Bellum Alexandrinum

front matter

Bellum Alexandrinum
Cynthia Damon, et al.

Preface

This edition of the Bellum Alexandrinum, a text of unknown authorship belonging to the Corpus Caesarianum, is the product of collaborations involving nearly 100 people. The text and critical apparatus were prepared under Cynthia Damon’s direction by students at the University of Pennsylvania between 2014 and 2019, as were the supplementary materials included in this edition: detailed textual notes on difficult passages (Studies on the Text of the Bellum Alexandrinum), an appendix of singular readings (the Appendix critica), folio-by-folio transcriptions of the five manuscript witnesses used in the constitution of the text, and a translation. Damon converted the apparatus into a spreadsheet, and the LDLT team led by Sam Huskey at the University of Oklahoma converted both the text and the apparatus into the machine-readable form that underlies the version you are reading, either at the interactive LDLT website or as an on-demand .pdf. Damon and Huskey wrote this preface.

The processes summarized here have been the subject of several talks at the annual meeting of the Society for Classical Studies and will be described more fully in Damon and Huskey (in preparation).

Why a new edition of the Bellum Alexandrinum?

There are two answers to that question. The traditional answer is that the discoveries that underpin Damon's recent critical edition of Caesar’s Civil War (Oxford, 2015) should also be used to reassess the text of the Bellum Alexandrinum, which rests on the same manuscript witnesses. But the real answer is that in the digital era we urgently need new editors, and that creating an edition such as this is an excellent way to expose students to the editing process. The next generation of critical editions, digital critical editions, can improve significantly on past editions, but only if there is a next generation of editors who possess the skills required for bringing them to fruition. That is why students, both graduate and undergraduate, have been involved in every step of this edition's preparation, from collating manuscripts to encoding the edition's data in XML according to the LDLT's guidelines. Their training has blended the methods of traditional textual criticism with digital humanities approaches to texts as data. The goal has been to prepare the next generation of editors to work on a digital paradigm.

What is New?

The text and apparatus:

As can be seen from the Conspectus editionum, our text differs from that of Andrieu 1954, which we used as our base text, in nearly 100 places. Eleven of these changes are a consequence of the new stemma, in which the manuscript that differs the most from the rest, S, is treated as a witness to the hyparchetype nu rather than as an independent witness to the archetype.

42.2 exercitus alendos, 49.2 causae, 57.3 †in†, 60.1 educerentur, 60.3 animaduerteret, 61.6 sibi usui, 62.1 auxiliares, 62.2 Marcello fauebant, 64.3 derectam, 66.1 praefecit, 66.5 inceptum. See further the lists in Damon 2015b, 46 (note 93) and 48 (note 99).

In fifty-three places we print the archetype (or a possibly archetypal reading) where other editors emend it.

1.5 expectans, 7.2 casum, 7.2 ut … absumeretur, 8.2 Paratonio, 10.2 accessissent, 10.2 exposuissent, 12.3 miserant, 12.4 Caesaris, 13.5 Lycias, 13.5 et, 14.1 Rhodios, 14.1 Ponticos, 14.1 hos, 16.1 uictis, 19.2 certiorem, 20.4 perturbatos, 26.2 adducit, 26.2 multiplici praesidio, 27.5 constantiaque, 27.7 adiuncti his, 31.3 partibus, 32.1 magnae, 33.5 itinere terrestri, 36.5 siue amicus siue inimicus, 40.2 aperto, 42.3 Iadertinorum, 48.3 minuebat, 49.1 in ea, 51.2 uoluntate, 51.3 describerentur, 53.4 Laterensis, 54.3 indicaretur, 55.1 cohortibus, 55.5 Q. Sestio, 56.2 temporum, 56.2 animus, 57.1 Leptim, 59.1 detraxerunt, 60.1 educerentur, 60.2 esset 2, 60.5 educit, 61.6 sibi usui, 64.3 derectam, 66.1 legionibus, 66.1 praefecit, 66.5 inceptum, 67.1 Caesaris, 68.1 defensionem, 68.2 natura, 70.8 si, 72.2 superioribus … oppido, 75.1 operibus, 78.2 quod.

We print thirteen new emendations and propose a number of others.

11.2 ⟨suorum⟩ Khan, 15.3 ⟨moram⟩ Lewis, 16.2 ⟨exercitus⟩ scripsimus, 17.2 ⟨et hanc⟩ et illam [urbem] scripsimus, 35.3 ⟨constat⟩ scripsimus, 44.4 has adiunxit scripsimus, 60.3 animaduerteret causa Reinhardt, 61.4 adductus scripsimus, 62.1 auxiliares scripsimus, 67.1 ⟨et coactus⟩ Bensch-Schaus, 73.3 aggerere tum scripsimus, 74.3 contemptione scripsimus, 75.1 operibus reuocat Naqvi. Emendations proposed but not printed: 20.3 ⟨et⟩ sine ratione Callaghan, 26.2 ⟨gap⟩ adducit Persyn, 27.5 Mithridates [magna cum prudentia] D. Simons, 57.1 adducebatur J. Simons, 58.1 ueteranas J. Simons. There are also more than 40 new suggestions introduced at the end of apparatus notes with the formulas an … ? or nisi mauis.

We also revive fourteen.

2.1 ⟨armatorum⟩ Fischer, 7.2 esse Nipperdey, 15.8 ⟨nisi⟩ qui Fleischer, 17.3 quosque Lipsius, 25.1 Caesaris praesidia ed. pr., 36.5 aduentu sin Hoffmann, 40.2 circumire ac transcendere Nipperdey, 42.2 exercitus alendos M, 45.2 distentis Hoffmann, 49.2 simul et Latinius, 55.1 legionem quintam in castra remittit ed. pr., 58.1 Torius ς, 70.4 quamquam Dinter, 74.4 in procliuem Nipperdey.

In the process of our work we silently corrected dozens of errors in the apparatus of Andrieu 1954 and Klotz 1927. More broadly, we hope to have improved the apparatus everywhere by making the arguments relevant to the constitution of the text more salient and more explicit (see further below for our policy on apparatus notes).

The machine-readable form:

From the layout of the page to the typographical conventions used to represent manuscripts and other details about the text, traditional critical editions in print rely on complex visual cues to communicate information to readers who understand how to read and interpret those cues. For the most part, that information is inaccessible to a different type of reader: machines that can process and visualize information. If that information is presented in a way that both humans and machines can read and interpret, we can leverage the computational power of machines to open up new ways of exploring texts.

This is the first “born digital” edition of the Bellum Alexandrinum. It is encoded in Extensible Markup Language (XML) according to the guidelines of the LDLT. That means that the typographical conventions familiar to readers of traditional editions will still be rendered on screen or paper in their familiar form, but machines can also recognize them as more than just strings of characters. Rather, what a human reads as a crux (†), a machine can read in its own language. That is why this edition can be read in an online viewing platform, visualized with any number of data visualization tools, queried like a database, or rendered in a traditional form as a print-ready PDF.

I. The Bellum Alexandrinum

The work now known as the Bellum Alexandrinum or War in Alexandria was completed after the assassination of Caesar in 44 BCE, probably in connection with an attempt by Caesar’s supporters to produce an edition of texts narrating Caesar’s military achievements (see the Letter to Balbus prefaced to Gallic War 8, written by Aulus Hirtius). The title is misleading, since only the first of the five campaigns described in the work occurred in Alexandria. The Caesarian commanders and theaters of war are as follows: Caesar in Alexandria (chh. 1-33; September 48 -February 47), Domitius Calvinus in Pontus (34-41; September-October 48), Cornificius, Gabinius, and Vatinius in Illyricum (42-47; October 48 - January 47), Q. Cassius in Spain (48-64; May-December 48), Caesar in Pontus (65-78; March-May 47).

The dates (Julian) are taken from Raaflaub and Ramsey 2017.

None of Caesar’s officers is known to have participated in all of these overlapping campaigns. As a result, the narrative, like Caesar’s own commentaries, must rest on sources written by various hands. The identity of the person who compiled these reports and turned them into a coherent narrative is unknown now and was unclear already in antiquity (Suetonius, Jul. 56.1). Between the copy from which Suetonius draws several excerpts and the nearly 200 medieval manuscripts that survive the history of the text is hard to discern, but it is clear that all of the surviving witnesses ultimately rest on a single copy of the text that was produced during the Carolingian period: they share significant errors that must go back to a single source. For the Bellum Alexandrinum, a work of just under 11,000 words, they number about 150.

The word count used by Gaertner and Hausburg is 10513 (see, e.g., 2013, 286).

The most striking are the gaps (12.1, 17.3, 17.6, 22.2) and the insoluble problems (2.5 †obiectis†, 22.2 †multum†, 57.2 †noctu†, 57.3 †in†). But almost every page of the critical apparatus shows one or more spots where the reading of the archetype is not the reading in the text.

II. Constituting the text

A. The stemma

The foundations of the present edition are Damon 2015a and Damon 2015b.

