18

ELIZABETH BAYNHAM

Barbarians i: Quintus Curtius and other Roman historians reception of Alexander

Alexander God knows, and you know, in his rages, and his furies, and his wraths, and his cholers, and his moods, and his displeasures and his indignations, and also being a little intoxicates in his prains, did, in his ales and his angers, look you, kill his pest friend, Cleitus. Fluellen in Henry V, Act iv, Scene vii

The cover picture of the rst edition (2002) of Diana Spencers monograph The Roman Alexander is a variant on a 1982 print of Andy Warhols Alexander the Great,1 stamped on a red background, in the same poly photograph format as the artists graphic studies of twentieth-century iconic gures like Marilyn Monroe and Jackie Onassis. One implication of such imagery is that celebrity is packaged and duplicated for mass consumption. The choice of representing Alexander in this way is simultaneously evocative and ironic; evocative, because as Spencer herself notes,2 given that all of our extant literature on the Macedonian conqueror derives from a time when Rome was the dominant power in the ancient world, Alexanders story has been transmitted through a Roman lter, and is thus (to some degree) a reection of Roman popular cultural reception. The irony is this: Warhols 1982 original designs of Alexander, which he created for the famous Search For Alexander exhibition at the New York Metropolitan Museum of Art, were based on a bronze head from the Roman imperial period a time when Alexanders portrait in itself a carefully created and idealized image was as well known and established as famous corporate logos are today.3 Warhols composition is but another expression of the Alexander franchise.
1

2 3

Synthetic polymer and silkscreen ink on canvas, 4040 inches, copyright The Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts; see Spencer 2002: x. For further information, see Feldman and Schellmann 2003. The latest edition of Spencers book features a version of Warhols design of Alexanders head in prole. Spencer 2002: xivxv. Warhol based his design upon a bronze head of Alexander, c. 20050 CE, now in Basel. See Stewart 2003: 45, Fig. 1.

288
Cambridge Collections Online Cambridge University Press, 2010

Reception of Alexander

This chapter will provide an overview of the Roman Alexander tradition, as well as a reading of one episode during Alexanders campaign in India which reveals some aspects of ancient historiographical methods. The GraecoRoman world had a lot to say about Alexander. It is clear that by the time of his death in 323 BCE he was not only the most famous man of his day, but arguably of all time, having surpassed (at least in contemporary mythopoiesis) Greek gods and heroes like Dionysus, Heracles, and Achilles. Romans from the fourth century BCE undoubtedly would have heard of Alexander, despite the protestations of Livy (9.18.6) and Arrians skepticism (7.15.6). It is also highly likely that contemporary Romans sent an embassy to Alexander in his last year. Any refusal to do so could well have been perceived as impudent deance, and there is some evidence that the king had plans for western expansion after his invasion of Arabia.4 The earliest reference to the king where he is actually described as Magnus is in a play by Plautus (Mostellaria, 7757) in the rst quarter of the second century BCE, some 130 years after Alexanders death. However, when Rome became the most powerful state in the Mediterranean, there was already a considerable body of contemporary and near-contemporary historical and ctitious writing on the Macedonian. This literature ranged from actual eyewitness historians (like Ptolemy, Aristobulus, Chares, Nearchus, and Onesicritus), or historians who were probably able to interview those who had accompanied Alexander (Cleitarchus), to imaginative romance and politically oriented ctitious pamphlets. In its turn, the primary or near-contemporary literature generated further derivative writing, from universal histories to philosophical treatises.5 The importance of the earlier, Hellenistic layer of information and thought should not be underestimated or dismissed, despite some recent postmodernist attempts to do so. This is the pool from which all our extant derivative information was taken, and despite selectivity, creative interpretation, and variations in literary genre, narrative, and style, there is a surprising degree of homogeneity in the content of Alexander stories and perceptions of the king from Roman writers as diverse as Cicero, Livy, Valerius Maximus, Quintilian, the two Senecas, Lucan, and Tacitus. However, as S. P. Oakley has recently stated, it is an idle exercise to try to identify any one source or philosophy as a key inuence upon this literature.6

Alexanders plans to invade Carthage and Italy; see Arrian 7.13; Curt. 10.1.1719; Diod. 18.4. On the historicity of the Roman embassy, see Brunt 1983: 4978; Bosworth 1988a: 8393. See Baynham 2003: 329. 6 Oakley 2005: 205.

