The earlier post on Bellum alexandrinum, one of the works in the Corpus Caesarianum, noted that the author of this work is unknown (here). Had we wished to elaborate upon the matter, we could have quoted Jörg Rüpke’s article on the Corpus Caesarianum. We will do so in this post not only to expand upon what was learned earlier about the Corpus Caesarianum but also because Rüpke’s article is published in Brill’s New Pauly (BNP), an important resource that merits attention in its own right.
According to Rüpke, a member of Caesar’s chancellery named Hirtius was primarily responsible for collecting Caesar’s own works and related campaign reports. He explains,
While BG [Bellum gallicum] 8 certainly and the BAI [Bellum alexandrinum], closely associated with BC [Bellum civile] 3, probably originate from Hirtius, the linguistically isolated Bafr [Bellum africum] could be an eyewitness report requested by him. BHisp [Bellum hispaniense] has at its beginning a transition that gives the impression of an editorial.
In the end, we cannot say with certainty who authored the three non-Caesarian works in the Corpus Caesarianum; they should be regarded as unattributed and cited as such.
We turn now to BNP. How should one cite the Rüpke quotation from it? Answering that question will be easier if we first discuss certain aspects of BNP.
1. The title Brill’s New Pauly implies, of course, that there was an older Pauly. That earlier work is commonly referred to as Pauly-Wissowa, the names of its primary editors, and is abbreviated PW.
2. That is not the whole story, however. In fact, BNP is a translation of a German revision of PW; that revised work is titled Der neue Pauly: Enzyklopädie der Antike and is abbreviated DNP.
3. BNP was published in two sections. The Antiquity section focuses on Greco-Roman antiquity itself. The Classical Tradition section shifts focus to the reception and influence of the classical tradition down through the centuries.
4. The entire work comprises twenty-two print volumes: fifteen (vols. 1–15) plus an index in the Antiquity section; five (vols. I–V) plus an index in the Classical Tradition section. Note that Brill distinguishes the two sections by using arabic volume numbers for Antiquity and roman numerals for Classical Tradition. Although one might use the volume numbers as given to alert readers as to which section is being cited, SBL Press prefers a different approach. SBL Press style prefers arabic numbers whenever a volume is cited (SBLHS §4.2.2), and we maintain that style even with BNP. In order identify which section of the print edition is being cited, we specify either A (for Antiquity) or C (for Classical Tradition) before the arabic volume number.
Mostafa El-Abbadi, “Alexandria: History,” BNP A1:82–85.
5. All of BNP is also available online via subscription, and one suspects that the online edition will be cited more frequently than the print one. For example, the Rüpke quotation above was taken from the online edition. The complicating factor is that the online edition does not indicate where in the print edition an article appears, which makes it impossible to cite an online article as one would a print article.
6. Because BNP is a subscription product, neither can one identify a precise URL for the article, as one would for an openly accessible webpage. One can, however, direct readers to the general website that houses BNP, where nonsubscribers can purchase short-term access to the resource. Putting all this together, the Rüpke article quoted above would be cited as follows (see SBLHS §6.4.24):
Jörg Rüpke, “Corpus Caesarianum,” BNP. http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/ browse/brill-s-new-pauly.
Formatting the citation this way gives credit to those responsible for the work and provides readers with the information needed for them to consult the source on their own.