For a fuller discussion of the history of the text and of editorial work on the Caesarian corpus see the Preface to Damon 2015a and the first chapter of Damon 2015b.

The Bellum Alexandrinum rests on the same five independent manuscript witnesses as Caesar’s Bellum ciuile. We looked for evidence that would challenge the stemma proposed for the Bellum ciuile, but found nothing conclusive.

As was the case for the Bellum ciuile, the “good readings” in S, which have traditionally been taken as evidence of agreement in error by the hyparchetypes mu and pi and proof that they have a common ancestor, can be explained as scribal emendations. Examples are given in the description of S below.

Accordingly, we used the same bipartite stemma.

B. The witnesses

More detailed versions of the following paragraphs are given in Damon 2015a, xxii-xxvi and 2015b, 55-61.

1. The archetype

The stemma allowed us to reconstruct the text of the archetype of the Bellum Alexandrinum in most of the hundreds of places where the manuscripts disagree, but as was mentioned earlier, that archetype has to be emended in roughly 140 spots. Regular sources of error in the archetype include abbreviations, scriptura continua, and inversions. Some of the archetype’s original readings seem to have been altered in such a way that both the original reading and the correction (or “correction”) were visible to the scribes of the two hyparchetypes, mu (the common source of M and U) and nu (the common source of S and pi, the common source of T and V).

Possible instances can be found throughout the apparatus, but the clearest examples are these: 9.3 dediticiis UcSV et Mmr : dedi(c/t)iis MUacT; 10.6 successuros McUS : successoros Mac : succens(u/o)res TcV : succensuros Tac ; 15.5 pugnae MTc : pugna USTacVac : pugnandi Vc; 26.2 ibi suum UST et Mmr : suum ibi MV; 32.3 precari MTcV : precare USTac; 45.1 cum Vatinium MUV : eum uatinium T : eum uatinium cum S; 46.2 contra illo remigante M (cf. BG 7.28.1 contra ueniretur) : contra illum remigantem SV : contra illo remigantem UT; 56.4 creabat UST : credebat MV; 57.3 ex USV : et MT ; 58.3 inscriptum UST : scriptum MV; 60.4 esse UacSTV : eum MUc; 73.2 triarium MS : traiarium UTV; 74.4 in procliuem Nipperdey : in proelium ST : in bellum V : praeruptam in proelium U : in praeruptam M. Other examples of innovations in the archetype that aim to repair the text include: 27.1 [a]; 29.3 [fluminum]; 70.3 [non]; 78.3 [legibus].

Disagreement among our manuscript witnesses also arises from other features of the archetype, such as variant readings and glosses.

Variants: 12.1 classiariorum USTV et M supra lineam : nauigatorum M; 24.1 statuit UTV et M supra lineam : constituit M (deest S); 27.5 prudentia MUScV et T supra lineam : potentia SacT; 34.1 prouincias USTV et M supra lineam : regiones M; 46.4 dubitabant USTV et M supra lineam : dubitarent M; 73.3 discederet USTV et M supra lineam : cessaret M. Glosses: 17.2 [urbem]; 27.5 [uirtutum … imprudentia]; 37.3 [rex]; 46.1 [fortunae].

2. The hyparchetypes

The hyparchetypes that transmitted the archetype’s text to the extant manuscripts are hard to discern in this tradition; our work on the Bellum Alexandrinum turned up no new and conclusive evidence for them.

The most suggestive evidence from the Bellum Alexandrinum is discussed at Damon 2015b, 34-36.

a. μ

Numerous innovations common to M and U are consistent with descent from a hyparchetype, μ. In the BAlex the most telling are these, where the reading in ν is likely to be archetypal:
  • 4.2 militem STV : milites MU
  • 7.1 Alexandrini STV : Alexandrinis MU
  • 16.2 qui STV : quis MU
  • 19.2 certiorem STV : fortiorem MU
  • 27.7 adiuncti his STV: adiunctis (h)iis MU
  • 33.2 imperia ST : imperio MU : imperiam V : imperium Mmr
  • 37.2 cum uereretur S : uereretur TV : ueritus MU
  • 55.3 adfectus STV : a(d/f)fecit MU
  • 56.2 dolore STV : dolori MU
  • 74.3 quem1 STV : quem cum legione M : cum legione quem U
  • 75.1 oppressus STV : oppressos MU
Significant innovations unique to M or U show that neither is descended from the other. Innovations of the sort that could not be corrected by conjecture, for example, include the following:
  • 1.2 operibus om. M
  • 1.2 uidentur om. M
  • 2.3 in … locis om. M (uerba 4)
  • 9.1 negotium om. M
  • 14.5 sic … Africae om. M (uerba 8)
  • 16.4 falleret om. M
  • 17.1 ad insulam om. M
  • 26.1 Caesaris om. M
  • 27.5 undique om. M
  • 37.5 pro uallo om. M
  • 40.4 non amplius om. M
  • 44.2 misit om. M
  • 45.2 aduersam om. M
  • 57.6 prouincia om. M
  • 58.2 Pompei om. M
  • 58.3 milites adeo fatebantur om. M
  • 61.1 Marcellus om. M
  • 63.2 Marcellus om. M
  • 67.2 populi Romani per compendia om. M
  • 76.1 acri om. M
  • 6.3 uero om. U
  • 18.4 ex his om. U
  • 30.3 numero om. U
  • 50.1 faceret quae om. U

As was the case in the Bellum ciuile, the relative lengths of these two lists suggests that U is a more faithful copy of μ than M is; this is borne out by other sorts of singular readings, which are far more numerous in M than in U, as can be seen in the Appendix critica.

Where μ and ν diverge, as they do more than 60 times in the Bellum Alexandrinum, μ more often offers a good reading, either by conjecture or by preserving the archetype.

b. ν

Innovations common to S and π are consistent with descent from a hyparchetype, ν. In the Bellum Alexandrinum the most telling are these, where the reading in μ is likely to be archetypal:
  • 19.2 quod MU : om. STV
  • 25.1 commeatum MU : commeatumque STV
  • 44.3 non MU : om. STV
  • 44.3 iusta ad MU : iuxta ad STV
  • 48.2 esset MU : om. STV
  • 49.2 causae MU: causa STV
  • 5.3 isdem MU : idem STV
  • 56.6 ut MU: om. STV
  • 59.1 tamque MU : ta(m/n)quam STV
  • 61.4 confligeret MU : confligere STV
  • 68.1 frequentes MUT : frequenter SV
  • 70.8 ei MU : om. STV
  • 71.1 proficisceretur STV : proficisceretur existimabat MU
Significant innovations unique to S or π show that neither is descended from the other. Omissions of the sort that could not be corrected by conjecture, for example, include the following:
  • 1.5 rei … alterius om. S (uerba 4)
  • 2.1 magnumque … adduxerant om. S (uerba 12)
  • 15.8 atque … exposceret om. S (uerba 16)
  • 17.5 constiterunt … litore om. S (uerba 12)
  • 19.6 pugnabatur … (24.2) ut ad om. S
  • 27.5 constantiaque … imprudentia om. S (uerba 5)
  • 31.1 uirum om. S
  • 57.5 namque om. S
  • 74.4 inanem om. S
  • 8.3 qui MUS : om. T
  • 14.1 eorum MUS : om. TV
  • 46.4 erant MUS : om. TV
  • 68.1 consul esset Mc et uocibus perpere diuisis U : consules sed Mac : consules se S : consules TV non male
  • 70.5 se MUS : om. TV
  • 76.1 in MUS : om. TV

    Textual variation between π and μ in some of the many passages omitted by S make it unlikely that these omissions were filled by contamination from the μ branch. There are also some small discrepancies between S and μ in text omitted by π (see above on 68.1). It is therefore likely that in all of the passages listed above ν's text was complete and transmitted to one of its two descendants.

The relative number of words omitted in these two lists suggests that π is a more faithful copy of ν than S is; this is borne out by other sorts of singular readings, which are vastly more numerous in S than in π.

Where ν and μ diverge, ν is more often in error than μ is, either by preserving a corrupt archetype or by innovating.

c. π

A large number of shared innovations both link T and V and separate them from the rest of the tradition, more than 50 for the Bellum Alexandrinum; the traditional siglum for the source of these innovations is π.

Hering (1963, 40) lists six substantial omissions common to T and V in the BG. There is another at BHisp 40.2. (The relationship between T and V is the same for all fourteen books of the Caesarian corpus.)

