De rebus a C. Julio Caesare gestis Commen­tarii cum C. Jul. Caesar. fragmentis, London. Manganaro, G. (1976): “Una biblioteca storica nel ginnasio a Tauromenion nel II sec. a. C.”, in: Alföldi, A. (ed.), Römische Frühgeschichte: Kritik und Forschung seit 1964, Heidelberg. 83–96. Mantovanelli, P. (2000): “Cesare e la fortuna”, in: Urso, G. (ed.), L’ultimo Cesare. Scritti, ri­forme, progetti, poteri, congiure. Atti del convegno internazionale, Cividale del Friuli, 16–18 settembre 1999, Roma, 211–230. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

Bibliography

319

Manutius, A. P. (1513): Hoc volumine continentur haec: Commentariorum de Bello Gallico libri VIII. De Bello Civili Pompeiano Libri IIII [sic!] etc., Venezia. Manutius, A. (1575): C. Iulii Caesaris commentarii emendati et scholiis illustrati, Venezia. Manutius, P. (1569): C. Iulii Caesaris Commentariorum De bello Gallico, libri VIII. Civili Pompeiano, lib. III. Alexandrino, lib. I. Africano, lib. I. Hispaniensi, lib. I, Venezia. Marasco, G. (1995): “Appiano e il proconsolato di P. Vatinio in Illiria (45–43 a.C.)”, Chiron 25, 283–297. Marincola, J. (1997): Authority and Tradition in Ancient Historiography, Oxford. Marouzeau, J. (1922–1953): L’ordre des mots dans la phrase latine, 4 vols., Paris. Marouzeau, J. (1937): “La phrase à verbe initial en latin”, Revue des études latines 15, 275–307. Mauersberger, A. et al. (2003): Polybios-Lexikon. Band I. Lieferung 2 (δ-ζ), 2nd edn., Berlin. Maurach, G. (1974): “Caesar-Interpretationen (B. C. 3, 41–93)”, Gymnasium 81, 49–63. Maurach, G. (1982): “Caesar, BG 5, 43 f.: Der Zenturionenwettstreit”, Gymnasium 89, 468–478. Mayer, M. (2011): “Caesar and the Corpus Caesarianum”, in: Marasco, G. (ed), Political Auto­ biographies and Memoirs in Antiquity. A Brill Companion, Leiden/Boston, 189–232. McHugh, M. R. (2004): “Historiography and freedom of speech: The case of Cremutius Cordus”, in: Sluiter, I. and Rosen, R. M. (eds.), Free Speech in Classical Antiquity, Leiden/Boston, 391–408. McKenzie, J. S. (2007): The Architecture of Alexandria and Egypt. 300 B. C. to A. D. 700, New Haven/London. Mehl, A. (2001): Römische Geschichtsschreibung. Grundlagen und Entwicklungen. Eine Einführung, Stuttgart/Berlin/Köln. Melo, W. D. C. de (2010): “Possessive pronouns in Plautus”, in: Dickey, E. and Chahoud, A. (eds.), Colloquial and Literary Latin, Cambridge/New York, 71–99. Menge, H. and Schönberger, O. (1959): Lateinische Synonymik, 5th edn., Heidelberg. Menge, P. (1911): Ist Caesar der Verfasser des Abschnittes über Kurios Feldzug in Afrika? (Caesar, De Bello Civili II, 23–44). Ein Beitrag zur Caesarfrage, Naumburg an der Saale. Menge, R. (1873): De auctoribus commentariorum de bello civili qui Caesaris nomine feruntur, Weimar. Menge, R. (1889): Review of Landgraf (1888a), in: Neue Philologische Rundschau, 147–154. Menge, R. (1893): C. Iulii Caesaris Commentarii De Bello Civili. Für den Schulgebrauch erklärt, Gotha. Menge, R. (1894): “Emendationes Caesarianae”, in: Festschrift zur zweihundertjährigen Jubelfeier der Vereinigten Friedrichs-Universität Halle-Wittenberg. Halle, 34–46. Menge, R. and Preuss, S. (1885–1890): Lexicon Caesarianum, Leipzig. Mess, A. von (1913): Caesar: Sein Leben, seine Zeit und seine Politik bis zur Begründung seiner Monarchie, Leipzig. Meusel, H. (1885): “Caesar”, Jahresberichte des philologischen Vereins zu Berlin 11, 173–204. Meusel, H. (1887–1893): Lexicon Caesarianum, 2 vols., Berlin. Meusel, H. (1894): “Beiträge zur Kritik des Bellum Gallicum II”, Jahresberichte des philologischen Vereins zu Berlin 20, 214–398. Meusel, H. (1910): “Caesar”, Jahresberichte des philologischen Vereins zu Berlin 36, 20–75. Momigliano, A. (1960): “Linee per una valutazione di Fabio Pittore”, Rendiconti della classe di scienze morali, storiche e filologiche dell’Accademia dei Lincei 15, 310–320. Momigliano, A. (1990): The Classical Foundations of Modern Historiography, Berkeley/Los Angeles/London. Mommsen, T. (1864–1879): Römische Forschungen, 2 vols., Berlin. Mommsen, T. (1866): “Die Scipionenprozesse”, Hermes 1, 161–216. Mommsen, T. (1903–1904): Römische Geschichte, 3 vols., 9th edn., Berlin (repr. in 8 vols., München 1976). Moraux, P. (1973–84): Der Aristotelismus bei den Griechen: Von Andronikos bis Alexander von Aphrodisias, 2 vols., Berlin. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

320

Bibliography

Morson, G. S. (1994): Narrative and Freedom: The Shadows of Time, New Haven (CT). Morstein-Marx, R. (2007): “Caesar’s alleged fear of prosecution and his ratio absentis in the approach to the Civil War”, Historia 56, 159–178. Morstein-Marx, R. (2009): “Dignitas and res publica. Caesar and republican legitimacy”, in: Hölkes­kamp, K.-J. and Müller-Luckner, E. (eds.), Eine politische Kultur (in) der Krise? Die ‘letzte Generation’ der römischen Republik, München, 115–140. Morus, S. F. N. (1780): C. Iulii Caesaris Commentarii de Bello Gallico et Civili. Accedunt libri de Bello Alexandrino Africano et Hispaniensi. E recensione Francisci Oudendorpii, Leipzig. Mühll, F. L. von der (1913): “A. Hirtius A. f.”, RE 8.2, 1956–1962. Müller, C. G. (1804): Ad C. Suetonium Tranquillum observationes: cum auctario animadversionum Reinesianarum, Leipzig. Müller, W. (1972): “Sueton und seine Zitierweise im Divus Iulius”, Symbolae Osloenses 47, ­95–108. Münzer, F. (1921): “Scribonius (11)”, RE 2.A.1, 867–876. Murphy, P. R. (1986): “Caesar’s continuators and Caesar’s felicitas”, Classical World 79, 307–317. Mutschler, F.-H. (1975): Erzählstil und Propaganda in Caesars Kommentarien, Heidelberg. Mutschler, F.-H. (2003): “Caesars Kommentarien im Spannungsfeld von sozialer Norm und individuellem Geltungsanspruch”, in: Haltenhoff, A. (ed.), O tempora, o mores! Römische Werte und römische Literatur in den letzten Jahrzehnten der Republik, München/Leipzig, 93–117. N. N. (Bayet, J.) (1937): Review of Seel (1935), in: Supplément Critique. Bulletin de l’Association G. Budé 8, 117–123. Naudé, C. P. T. (1961): “An aspect of early Roman historiography”, Acta Classica. Proceedings of the Classical Association of South Africa 4, 53–63. Nesselrath, H.-G. (1992): Ungeschehenes Geschehen: ‘Beinahe-Episoden’ im griechischen und römischen Epos von Homer bis zur Spätantike, Stuttgart. Netz, R. (2009): Ludic Proof: Greek Mathematics and the Alexandrian Aesthetic, Cambridge/ New York. Niebuhr, B. G. (1848): Historische und philologische Vorträge an der Universität zu Bonn. ­Erste Abtheilung: Römische Geschichte bis zum Untergang des abendländischen Reichs, Dritter Band: Von Pompejus’ erstem Consulat bis zum Untergang des abendländischen Reichs, Berlin. Niese, B. (1887–1895): Flavii Iosephi Opera, 7 vols., Berlin. Nippel, W. (2003): “Krieg als Erscheinungsform der Feindschaft (28–37)”, in: Mehring, R. (ed.), Carl Schmitt: Der Begriff des Politischen. Ein kooperativer Kommentar, Berlin, 61–70. Nipperdey, C. (1846): De supplementis commentariorum C. Iulii Caesaris, Berlin. Nipperdey, C. (1847): C. Iulii Caesaris commentarii cum supplementis A. Hirtii et aliorum. ­Caesaris Hirtiique fragmenta, Leipzig. Nisbet, R. G. M. (1990): “Cola and clausulae in Cicero’s speeches”, in: Craik, E. M. (ed.), Owls to Athens. Essays on Classical Subjects Presented to Sir Kenneth Dover, Oxford/New York, 349–359. Noack, F. (1900): “Neue Untersuchungen in Alexandrien”, Mittheilungen des Kaiserlich Deut­ schen Archaeologischen Instituts. Athenische Abtheilung 25, 215–279. Norden, E. (1920): Die germanische Urgeschichte in Tacitus’ Germania, Leipzig/Berlin. Norden, E. (1898): Die antike Kunstprosa vom VI. Jahrhundert vor Chr. bis in die Zeit der Renaissance, 2 vols., Leipzig (repr. Darmstadt 1958). Oakley, S. P. (1985): “Single combat in the Roman Republic”, Classical Quarterly 35, 392–410. Oakley, S. P. (1997–2005): A Commentary on Livy. Books VI–X, 4 vols., Oxford/New York. Ogilvie, R. M. (1965): A Commentary on Livy. Books 1–5, Oxford. Olivier, F. (1937): “A propos d’Aulus Hirtius et de sa lettre-préface”, in: Recueil de travaux publiés à l’occasion du quatrième centenaire de la fondation de l’Université, Lau­sanne, 63–101. Ollier, F. (1933–43): Le Mirage spartiate: Étude sur l’idéalisation de Sparte dans l’antiquité grecque du début de l’école cynique jusqu’à la fin de la cité, 2 vols., Paris. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

Bibliography

321

Oppermann, H. (1933): Caesar, der Schriftsteller und sein Werk, Leipzig. Oppermann, H. (1934): Review of Pötter (1932), in: Deutsche Literaturzeitung 55, 1506–1507. Oudendorp, F. van (1737): C. Julii Caesaris de Bellis Gallico et Civili Pompeiano nec non A. Hirtii, aliorumque de Bellis Alexandrino, Africano, et Hispaniensi commentarii, 2 vols., Leiden/ Rotterdam. Panaetius, L. (1511): Caii Iulii Caesaris invictissimi imperatoris commentaria, Venezia. Panaetius, L. (1517): Caii Iulii Caesaris invictissimi imperatoris commentaria, Venezia. Pascucci, G. (1960): “Caes. B. G. III, 105, 5–6”, Studi italiani di filologia classica 32, 118–122. Pascucci, G. (1965): Bellum Hispaniense: Introduzione, testo critico e commento, Firenze. Pascucci, G. (1975): “I commentarii di Silla”, Studi Urbinati (Ser. B) 49, 283–296. Paslay, M. G. (1918): “Does the style of the Civil War justify the doubt as to its authenticity?”, Classical Journal 13, 343–353. Paton, W. R. (1927): Polybius. The Histories. Vol. 6, Cambridge (Mass.). Patzer, A. (1993): “Aulus Hirtius als Redaktor des Corpus Caesarianum: Eine grammatisch-historische Analyse der epistula ad Balbum”, Würzburger Jahrbücher für die Altertumswissenschaft 19, 111–130. Paul, G. M. (1984): A Historical Commentary on Sallust’s Bellum Jugurthinum, Liverpool. Paul, W. T. (1889): C. Iulii Caesaris commentarii De Bello Civili, editio maior, Wien/Prag/Leipzig. Paul, W. T. (1898): C. Iulii Caesaris commentarii De Bello Civili, 2nd edn., Leipzig (repr. Leipzig/ Wien 1906). Pearce, T. E. V. (1970): “Notes on Cicero, In Pisonem”, Classical Quarterly 20, 309–321. Pédech, P. (1970): Polybe. Histoires. Livre II, Paris. Pelling, C. (1995): Review of Canfora, L., Studi di Storia della Storiografia Romana, Bari 1993, in: Classical Review 45, 268–270. Pelling, C. (1997a): “Is Death the End? Closure in Plutarch’s Lives”, in: Roberts, D. H., Dunn, F. M., and Fowler, D. P. (eds.), Classical Closure. Reading the End in Greek and Latin Literature, Princeton (N. J.), 228–250. Pelling, C. (1997b) “Tragical dreamer: Some dreams in the Roman historians”, Greece and Rome 44, 197–213. Pelling, C. (2011): Plutarch, “Caesar”. Translated with an Introduction and Commentary, Oxford/­ New York. Perrochat, P. (1949): Les modèles grecs de Salluste, Paris. Perry, B. E. (1930): “Chariton and his romance from a literary-historical point of view”, American Journal of Philology 51, 93–134. Peskett, A. G. (1885): De Bello Gallico Commentarius Octavus with  a map and English notes, Cambridge. Peskett, A. G. (1888): “[Caesar], B. G. viii. praef. § 2”, Classical Review 2, 326. Peskett, A. G. (1914): Caesar. The Civil Wars, London/Cambridge, Mass.. Peter, H. (1901): Der Brief in der römischen Litteratur: Litterargeschichtliche Untersuchungen und Zusammenfassungen, Leipzig. Petersdorff, R. (1880): “Die Quellenfrage zu Caesars Bel. Gal. lib. VIII, Bel. Alex., Bel. Afric. und Bel. Hispan.”, Sokrates. Zeitschrift für das Gymnasialwesen 34, 215–219. Petrone, G. (2004): La parola agitata. Teatralità della retorica latina, Palermo. Pianezzola, E. (1975): “Le ferite di Quinto Cedicio. Cato, Orig. IV  7 Jordan = fr. 83 P.2 ap. Gell. III 7”, Studi Urbinati (Ser. B) 49, 73–80. Pichlmayr, F. (1911/1966): Sexti Aurelii Victoris Liber de Caesaribus. Praecedunt Origo gentis Romanae et Liber de viris illustribus urbis Romae. Subsequitur Epitome de Caesaribus, Leipzig 1911 (repr. Leipzig 1966, with additions and corrections by R. Gruendel). Picklesimer Pardo, M. L. (1981): “Una leyenda-tipo: La traición por amor”, Sodalitas 2, 325–345. Pigoń, J. (2004): Ze studiów nad technikami narracyjnymi Tacyta: wypowiedzi proleptyczne, Wrocław. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

322

Bibliography

Pitcher, L. V. (2007): “Characterization in ancient historiography”, in: Marincola, J. (ed.), A Companion to Greek and Roman Historiography, vol. 1, Oxford, 102–117. Polaschek, A. (1904): Review of Fröhlich (1903), Zeitschrift für die österreichischen Gymnasien 55, 754–757. Pötter, H. (1932): Untersuchungen zum Bellum Alexandrinum und Bellum Africanum: Stil und Verfasserfrage, Leipzig. Powell, A. (1998): “Julius Caesar and the presentation of massacre”, in: Welch, K. E. and Powell, A. (eds.), Julius Caesar as Artful Reporter. The War Commentaries as Political Instruments, London/Swansea, 111–137. Power, T. J. (2009): “Suetonius Galba 1: Beginning or ending?”, Classical Philology 104, 216–220. Preiswerk, R. (1945): “Sententiae in Cäsars Commentarien”, Museum Helveticum 2, 213–226. Price, J. J. (2007): “The failure of rhetoric in Josephus’ Bellum Judaicum”, Ramus 36, 6–24. Puccioni, G. (1963): M. Tulli Ciceronis Opera omnia quae exstant critico apparatu instructa. Orationum deperditarum fragmenta, Milano. Puchstein, O. (1893): “Alexandreia (1)”, RE 1.1, 1376–1388. Pulbrook, M. (1977): “The original published form of Ovid’s Heroides”, Hermathena 122, 29–45. Raaflaub, K. A. (1974): Dignitatis contentio: Studien zur Motivation und politischen Taktik im Bürgerkrieg zwischen Caesar und Pompeius, München. Raaflaub, K. A. (2003): “Caesar the liberator? Factional politics, civil war, and ideology”, in: Cairns, F. and Fantham, E. (eds.), Caesar against Liberty? Perspectives on his Autocracy, Cambridge, 35–67. Raaflaub, K. A. (2009): “Bellum Civile”, in: Griffin, M. T. (ed.), A Companion to Julius Caesar, ­Chichester/Malden (MA), 175–191. Raaflaub, K. A. (2010): “Creating a grand coalition of true Roman citizens. On Caesar’s political strategy in the Civil War”, in: Breed, B. W., Damon, C., and Rossi, A. (eds.), Citizens of Discord: Rome and its Civil Wars, Oxford/New York, 159–170. Radicke, J. (2004): Lucans poetische Technik, Leiden. Radin, M. (1918): “The date of composition of Caesar’s Gallic War”, Classical Philology 13, ­283–300. Rambaud, M. (1953): L’art de la déformation historique dans les Commentaires de César, Paris. Rambaud, M. (1962): “Essai sur le style du Bellum Civile”, L’Information Littéraire 14, 60–9 and 108–13. Rambaud, M. (1976): “Les marches des Césariens vers l’Espagne au début de la guerre civile”, in: L’Italie préromaine et la Rome républicaine: Mélanges offerts à Jacques Heurgon, vol. 2, Roma, 845–861. Rambaud, M. (1978): “Structures et construction des livres II, III et IV du Bellum Gallicum”, Vita Latina 69, 12–23. Ramsey, J. T. (2003): Cicero. Philippics I–II, Cambridge. Rasmussen, D. (1963): Caesars Commentarii: Stil und Stilwandel am Beispiel der direkten Rede, Göttingen. Rawson, E. (1979): “L. Cornelius Sisenna and the early first century B. C.”, Classical Quarterly 29, 327–346. Reggi, G. (2002): “Cesare, De Bello Civili III 105,3–6”, La parola del passato 57, 216–226. Reggi, G. (2002/2003): “Cesare e il racconto delle battaglie navali sotto Marsiglia”, Rendiconti dell’Istituto Lombardo 136, 71–108. Reichardt, C. (2008): Sprachlich-stilistische Untersuchungen zu den frühen römischen Histori­ kern, Bamberg. Reid, J. S. (1908): “Note on the introductory epistle to the eighth book of Caesar’s Gallic War”, Classical Philology 3, 441–445. Reinhardt, K. (1960): “Thukydides und Macchiavelli”, in: Reinhardt, K. (ed.), Vermächtnis der Antike, Göttingen, 184–218. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

Bibliography

323

Reitzenstein, R. (1906): Hellenistische Wundererzählungen, Leipzig. Rengakos, A. (2006): “Thucydides’ narrative: The epic and Herodotean heritage”, in: Rengakos, A. and Tsakmakis, A. (eds.), Brill’s Companion to Thucydides, Leiden/Boston, 279–300. Rengakos, A. (2011): “Thukydides”, in: Zimmermann, B. (ed.), Die Literatur der archaischen und klassischen Zeit, München, 381–417. Rice Holmes, T. (1923): The Roman Republic and the Founder of the Empire, 3 vols., Oxford. Richards, G. C. (1939): “The composition of Josephus’ Antiquities”, Classical Quarterly 33, 36–40. Richter, W. (1977): Caesar als Darsteller seiner Taten: Eine Einführung, Heidelberg. Rieks, R. (1975): “Eine tragische Erzählung bei Herodot (Historien 1,34–45)”, Poetica 7, 23–44. Rigamonti, C. P. (2001): Geistiges Eigentum als Begriff und Theorie des Urheberrechts, BadenBaden. Ringe, D. (1880): Zum Sprachgebrauch des Caesar: et, que, atque (ac), Göttingen. Robinson, D. and Wilson, A. (eds., 2010): Alexandria and the North-Western Delta: Joint Conference Proceedings of “Alexandria: City and Harbour” (Oxford 2004) and “The Trade and Topography of Egypt’s North-West Delta, 8th century BC to 8th century AD” (Berlin 2006), Oxford 2010. Robolski, J. (1881): Sallustius in conformanda oratione quo iure Thucydidis exemplum secutus esse existimetur, Halle. Rochlitz, S. (1993): Das Bild Caesars in Ciceros “Orationes Caesarianae”. Untersuchungen zur “clementia” und “sapientia Caesaris”, Frankfurt. Rodríguez Alonso, C. (1991): “La ‘historia trágica’ helenística: Características y antecendentes”, in: Ramos Guerreira, A. (ed.), Mnemosynum C. Codoñer a discipulis oblatum, Salamanca, 279–295. Rohde, E. (1914): Der griechische Roman und seine Vorläufer, 3rd edn., Leipzig. Rolfe, J. C. (1898): “A, ab, abs”, Archiv für lateinische Lexikographie 10.4, 465–86 and 487–505. Romilly, J. de (1951): Thucydide et l’impérialisme athénien. La pensée de l’historien et la genèse de l’œuvre, 2nd edn., Paris. Romilly, J. de (1956): Histoire et raison chez Thucydide, Paris. Romilly, J. de (1963): Thucydides and Athenian Imperialism. Translated by P. Thody, Oxford (repr. Salem (N. H.) 1988). Romilly, J. de (1974): “Fairness and kindness in Thucydides”, Phoenix 28, 95–100. Rood, T. (1998): Thucydides: Narrative and Explanation, Oxford/New York. Rosen, K. (1968): Studien zur Darstellungskunst und Glaubwürdigkeit des Ammianus Marcellinus, Heidelberg. Rosén, H. B. (1962): Eine Laut- und Formenlehre der herodotischen Sprachform, Heidelberg. Rosenberg A. (1914): “Imperator”, RE 9.1, 1139–1154. Rösiger, F. (1880): Die Bedeutung der Tyche bei den späteren griechischen Historikern, besonders bei Demetrios von Phaleron, Konstanz. Rossetus, J. (1571): C. Iulii Caesaris Commentarii post omnes omnium editiones accurata sedulitate, et summa denuo vigilantia ex multorum tam veterum, quam neotericorum exempla­ rium collatione emendati, et studiosissime recogniti a Ioanne Rosseto Aurimontano, Lausanne. Roth, C. L. (1862): C. Suetoni Tranquilli quae supersunt omnia, Leipzig. Rowe, G. O. (1967): “Dramatic structures in Caesar’s Bellum Civile”, Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association 98, 399–414. Rubel, A. (2000): Stadt in Angst: Religion und Politik in Athen während des Peloponnesischen Krieges, Darmstadt. Ruete, E. (1883): Die Correspondenz Ciceros in den Jahren 44 und 43, Marburg. Rüpke, J. (1992): “Wer las Caesars bella als commentarii?”, Gymnasium 99, 201–226. Rüpke, J. (1997): “Corpus Caesarianum”, Der Neue Pauly 3, 201–202. Sabbadini, R. (1920): “Il ritmo oratorio negli storici latini”, Rivista di Filologia  e Istruzione ­Classica 48, 354–358. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

