BMCR 2009.04.33: Westall on Carsana, Commento storico al libro II delle Guerre Civili di Appiano. (parte I). Pubblicazioni della Facoltà di Lettere e Filosofia dell'Università di Pavia 116

Chiara Carsana (ed.), Commento storico al libro II delle Guerre Civili
di Appiano. (parte I). Pubblicazioni della Facolta\ di Lettere e
Filosofia dell'Universita\ di Pavia 116.  Pisa:  Edizioni ETS, 2007.
Pp. 309.  ISBN 9788846718785.  [euro  ]18.00 (pb).

Reviewed by Richard Westall, [email protected]
Word count:  2782 words
-------------------------------
To read a print-formatted version of this review, see
http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2009/2009-04-33.html
To comment on this review, see
http://www.bmcreview.org/2009/04/20090433.html
-------------------------------

Carsana has written a commentary that is the final instalment in a
larger project.  In the past half-century, exponents of what might be
termed the "School of Pavia" have been engaged in studying and
elucidating Appian's Civil Wars.  In 1956, Emilio Gabba published a
monograph that was concerned with the historiography of Appian as
revealed in the Civil Wars.  Subsequently, he published commentaries on
books 1 and 5 of Appian's Civil Wars in 1958 and 1970 respectively.
Gabba's student and Carsana's teacher, the late Domenico Magnino,
published similar commentaries for books 3 and 4 in 1984 and 1998.
With the volume under review and its companion to appear in the near
future, this series of Italian commentaries upon an essential work of
ancient historiography will have achieved completion.  Therefore, the
interest was great and expectations were high.

With this historical commentary, which is the first of two parts,
Carsana provides a detailed discussion of App. BC 2.1.1-77.324, which
text ranges from the Catilinarian conspiracy to the very moment in
which the armies of Caesar and Pompeius were to engage in battle at
Pharsalus.  The present book has five sections.  There is first an
introductory essay dedicated to Appian's historiography, his sources,
and the overall architecture of book 2 of the Civil Wars (pp. 11-29).
Next there follows the "Bibliografia", which is in fact a relatively
brief list of abbreviations for the modern works most frequently cited
(pp. 31-37).  Then comes the heart of the work, the commentary proper,
which often consists of introductions to each chapter (or a group of
chapters) as well as comments upon individual matters (pp. 39-223).
Fourthly, there is a photostatic reproduction of that portion of
Appian's text to which this volume is dedicated (pp. 227-306).  Lastly,
there is a brief index of persons and places named by Appian and  keyed
to the section numbers of his text (pp. 307-309).

Carsana's accomplishment is varied.  She has clearly invested a great
of time and labour in the writing of this historical commentary.
Readers will benefit from her collecting of materials and eye for
details relating to Appian's perspective and possible sources.
Moreover, the volume is attractively presented and appropriately
priced.  However, the final judgement must be one of disappointment.
As far as the reviewer can tell, the author was not subject to any
editorial intervention other than her own.  Consequently, she is
extraordinarily repetitive and self-indulgent.  The theoretical editor
ought to have also proposed to Carsana some basic questions regarding
Appian's handling of data.  As matters stand, Carsana is usually so
mired in details that she provides no overall sense of Appian as an
author of the Second Sophistic.  That is a shame, for much might have
been said upon the subject, even within the unnecessarily limited
context of a historical commentary.