289
Cambridge Collections Online Cambridge University Press, 2010

elizabeth baynham

The question of whether Alexander owed his success to Fortuna or Tyche (fate) as much as to his own abilities generated considerable debate in ancient authors.7 The theme of barbarity is less evident. Whether the Romans saw Alexander in general as a barbarian is debatable, but they undoubtedly would have considered certain aspects of his behavior, such as his adoption of Persian dress and customs, his cruelty (cf. Curt. 4.6.29; Arrian 4.7.37), and his excessive drinking as barbaric. Macedonian custom in this latter regard was notorious, and Alexander outdid even his countrymen. The Macedonians were often referred to as barbarians by other Greeks, as heavy drinking was associated with foreigners (cf. Curt. 6.2.1; Arrian 4.8.2). Ethnographical excursuses describing the appearance, dress, and customs of other races, with a particular emphasis on their alien nature or remoteness, are common in ancient historiography and the Alexander sources are no exception.8 Alexanders enemies are also frequently described as barbarians, and as a rule Roman Alexander historiography reects the typical racist stereotyping (at least from a modern view) found throughout Graeco-Roman literature. For Curtius (4.1.30) the Egyptians are a vana gens (shallow or ckle race);9 Eastern Scythians (Sacae) are smarter and more articulate than the rest of barbarian nations (Curt. 7.8.10); the luxuria (extravagance) of Indian kings surpasses the vices of all other races (Curt. 8.9.23); at 9.6.14 the Malloi (an Indian tribe) are considered sordidi hostes (a mean and worthless enemy).10 For Livy (9.17.1617) and other Roman writers, one reason why Alexander was so brilliantly successful was precisely because his opponents were effeminate, showy Persians, rather than real viri (men).11 It is also true that Alexander offered an exemplum (example) to the Romans for moral qualities and achievements, both good and bad. Valerius Maximus includes Alexander anecdotes under several categories,12 but topics like the kings spectacular career, bravery, and endurance, his continentia (sexual self-restraint), leadership, generosity, and magnanimity, his loyalty to his friends (on occasion), and his excesses; his rashness, arrogance, cruelty, murderous rage, and drunkenness have a liberal representation elsewhere in
7 8

9 10

11

12

See Baynham 1998: 10411; Oakley 2005: 199205, with Appendix 5. Cf. Curtius digression on India, 8.9; Arrian Ind. 717; on Tacitus excursus on the Jews (Hist. 5.223), see the chapter by Andrew Feldherr in this volume; on racial stereotypes in GraecoRoman literature, see Isaac 2004. Cf. Plin. Paneg. 31.2. This is Craterus voice and not necessarily the historian speaking in propria persona, but Curtius consistently refers to the Indian peoples as barbari (cf. Curt. 8.11.18; 8.12.10; 9.1.15; 9.7.14; 9.7.23; 9.8.14; 9.8.21; 9.8.23). Cf. Curt. 3.2.1116; Gell. NA 17.21.3; on Persian decadence, see Briant 2002: 193210; on Livy, see Oakley 2005: 2212. Baynham 1998: 26, n. 40.