324

Bibliography

Santini, C. (1995): I frammenti di L. Cassio Emina: Introduzione, testo, traduzione e commento, Pisa. Scanlon, T. F. (1980): The Influence of Thucydides on Sallust, Heidelberg. Schäfer, C. (2006): Kleopatra, Darmstadt. Schanz, M. (1909): Geschichte der römischen Litteratur. Erster Teil: Die römische Litteratur in der Zeit der Republik. Zweite Hälfte, 3rd edn., München. Scheller, L. P. (1911): De hellenistica historiae conscribendae arte, Leipzig. Schieffer, R. (1972): “Die Rede des Critognatus (B. G. VII 77) und Caesars Urteil über den gallischen Krieg”, Gymnasium 79, 477–494. Schiller, H. (1880a): “Zu Cäsar und seinen Fortsetzern”, Blätter für das Bayerische Gymnasialund Real-Schulwesen 16, 393–399. Schiller, H. (1880b): “Zur Hirtiusfrage”, Blätter für das Bayerische Gymnasial- und Real-Schulwesen 16, 246–252. Schiller, H. (1881): Review of Fischer (1880), in: Philologischer Anzeiger 11, 89–93. Schiller, H.  (1889): Review of Schneider (1888a), in: Berliner Philologische Wochenschrift 9, ­306–310. Schiller, H. (1890): “Vom Ursprung des Bellum Alexandrinum”, Blätter für das Bayerische Gymnasialschulwesen 26, 242–51, 393–400, and 511–23. Schiller, H.  (1891a): Review of Landgraf (1891), in: Berliner Philologische Wochenschrift 11, 1291–1295. Schiller, H.  (1891b): “Zu Cäsar und seinen Fortsetzern”, in: Commentationes Woelfflinianae, Leipzig, 49–56. Schiller, H. (1891–1893): “Die Cäsarausgabe des Hirtius”, Philologus Suppl. 6, 395–399. Schiller, H. (1895): “Zu Hirtius Praefatio von Bell. Gall. VIII”, Philologus 54, 191–192. Schiller, H. (1899): Über Entstehung und Echtheit des Corpus Caesarianum, Fürth. Schlegel, A. W. von (1846–1848): Sämmtliche Werke, edited by E. Böcking, 16 vols., Leipzig. Schlicher, J. J. (1936): “The development of Caesar’s narrative style”, Classical Philology 31, ­212–224. Schmid, W. (1948): Geschichte der griechischen Literatur. Erster Teil: Die Klassische Periode der griechischen Literatur. Fünfter Band: Die griechische Literatur zur Zeit der attischen Hegemonie nach dem Eingreifen der Sophistik. Zweite Hälfte. Zweiter Abschnitt, München. Schmid, W. (1959): Über die klassische Theorie und Praxis des antiken Prosarhythmus, Wiesbaden. Schmidt, J. H. H. (1889): Handbuch der lateinischen und griechischen Synonymik, Leipzig. Schmidt, O. E. (1893): Der Briefwechsel des M. Tullius Cicero von seinem Prokonsulat in Cilicien bis zu Caesars Ermordung, Leipzig. Schmitt, C. (1963): Der Begriff des Politischen. Text von 1932 mit einem Vorwort und drei Corollarien, Berlin. Schneider, K. E. C. (1818): “Ueber Caesars Charakter aus seinen Schriften”, Philomathie von ­Freunden der Wissenschaft und Kunst 1, 173–200. Schneider, N. (1912): De verbi in lingua Latina collocatione: adhibiti sunt in quaestionem praeter Caesaris de bello Gallico et de bello civili commentarios A. Hirtii de bello Gallico et anonymi de bello Alexandrino commentarius, Münster. Schneider, R. (1888a): Bellum Alexandrinum, Berlin. Schneider, R. (1888b): “Caesar”, Jahresberichte des philologischen Vereins zu Berlin 14, 324–348. Schneider, R. (1893): “Cäsar und seine Fortsetzer”, Jahresberichte des philologischen Vereins zu Berlin 19, 246–285. Scholz, B. (1956): Untersuchungen über Darstellungsformen des Hirtius im 8. Buch der Kommentarien über den Gallischen Krieg, Berlin. Scholz, U. W. (2000): “Q. Fabius Pictor”, Würzburger Jahrbücher für die Altertumswissenschaft 24, 139–149. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

Bibliography

325

Schönberger, O. (1984): C. Iulius Caesar. Der Bürgerkrieg, München/Zürich. Schönberger, O. (1988): “Darstellungselemente in Caesars Bellum Gallicum 7,25.26”, Gymnasium 95, 141–153. Schönberger, O. (1990): C. Iulius Caesar. Der Gallische Krieg, München/Zürich. Schuller, W. (1991): “Die griechische Geschichtsschreibung der klassischen Zeit”, in: A ­ lonsoNúñez, J. M. (ed.), Geschichtsbild und Geschichtsdenken im Altertum, Darmstadt, 90–112. Schürer, E. (1898): Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi, 3rd edn., 3 vols., Leipzig. Schwartz, E. (1897): “Die Berichte über die catilinarische Verschwörung”, Hermes 32, 554–608. Schwartz, E. (1899): “Cassius Dio Cocceianus”, RE 3.2, 1684–1722. Schwartz, E. (1909): “Die Zeit des Ephoros”, Hermes 44, 481–502. Schweicher, G. (1963): Schicksal und Glück in den Werken Sallusts und Caesars, Köln. Schweighäuser, J. (1789–1795): Polybii Megalopolitani Historiarum quidquid superest, 8 vols., Leipzig. Seel, O. (1933): Review of Pötter (1932), in: Gnomon 9, 594–600. Seel, O. (1935): Hirtius: Untersuchungen über die pseudocaesarischen Bella und den Balbusbrief, Leipzig. Seel, O. (1961): C. Iulii Caesaris commentarii rerum gestarum. Vol. I: Bellum Gallicum, Leipzig. Seidensticker, B. (1985): “Maius solito: Senecas Thyestes und die tragoedia rhetorica”, Antike und Abendland 31, 116–136 (repr. in: Seidensticker, B. (ed.), Über das Vergnügen an tragischen Gegenständen. Studien zum antiken Drama, München/Leipzig 2005, 418–449). Sensal, C. (2003): “Amor nefarius: Une illustration du thème de la trahison par amour dans l’annalistique récente”, Latomus 62, 27–35. Shackleton Bailey, D. R. (1977): Cicero: Epistulae ad Familiares, 2 vols. Cambridge. Shackleton Bailey, D. R. (1980): Cicero: Epistulae ad Quintum fratrem et M. Brutum, Cambridge. Shackleton Bailey, D. R. (2001): Cicero. Letters to Friends, 3 vols., Cambridge/London. Shaw, B. D. (1984): “Bandits in the Roman empire”, Past and Present 105, 3–52. Shuckburgh, E. S. (1889): The Histories of Polybius, 2 vols., London/New York. Sijpesteijn, P. J. (1965): “Mithradates’ march from Pergamum to Alexandria in 48 B. C.”, Latomus 24, 122–127. Simonetti Abbolito, G. (1981): “Cesare o un continuatore per Bellum Alexandrinum 1–33?”, in: Letterature comparate. Problemi e metodo. Studi in onore di Ettore Paratore, Bologna, 357–371. Simons, B. (2009): Cassius Dio und die römische Republik. Untersuchungen zum Bild des römischen Gemeinwesens in den Büchern 3–35 der Rhomaika, Berlin. Skard, E. (1964): “Zur sprachlichen Entwicklung des Sallust”, Symbolae Osloenses 39, 13–37. Skutsch, F. (1905): “Die lateinische Sprache”, in: Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U. von et al. (eds.), Die Kultur der Gegenwart. Teil I. Abteilung VIII: Die griechische und lateinische Literatur und Sprache, Berlin/Leipzig, 412–451. Smith, C. F. (1903): “Character-drawing in Thucydides”, American Journal of Philology 24, 369–387. Sommerstein, A. H. (1992): “Old comedians on old comedy”, in: Zimmermann, B. (ed.), Antike Dramentheorien und ihre Rezeption, Stuttgart, 14–33. Speyer, W. (1971): Die literarische Fälschung im heidnischen und christlichen Altertum. Ein Versuch ihrer Deutung, München. Stahl, H. P. (1968): “Herodots Gyges-Tragödie”, Hermes 96, 385–400. Stangl, T. (1886): “Die bibliothek Ashburnham”, Philologus 45, 201–236. Starr, R. J. (1987): “The Circulation of Literary Texts in the Roman World”, Classical Quarterly 37, 213–223. Stelluto, S.  (1995): “Il motivo della τρυφή in Filarco”, in: Gallo, I. (ed.), Seconda miscellanea filologica, Napoli, 47–84. Stephanus, R. (1544): C. Iulii Caesaris Rerum ab se gestarum commentarii, Paris. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

326

Bibliography

Stephens, S. A. (1985): Yale Papyri in the Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library II, Chico (CA). Sternkopf, W. (1909): “Cäsars Gallischer Feldzug in Ciceros Briefen”, Neue Jahrbücher für das Klassische Altertum, Geschichte und Deutsche Literatur und für Pädagogik 23 (12), 638–666. Stoffel, E. G. H. C. (1887): Histoire de Jules César: Guerre Civile, 2 vols., Paris. Strada, J. (1575): C. Iulii Caesaris rerum gestarum commentarii XIV, Frankfurt. Strasburger, H. (1954): “Die Entdeckung der politischen Geschichte durch Thukydides”, Saeculum 5, 395–428 (repr. in Herter, H. (ed.), Thukydides, Darmstadt 1968, 412–476). Strasburger, H. (1958): “Thukydides und die politische Selbstdarstellung der Athener”, Hermes 86, 17–40 (repr. in Herter, H. (ed.), Thukydides, Darmstadt 1968, 498–530). Strasburger, H. (1966): “Die Wesensbestimmung der Geschichte durch die antike Geschichts­ schreibung”, Sitzungsberichte der wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft an der Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität Frankfurt 5.3, 47–96. Strebel, H. G. (1935): Wertung und Wirkung des Thukydideischen Geschichtswerkes in der grie­ chisch-römischen Literatur, München. Stroup, S. C. (2010): Catullus, Cicero, and a Society of Patrons, Cambridge. Suerbaum, W. (1997): “Am Scheideweg zur Zukunft. Alternative Geschehensverläufe bei ­römischen Historikern”, Gymnasium 104, 36–54. Sykutris, I. (1931): “Epistolographie”, RE Suppl. 5, 185–220. Syme, R. (1939): The Roman Revolution, Oxford. Syme, R. (1959): “Livy and Augustus”, Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 64, 27–87. Tappan, E. (1931): “Julius Caesar’s luck”, Classical Journal 27, 3–14. Tarbell, F. B. (1906): “The form of the chlamys”, Classical Philology 1, 283–289. Tarpin, M. (1987): “César et la ‘Bataille d’Octodure’ (57 av. J.-C)”, Annales Valaisannes 62, ­241–249. Tcherikover, V. (1975): Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews, translated by S.  Applebaum, 3rd edn., New York. Thackeray, H. S. J. (1929): Josephus: The Man and the Historian, New York (repr. New York 1967). Timpe, D. (1972): “Fabius Pictor und die Anfänge der römischen Historiographie”, Aufstieg und Niedergang der romischen Welt 1.2, 928–969. Timpe, D. (1979): “Erwägungen zur jüngeren Annalistik”, Antike und Abendland 25, 97–119. Timpe, D. (1988): “Mündlichkeit und Schriftlichkeit als Basis der frührömischen Überlieferung”, in: Ungern-Sternberg, J. von and Reinau, H. (eds.), Vergangenheit in mündlicher Überlieferung, Stuttgart, 266–286. Tkaczow, B. (1984): “Remarques sur la topographie et l’architecture de l’ancienne Alexandrie dans les textes antiques”, Archeologia (Warszawa) 35, 1–25. Tkaczow, B. (1993): The Topography of Ancient Alexandria. An Archaeological Map, Warszawa. Townend, G. B. (1988): Caesar’s War in Alexandria: Bellum Civile III, 102–112, Bellum Alexandrinum 1–33, Bristol. Tränkle, H. (1977): Livius und Polybios, Basel. Treu, M. (1948): “Zur clementia Caesars”, Museum Helveticum 5, 197–217. Trieber, C. (1888): “Die Romulussage”, Rheinisches Museum 43, 569–582. Trzaskoma, S. M. (2011): “Echoes of Thucydides’ Sicilian expedition in three Greek novels”, Classical Philology 106, 61–65. Tschiedel, H. J. (1981): Caesars “Anticato”: Eine Untersuchung der Testimonien und Fragmente, Darmstadt. Tschiedel, H. J. (2010): Review of Diouron (1999), in: Gnomon 82, 596–602. Ullman, B. L. (1942): “History and tragedy”, Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association 73, 25–53. Urban, R. (1999): Gallia Rebellis: Erhebungen in Gallien im Spiegel antiker Zeugnisse, Stuttgart. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

Bibliography

327

Ursinus, F. (1570): C. Iulii Caesaris Commentarii novis emendationibus illustrati. Eiusdem librorum, qui desiderantur, fragmenta, Antwerpen. Vascosan, M. de (1543): C. Iulii Caesaris rerum ab se gestarum commentarii, Paris. Vielhaber, L. (1866): Review of F. Kraner, C. Iulii Caesaris commentarii de bello gallico, 5th edn., Berlin 1866 and Dinter, B., C. Iulii Caesaris commentarii cum A. Hirtii aliorumque supplementis, vol. 1, Leipzig 1864, in: Zeitschrift für die österreichischen Gymnasien 17, ­221–242. Vielhaber, L. (1869): Review of Dübner (1867), in: Zeitschrift für die österreichischen Gymna­ sien 20, 541–576. Vogel, F. (1900): “Über die Entstehung des Bellum Gallicum”, Neue Jahrbücher für das klassische Altertum, Geschichte und Deutsche Litteratur und für Pädagogik 5 (3), 217–220. Vogel, W. S. (1937): Zur Stellung von esse bei Caesar und Sallust, Tübingen/Würzburg. Vogt-Spira, G. (1992): Dramaturgie des Zufalls: Tyche und Handeln in der Komödie Menanders, München. Vossius, D. (1697): C. Iulii Caesaris quae extant cum notis et animadversionibus Dio­nysii Vossii, Amsterdam. Vretska, K. (1955): Studien zu Sallusts Bellum Jugurthinum, Wien. Vretska, K. (1976): C. Sallustius Crispus: De Catilinae Coniuratione, 2 vols., Heidelberg. Wachsmuth, C. (1880): “Zur Geschichte von Alexandria”, Rheinisches Museum 35, 448–455. Wailly, N. F. de (1775): Les commentaires de César, nouvelle édition, 2 vols., Paris. Walbank, F. W. (1938): “Φίλιππος τραγῳδούμενος: A Polybian experiment”, Journal of Hellenistic Studies 55, 55–68. Walbank, F. W. (1945): “Polybius, Philinus, and the first Punic War”, Classical Quarterly 39, 1–18. Walbank, F. W. (1955): “Tragic history: A reconsideration”, Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies of the University of London 2, 4–14. Walbank, F. W. (1957–79): A Historical Commentary on Polybius, 3 vols., Oxford. Walbank, F. W. (1960): “History and tragedy”, Historia 9, 216–234. Walker, A. D. (1993): “Enargeia and the spectator in Greek historiography”, Transactions of the American Philological Association 123, 353–377. Walsh, P. G. (1961): Livy: His Historical Aims and Methods, Cambridge. Walther, H.  (1903): Über die Echtheit und Abfassung der Schriften des Corpus Caesarianum, Grünberg. Wankel, H. (1976): Demosthenes. Rede für Ktesiphon über den Kranz, 2 vols., Heidelberg. Weber, G. (2000): Kaiser, Träume und Visionen in Prinzipat und Spätantike, Stuttgart. Weeber, K.-W. (2001): “Reisen”, in: Der Neue Pauly 10, 856–866. Weinstock, S. (1971): Divus Julius, Oxford. Weissenborn, W. (1849): Review of Nipperdey (1847), in: Neue Jahrbücher für Philologie und Pädagogik 56 (19), 375–401. Welch, K. E. (1998): “Caesar and his officers in the Gallic War commentaries”, in: Welch, K. E. and Powell, A. (eds.), Julius Caesar as Artful Reporter. The War Commentaries as Political Instruments, London/Swansea, 85–110. Welch, K. E. (2008): “Nimium felix: Caesar’s felicitas and Cicero’s Philippics”, in: Stevenson, T. R. and Wilson, M. (eds.), Cicero’s Philippics: History, Rhetoric, Ideology, Ann Arbor (MI), ­181–213. Wessner, P. (1926): Review of R. P. Robinson, C. Suetoni Tranquilli de grammaticis et rhetoribus, Paris 1925, in: Philologische Wochenschrift 46, 1224–1230. Westlake, H. D. (1968): Individuals in Thucydides, Cambridge. Whitehead, D. (1979): “Tacitus and the loaded alternative”, Latomus 38, 474–495. Wickert, L. (1937): “Zu Caesars Reichspolitik”, Klio 30, 232–253. Wickert, L. (1949/50): “Die Flotte der römischen Kaiserzeit”, Würzburger Jahrbücher für die Alter­tumswissenschaft 4, 100–125. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

328

Bibliography

Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U. von (1931–32): Der Glaube der Hellenen, 2 vols., Berlin. Wilhelm, A. (1898): “Ein Vertrag des Maussollos mit den Phaseliten”, Jahreshefte des öster­ reichischen archäologischen Institutes 1, 149–162. Willi, A. (2010): “Campaigning for utilitas: Style, grammar and philosophy in C. Iulius Caesar”, in: Dickey, E. and Chahoud, A. (eds.), Colloquial and Literary Latin, Cambridge/New York, 229–242. Wilmans, R. (1835): De Dionis Cassii fontibus et auctoritate, Berlin. Winterbottom, M. (1983): “Caesar”, in: Reynolds, L. D. (ed.), Texts and Transmission: A Survey of the Latin Classics, Oxford, 35–36. Winterbottom, M. (1992): Review of J. J. Iso Echegoyen, Index verborum y concordancia de las Institutiones Oratoriae de Quintiliano, Barcelona 1989, in: Classical Review 42, 449. Wiseman, T. P. (1998): “The publication of De Bello Gallico”, in: Welch, K. E. and Powell, A. (eds.), Julius Caesar as Artful Reporter. The War Commentaries as Political Instruments, London/Swansea, 1–9. Wistrand, E. (1963): “The date of Curio’s African campaign”, Eranos 61, 38–44. Wistrand, E. (1987): Felicitas Imperatoria, Göteborg. Wohleb, L. (1928): “Zur Abfassungszeit der Monographien Sallusts”, Berliner Philologische Wochen­schrift 48, 1242–1247. Wolff, J. (1901): “De clausulis Ciceronianis”, Jahrbücher für classische Philologie Suppl. 26, ­577—680. Wölffel, H. (1865): Emendationes ad Caesaris libros De Bello Civili (Part 1), Nürnberg. Wölffel, H. (1866): Emendationum ad Caesaris libros De Bello Civili particula altera, Nürnberg. Wölfflin, E. (1867): “Tacitus. 1. Schriften über den taciteischen styl und genetische entwicke­ lung desselben (jahresbericht)”, Philologus 25, 92–134. Wölfflin, E. (1882): “Ueber die Aufgaben der lateinischen Lexikographie”, Rheinisches Museum 37, 83–123. Wölfflin, E. (1884): “Zu den lateinischen Kausalpartikeln”, Archiv für lateinische Lexikographie 1.2, 161–176. Wölfflin, E. (1885): “Frustra, nequiquam und Synonyma”, Archiv für lateinische Lexikographie 2.1, 1–24. Wölfflin, E. (1901): “Sprachliches zum Bellum Hispaniense”, Archiv für lateinische Lexiko­graphie 12.2, 159–171. Wölfflin, E. and Miodoński, A. (1889): C. Asini Polionis De Bello Africo commentarius, Leipzig. Woodman, A. J. (1977): Velleius Paterculus: The Tiberian Narrative (2.94–131), Cambridge. Woodman, A. J. (1983): Velleius Paterculus: The Caesarian and Augustan Narrative (2.41–93), Cambridge. Woodman, A. J. (1988): Rhetoric in Classical Historiography: Four Studies, London/Portland (OR). Woodman, A. J. (2008): “Cicero on Historiography: De Oratore 2.51–64”, Classical Journal 104, 23–31. Worp, K. A. (1991): “Observations on some military camps and place names in lower Egypt”, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 87, 291–295. Woytek, B. (2003): Arma et Nummi: Forschungen zur römischen Finanzgeschichte und Münz­ prägung der Jahre 49 bis 42 v. Chr., Wien. Wykes, J. C. (1958): Caesar at Alexandria (De Bello Alexandrino 1–33), London/New York. Wyss, E. (1930): Stilistische Untersuchungen zur Darstellung von Ereignissen in Caesars Bellum Gallicum, Bern/Lachen. Yates, D. C. (2010): “The role of Cato the Younger in Caesar’s Bellum Civile”, Classical World 104, 161–174. Yavetz, Z. (1974): “Existimatio, fama, and the Ides of March”, Harvard Studies in Classical Philo­ logy 78, 35–65. © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

Bibliography

329

Yavetz, Z. (1979): Caesar in der öffentlichen Meinung, Düsseldorf. Zegers, N. (1959): Wesen und Ursprung der tragischen Geschichtsschreibung, Köln. Zimmerer, M. (1937): Der Annalist Qu. Claudius Quadrigarius, München. Zimmermann, R. C. W. (1933): “Zu Fabius Pictor”, Klio 26, 248–266. Zingerle, J. (1892): “Zur Frage der Autorschaft des Bellum Alexandrinum und dessen Stellung im Corpus Caesarianum”, Wiener Studien 14, 75–119. Zippel, G. (1877): Die römische Herrschaft in Illyrien bis auf Augustus, Leipzig. Zwierlein, O. (2002): “Augustins quantitierender Klauselrhythmus”, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 138, 43–70. Zwierlein, O. (2003): Die Wölfin und die Zwillinge in der römischen Historiographie, Paderborn.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

Indexes

Index of passages This index does not include all the passages cited or quoted in this monograph, but only those on which we offer some comment. References to the Bellum Alexandrinum contained in appendices H, I, and J have not been included, because these parts of the book are organized by chapter and section. Aelius Tubero fr. 1 B/W (= HRR fr. 1): 139 n. 245 fr. 9 B/W (= HRR fr. 8): 151 n. 273 fr. 10 B/W (= HRR fr. 9): 151 n. 275 Anonymus ap. Gell. 9.11.1–9: 151 (n. 274), 152 (n. 279) Apollonius of Perge Conica 1.praef.: 183 n. 61 Archimedes De lineis spir. p. 8 Mugler: 183 n. 61 De sphaera et cyl. p. 101 Mugler: 183 n. 61 Aristotle Poet. 1453a12–17: 141 n. 248 Arrian Anab. 3.15.3–5: 207 n. 10 Anab. 3.21.7–9: 207 n. 10 Anab. 3.25.6: 207 n. 10 Bellum Africum 82.2–3: 96 n. 87 82.2: 114 n. 161 Bellum Alexandrinum 1.1: 48, 50, 51–2, 157 1.2–3.5: 50–1 with n. 90 1.2–5: 48–50 1.2: 48–9 n. 87 1.4–5: 80–1 with n. 23 1.4: 43 1.5: 58 n. 129 2.1: 35 (n. 25), 71

3.2–4: 77, 106–7, 118 3.4: 55 n. 109 4.1–2: 50, 77 4.1: 269–70 4.2: 64 6.2–7.1: 118 6.2: 67 n. 178 7.1: 249 7.2–3: 45 n. 73 7.2: 68 (n. 185), 249–50 7.3: 43 8.1–2: 134 n. 220 8.1: 118 8.2: 78–9 n. 16 8.3–5: 134 n. 220 8.3: 56 n. 114 8.4: 35 (n. 25), 250, 271 9.1: 35 (nn. 24, 25), 118, 134 (n. 220) 9.2: 35 (n. 25), 209 (n. 17) 10.2: 59 (n. 133), 79 (n. 16) 10.3: 111 10.6: 281–2 11.1: 44 11.5: 118 12: 98 12.2: 43 12.3: 118 n. 176 13–16: 122–34 13.1–2: 123 13.1: 128 13.2: 44, 128 13.3: 60 n. 147 13.4: 57 (n. 119), 124, 128 13.5: 51–2 14.1: 255 14.2: 37 n. 34

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

Index of passages   Bellum Alexandrinum (continued)

14.3: 44 15.3: 96 n. 87 15.5: 43, 125 15.6: 58 n. 128 15.8–16.2: 125–8 15.8: 125, 128–9, 132–3 16.1–4: 118 16.1: 111, 118, 125–6 (nn. 194, 196) 16.2: 126 with nn. 197–8 16.3–4: 124–5 16.4: 55 n. 108 16.5: 43 (with n. 65), 58 (n. 128) 16.6: 259 18.2: 35 n. 24 19.3: 59 n. 133 19.5: 58 n. 125 20.2: 35 n. 25 20.6: 263–4 22.1–2: 81–2 with nn. 29–30 23.1: 78 with n. 14 24.1: 75–7 with nn. 8–9 24.3: 75 (n. 6), 143 n. 253 24.4: 75 24.5–6: 45 n. 73 24.5: 143–4 n. 254 24.6: 75–6, 101–2, 120 25.1–26.1: 82–4 25.3–6: 140–43 25.3: 58 n. 125 25.4: 115, 120, 153 (n. 284) 25.5–6: 58 n. 129 25.6: 78 (n. 14), 156 (n. 9) 26.1: 58 (n. 128), 161 (n. 31) 26.3: 161 n. 31 27.1–4: 85–6 27.4–5: 142 27.4: 109 (n. 144), 153 (n. 284) 27.5: 87, 161 (n. 31) 27.6: 58 n. 125 27.7: 87 28.2: 87, 270 (on 4.1) 28.3: 86–7 29.1: 86–7 29.5–30.1: 93–4 31.1–2: 163 n. 38 31.1: 58 n. 128 31.6: 156 n. 9 32: 150, 153 (n. 284) 32.3–4: 99–100 32.3: 55 n. 108 33.2: 270 (on 4.1)

Bellum Alexandrinum (continued)