The separative innovations in the Bellum Alexandrinum also include a handful of brief omissions (see above), and an inversion, another variety of innovation that, once made, tends to persist in an uncontaminated tradition: 35.2 suo regno MUS : regno suo TV. Finally, among the innovations unique to these two manuscripts in the BAlex are some two dozen that repair the corrupt archetype and, once made, are unlikely to have been removed except by accident:
  • 15.8 in pugna occupatum animum haberent TV : inpugnatioccupatum animum haberent S : in pugna occupatum animum haberet U : pugna haberet occupatum animum Mac : pugna occupatum animum haberet Mc
  • 19.1 propior TV : prior MUS
  • 22.1 accessiones TV : accensiones MU (deest S)
  • 24.1 postularent TV : postularet (sc. rex) MU uix recte (deest S)
  • 66.4 sacerdotium TV : sacerdotum S : sacerdotio MU

For the hyparchetypes discussed above, μ and ν, it was a simple matter to show the independence of the two earliest descendants of each (M and U; S and π). This is not the case for π. A detailed discussion of the relationship between T and V is presented in Damon 2015b. Our work on the Bellum Alexandrinum turned up no new and conclusive evidence. We report the readings of T and V throughout.

3. The extant manuscripts

For detailed descriptions of the five manuscripts used to constitute the text see Damon 2015a, xxxiv-lxi. Here we indicate the folio numbers in each for the text of the Bellum Alexandrinum and the noteworthy innovations. Full transcriptions are available online at the LDLT website (see further below).

a. M

M is a manuscript in the Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana in Florence, shelf mark Plut. lat. 68.8.

High quality page images of M can be viewed at https://bit.ly/3HCkcSG.

The Bellum Alexandrinum occupies ff. 133v-143r. M offers some uniquely successful or meritorious innovations (those marked with an asterisk are particularly impressive

Also noteworthy in M: 11.2 conspectu ⟨suorum⟩ Khan : conspectu hostium M : conspectu USTV : an conspectu ⟨omnium⟩?; 48.1 multis UTV : mutis M : mutus S.

; there are of course other spots where M has been joined by one or another manuscript in a successful innovation):
  • 11.1 tenuerunt M : tenurunt U : terunt ST : terter V
  • 12.4 naturale M : naturalem USTV
  • 14.5 impeditiores M : expeditiores USTV
  • 23.1 quo M : qui UTV (deest S)
  • 24.2 parceret M : parceret et UTV (deest S)
  • 42.2 exercitus alendos M : exercitum alendos UTV : exercitum alendum S
  • 43.3 quo M : quod USTV
  • *46.2 contra illo remigante M : contra illum remigantem SV : contra illo remigantem UT
  • *47.3 ea M : eum USTV
  • 48.1 animaduertere M : animum auertere USTV
  • 60.5 difficultatisque: difficultatesque USTV
  • 61.4 passi M : pass(a)e USTV
  • 72.2 huic M : hoc USTV

b. U

U is a manuscript in the Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana in the Vatican, shelf mark Vaticanus lat. 3324.

Microfilm images are available online: https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.lat.3324.

The Bellum Alexandrinum occupies ff. 85r-95r. These folios contain, besides the text, a small number of brief marginal comments on content, either factual (e.g., “situs Alexandrie” 85v, “epibatis” 86v, “berones” 92r, “dinastas” “tarsus” 93v) or moral (e.g., “laus euphranoris” 87r, “mors euphranoris” 87v), along with the familiar “quaere” and “nota bene” symbols. The singular readings in U are far fewer than those of M, S, T, or V, as can be seen in the Appendix critica.

In the Bellum Alexandrinum U has roughly 80 singular readings listed in the Appendix critica; the approximate figures for the other manuscripts are as follows: M 170, S 260, T 130, V 165. Orthographical variants are not included in these figures.

The uniquely successful innovations in U are few and mostly cautious

Also noteworthy in U: 10.1 nudare MSTV : nudari U non male; 28.3 rex S : L ex MTV : ex U; 44.3 magnitudo nequaquam Larsen (cf. BC 3.109.2) : magnitudine quam non M : magnitudine quamquam non U : magnitudine quaquam S : magnitudine quamquam TV.

(there are of course other spots where U has been joined by one or another manuscript in a successful innovation):
  • 1.5 urbs U : ubrs M : urbis STV non male
  • 20.3 refugere coeperunt U : receperunt M : fugere coeperunt T : profugere coeperunt V (deest S)
  • 35.2 adductum U : abductum MSTV
  • 36.3 castra U : sex castra M : et castra S : ex castra TV
  • 49.1 hiberna U : hibernia MTV : ibernia S
  • 52.4 ibi T. Vasius U et Mmr : ibi tuasius MTV : ibit uasius S
  • 73.1 munituras U : munitura M : muniturus ST et Vc ut uidetur : munitur Vac

c. S

S is a manuscript in the Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana in Florence, shelf mark Ashburnhamensis 33. The Bellum Alexandrinum occupies ff. 121r-134v. The manuscript has lost some folios between 124v and 125r covering BAlex 19.6 pugnabatur-24.2 ad; there are also some shorter gaps (see above). Thirteen of S's singular readings make it into the text in this edition, a lower number than that in previous editions (see above). But the philological acumen of the innovator

On the innovator see further Damon 2015a, li-liii. The innovations in S, here as in the Bellum ciuile, include supplements to apparent omissions, omissions of superfluous material, alterations of inflexional endings to repair the syntax, corrections to misreadings of letters, and repairs based on material elsewhere in the text. There are also a large number of obvious mistakes, and some possible misreadings of corrections: see the apparatus for 11.3 contentione Rhodiorum, 26.2 idque, 28.2 circumuectus, 61.6 sibi usui. … The most interesting of these can be seen in the apparatus for 11.4 altera duae, where the nonsensical que pertur and que peritur in Sac and Sc respectively may contain the kernel of apertae un- in Kübler’s emendation.

whose legacy reaches us through S is as evident here as it was in the Bellum ciuile (the innovations marked with an asterisk are particularly impressive

Also noteworthy in S: 8.4 aduersos (sc. impetus) ex munitionibus sustineri MUTV : aduersos (sc. nostros) ex munitionibus sustinere S fortasse recte; 11.6 suis nauibus MUTV : suis S non male; 17.4 quo MUTV : qua S fortasse recte; 26.2 idque MUTV (cf. 3.4) : idque quod S : quod Landgraf; 45.4 parati deinceps MUTV : deinceps S : paratis ( sc. Vatinianis) deinceps Klotz dubitanter; 48.1 Q. Cassius MU : quae cassius TV : cassius S; 48.2 sestertiis centenis ς teste Oudendorp : ihs c MUT compendio indicato : Iterum ihs c S compendio indicato : ihc cesar V compendio indicato; 72.2 unus qui MUTV : qui S non male; 78.3 Deiotaro MUTV: a deiotaro S fortasse recte. See also the immediately previous note.

):
  • 7.2 domiciliis S : domicilius V et MT per compendia : domicius U per compendium
  • *11.3 contentione Rhodiorum scripsimus (cf. BC 1.1.1) : contentio nerhodiorum S : contentio r(h)odiorum MUTV
  • *28.3 rex S : L ex MTV : ex U
  • 37.2 cum uereretur S : uereretur TV : ueritus MU
  • *37.3 contulit S : contulit rex MUTV
  • 44.1 classe S : classem MUTV
  • 45.1 classem magna S : classem magnam M : classe magna UTV
  • *49.3 quin S : qui MUTV
  • 52.4 at S: ad McUTV
  • *60.5 uitii S : uti UTV : usus M
  • 62.1 paucis diebus q S : paucis diebusque MU : paucisque diebus T : paucis diebus V
  • 64.2 obtinendam uenit S : obtinendam MUTV : obtinendam mittitur Damon exempli gratia
  • 64.3 nihilo S (cf. 25.1) : ni(c)hil MUTV

d. T

T is a manuscript preserved in the Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris, shelf mark lat. 5764.

Page images of T may be viewed at http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b90668596.

The Bellum Alexandrinum occupies ff. 122va-136ra. For the Bellum Alexandrinum T only offers one successful innovation

Another noteworthy correction in T: 12.3 non tamen MU : tamen STacV : non post cogitationem suppleuit Tc.

(there are of course other spots where T has been joined by one or another manuscript in a successful innovation):
  • 33.2 diuturnitate confirmarentur Tc et Mmr : diuturnitates confirmarentur MUSTacV

e. V

V is a manuscript preserved in the Österreichische Nationalbibliothek in Vienna, shelf mark 95.

The Bellum Alexandrinum occupies ff. 137vb–153rb. V is unique in presenting the three non-Caesarian Bella under the title Bellum Alexandrinum and numbering the Bellum Africum and the Bellum Hispaniense as Books III-IV of that work. The number of uniquely successful innovations in V in the Bellum Alexandrinum is much lower than would have been expected based the evidence of the Bellum ciuile

Also noteworthy in V: 27.5 Mithridates magna cum prudentia MUSc et T supra lineam : mithridates magna cum potentia SacT : magna cum prudentia mithridates V feliciter; 62.1 paucis diebus q S : paucis diebusque MU : paucisque diebus T : paucis diebus V non male. Perhaps the scribe devoted less attention to this work than to those written by Caesar himself.