290
Cambridge Collections Online Cambridge University Press, 2010

Reception of Alexander

Latin literature.13 There was a denite perception of a marked decline in Alexanders character, chiey expressed through his adoption of Persian royal regalia, and an increasing absolutism in his power after the death of Darius in the so-called Alexander vulgate writers, Diodorus Siculus (17.77.47), Curtius (6.6.112), Justin (12.3.812), and the Metz Epitome (12). Although this topos may have derived from an original, common source, it was strongly emphasized in the Latin writers, who may well have also been sensitive to Roman parallels, like the corruption of the Roman character caused by the destruction of Carthage and Corinth in 146 BCE. As A. B. Bosworth has recently and convincingly demonstrated, derivative literature might re-interpret events and shape narratives so as to suit an authors agenda, but as a general rule, ancient writers do not change received information.14 They work with established topoi. We have already noted the inuence of a Roman education, particularly the rhetorical schools, where infamous or admirable aspects of Alexanders career and personality, such as his murder of his best friend, or his trust in his doctors loyalty, were popular areas for declamation. Some of this tradition even ltered down to the Elizabethan stage; Shakespeares verbose, good-hearted Welsh ofcer, Fluellen, could well have absorbed a little Tacitus, or more likely, Seneca, in his burlesque but patriotic comparison of Alexander the Big of Macedon with King Henry V of Monmouth. Alexander, in a drunken rage, murdered his loyal general Cleitus (a man who had saved his life); Henry V does not kill his friends, but when he ascended the throne he did reject his former beloved drinking companion, Sir John Falstaff (which, in Fluellens opinion, was all to the kings credit). Falstaff died not long after allegedly from a broken heart. Interestingly, one scholar has recently suggested that Alexander himself died from the emotional trauma caused by bereavement.15 However, Roman formative oratorical training was only part of the picture; there was also a rich, intertextual play of literary imitatio, echo, and allusion, for the mutual benet of an erudite author and his audience.16 Unfortunately, no rst-generation Alexander history has survived; apart from some scattered comment on Philip II and Alexander in Polybius,17 our extant continuous historical narrative commences in the latter part of the rst century BCE with the universal histories of Diodorus Siculus and Pompeius Trogus. In addition to these substantial works, the Augustan age produced some monumental histories, both in scale and ambition, including those

13

14 16

On Alexander as a model for declamatio, see Baynham 1998: 2530; Spencer 2002; Oakley 2005: 1889. Bosworth 2003: 16795. 15 Reames-Zimmerman 1999: 8196. Bosworth 2004: 5523, with n. 10. 17 See Billows 2000: 289.

291
Cambridge Collections Online Cambridge University Press, 2010

elizabeth baynham

of Timagenes (which has not survived), Dionysius of Halicarnassus, and Nicolaus of Damascus.18 There was also Livys massive history of Rome. Particularly interesting for Alexander studies is his striking digression in Book 9.1719. This is a highly rhetorical and amboyant excursus in which Livy addresses a counter-factual scenario of an invasion of Italy by Alexander (and why the Romans would have defeated him) at a time when the Romans themselves were not faring well in war against their Southern Italian neighbors, the Samnites. The importance of the excursus is worth re-emphasizing, because in many ways it captures much of the Roman attitude to Alexander.19 But Livy will not be our focus nor will Tacitus, despite his trenchant and (unfavorable) comparison of Alexander with Germanicus.20 The full texts of both Diodorus and Trogus (in 44 books) are not extant, and the latter has been preserved only by the epitome of Justin, which was composed sometime either in the late second or early third century CE. Books 1112 of this work cover the reign of Alexander. Epitomes were becoming popular even in the early imperial period; they demanded less storage space, were easier to read, and less expensive to copy.21 But it is also evident that Justin believed he was contributing more to literature than a mere summary; he would extract the best of Trogus narrative according to what he considered was either stylistically pleasing or morally edifying. A partial summary in Latin of another Alexander history, the so-called Metz Epitome, remains from an even later period, most likely the fourth or fth century CE. But Roman historiography also offers an extended history of Alexander by Quintus Curtius. Not one of these accounts is without its problems as noted earlier, we do not have Trogus original text, and Justins summary has not only abbreviated, conated, and often garbled Trogus, but also superimposed his own style and even his own language, as well as his criteria for what he includes and omits.22 The Metz Epitome is a peculiar work, which incorporated three pieces on Alexander within one manuscript: a ctitious letter from Alexander to Aristotle; part of an abbreviated Alexander history (the original of which is unknown) that covers the kings reign from the death of Darius to his (imaginary) campaigns in Southern India; and part of a

18 19

20 21 22

See Atkinson 2000: 307. Excellent treatments include Morello 2002: 6285; see n. 7 for bibliography; see also Spencer 2002: 4153; most recently, Oakleys comprehensive discussion, 2005: 185261; for the impact of Livys digression upon Curtius history, see Oakley 2005: 6613. Tac. Ann. 2.73.13; see Bosworth 2004: 55167, especially 55964; also Gissel 2001: 277301. Baynham 1995: 601. See the Introduction in Yardley and Heckel 1997: 134; more recently Yardleys 2003 monograph examines the problem of how much of Justins epitome is Trogus composition and how much is the epitomator.

