pg 109VIIInaudita atque insolentia, or nouata atque translata?11
Beyond the passages showing these fairly easy to recognize sorts of difficulty there are a great many others where it is harder to say whether an unusual or difficult expression is the product of Caesar's pen or of scribal innovation.12
Some may have originated in the legate's reports that must underlie Caesar's narrative, particularly in those episodes for which he was not present. Caesar was also dependent on such reports for the BG, of course, but their presence may be more palpable in the compositional phase in which Caesar left the BC.13 Suspicion is strongest in the description of the siegeworks at Massilia (BC 2.9–10), which Caesar never saw, where there are some usages better paralleled in technical writers such as Vitruvius than in Caesar (e.g. 2.9.2 insuper, 2.9.8 exque, 2.10.1 circum), and where the (in)famous one-concept-one-term principle is flagrantly violated by the use of four terms for the decks of the brick tower (contignatio, contabulatio, tabulatio, tabulatum) and at least two for the beams that covered the gallery (tigna, pg 110trabes).14 Similarly, the narrative of Domitius Caluinus' independent operations in Macedonia, in addition to a handful of trivial oddities that are likely to be the result of scribal innovations (see the apparatus), offers constructions not found elsewhere in Caesar's commentaries: e.g. 3.37.2 non discedere perseuerauit (cf. Cic. Prou. cons. 10), 3.37.5 paucis diebus interpositis (a Ciceronian expression for Caesar's paucis post diebus). The BC passages where Caesar is most obviously dependent on legate reports are easy to identify and limited in number: the siege of Massilia after Caesar's departure for Spain (2.1–16), Curio's African campaign (2.23–44), events at Salonae (3.9) and Brundisium (3.23–4), Caluinus' campaign (3.36–8).
Recurrence sometimes suggests that an unusual usage is to be attributed to Caesar himself. For example, the omission of se as the subject of oratio obliqua (see, e.g. 1.6.4, 2.12.3, 2.20.3, 3.12.4). At any given spot it is easy to explain the omission of this tiny word as an error, but cumulatively it makes more sense to say that Caesar sometimes included it and sometimes didn't.15 Similarly for the apparent omission of numbers with forms of cohortes (see, e.g., 1.12.3, 3.55.2, 3.64.1, 3.87.3, 3.93.5). The fact that inter and its object are twice inverted in the BC increases the likelihood that authorial anastrophe rather than scribal innovation is the cause (3.6.3, 3.105.6). Caesarian deployment of oportere with an active infinitive in the absence of an expressed subject is suggested by the appearance of this unusual construction three times in the BC (1.44.3, 3.10.9, 3.95.1), and is perhaps an extension of his use of iubere with subjectless active infinitives already in the BG (see n. 3 above).16 Finally, forms of pg 111the word oppidum are involved in a strange pair of problems. First, editors have been surprisingly willing to assume that scribes would repeatedly overlook this word: Hering, for example prints BG 1.10.5 Ocelo . . . quod est <oppidum> … extremum, and Meusel prints BC 3.41.3 sperans Pompeium aut Dyrrachium compelli aut ab eo <oppido> intercludi posse, 3.79.7 Aeginium, quod est <oppidum> obiectum oppositumque Thessaliae. And second, it seems to elicit both transitive and intransitive forms of rumpere (see on 1.27.3).17 Apropos of the latter oddity, unless one hypothesizes an erratic corrector who either altered some instances of the common transitive construction to intransitives (but missed most of them) or altered most (but not all) instances of the intransitive construction to transitives, one has to assume that Caesar himself used both constructions. Apropos of the former, it seems implausible that this substantial word should have been overlooked three times. Better to say that Caesar occasionally omitted it, permitting himself to use relative and demonstrative pronouns with proper name antecedents for towns as well as for people.18
Overall these usages seem unlikely to be the result of involuntary scribal error. Whether they are to be attributed to Caesar or to scribal meddling is harder to say for certain, but since they all result in expressions that make sense and can be explained as 'shorthand' versions of more familiar expressions it seems reasonable to attribute them to Caesar, on the grounds that the more familiar expressions—if they were there in the original—are unlikely to have provoked repeated scribal innovation. None of the usages discussed above is particularly 'reef-like', of course, but their presence ought to deter regularization and to help open our eyes to the acceptability, indeed the admirability, of the bolder stylistic liberties discussed next.
