Cynthia Damon (ed.), Studies on the Text of Caesar's Bellum civile

Find Location in text

Main Text

Editor’s Note3.65.3

Qui cognito detrimento, cum animaduertisset Pompeium extra munitiones egressum castra secundum mare <munire> ut libere pabulari posset nec minus aditum nauibus haberet, commutata ratione belli quoniam propositum non tenuerat iuxta Pompeium munire iussit.98

castra MUST: om. V: c- ante iuxta transposuit Forchhammer | castra secundum mare transposuit ante iuxta Nipperdey | <munire> Köchly | pabulari MV: fab- UST | munire2 ω‎ (u. ad Hirt. 8.15.2, 2.25.6): -ri Jurin

Notes Settings


Editor’s Note
There are two obvious problems in the archetype's text here: the lacunose syntax of castra and the unparalleled absolute use of munire. Solutions of varying degrees of complexity have been suggested.
V and others omit castra, fixing the first problem by excision. This leaves the purpose clause dependent on egressum secundum mare. The sense is fine, but the expression extra munitiones egressum secundum mare gives pause. And there are no parallels listed in Meusel (1887–93) for a postponed ut that would allow secundum mare to modify pabulari.
Others fix castra by supplying an infinitive after either castra or mare (<munire> Köchly, <posuisse> Jurin), or remove castra and add an infinitive (<manere> Paul).
The simplest solution to munire is Jurin's: he converts it to a passive muniri. But there are no sure parallels for this absolute use in Caesar's works despite the very great frequency of references to fortification. Almost equally simple is to supply (or move) castra before munire. This produces a construction whose validity in Caesar is debated, iubere with an active infinitive whose subject is not specified. The passages from Caesar and other authors cited at TLL 7.2.577.64–578.7 make a reasonable case for the construction; I've already accepted one instance at 2.25.6. (For other examples see Hirt. 8.15.2, where the manuscripts support the passive, and BG 5.50.5, where they are split between active and passive.)
Nipperdey tackles both problems at once by transposing castra secundum mare to before iuxta: castra secundum mare iuxta Pompeium munire iussit. But this leaves the purpose clause dependent on egressum problematic in sense, particularly its second part: Pompey's departure to outside the fortifications does not in itself preserve his access to his ships—one needs a reference to his presence on the coast. Furthermore, the error is an unusual one.
I adopted a minimal repair, supplying <munire> after mare, whence it might have been omitted by a kind of haplography. The fact that the reader has to supply castra with munire at the end of the sentence seems tolerable given that the full expression has just been used.
Editor’s Note
98 'And (Caesar), acknowledging defeat, when he noticed that Pompey had gone outside of his fortifications and <was fortifying> a camp alongside the sea in order to be able to get fodder freely as well as to have access to his ships, after changing his strategy for the war, since he had not obtained his objective, ordered (men) to fortify adjacent to Pompey.'
logo-footer Copyright © 2018. All rights reserved.
Access is brought to you by Log out