331

33.4: 242 34.2–3: 163 n. 38 36.2: 163 n. 38 36.5: 60 n. 145 38.1: 58 n. 129 39.1: 163 n. 38 40.2: 58 n. 129 40.5: 64 n. 163 41.1: 115 42.1: 120 43.1: 58 (n. 128), 78 (n. 14), 115–16 (with n. 169), 121 (n. 189), 142–3 (with nn. 250–1) 43.3: 156 n. 9 43.4: 114 44–6: 163 n. 38 44.3: 58 n. 125 46.1: 114 n. 162 46.3: 58 n. 129 47.1: 259 (on 16.6) 48.1: 78 n. 14 48.3: 60 n. 147 52–6: 150 52.2–3: 89–90 with n. 55 52.4: 68 n. 186 53.4–5: 121 n. 187 58.4: 55 (n. 108), 101 (n. 110), 153 (n. 284) 60.2: 121 n. 187 61.4: 121 62.3: 114 63.5–6: 121 with n. 188 64.3: 156 n. 9 65.1: 55 (n. 109), 103 66.3: 91 n. 65 68.1: 104–5 69.1: 270 (on 4.1) 70.1–3: 102 70.4: 114 with n. 161 74.1: 121 n. 189 74.3: 78 (n. 14), 121 n. 189 74.4: 121 n. 189 75.1–2: 121 n. 189 75.3: 113 76.1: 113 (n. 160), 121 76.4: 121 with n. 188 77.1: 101 78.2: 161 (n. 31), 270 (on 4.1) Bellum Hispaniense 1.1: 28 n. 55 2.3: 57 n. 119

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

332

Indexes  

Bellum Hispaniense (continued)

23.3: 143–4 n. 254 25.4: 143–4 n. 254 31.7: 143–4 n. 254

Caesar ap. Cic. Att. 9.7c.1: 102 n. 114 ap. Cic. Att. 9.13a.1: 198 n. 47 ap. Cic. Att. 10.8b.2: 187–8 n. 16 Gal. 1.1.1: 138 (n. 234), 242 (on 33.4) Gal. 1.7.5: 186 n. 7 Gal. 1.10.2: 186 n. 7 Gal. 1.11.4: 186 n. 7 Gal. 1.43.4: 255 (on 14.1) Gal. 2.1.1: 51 n. 91 Gal. 3.1–6: 30 (n. 64), 193 (n. 25) Gal. 3.8.1: 80 n. 23 Gal. 3.14.8–9: 137 with n. 229 Gal. 5.34.2: 250 (on 8.4) Gal. 5.34.4: 278 (on 49.1) Gal. 5.35.3: 278 (on 49.1) Gal. 5.57.1: 201 n. 61 Gal. 5.58.6: 156 (n. 9), 201 (n. 61) Gal. 5.58.7: 201 n. 61 Gal. 6.1–3: 193 n. 26 Gal. 6.14.4: 45 n. 73 Gal. 6.43.4: 255 (on 14.1) Gal. 6.44.2: 156 n. 9 Gal. 7.22.1: 45 n. 73 Gal. 7.54.2–4: 77 n. 11 Gal. 7.79.3: 137 with n. 230 Gal. 7.80.2: 137 with n. 230 Gal. 7.80.4–5: 137 with n. 230 Gal. 7.87.3: 82 n. 30 Gal. 7.90.8: 189 n. 4 Civ. 1.1.1: 189 n. 4 Civ. 1.2.6: 105 Civ. 1.2.8: 105 Civ. 1.5.3: 105 Civ. 1.6.6–7: 138 n. 234 Civ. 1.7.1–7: 200 with n. 59 Civ. 1.7.7: 138 (n. 237), 213 Civ. 1.8.3–4: 105 Civ. 1.26.6: 187 with n. 16 Civ. 1.29.1: 198 Civ. 1.31.3: 59 n. 133 Civ. 1.32–3: 105 Civ. 1.32.2–9: 200 with n. 59 Civ. 1.35.1: 105–6 with n. 128 Civ. 1.35.3–5: 106 n. 128 Civ. 1.40.3: 209, 270 (on 6.3) Civ. 1.40.7: 273–4 (on 14.1)

Caesar (continued)

Civ. 1.41.1–2: 214 Civ. 1.41.1: 209 Civ. 1.41.2–48.1: 208 Civ. 1.41.4: 186 n. 7 Civ. 1.43–7: 209 Civ. 1.45: 119–20 n. 182 Civ. 1.48.2–55.2: 208 Civ. 1.49.1–2: 209 n. 16 Civ. 1.50.1: 209 Civ. 1.51.1: 208 Civ. 1.52.1: 209 with n. 17 Civ. 1.52.3: 209 with n. 16 Civ. 1.59–62: 208 Civ. 1.59.1: 209 Civ. 1.60.5: 209 Civ. 1.63.1–84.5: 208 Civ. 1.64.2–3: 96 n. 87 Civ. 1.68.3: 197–8 Civ. 1.71.2: 197 Civ. 1.72–4: 75 (n. 7), 77 (n. 11) Civ. 1.72.1: 35 (n. 27), 197–8 Civ. 1.74–6: 200 n. 57 Civ. 1.74.1: 40, 198 Civ. 1.74.7: 75 (n. 7), 198 Civ. 1.77.1–2: 198 Civ. 1.84–7: 214 Civ. 1.84.1: 197–8, 209 (n. 16) Civ. 1.84.3–5: 205 Civ. 1.85: 193, 200 (with nn. 57–8) Civ. 1.85.1–4: 199 n. 50 Civ. 1.85.2–3: 198 Civ. 1.85.5: 197–8 Civ. 1.85.12: 197–8, 214 Civ. 1.86.1: 198 Civ. 1.86.2–4: 197 Civ. 1.87.1–3: 197–8 Civ. 1.87.4: 207 n. 9 Civ. 1.87.5: 197 Civ. 2.1.1: 189–90, 203 Civ. 2.4–7: 122–34 Civ. 2.4.1: 123, 128 Civ. 2.4.2: 124, 128 Civ. 2.4.3: 124 Civ. 2.4.4: 137 n. 232 Civ. 2.4.5: 128 Civ. 2.5.2: 124 Civ. 2.5.3–6.1: 125–8 Civ. 2.5.3: 125 (n. 195), 128, 130, 132, 133 (n. 219) Civ. 2.5.4: 128, 130 Civ. 2.5.5: 55 (n. 109), 124–5, 130

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

Index of passages   Caesar (continued)

Civ. 2.6.1: 40, 125, 130, 132 Civ. 2.6.2: 58 n. 129 Civ. 2.9–10: 122 n. 190 Civ. 2.16.3: 40, 43 (n. 65), 200–201 (n. 60) Civ. 2.17.1: 200–201 n. 60 Civ. 2.18.5–6: 214 n. 31 Civ. 2.20.7–2.21.5: 198 Civ. 2.21.4: 214 Civ. 2.22: 198, 200–201 (n. 60) Civ. 2.23–44: 137, 143 (n. 254), 162 (n. 37), 199 (n. 55) Civ. 2.23: 200–201 (n. 60) Civ. 2.23.1: 194 (with n. 32), 199 (n. 54), 212 Civ. 2.32: 122–3 n. 190 Civ. 2.32.5: 204–5, 211–14 Civ. 2.32.13: 204, 211–12, 214 Civ. 2.37.1–2: 204–6 Civ. 2.37.2: 205–6, 211 (with n. 24), 212 Civ. 2.38.2: 116 (n. 167), 119–20 (n. 182), 143 (n. 252) Civ. 2.43.4–44.1: 263–4 Civ. 2.44.3: 37 (n. 34), 200–201 (n. 60) Civ. 3.4.2: 200–201 n. 60 Civ. 3.8.4: 200–201 n. 60 Civ. 3.9.1: 200–201 n. 60 Civ. 3.10.4–5: 200–201 n. 60 Civ. 3.23.2: 59 n. 133 Civ. 3.32.3: 138 n. 237 Civ. 3.50.2: 200–201 n. 60 Civ. 3.51.1: 200–201 n. 60 Civ. 3.53.5: 105 n. 126 Civ. 3.57.5: 278 (on 49.1) Civ. 3.67.5: 200–201 n. 60 Civ. 3.68.1: 112 Civ. 3.70.2: 112 Civ. 3.86.4: 35 n. 27 Civ. 3.88–99: 156 Civ. 3.92.2: 137 n. 231 Civ. 3.97.5–98.2: 198 Civ. 3.98.2: 198 Civ. 3.99.3: 40 with n. 52 Civ. 3.104: 20, 157 Civ. 3.104.1: 20 (n. 24), 185 Civ. 3.105–12: 156 Civ. 3.105.1–2: 198 Civ. 3.105.[3–6]: 111 n. 155 Civ. 3.106.1: 51–2 Civ. 3.106.3: 116 (n. 167), 143 (n. 252) Civ. 3.106.4: 20 n. 25 Civ. 3.107.2: 20 (n. 25), 198, 242 (on 33.4) Civ. 3.108–12: 20 n. 25

333

Caesar (continued)

Civ. 3.108.1: 249–50 Civ. 3.109.6: 76 with nn. 8–9 Civ. 3.112.6: 47–8 Civ. 3.112.7–9: 48–50, 303 (n. 2) Civ. 3.112.10–11: 50 Civ. 3.112.12: 20, 28 (n. 55), 156–7, 202, ­249–50 (on 7.2)

Callisthenes FGrHist 124 F 31: 149 n. 265 Calpurnius Piso fr. 28 B/W: 152 n. 279 Calpurnius Siculus Ecl. 7.76–7: 82 n. 30 Cassius Dio 42.40.5–41.1: 83–4 42.43.3: 84 Cassius Hemina fr. 22 B/W (= HRR fr. 19): 152 n. 278 Cato the Elder Orig. 2.8a, 2.20, 5.2: 151 n. 273 Orig. 4.7a.(19): 152 (n. 279), 153 (n. 284) Charisius G.L. 1.147.3–4 (p. 186.20–21 Barwick): 22 n. 28 Cicero Att. 3.12.2: 19 n. 17 Att. 5.20: 95 n. 83 Att. 9.7a: 22 n. 28 Att. 9.7c.1: 102 n. 114 Att. 11.16.1: 18 n. 14 Att. 11.17a.3: 18 n. 14 Att. 11.18.1: 18 n. 14 Att. 11.25.2: 18 n. 14 Att. 12.39.1: 207 n. 11 Att. 13.21a.1–2: 19 n. 17 Att. 13.22.3: 19 n. 17 Att. 14.9.2–3: 24 n. 36 Att. 14.11.2: 24 Att. 15.6.1–3: 172 n. 16 Att. 15.27.2: 19 n. 17 Brut. 261: 175 n. 29 Brut. 262: 15, 174 (n. 24), 176, 178 Brut. 287: 139 n. 243

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

334

Indexes  

Cicero (continued)

De Orat. 1.1: 182 De Orat. 2.56–7: 139 n. 243 De Orat. 2.62–4: 159 n. 18 Div. 2.79: 161 n. 31 Fam. 2.10.3 (= 86.3 SB): 95 n. 83 Fam. 5.12 (= 22 SB): 151–2, 158–9 with n. 18 Fam. 14.23 (=171 SB): 18 n. 14 Fam. 15.4.3–10 (= 110.3–10 SB): 95 n. 83 Leg. 1.5: 159 n. 18 Off. 3.82: 175 (nn. 27, 29) Orat. 1: 182 Orat. 30: 139 n. 243 Orat. 37: 159 n. 18 Orat. 66: 159 n. 18 Orat. 128: 37 n. 34 Pis. 51: 100 n. 109 Rab. Perd. 8: 100 n. 109 Tusc. 1.1: 182 Claudius Quadrigarius: ▷ Quadrigarius Coelius Antipater fr. 11 B/W (= HRR fr. 11): 151 n. 272 fr. 20a–b B/W (= HRR fr. 19–20): 152 n. 279 fr. 33 B/W (= HRR fr. 51): 151 n. 273 fr. 41 B/W (= HRR fr. 34): 151 n. 272 fr. 46 B/W (= HRR fr. 39): 151 n. 273 fr. 58 B/W (= HRR fr. 50): 151 n. 272 Demetrius fr. 81 Wehrli: 144–5 Demophilus FGrHist 70 F 96: 148 n. 262 Dio Chrysostomus Or. 18.10: 139 n. 241 Diodorus Siculus 13.14.1–17.5: 130 n. 212 13.21.5: 145 18.44.2: 207 n. 10 20.70: 145 n. 257 31.10.1–2: 144–5 Dionysius of Halicarnassus De Thuc. 26–7: 130 n. 212 Duris of Samos FGrHist 76 F 1: 149 (with nn. 265–6), 152

Duris of Samos (continued)

FGrHist 76 F 10: 149 n. 265 FGrHist 76 F 36: 148, 150 FGrHist 76 F 67: 148–9 Ennius Ann. 80–1, 463–4: 143–4 n. 254 Euripides Tro. 1203–6: 141–2 Fabius Pictor fr. 10 B/W (= HRR fr. 8): 150 n. 269 Fasti Fasti Amiternini (CIL 1², part 1, p. 244): 204 (n. 2), 214 Fasti Antiates (CIL 1², part 1, p. 248): 204 (n. 2), 214 Fasti Maffeiani (CIL 1², part 1, p. 225): 204, 214 Fasti Vallenses (CIL 1², part 1, p. 240): 204 (n. 2), 214 Gellius 9.11.1–9: 151 (n. 274), 152 (n. 279) Herodotus 7.12,14,17: 151 n. 272 Hieronymus Adv. Iovin. 1.48 (p. 390.20–23 Bickel): 158 n. 15

Hirtius ap. Cic. Att. 15.6: 178 Gal. 8.pr.1: 35 (n. 25), 182 (with nn. 59–60) Gal. 8.pr.2: 15 (n. 1), 22–30, 52, 171, 172 (n. 17), 174–8 Gal. 8.pr.3: 24, 182 (n. 59) Gal. 8.pr.5: 172 (n. 17), 174–8 Gal. 8.pr.6: 174–8 Gal. 8.pr.8: 22–4, 158, 170, 178–9 Gal. 8.pr.9: 181, 183 Gal. 8.1.1: 242 (on 33.4) Gal. 8.4.3: 24 n. 41 Gal. 8.7.2: 35 n. 25 Gal. 8.15.5: 24 n. 41 Gal. 8.19.5: 109 n. 144 Gal. 8.27.5: 35 n. 25 Gal. 8.28.4: 35 (n. 25), 109 (n. 144) Gal. 8.28.6: 35 n. 24

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

Index of passages   Hirtius (continued)

Gal. 8.30.1: 24 (n. 41), 60 (n. 151) Gal. 8.37.1: 35 with n. 27 Gal. 8.38.2: 35 n. 24 Gal. 8.38.3: 24 (n. 41), 173 n. 20 Gal. 8.41.2: 35 n. 25 Gal. 8.41.5: 43 n. 65 Gal. 8.43.1: 35 n. 25 Gal. 8.43.3: 82 n. 30 Gal. 8.46.3: 35 n. 25 Gal. 8.46.6: 35 n. 25 Gal. 8.48.10–55.2: 171 Gal. 8.48.10–11: 172 (with n. 17), 173–4, 191 Gal. 8.48.10: 30 n. 64 Gal. 8.50.2: 172 n. 16 Gal. 8.51.1–3: 100 n. 109 Homer Il. 3.146–244: 133 n. 217 Il. 11.255: 135–6 n. 226 Il. 22.38–89: 133 n. 217 Horace Carm. 2.1.1–8: 17 n. 9 Carm. 2.1.2–3: 152 n. 282 Josephus A.J. 14.131–2: 84 n. 34 B.J. 1.190: 84 n. 34 Livy 1.29: 130 n. 212 2.33.8: 130 n. 212 7.10.6–12: 123 n. 191 9.9.13: 207 n. 11 21.1.2: 152 n. 282 33.3.11–12: 126 n. 197 Lucan 10.9: 78–9 n. 16 Lucian Hist. Conscr. 42: 139 n. 240 Hist. Conscr. 49: 135–6 n. 226 Nonius Marcellus p. 212.14–16 M.: 176 n. 30 p. 450.2 M.: 176 n. 30 Onasander Strat. 33.6: 97 n. 89

335

Oppius HRR fr. 1: 22 n. 28 Ovid Pont. 4.5.5–8: 207 n. 11 Tr. 2.443–4: 151 n. 271 Tr. 2.549: 26 n. 48 Phylarchus FGrHist 81 T 3 / F 53: 146–7, 150, 153 (n. 284) FGrHist 81 F 24: 148, 150, 151 n. 271 FGrHist 81 F 69: 148–9 FGrHist 81 F 70: 148 (with n. 262), 149, 150 (with n. 269) FGrHist 81 F 71: 148 Plautus Mil. 1339–43, 1354–77: 143 n. 253 Pliny the Elder Nat. 7.84: 207 n. 11 Plutarch Vit. Caes. 38.4–5: 116 n. 169 Vit. Cat. mai. 14.3–4: 207 n. 11 Vit. Per. 28.2–3: 148–9 Polybius 1.35.2–3: 145 n. 256 2.56.7–13: 146–7, 149 (with n. 267) 4.81.5: 145 n. 256 10.2.5–6: 145 n. 257 15.34.2: 145 n. 257 20.7.2: 145 n. 256 29.21.3–6: 144–5 29.22.2: 145 Priscianus G.L. 2.352.6: 15 n. 1 Ptolemy Geog. 4.5.39–41: 86 n. 40 Papyrus Yale 1729: 139 n. 241 Quadrigarius fr. 9 B/W (= HRR fr. 9): 152 n. 279 fr. 10a–b B/W (= HRR fr. 10a–b): 151 n. 274 fr. 10b B/W (= HRR fr. 10b): 123 (n. 191), 151 (n. 276), 152 (n. 279)

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

336

Indexes  

Quadrigarius (continued)

fr. 12 B/W (= HRR fr. 12): 151 (n. 274), 152 (n. 279) fr. 19 B/W (= HRR fr. 19): 151 n. 277 fr. 55 B/W (= HRR fr. 56): 151 n. 274 fr. 68 B/W (= HRR fr. 67): 152 n. 279 fr. 70 B/W (= HRR fr. 69): 151 n. 274 fr. 77 B/W (= HRR fr. 76): 153 n. 284 fr. 81 B/W (= HRR fr. 80): 151 n. 271 Quintilian Inst. 3.11.24: 128 n. 205 Inst. 8.3.67–9: 130 n. 212 Inst. 12.11.6: 158 n. 14

Suetonius (continued)

Gram. 25.3: 158 n. 14 Jul. 30.5: 175 (nn. 27, 29) Jul. 55–6: 19 n. 17 Jul. 55.1: 175 n. 29 Jul. 56.1–4: 16–17, 174–8 Jul. 56.1: 15 (n. 1), 21–2, 30 (n. 63), 172, 174–8 Jul. 56.2: 175 n. 29 Jul. 56.3: 174–8 (with n. 24), 183 Jul. 56.4: 17 (n. 7), 25 (n. 42) Jul. 56.5: 207 n. 11 Jul. 82: 89–90 with n. 55 Tib. 49.1: 177 n. 37 Sulla HRR fr. 8: 152 n. 278 HRR frr. 16, 18, 21: 151 n. 272

Sallust Cat. 4.3: 26 n. 48 Hist. 1.1: 26 n. 48 Jug. 5.1: 26 n. 48 Jug. 60: 133 n. 217 Sempronius Asellio fr. 8 B/W (= HRR fr. 7): 151 n. 277

Tacitus Ag. 46: 156 n. 9 Ann. 14.6.2: 116 n. 166 Ann. 15.53.2: 90 n. 55

Servius Aen. 6.praef.: 196–7 n. 41

Theopompus FGrHist 115 F 248: 148 n. 262

Sidonius Apollinaris Epist. 9.14.7: 170 n. 6

Thucydides 1.20.1: 139 n. 245 1.22.1,4: 26 n. 48 1.105.4: 135–6 n. 226 2.94.1: 138 n. 234 3.82.4–5: 138 n. 237 3.87.3: 137 n. 231 3.92.2: 138 n. 234 5.26.1: 26 with n. 48 5.65.3: 78 n. 14 5.103.2: 137 n. 232 6.31.1–4: 133 n. 217 7.22.1: 134 n. 220 7.23.1–2: 134 n. 220 7.23.1: 132 n. 216 7.24.1–3: 134 n. 220 7.48.1: 134 n. 220 7.50.4: 134 (n. 220), 137 (n. 232) 7.55.1: 134 n. 220 7.59.2–71.7: 130–34 7.59.2–60.2: 134 n. 220 7.69.2: 130 7.70.3–71.3: 133 n. 217 7.71.2: 130 7.71.3: 130, 132–3 (with n. 219)

Silenus FGrHist 175 F 2: 151 n. 272 Sisenna fr. 5 B/W (= HRR fr. 5): 151 n. 272 fr. 15 B/W (= HRR fr. 47): 151 n. 277 fr. 17 B/W (= HRR fr. 13): 151 n. 271 fr. 105 B/W (= HRR fr. 63): 128 n. 204 fr. 125 B/W (= HRR fr. 67): 115 (n. 165), 118 (n. 175), 151 (n. 277) fr. 131 B/W (= HRR fr. 129): 151 n. 274 fr. 140 B/W (= HRR fr. 138): 151 n. 275 Strabo 17.1.4: 86 (n. 40), 87 (n. 43) 17.1.8: 80 n. 23 17.1.9: 303 n. 1 Suetonius Aug. 68: 180 Gram. 1.3: 177 n. 37 Gram. 12.2: 21 n. 26

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

Index of Latin words and phrases  

337

Valerius Antias (continued)

Valerius Maximus 5.5.3: 207 n. 11

fr. 64 B/W (= HRR fr. 63): 152 (n. 279), 153 n. 284

Valerius Antias fr. 49 B/W (= HRR fr. 48): 151 n. 271

Vergil Aen. 6.1–2: 196–7 n. 41

Index of Latin words and phrases This index is selective. In particular, the list of hapax legomena in appendix F has been excluded. Appendices E and G have not been covered systematically, because they are organized alphabetically. a(b), ‘in the direction of ’: 78–9 n. 16 ac: ▷ atque accedere, propius a. + acc.: 279 accidere –– crebro accidere: 244 –– aliquid gravius accidit: 253 –– casus accidit: 256 –– ut tum accidit: 260 –– suspicari, quod accidit: 265 accipere, a. contumeliam / detrimentum: 253 acer: 94 (n. 78), 297 –– acriter proeliari / pugnare: 241 –– acrius insequi: 275 acies –– acies hostium / h. a.: 245 –– longius producere aciem: 266 ad –– ‘towards’, ‘in the direction of ’: 282 –– ad / in pugnam proficisci: 40 (with n. 52), 258 adaequare: 43 (with n. 65), 170 (n. 6), 258–9 adaugere: 43 adducere –– auxilia adducere: 32, 239 –– adducere in potestatem + gen.: 267 adfirmare, + acc. c. inf.: 280 adgredi –– with inanimate objects: 274–5 –– navibus (abl.) adgredi: 259–60 –– ‘to set about a task’: 249 adire –– with animate subjects: 263–4 –– propius adire: 259 adiungere, used with emotions: 243 administrare, consilio a.: 246

admirari, admiratio: 292 adna(ta)re, a. (ad) + acc.: 283 adplicare, naves adplicare ad: 260 adventus, + felix / subitus / hostilis: 57 with n. 123 adversarius (noun): 185–8, 294 adversus (adj.): 34, 36 (with n. 33), 271 –– res adversae: 239–40 advertere, animum advertere: 34 Aegyptius: 78–9 n. 16 aequus: 102 with n. 113 –– nec loco nec numero aequus / par: 250 afferre, fiduciam afferre: 32, 239 Afraniani, used instead of hostes: 187 with n. 12 alere, a. exercitum vel sim.: 277 alius, alius … alius: 69 n. 192 alter, alter … alter: 69 altus: 87 with n. 43 amicitia: 94, 95–6 (n. 84), 293 amicus: 293 amittere, amittere naves: 253–4 amor: 301 angustiae, angustiae loci: 58, 257 animi magnitudo, a. m. + virtus: 256 animus: 35 with n. 24 –– animum advertere: 34 –– animum ex– / incitare: 281 –– hoc animo decertare: 258 –– animo paratus: 277 annus, tempus anni difficile: 31, 242 antequam: 31 n. 3 apertus, ab latere aperto: 262 apparatus: 247 appellare: 252 aptare: 48–9 with n. 87

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

338

Indexes  

aptus, apt(issim)us ad: 250 aquari, aquandi causa: 252 arbitrari, idoneum (esse) a.: 259 arcessere, auxilium a.: 240 arma, arma proicere: 266, 276 armatura –– disciplina + armatura: 46, 57 –– levis armatura: 259 arrogans, arrogantia: 299 ars: 58 (with n. 128), 296 –– ars + sollertia: 37 (n. 38), 58 (n. 128) at: 64, 68 (with nn. 185–6, 189), 288 –– at contra: 69 n. 190 atque: 70–1 (with nn. 197, 205–6), 287 –– with an alliterative pair: 70 –– preconsonantal atque: 71 –– ac tametsi: 254 auctoritas: 293 audere –– consistere audere: 260–61 –– egredi audere: 262 augere –– numerum augere: 43 –– munitiones augere: 246 –– largitionem augere: 248 auspicium: 143 with n. 251 ausus: 143 n. 251 aut –– aut … aut: 37 (n. 36), 78 (n. 14) –– aut … aut (… aut): 69 with n. 195 autem: 64, 67, 288 auxiliaris / auxiliarius: 283–4 auxilium: 35 –– auxilia adducere: 32, 239 –– auxilium arcessere: 240 –– auxilium ferre: 280 avaritia: 95 (with n. 79), 298 avarus: 298 aversus (adj.): 36 bellum: 187–8 with n. 16 –– bellum conflare: 31, 63, 239 –– bellum iustum: 76 n. 9 –– de bello cogitare: 266 bene –– bene meritus: 33, 244 ▷ gerere benignitas, benignus: 296 bonitas, bonus: 296 cadere: 126–7 n. 198