Analogy seems to be responsible for a number of interesting extensions of semantic or syntactic usage in the BC.19 In the realm pg 112of semantics military situations and terms predominate, not surprisingly. For example, cavalry harassment of the enemy's rearguard is a tactic that Caesar and his continuators mention a handful of times. In the BG he favours lacessere (1.15.3, 1.23.3), which is the verb Frontinus uses for the tactic (Str. 1.4.2), but in the BC he twice uses carpere (1.63.2, 1.78.4), which helps the reader visualize the cavalry 'picking off' stragglers (cf. BG 7.66.6, BC 1.79.5).20 That is, the usage of carpere, which at its only other occurrence in Caesar refers to verbal criticism (BG 3.17.5), is extended by analogy with that of lacessere.21 Earlier in the Spanish campaign analogy supplied another powerful verb for Caesar's response to the all-too-familiar situation of scant supplies: 1.52.4 Ipse praesentem inopiam quibus poterat subsidiis tutabatur. Tutari, which normally means 'protect', must here, at its only occurrence in Caesar, mean 'ward off', a somewhat paradoxical combination of meanings familiar from his usage of defendere. The effect is multiplied by his casting inopia as the enemy. (He gives defendere a similarly abstract object, iniurias, at BC 1.7.8, but it is bolder to frame inopia as an assault on the well-being of his army.) A more difficult apologia—for the rout at Dyrrachium—generates an accumulation of graphic language: the subsidium that he sent to counter the first setback became not frightened but 'rotten with fear' (3.64.2 corruptum timore; cf. BC 3.58.5 corruptis equis macie),22 the men of the right wing did not find an escape route but 'birthed' one (3.69.3 salutem sibi atque exitum pariebant),23 and his army was not pg 113divided into two parts but 'severed' (3.72.2 abscisum in duas partes exercitum).24
Analogy-extended semantics are also pressed into service to characterize opponents. The expression intra montes se recipiebant at 1.65.4, for example, which is Aldus' modest emendation of the transmitted montes intra se recipiebant, is usually rejected in favour of Nipperdey's montes intrare cupiebant, which is clear if not well paralleled. But it is entirely in Caesar's rhetorical interest to depict the Pompeians' attempt to move the theatre of combat into central Spain as a retreat, as recipiebant does (cf. BG 3.6.3 in castra munitionesque suas recipiunt). In order to do so he figures the mountains as munitiones, an analogy found elsewhere (e.g. BG 7.8.3, 7.56.2, Cic. Man. 34 Alpibus Italiam munierat), and uses a preposition appropriate to a linear barrier. The association between Pompeians and retreat was established early in BC 1 with the metaphorical receptum used by the consul Lentulus when explaining his options to an indecisive senate on 1 January: 1.1.3 habere se quoque ad Caesaris gratiam atque amicitiam receptum.25 This military term is surprising on the senate floor, but it is wonderfully effective at portraying the Pompeians as both belligerent and fugitive from the outset of the conflict and Caesar himself as a safe harbour. (The abstract nouns gratiam and amicitiam make Lentulus' expression even more unusual than that of the other two passages where receptus refers to something other than a military retreat: BG 6.9.2 ne ad eos Ambiorix receptum haberet; BC 3.110.4 fugitiuis . . . erat Alexandriae receptus.)26 The same striking combination of military and amicitia-terminology is pg 114found apropos of a man who betrayed Caesar: 3.80.3 cum se uictoriae Pompei comitem esse mallet quam socium Caesaris in rebus aduersis, where uictoriae is a concise, vivid, and of course ironic substitute for in rebus prosperis.
