Main Text

pg 55453. Events in northern Italy: senatus consultum on Gauls

53. 1. biduo quo: 'two days after'; cf. K–St i. 356.

Q. Fuluius consul: last mentioned at 45. 6.

inuios … <et> saltus: like Walsh and Gouillart, I printed Drakenborch's simple addition of et to what stands in Mog.; unlike them, however, I take inuios with both montes and ualles, but not with saltus. -que … et points in that direction, and while valleys can be impossible to traverse, saltus are passes. But Walsh's criticism of conjectures (sc. those of Gitlbauer and Heraeus) which have introduced the names Suismontius and Ballista as 'otiose' ignores the fact that at 39. 2. 7 Ballistam (followed by Suismontiumque) is corrupted to uallis tam(en) in α‎NL, and at 41. 2 Ballistam Letumque to uallis uerum tum tanquam (cf. nn. ad loc.).

For inuius cf. 38. 2. 14 n.

2. <caesi sunt>: both Gouillart and Walsh retain Mog.'s text, but deditio is not an option for soldiers involved in a battle, and it makes no sense to refer to 3000 surrendering if the whole area did so. Madvig supplemented with <caesi sunt,… capti>, but Heraeus' simple <caesi sunt> provides a better explanation of the omission, the scribe's eye moving from -ium to the similar sunt.

3. celeriter et < … et>: it is very likely that the omission was caused by L. having written et … et, and a scribe's eye moving from one et to the second. Walsh attempts to preserve Mog.'s text by attaching celeriter to the previous sentence; such a position for the adverb is unparalleled and intolerable.

3–4. supplicationes … fecerunt: cf. 39. 38. 5 n. The supplicationes were voted on the basis of Fulvius' report to the senate, and there is thus no contradiction with what L. says at 59. 1.

per supplicationes is a strange form of expression, since the sacrifices are part of the supplicationes (for the temporal use of per when the noun governed by per is not itself an indication of time cf. TLL x/1. 1143. 61 ff.).

5–6. It appears that these Gauls arrived in Liguria, and cannot therefore come from the same area as those who had entered Italy in 186 (cf. 39. 22. 6–7, 54–55. 4 nn.). Walsh's view that the senate reacted as it did because of the 'rumours of an incursion of armed bands' reported at 17. 8 lacks logic. It may be that the senate had simply had enough of Gallic migrations across the Alps, armed or unarmed.

5. in: my apparatus fails to mention that in (Fr. 2) is omitted in Mog.

logo-footer Copyright © 2018. All rights reserved.
Access is brought to you by Log out