Caesar –– Caesaris causam defendere: 32 –– in parte Caesaris: 249–50 –– Caesar victor: 101, 115 calamitas: 31 n. 6 calliditas: 32, 296 callidus: 296 capere –– navem capere: 253, 259 –– consilium capere: 259 –– interficere aut capere: 284 castellum, c. communire: 261 castra –– castra castris conferre: 32, 278–9 –– castra facere loco: 243 casus: 127 with n. 203 –– ad extremum casum de- / perducere: 249 –– gravior casus: 249 –– casus accidit: 256 causa –– causam defendere: 32, 243 –– duabus de causis: 252 –– causa + gen.: 42 n. 59 –– aquandi causa: 252 cedere: 126–7 n. 198 celer: 94 n. 78 –– celerior / -ius opinione + gen.: 31, 46, ­279–80 –– feliciter + celeriter: 33, 64, 241 –– quam facile … tam celeriter: 245 –– quam celerrime + posse: 277 celeritas: 94 n. 78 certamen, proelii certamen: 282–3 certare, certare proelio: 35 n. 26 certus, certo ordine: 262 ceteri: 56 with n. 110 circuitus, circuitus oppidi: 32, 243 circumsistere: 59 circumvenire: 263 clam, + abl.: 42 n. 59 clamor, clamorem exaudire: 263 classiarius: 98 n. 97 classis, classem parare: 254 claudere, munitionibus cl.: 32, 243–4 clemens, clementia: 102–3 n. 114 coepisse, otiose: 56 with n. 112 cogere –– exercitu coactus: 244 –– dimicare cogi: 257 –– cogere in unum locum: 267 cogitare, de bello cogitare: 266 cogitatio, deponere cogitationem: 273

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

Index of Latin words and phrases   cognoscere –– cognoscere controversias / de controversiis: 33 (n. 13), 56–7, 244 –– cognoscere locum: 260 –– qua re cognita: 63, 64 (nn. 157–8) cohortari, + inf.: 275–6 commeatus –– commeatum intercipere: 240 –– commeatu intercludere / prohibere: 240 comminus, c. facere proelium: 57 committere –– proelium committere: 241 –– rem committere: 257 commodus, satis commode: 266 communire, c. castellum: 261 comparare: 23 n. 30 competere: 23 n. 30 conari, ad conandum: 264 concedere, praedam concedere: 261 condonare –– ‘present as a gift’: 33, 245 –– condonare iniuriam: 267 conferre –– castra castris c.: 32, 278–9 –– se conferre: 34 conficere –– ‘amass (troops vel sim.)’: 273 –– conficere librum vel sim.: 23 (with n. 33), 28 (with n. 57) –– feliciter conficere: 240 –– rebus confectis: 63, 278 confidere –– virtute militum confisus: 42, 255 –– confidere posse + inf.: 259–60 confirmare –– confirmare castellum: 276 –– confirmare + acc. c. inf.: 280 conflare, c. bellum: 31, 63, 239 confligere: 31 –– ad confligendum: 128 (with n. 204), 254 confugere: 60 n. 150 coniectura: 78 coniunctus, coniunctissimus: 243 conlaudare: 292 conlocare –– praesidium conlocare: 265 –– in cornu conlocare: 255–6 –– in statione conlocare: 240 –– in vallo conlocare: 241 conquirere: 246 conscendere, naves conscendere: 249

339

conserere: 82 n. 30 consilium –– exitus consilii: 244 –– consilium capere: 259 –– consilium deponere: 273 –– consilium probare: 248–9, 276 –– consilio administrare: 246 –– in consilio per-/ remanere: 283 consistere –– ‘constitui’ (of ships, troops): 255 –– ‘positum esse, niti’: 127 with n. 202 –– in virtute consistere: 257 –– consistere audere: 260–61 consolatio: 271 conspectus, in conspectu: 272, 278 conspicere: 252–3 constanter: 295 with n. 3 constantia: 95–6 (n. 84), 97, 295 constare, constat + acc. c. inf.: 81 n. 26 constituere –– naves constituere: 255 –– pro vallo constituere: 245 –– constituere + imperare: 256 consuescere, semper c. + inf.: 32 consuetudo –– praeter consuetudinem: 59, 249 –– contra consuetudinem: 32, 59 (n. 135), 244, 249 –– in consuetudinem venire: 59, 248 consumere, c. diem: 277, 279 contendere –– contendere proelio: 35 n. 26 –– contendere magno cursu: 263 contentio, magna / summa contentione: 32, 239 contexere, ‘continue’: 23 with n. 31 continenter: 59 with n. 136 continere, se continere: 59, 260 continuus, magnus + c.: 59 (n. 136), 242 contra (adv.): 67 with n. 183 –– at contra: 69 n. 190 controversia, cognoscere controversias / de controversiis: 33 (with n. 13), 56–7, 244 contumelia: 104–5 (n. 123), 292 –– contumeliam accipere: 253 copia –– copia + gen. poss.: 44 –– copia exigua: 59 (with n. 137), 246–7 copiae –– occupare copiis: 242 –– venire cum copiis: 269

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

340

Indexes  

copiosus, copiosissimus: 247, 269 cornu, in cornu conlocare: 255–6 corrigere: 17 cotidianus –– cotidianus usus: 254, 273 –– cotidianum opus: 267 –– cotidianum proelium: 276 cratis: 260 creber: 55 (with n. 107), 60 (n. 148) –– crebrae litterae: 277 –– crebro accidere: 244 crebritas: 55 n. 107 crudelis: 95 (n. 79), 298 crudelitas: 95–6 (with nn. 79, 84), 298 cum (conj.): 72 (with nn. 209–10), 290 –– postposited: 36–9 (with nn. 30, 39–40, 46), 72 –– cum interim: 33 –– cum primum: 60 n. 151 cupiditas: 35 with n. 25 –– cupiditas pugnandi: 262 cursus, contendere magno cursu: 263 custodiae –– used for ships: 273 –– custodias disponere: 254 dare –– dare veniam petenti(bus): 39 (n. 49), 265 –– facultatem dare + gen.: 41, 264–5, 285 –– receptum dare: 249 –– negotium dare, ut: 251 –– signum dare: 257 –– responsum dare: 267 decertare, hoc animo d., ut: 258 decursio: 242 dedecus: 292 –– dedecori esse + dat.: 257 dediticius: 59, 251 deducere, ad extremum casum d.: 249 defendere –– causam defendere: 32, 243 –– manu defendere: 267 –– nullo defendente: 277 deformitas: 110 delectus (adj.), of troops: 240–41 Delta: 86 demergere, navem demergere: 57 demonstrare, in cross–references: 173 (n. 20), 248, 269–70 deponere, d. cogitationem / metum vel sim.: 273

deprecari: 55 with n. 108 deprimere –– navem d.: 57 (n. 118), 253, 259 –– multitudine atque onere d.: 263–4 desiderare, ‘to have lost’: 56 (n. 111), 220, 265 detergere, d. remum: 257 deterrere: 302 detrahere, ‘withdraw’: 281–2 detrimentum: 31 n. 6 –– detrimentum accipere: 253 deus, victoriam ab dis exposcere: 128, 258 dicio, sub dicione esse: 266–7 dies –– superior dies: 60, 258 –– diem consumere: 277, 279 differre, inter se differre: 249 difficilis –– tempus anni difficile: 31, 242–3 –– facilis ex difficillima re (vel sim.): 267 difficultas –– difficultas loci / locorum: 241 –– difficultas hiemis: 243 dignitas: 94, 104–5 (n. 123), 291 –– pertinere ad dignitatem: 242 –– prima dignitas: 250 dignus: 42 (n. 59), 291 (with n. 1) diligens: 295 diligentia: 94 (with n. 78), 295 –– prudentia ac diligentia: 57 dimicare –– se parare ad dimicandum: 255 –– dimicare cogi: 257 dimicatio: 32 with n. 7 dimittere, exercitum d.: 198 n. 48 dirimere, proelium d.: 272 discedere –– d. ab oppugnatione: 266, 277 –– incolumis + discedere: 264 disciplina: 34 –– d. + armatura / severitas: 46, 57 dispar: 59 disponere –– custodias disponere: 254 –– praesidia disponere: 261 –– in insidiis disponere: 242 –– in statione disponere: 240 distinere, manum d.: 260 distribuere, of troops: 256, 282 diversus –– diversissimus: 240 –– d. + iter vel sim.: 250

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

Index of Latin words and phrases   dividere, d. in partes: 246 docere, in cross–references: 270 doctrina: 58 n. 128 dolere: 300 dolor: 95–6 (with nn. 80, 84), 300 –– dolori esse + dat.: 257 dolus: 297 dominari, dominatio, dominatus: 293 Domitiani, instead of hostes: 187 with n. 12 dubitare –– non d. + acc. c. inf.: 43 with n. 64 –– d. + indirect question: 264 dubitatio, sine dubitatione: 32, 244 dum, dum haec geruntur: 190–91 (with nn. 8, 11), 194–5 (with nn. 32, 35) durus, dura tempestas: 31, 95 (n. 83), 243 edere: 17–18 (with nn. 10–11) editus, ‘high’: 34, 266 efferre, efferri victoriā vel sim.: 31, 137 (n. 232), 245 efficere –– in topographical descriptions: 80 (n. 23), 246 –– opere effecto: 261 effugere: 60 n. 150 egredi, egredi (ex) + abl.: 262 eicere, se eicere: 41, 58, 260 eminus, eminus proeliari: 241 enim: 64, 67, 287 –– sic enim: 274 epistula: 42 n. 59 esse, sentence–initial: 65–6 with n. 174 et: 70–1, 287 –– et nihil / nec quicquam: 269 etiam, non tantum … sed e.: 32, 34, 56 etsi: 31, 34 eventus: 127 with n. 201 evocare: 130 (with n. 213), 246 exaudire, clamorem e.: 263 excelsus, locus e.: 32, 239, 281 excitare, e. mentes vel sim.: 251, 281 excusatio: 182, 244 exercere, exercitatio: 254 exercitus –– exercitum dimittere: 198 n. 48 –– exercitum lustrare: 33, 243 –– exercitum pellere: 213–4 with n. 29 exiguus, copia exigua: 59 (with n. 137), 246–7 exitus, exitus consilii: 244 experiri: 34–5 with n. 23

341

exponere, in terra(m) e.: 59 with n. 133 exposcere, victoriam ab dis e.: 128, 258 expugnare: 34 externus: 42 (n. 59), 55 (with n. 109), 244 –– externus hostis: 32 exterrere: 302 extimescere: 42 (n. 59), 302 extremus, ad extremum (adv.): 170 n. 6 fabula: 152 facere –– castra loco facere: 243 –– hoc idem faci(un)t: 32 –– impetum facere: 42 –– initium transeundi f.: 256 –– libentius facere: 32, 244 –– periculum facere: 35 n. 23 –– proelium facere: 32 (with n. 12), 57 (with n. 121), 244, 253, 272, 277 facilis –– quam facile … tam celeriter: 245 –– facilis ex difficillima re (vel sim.): 267 facultas –– ‘copia’: 247 –– facultas pugnandi: 42, 258 –– f. libere + gerund(ive): 33, 285 –– f. bene gerendae rei: 252 –– facultatem dare + gerund(ive): 41, ­264–5, 285 fallacia: 95, 297 fallax: 95 (n. 79), 297 fallere –– f. iudicium / opinionem: 257, 258 –– non fallit aliquem, quin: 266 familiaris: 56 (n. 113), 59 (n. 142) fastigium: 284 felicitas: 114 (n. 162), 116 (n. 168) felix: 114 with n. 162 –– felix adventus: 57 –– feliciter conficere: 240 –– feliciter gerere: 31 with n. 5 –– feliciter + celeriter: 33, 64, 241 fere –– fere + omnis / totus: 56 n. 113 –– eodem fere tempore: 212 n. 26 ferre –– ferre auxilium: 280 –– ferre fructum + gen.: 266 –– flumine ferri: 248 festinare, + inf.: 60 (n. 146), 262–3 fidelis: 94 (n. 76), 294

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

342

Indexes  

fidelitas: 294 fides: 94, 95–6 (n. 84), 294 fiducia: 109 n. 146 –– fiduciam afferre: 32, 239 –– spes + fiducia: 254 fidus: 294 flare: 252 flumen, flumine ferri: 248 fors: 82 n. 30 fortis: 94 (n. 78), 295 fortitudo: 42 (n. 59), 94, 95–6 (n. 84), 97, 295 fortuitus: 114 n. 162 fortuna: 111–16, 140–43 –– periclitari fortunam: 60 (with n. 144), 258 frangere, ‘to crush in spirit’: 253 fraudare, fraus: 297 frons, in fronte: 44 fructus, ferre fructum + gen.: 266 frumentari, + pabulari: 32, 279 frustra, sed id frustra: 94 n. 74 fuga –– se recipere ex fuga: 60 (n. 150), 248, 269 –– perterritus fugā + gen.: 260 fugere: 60 n. 150 funditus: 58 n. 125 fungi: 244 gaudere: 300 gaudium: 95 (n. 80), 300 gerere –– g. rem feliciter: 31 (with n. 5), 63, 237, 241 –– g. rem bene: 31, 63, 95, 240, 252 –– dum haec geruntur: 190–91 (nn. 8, 11), 194–5 (nn. 32, 35) gratia, + gen.: 42 n. 59 gravis –– gravior casus: 249 –– si quid gravius accidit: 253 –– gravis + miser: 126–7 (with n. 200), 258 –– graviter extimescere: 249 habere –– nobilitatem habere: 244 –– orationem habere: 251 haud: 42 n. 59 hiberna, in hibernis: 51 n. 91 hic: 63 (with n. 156), 286 –– first-person demonstrative: 174 n. 21 –– anaphoric: 190 with n. 8

hiems, difficultas hiemis: 243 honestus: 95–6 (n. 84), 291 honor: 104–5 (n. 123), 291 horrere, horribilis, horror: 302 hostilis: 294 –– adventus hostilis: 57 hostis: 185–8, 294 –– externus hostis: 32 –– acies hostium: 245 ibi: 64 idem: 62 (n. 155), 286 –– hoc idem facere: 32 –– sub idem tempus: 34, 35, 57 –– eodem tempore: 35, 57 (n. 120), 58 (n. 131), 194–5 (nn. 32–3, 35), 212 n. 26 idoneus –– idoneum (esse) arbitrari: 259 –– locus idoneus: 276, 279 igitur: 42 (n. 59), 67 (n. 182) ignavia: 172 (n. 16), 178 (with n. 39), 298 ignavus: 298 ignominia: 292 ignoscere: 267 ille: 63 (with n. 156), 286 –– postposited: 33 –– used instead of hostis: 187 with n. 11 –– omnis illa regio: 32, 239 illustris: 110 (n. 149), 292 imitari: 247–8 imparatus: 284 imperare –– constituere + imperare: 256 –– imperata facere: 240 imperator, honorary appellation: 101 n. 111 imperium –– sub imperio esse: 266–7 –– imperium obtinere: 256 imperitia, imperitus: 299 impetus, impetum facere: 42 imponere, legiones i.: 251 imprimis, + ut / ne: 246 imprudens, imprudentia: 299 –– imprudentiae excusatio: 244 in, ad / in pugnam proficisci: 40 with n. 52 incedere, timor incedit: 249 incendium, ad incendium: 262 incitare –– i. mentes vel sim.: 251, 281 –– incitatus + cursu: 263

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

Index of Latin words and phrases   incolumis: 34, 35 –– incolumis + discedere: 263–4 –– incolumes omnes: 259 incommodum: 31 n. 6 incredibilis: 284 inde: 64 indignatio: 301 indignitas: 94, 95–6 (n. 84), 110 (with n. 153), 292 inertia: 172 (n. 16), 178 (with n. 39) infelicitas: 114 n. 162 inferior –– inferior esse (‘superari’): 258 –– pars inferior (‘less elevated’): 247 inferre, moram inferre: 247 infidelis: 94 (n. 76), 294 infidelitas: 294 inflare, inflari secundo proelio: 32, 244 infra –– ‘lower in size’: 255 –– of geographical position: 251–2 inimicitiae: 185–6 (with nn. 4, 8), 294 inimicus: 76 (n. 8), 104–5 (with n. 123), ­185–8, 293 inire, proelium inire: 241 initium –– i. nascitur: 243, 245, 267, 278 –– i. transeundi facere: 256 iniungere, ‘impose (a burden)’: 277 iniuria: 104–5 n. 123 –– condonare iniuriam: 267 inopia, inopiā premi: 252 inpar: 59 n. 138 –– (in)par proelium: 241 insequi, acrius insequi: 275 insidiae, in insidiis disponere: 242 insolens: 251 instar, instar legionis vel sim.: 261 instruere –– instruere naves + abl.: 252 –– instruere pro vallo: 33, 245 –– producere + instruere: 256 integer, in integrum restituere: 267 intercidere: 32–3 –– valles intercidit(ur): 244 intercipere, i. commeatum: 240 intercludere: 34 –– i. aliquem / aliquid: 248, 280 –– commeatu intercludere: 240 –– reditu intercludere: 263 –– tempestatibus intercludi: 236, 280

343

interficere: 56 n. 111 –– multitudinem i.: 236, 253, 272, 284 –– magnum numerum i.: 276 –– interficere aut capere: 284 intericere, palus interiecta: 32, 43 (with n. 61), 80 (with n. 23) interim: 35, 57 (n. 120), 64, 67, 289 –– cum interim: 33 intermittere –– i. + pars temporis: 251 –– intermittere opus: 251 –– (non) intermittere + inf.: 270 intervallum: 261 intrare –– intrare + primus: 256–7 –– intrare (intra) + acc.: 283 involare: 68 n. 186 ipse: 286 is: 62 (n. 155), 286 ita, connecting sentences: 64, 67, 289 itaque: 64, 67, 289 iter –– diversum iter: 250 –– magnis itineribus: 207 laborare: 58 (with n. 129) –– laboranti(bus) succurrere: 246 –– laboranti(bus) subsidio (sub)mittere: 265 laetari, laetitia, laetus: 95–6 (with nn. 80, 84), 300 largitio, largitionem augere: 248 latro: 76–7 with nn. 8–9 latrocinium: 32, 239 latus, ab latere aperto: 262 laudare, laus: 292 legio, legiones imponere: 251 levis, levis armatura: 259 libenter, libentius facere: 32, 244 liberaliter, l. polliceri: 267 libere, facultas l. + gerund(ive): 33, 285 libertas: 104–5 n. 123 licentia: 298 licet: 31 n. 3 litterae, crebrae litterae: 277 locus –– locus editus: 266 –– locus excelsus: 32, 239, 281 –– locus idoneus: 276, 279 –– locus planus: 283 –– ultra eum locum: 262 –– angustiae loci: 58, 257

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

344

Indexes  

locus (continued)

multitudo (continued)

magnus –– magna mora: 250 –– magna praeterea multitudo + gen.: 42, 253 –– magna vis + gen.: 249 –– magnum numerum interficere: 276 –– magna contentione: 32 –– magno cursu contendere: 263 –– magnis itineribus: 207 –– magno negotio (abl.): 250, 271 –– magna ex parte: 259 –– magnus + continuus: 242 maiestas: 94, 95–6 (n. 84), 291 manus –– manum distinere: 260 –– manu defendere: 267 maritimus, spelling: 72 with n. 212 maturus: 248 mens: 34, 35 mergere, mergere navem: 57 meritum: 253 metuere: 302 metus: 302 –– deponere metum: 273 miles –– collective singular: 248 –– virtute militum confisus: 42, 255 militaris: 34, 221 minuere, m. timorem: 59, 250 minus, neque / nec minus: 247 miser, gravis + miser: 258 mitis: 267 mittere, laboranti(bus) subsidio m.: 265 modo, non modo … sed ne … quidem: 271 mora: 268 –– magna mora: 250 –– moram inferre: 247 morari, + quin: 280 multitudo –– omnis multitudo: 284–5 –– magna praeterea multitudo + gen.: 42, 253

nam(que): 64, 67, 287 nasci, initium nascitur: 243, 245, 267, 278 naturā / naturaliter: 59 with n. 140 naturalis, n. sollertia: 282 navis –– naves adplicare: 260 –– naves amittere: 253–4 –– naves capere: 253, 259 –– naves conscendere: 249 –– naves + consistere / constituere: 255 –– naves (de-/ sub-)mergere / deprimere: 57 (with n. 118), 253, 259 –– naves detrahere ad terram: 281–2 –– naves distribuere: 256 –– naves instruere + abl.: 252 –– naves reficere: 128, 254 –– navibus (abl.) adgredi: 259–60 –– (ex) navi(bus) egredi: 262 ne –– imprimis ne: 246 –– non solum / modo … sed ne … quidem: 271 nec: ▷ neque negotiari: 267 negotium: 34, 35 –– magno negotio (abl.): 250, 271 –– negotium dare, ut: 251 nequaquam: 58 n. 125 neque, nec: 58 (n. 130), 70–71 (with n. 204) –– neque vero: 58 (with n. 130), 247 –– neque quisquam … quin: 128–9 (with n. 205), 257 –– neque / nec minus: 247 –– neque / nec ... tamen: 58 n. 130 –– neque quicquam / et nihil: 269 –– neque / nec tantum … sed etiam: 32, 34 nihil –– nihil opus esse + abl.: 32, 34, 243 –– nihil proficere: 269 nisi, quod (ni)si: 34, 272 nobilis, nobilitas: 94, 95–6 (n. 84), 291 –– used of geographical locations: 57 with n. 122 –– nobilitatem habere: 244

–– difficultas loci: 241 –– notitia locorum: 250–1 –– castra facere loco: 243 –– cogere in unum locum: 267 –– cognoscere locum: 260 –– nec loco nec numero par / aequus: 250 longe –– non longe a(b): 239 –– longius producere aciem: 266 lustrare, exercitum l.: 33, 243

–– multitudinem interficere: 253, 272 –– multitudine atque onere depressus: 263–4 multus, multum proficere: 82 (n. 30), 262, 275 munitio –– munitionibus claudere: 32, 243–4 –– munitiones augere / proferre: 246 musculus: 48–9 (with n. 87), 260

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

Index of Latin words and phrases   nocturnus, nocturnum tempus: 59 (with n. 141), 251 non –– non longe a(b): 239 –– non dubitare + acc. c. inf.: 43 with n. 64 –– non tantum … sed etiam: 32, 34, 56 –– non solum / modo … sed ne … quidem: 271 nos, nostri: 78 (with n. 15), 81 (with n. 24), 187 (n. 14) notitia, n. locorum: 250–51 notus (noun): 59, 258 nox: 59 (n. 141), 251 –– nox proelium dirimit: 272 nudare, n. castra vel sim.: 59, 252–3 nullus –– nullus omnino + noun: 261–2 –– nullo defendente: 277 numerus –– numerus + omnino: 261 –– magnum numerum interficere: 276 –– nec loco nec numero par / aequus: 250 –– numero (+ gen.) praestare: 258 nuntiare, nuntiatur + acc. c. inf.: 278 ob,‘because of ’: 282 obducere, o. vallum vel sim.: 247 obsessio: 35 (n. 26), 221–2, 282 obsidio: 35 (n. 26), 221–2 obtestari: 55 (with n. 108), 258, 266 obtinere –– imperium obtinere: 256 –– stationem obtinere: 261 –– obtinere + inanimate subject: 44 with n. 70 obviam: 243 occupare –– occupare copiis: 242 –– occupatus in + abl.: 257–8 occurrere, venienti(bus) o.: 257 odiosus: 301 odisse: 301 odium: 55, 95–6 (nn. 80, 84), 301 –– odio esse: 32, 34, 243 officina: 247 officium, o. suscipere: 248 omnino: 34, 58 with n. 125 –– omnino + numbers: 261 –– (n)ullus omnino + noun: 261–2 omnis: 58 n. 125 –– paene + omnis: 56 with n. 113 –– omnis multitudo: 284–5

345

omnis (continued)