Some key terms of political and forensic vocabulary, too, are found with surprising uses in the BC. Suffragari, for example, imports a whiff of electoral huckstering into the report about a crucial decision by the Pompeian generals in Spain: 1.61.3 Huic consilio suffragabatur etiam illa res, quod ex duobus contrariis generibus, quae superiore bello cum [L.] Sertorio steterant ciuitates uictae nomen atque imperium absentis (sc. Pompei) timebant, quae in amicitia manserant Pompei magnis adfectae beneficiis eum diligebant.27 The verb, which is not used elsewhere by Caesar, typically has a personal or personified subject, so the use of illa res and, indirectly, a quod-clause as its subject makes the striking diction even more noticeable. Reconciliare, with its connotations of political and interpersonal brokering, is used with another surprising subject, detrimentum: 2.15.4 diuturni laboris detrimentum sollertia et uirtute militum breui reconciliatur. Elsewhere for repairs to damage Caesar uses sarcire or the more literal in bonum uertere (BG 6.1.3, BC 1.45.2, 3.67.2; BC 3.73.6). At 1.7.2 armis notaretur is a more disconcerting but equally effective extension of familiar usages, if the text is sound.28 And a similarly bold conceptual redeployment may be responsible for the hapax inaequare at 1.27.4 Haec [sc. loca] leuibus cratibus terraque inaequat.
The strong language of courtroom invective is heard when fraudare is used as a synonym for, e.g., auferre to report the preliminary misdeeds of the Allobrogan defectors at 3.59.3 stipendiumque equitum fraudabant; the parallels quoted in the TLL are problematic or pg 115late (6.1.1264.34–61). And the whole forensic process is evoked in the tellingly inappropriate context of Pompey's consilium in Greece by the formula postulare + genitive + apud at 3.83.2: Postulauit etiam L. Afranium proditionis exercitus Acutius Rufus apud Pompeium (see TLL 10.2.263.3–11). This usage is unique in Caesar, who uses accusare and insimulare for such accusations in the BG and postulare elsewhere for demands. One cannot rule out scribal substitution in some of these passages—fraudare is particularly suspect given its popularity in late antiquity—but if these innovations are Caesar's they enliven the text considerably without detracting from its lucidity.29
Analogical extensions can also be seen in syntactic function. These innovative repurposings are less vivid than those discussed above but no less noteworthy in a careful stylist. An example involving standard military vocabulary is a rare usage of aggredi—only here in Caesar—with a dependent infinitive by analogy with incipere: 3.80.7 Itaque … eodem quo uenerat die post horam nonam oppidum altissimis moenibus oppugnare aggressus ante solis occasum expugnauit et ad diripiendum militibus concessit.30 The deponent verb, with its 'active' perfect participle, allows him to subordinate the preliminaries of the sack to the main verbs expugnauit and concessit. Other verbs, too, acquire dependent infinitives in the BC. Timere, for example, perhaps by analogy with nolle or dubitare, and following a precedent set with uereor in the BG (1.64.3 timebat tantae magnitudini fluminis exercitum obicere, 3.73.6 dimicare timuissent). Also tardari, by analogy with prohiberi (2.43.4 reliqui hoc timore propius adire tardarentur). And praetermittere, by analogy with omittere or neglegere (2.39.2 Reliqua studio itineris conficiendi quaerere praetermittit), a usage that in the context of the Curio debacle looks like an apologetic euphemism.31 In pg 116these three instances, of course, scribal synonym substitution can be suspected, but that seems unlikely for oppugnare aggressus since there is no form of incipere for which aggressus would be an easy replacement.32