As has become common practice, Carsana reprints as a major element in
her introduction an article that she published a few years ago (p. 13
n.1).  To be precise, this reworked article constitutes a section
("paragrafo") that occupies somewhat more than seven (pp. 13-20) of the
nineteen pages of the introduction.  In the article she makes
interesting observations regarding the structure and unity of book 2 of
Appian's Civil Wars.  The opening of the work with the Catilinarian
conspiracy and its closure with a comparison
(<greek>su/gkrisis</greek>) of the figures of Alexander the Great and
Caesar are indeed innovative within the historiographical tradition for
the period treated.  Whether readers will wish to follow Carsana in her
conclusions, it must be agreed that she has identified a fundamental
problem for our understanding of Appian's literary artistry.  On the
other hand, her treatment of Appian's sources and his possible use of
them is poorly structured and not well executed.  No clear vision of
Pollio's historical work emerges from the discussion offered by
Carsana, which discussion also ignores contributions made in German and
English since the time of Gabba 1956 and Hahn 1964 (Hahn 1982 is cited
for the whole of Appian's Civil Wars).  Readers would have benefited
considerably from a review of possible sources done on the order of
what is to be found within C.B.R. Pelling's commentary to Plutarch's
Life of Antony.  Without the evidence being set forth clearly,
confusion reigns.  So, for example, Carsana follows within a tradition
consolidated by Zecchini 1978 (curiously not cited by Carsana), wherein
claims are advanced for the Historiae of Gaius Asinius Pollio that are
not substantiated by the available evidence.  Carsana would have done
readers a service by writing a clearly organized introduction that
provides a straightforward listing of possible sources for and
prominent themes within Appian's historiography of Roman civil war.

The bibliography provided at the outset (pp. 31-37) is commendable in
that it aims to illustrate what Carsana used, not the totality of what
exists.  Yet, there are strange choices and omissions that give pause
for thought.  Why cite the English version of the masterful and yet
unsurpassed biography of Caesar written by M. Gelzer?  Why cite the
first edition of that same author's biography of Pompeius Magnus?  Why
cite only the first of the two volumes (published in 1991 and 1993
respectively) of the ever useful commentary dedicated to Caesar's
Bellum Civile by J.C. Carter?  Why the failure to list W.J. Tatum's
1999 biography of P. Clodius Pulcher?  Is it not a more developed
version of that same author's articles?  Questions of this sort might
easily be multiplied.  Alas, Carsana has not kept apace with the
publications of recent decades and her choice of versions or editions
is frequently hard to justify.  Theodor Mommsen in French, Christian
Meier in Italian, and Matthias Gelzer in English seem rather strange
preferences over the original German editions.  Moreover, the latest
edition (not to be confused with a mere reprinting) is in principle to
be preferred, for it should theoretically be free of the errors of
previous editions.  Unlike a certain reputable publishing house,
readers will remember the difference between the two editions of A.H.M.
Jones's Cities of the Greek East.  Enough said of such matters.

Turning to the commentary, the reviewer thinks it appropriate to begin
with the observation that commentaries are composed to be consulted,
not to be read.  Notwithstanding that fundamental truth, this reviewer
read Carsana's commentary.  Surprises were not lacking.  Foremost
amongst these was the discovery that Carsana "plagiarizes" herself.
Carsana frequently transposes verbatim entire sentences and portions of
paragraphs from her general introductions for chapters to her detailed
comments upon particular passages (e.g. pp. 134 and 135:  intro. and
commentary upon App. BC 2.36.144).  Repetition is indubitably a virtue
when teaching in the classroom, but this habitual redundancy of the
written word is bereft of value and annoying.  Had Carsana not engaged
in such repetition, her commentary would have been at least one third
shorter.

The commentary seems rather lifeless and perfunctory on many an
occasion.  So, for example, the brief listing of the accomplishments of
L. Afranius (cos. 60) does show that this figure was a military
collaborator of Pompeius over the course of three decades, as is also
clearly documented for M. Petreius.  But there is nothing quite so
striking or effective as the brief vignette offered by Ronald Syme in
The Roman Revolution (Oxford 1952 corr.) at p. 396f..  Afranius and
Petreius were the forerunners of Agrippa and the other viri militares
of the Principate.  This fundamental idea somehow gets lost in the
verbiage and references to RE and MRR.  Yet, the judgement of Sallust
(Cat. 59.6) is memorable and illuminating.  Similarly, as an
illustration of the divisions within the camp of Pompeius in mid-48,
Carsana might have remarked that Plutarch (Pomp. 67.6) reports that
there were those who wanted to indict Afranius for treason for his
conduct of the Spanish campaign of the previous year.  Notwithstanding
this hostility and his own refusal to follow Afranius' proposed plan of
campaign after Caesar's retreat from Dyrrachium, Pompeius associated
Afranius with himself in the command-structure for the battle of
Pharsalus.  On that topic, J.C. Carter's philological note to his
Penguin translation of Appian is more incisive than Carsana's observing
that Pompeius did not remain in camp for the battle (ad App. BC
2.76.316).  It would seem that the most logical conclusion is that
Afranius was partner in Pompeius' overall command of the course of
battle.  That naturally raises questions to be addressed elsewhere.
Here, to conclude this example, it is only to be remarked that
Carsana's handling of figures such as Afranius leaves the reader with
the impression that she went through the motions without critically
reflecting upon what she was writing.  Despite her assiduous collection
of references to parallel or contrasting ancient versions and standard
modern works of reference, it is clear that readers cannot look to this
commentary in the expectation of finding clear positions or fresh
discoveries on the part of the author.