–– omnis illa regio: 32, 239 –– omni ratione: 59–60 (with n. 143), 251 onus, multitudine atque onere depressus: 263–4 opinari: 57 with n. 119 opinio –– celerior / -ius opinione: 31, 46, 279–80 –– fallere opinionem: 258 –– contra opinionem: 254 oppidum, circuitus oppidi: 32, 243 opplere: 261 opprimere, ruinā opprimi: 268 oppugnare: 274–5 oppugnatio –– oppugnationem vereri: 282 –– ab oppugnatione dis-/ recedere: 266, 277 optare, + (acc. c.) inf.: 240 opus –– ‘defensive works’: 48–9 (with n. 87), 82 (n. 30) –– nihil opus esse + abl.: 32, 34, 243 –– opere effecto: 261 –– opus cotidianum: 267 orare, venire oratum, ut + ignoscere: 267 oratio, orationem habere: 251 ordo, certo ordine / ordines servare: 262 ostentatio: 109 (n. 146), 299

pabulari, + frumentari: 32, 279 paene, paene + omnis / totus: 56 with n. 113 palam, + simulare: 250 palus: 49 (with n. 88), 80 –– palus interiecta: 32, 43 (with n. 61), 80 (n. 23) par –– without a defining dative: 250, 271 –– (in)par proelium: 241 –– nec loco nec numero par: 250 –– se parem esse confidere: 260 Para(e)tonium: 78–9 n. 16 parare –– classem parare: 254 –– (se) parare ad: 252, 255, 273 –– paratus + abl.: 275, 277 pars –– pars … pars: 69, 262, 263 –– pars quaedam + gen.: 240 –– pars inferior: 247 –– dividere in partes: 246 –– in parte Caesaris: 249–50 –– ex parte (‘partly’): 23 (with n. 34), 158 –– magna ex parte: 259

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

346

Indexes  

partim ... partim: 37 (n. 36), 55, 69 paulus –– paulo and paulum: 201 n. 61 –– paulo supra / infra: 251–2 pecunia: 34, 56 n. 113 pedes, delecti pedites vel sim.: 240–41 pedester: 34, 56 (n. 113), 222 pellere, exercitum p.: 213–14 with n. 29 penes (prep.): 222, 267 perducere, ad extremum casum p.: 249 perfidia: 224, 294 periclitari: 34–5 (with n. 23), 143 (with n. 250), 254 –– periclitari fortunam: 60 (with n. 144), 258 periculum –– periculum facere: 35 n. 23 –– timor / terror periculi: 240 –– in periculo versari: 276 perire: 34, 56 (with n. 111), 156 (n. 9) peritus: 296 permanere, p. in sententia / consilio: 278, 283 perseverantia: 42 (n. 59), 95–6 (n. 84), 295 perterrere: 302 –– perterritus fugā + gen.: 260 pertimescere: 94, 217, 229, 301 pertinacia: 300 pertinere, p. ad dignitatem: 242 perturbare, p. milites: 222, 236, 263 pervulgare: 284 pes, pedibus (‘by land’): 211 n. 22 petere, dare veniam petenti(bus): 39 (n. 49), 265 planus, planus locus: 283 plerique: 273 pollere, tantum pollere: 257 polliceri, liberaliter polliceri: 267 Pompeiani, used instead of hostes: 187 with n. 12 ponere –– praesidium ponere: 42, 261, 265 –– in statione ponere: 240 posse –– tantum posse: 257 –– confidere posse + inf.: 259 –– quoad potuit: 264 –– quam celerrime + posse: 277 post(ea)quam: 34, 72 (with nn. 208–10), 290 postremo: 67

potens, potentia: 293 potestas: 293 –– ‘facultas’, ‘occasio’: 219, 222, 237 –– adducere / tradere in potestatem + gen.: 267 potiri, + gen. / abl.: 42 n. 59 prae-, intensifying quality: 95 n. 82 praecipitare: 222 –– se praecipitare in + acc.: 261 praeclarus: 63, 95 (with n. 82), 292 praeda, praedam concedere / (con)donare: 33, 245, 261 praedari: 60 with n. 145 praeesse, + dat.: 256 praeoptare, + inf.: 240 praesens, p. tempus: 60 with n. 147 praesertim: 34, 222 praesidium –– praesidium (dis)ponere: 42, 261, 265 –– praesidium conlocare: 265 –– praesidio locum tenere: 261 praestare –– numero (+ gen.) praestare: 258 –– virtute praestare: 253 praeter: 129 with n. 211 –– praeter consuetudinem: 59 (with n. 135), 249 praeterea: 34, 67, 289 –– magna p. multitudo + gen.: 42, 253 premere, inopiā premi: 252 primus –– used predicatively: 36 with n. 32 –– primus + intrare: 256–7 –– prima dignitas: 250 priusquam: 31, 34 privatus: 76–7 with n. 9 probare, consilium p.: 248–9, 276 procurrere: 82 n. 29 producere –– producere + instruere: 256 –– longius producere aciem: 266 proeliari: 35 –– eminus / acriter proeliari: 241 proelium –– (in)par proelium: 241 –– cotidianum proelium: 276 –– proelii certamen: 282–3 –– proelii signum: 43–4 with n. 66 –– proelium dirimere: 272 –– proelium inire / committere: 241 –– proelium sustinere: 257

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

Index of Latin words and phrases   proelium (continued)

–– proelium facere: 32 (with n. 12), 57 (with n. 121), 244, 253, 272, 277 –– proelio certare / contendere: 35 n. 26 –– inflari (secundo) proelio: 32, 244 proferre, munitiones p.: 246 proficere: 34 –– multum proficere: 82 (n. 30), 262 –– nihil / nec quicquam p.: 269 proficisci, in / ad pugnam p.: 40 (with n. 52), 258 profugere: 60 n. 150 prohibere –– prohibere + quominus: 32, 280–81 –– commeatu prohibere: 240 –– transitu prohibere: 265–6 proicere, arma p.: 266, 276 proinde: 67, 222, 251 properare, + inf.: 60 (with n. 146), 262–3 propinquus, propinqua fuga: 274 propior and propius (adv.): 270 –– propius accedere + acc.: 279 propugnare: 222 –– propugnare ex + abl.: 260 propugnator: 98 prospectus: 127 with n. 199 protegere: 259 provincialis: 42 n. 59 prudens: 296 –– prudentissimum consilium: 75–6, 101–2 (with n. 112), 120 prudentia: 42 (n. 59), 94 (with n. 78), 296 –– prudentia ac diligentia: 37 (n. 38), 57 puber, servus puber: 247 pugna: 35 (n. 26), 58 (with n. 126) –– ad / in pugnam proficisci: 40 (with n. 52), 258 –– signum pugnae: 43–4 with n. 66 pugnare: 35 –– pugnandi facultas: 42, 258 –– acriter pugnare: 241 –– cupiditas / studium pugnandi: 69, 82 (n. 30), 262 quam –– tam … quam: 32 –– quam facile … tam celeriter: 245 –– quam celerrime + posse: 277 quamquam: 31, 34, 224 quamvis: 31 (n. 3), 42 quapropter: 67 n. 182 quare: 67 n. 178

347

–que: 64, 70–1 (with n. 199), 175, 201 (n. 61), 287 –– connecting two sentences: 71 n. 203 –– attached to an infinitive: 70 (with n. 200), 279 qui: 62 (n. 155), 286 –– rel. pron. + tamen: 284 –– quam ob causam / rem: 67 (with n. 178), 282 quia: 42 quicquam, nec quicquam / et nihil: 269 quidam, pars quaedam + gen.: 240 quin –– morari, quin: 280 –– non fallit aliquem, quin: 266 –– neque quisquam … quin: 128–9 (with n. 205), 257 quoad, quoad potuit: 264 quocirca: 67 n. 182 quodsi and quodnisi: 34, 72, 272 quominus, prohibere quominus: 32 rapina: 240, 243 ratio –– omni ratione: 59–60 (with n. 143), 251 –– simili ratione: 60 (with n. 152), 261 recedere, r. ab oppugnatione: 266, 277 receptus, receptum dare: 249 recipere –– se recipere: 277–8 –– se recipere ex fuga: 60 (n. 150), 248, 269 recreare, se recreare ab: 240 recusare, non recusare + inf.: 272 reditus, reditu(m) intercludere: 263 reficere –– se reficere ab / ex: 240 –– reficere naves vel sim.: 128, 254 refugere: 60 n. 150 regio –– omnis illa regio: 32, 239 –– regionum illarum / earum + superlative: 265 relinquere, spatium relinquere: 256 reliquus: 56 n. 110 –– relinquere + reliquus: 276–7 remanere, r. in consilio vel sim.: 283 remus, remum detergere: 257 repellere: 34, 222 repente: 31 (with n. 4), 34 repentinus –– repentinus adventus: 57 n. 123 –– repentinum latrocinium: 32, 239

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

348

Indexes  

res: 35 with n. 25 –– res publica: 104–6 –– res secundae / adversae: 239–40 –– rem bene gerere: 31, 63, 95, 240, 252 –– rem committere: 257 –– qua re cognita: 63, 64 (nn. 157–8) –– his rebus confectis: 63, 64 (nn. 157–8), 278 rescribere: 17 responsum, his responsis datis: 64 (n. 157), 237, 267 restituere, in integrum r.: 267 Romanus: 81 (with n. 25), 106 (with n. 130) ruina, ruinā opprimi: 268 saepe: 60 n. 148 saepenumero: 55 (n. 107), 60, 222 salus, salutem dicit (in letters): 170 (n. 6), 172, 181 sapere: 42 n. 59 satis, satis commode: 266 scalae: 260 scientia: 58 n. 128 –– scientia + virtus: 37 (n. 38), 60 (n. 144), 109, 272 –– scientia + magnitudo: 37 n. 38 scribere: 26 (n. 48), 28 (with n. 57) –– in cross–references: 270 se and sese: 59 –– word order: 36 n. 30 secundus –– res secundae: 239–40 –– secundum proelium facere: 253, 272, 277 –– secundo proelio inflari: 32, 244 securis: 108 with n. 140 sed: 68, 288 –– sed tamen: 69 n. 190 –– non / neque tantum … sed etiam: 32, 34, 56 –– non solum / modo … sed ne … quidem: 56 (n. 114), 271 semper, s. consuescere + inf.: 32 sententia, permanere in sententia: 278, 283 servus, servus puber: 247 sese: ▷ se severitas, s. + disciplina: 37 (n. 38), 46, 57, 237 si: ▷ quodsi, ▷ siquidem sic: 64, 67, 289 –– sic enim: 274 signum –– signum pugnae / proelii: 43–4 with n. 66 –– signum dare: 257

similis, simili ratione: 60 (with n. 152), 261 simul: 57 n. 120 simulac / simulatque: 71 n. 205 simulare: 250 siquidem: 42 n. 59 sive ... sive: 37 (n. 36), 55, 69, 70 (n. 196), 78 (n. 14), 81 (n. 26), 88 (n. 46) sollertia: 34, 58, 247–8, 296 –– naturalis sollertia: 106 (n. 132), 282 –– ars + sollertia: 37 (n. 38), 58 (n. 128) sollicitare, sollicitudo: 302 solum, non solum … sed ne … quidem: 271 spatium –– spatium temporis: 248 –– spatium relinquere: 256 spectaculum: 133 with n. 217 spes –– spes + fiducia: 254 –– spes salutis: 218 splendidus: 110 (n. 149), 292 statio –– in statione ponere vel sim.: 240 –– stationem obtinere: 261 studere, + ut: 268 studium: 34, 35 –– studium spectandi: 35 (n. 25), 69, 262 stultitia, stultus: 299 subitus –– adventus subitus: 57 with n. 123 –– subito: 31 with n. 4 submergere, navem s.: 57 n. 118 submittere, laboranti(bus) subsidio s.: 265, 282 subportare: 254 subsidiarius: 60 (with n. 149), 223, 265 subsidium: 34, 35, 223 –– laboranti(bus) subsidio mittere: 265 –– subsidio distribuere, venire etc.: 282 succurrere, laboranti(bus) s.: 58 (n. 129), 246 summa, s. rerum: 126 with n. 197 summus –– s. + velocitas vel sim.: 32, 281 –– s. + contentio: 32 superare: 214 n. 30 superbia, superbus: 300 superior, superior dies: 60, 258 supplere: 21 (with n. 26), 172, 177 supra, of geographical position: 251–2 suscipere, officium suscipere: 248 suspicari, + quod accidit: 265 sustinere, proelium s.: 257

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

Index of Latin words and phrases   tabulatum, turris tabulatorum + number: 247 tam –– tam … quam: 32 –– quam facile … tam celeriter: 245 tamen: 64, 67, 288 –– rel. pron. + tamen: 284 –– neque / nec ... tamen: 58 n. 130 –– sed tamen: 69 n. 190 –– tametsi … tamen: 273 tametsi: 31, 34 –– ac tametsi: 254 –– tametsi … tamen: 273 tandem: 197–8 tantum –– tantum posse / pollere: 257 –– non / neque tantum ... sed etiam: 32, 34, 56 telum, vis telorum: 263 temerarius: 299 temere: 119–20 (n. 182), 299 temeritas: 299 –– temeritas incredibilis: 284 tempestas –– tempestas dura: 31, 95 (n. 83), 243 –– tempestas vehemens: 94 n. 78 –– intercludi tempestatibus: 236, 280 tempus –– nocturnum tempus: 59 (with n. 141), 251 –– praesens tempus: 60 with n. 147 –– spatium temporis: 248 –– tempus anni difficile: 31, 242–3 –– sub idem tempus: 34, 35, 57, 219 –– eodem tempore: 35, 57 (n. 120), 58 (n. 131), 194–5 (nn. 32, 33, 35), 212 (n. 26) –– uno(que) tempore: 42, 58 (with n. 131), 248, 260 tenere –– se tenere: 44 with n. 68 –– praesidio locum tenere: 261 tergum –– terga (con)vertere: 43 (n. 62), 60 (with n. 150), 260 –– a tergo circumvenire: 263 terra –– in terra(m) exponere: 59 (with n. 133), 252 –– naves ad terram detrahere: 281–2 terrere: 302 terrestris: 34, 56 (n. 113), 223 –– terrestri itinere: 219 terror: 94, 302 –– terror periculi: 240 testamentum: 266

349

timere: 301 timor: 301 –– timorem minuere: 59 (with n. 139), 250, 271 –– timor periculi: 240 –– timor incedit: 249 totus: 58 n. 125 –– tota milia: 245 –– paene totus: 56 with n. 113 tra(ns)ducere: t. (trans) + acc.: 283 transferre, fortuna transfert victoriam: 114 with n. 163 transire, initium transeundi facere: 256 transitus, transitu prohibere: 265–6 transmarinus: 55 (n. 109), 223, 248 tra(ns)natare: 283 trepidare, trepidus: 302 trepidatio: 95 (n. 84), 302 tum –– ut tum accidit: 260 –– cum ... tum maxime: 220 turris, t. tabulatorum + number: 247 ubi –– ‘on whose side’: 104–5 with n. 122 –– ubi (temporal): 60 n. 151 –– ubi primum: 60 ullus, u. omnino + noun: 261–2 ultra, ultra eum locum: 262 umquam: 58 n. 125 unus –– uno(que) tempore: 42, 58 (n. 131), 248, 260 –– cogere in unum locum: 267 urbanus: 223, 266 usus, cotidianus usus: 254, 273 ut –– ut and uti: 72 with nn. 211–12 –– ‘considering how’: 279 –– ‘supposing that’: 68 n. 185 –– ut temporale: 72 (with n. 210), 290 –– ut primum: 60 n. 151 –– ut supra demonstratum est: 50, 190 (n. 10), 248, 269–70 –– ut tum accidit: 260 –– imprimis ut: 246 utrimque: 55 vale(te), closing formula: 181 (with n. 52), 183 valles, v. intercidit(ur): 244

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

350

Indexes  

vallum –– pro vallo constituere / instruere: 33, 245 –– in vallo conlocare: 241 vallus: 223 –ve: 69 vehemens: 94 (n. 78), 223, 297 vel: 69 –– ‘even’: 69 n. 193 –– vel … vel: 37 (n. 36), 69 (n. 193) velocitas, summa v.: 32, 281 velut: 276 vena, + gen.: 32, 239 venia, veniam dare petenti(bus): 39 (n. 49), 265 venire –– ‘to come (to a stage in an action)’: 255, 273 –– venit dies / tempus: 255 –– v. oratum, ut + ignoscere: 267 –– v. ad + gerund(ive): 275 –– v. cum copiis: 269 –– v. in consuetudinem: 59 (with n. 134), 248 –– eo ventum est: 255 –– venienti(bus) occurrere: 257 vereri: 301 –– vereri, ne + circumvenire: 263 –– vereri oppugnationem vel sim.: 282

vero: 58 (n. 130), 68 (with n. 188), 288 –– neque vero: 58, 247 versari: 34, 223 –– in periculo versari: 276 vertere, terga v.: 43 (n. 62), 60 (with n. 150), 260 veteranus: 34, 223 victor –– predicative: 36 (with n. 32), 38–9, 55 –– Caesar victor: 101, 115 victoria –– victoriam ab dis exposcere: 128 (with n. 206), 258 –– victoriam transferre: 114 (with n. 163) –– victoriā efferri: 31, 137 (n. 232), 245 –– insolens in victoria: 251 –– initium victoriae: 267 victrix: 36 (n. 32), 272–3 virtus: 295 –– virtus + animi magnitudo: 37 (with n. 38), 58 (n. 128), 256 –– virtus + scientia: 37 (with n. 38), 58 (n. 128), 272 –– virtute militum confisus: 42, 255 –– virtute praestare: 253 –– in virtute consistere: 257 –– non virtute, sed ... vincere: 253 vis (‘quantity’), magna vis + gen.: 249, 263

Index of Greek words and phrases ἀνακαλεῖν: 130 with n. 213 γράφειν: 26 n. 48 Δέλτα: 86 with n. 40 διότι: 145 with n. 255 δραματικός: 150 n. 269 εἰσάγειν: 149 n. 267 ἐκπλήττειν: 149 n. 267 ἐπαίρεσθαι: 137 n. 232 ἐπιείκεια: 102–3 n. 114 εὔνοια: 102–3 n. 114 ἐχθρός: 186 n. 5 θέα: 133 with nn. 217, 219

ἱστορικός: 147 n. 259 κατά, κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸν χρόνον: 195 n. 35 πλασματώδης: 150 n. 269 ποιητής: 147 n. 259 πολέμιος: 186 n. 5 πρᾳότης: 102–3 n. 114 προθυμία: 133 n. 217 τύχη: 116 (n. 169), 141–2 (with n. 249) φιλανθρωπία: 102–3 n. 114 χαίρειν: 183 n. 61 χρόνος, κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸν χρόνον: 195 n. 35

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

General index  

351

General index Acco, leader of the Senones: 138 n. 233 –– persecution and death: 156 n. 9 Achillas, general of Ptolemy XIII –– tensions with Arsinoe IV: 50, 117 n. 173 Achilles Tatius –– influenced by Thucydides: 139 with n. 242 adventus principis, motif: 100 n. 109 Aelius Tubero, L., historian –– influenced by Thucydides: 139 with n. 245 –– paradoxa: 151 n. 273 –– the motif of torture: 151 n. 275 aetiology: 148 Afranius, L., Pompeian general –– march to Octogesa: 208–10 –– shortage of supplies: 209 n. 16 –– capitulation: 197–8, 205–8, 212–14 Agatharchides of Cnidus, historian –– influenced by Thucydides: 139 with n. 239 –– ‘tragic’ or sensational features: 149 n. 265 Agathocles of Syracuse, vicissitudinous life: 145 n. 257 Alesia, town in Gaul, siege: 107–8, 119 (n. 182), 133 (n. 219), 137 (with n. 230) Alexander the Great, speed of his cavalry: 207 n. 10 Alexandria –– densely populated: 81 n. 23 –– water supply: 79 with n. 21 –– topography: 80–81 (with n. 23), 303–5 Alexandrians –– characterization: 45 (n. 73), 68 (n. 185), 99–100 (with n. 107), 106–9 –– political objectives: 77, 106–7 –– their troops: 106 (n. 131), 109 (with n. 144) –– subservient after Caesar’s victory: 99–100 Ambiorix, prince of the Eburones: 112 Anaximenes of Lampsacus, historian: 149 n. 265 annalists: ▷ late annalists Annius Florus: ▷ Florus Antigonus Monophthalmus, speed: 207 n. 10 Antipater, leader of a Jewish contingent: 84 with nn. 33–4

Antonius, C., brother of Mark Antony –– operations in Illyricum (49 B. C.): 199 (n. 55), 200–201 (n. 60) Antonius, M., the triumvir: ▷ Mark Antony Apollonius of Perge, epistolary prefaces: 181 n. 51 Appian, his account –– of the Alexandrian War: 79 (nn. 17, 20), 81 (n. 27) –– of Domitius’ campaign against Pharnaces: 88 n. 45 –– of the events in Illyricum: 88 n. 46 –– of the Battle of Zela: 92 n. 71 –– information on Pontic Comana: 91 n. 65 Arausio, town in Gallia Narbonensis, battle: 153 n. 284 Archimedes, epistolary prefaces: 181 n. 51 Aristides of Miletus, garland of novellas: 151 n. 271 Aristotle –– on poets and historians: 147 n. 259 –– ideal tragic plot: 141 n. 248 Arsinoe IV, younger sister of Cleopatra VII –– tensions with Achillas: 50, 117 n. 173 Asinius Pollio, C., historian –– criticizes Caesar’s account of the Civil War: 17 –– starting point of his own account: 17 n. 9 –– influenced by Thucydides: 139 n. 245 –– redactor of Civ. and B.Alex. (?): 20 (n. 25), 268 (on 1.2), 272 (on 11.5) –– author of B.Afr. and B.Alex. 48–64 (?): 41 n. 54 –– Horace’s ode to A.P.: 152 n. 282 assassination attempts, typical procedure: 89–90 n. 55 Athens –– trierarchy: 130 n. 213 –– sea power: 135 n. 223 Atticus (T. Pomponius Atticus) –– encourages Cicero to write contemporary history: 161 with n. 29 Augustus: ▷ Octavian Aurelius, interim governor appointed by Hirtius: 180 n. 47 Avaricum, town in Gaul: 119 n. 182

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

352

Indexes  

Balbus (L. Cornelius Balbus) –– eager to defend Caesar against republican propaganda: 24 –– supports Octavian: 162 –– involved in the continuation of Caesar’s commentarii: 24, 27 (with n. 53), 162, 170 (n. 6) band-wagon effect: ▷ propaganda Basilus (L. Minucius Basilus), an officer of Caesar’s: 112 battle –– of Arausio: 153 n. 284 –– outside Massilia (sea battle, Civ. 2.4–7): 122–34 –– of Mutina: 25, 157, 163 n. 38 –– of Nicopolis: 88 n. 45 –– of Panium: 147 n. 259 –– in the harbour of Syracuse: 130–34, 137 –– of Lake Trasimene: 152 n. 279 –– of Tunis: 145 n. 256 –– of Zela (67 B. C.): 92 n. 67 ▷ Caesar (life and deeds) battle descriptions –– captivating, graphic: 89 (with n. 49), 92 (with nn. 70, 72), 132 –– vague or lacunose: 82–3, 87, 140–41 –– emphasize the importance of the conflict: 125, 130 ‘Beinahe-Episoden’ (‘if-not-situations’): 118 (n. 176), 119–20 (n. 182), 121 (n. 188), 135–6 (n. 226) Bellona, her sanctuary in Comana: 91 n. 65 Bellum Africum –– date of composition: 13 (with n. 2), ­22–4, 27–8, 157 –– written at Hirtius’ request by another Caesarian: 27–8 –– author unknown in Suetonius’ day: 22 –– literary design: 27 with n. 51 –– transmission ▷ Corpus Caesarianum –– language and style –– different from Gal. 8: 25, 27 n. 51 –– word order, acies hostium / h. a.: 245 (on 75.3) –– motifs –– Caesar hesitates: 96 n. 87 –– fiducia and hybris: 109 n. 146 –– influence of the gods: 114 n. 161

Bellum Alexandrinum (in general) –– date of composition: 13 (with n. 2), 22–4, 27–8, 157, 160–2 –– transmission ▷ Corpus Caesarianum –– authorship –– ancient testimonia: 21–30 –– not written by Hirtius: 33–5 –– not written by a ‘dilettante’: 37–9 –– an assemblage of several accounts: 39–41, 53–4 (with nn. 100–102), 73, 87, 88–94 (with nn. 45, 51, 63, 72), passim –– minor adjustments made by Hirtius: 45 (with n. 73), 51 (n. 93) –– structure –– Caesar’s deeds frame those of his ­generals: 52 –– cross-references: 52, 269–70 (on 4.1) –– linguistic heterogeneity: 38–9, 45–6, 53, 55–73 –– vocabulary –– frequency of hapax legomena: 33 n. 16 –– expressions unattested in Gal. 1–7, Civ. 1–3, and Hirt. Gal. 8: 216–19 –– Caesarian expressions: 39–41, 128, 219–23, 246–67 –– un-Caesarian expressions: 42–5, ­216–19, 223–4 –– expressions misidentified as un-­ Caesarian: 42–3, 268–85 –– Hirtian expressions: 31–5, 223–4, 239–45 –– Hirtian usages avoided in B.Alex.: ­34–5, 224 –– usages that are characteristic of the later chapters: 34, 38–9, 55–7, 237–8 –– expressions occurring several times: 236–8 –– political value terms: 94–5, 291–300 –– words pointing to emotions: 95 (with n. 80), 300–302 –– alternative expressions (sive ... sive etc.): 37 (n. 36), 69–70 –– syntax –– elliptical or obscure syntax (?): 36 (with n. 31), 38 (with nn. 44–5) –– abrupt changes of subject: 36 (with n. 31), 37–8 –– relative / demonstrative pronouns: 61– 3, 286–7