With the exception of receptus all of the words discussed under the heading of analogy were verbs, and receptus of course has a strong verbal element. For other categories of words it is more difficult, I find, to determine whether oddities of diction are authentic Caesarian usages or subsequent innovations. For nouns the one-concept-one-word principle renders uariatio suspect, and for all categories the phenomenon of scribal synonym substitution raises doubts. On the other hand, the wrongheadedness of emending away Caesarian uariatio can be illustrated with the help of Caesar's only instance of excursus.33 The word is used in connection with a key element of pg 117the key battle of Pharsalus, Pompey's order that his men should stay in place during the charge (excursus) of Caesar's line: 3.92.2 Idque admonitu C. Triari fecisse dicebatur, ut primus excursus uisque militum infringeretur aciesque distenderetur. At BC 1.82.4 Caesar uses incursus for the initial battle charge, and elsewhere he uses the verbs procurrere and concurrere. Sacrificing a prepositional prefix on the altar of the one-word principle, as Meusel does, might seem acceptable, except that there is some external evidence that Caesar's unusual word was in the tradition from a very early stage: Appian uses the verb ἐκτρέχειν for this phase of the battle at Pharsalus (BC 2.79.330), while Frontinus uses excursus for a later moment (Str. 2.3.22 inopinato excursu). Furthermore, the implicit visualization of the charge as a 'running out from' instead of as a 'running into' is set up by Caesar at 3.91.4, where he says of the man who led the charge, Crastinus, primus ex dextro cornu procucurrit. If we accept excursus here, we should be prepared to accept other instances of lexical uariatio and other forms of lexical innovation.34 The candidates are too numerous to discuss individually, so I will focus on one particularly productive literary imperative.35
pg 118Many lexical surprises in the BC can be attributed to the work's major rhetorical challenge, that of 'othering' the enemy in a civil conflict. The adverb arcano, for example, occurs at BC 1.19.2 and nowhere else in the corpus Caesarianum. Indeed the TLL cites only a handful of occurrences in Latin (2.438.31–4). This ought to qualify it as a reef-like word, particularly given the currency of secreto (4x in Caesar). But arcano goes beyond secrecy to suggest a kind of ritual mystification (2.434.46–52), which in the context of Domitius Ahenobarbus' treacherous plans for fleeing Corfinium seems like a calculated effect: 1.19.2 Ipse arcano cum paucis familiaribus suis colloquitur consiliumque fugae capere constituit. (Domitius' secretiveness also calls forth a rare prepositional use of clam: 2.32.8 Nonne extremam pati fortunam paratos proiecit ille, non sibi clam uobis salutem fuga petiuit?)36 Other unusual adverbs pressed into service or created from scratch to characterize the Pompeians include turbate (1.5.1), demississime and subiectissime (1.84.5), and possibly explicitius (1.78.2).37 The emphatic saltem, although common enough in other works, is found in the Caesarian corpus only at BC 1.6.2–3, where it conveys Pompey's overconfidence: praeterea cognitum compertumque sibi alieno esse animo in Caesarem milites, neque iis posse persuaderi uti eum defendant aut sequantur saltem. De reliquis rebus ad senatum refertur.38 Among the other unusual usages that contribute to pg 119the characterization of the enemy in the BC I would list deprauatum (1.7.1), which figures Pompey's opposition to Caesar as a kind of deviancy, the poetic effossis in the expression effossis … domibus (3.42.5), which captures the violence of Pompeian foraging amongst their own allies, the terms used for Scipio's ad hoc financial exactions in the East (3.32.2 columnaria, ostiaria, 3.32.6 promutuum), the transferred epithet insolitum (3.85.2), which in the expression insolitum ad laborem Pompei exercitum participates in an ongoing contest over the virtue of endurance, the exotic bowers in the Pompeian camp at Pharsalus (3.96.1 trichilas), and of course the twinned diminutive of the nauicula paruula in which Pompeius Magnus met his end (3.104.3).39
The rhetoric of some of these partisan characterizations of the enemy is rather obvious, overdone even. Hyperbole manifests itself early in the BC with omnia diuina humanaque iura permiscentur (1.6.8) and often thereafter. But for his own side Caesar uses a more subtle form of novelty-producing rhetoric, namely, the personification of emotional and physical phenomena that affected military outcomes. Already in the BG Caesar uses words for fear (timor, terror) and desire (studium, spes, cupiditas, auaritia) as the subject of active verbs that convey emotional effects (excitare, occupare, inducere, impellere, euocare, hortari, etc.). But in the BC the exigencies of the Dyrrachium campaign elicit an extension of this usage with a different sort of verb: 3.49.1 ipsa spes inopiam sustentabat.40 Caesar elsewhere uses sustentare with human