In view of Appian's Hellenic self-perception and his writing for a
Greek-speaking audience, the utter absence of any reference to the
Caesarian siege of Massalia is noteworthy.  Carsana notes en passant
the city's absence from Appian's narrative (ad App. BC 2.47.192), but
this lacuna merits even more attention than does the cursory treatment
that Appian accords to events in Illyria in 49-48 BCE.  In view of the
importance attributed to Massaliot resistance by contemporaries (Caesar
and Cicero) and later writers (Livy, and Lucan)--to name the foremost
sources of our information--Appian's omission represents a decidedly
conscious choice on the part of the author, one that is highly
informative about his view of what it meant to be Hellenic within the
context of the Roman empire.  In view of Carsana's interest in Appian's
handling of his material, we might have expected that she show greater
attention to such narrative choices as that involved in the decision to
forego a description of the lengthy and dramatic siege of Massalia.  By
contrast Appian does recount Athenian opposition to Caesar and Caesar's
demonstration of scornful clemency.  Why these narrative choices?  Here
the perspective furnished by the source-question manifestly proves of
no use.  Attention must instead be given to the self-construction in
which Appian as author and imperial bureaucrat engages.

With disconcerting frequency, Carsana fails to cite the relevant modern
literature, or does not make opportune use of what is listed in the
initial bibliography.  Instances are legion.  Again I cite but a few in
order to provide adequate illustration.  For Caesar's "doubling" the
legionaries' pay, far more problematic than Carsana suspects (p. 121),
readers are referred to B. Woytek, Arma et Nummi. Forschungen zur
roemischen Finanzgeschichte und Muenzpraegung der Jahre 49 bis 42
v.Chr.  Wien 2003.  For Caesar's invasion of Italia, the unjustly
neglected monograph of H.-M. Ottmer is of fundamental importance.  This
monograph appears within the initial bibliography (p. 35), but Carsana
fails to refer to it in that connection.  Questions of familial ties
and allegiance have been treated at length by D.R. Shackleton Bailey,
"The Roman Nobility in the Second Civil War," CQ 10 (1960) 253-267, H.
Bruhns, Caesar und die roemische Oberschicht in den Jahren 49-44 v.
Chr. Untersuchungen zur Herrschaftsetablierung im Buergerkrieg
(Goettingen 1978), and R. Syme, The Augustan Aristocracy (Oxford 1989
corr).  As regards the battle of Pharsalus, reference to Morgan 1983
should have obviated the need for a lengthy list of modern bibliography
that serves no apparent purpose.  For topographical questions in
general and more recent literature than that to be found within The
Princeton Encyclopedia of Classical Sites edited by R. Stillwell in
1976, readers will obviously wish to consult the gazetteer to The
Barrington Atlas of the Classical World edited by R.J.A. Talbert in
2002.  Carsana has been thorough in reporting recent Italian literature
relating to the contents of book 2 of Appian's Civil Wars, and that is
a laudable achievement.  But her commentary has a provincial air as a
consequence of her failure to do likewise with regard to the scholarly
literature in German, French, and English.