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

General index   Bellum Alexandrinum (in general) (continued)

–– cardinal / distributive numerals: 247 (on 2.4) –– collective singular: 248 (on 4.2), 273–4 (on 14.1) –– ablatives absolute: 63–4, 95 with n. 81 –– connective adverbs and particles: 67, 289 –– adversative conjunctions and adverbs: 67–9, 288 –– disjunctive conjunctions and adverbs: 69–70 –– copulative conjunctions: 70–71, 287 –– subordinating conjunctions: 60 (with n. 151), 72, 290 –– word order –– distorted (?): 36 with n. 30 –– est factus / factus est: 37–8 with n. 37 –– postposition of cum (conj.): 36 (n. 30), 38–9 (with n. 46), 72 –– hyperbata: 36 (n. 30), 37–8 –– Wackernagel’s law: 36 n. 30 –– sentence-initial verbs: 65–6 –– sentence-initial ablatives absolute: ­63–4, 248 (on 6.1) –– subject placed in the middle of an ­ablative absolute: 64 n. 163 –– acies hostium / h. a.: 245 (on 75.3) –– archaic features –– uti instead of ut: 72 with nn. 211–12 –– maritumus and maritimus: 72 with n. 212 –– rhetorical devices and style –– climax: 37 n. 35 –– enallage: 274 (on 16.7) –– hendiadys and duplicatio: 37–8 with n. 34 –– pleonastic expressions: 38 (n. 39), 282 (on 16.1), 284 (on 74.1) –– repetition of key phrases / lack of ­variatio: 37–9 (with nn. 38 and 47), 45–6, 236–8 –– frequency of superlatives: 95 (n. 83), 269 (on 3.1) –– motifs and themes –– death as a closural motif: 156 with n. 9 –– fiducia and hybris: 109 n. 146 B.Alex. 1–21 –– based on a draft by Julius Caesar: 39–41, passim –– not written by a dilettante / slavish ­imitator of Caesar: 46–7, 134

B.Alex. 1–21 (continued)

353

–– designed to entertain and captivate: 122, 134 –– vocabulary –– parallels between B.Alex. 1–21 and Caesar: 39–41, 219–23, 246–65 –– un-Caesarian usages in B.Alex. 1–21 (?): 42–5 –– syntax –– differences between B.Alex. 1–21 and 22–78: 61–72 –– greater variety of connectives and constructions: 61–4, 67 –– more extensive use of words meaning ‘and’: 70 –– constructio ad sensum: 136 (n. 228), 263–4 (on 20.6) –– word order and style –– un-Caesarian word order (?): 42 –– enallage: 274 (on 16.7) –– contents –– recapitulation of facts mentioned in Civ. 3: 47–51 –– narrator is familiar with Caesar’s plans: 74–5 with n. 2 –– with the events in Caesar’s camp: 75 –– with the views and plans of the ­Alexandrians: 77 with nn. 12–13 –– with the topography of Alexandria: 78–81 –– motifs and themes –– spectator motif: 123 (n. 191), 132–3 –– prayers during a battle: 128, 132 –– presentation of the historical events –– seemingly objective: 93 –– set-backs and failures are mentioned: 96 –– discreet misrepresentations: 97–9, 136 n. 227 –– Caesar’s responsibility for set-backs is obfuscated: 97 –– manipulation by imprecision: 98 –– events are presented as causally determined: 111 –– characterization –– indirect: 93, 95, 96–7, 135 with n. 225 –– characterization of Caesar: 96–8, 111 (n. 154), 119 (with n. 180) –– of the Alexandrians: 45 (n. 73), 106–8 –– of Caesar’s officers and allies: 109 –– narrative technique –– temporal perspective: 117–19, ­132–3, 135, 141

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

354

Indexes  

B.Alex. 1–21 (continued)

–– no anticipation of future events: 117 –– switches of perspective and focalization: 117 with n. 172 –– focus on fears and expectations: ­117–18 –– counterfactual history: 118–19 –– ‘Beinahe-Episoden’ (‘if-not-situations’): 118 with n. 176 –– openness of the past: 119 with nn. 180–81 –– postponed conclusion, suspense: 132 with n. 215 –– literary models –– Thucydidean influence: 131–6 –– Sicilian expedition as a foil: 134, 136 B.Alex. 22–78 (in general) –– not an unadorned report: 122, 153–4 –– serves to counter anti-Caesarian propaganda: 106, 160–63 –– language and style –– more un-Caesarian usages: 56–7, 216–19 –– higher frequency of Hirtian expressions: 34, 223–4, 239–45 –– recurrent expressions: 38–9, 237–8 –– more political value terms and ethical vocabulary: 94–5 –– clustering of relative clauses: 61–3 –– formulaic ablatives absolute: 63–4 –– unconnected sentences (asyndeton): 64 –– verb-initial clauses with verbs other than esse: 65 –– preference for stronger adversatives: 68–9 –– infinitive + -que: 70 with n. 201 –– higher frequency of superlatives: 95 n. 83 –– other characteristic features: 38–9, 55–7 –– historical information –– differences in precision, detail, and ­focus: 92–3, 154 –– loaded alternative / different versions of the events: 70 (n. 196), 77–8 (with n. 14) –– presentation of the events –– overtly biased narrative, political and ethical comment: 93–5, 99–106, 149 –– explicit characterization: 93–5 –– Caesar is celebrated in a propagandistic fashion: 99–106

B.Alex. 22–78 (in general) (continued)

–– characterization of the enemy: 45 (n. 73), 109 –– of Caesar’s officers and allies: 109–10 –– band-wagon propaganda: 99–101, 153 with n. 284 –– dramatic or ‘tragic’ presentation: 58 (n. 129), 75 (n. 6), 94 (with n. 74), 141–3 –– divine influence and Fortune: 113–16 –– literary models and parallels –– features shared with earlier historiography: 144–53 –– influenced by Cicero’s style (?): 159 n. 20 –– by Cicero’s views on historiography: 151–2, 158–9 B.Alex. 22–33 –– language and style –– Caesarian expressions in B.Alex. ­22–33 (?): 39 n. 49 ▷ B.Alex. 22–78 (in general) –– historical information –– based on Hirtius’ memory of Caesar’s oral account: 39 (n. 49), 158 –– contradictions between B.Alex. 22–33 and Civ. 3: 76 –– inaccuracies and gaps: 81–4, 87, 158 –– imprecise topographical information: 84–7 –– the narrator is uncertain or speculates: 77–8 (with n. 14), 81 (with n. 26) –– tries to cover up his lack of information: 81–2 with n. 28 –– does not know Caesar’s plans: 75–7 –– organizes the information in an ­awkward fashion: 87 –– presentation of the events –– more distanced perspective: 81 –– few references to expectations or fears: 120 –– retrospective vantage point: 120, 141 –– prolepses: 120, 141, 153 n. 284 –– historical events teach a philosophical lesson: 141 –– dramatic or ‘tragic’ features: 58 (n. 129), 75 (n. 6), 94 (n. 74), 141–2 –– epic (?) simile in B.Alex. 24.5: 143–4 n. 254 B.Alex. 34–41 –– more detailed than other sources: 88 with n. 45

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

General index   B.Alex. 34–41 (continued)

–– based on a report by Domitius (?): 88 n. 45 –– perspective and narrative technique: 120 B.Alex. 42–7 –– varying quality of the information: 88–9 –– partly based on a report by Vatinius (?): 53 (n. 98), 88–9 (with n. 51) –– perspective and narrative technique: 120 –– dramatic or ‘tragic’ features: 58 (n. 129), 89 (with nn. 49–50), 142–3 B.Alex. 48–64 –– authorship: 41 (nn. 54–5), 52 (n. 97), 53 –– based on an eye-witness account (?): 90 with n. 63 –– wealth of detailed information: 89–90 –– speculations: 90 n. 59 –– negative characterization of Q. Cassius Longinus: 90 n. 63 –– events are narrated from different ­perspectives: 120–21 with n. 185 –– counterfactual history: 121 with n. 187 –– ‘Beinahe-Episoden’ (‘if-not-situations’): 121 with n. 188 –– influenced by Thucydides (?): 137 B.Alex. 65–78 –– not based on a draft by Caesar: 53 (n. 100), 92 (with n. 72), 101 (n. 111), 114 (n. 161), 276 (on 26.2), 279 (on 67.1) –– written by an eye-witness (Hirtius ?): 92 n. 72 –– structure and focus of the narrative: 91 –– varying density and quality of the informa­tion: 91–2 –– periegetical elements: 91 (n. 65), 92 (n. 67) –– precise indications of time: 92 with n. 68 –– detailed description of the ▷ Battle of Zela: 92 –– characterization of Caesar: 92 (with n. 66), 101–6 –– events are narrated from different perspectives: 120–21 with n. 185 –– ‘Beinahe-Episoden’ (‘if-not-situations’): 121 with n. 188 –– headline prolepsis: 121 with n. 189 –– influenced by Thucydides (?): 137 Bellum Civile: ▷ Caesar Bellum Gallicum: ▷ Caesar, ▷ Hirtius

355

Bellum Hispaniense –– transmission ▷ Corpus Caesarianum –– genesis and publication –– date of composition: 13 (with n. 2), 22–4, 27–8, 157 –– written at Hirtius’ request by another Caesarian: 27–8 –– author unknown in Suetonius’ day: 22 –– summary of previous events inserted by Hirtius (?): 28 n. 55 –– language and narrative technique –– not a mere draft or diary: 27 with n. 51 –– stylistically different from Gal. 8: 25, 27 (n. 51) –– abrupt changes of subject and lack of variatio: 38 n. 42 –– otiose coepisse: 56 n. 112 –– use of polyptoton: 278–9 (on 61.2) –– epic reworking of historical events: 143–4 n. 254 Bogus, ruler of Mauretania: 90, 114, 121 books –– physical shape of ancient books: 190 with n. 9 –– typical motifs of book openings: 189–90 (with nn. 5–8), 193–4, 201 (n. 61) –– book trade and unauthorized copying: 19 with nn. 16–17 bridges, built quickly: 209 Brundisium: 119 (n. 178) –– siege of B. as a caesura: 187 with n. 16 Brutus (M. Iunius Brutus), Caesar’s ­murderer: 158 (n. 15), 160–2, 163 (n. 38) –– his encomium of Cato the Younger: 161 n. 30 Brutus (D. Iunius Brutus Albinus), Caesar’s officer: 124, 162 (with n. 34), 210 Caesar (life and deeds) –– Gaul and Britain –– preparations for the second invasion of Britain: 193 n. 26 –– punitive expedition against the Nervii: 193 n. 26 –– early departures from Gaul to northern Italy: 194 with n. 28 –– Civil War –– Caesar’s speech at Ravenna: 213 –– negotiations at the beginning of the Civil War: 105 (with n. 127), 185–7

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

356

Indexes  

Caesar (life and deeds) (continued)

–– senatorial opposition: 105 –– the siege of Brundisium: 119 (n. 178), 187 (with n. 16) –– campaign in Spain (49 B. C.): 194, 202, 204–14 –– arrival at Ilerda, date: 206, 208 –– short-fall of supplies near Ilerda: 208–9 (with nn. 16–17) –– Caesar’s speech at Ilerda: 192–3, 200 with n. 58 –– departure from Ilerda: 207 with n. 9 –– Caesar’s stay in Hispania ulterior (49 B. C.): 194, 210, 213–14 –– his return to Massilia: 210–11 –– the mutiny of Placentia: 98 n. 102 –– Caesar’s failed attempt to cross the Adriatic Sea: 98 n. 102 –– Alexandrian War –– Caesar calls for reinforcements: ­47–8, 51–2 –– attempts to reach Lake Mareotis: ­80–81, 97 –– water supply: 71 (with n. 21), 80–81 (with n. 23), 97 –– geological knowledge: 97 (with n. 90), 134 (with n. 220) –– no communication with Rome: 18 n. 14 –– insufficient planning: 97 with n. 95 –– motives for releasing king Ptolemy: 77 with nn. 10–11 –– triumphant return to Alexandria: ­99–101 –– stationing of troops in Egypt: 103–4 with nn. 117–18 –– Syria, Cilicia, Pontus –– administrative and diplomatic achievements: 91 (with n. 64), 103 (with n. 116) –– Caesar laughs at Pharnaces’ preparations: 92, 121 n. 189 –– battles –– first battle at Dyrrhachium: 200–201 n. 60 –– second battle at Dyrrhachium: 97 (n. 89), 119 (n. 182), 202 –– Battle of Pharsalus: 114 (with n. 161), 119 (n. 182), 137, 156, 198 –– sea battle near Chersonensus: 79 (with n. 18), 118

Caesar (life and deeds) (continued)

–– sea battle in the Eunostos harbour: 51–2, 75 (with n. 4), 79 (with n. 18), 118–19, 122–34 –– battle at the mole (Heptastadium): 79 (with n. 20), 81 (n. 27), 96–7 (with n. 89), 117 (n. 171) –– sea battle at Canopus: 82–4, 140–42 –– Battle of the Nile: 86–7, 99 –– of Zela: 92 (with nn. 67–72), 101, 121 (with n. 189), 179 –– of Thapsus: 18 with n. 13 –– of Munda: 117 (n. 170), 180 –– other biographical facts –– speed of travel: 180 (n. 45), 207, 211 (with n. 23) –– friend of the Jewish people: 84 n. 33 –– oral account of the Alexandrian War: 23, 39 (n. 49), 45, 158, 164 –– monarchic ambitions after Pharsalus (?): 101 n. 111 –– assassination: 89–90 (n. 55), 160–62 Caesar (image) –– self-presentation in Gal. and Civ.: 18, 20, 97 (nn. 89, 94, 96), 98 (nn. 100, 102), 104–6, 185–8 –– characterization in B.Alex.: 91–2 (with n. 66), 96–106 –– political aspects –– Caesar defends his dignitas against his inimici: 104–5 (with n. 123), 187 –– has suffered injustices: 138 (n. 237), 200 (with nn. 58–9) –– criticizes the disrespectful treatment of Roman customs: 200 with n. 59 –– is supported by the ‘authority of all ­Italy’: 105–6 –– liberates the Senate and the Roman people: 105 with n. 124 –– provides stability and justice: 102–3, 198–9 –– defends Roman interests: 103–4, 106 –– Caesar’s men fight for their general, not the res publica: 104–5 n. 123 –– personal qualities –– foresight and strategic instinct: 101–2 –– clemency, leniency, forgiveness: 92 (n. 66), 100, 102–3 (with n. 114), 198–9 –– sense of honour: 97 with n. 92 –– courage: 96–7 with nn. 89, 93 –– Caesar plans carefully: 97 (with n. 91), 111 (n. 154)

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

General index   Caesar (image) (continued)

–– cares for his soldiers and followers: 97 (n. 94), 172 (n. 16) –– is portrayed as cautious or hesitant: 96 (n. 87), 111 (n. 154), 119 (with n. 180) –– is implicitly contrasted with Nicias: 134 with n. 220 –– representation outside the Corpus ­Caesarianum –– propagandistic exploitation of ­Caesar’s luck and success: 112 (n. 158), 116 (with n. 169) –– clementia Caesaris on coins: 162 n. 33 –– anti-Caesarian propaganda after the Ides of March: 160–61 Caesar (writer) –– vocabulary –– larger than commonly stated: 225 with n. 2 –– distribution of hapax legomena: 42 (with n. 59), 225–35 –– Caesar becomes less strict in the selection of vocabulary: 44 with n. 72 –– uses ethical and emotional vocabulary sparingly: 95–6 (n. 84), 291–302 –– avoids clemens, clementia vel sim.: 102 n. 114 –– prefers subito to repente: 31 n. 4 –– reliquus to ceterus: 56 n. 110 –– inopinans to necopinans: 57 n. 119 –– use of coepisse (otiose): 56 n. 112 –– fiducia and hybris: 109 n. 146 –– fortuna: 111–13 –– syntax –– collective singular: 248 (on 4.2), 273–4 (on 14.1) –– constructio ad sensum: 263–4 (on 20.6) –– cardinal / distributive numerals: 247 (on 2.4) –– construction of compounds with ad-: 283 (on 20.6) –– relative / demonstrative pronouns: 62–3 (with nn. 155, 156), 286–7 –– antecedent repeated in rel. clauses: 38 n. 39 –– abrupt changes of subject: 38 n. 39 –– conjunctions and connectives –– copulative conjunctions: 70–71, 287 –– connective adverbs and particles: 67, 289 –– adversative conjunctions and ­adverbs: 288

Caesar (writer) (continued)

––

––

––

––

––

357

–– temporal conjunctions: 72 (with nn. 208, 210), 290 variatio –– simplicia pro compositis and comp. pro simp.: 43 with n. 62 –– different compounds used without difference in meaning: 280 (on 8.1), 281 (on 9.2) –– parallel use of similar expressions: 277–8 (on 49.1) –– parallel use of different constructions: 40 (n. 52), 59 (n. 133), 262 (on 20.3), 283 (on 20.6) –– shift from a personal to an impersonal expression: 271–2 (on 10.1) –– close repetition (lack of variatio): 38 n. 39 further stylistic phenomena –– enallage: 274 (on 16.7) –– prose rhythm: 71 with nn. 205–7 –– pleonastic expressions: 38 (n. 39), 282 (on 16.1) –– frequency of superlatives: 95 (n. 83), 269 (on 3.1) –– use of verbal echoes: 138 n. 233 word order –– factus est / est factus: 37 n. 37 –– verb-initial sentences: 65–6 with nn. 174, 177 –– hoc probato consilio: 248 (on 6.1) –– subject placed in the middle of an ­ablative absolute: 64 n. 163 –– hyperbata: 38 (n. 39), 268–9 (on 2.5) –– postposition of cum (conj.): 38 n. 39 –– hoc idem ... facere: 32 n. 10 –– acies hostium / h. a.: 245 (on 75.3) speeches in Gal. 1–7 and Civ. 1–3: 107–8, 192–3, 200 (with n. 58), 204, 213–14 –– use of oratio recta: 122–3 (n. 190) –– prose rhythm: 71 with n. 207 –– ethical and emotional vocabulary: 95 n. 84 motifs and themes –– death as closure: 156 with n. 9 –– events are unprecedented: 138 n. 234 –– fiducia and hybris: 109 (n. 146), 143 (n. 252) –– hesitation (of the general): 96 n. 87 –– moral corruption of civil war: 138 n. 237

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

358

Indexes  

Caesar (writer) (continued)

––

––

––

––

–– morale and psychological factors of war: 112–13 (n. 158), 138 (n. 236), 209 (n. 17) –– prayers before / during a battle: 128, 130, 132 –– spectator motif: 123 (n. 191), 133 (n. 219), 137 (with nn. 229–30) –– technical descriptions of siege works: 122 n. 190 –– virtus as a response to a set-back: 81 n. 28 structure of the narrative –– Caesar treats each year in a separate commentarius: 30 (n. 64), 138 (n. 234), 156, 173, 191–2 –– recapitulation of previous events: 28 (n. 55), 51 (with nn. 91–2), 190 (with n. 5) –– cross-references: 173 (n. 20), 190 (n. 10), 269–70 (on 4.1) –– book openings: 189–90 (with nn. 5–8), 193–4, 201 (n. 61) –– dramatic structures in Gal. and Civ.: 15–16 (n. 2), 122–3 (n. 190), 143–4 (n. 254), 192–3 characterization –– indirect: 97 (n. 94), 138 –– representation of Caesar’s soldiers: 97–8 (n. 96), 110 manipulative devices –– Caesar directs attention away from set-backs: 97–8 n. 96 –– avoids the impression of a civil war: 15 (n. 1), 76 (n. 8), 186–8 –– presents his enemies as brigands and barbarians: 76 n. 8 –– exaggerates his achievements: 98 (n. 100), 213 –– omits episodes or events: 98–9 n. 102 –– dislocation of information: 136 n. 227 –– band-wagon propaganda: 100 (n. 109), 105 (with n. 125) –– nos, nostri etc. lure the reader to identify with Caesar: 187 n. 14 historical agency –– events are presented as causally determined: 111–12, 138 –– religion and prodigies: 111 n. 155 –– chance, luck, fortune: 111–13, 143 (n. 252)

Caesar (writer) (continued)

–– narrative technique –– chronological presentation: 119–20 (n. 182), 138 –– chronology sacrificed for geographical coherence: 195 –– presentation of parallel events: 138 (n. 234), 191, 195 (with n. 35) –– switches of perspective and focalization: 119–20 n. 182 –– loaded alternative / different versions of the events: 78 n. 14 –– counterfactual speculation: 119 (n. 180) –– ‘Beinahe-Episoden’ (‘if-not-situations’): 118 (n. 176), 119–20 (n. 182) –– literary models and parallels –– influence of ‘tragic’ historiography (?): 143–4 n. 254 –– annalistic historiography: 138 n. 234 –– Polybius: 112–13 (n. 158), 138 (n. 236) –– Xenophon: 138 (nn. 234, 236) –– Thucydides: 130, 134, 137–8, 165 –– reception –– Caesar and Clausewitz: 112–13 n. 158 Caesar’s Bellum Gallicum –– title: 15 n. 1 –– transmission: ▷ Corpus Caesarianum –– genesis and publication –– mode of composition: 15–16 n. 2 –– published before 46 B. C.: 15 –– structure –– dramatic structure: 16 (n. 2), 192–3 –– book divisions: 30 (n. 64), 191–2, 193 (with nn. 25–6), 194 –– length of the individual books: 191 with n. 13 –– structure of the individual commen­ tarii: 192–3, 195 with n. 35 –– abrupt end of Gal. 5 (?): 201 (n. 61) Caesar’s Bellum Civile –– title: 15 n. 1 –– transmission: ▷ Corpus Caesarianum –– genesis and publication –– unfinished: 16–21, 192, 200–201 with n. 60 –– abrupt end of Civ. 3: 18 (with n. 12), 20–21 (with n. 25), 156–7, 192, ­200–203 (with n. 61) –– inconsistencies, traces of hasty composition: 18 (with n. 12), 20 –– date of composition: 18, 185–8

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

General index   Caesar’s Bellum Civile (continued)

–– not published during Caesar’s lifetime: 15–21, 155–6, 202 n. 65 –– published in conjunction with the pseudo-Caesarian supplements: ­24–5, 156 –– structure –– structure of Civ. 1–3: 200–3 –– Ringkomposition in Civ. 1 (?): 197–8 –– Civ. 1–2 designed as a unit: 202 (with n. 63) –– interweaving of parallel narratives: 191, 203 –– book division between Civ. 1 and Civ. 2: 30 (n. 64), 156 (with n. 5), ­189–203 –– book division between Civ. 2 and Civ. 3: 193–5 –– vocabulary –– words for ‘enemy’: 185–8 –– use of bellum: 187–8 with n. 16 –– presentation and narrative technique –– republican tone, Caesar and the res publica: 18, 20, 104–6 –– dramatic design of Curio’s campaign: 123 (n. 190), 143–4 (n. 254) ▷ Caesar (writer) –– literary aims –– not just a piece of propaganda: 20 (with n. 20), 202 –– Civ. highlights the ineffectiveness of Caesar’s operations (?): 202–3 Caesar’s other writings –– his novissimus imperfectus commentarius: 25–30, 39–40, 155–7, passim –– Anticato: 161 (n. 30), 180 (n. 49) –– Pro Q. Metello, pirated copies: 19 n. 17 Callias of Syracuse, historian –– paradoxa: 151 n. 273 Callisthenes, historian –– ‘tragic’ or sensational features: 149 n. 265 Calpurnius Piso Frugi, L., historian –– syntax and style: 38 n. 42 –– account of Maelius’ death: 89–90 n. 55 Carfulenus, one of Caesar’s officers –– characterization in B.Alex.: 163 n. 38 Cassius Dio –– account of the Alexandrian War –– based on Livy: 77 n. 11 –– topographical information: 78 n. 16 –– treatment of the sea battles: 79 n. 18

Cassius Dio (continued)