subjects either explicitly or implicitly, as at BG 7.17.3 pecore … famem sustentarint (sc. milites). He could have said nostri spe … inopiam sustentabant at BC 3.49.1, but the personification is both shorter and more striking in its assertion of a cosmic, so to speak, supporter, ipsa spes. A similar personification enlivens Antony's crossing from Brundisium, where the expression at 3.27.2 tempestas … nostros texit is an innovative oxymoron. Most Caesarian storms are harmful, some extremely so: pg 120they terminate military operations for the year (BG 3.29.2), delay military engagements (BG 4.34.4, 7.24.1), disrupt convoys (BG 4.28.2, 5.5.2), damage boats and bridges and siegeworks (BG 4.29.2, 5.10.2, 5.43.1; BC 1.40.3, 1.48.2, 2.14.2), and so on. Occasionally a storm provides 'cover' for a surprise attack (BG 7.27.1 non utilem … tempestatem, 7.61.1), but not with tegere.41 Nowhere else does Caesar have a storm benefactor.42 And in this scene the beneficence is amplified by the unusual personification of portus in the preceding sentence: 3.27.1 Qui modo sibi timuerant hos tutissimus portus recipiebat.43
To sum up. When reading the BC we can expect to encounter a few crevasses that can be circumvented but not crossed, more that can be bridged if not eliminated, and a very large number of potholes of various sizes, some of which can be filled.44 Plus a few as-yet unpaved stretches, and some agreeable improvements to the stylistic scenery.
11 This title balances categories from Caesar and Cicero. The former represent what Caesar says to avoid, the latter are from 'Crassus' introduction to lexical selection (Cic. De orat. 3.152). Many of the expressions considered in this chapter have been queried or emended. The question mark indicates that the stylistic debate is still before us. For discussion in general terms see Garcea 2012 passim.
12 In his review of the 1906 edition of Kraner–Hofmann–Meusel of the BC Nitsche gives a long list of passages whose anomalous features are discussed in the edition's notes (1907, 21–6).
13 See Suet. Jul. 56.4. On such reports in, e.g., BC 2 see Gaertner–Hausburg (2013, 122 n. 190) with the bibliography there cited and, more generally, Ehrenfried (1888) and Frese, who observes that the relevant episodes constitute about one fifth of the Caesarian commentaries (1900, 4–9, esp. 8).
14 This principle, which is cited in most discussions of Caesarian elegantia, is formulated comprehensively by Dernoscheck (1903, 7) and modulated judiciously by Eden (1962, 97–101). See also Barwick (1951, 148–55).
15 More difficult to judge is the recurrence of asyndeton bimembre, some instances of which could equally be the result of the omission of -que, the most commonly omitted word of our tradition. I accepted as asyndeton only those that occur in list-like passages or are formulaic expressions. Thus, e.g., 1.29.3 ueterem exercitum, duas Hispanias and auxilia equitatum, 2.4.1 remigum gubernatorum, 3.4.6 Dardanos Bessos and Macedones Thessalos, but 3.26.1 Apollonia Dyrrachium<que>. Another difficult case is the omission of in with consistere, which occurs twice and produces a construction found in other authors but not Caesar (2.5.4, 3.12.4). But at the first occurrence the word quin precedes, after which it would have been very easy for in to fall out.
16 It's harder to be sure that scribes were not thrice guilty of substituting quo for quod in the vicinity of a comparative, but in any case the difference between the two expressions is trivial (see on BC 3.58.4).
17 For another possible oppidum-innovation see BC 2.1.3 tribus ex oppidi partibus, where Meusel and others excise the superfluous and oddly located oppidi.
18 For place names supporting relative clauses without a repeated antecedent cf., e.g., BG 7.13.3 ad oppidum Auaricum, quod erat maximum, BG 3.9.10 ex Britannia, quae … posita est, BC 3.79.3 Heracliam Senticam, quae est subiecta Candauiae (also BG 1.34.4, 1.45.3, 7.77.16, BC 1.39.2). For place names as antecedents to demonstrative pronouns cf., e.g., BG 2.12.1–2 ad oppidum Nouiodunum contendit. id … oppugnare conatus.
19 I use 'analogy' to describe the process whereby a word's semantic field or syntactic structure is expanded by usages from a related word. It is not an allusion to the ancient grammatical debate about analogia, which seems to have focused on orthography and morphology. See Garcea (2012, ch. 3).