(there are of course other spots where V has been joined by one or another manuscript in a successful innovation, or where V seems to have joined μ in a good reading):
  • 59.1 esse1 V : esset MUST

III. Using this edition

The Bellum Alexandrinum has come down to us in a very imperfect state. The ongoing process of rendering it readable and at least arguably authentic has resulted in a text that differs in hundreds of spots from that transmitted by the manuscripts. The critical apparatus of this edition is designed to facilitate scrutiny of these textual repairs. We hope that readers will accept repairs not because they are there but because they are persuasive, or better than others, or better than nothing. Some of the damage incurred in the text's transmission seems irreparable: where text has been lost, for example, or where rival repairs are equally (im)plausible. These spots are marked with […] and †† respectively. But the vast majority of the problem spots are amenable to emendation, and the apparatus presents the evidence and (in brief) the arguments for the repairs adopted or proposed.

A. Text

In general terms the text of this edition aims to reproduce the text of the archetype of our tradition, as emended where it seems possible to restore a text closer to the original. However, several expedients adopted to improve the legibility of the text constitute exceptions to this policy.

The spelling of names and common Latin words and forms is silently regularized where the manuscript variants are not relevant to understanding the text or its transmission. The lemmata in the critical apparatus match the reading in the text (except in capitalization) and therefore do not necessarily represent the spelling in the manuscripts cited.

Abbreviations and symbols are silently spelled out where there is no ambiguity about the full form of the word. (For the special case of numbers see below.) Roman praenomina are an exception to this general rule, since we use the standard abbreviations (C. for Gaius, Cn. for Gnaeus, L. for Lucius, and so on), regardless of what is in the text. The phrase per compendium in the apparatus indicates that a manuscript contains an abbreviation when this information is helpful for understanding the transmission of the text. But the absence of such an indication should not be taken to imply that the text is written in full. All of the manuscripts cited here use abbreviations to a greater (U) or lesser (TV) or variable (MS) degree. The phrase compendio indicato indicates that a word is presented as an abbreviation in the manuscript but that the significance of the abbreviation is unclear.

We have silently regularized the manuscripts' inconsistent and discrepant representations of cardinal and ordinal numbers. For one, two, and three we use the inflected forms, and for most cardinal numbers higher than three we use Roman numerals, since the inflected forms of large numerical adjectives and adverbs are cumbersome in Latin and less perspicuous than their symbolic counterparts. However, we do spell out mille and the inflected forms of milia. Ordinal numbers are spelled out; this is particularly useful in connection with legions, where the difference between, say, “five legions” and “the fifth legion” is significant. Distributive numbers, which are infrequent in this text, are also spelled out.

We used modern punctuation in the text since the punctuation in the manuscripts is neither consistent nor reliable. The terminal punctuation for main clauses is generally a full stop. Where a series of actions seems to gain from presentation as a series, on the other hand, we use commas instead of full stops. But in many instances there was rather little to tip the balance. In extended passages of indirect statement we use semicolons to indicate sentence breaks. Commas are used to articulate the text where clause structure and word order are not sufficient (see further below). We occasionally use paired dashes to indicate a gap between the narrative and an embedded utterance such as an editorializing comment by the author, an afterthought, or a “snippet” of indirect statement, where commas don't suffice.

See Damon (2020) on such parentheses.

Where such utterances extend for a sentence or more and full stops don't suffice we use parentheses rather than dashes. Single dashes precede instances of anacoluthon. Pointed and square brackets indicate additions to (⟨ ⟩) and excisions from ([ ]) the text that involve complete words. Where syllables or individual letters are added or excised the change is not signaled in the text but the relevant information can be found in the apparatus. In general Incertus’ prose requires more punctuation than Caesar’s. For passages where the periodic style consists of a heavily punctuated accumulation of clauses see, e.g., 1.4-5 (Caesar … poterat), 14.5 (Erant … uidebantur), 24.1-2 (Caesar … puerum), 35.2 (Domitius … fuisset), 42.2-3 (Namque … sociorum), 43.1 (Gabinius … gerebat), 44.1 (Vatinius … praeparationis), 44.3-4 (Quod … persequeretur), 48.1 (Iis … cupiebat).

Paragraphs are generally those established by Jungermann's 1606 edition, which serve as the basis for the modern citation system. Units within the paragraphs are numbered as in Andrieu 1954.

The features of the text described so far are available in both online and print versions of the LDLT edition.
Since the edition itself is an XML file, it is important to note that “online and print versions” refer to visualizations of the data in that file. The LDLT's official online reading application is based on the CETEIcean application developed by Hugh Cayless and Raffaele Viglianti. This edition can be viewed in the LDLT's online reading application at The print version is available as a PDF in the code repository for this edition.
But the LDLT's official online version has one important feature that cannot be reproduced on paper: dynamic swapping. Unlike traditional editions, in which variant readings are collected in a critical apparatus at the bottom of each page, the LDLT's online reading application not only places the critical apparatus in the margin where the variation occurs, but also allows readers to swap variant readers into the text so that they can be evaluated in situ. Every attempt has been made to eliminate the possibility of introducing novel readings into the text. This is a hazard when variants in two places are related to each other: If a reader swaps one of the variants into the text, the one related to it elsewhere should be swapped, too. Otherwise, this dynamic swapping feature could create a version of the text that never existed previously. This is why we opted not to encode certain combinations of variants to enable the swapping feature, since the application, at least at the time this was written, was not able to render them reliably.

B. Critical apparatus

There is an entry in the apparatus criticus if any of the following circumstances applies for a word or phrase in the text:
  • If the reading of the archetype is uncertain: μ≠ν, or MS≠Uπ, etc. In choices between equally authoritative variants we have put in the text the one that offers the best sense and style. Or, if these criteria fail, the lectio difficilior. If no other criterion suffices, we follow U, which is the least deviant manuscript. In some places these criteria pull in different directions.
  • If there may be a disagreement between μ and ν: μS≠π, U≠Mν, etc. We list this category separately from (1) because it is often difficult, owing to the waywardness of S, to determine the reading of ν. The same is true, but to a much lesser extent, about μ, owing to M's propensity to stray.
  • If the manuscript evidence warrants display for some other reason. Readings unique to a particular manuscript—lectiones singulares or singular readings—are generally recorded in the Appendix critica if the text is not in doubt, but multi-word omissions are also reported in the apparatus since they provide crucial information about the shape of hyparchetype families. When other sorts of singular readings are reported in the apparatus, they are mentioned for their value as emendations. Where two manuscripts have different singular readings at the same spot we generally record this in the apparatus.

    In some cases the Appendix critica seemed the more appropriate home for the information, especially when unrelated errors were typical of their manuscripts or where one of the two errors has been corrected by the scribe.

  • If the syntax is faulty, showing omissions, problems of agreement, etc. The problem is fixed in the text if possible, even if the solution adopted is only one of several possible solutions. But sometimes a lacuna (indicated by […]) is indicated instead.

    For the more difficult examples of categories (4)–(7) there are notes explaining our reasoning in Studies on the Text of the Bellum Alexandrinum. These are signaled by a diamond (◊) in the apparatus note.

  • If the usage is or appears to be problematic. In this situation, the problem is usually fixed in the text, unless it can be attributed to the author himself. This large category is subject to some limitations.
    • We rarely make notes involving the regularization of acceptable syntax. A very common type of emendation involves verb forms. E.g., where in a series of historical present tense verbs one finds a perfect. These generally require trivial textual intervention. But readers can spot these discrepancies for themselves and decide about the suitability of the preserved reading and the repairs available. The fact that someone before them has also queried the text is unlikely to help resolve the problem, and such notes, which would be very very numerous, would clog the apparatus.

      The α and β branches of the tradition of the BG frequently differ over verb tenses, which leads one to suspect that in our tradition, which is limited to the β branch, tense errors will be numerous (see further Damon 2015b, 100-104).

      Emendations of this sort (and of those discussed below) can be seen in the Conspectus editionum. However, where such emendations remove a contradiction within the text they are usually either accepted or at least reported. Similarly if they help address an otherwise problematic passage or draw attention to a notable feature of the text such as a constructio ad sensum. (This logic and these exceptions also apply to the following two categories.)
    • We rarely make notes involving the addition or excision or interchange of verb prefixes.
    • We rarely make notes involving the addition or excision of the connectives et and -que, or the interchange of -que and -ue. A glance at the apparatus will show that these words are frequently overlooked or added by our manuscripts.
    • We rarely make notes involving diction. Unlike categories (a)–(c), such notes sometimes involve substantial changes to the text, and the presumed innovations have to be explained as substitutions (deliberate or unconscious) by the scribe.

      Or additions. We also refrain from making notes about possible intrusive glosses, as long as they don't interfere with the comprehension of the text.