359

–– other episodes of the war: 79 (nn. ­19–21), 81 (n. 27), 83–4 (with n. 31), 85 (n. 36), 98 (with n. 101) –– Cassius Dio removes inconsistencies: 77 n. 11 –– condenses and simplifies: 79 (nn. ­20–21), 84 (n. 31) –– focuses on colourful details: 79 (n. 20) –– treatment of other historical events –– Domitius’ campaign against ­Pharnaces: 88 n. 45 –– the events in Illyricum: 88–9 (nn. 46, 49) –– the events in Spain: 90–91 with nn. 62–3 –– Caesar’s stay in Cilicia and Syria: 91 n. 64 –– the Battle of Zela: 92 n. 71 Cassius Hemina, L., historian –– influence of the gods: 152 n. 278 Cassius Longinus, Q. –– appointed as governor of Hispania ulterior: 210 –– greed: 89 (n. 53), 150 –– hated by provincials and soldiers: 89 (n. 53), 121 –– assassination attempt: 89–90, 150 –– revolt of his legions and death: 90 –– characterization in B.Alex.: 110 with nn. 152–3 Cassius (C. Cassius Longinus), one of ­Caesar’s assassins: 161–2 castra Iudaeorum, place(s) in Lower Egypt: 85 (with n. 38), 304 castration, of Roman citizens by Pharnaces: 104, 109 casualties –– social status: 110 n. 149 –– casualty figures in military reports: 65–6 (with nn. 170, 174, 175) Catiline (L. Sergius Catilina) –– conspiracy: 76 (n. 8), 152, 185 (n. 3) Cato the Elder (M. Porcius Cato), his ­Origines –– headline prolepsis: 153 n. 284 –– paradoxa: 151 n. 273 –– divine intervention: 152 n. 279 Cato the Younger (M. Porcius Cato (­Uticensis)): 24 (n. 40), 161 (with n. 30), 170, 180 (n. 49) cavalry, speed: 207 with n. 10

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

360

Indexes  

censorship: 19 n. 16 Cephisodorus, historian –– treatment of the Phocian War: 149 n. 265 Chariton, fiction writer –– influenced by Thucydides: 139 with n. 242 Chersonensus (Small Chersonesus) –– today’s Marabit near Alexandria: 79 (n. 16), 98 (n. 99), 304 –– sea battle: 79 Cicero (M. Tullius Cicero) –– presents Catiline and Mark Antony as brigands and hostes: 76 (n. 8), 185 (n. 3) –– criticizes Caesar after the Ides of March: 161 with nn. 28–9 –– depreciatory remarks about Mithridates of Pergamum: 161 n. 31 –– band-wagon propaganda: 100 n. 109 –– views on historiography: 152–3, 158–9 –– remarks about the Thucydidii: 139 with n. 243 –– rhetorical exercises with Hirtius: 158–9 –– Cicero complains about works circulating against his will: 19 n. 17 –– letter-like prefaces: 182 –– his account of his deeds in Asia Minor and Syria: 95 n. 83 –– his encomium of Cato the Younger: 161 –– Epistulae ad Familiares, published posthumously: 159 n. 17 –– Letter to Lucceius (Fam. 5.12): 152–3, 158–9 Cincius Alimentus, L., historian –– account of Maelius’ death: 89–90 n. 55 classiarii, considered second-rate soldiers: 98 n. 97 Claudius Quadrigarius: ▷ Quadrigarius Clausewitz, Carl von, influenced by Caesar: 112–13 n. 158 clemency: ▷ Caesar (image) closure, closural motifs: 156–7, 197–200, 201 n. 61 –– restoration of peace and order: 197–9 –– departure from the theatre of war: 199 with nn. 51, 53 –– stationing of troops: 199 with n. 52 –– dismissal of troops: 197–8 with n. 48 –– death: 156 (with n. 9), 201 (n. 61) Coelius Antipater, L., historian –– clustering of verb-initial sentences: 66 with n. 177

Coelius Antipater (continued)

–– ‘tragic’ or sensational features: 150 with n. 270 –– dreams: 151 n. 272 –– paradoxa: 151 n. 273 –– influenced by Thucydides: 139 n. 245 coins, as pro-Caesarian propaganda: 162 n. 33 Comana, town in Cappadocia / Pontus: 91 n. 65 comedy –– role of Tyche / Fortune: 142 n. 249 –– comic elements in B.Alex.: 75 (n. 6), 143 (n. 253) compounds: ▷ morphology constructio ad sensum: 263–4 (on 20.6) Corduba, town in Hispania ulterior: 110, 207, 210–12 Cornelius Balbus: ▷ Balbus Cornelius Dolabella: ▷ Dolabella Cornelius Nepos: ▷ Nepos Cornelius Sisenna: ▷ Sisenna Cornelius Sulla: ▷ Sulla Cornelius Tacitus: ▷ Tacitus Cornificius, Q., quaestor pro praetore in ­Illyricum: 88 (n. 46), 114 –– positive characterization: 110 Corpus Caesarianum –– political context and function: 160–63 –– genesis –– date of publication: 24–5, 27–9, 117 (n. 170), 157 –– regarded as a unit by Hirtius and ­Suetonius: 22, 24 –– heterogeneous character: 25 (with n. 43), 171 (n. 13) –– transmission –– editorial principles: 164 –– stemma and manuscripts: 15 (with n. 1), 169 (n. 3) –– subscriptiones of Gal. 7 and Gal. 8: 169–70 –– good readings / early conjectures in ms. M: 272 (on 11.2) –– no book division between Civ. 1 and Civ. 2 in ms. S: 189, 195–6 –– book divisions do not reflect the structure of Caesar’s Nachlass: 20 (with n. 25), 30 (with n. 64), 155–7, 189–203 –– end of the C. C. is lost: 27–8 –– end of Gal. 8 and beginning of Civ. 1 lost (?): 189 n. 4

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

General index   Corpus Caesarianum (continued)

–– whole episodes of Civ. lost (?): ­200–201 –– other lacunae in Civ.: 125 (n. 195), 129 (with n. 208), 195–6, 200–201 (n. 60) –– lacuna in Gal. 8.pr. (?): 181 with nn. 53–4 –– lacunae in B.Alex.: 38 (with n. 45), 82 (n. 30), 91 (n. 65), 126 (nn. 196–7), 129 (with nn. 209–11) –– interpolations: 51 (n. 91), 111 (n. 155) –– large-scale interpolations in Civ. 2 (?): 122 n. 190 –– glosses entering the text: 114 (n. 162), 125 (n. 194) –– errors in Klotz’s edition –– B.Alex. 7.2: 249–50 –– B.Alex. 16.2: 126 n. 198 –– B.Alex. 22.2: 82 n. 30 –– spelling of mariti/umus: 72 n. 212 counterfactual history: 118–19, 121 (with n. 187), 135–6 (n. 226) Critognatus, Arvernian nobleman –– speech and characterization: 107–8 with n. 141 Curio (C. Scribonius Curio) –– his campaign in Africa: 122–3 (n. 190), 137 (with n. 231) –– date of the African campaign: 194, 204– 14 –– reasons for his defeat: 116 n. 167 Curtius Rufus, Q., historian –– mentions Lake Mareotis (palus): 80 death, as a closural motif: 156 with n. 9 Delta (of the Nile): 84–7, 304 –– mounds (tells): 87 n. 43 Demetrius of Phalerum, on Fortune: 144 Demophilus, son of Ephorus: 148 (n. 262), 149 (n. 265) Diodorus Siculus, historian –– characterization of Fortune: 144–5 with n. 257 Dionysius of Halicarnassus –– on Maelius’ death: 89–90 n. 55 –– on Thucydides: 130 (n. 212), 139 (with nn. 241, 245) Dioscurides, one of Ptolemy’s generals (?): 85 n. 36 divine intervention: 92 (n. 66), 113–14, 141, 148, 151–3 dockyards: 123

361

Dolabella (P. Cornelius Dolabella), cos. 44 B. C. –– operations in the Adriatic Sea (49 B. C.): 199 (n. 55), 200–201 (n. 60) –– suppresses public lamentation of Caesar’s death: 160 with n. 26 Domitius (Cn. Domitius Calvinus) –– his campaign against Pharnaces: 88 with n. 45 –– author of the draft underlying B.Alex. ­34–41 (?): 88 n. 45 –– his loyalty: 88 (n. 45), 163 (n. 38) –– support of Octavian: 163 n. 38 dreams: 151 n. 272 duels: 123 (n. 191), 151 (with n. 274), 152 (n. 279) Duris of Samos, historian –– ‘tragic’ or sensational features: 148–9 with n. 265 –– fondness for gruesome details: 150 –– paradoxa: 151 n. 273 –– criticism of Theopompus and Ephorus: 148–9, 152 Ennius, Q., quoted in B.Hisp.: 143–4 n. 254 Enyo: ▷ Bellona Ephorus of Cyme, historian, criticized by Duris: 148–9, 152 epic –– ‘Beinahe-Episoden’ (‘if-not-situations’): 118 n. 176 –– spectator motif: 133 n. 217 –– epic elements in Thucydides: 133 n. 217 –– in B.Hisp. and B.Alex.: 143–4 n. 254 epistolography –– epistolary prefaces: 181–3 –– forged letters: 181 (n. 51), 183 (with nn. 62–3) –– greetings omitted in the manuscripts: 181 with n. 52 –– address to the recipient: 181–2 with n. 55 –– reproaches of ignavia: 178 with n. 39 Eunostos harbour: 305 –– blockaded by the Alexandrians: 98 n. 101 –– battle: 51–2, 75, 79 (n. 18), 117–19, 122–8 Euphranor, Rhodian admiral –– exhortatory remarks: 119 –– the account of his death: 82–3, 120, ­140–42, 149 –– characterization in B.Alex.: 109

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

362

Indexes  

Eutropius, historian –– information on the Alexandrian War: 81 n. 27 –– account of the Battle of Zela: 92 n. 71 Fabius, C., a legate of Caesar’s in Spain: 209 Fabius Gallus, M., a friend of Cicero’s –– encomium of Cato the Younger: 161 n. 30 Fabius Pictor, Q., historian –– influenced by Hellenistic historiography: 150 with n. 269 Fabius Quintilianus: ▷ Quintilian Flavius Josephus: ▷ Josephus floods, in Catalonia: 208 with n. 15 Florus (P. Annius Florus), historian –– account of the Alexandrian War: 79 (nn. 19–20), 81 (n. 27) –– account of the Battle of Zela: 92 n. 71 –– influence of Fortuna: 114 n. 163 foreshadowing: 115, 117 (n. 173), 120, 1­ 40–41 fortuna / Fortuna: 111–12, 114–16, 140–46 –– as an irrational, equalizing force: 115, 141, 144–5 –– fortune and punishment: 145 (with nn. 256–7), 148, 152 (with n. 279) –– instability: 141–2 (with n. 249), 144–5, 148, 152, 209 –– in Hellenistic historiography: 144–5, 148 –– Sulla’s concept of Fortune: 152 n. 278 –– fortuna in Cicero’s Letter to Lucceius: 152 –– in Horace and Livy: 152 n. 282 Fortuna Caesaris: 112 (n. 158), 115–16, 142–3 –– Hellenistic and oriental background: 116 n. 169 fratricide: 151 n. 274 freedom of speech: 19 n. 16 –– as a motif in Caes. Civ.: 198 Furius Bibaculus, M. (?) –– epic on Caesar’s Gallic War: 143–4 n. 254 Gabinius, A. (cos. 58 B. C.), supporter of Caesar –– his stay in Egypt (55 B. C.): 107 –– operations in Illyricum: 78 (n. 14), 88 (n. 46), 89 (n. 48), 114 –– failure and death: 120–21 (with n. 189) –– reasons for his defeat: 142–3 Gades, town in Hispania ulterior: 207, ­210–11 Galba (Ser. Sulpicius Galba), military operations in the Alps: 193 (n. 25), 194

Ganymedes, nutricius of Arsinoe IV: 50–51, 61, 98 n. 101 Gauls, characterization: 107–8 with nn. ­136–41 Gergovia, town in Gaul, siege: 123 n. 191 Germanic tribes, characterization: 107 with n. 136 glosses, entering the text: 114 (n. 162), 125 (n. 194) gods: ▷ divine intervention grain, price: 209 n. 17 Grant, U. S., Personal Memoirs: 26 n. 46 Hannibal –– criticism of Roman imperialism: 108 n. 142 –– dreams and prodigies: 151 n. 272 hapax legomena –– significance: 225–6 ▷ Bellum Alexandrinum, ▷ Caesar (writer), ▷ Hirtius Heptastadium: 305 –– fighting at the mole: 79 (with n. 20), 81 (n. 27), 96–7 (with n. 89), 117 (n. 171) Herodotus –– loaded alternative / different versions of the events: 78 n. 14 –– ‘tragic’ or sensational features: 147 (n. 260), 150 (n. 269) –– change of book divisions: 196–7 with n. 41 Hipparchus of Nicaea, astronomer and ­geographer –– epistolary preface: 181 n. 51 Hirtius, A. (life and deeds) –– H. does not take part in the Alexandrian and African campaigns: 158, ­170–71 (with n. 8) –– takes part in the campaign against ­Pharnaces: 92 (n. 72), 179 –– praetorship and propraetorship (46–45 B. C.): 179–80 –– H. follows Caesar to Spain in 45 B. C. (?): 179–80 with n. 49 –– political role in 44–43 B. C.: 25–6 (with n. 46), 28–9, 160–3 –– contact to other Caesarians: 24 (with n. 36), 162–3 –– dislike of Mark Antony: 162, 172 n. 16 –– Hirtius supports Octavian (?): 162, 163 n. 38

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

General index   Hirtius (life and deeds) (continued)

–– defends Caesar against republican propaganda: 24 (with n. 40), 160–63, 170 –– reputation of a bon vivant: 172 n. 16 –– ill health in 44 B. C.: 26 (with n. 46), 47 (with n. 83) –– Cicero’s friend and discipulus: 158–9, 176, 178 –– homosexual relationship with Octavian (?): 180 with n. 48 –– death: 25, 157, 163 n. 38 Hirtius’ edition of the Corpus Caesarianum –– H. publishes Caesar’s commentarii ­together with the supplements: 24–5, ­27–8, 155–6 –– divides Caesar’s novissimus commen­ tarius: 156–7 –– author of the Epistula ad Balbum and Gal. 8: 22, 169–84 –– not the author of the whole B.Alex.: ­33–5, passim –– author of B.Alex. 22–33 and 65–78 (?): 39 (n. 49), 45, 92 (n. 72), 158–9 (with n. 20) –– H. uses the accounts of other Caesarians: 27–8, 53–4, 157, 159 n. 20 –– does not undertake a thorough revision of the material: 93, 160 –– inserts connecting passages: 28 (with n. 55), 45 (with n. 73), 51 (n. 93) –– makes minor alterations and additions (?): 159 n. 20 –– is not worried by questions of intellectual property: 28 (with n. 57), 160 Hirtius’ Anticato: 24 (n. 40), 161 (with n. 30), 170 (with n. 7) –– date of composition: 180 n. 49 Hirtius’ Epistula ad Balbum –– written in the winter of 44 / 43 B. C.: 28–9 –– form and genre: 181–3 –– greeting lost in the process of transmission (?): 170 (n. 6), 181 (with nn. 53–4) –– preface to all the following books of the Corp. Caes.: 22–4, 171–2 –– does not give a full account of Hirtius’ procedure: 29 (n. 59), 179–81 –– pessimistic remarks about the Civil War: 28–9 –– motif of ignavia / inertia: 172 (n. 16), 178 Hirtius’ Bellum Gallicum 8 –– transmission: ▷ Corpus Caesarianum –– differences between Gal. 8 and Gal. 1–7: 173 with nn. 19–20, passim

Hirtius’ Bellum Gallicum 8 (continued)

363

–– structure –– ‘second preface’ (Gal. 8.48.10–11): 173–4 –– Hirtius departs from Caesar’s year-byyear structure: 26 (n. 48), 191 –– assumes that the reader knows the Caesarian commentarii: 24 n. 41 –– cross-references and allusions: 24 (n. 41), 173 (n. 20), 242 (on 33.4), 269–70 (on 4.1) –– vocabulary –– frequency of hapax legomena: 33 n. 16 –– political value terms: 95–6 (n. 84), 291–300 –– expressions pointing to emotions: 300–302 –– unfamiliarity with military terminology (?): 32 n. 9 –– ignorance of nautical matters (?): 281–2 (on 10.6) –– words for ‘fight’ and ‘battle’: 35 with n. 26 –– bulky expressions: 35 –– lack of variatio: 38 n. 40 –– syntax –– relative / demonstrative pronouns: 62–3 (with nn. 155–6), 286 –– cardinal / distributive numerals: 247 (on 2.4) –– connectives –– copulative conjunctions: 70–71 (with n. 201), 287 –– adversative conjunctions: 288 –– praeterea, ita, itaque, sic, interim: 289 –– temporal conjunctions: 290 –– word order –– hyperbata: 38 (n. 40), 268–9 (on 2.5) –– postposition of cum (conj.): 38 n. 40 –– acies hostium / h. a.: 245 (on 75.3) –– further linguistic phenomena –– polyptoton: 278–9 (on 61.2,4) –– pleonastic expressions: 282–3 (on 16.1), 284 (on 74.1) –– frequency of superlatives: 95 n. 83 –– presentation of the historical events –– differs from Gal. 1–7: 173 with nn. 19–20 –– band-wagon propaganda: 100 n. 109 –– references to fortune: 116 n. 168

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

364

Indexes  

Hispania –– the events of 49 B. C.: 204–14 –– floods in Catalonia: 208 with n. 15 ▷ Afranius, ▷ Petreius, ▷ Varro, ▷ ­Cassius Longinus historiography –– Hellenistic historiography: 144–50 –– early Roman historiography: 150–2 ▷ late annalists, ▷ Thucydides, ▷ Herodotus, etc. –– genre and purpose –– similar to judicial / epideictic oratory (?): 159 –– vicissitudes of Fortune as a source of pleasure: 152 –– history as a spectaculum: 133 with n. 217 –– historical events as a philosophical lesson: 141 –– credibility of the historian: 137 n. 231 –– contents –– loaded alternative / different versions of the events: 78 n. 14 –– admission of uncertainty about minor details: 137 n. 231 –– importance of a battle is accentuated: 125, 130 –– motifs and themes –– deditio in fidem: 99 n. 104 –– dreams: 151 n. 272 –– duels: 123 (n. 191), 151 (with n. 274), 152 (n. 279) –– emotions: 93–5, 120 (n. 183), 121, 133 (n. 219), 137 (n. 232), 151 (with n. 277) –– gruesome details: 108 (with n. 141), 150, 151 (with nn. 275–6) –– morale and psychological factors: 112–13 (n. 158), 138 (n. 236), 209 (n. 17) –– low morale is contagious: 126–7 n. 198 –– novelesque elements: 148, 151 with n. 271 –– paradoxa: 151 n. 273 –– prodigies: 111 (n. 155), 151 (n. 272) –– spectator motif: 123 (n. 191), 125, 132–3 (with n. 217) –– ‘tragic’ or sensational features: 94, 141–3, 148–53 ▷ motifs

historiography (continued)

–– human and divine agency: 110–16 –– divine intervention: 92 (n. 66), ­113–14, 141, 148, 151–3 ▷ fortuna / Fortuna –– narrative technique –– temporal perspective: 117–22, 135–6 (with n. 226), 138 –– ‘Beinahe Episoden’ (‘if-not-situations’): 118 (n. 176), 119–20 (n. 182), 121 (n. 188), 135–6 (n. 226) –– personal experience as a third-person narrative: 138 with n. 234 –– postponed conclusion: 132 with n. 215 –– suspense: 117 (with n. 173), 132 (with n. 215) Homer, Iliad –– death as a closural motif: 156 with n. 9 –– spectator motif: 133 n. 217 ▷ epic Horace –– fortune and historiography: 152 n. 282 hyperbata: ▷ word order Iader, place in Illyricum: 88 (n. 46), 110 (n. 151) if-not-situations: 118 (n. 176), 119–20 (n. 182), 121 (n. 188), 135–6 (n. 226) Ilerda, town in Hispania citerior: 198, ­206–7, 213 ▷ Afranius, ▷ Petreius Illyricum, Roman province: 88–9, 92–3, 110, 120, 142–3, 163 n. 38 incest: 148 Indutiomarus, prince of the Treveri, death: 156 (n. 9), 201 (n. 61) intellectual property: 19 (with nn. 16–17), 28–9 (with nn. 58–9), 160 (with n. 21) ▷ books internal audience: 133 (with n. 218), 137 (with nn. 229–30) ▷ propaganda (band-wagon effect) interpolation: ▷ Corpus Caesarianum Italy, Italian towns side with Caesar: 105 with n. 125 Iunius Brutus: ▷ Brutus Iulius: ▷ Caesar, ▷ Octavian Jewish camp, place(s) in Lower Egypt: 85 with n. 38 Jews, support Julius Caesar: 84

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

General index   Josephus (Flavius Josephus), historian –– treatment of the Alexandrian War: 81 (n. 27), 84–5 (with nn. 32–4, 36–9) –– sources: 85 n. 36 –– on Caesar’s stay in Cilicia and Syria: 91 n. 64 –– influenced by Thucydides: 139 n. 240 Juba, king of Numidia: 204–5, 212 –– slaughters Roman citizens: 202 with n. 63 knights: ▷ ordo equester ‘Kriegsbulletin’: ▷ reports Lake Mareotis: 49 (with n. 88), 80–81 (with n. 23), 304–5 Land of Onias, place close to the Nile Delta: 84–5 late annalists: 150–53 –– abrupt changes of subject, lack of variatio: 38 n. 42 –– immediate polyptota: 278–9 –– otiose coepisse: 56 n. 112 –– verb-initial sentences: 66 with n. 177 legions –– accompanying Caesar to Egypt: 103 n. 117 –– arrival of the 37th legion: 98 (with n. 99), 156 –– troops stationed in Egypt by Caesar: 103 n. 117 –– bravery of the 36th legion: 110 –– mutiny of Placentia: 98 n. 102 –– revolt against Cassius Longinus: 90 –– Caesar’s men fight for their general, not the res publica: 104–5 n. 123 –– characterization of Caesar’s troops: 97–8 (n. 96), 110 Leo of Byzantium, historian: 149 n. 265 Leontopolis: 84, 304 Lepidus (M. Aemilius Lepidus), the ­triumvir: 90, 121, 199 letters: ▷ epistolography Livy (T. Livius) –– structures his work in pentads and decades: 190–91 n. 11 –– influenced by Ennius and early Roman tragedy: 130 n. 212 –– smoothens out inconsistencies: 77 n. 11 –– loaded alternative / different versions of the historical events: 78 n. 14 –– counterfactual speculation: 118 n. 176

365

Livy (continued)

–– spectator motif: 123 n. 191 –– role of fortune: 152 n. 282 –– Dio’s source for the Alexandrian War: 77 n. 11 loaded alternative: 70 (n. 196), 78 (with n. 14) Lochias, cape (Akra Lochias), part of Alexandria: 80 (n. 23), 305 Lucan (M. Annaeus Lucanus) –– account of the fighting in Alexandria: 79 (n. 20), 81 (n. 27) Lucceius, L., historian: 152 with n. 280 Lucian of Samosata, on Thucydides: 136 (n. 226), 139 (n. 240) Lycomedes, priest, appointed by Caesar: 91 n. 65

Ma: ▷ Bellona magistrates –– interim governors: 180 n. 47 –– annual reports (litterae) to the Senate: 138 n. 234 –– axes as symbols of power: 108 with n. 140 manuscripts: ▷ Corpus Caesarianum, ▷ transmission Marcellus (M. Claudius Marcellus), quaestor of Q. Cassius Longinus: 90–91 (with n. 63), 114, 121 (with nn. 185, 187) Mark Antony (M. Antonius), the triumvir –– representation in Gal. 8: 172 n. 16 –– attacks Caesar’s assassins: 162 with nn. 32–3 –– not liked by Hirtius: 162 –– attacked by Cicero: 76 (n. 8), 185 (n. 3) Massilia, siege: 119 (n. 182), 122 (n. 190), 191, 194, 199 –– sea battle (Civ. 2.4–7): 123–34 –– capitulation, date: 194, 204, 210–11 Matius, C., a friend of Caesar’s: 161 n. 29 Memphis, city in Egypt: 84–5, 304 messengers, speed: 207 with n. 11 methodology: 78 (n. 15), 184, 188, 200–201 (with n. 60), 270 (on 6.1) –– synonym-test: 43, 55, cf. also 34–5 –– statistical validity: 54–5 –– significance of hapax legomena: 225–6 –– significance of thematic connections: 202–3 military reports: ▷ reports military theorists –– behaviour of the ideal general: 97 n. 89 ▷ Clausewitz