20 Hirtius uses inuadere (8.27.5) and confligere (8.28.1). Carpere is adopted by the author of the Bellum Africum (75.3), by Livy (6.32.11 etc.), and by Lucan in the context of the Spanish campaign (4.155–6). Frontinus credits Sertorius with using carpere in a graphic explanation of his tactics (Str. 1.10.1).
21 Frese (1900, 34) makes a similar observation about circumuenire at 1.18.6 oppidum uallo castellisque circumuenire instituit, calling the expression, which normalizers want to replace with circummunire, 'drastisch und malerish: wie ein lebendes Wesen, etwa wie eine Schlange, ziehen sich die Belagerungswerke um die feindliche Stadt'.
22 The expression stands out even in Caesar's copious lexicon of fear, on which see recently Gaertner–Hausburg (2013, 301–2). Madvig proposed emending to correptum.
23 Verbs used with salutem include reperio (BG 1.53.2), peto (BG 3.15.2 etc.), accipio (BG 7.20.7), adfero (BC 3.70.2 etc.). Other authors use pario metaphorically with some freedom but Caesar elsewhere restricts himself to formulas such as parta uictoria (BG 5.43.3 etc.) and parta laus (BG 6.40.7). Here the metaphor is rendered particularly striking by Caesar's report that these men 'birthed' salus over the corpses (per … corpora) of their fallen fellows. His sarcasm at their expense comes through clearly.
24 With in partes elsewhere he uses diuido (BG 1.1.1, BC 1.35.3).
25 The same note is sounded by the sole Caesarian instance of adjectival fugiens, which is applied to Pompeians at 1.69.3 fugiens laboris. True, it is negated there, but the negation implies that one would have expected a Pompeian to be fugiens laboris. For an analysis of other literary strategies that Caesar deploys to this same end see Batstone 1991. And for still another see 1.84.1 obsessi, which has exercised translators.
26 Apropos of a disastrous retreat by his own men Caesar may have used another unusual expression, although given the textual difficulties at 3.69.4 it is difficult to be sure. If I am correct in taking eundem cursum as internal accusative with confugerent by analogy with the construction of contendere, the unparalleled cursum gives a vivid picture of men in flight (see the note on this passage). For another possible metaphorical extension of military language in a troubled passage see 3.22.4 occupatione magistratuum, with the note.
27 A sentence, incidentally, where the standard editorial transposition of Pompei from its transmitted position after manserant into the previous clause seems to me to sacrifice meaning for convenience: surely the untethered absentis is meant to reflect Pompey's absence, just as the association of his name with amicitia reflects the effect of his presence.
28 Observing that 'notare armorum non est' Madvig proposed armis uetaretur, a reading that is superficially attractive. But opprimeretur falls rather flat after it, and anyway notare is used by Cicero in precisely this context (Att. 7.9.2 addita causa si forte tribunus pl. senatum impediens aut populum incitans notatus aut senatus consulto circumscriptus aut sublatus aut expulsus sit). Caesar's armis is shorthand for 'by means of the weapons authorized by the SCU', a blunter version of Cicero's senatus consulto circumscriptus aut sublatus aut expulsus. For a comparably paradoxical usage cf. Cic. Mil. 68 ut … armis sanares, apropos of Pompey's military powers in 52.
29 Less striking innovations include: 1.67.4 omnium oculis by analogy with, e.g., omnium iudicio and omnium fama; 2.26.2 uestigio temporis as a creative combination of puncto temporis and e uestigio.
30 The TLL has a long section on this construction, but with the exception of a handful of spots in Cicero and Lucretius, all are later than our passage (1.1320.63–1321.21). For another unusual Caesarian usage of the verb's perfect participle see 3.50.1 silentio aggressi, where, however, textual problems complicate the picture. In its other thirteen appearances aggredi means 'attack'.