      Spotting this sort of problem is an almost infinite task, as there are many words in the text for which one could think of a more apt, a more common, or at least a different expression. The fact that in the BG tradition there are numerous synonym-variants between the α and β branches (see Damon 2015b, 100-104) almost guarantees that some of the expressions in our text were not those originally chosen by the author, and one advantage of notes on diction would be to call attention to anomalies, but at the cost of suggesting, even if only gently, that dictional anomalies need to be fixed. Readers who are sensitive enough to diction to look to the apparatus when an expression seems odd already have what they need to analyse the situation. This is obviously a matter for editorial judgment, and “rarely” does not mean “never.”
  • If the sense is or appears to be problematic on grounds of either history or logic. Such a problem is fixed in the text unless it can be attributed to the author himself. A number of these passages involve names.

    For example, we printed the transmitted spelling, even though epigraphic evidence suggests that it is wrong, at 42.3 Iadertinorum and 48.2 Medobrigam. Incertus might not have known the local or accepted spelling of these rather out of the way toponyms. Like Caesar, Incertus is inconsistent in his use of the tria nomina, both at an individual’s introduction, where he sometimes supplies the praenomen and sometimes doesn’t, and subsequently. Q. Cassius Longinus, for example, is sometimes called Cassius, sometimes Longinus.

  • If the text is or appears to be suspect on other grounds. Numbers are responsible for most of this category. Sometimes no solution can be proposed but it still seems worth marking the problem.

Parallel passages are often cited in the apparatus to defend the text, a variant, or an emendation, but only when the available parallels are rare; regular usage speaks for itself. In directing the reader to parallels we use uide [u.] for passages illustrating the matter, confer [cf.] for passages illustrating the expression. If a parallel from the Caesarian corpus is given, it is the best one, and often the only one, unless “etc.” follows, in which case there are up to five or so pertinent parallels. If parallels are given for distinct aspects of the phrase in question, et is interposed between citations. If a parallel is given from outside of the Caesarian corpus, no adequate parallel exists within the corpus. Where the cited parallel nevertheless provides only indifferent support for the reading it defends, the reading can be assessed accordingly.

In this edition the readings of all of the principal manuscripts are stated for every lemma. This makes it easy for the reader to follow the behavior and affiliations of the manuscripts over large stretches of text. It also facilitates the task of assessing the arguments about readings in the text, since the lemmata and the evidence for them are listed alongside the conflicting evidence.

Orthographical variants and the related category of abbreviations abound in this tradition (see Damon 2015a, xxiii). They are generally ignored in the apparatus, unless a variant helps explain subsequent innovations, as is sometimes the case for abbreviations in particular.

Citations for works of classical literature are given in the abbreviated forms standardized by the OLD and Liddell-Scott-Jones. (With space-saving exceptions for the six works in the corpus Caesarianum, which appear as BG, Hirt., BC, BAlex, BAfr, BHisp.) Citations without titles refer to the Bellum Alexandrinum.

Scholars are cited by name only, or by name and date if it is necessary to distinguish among their works. Full bibliographic information is given in the List of works cited.

In the long history of work on the text of the Bellum Alexandrinum some emendations have lost their source. Where other editors ascribe a reading to “edd.,” we have named the earliest source we can find. We use ς if we can verify that a reading is in a manuscript other than those used here to constitute the text. (This usually means that the reading is in L or N or R.) Otherwise we give the earliest edition in which it appears. Emendations credited to the first edition (“ed. pr.”) are presumably drawn from a manuscript source.

C. Appendix critica

In the Appendix critica we record the singular readings of the principal manuscripts in passages where the text is not in doubt. (Where a singular reading is useful for the constitution of the text it is recorded in the critical apparatus.) This collection of readings illustrates the character of the witnesses to the text, allowing the reader to see both the frequency and the types of errors in each. Lemmata are provided to show the nature of the error. The spelling of the lemma is that of the printed text. Orthographical variants are not registered in the Appendix. An erroneous reading ascribed to Mac (or Mc) implies that Mc (or Mac) has the reading of the lemma. All singular omissions are listed. Omissions notable for length or content are also reported in the apparatus criticus. An asterisk marks errors in M that prompted a correction—not necessarily a successful one—by Mmr.

Additional materials in the LDLT edition:

Studies on the Text of the Bellum Alexandrinum

Twenty-three notes on difficult spots in the text by members of the Latin 540 classes in 2015 and 2017. These present in depth the arguments that underlie the various remedies suggested in the edition's critical apparatus. They are signaled in the relevant apparatus note by a diamond (◊) before the lemma.

Transcriptions of the manuscript witnesses (MUSTV)

The five manuscript witnesses used to constitute the text were transcribed by members of the Postbac Latin seminars in 2014 and 2016, and by highschool volunteers in the summer of 2016. The transcriptions were checked and doublechecked by the transcribing teams, by other class members, and by the Latin 540 students who used the transcriptions to generate the critical apparatus. Machine-collation was used to locate discrepancies that needed verification; we used the collation tool at juxtacommons.org. (For the process see Damon and Huskey, forthcoming.) Errors certainly remain, and many features of the original are not reflected in these simple documents, but they are helpful maps for finding a particular bit of text in a manuscript book or a page image. Abbreviations are filled out unless obscure (as is sometimes the case with monetary amounts, for example), punctuation is ignored, and capitalization is reproduced rather erratically. Where a manuscript contains a correction the transcription records the corrected form, not the original reading; the original readings were recorded elsewhere and are taken account of in the apparatus and Appendix critica.

Translation

The students in the two Latin 540 classes produced a translation of the Bellum Alexandrinum in the course of their work on the text. It is a work of many hands and makes no claim to stylistic merit or even consistency. It is designed to communicate our interpretation of the text, particularly where we have emended it.

Conspectus editionum

A list of the 98 places where the reading of the LDLT Bellum Alexandrinum differs from that of Andrieu 1954, which we used as our base text. (Differences of orthography and punctuation are not reported.)

Acknowledgements

As we said at the outset, this edition rests on the work of many contributors. It couldn’t have been done without them, or without the financial and other forms of support for research provided by the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and our two home institutions, the University of Pennsylvania and the University of Oklahoma. Our largest debts are recorded below, but the process has been a long one and we are grateful to all who kept us company along the way, even on the “paths not (or not yet) taken” that are an inevitable part of a project as complex as this one proved to be. Information on the collaborations and support that resulted in the platform and protocols that host and govern this edition can be found at the Digital Latin Library and the Library of Digital Latin Texts.

Students at the University of Pennsylvania transcribed and collated the manuscript witnesses and produced the text, critical apparatus, appendix critica, and translation. The contributors were undergraduates, students in the Postbac program, and graduate students in Classical Studies and Ancient History, along with some Philadelphia-area high school students: Adrienne Atkins, Katie Becker, Amelia Bensch-Schaus, Jacob Bickford, Nicholas Bolig, Victoria Burmeister, Sean Carpenter, Greg Callaghan, Brian Credo, Maxwell Dietrich, Alexis Frankel, Kathleen Garland, Nikola Golubovic, Wesley Hanson, Zachary Herbster, Xinyi Huang, Molly Hutt, Johanna Kaiser, Elizabeth Keyser, Scheherazade Khan, Peter Kotiuga, Maria Kovalchuk, Shenda Kuang, Amy Lewis, Scotland Long, Nicole Love, Daniel Mackey, Kate Murphy, Addie McKenzie, Theodora Naqvi, Jeffrey Nolte, Kristen Patterson, Marcie Persyn, Harrison Powell, Isaac Rand, Annamaria Rapsomanikis, Rudolf Rauk, Isabella Reinhardt, Joshua Renfro, Janelle Sadarananda, Jessica Shaw, Dallas Simons, Julia Simons, Brandon Stark, Benjamin Turnbull, Tom Vozar, Tim Warnock, Joseph Watkins, Duo Xu, Yingchao Zhu. You will find the names of some of these students in the edition itself as the sources of emendations to the text and authors of notes on difficult spots in the text. Special mention goes to: Sean Carpenter, who with the support of a grant from Penn’s Undergraduate Research Mentoring Program developed a transcription protocol compatible with automatic collation and produced directories of manuscript abbreviations; Dallas Simons, who helped edit the apparatus notes and prepared page images from early editions for Optical Character Recognition (one of those paths not yet taken, for which we also received help and advice from Greg Crane, Uwe Springmann, and Katie Rawson); Amy Lewis, who helped edit the apparatus notes and appendix critica; and Zachary Elliott, who along with his wife Molly Cowan tested approaches to automating the conversion of traditional apparatus notes into spreadsheet form. Support both financial and technical was provided by Penn’s Price Lab for Digital Humanities.

We owe a debt of gratitude to many people at the University of Oklahoma. Virginia K. Felkner perfected the scripts used to reduce the amount of manual encoding we had to do. Mark Laufersweiler and Tyler Pearson of the Data Analytics, Visualization, and Informatics Syndicate provided invaluable advice on that and other aspects of the project. Tara Carlisle, Director of the Digital Scholarship Laboratory, facilitated meetings and made many helpful suggestions. Logan Cox made important contributions to the DLL's digital infrastructure. The Office of the Vice President for Research supported this and other DLL projects by providing physical and virtual spaces for them.