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

366

Indexes  

Minucius Basilus: ▷ Basilus Minucius Silo, tries to kill Q. Cassius Lon­ ginus: 89 Mithridates VI, king of Pontus –– victory at Zela (67 B. C.): 92 n. 67 –– criticism of Roman imperialism: 108 n. 142 Mithridates of Pergamum –– operations in Lower Egypt: 75, 77 (n. 11), 84–7, 142 –– letter to Caesar, tactics at Pelusium: 85 n. 36 –– characterization in B.Alex. and Cic. Div.: 110, 161 n. 31 morale: 81, 96, 120 (n. 183), 134 (n. 220) –– low morale is contagious: 126–7 n. 198 ▷ psychology morphology –– inopinans / necopinans: 57 n. 119 –– maritimus / maritumus: 72 n. 212 –– intensifying force of prae-: 95 n. 82 –– ut / uti: 72 with nn. 211–12 –– vallus / vallum: 223 motifs and themes –– adventus principis: 100 n. 109 –– assassination attempts: 89–90 n. 55 –– author has been repeatedly asked to write: 24, 182 with n. 60 –– author is reluctant / modest: 182 with n. 59 –– author is reproached for his ignavia: 172 (n. 16), 178 (with n. 39), 182 –– barbarian cruelty: 108–9 with n. 141 –– barbarians criticizing Roman imperialism: 108 n. 142 –– barbarians longing for freedom: 107 n. 138 –– cannibalism and sieges: 108 n. 141 –– castration: 109 –– clemency, forgiveness: 92 (n. 66), 100, 102–3 (with n. 114), 198–9 –– courage: 97 (n. 93), 107 (n. 137), 109 (n. 147), 111, 140–41 –– crowds of people: 99–101 (with n. 109), 150 (n. 268), 153 (n. 284) –– death as closure: 156, 201 (n. 61) –– endurance: 107 n. 137 –– enemies are under-estimated: 137 (n. 231), 141 –– enemies are brigands: 76 with n. 8 –– enemies are sly, perfidious: 45 (n. 73), 106–7, 109

motifs and themes (continued)

–– envy and rivalry: 109 (n. 144), 152 (n. 279), 153 (n. 284), 185–7 –– exhortation before battle: 124–5 (with n. 192), 130, 131 (n. 214), 204 –– fear of the unknown: 137 n. 232 –– fiducia, overconfidence, hybris: 109 (with n. 146), 121 (n. 189), 141–3, 152 (n. 279) –– fratricide: 151 n. 274 –– freedom of speech: 198 –– hesitation of the general: 96 (n. 87), 111 (n. 154), 119 (with n. 180) –– horse leaving its stable (simile): 143–4 n. 254 –– human sacrifice: 148 –– incest: 148 –– lamenting civilians: 150 –– loyalty: 88 (n. 45), 162–3 (with nn. 37–8) –– necrophilia: 148 –– personal experience as a drama: 152 –– prayers before / during a battle: 128, 130, 132 –– soldiers are dismissed: 197–8 with n. 48 –– soldiers do not want to share the victory: 109 n. 144 –– speed, swiftness: 57 (n. 123), 94 (n. 78), 101, 106 (n. 133), 209 –– Thyestean Feast: 148 with n. 263 –– virtus as a response to a setback: 81 n. 28 ▷ historiography (motifs), ▷ books, ▷ closure, ▷ fortuna / Fortuna, ▷ tragedy, ▷ morale, ▷ psychology Munda, town in Hispania ulterior, battle: 117 (n. 170), 180 mutilation: 104, 109, 151 (n. 276) Mutina, town in northern Italy, battle: 25, 157, 163 n. 38 mutiny –– of Placentia: 98 n. 102 –– revolt against Q. Cassius Longinus: 90 Nepos (Cornelius Nepos), historian –– verb-initial sentences: 66 with n. 177 Nicias, Athenian general: 134 with n. 220 Octavian (C. Iulius Caesar Octavianus), the later emperor Augustus –– does not take part in the African and Spanish campaigns: 163 n. 38 –– homosexual relationship with Hirtius (?): 180 with n. 48 –– rise to power: 162–3

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

General index   Octavian (continued)

–– not mentioned in the Corpus Caesarianum: 163 n. 38 –– his Rescripta Bruto de Catone: 161 n. 30 Octavius, M., Pompeian commander: 89 (with nn. 48, 50), 114 Octogesa, town in Hispania citerior: 208–10 openness of the past, recreated: 119 with n. 180 Oppius, C., follower of Caesar, not the author of B.Alex., B.Afr., B.Hisp.: 22 n. 28 oratio recta / obliqua: ▷ speeches ordo equester, honorific epithets: 110 n. 149 Orosius, P., historian –– account of the Alexandrian campaign: 79 (nn. 18, 20), 81 (n. 27) –– account of the Battle of Zela: 92 n. 71 Ovid (P. Ovidius Naso), book divisions of his Heroides: 196–7 n. 41 Pansa (C. Vibius Pansa), a follower of ­Caesar’s –– takes part in the Spanish campaign of 45 B. C.: 179–80 –– propraetorship of Gallia Cisalpina: 180 with n. 45 paradoxa: 151 with n. 273 Paraetonium, major port west of A ­ lexandria: 78 n. 16 Parthenius of Nicaea, Erotica Pathemata, epistolary preface: 181 n. 51 Pelusium, city in Lower Egypt: 84–5, 304 Pericles, Athenian politician, stresses Athens’ sea power: 135 n. 223 Petreius, M., Pompeian general –– march to Octogesa: 208–10 –– shortage of supplies: 209 n. 16 –– capitulation: 197–9, 205–8, 212–14 Pharnaces, son of Mithridates VI, king of the Regnum Bosporanum –– his campaign against Domitius: 88 with n. 45 –– maltreatment of Roman citizens: 104, 109 –– negative characterization: 104 (with nn. 119–20), 109 –– Caesar’s campaign against Pharnaces: ­91–2, 101–4, 120–21, 179 –– Battle of Zela: 92 (with nn. 67–72), 101, 121 (with n. 189) Pharos, island, part of Alexandria: 79, 305 Pharos, lighthouse: 79 (n. 19), 305

367

Pharsalus, battle: 114 (with n. 161), 119 (n. 182), 137, 156, 198 Philinus of Agrigentum, historian –– ‘tragic’ or sensational features: 149 n. 265 Phocian War (Third Sacred War) –– ‘gold mine’ for sensational historiography: 149 n. 265 Phylarchus, historian –– criticized by Polybius and Plutarch: 146–7 with n. 259 –– ‘tragic’ or sensational features: 148–9 (with n. 265), 150 (with n. 269), 151 (nn. 271, 275) –– crowd scenes: 150, 153 (n. 284) pirated copies: ▷ books Pisonian conspiracy: 89–90 n. 55 Placentia, town in northern Italy, mutiny of Caesar’s troops: 98 n. 102 pleonastic expressions: 38 (n. 39), 282 (on 16.1), 284 (on 74.1) Plutarch –– his account of the Alexandrian War: 79 (nn. 19–21), 81 (n. 27) –– of Domitius’ campaign against P ­ harnaces: 88 n. 45 –– of the Battle of Zela: 92 n. 71 –– comments on Phylarchus: 147 n. 259 –– on Duris of Samos: 148 –– on Fabius Pictor: 150 n. 269 –– on Thucydides’ narrative technique: 133 n. 218 –– death as closure: 156 with n. 9 political pamphlets, in the late Republic: 160–61 with n. 24 Polybius –– criticism of Hellenistic historians / distinc­ tion between tragedy and history: 146–9 –– ‘tragic’ features in his own work: 149 n. 265 –– words with theatrical resonances: 149 n. 267 –– role of chance and Fortune: 112–13 (n. 158), 145 –– influenced by Thucydides: 139 with n. 238 –– influenced by Aristotle (?): 147 n. 259 –– his own influence on Caesar: 112–13 (n. 158), 138 n. 236 polyptoton: ▷ repetition Pompey the Great (Cn. Pompeius Magnus) –– negotiations with Caesar: 105, 185–7

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

368

Indexes  

Pompey the Great (continued)

–– successful withdrawal from Brundisium: 119 n. 178 –– his victory at Dyrrhachium: 97 (n. 89), 112, 119 (n. 182), 201 –– defeat at Pharsalus: 114 (with n. 161), 119 (n. 182), 137, 156, 198 –– assassination in Alexandria: 20 (with n. 24), 156–7 Pomponius: ▷ Atticus Pothinus, nutricius of Ptolemy XIII: 20 (with n. 24), 156–7 prefaces –– similar to letters: 182 –– epistolary prefaces: 181–3 –– protestations of reluctance and modesty: 182 with n. 59 –– motif of incessant requests: 24 (with n. 38), 182 (n. 60) prodigies: 111 (n. 155), 151 (n. 272) prolepsis –– meaning: 119–20 n. 182 –– prolepses in B.Alex. 22–78: 120–21, 141 –– headline prolepses: 120 (n. 184), 121 (n. 189), 153 (n. 284) propaganda –– political enemies presented as brigands: 76 n. 8 –– enemies presented as sly, perfidious: 45 (n. 73), 106–7, 109 –– band-wagon effect: 99–101 (with nn. 109–10), 105 (n. 125), 153 (with n. 284) –– coins as pro-Caesarian propaganda: 162 n. 33 –– political pamphlets: 160–1 with n. 24 ▷ Caesar (image), ▷ Caesar (writer) prose rhythm: 71 with nn. 205–7 proverbial expressions: 143–4 n. 254 psychology –– and the price of grain: 209 n. 17 –– low morale is contagious: 126–7 n. 198 –– psychological corruption of Civil War: 138 n. 237 –– motives and psychology of the Alexan­ drians: 107 with n. 134 –– mass psychology and warfare: 111 –– Caesar’s interest in psychology: 112–13 (n. 158), 138 (n. 236) Ptolemy XIII, king of Egypt –– responsibility for Pompey’s assassination: 20 n. 24 –– released by Caesar: 75–7, 120

Ptolemy XIII (continued)

–– disingenuous display of affection: 75 n. 6 –– his camp near the Nile: 86–7 Quadrigarius (Q. Claudius Quadrigarius) –– otiose coepisse: 56 n. 112 –– abrupt changes of subject, lack of ­variatio: 38 n. 42 –– verb-initial sentences: 66 with n. 177 –– polyptoton: 278–9 (on 61.2) –– ‘tragic’ or sensational features: 150–52 with n. 270 –– novelesque episodes: 151 with n. 271 –– duels: 123 (n. 191), 151 (n. 274), 152 (n. 279) –– gruesome details: 151 n. 276 –– crowd scenes: 153 n. 284 –– description of emotions: 151 n. 277 –– role of the gods: 152 n. 279 Quintilian (M. Fabius Quintilianus) –– on descriptions of the fall of a city: 130 n. 212 rain, torrential, in Catalonia: 208 with n. 15 repetition –– polyptoton: 37–8 (with nn. 38, 39, 42), 268 (on 1.4–5), 278–9 (on 61.2) –– recurrent expressions in B.Alex.: 37 (n. 38), 39, 236–8 reports –– to the Senate: 138 n. 234 –– style of military reports, Fraenkel’s ‘Kriegsbulletin’: 66 nn. 174–6 reversal of fortune: ▷ fortuna / Fortuna rhetoric –– Thucydides and rhetorical training: 139 n. 241 ▷ speeches, ▷ stylistic devices Rhodian contingent –– number of ships: 51–2 –– characterization: 109 ▷ Euphranor Riefenstahl, Leni, Triumph des Willens: 100 n. 109 Ringkomposition –– in Civ. 1 (?): 197–8 –– of Civ. 1–2: 123 (n. 190), 202 (with n. 63) –– in B.Alex.: 52 –– in Suetonius’ biographies: 196 n. 41 Rome –– violent conflicts during Caesar’s Alexandrian campaign: 103

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

General index   Rome (continued)

–– political situation in 46–44 B. C.: 18 with n. 13 –– political climate after Caesar’s death: 106, 160–3 Romulus legend, and Ionic historiography: 150 n. 269 Sallust (C. Sallustius Crispus), historian –– date of his historical works: 13 n. 2 –– abrupt changes of subject: 38 n. 41 –– constructio ad sensum: 264 –– duplicatio and synonym clusters: 38 n. 41 –– verb-initial sentences: 66 with n. 177 –– historical events as spectaculum: 133 n. 217 –– spectator motif: 123 (n. 191), 133 (n. 217) –– positive presentation of Caesar: 162 n. 33 –– rational perspective: 111 n. 155 –– influenced by Thucydides: 133 (with n. 217), 139 (with n. 244) Salona, town in Illyricum: 88 (n. 46), 110 (n. 151) Samian War, treated by the historian Duris: 148–9 Schmitt, Carl, on public and private ­enemies: 186 n. 5 Scribonius Curio: ▷ Curio Sempronius Asellio, historian –– otiose coepisse: 56 n. 112 –– description of emotions: 151 n. 277 Senate –– magistrates’ reports to the Senate: 138 n. 234 –– senatus consultum ultimum: 105 –– negotiations with Caesar, debates in April 49 B. C.: 105–6, 187 –– senators intimidated by Caesar’s enemies: 105 (with n. 124), 185, 198 –– debates after Caesar’s death: 160 with n. 25 Seneca the Elder (L. Annaeus Seneca) –– preface to his Controversiae: 181 n. 52 ships –– building and repairing: 123–4 –– manoeuvring, lack of sea-room: 131–2 with n. 214 –– number of Rhodian ships: 51–2 Sicoris, river in Hispania citerior: 209–10 Sidonius Apollinaris: 170 n. 6 simile, of a horse leaving its stable: 143–4 n. 254

369

Sisenna (L. Cornelius Sisenna) –– poeticizing tendencies: 151 n. 271 –– otiose coepisse: 56 n. 112 –– ‘tragic’ or sensational features: 150–52 with n. 270 –– dreams: 151 n. 272 –– duels: 151 n. 274 –– torture and gruesome details: 151 nn. 275–6 –– description of emotions: 151 n. 277 –– translated a garland of novellas (?): 151 n. 271 Small Chersonesus: ▷ Chersonensus speeches –– written down by stenographers: 19 n. 17 –– speeches in Gal. 1–7 and Civ.: 107–8, 192–3, 200, 204, 213 –– oratio recta / obliqua: 122–3 n. 190 –– prose rhythm: 71 with n. 207 –– ethical vocabulary: 95–6 n. 84 –– no oratio recta in Gal. 8: 173 n. 20 –– speeches in the B.Alex.: 91–2, 102, 119, 124–5 –– exhortatory speeches: 119, 124–5 (with n. 192), 130–31 (with n. 214), 204 speed of travel –– of cavalry: 207 with n. 10 –– of messengers: 207 with n. 11 –– Caesar’s journey from Rome to Obulco: 180 (n. 45), 207, 210–11 (with n. 23) stenographers, writing down speeches: 19 n. 17 Strabo of Amasea –– information on the Alexandrian War: 81 n. 27 –– on Domitius’ campaign against ­Pharnaces: 88 n. 45 –– on the priest Lycomedes in Comana: 91 n. 65 –– on Polybius: 149 n. 265 –– Strabo’s Hypomnemata Historica: 85 n. 36 stylistic devices –– climax: 37 n. 35 –– enallage: 274 (on 16.7) –– frequency of superlatives: 95 (n. 83), 269 (on 3.1) –– hendiadys and duplicatio: 37–8 with n. 34 –– pleonastic expressions: 38 (n. 39), 282 (on 16.1), 284 (on 74.1) –– polyptoton: 38 (with n. 39), 268 (on ­1.4–5), 278–9 (on 61.2,4) ▷ syntax, ▷ variatio

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

370

Indexes  

Suetonius Tranquillus, C. –– book divisions altered in the process of transmission: 196–7 with n. 41 –– subjunctive in relative clauses: 177 with nn. 36–7 –– Suetonius modifies quotations: 175 with nn. 27–9 –– misquotes / misremembers his sources: 22, 30 (n. 63), 176–7 (with nn. 32–3) –– Suetonius’ catalogue of Caesar’s works: 19 n. 17 –– information on the Corpus ­Caesarianum: 16–18, 21–2, 30 (n. 63), 169–70, 172, 174–8 –– on the Alexandrian War: 79 (n. 20), 81 (n. 27), 84 (n. 31), 103 (n. 117) –– on Domitius’ campaign against ­Pharnaces: 88 n. 45 –– on the Battle of Zela: 92 n. 71 Sugambri, Germanic tribe, appearance in northern Gaul: 112 Sulla (L. Cornelius Sulla Felix), his ­Commentarii –– epistolary preface (?): 181 n. 51 –– dreams: 151 n. 272 –– role of Fortune: 152 n. 278 Sulpicius Galba: ▷ Galba superlatives –– in the Corpus Caesarianum: 95 (n. 83), 138 (n. 234), 269 (on 3.1) –– tendentious: 95 with nn. 82–3 –– superlative doublets: 95 n. 83 suspense: 117 (with n. 173), 132 (with n. 215) synonym-test: ▷ methodology syntax –– elliptical or obscure: 36 (with n. 31) –– abrupt changes of subject: 36 (n. 31), 38 (nn. 39, 41–2) –– cardinal / distributive numerals: 247 (on 2.4) –– collective singular: 248 (on 4.2), 273–4 (on 14.1) –– constructio ad sensum: 136 (n. 228), 263–4 (on 20.6) –– construction of compounds with ad-: 283 (on 20.6) –– anticipatory perfect and future in ­prefaces: 26 with n. 48 –– ablatives absolute: 63–4, 95, 278 (on 56.5) –– nuntiatur + acc. c. inf.: 278 (on 54.1)

syntax (continued)

–– relative clauses –– frequency of relative pronouns: 61–3 (with nn. 155–6), 286 –– repetition of the antecedent: 38 n. 39 –– subjunctive in relative clauses: 21 (n. 26), 177 (with nn. 36–7) –– connectives –– connective adverbs and particles: 67, 289 –– copulative conjunctions: 70–71 (with n. 201), 287 –– adversative conjunctions and adverbs: 67–9, 288 –– disjunctive conjunctions and adverbs: 69–70 –– subordinating conjunctions: 60 (with n. 151), 72, 290 –– unconnected sentences: 64

Tacitus (P. Cornelius Tacitus) –– loaded alternative / different versions of the historical events: 78 n. 14 –– counterfactual speculation: 118 (n. 176), 119 (n. 180) –– headline prolepses: 120 n. 184 –– death as a closural motif: 156 with n. 9 –– account of the Pisonian conspiracy: ­89–90 n. 55 Tarpeia narrative: 150 (n. 269), 151 (n. 271) Tarraco, city in Hispania citerior: 210–11 with n. 23 tautologies: ▷ pleonastic expressions Tencteri, Germanic tribe, invasion: 193 n. 25 Terentius Varro: ▷ Varro textual criticism: ▷ Corpus Caesarianum, ▷ transmission Thapsus, settlement in Africa, battle: 18 with n. 13 Theopompus of Chios, historian, criticized by Duris: 148–9 (with n. 262), 152 Thucydides –– biographical parallels between Th. and Caesar: 138 with n. 237 –– altered book divisions: 196–7 with n. 41 –– account of the plague: 135 n. 223 –– description of the sea battle in the ­harbour of Syracuse: 130–34 –– language –– transitional formulae: 195 n. 35 –– constructio ad sensum: 263–4 (on 20.6)

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

General index   Thucydides (continued)

––

––

––

––

––

–– anticipatory perfect in the ‘second preface’: 26 with n. 48 structure –– divides his account by campaign years: 138 n. 234 –– omitted or dislocated information (?): 136 n. 227 motifs and themes –– exhortation before battle: 130, 131 n. 214 –– prayers during a battle: 130, 132 –– historical events as spectaculum: 132–3 with n. 217 –– spectator motif: 123 (n. 191), 132–3 (with n. 216) –– moral corruption of civil war: 138 n. 237 presentation of the historical events –– personal experience as a third-person narrative: 138 n. 234 –– events narrated from different ­perspectives: 135–6 with n. 226 –– only one version of the historical events is given: 78 n. 14 –– role of chance and unexpected events: 112–13 (n. 158), 135 (with n. 224), 138 –– religious aspects: 135 n. 224 –– indirect characterization: 135 (with n. 225), 138 –– chronological presentation: 135–6 (with n. 226), 138 –– treatment of parallel events: 138 (n. 234), 195 (n. 35) –– postponed conclusion, suspense: 132 with n. 215 –– ‘Beinahe-Episoden’ (‘if-not-­situations’): 118 (n. 176), 135–6 (n. 226) –– counterfactual speculation: 135–6 n. 226 –– use of internal audiences: 132–3 (with n. 218), 137 –– verbal echoes: 133 (n. 217), 138 (with n. 233) –– importance of the events is highlighted: 130, 138 n. 234 literary models and parallels –– epic features: 133 (n. 217), 136 (with n. 227) –– ‘tragic’ features: 147 n. 260 reception –– popularity in the first century B. C.: 130 (n. 212), 137–9

371

Thucydides (continued)

–– imitated by Sallust: 133 n. 217 –– used in rhetorical training: 139 n. 241 –– Thucydidean elements in Gal. and Civ.: 137–8 –– in B.Alex. 1–21: 131–7 Thyestean Feast: 148 Tiberius Nero (Ti. Claudius Nero), father of the emperor Tiberius, one of Caesar’s officers: 83–4 with n. 31 torture: 151 n. 275 tragedy, ‘tragic’ features –– ‘Beinahe-Episoden’ in Greek tragedy: 118 n. 176 –– representation of Tyche / Fortuna: 141–2 with n. 249 –– Aristotle on tragedy: 141 (n. 248), 147 (n. 259) –– theatricality and Sicilian culture: 147 n. 260 –– personal experience as a drama: 152 –– theatrical vocabulary in Polybius: 149 n. 267 –– the term ‘tragic history’: 147 n. 261 –– ‘tragic’ features in Herodotus: 147 (n. 260), 150 (n. 269) –– in Thucydides: 147 n. 260 –– in Hellenistic historiography: 146–50 –– in early Roman historiography: 150–2 –– in Caesar’s Civ. (?): 143–4 with nn. 252, 254 –– in B.Alex.: 94 (with n. 74), 141–3 –– in Livy: 130 n. 212 transmission –– switch from papyrus rolls to codices: 196–7 (with n. 41), 203 –– change of book divisions: 196 with n. 41 –– letters lose the customary greeting: 181 with n. 52 ▷ Corpus Caesarianum (transmission) travel: ▷ speed of travel trierarchy: 130 n. 213 troops: ▷ legions Tullius: ▷ Cicero Tyche, oath by the Καίσαρος Τύχη: 116 n. 169 ▷ fortuna Usipetes, Germanic tribe, invasion: 193 n. 25 Utica, town in Africa: 211 Valerius Antias, historian –– ‘tragic’ or sensational features: 150–52 with n. 270 –– scandalous episodes: 151 n. 271

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008

372

Indexes  

value terms: 94, 291–300 variatio –– shift from a personal to an impersonal expression: 271–2 (on 10.1) –– demonstrative and relative pronouns: 63 with n. 156 –– composita pro simplicibus and simp. pro comp.: 43 with n. 62 –– different compounds used without difference in meaning: 43 (n. 62), 280 (on 8.1), 281 (on 9.2) –– parallel use of different constructions: 40 (n. 52), 42 (n. 59), 59 (n. 133), 262 (on 20.3), 283 (on 20.6) –– parallel use of similar expressions: 42 (n. 59), 277–8 (on 49.1) –– lack of variatio: 37–9 (with nn. 38–40, 42), 45–6, 236–8 Varro (M. Terentius Varro), Pompey’s legate in Hispania ulterior: 194, 198–9, 206–7, 210, 212–14 Vatinius, P., a legate of Caesar’s –– boastful letters to Cicero: 89 n. 51 –– author of a draft underlying B.Alex. 44–7 (?): 89 with nn. 50–51 –– characterization in B.Alex. 44–7: 89 (with n. 51), 110, 114, 163 (n. 38) Velleius Paterculus, historian –– treatment of the Alexandrian War: 81 n. 27 Vercingetorix, chieftain of the Arverni –– expelled from Gergovia: 187 n. 10 –– characterization: 107 n. 137 Vibius Pansa: ▷ Pansa

warfare –– bellum iustum and illegal violence: 76 n. 9 –– testudines and musculi as defensive ­devices: 48–9 n. 87 –– classiarii, considered second-rate soldiers: 98 n. 97 –– importance of infantry in sea battles: 98, 131 with n. 214 ▷ cavalry, ▷ legions, ▷ military theorists, ▷ mutiny word order –– est factus / factus est: 37–8 with n. 37 –– Wackernagel’s law: 36 n. 30 –– ablatives absolute: 63–4, 248 (on 6.1) –– verb-initial sentences: 65–6 –– hyperbata: 36 (n. 30), 37–8 (with nn. ­39–40), 268–9 (on 2.5) –– postposition of cum (conj.): 36 (n. 30), 37–9 (with nn. 39–40, 46), 72 –– other observations: 32 (n. 10), 36 (with n. 30), 42, 245 (on 75.3), 248–9 (on 6.1), 259 (on 17.3) Xenophon of Athens, historian –– influence on Caesar: 138 nn. 234, 236 Xenophon of Ephesus, novelist –– influenced by Thucydides: 139 with n. 242 Zama, city in Africa, siege: 133 n. 217 Zela, city in Pontus –– the Romans’ defeat against Mithridates VI: 92 n. 67 –– Caesar’s victory against Pharnaces: 92 (with nn. 67–72), 101, 121 (with n. 189), 179

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525253007 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253008