31 For more examples see Frese (1900, 51–3). Some instances of analogical extension have rendered the text suspect. E.g. 3.28.4 His cognosci licuit quantum esset hominibus praesidi in animi firmitudine, where licere is used like posse (cf. BG 6.35.2, BC 1.25.3 and see Frese (1900, 19)); 3.94.5 se in castra equo contulit, where equo requires that one treat se … contulit as comparable to uectus est; 3.95.4 acie refugerant, where the separation ablative is modelled on the usage of fugere; 1.67.2, where argumenti sumebant loco governs a dependent clause.
32 Analogy seems to be involved in the particularly slippery set of problems that arises in connection with spectare and expectare, verbs that can each denote the projection of the mind's eye into the future, but that also have distinct uses. These verbs occur roughly eighty times in the corpus Caesarianum, and in the vast majority of cases the manuscripts agree on a form that suits its context. But there are places where expectare appears where spectare is clearly wanted (e.g. BC 3.105.3 ad simulacrum … spectauisset [sp- et S] UST: ad s- … exs- MV). And other places where spectare appears where expectare is at least expected (BG 2.20.4 imperium ex(s)pectabant α: i- spectabant β; 5.44.3 locum … ex(s)pectas β: l- … spectas α; BC 3.78.5 legiones equitatumque … expectaret M: l- e- … spectaret USTV; BAfr 11.2 milites ex(s)pectare USTV: m- spectare M). These latter passages involve objects that go better with 'await' than with 'expect', and that can be construed with spectare 'look at'. But where the object is a subordinate clause about intentions it is more difficult to decide which verb is more appropriate. In later authors both verbs are used with this construction (see TLL 5.2.1897.64–80 and OLD s.v. specto 9b). The evidence in the Caesarian corpus is conflicting. At BC 3.43.3 and BAlex 1.5 the manuscripts are unanimous for expectare, but at BC 3.85.2 the archetype's anomalous sperans ut is more likely to be a corruption of spectans ut than of expectans ut. (Unless sperans is right after all, as Queck suggested.) And at BC 3.75.3 the archetype has eadem spectans in a context that clearly involves intentions or expectations. That is, if one is looking for the Caesarian 'norm', the archetype pulls one way at BC 3.43.3 and BAlex 1.5, and the other way, perhaps a little less strongly, at BC 3.85.2 and BC 3.75.2. If one wants to emend for consistency it is hard to choose one verb over the other. If one follows the archetype at each spot we have evidence for an analogical extension that is consonant with the later usage of these two verbs. But given the 'bleed' between them in the corpus the evidence is worth very little. For a similarly tangled set of problems involving the expression telum … adigi see the apparatus notes at 3.51.7 and 3.56.1.
33 For a complementary argument focused on syntactic uariatio see Frese (1900, 44), who observes, apropos of the frequent occurrence of both eo loco and eo in loco (and comparable expressions), 'Wenn Caesar seinen Grundsatz der Analogie auch auf die Syntax mit unerbittlicher Konsequenz hätte anwenden wollen, so hätte er hier die beste Gelegenheit gehabt'. Similarly on omnibus copiis and cum omnibus copiis (1900, 43): 'Caesar hat also … zwei gleichwertige Konstruktionen, die ihm der Sprachgebrauch an die Hand gab, unbedenklich neben einander verwendet'.
34 For example, at BC 1.25.9 Caesar seems to use incursus to indicate a 'running onto' rather than an attack, the sense that it has in its six other occurrences in Caesar: has (sc. rates) terra atque aggere integebat <ne> aditus atque incursus ad defendendum impediretur, a fronte atque ab utroque latere cratibus ac pluteis protegebat. The next earliest attestation of this meaning is found in Columella (TLL 7.1.1094.7–15 'i. q. ingressus, occursus'), but the common phrase iter impedire provides an analogy (cf. e.g. BC 1.68.2 saxa multis locis praerupta iter impediebant; for aditus cf. Curt. 8.10.23 qui [sc. amnis] aditum … impedit). Paul's substitution of ingressus for incursus simplifies the phrase but deprives the military situation of its urgency: Caesar wants his men to be able to run, not walk, onto the pontoons. But I'm not at all confident that the sentence as printed is what Caesar wrote: both the doublet aditus atque incursus (contrast, e.g., BC 3.64.2 receptus impediebatur) and the asyndeton of has … integebat … protegebat (which provoked S into adding an et) seem suspect.