Several people beyond the walls of the University of Pennsylvania and the University of Oklahoma deserve special mention. Hugh Cayless (Duke University), co-author of the "Guidelines for Encoding Critical Editions for the Library of Digital Latin Texts" and architect of the application for reading this edition online, has been instrumental in all aspects of this project. Tom Elliott (New York University) and Alex Ward provided advice on scholarly and technical matters. Finally, this project could not have come to fruition without the support of the leadership of the Society for Classical Studies, particularly former Executive Director Adam Blistein and current Executive Director Helen Cullyer and those who have served as Vice President of Publications and Research during our work: Michael Gagarin, Donald Mastronarde, Kathryn Gutzwiller, and Colin Whiting.

Bibliography

Manuscripts

ω Common source of
μ Common source of M and U
ν Common source of S and π

Descendants of μ

M Florence, BML Plut. lat 68.8 (s. xii4 or xiii1) teca.bmlonline.it/ImageViewer/servlet/ImageViewer?idr=TECA0000807118#page/1/mode/1up

Hands in M

Mac The uncorrected reading in M. Equivalent to M.
Mc Corrections by the original scribe, who usually recovers the reading of the exemplar.
Mmr Corrections by one or more later hands (manus recentior), sometimes recovering the exemplar, sometimes not.
M* An asterisk marks readings in M that prompted a correction—not necessarily a successful one—by Mmr.
U Vatican, BAV Vat. lat. 3324 (s. xi4 or xii1)

Hands in U

Uac The uncorrected reading in U. Equivalent to U.
Uc Corrections by the original scribe or a close contemporary.

Descendants of v

S Florence, BML Ashburnham 33 (s. x2–3)

Hands in S

Sac The uncorrected reading in S, Equivalent to S.
Sc Corrections made by the original scribe or a close contemporary.
π Common source of T and V.
T Paris, BNF lat. 5764 (s. xi3–4). gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10542010c

Hands in T

Tac The uncorrected reading in T, Equivalent to T.
Tc Corrections made by the original scribe or a close contemporary.
V Vienna, ÖN 95 (s. xii)

Hands in V

Vac The uncorrected reading in V. Equivalent to V.
Vc Corrections made by the original scribe or a close contemporary.

Occasionally cited

N Naples, BN IV.C.11 (s. xi), cited where S is lacunose.
ϛ A reading found in one or more later manuscripts.

Early Editions

ed. pr.
G. Bussi, ed. Romae: In domo Petri de Maximis [= Sweynheym and Pannartz]. 12 May 1469. URL: daten.digitale-sammlungen.de/~db/0006/bsb00064880/images/
Aldus
Beroaldus
P. Beroaldus, ed. Caii Iulii Caesaris commentarios Belli Gallici, Ciuilis Pompeiani, Alexandrini, Africi, ac Hispaniensis. Bologna. 1504. URL: reader.digitale-sammlungen.de/de/fs1/object/display/bsb10140427_00001.html

Modern Editions

Andrieu J. Andrieu, ed. Pseudo-César, Guerre d’Alexandrie. Paris. 1954.
Bentley T. Bentley, ed. Caii Julii Caesaris de bello gallico et ciuili nec non A. Hirtii aliorumque de bellis Alexandrino, Africano, et Hispaniensi commentarii. Notas et animaduersiones addidit Tho. Bentleius. Accessere conjecturae et emendationes Jacobi Jurini. London. 1742.
Cellarius C. Cellarius, ed. C. Iulii Caesaris Commentarii de bello gallico et ciuili. Cum utriusque supplementis ab A. Hirtio vel Oppio adiectis. Leipzig. 1705.
Clarke S. Clarke, ed. C. Julii Caesaris quae extant, accuratissime cum libris editis et mss optimis collata, recognita et correcta. Accesserunt annotationes Samuelis Clarke. London. 1720 (1st ed. 1712).
Dauisius 1706 J. Davies, ed. C. Julii Caesaris quae exstant omnia ... cum eiusdem animadversionibus ac notis Pet. Ciacconii, Fr. Hotomanni, Joan. Brantii, Dionys. Vossii et aliorum. Cambridge. 1706. URL: reader.digitale-sammlungen.de/de/fs1/object/display/bsb10217527_00001.html
Dauisius 1727 J. Davies, ed. C. Julii Caesaris et Auli Hirtii quae exstant omnia recensuit ac selectis ... aliorum notis suas addidit Joannes Davisius; accedunt ejusdem secundae curae necnon metaphrasis graeca librorum VII de bello gallico. Cambridge. 1727.
Dinter B. Dinter, ed. C. Iuli Caesaris commentarii cum A. Hirti aliorumque supplementis . III: C. Iuli Caesaris commentarii commentarii de bello Alexandrino, Africano, Hispaniensi. Caesaris Hirtiique fragmenta. Leipzig. 1887. URL: books.google.com/books?id=luswAQAAMAAJ&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q&f=false
Dübner F. Dübner, ed. C. Julii Caesaris commentarii de bellis Gallico et civili, aliorum, de bellis Alexandrino, Africano et Hispaniensi. Tomus secundus. Paris. 1867. URL: hdl.handle.net/2027/uiug.30112023932624
Du Pontet R. Du Pontet, ed. C. Iuli Caesaris Commentariorum. Pars 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1900.
Hoffmann 1857 E. Hoffmann, ed. C. Iulii Caesaris commentarii cum supplementis A. Hirtii et aliorum. Volumen alterum. Vienna. 1857
Hoffmann 1890 E. Hoffmann, ed. C. Iulii Caesaris commentarii cum supplementis A. Hirtii et aliorum. Vol. II: Commentarii de bello ciuili. Accedunt commentarii de bello Alexandrino, Africano, Hispaniensi. New edition. Vienna. 1890. URL: hdl.handle.net/2027/uiug.30112099806678.
Jungermann G. Jungermann, ed. C. Iulii Caesaris quae exstant ... praeterea ... notae, adnotationes, commentarii Rhellicani, Glareani, Glandorpii, Camerarii, Bruti, Manutii, Sambuci, Vrsini, Ciacconii, Hotmani, Brantii. Frankfurt. 1606. URL: hdl.handle.net/2027/uc1.31822038197299.
Klotz A. Klotz, ed. C. Iulii Caesaris commentarii. Vol. III: Bellum Alexandrinum, Bellum Africum, Bellum Hispaniense, Fragmenta. Leipzig. 1927.
Kraner F. Kraner, ed.  C. Iulii Caesaris commentarii cum supplementis A. Hirtii et aliorum.  Editio stereotypa. Leipzig. 1861. URL: hdl.handle.net/2027/uc1.c070407321.
Kübler 1896a B. Kübler, ed. C Iulii Caesaris commentarii. Vol. III, pars prior, commentarius de bello Alexandrino. Editio maior. Leipzig: Teubner, 1896.hdl.handle.net/2027/osu.32435027192681
Lipsius J. Lipsius, ed. C. Iulii Caesaris commentarii ... eiusdem ... fragmenta. Antwerp. 1586. URL: books.google.com/books?id=6BYsAQAAMAAJ&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q&f=false. See also Oudendorp.
Manutius Aldus Manutius, ed. C. Iulii Caesaris commentarii ab Aldo Manutio Paulli filio Aldi nepote emendati et scholiis illustrati. Venice. 1597. (First edition 1571.) URL: mdz-nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:12-bsb10171445-1.
Morus S. F. N. Morus, ed. C. Iulii Caesaris commentarii de bello Gallico et civili; accedunt libri de bello Alexandrino Africano et Hispaniensi e recensione Francisci Oudendorpii; curavit editionem Sam. Fr. Nathan. Morus. Leipzig. 1780. URL: hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.39015022638830.
Nipperdey K. Nipperdey, ed. C. Iulii Caesaris commentarii. Leipzig. 1847. URL: hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.39015063012838.
Oehler F. Oehler, ed. C. Iulii Caesaris commentarii cum supplementis A. Hirtii et aliorum. Leipzig. 1852. URL: hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.39015007036885.
Oudendorp F. Oudendorp, ed., C. Julii Caesaris De bellis gallico et civili pompejano; nec non A. Hirtii aliorumque de bellis Alexandrino, Africano et Hispaniensi commentarii ad MSStorum fidem expressi, cum integris notis Dionysii Vossii, Joannis Davisii et Samuelis Clarkii cura et studio Francisci Oudendorpii qui suas animadversiones ac varias lectiones adjecit. Leiden. 1737. URL: hdl.handle.net/2027/njp.32101066876309.
Scaliger J. Scaliger, ed. C. Iulii Caesaris quae extant. Amsterdam. 1661. (First edition 1635.) URL: hdl.handle.net/2027/uc1.31175035195554.
Schneider R. Schneider, ed. Bellum Alexandrinum. Berlin. 1888. URL: hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.39015039572113.
Stephanus R. Estienne, ed. C. Iulii Caesaris rerum ab se gestarum comentarii. Paris. 1544. URL: books.google.com/books?id=CtcPAAAAQAAJ.
Strada J. Strada, ed. C. Iulii Caesaris rerum gestarum commentarii XIV. Frankfurt. 1575. URL: books.google.com/books?id=ZSqXfrpOspMC
Ursinus F. Orsini, ed. C. Iulii Caesaris commentarii novis emendationibus illustrati ... ejusdem fragmenta ... ex bibliotheca Fulvii Ursini. Antwerp. 1595. URL: hdl.handle.net/2027/ucm.5327351141.
Vascosanus M. Vascosanus, ed. Paris. 1543.