As is evident from the very title of this work, Carsana has posed for
herself the limited task of writing a historical commentary.  Yet, it
may well be asked whether a commentary that omits questions of
philological interest is of great use to anyone.  I cite a couple of
examples to illustrate my point.  The first example shows how the
"generally unreliable and confused" Appian (admittedly Carter writing
about Appian within the context of Pharsalus) can serve as a corrective
to other sources.  In commenting upon Caesar's alleged citation of
Menander at the moment of his crossing the Rubicon, Carsana misses an
excellent opportunity to illustrate how parallel transmission permits
convincing textual emendation (p. 133).  Both the Teubner and Bude/
(CUF) versions of Suet. Iul. 32 read alea iacta est, even though the
Greek paradosis <greek>a)nerri/fqw</greek> indicates the need to emend
to alea iacta esto.  It would seem that lessons learned as children are
hard to deny as adults!  Of course, things are further complicated by
the fact that the "Menandrian citation" was in fact a standard proverb.
Whether any intertextuality may be construed is strongly in doubt.  In
another instance, Carsana's discussion (p. 136) of Appian's report (BC
2.36.145) that Cicero suggested despatching individuals to negotiate
with Caesar over a peaceful resolution in mid-January 49 BCE is
surreal.  Plutarch (Pomp. 60.6) clearly attributes that suggestion to
the consular Volcatius Tullus.  The confusion of the gentilician names
Tullus with Tullius is reported by Carsana as having been accepted by
Meyer 1918 and Garzetti 1954.  In view of the mechanisms of textual
banalization, they were quite justified in doing so.  But then Carsana
goes on to follow Rice Holmes 1923 in claiming that the transmitted
versions of Plutarch and Appian are both correct.  This is indubitably
the counsel of despair, even if Marc Bloch once remarked the dangers
that coincidences pose for the historian.  Although historians seldom
publish new critical editions of literary texts, they ought to possess
at least the basics of philological method so as to be able to
intervene in convincing fashion when the need arises.

The photostatic reproduction of the 1905 Teubner text of Ludwig
Mendelssohn as revised by Paul Viereck is extremely clear and legible.
Recourse to this expedient is admittedly at variance with the "School
of Pavia" commentaries for the other four books of Appian's Civil Wars.
However, Carsana thereby avoids introducing errors into the Greek
text, such as those that I have remarked in the Fontes Christiani
reproduction of Eusebius' Vita Constantini from the GCS series.  Since
Carsana normally avoids textual questions, the resetting of the text in
a new font could only have been productive of further errors.  On the
other hand, this solution permits a fuller commentary than would have
been possible had the text and commentary been printed on the same
page.  That is positive in so far as Carsana can adduce more evidence
and engage in detailed discussion.  Moreover, it is healthy for
students and scholars to have a Greek text that is not flanked by any
translation or commentary.  Crutches have a way of becoming blinders.
Still, the location of this text within Carsana's book is problematic.
There is something unsettling about a scheme that prioritizes the
commentary over the text.  Appian's text ought to have come before
Carsana's commentary.  The horse always has precedence over the cart.

The index of persons has more than one striking defect.  For one thing,
it is limited to the preceding text of Appian.  Since the commentary
mentions many other individuals, a separate and more complete index of
persons would have been in order.  One of the strengths of Carsana's
work is her supplying readers with specific information reported
elsewhere.  So, for example, the Appius Claudius Pulcher who brought
two legions from Caesar in Gaul to Italy in the autumn of 50 BCE is the
individual to whom Appian alludes through a rhetorical plural at BC
2.30.116.  Homonymous nephew to the individual who was consul in 54 and
censor in 50, he does not figure in the index of persons offered at the
end of this volume because of its limited scope.  The utility of
Carsana's work would have been vastly enhanced by an index to the
commentary itself.  On another note, it is to be remarked that the
rationale for ordering names varies.  Thus T. Annius Milo Papianus is
to be found through reference to his cognomen, rather than to his nomen
gentilicium.  Within a work intended for scholarly use, such variation
is neither necessary nor desirable.

The project is ambitious and the execution has proved disappointingly
variable in quality, but it is to be hoped that Carsana will complete
the task undertaken and thereby contribute to our understanding of a
complicated source that is far too often treated as an ancillary tool.