35 For a more comprehensive collection of unusual lexical items in the BC see in Gaertner–Hausburg the book-by-book lists of words that occur only once in Caesar's commentarii (2013, 225–35). For BC 1, 2, and 3 they count respectively 123, 104, and 188 unique occurrences. Their figures show that the frequency of such words in the BC is matched or exceeded in BG 6–7 (2013, 225–6). In both works the need to give salience to decisive moments attracts unusual usages, as does respect for technical precision. In the BC, for example, when Caesar makes his first move on the crucial day of the war in Spain, the time of day is specified with an expression that he uses nowhere else and that is rare overall, albente caelo (1.68.1), to the confusion of critics, who have taken it to be synonymous with, e.g., prima luce. For a discussion of its meaning and parallels see Stadter 1993. Respect for technical precision in several areas occasions other unusual expressions: (military) uallum caecum (1.28.4), cohors scutata (1.39.1), ex primo hastato (1.46.4), centuriatim (1.76.3), possibly sarcinaria iumenta (1.81.7), cohortes … colonicae (2.19.3), hippotoxotae (3.4.5); (political) semenstri imperio (1.9.2), extraordinarium honorem (1.32.2), dinastis (3.3.2); (building) statumina (1.54.2), latericulo (2.9.2), tabulationem (2.9.4), ordinatim (2.10.5), congesticius … agger (2.15.1), trauersaria tigna (2.15.2), contignatum (2.15.2), etc. For more lists see Richter (1977, 186–8).
36 By analogy with coram. See Frese (1900, 69), who also discusses the prepositional use of iuxta by analogy with prope.
37 Priuatim at 1.6.7 is another adverb used with tendentious innovation (see the note on 1.6.5–8), and the only Caesarian occurrence of raptim is that at 1.5.1, where it is joined with turbate. The only Caesarian occurrence of summe (3.15.8 Caesarem id summe sciebant cupere), on the other hand, sounds colloquial rather than partisan (so Frese (1900, 60)).
38 If the text there is sound: the archetype seems to have had saltem and statim as variants. The latter is a common Caesarian adverb that can be taken with refertur. But if statim was the original text, the arrival of saltem seems odd. For the final position of saltem, frequent in comedy, one may compare Cic. Att. 9.6.5 mi Tite, eripe hunc mihi dolorem aut minue saltem.
39 For the contest over labor see, on the Pompeians, 1.69.3 fugiens laboris, 1.78.1 corpora insueta ad onera portanda; on the Caesarians, 1.62.1 summo labore militum, 3.96.2 patientissimo exercitu Caesaris. The effect of nauicula paruula is heightened, Frese argues (1900, 55) by the striking magnus-polyptoton at the beginning of BC 3 (3.3.1–2).
40 Cf. Cic. Att. 15.27.2 quae quidem exspectatio me maxime sustentat.
41 The closest parallels pertain to places, not weather events: cf. BG 6.30.4 fugientem siluae texerunt, 7.62.9 quos (sc. fugientes) non siluae montesque texerunt, BC 3.42.1 qui (sc. locus) … a quibusdam protegit uentis.
42 He does, however, use a similarly innovative expression apropos of Domitius Ahenobarbus' ship at Massilia: BC 2.22.4 unum ipsius nauigium … fugere perseuerauit auxilioque tempestatis ex conspectu abiit, where auxilio tempestatis seems to be modelled on ui tempestatis/uenti/uentorum (e.g. BG 3.13.7, 5.10.2, BC 3.26.3). Other personified weather events: BC 3.2.3 grauis autumnus … omnem exercitum ualetudine temptauerat (with 3.87.2 multos autumni pestilentia in Italia consumpsit) and 3.25.1 hiems praecipitauerat.
43 Contrast, e.g., BC 2.22.4 sese in portum receperunt, 3.24.2 in portum refugiebant, 3.102.7 oppido ac portu recepti. And compare the personification of euentus at BC 1.21.6 qui quosque euentus exciperent.
44 As can be seen from the lists and discussion in Chapters V–VII, the difficult spots are most frequent and most intractable in Book 3.