Other Sources

Baehrens Baehrens, W. A. Beitraege Zur Lateinischen Syntax. Leipzig. 1912.
Barwick Barwick, K. Caesars Commentarii und das Corpus Caesarianum. Leipzig. 1938.
Broughton Broughton, T. Robert S. The Magistrates of the Roman Republic. 2 vols. Cleveland. 1968.
Brown Brown, Virginia. The Textual Transmission of Caesar’s Civil War. Leiden. 1972.
Carter Carter, J. M., trans. Julius Caesar, The Civil War. Oxford. 1997.
Castiglioni Castiglioni, L. Intorno a Cesare ed ai suoi continuatori (Bellum Civile, Africanum, Alexandrinum). Athenaeum n.s. 11 (1924): 229–40.
Ciaffi-Griffa Ciaffi, Raffaele and Ludovico Griffa, eds. Gaio Giulio Cesare, Opere. Turin. 2008. (First editions 1952 and 1973.)
Cornelissen Cornelissen, J. J. Adversaria critica. Mnemosyne 17 (1889): 44–55.
Damon 2015a Damon, C., ed. C. Iuli Caesaris commentariorum: Libri III de bello civili. Oxford. 2015.
Damon 2015b Damon, Cynthia. Studies on the text of Caesar’s Bellum civile. Oxford. 2015.
Damon 2020 Damon, Cynthia. On (authorial and other) parentheses in Caesar’s commentarii. In L. Curtis and I. Peirano Garrison, eds. The lives of Latin texts. Cambridge, MA. 55–89. 2020.
Domaszewski A. von Domaszewski. Die Heere der Bürgerkriege in den Jahren 49 bis 42 vor Christus. Neue Heidelberger Jahrbücher 4 (1894): 157–188.
Fischer Fischer, Eduard. Das achte Buch vom Gallischem Kriege und das Bellum Alexandrinum: Eine Studie. Passau. 1880. URL: hdl.handle.net/2027/uc1.$b62477
Fleischer Fleischer, Curt. Zu Caesar und seinen Fortsetzern. Neue Jahrbücher für Philologie und Pädagogik 119 (1879): 849–67. URL: hdl.handle.net/2027/uc1.b3013858?urlappend=%3Bseq=899.
Forchhammer Forchhammer, J. N. G. Quaestiones criticae de vera commentarios de bellis civili, Alexandrino, Africano, Hispaniensi emendandi ratione. Copenhagen. 1852. URL: hdl.handle.net/2027/njp.32101065205849.
Gaertner-Hausburg Gaertner, J. F., and B. Hausburg. Caesar and the Bellum Alexandrinum: An analysis of style, narrative technique, and the reception of Greek historiography. Hypomnemata 192. Göttingen. 2013.
Gemoll Gemoll, W. Zu Caesar und seinen Fortsetzern. Jahrbücher für klassische Philologie 119 (1879): 267–70. URL: hdl.handle.net/2027/uc1.b3013858?urlappend=%3Bseq=317.
Graindor Graindor, P. La guerre d’Alexandrie. Cairo. 1931.
Hedicke Hedicke, Edmundus. Scholia in Caesarem et Sallustium (Varia II). Programm des königlichen Gymnasiums zu Quedlinburg (1879): 9–18.
Hering Hering, Wolfgang. Die Recensio der Caesarhandschriften. Berlin. 1963.
Hübner Emil Hübner, ed. Inscriptiones Hispanie Latinae. Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum. Vol. II. Berlin: G. Reimerum. 1869–92. URL: arachne.uni-koeln.de/books/CILvII1869.
Kraffert Kraffert, Hermann. Beiträge zur Kritik und Erklärung lateinischer Autoren. Aurich. 1882.
Kübler 1896b Kübler, B.. Recisamenta critica. Philologus 55 (1896): 154–59. URL: hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.39015029918151?urlappend=%3Bseq=214.
Landgraf 1888 Landgraf, G. Untersuchungen zu Caesar und seinen Fortsetzern insbesondere über Autorschaft und Komposition des Bellum Alexandrinum und Africanum. Erlangen. 1888. URL: archive.org/details/untersuchungenzu00landuoft.
Landgraf 1889 Landgraf, G. Der Bericht des C. Asinius Pollio über die spanischen Unruhen des Jahres 48 v. Chr. (Bellum Alexandrinum 48–64) auf Grund des codex Ashburnhamensis. Erlangen et Leipzig. 1889. URL: hdl.handle.net/2027/hvd.32044085186245.
Landgraf 1891a Landgraf, G. Zum Bellum Alexandrinum. In Commentationes Woelfflinianae. Leipzig. 1891. 15–21. URL: hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.39015022622206?urlappend=%3Bseq=25.
Landgraf 1891b Landgraf, G. Das Bellum Alexandrinum und der codex Ashburnhamensis. Programm des Kgl. Wilhelmsgymnasiums in München für das Studienjahr 1890/91. Munich. 1891. 1–23.
Larsen Larsen, Sophus C. Studia in libellum incerti auctoris de bello Alexandrino. Copenhagen. 1886. URL: hdl.handle.net/2027/nnc2.ark:/13960/t3cz4fm0n.
Latinius Latinius, Latinus. Bibliotheca sacra et profana: Sive, Observationes, correctiones, coniecturae, & variae lectiones in sacros et profanos scriptores, e marginalibus notis codicum eiusdem a Dominico Macro ... collectae et nunc primum ... editae. 2 vols. Rome. 1677. URL: hdl.handle.net/2027/njp.32101076454485.
Leumann-Hofmann-Szantyr Leumann, Manu et al. Lateinische Grammatik. 3 vols. Munich. 1965-79.
Löfstedt Löfstedt, Einar. Vermischte Beiträge zur lateinische Sprachkunde. Eranos 8 (1908): 86–87.
Madvig Madvig, J. N. “Capitulum III: Caesar, Sallustius.” In Adversaria critica ad scriptores graecos et latinos. Vol. 2: Emendationes latinae. Copenhagen. 1873. 281–85. hdl.handle.net/2027/coo.31924021596675.
Markland Markland, Jeremiah. Epistola critica ad eruditissimum virum Franciscum Hare ... in qua Horatii loca aliquot et aliorum veterum emendantur. Cambridge. 1723. books.google.com/books?id=7_JWAAAAcAAJ&pg=PP3#v=onepage&q&f=false.
Menge Menge, R. Bellum Alexandrinum: Erklärt von Rud. Schneider. Neue philologische Rundschau 8. 1889. 120–27. hdl.handle.net/2027/hvd.32044098630197?urlappend=%3Bseq=154.
Mitchell Mitchell, S. “The treaty between Rome and Lycia of 46 BC (MS2070).” In R. Pintaudi, ed., Papyri graecae Schøyen (P. Schøyen I). Florence. 2005. 161–259.
Müller Müller, H. J. Footnote to a Nachtrag on Schneider (1888). Jahresberichte des philologischen Vereins zu Berlin 14 (1888): 348. books.google.com/books?id=9uToXfcovpwC&pg=PA348#v=onepage&q&f=false.
Pinkster Pinkster, Harm. The Oxford Latin Syntax. Volume 1, The Simple Clause. Oxford. 2015.
Preuss Preuss, Siegmund. Vollstandiges Lexicon zu den pseudo-casarianischen Schriftwerken. Erlangen. 1884. books.google.com/books?id=QlEIAAAAQAAJ&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&pg=PA1#v=onepage&q&f=false.
Raaflaub Raaflaub, Kurt A., ed. The Landmark Julius Caesar. The complete works: Gallic War, Civil War, Alexandrian War, African War, and Spanish War. New York. 2017.
Rice Holmes Rice Holmes, T. The Roman Republic and the Founder of the Empire Vol. 3. Oxford. 1923.
Schambach 1879–1882 Schambach, Otfried. Zu Caesar und seinen Fortsetzern. Jahrbücher für klassische Philologie 119 (1879): 867–70 hdl.handle.net/2027/iau.31858020803346?urlappend=%3Bseq=883 and 125 (1882): 215–24 hdl.handle.net/2027/iau.31858020803403?urlappend=%3Bseq=233.
Schambach 1881 Schambach, Otfried. Die Reiterei bei Caesar. Mühlhausen in Thüringen. 1881. hdl.handle.net/2027/hvd.32044080867435.
Schiller 1883 Schiller, Heinrich. Zu Caesar Bell. Civ. III, 112, 2 und Hirtius Bell. Alex. 8, 2. Philologus 42 (1883): 773–77. hdl.handle.net/2027/njp.32101076472131?urlappend=%3Bseq=785.
Schiller 1889 Schiller, Heinrich. Review of Schneider (1888). Berliner philologische Wochenschrift 9 (1889): 306–10. hdl.handle.net/2027/inu.30000006512101?urlappend=%3Bseq=169.
Schiller 1890a Schiller, Heinrich. Vom Ursprung des Bellum Alexandrinum. Blätter für das Bayerische Gymnasialschulwesen 26 (1890): 242–51, 393–400, 511–23. hdl.handle.net/2027/njp.32101073027086?urlappend=%3Bseq=256.
Schiller 1890b Schiller, Heinrich. Review of Hoffmann (1890). Blätter für das Bayerische Gymnasialschulwesen 26 (1890): 535–43. hdl.handle.net/2027/njp.32101073027086?urlappend=%3Bseq=549.
Stadler Stadler, O. Zu lateinischen Schriftstellern. Berliner philologische Wochenschrift 27.35 (1907): 1119. hdl.handle.net/2027/uiug.30112023962035?urlappend=%3Bseq=578.
Stark Stark, Rudolf. Bellum Alexandrinum 19, 1. Maia 16 (1964): 239–42.
Stoffel Stoffel, E. Histoire de Jules César, Guerre civile. 2 vols. Paris. 1887. catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/001193303.
Talbert Talbert, R.J.A., ed. Barrington atlas of the Greek and Roman world. Princeton. 2000.
Townend Townend, G. Caesar’s War in Alexandria. Bristol. 1988.
Turnebus Turnèbe, Adrien. Adriani Turnebi adversariorum tomus secundus duodecim libros continens. Paris. 1565. 36. hdl.handle.net/2027/ucm.5317950051?urlappend=%3Bseq=87.
Vielhaber 1864 Vielhaber, Leopold. Beiträge zur Kritik des Cäsarianischen Bellum ciuile und der Fortsetzungen desselben. Vienna. 1864.
Vielhaber 1869 Vielhaber, Leopold. Review of Dübner (1867). Zeitschrift für die österreichischen Gymnasien 20 (1869): 541–76. hdl.handle.net/2027/hvd.32044098632391?urlappend=%3Bseq=649.

List of People Cited by Name

Atkins Adrienne Atkins
Member of the Latin 540 class (spring 2015).
Bensch-Schaus Amelia Bensch-Schaus
Member of the Latin 540 class (spring 2017).
Brutus Brutus
See Jungermann.
Callaghan Greg Callaghan
Member of the Latin 540 class (spring 2015).
Ciacconius Petrus Ciacconius
See Jungermann and Dauisius 1706.
Credo Brian Credo
Member of the Latin 540 class (spring 2017).
Cuiacius Cuiacius
See Nipperdey.
Damon Cynthia Damon
Editor of this edition and instructor of Latin 540 (University of Pennsylvania) in 2015 and 2017.
Faernus Faerno, Gabriello
See Klotz.
Gertz M. C. Gertz
See Klotz.
Glandorpius Glandorp, Johann
See Jungermann.
Gruterus Janus Gruterus
See Oudendorp.
Hanson Wes Hanson
Member of the Latin 540 class (spring 2017).
Haupt Moriz Haupt
See Nipperdey.
Jurinius Jurinius
See T. Bentley.
Keil Heinrich Keil
See Klotz.
Khan Scheherazade Khan
Member of the Latin 540 class (spring 2015).
Kovalchuk Maria Kovalchuk
Member of the Latin 540 class (spring 2017).
Lewis Amy Lewis
Member of the Latin 540 class (spring 2015).
Naqvi Theodora Naqvi
Member of the Latin 540 class (spring 2017).
Persyn Marcie Persyn
Member of the Latin 540 class (spring 2015).
Reinhardt Isabella Reinhardt
Member of the Latin 540 class (spring 2017).
Rhellicanus Rhellicanus
See Jungermann
Rossetus Joannes Rossetus
See Gaertner-Hausburg.
Siesbye Oskar Siesbye
See Larsen.
D. Simons Dallas Simons
Member of the Latin 540 class (spring 2015).
J. Simons Julia Simons
Member of the Latin 540 class (spring 2017).
Vozar Tom Vozar
Member of the Latin 540 class (spring 2015).
Warnock Tim Warnock
Member of the Latin 540 class (spring 2017).
Wölfflin Eduard Wölfflin
See Klotz.

Abbreviations and Other Notations

  • scripsimus = denotes changes made collectively by Damon and members of the Latin 540 classes taught at the University of Pennsylvania.

Conspectus Editionum

BAlex Budé LDLT
1.5 spectans expectans
2.1 adduxerant ⟨armatorum⟩ adduxerant
7.2 [casum] casum
7.2 †ut ... essent ... absumeretur† ut ... esse ... absumeretur
8.2 Paraetonio Paratonio
10.2 accessisset accessissent
10.2 exposuisset exposuissent
11.2 ⟨hostium⟩ ⟨suorum⟩
12.1 quibus *** et quibus et ***
12.3 amiserant miserant
12.4 Caesari Caesaris
13.5 ⟨Syrias***, Ci⟩licias Lycias
13.5 †et† et
14.1 Rhodias Rhodios
14.1 Ponticas Ponticos
14.1 has hos
15.3 ⟨cunctationem⟩ ⟨moram⟩
15.5 , IIII IIII,
15.8 qui ⟨nisi⟩ qui
16.1 [uictis] uictis
16.3 ⟨rerum⟩ ⟨exercitus⟩
17.2 et illa et urbem ⟨et hanc⟩ et illam [urbem]
17.3 quos quosque
17.3 et alteram insulae partem distinendae in alteram insulae partem *** distinendae
17.3 praemiis[que] praemiis
19.2 fortiorem certiorem
20.4 perturbantes perturbatos
22.2 *** comprehendi multum operibus *** et *** comprehendi †multum† operibus et
24.2 parceret parceret [et]
25.1 Caesari Caesaris
26.2 Pelusium aduenit —Pelusium adducit
26.2 [multiplici praesidio] multiplici praesidio
27.5 [constantiaque] constantiaque
27.7 adiunctis adiuncti
31.3 partibus ***, partibus,
32.1 magna magnae
33.4 [itinere terrestri] itinere terrestri
35.1 opportunitates ⟨cognouerat⟩ ⟨constat⟩ opportunitates
36.3 castra [ex] castra
36.5 si[ue] amicus [siue inimicus] siue amicus siue inimicus
36.5 si sin
37.3 contulit contulit [rex]
40.2 circumire acies secunda circumire ac transcendere
40.2 ⟨ab⟩ aperto aperto
42.2 exercitum alendum exercitus alendos
42.3 Iadestinorum Iadertinorum
44.4 His adiunctis Has adiunxit
45.2 distensis distentis
48.3 minuebant minuebat
49.1 antea in ea
49.2 simultatium causa simul et causae
51.2 uoluptate uoluntate
51.3 discriberentur describerentur
52.4 Ad At
53.4 ⟨L.⟩ Laterensis Laterensis
54.3 iudicaretur indicaretur
55.1 legiones legionem quintam
55.1 V cohortibus cohortibus
55.5 Squillo Q. Sestio
56.2 ⟨superiorum⟩ temporum temporum
56.2 animi animus
57.1 Ilipam Leptim
57.2 Naeuam †noctu†
57.3 T. Thorium †in† Torium
58.1 Thorius Torius
59.1 deterserunt detraxerunt
60.1 educerentur ⟨orant⟩ educerentur
60.2 esse *** esset
60.3 uideret animaduerteret
60.4 infirmem infirmum
60.5 educunt educit
61.4 deductus adductus
61.6 magno sibi usu sibi usui
62.1 complures[que] complures
62.1 auxiliarias auxiliares
62.2 Marcellum fouebant Marcello fauebant
64.2 uenit ⟨uenit⟩
64.3 in ⟨in⟩
64.3 in derectum derectam
65.1 re rei
65.2 hae eae
66.1 legioni legionibus
66.1 praeficit praefecit
66.5 coeptum inceptum
67.1 ⟨in⟩ Caesaris Caesaris
67.1 habuisset habuisset ⟨et coactus⟩
67.1 imperiisque ⟨aduersariorum coactus⟩ imperiisque
68.1 defectionem defensionem
68.2 armatura natura
70.4 quin quamquam
70.8 ⟨Id⟩ si si
72.2 †superioribus … oppido† superioribus … oppido
73.3 iussit tum iussit
74.3 contemptu contemptione
74.4 praeruptam procliuem
75.1 opere operibus
75.3 eis iis ⟨in⟩
78.2 quod ⟨regnum⟩ quod