292
Cambridge Collections Online Cambridge University Press, 2010

Reception of Alexander

ctitious and highly propagandist narrative on Alexanders last days, his death, and his bogus testament. The rst and third narratives belong to the tradition of the Alexander Romance; the second has strong afnities with mainstream Alexander historiography, particularly Diodorus, Justin, and Quintus Curtius. The text is too brief and truncated to offer the narrative richness of the other Alexander historians, but it is useful for comparison with them, and does occasionally give information not attested elsewhere.23 All of the texts of the Metz Epitome are compressed, lacunose, and frequently difcult to read. Curtius work also has its difculties. The rst two books are lost, and the surviving text is likewise often corrupt and marred by lacunae. Moreover the question of the historians date and identity are notorious cruces, which, short of the discovery of new evidence, are unlikely ever to be resolved, although most scholars are now willing to concede that Curtius lived and wrote in the rst century CE, and probably in the latter half of it.24 Unlike Sallust, Caesar, or Tacitus, it is also unlikely that either Justin or Curtius were military men or politicians, although members of Trogus family saw military service under Pompey, and Trogus father was Julius Caesars secretary. There have also been modern scholarly attempts to link the historian Curtius with a senator, a novus homo who was mentioned by Tacitus (Ann. 11.21), but this identication, despite its supercial neatness and appeal, is uncertain and unlikely.25 Justin tells us very little about himself, apart from his statement in his preface explaining why he has chosen to epitomize Trogus; his preface also suggests that he came from outside Rome, most likely the provinces. But whoever Justin was, he was well educated, as the liberal sprinkling of parallel phrases from post-Augustan literature suggests.26 Curtius reveals even fewer personalia but any autobiographical information that he may have declared in his own preface is lost. However, his debt to literature outside of earlier Alexander historiography is again very evident.27 Historiographical interest in famous personalities commenced with Herodotus, and as in historiographys related genre, biography, the presentation of character and motive remained a complex aspect of the literature.28

23

24

25 27 28

The text (ME 70) mentions a son by Rhoxane born in India who dies in infancy; this is not mentioned by any other source but could well have happened. See Bosworth 2000: 11 with n. 13. See Bosworth 2004: 566, for bibliography see nn. 945; Baynham 1998: 20119. Atkinson (1980 and 1998) has consistently argued for a Claudian dating; more recently Bosworth (2004) has given some cautious support for the Vespasianic era; Fears (2001: 44751) makes a case for a late imperial date. Baynham 1998: 21618. 26 Yardley 2003: 5, also chapters 5 and 6. Atkinson 1980: 3943, Atkinson 1998: 346568; Baynham 1998: 1735. Baynham 1998: 17 with n. 10; see also Vasalys chapter in this volume.

293
Cambridge Collections Online Cambridge University Press, 2010

elizabeth baynham

A full-scale history in Latin by a Roman on a non-Roman personage seems to have been unusual, although we need to remember that only a small fraction of ancient historiography has survived, and even histories which are now lost, but which are cited by other authors, are often only mentioned for specic reasons. In particular we hear of specialist monographs on Hellenistic rulers or famous personages, as might be expected given the eclectic and wideranging tastes of educated Hellenistic and Roman patrons. Polybius admits (10.21.58 = FGrH 173) that he wrote an encomiastic study of the Hellenistic statesman Philopoemen as a kind of excursus from his general history of the period, although he also concedes that there was a literary genre of eulogistic biography.29 This type of eulogistic biography could well have attracted and inuenced Curtius. How much biographical literature was in Latin, though, is another matter. In the late rst century BCE Cornelius Nepos wrote brief biographical sketches of famous Greek generals which included Eumenes and Phocion, but nothing else is extant that is pertinent to the age of Alexander. However, Nepos did write biographies of Romes great Carthaginian enemies, Hamilcar and Hannibal, as well as the Persian satrap Datames.30 His elder contemporary Varro compiled pen portraits (complete with epigrams) of some 700 famous Greeks and Romans, while Pomponius Atticus recorded eulogies of noble families. Sallusts history of the Numidian prince Jugurtha offers a parallel to Curtius history to some degree, in that its subject is Romes war with a barbarian monarch. Yet Sallusts monograph also focuses on Roman politics of the late second century BCE, the rise of Marius and Sulla, and the ambitions of greedy and manipulative individuals. Justins objective in compiling his epitome was predominantly literary. He tells us in his praefatio that his brief anthology (breve velut orum corpusculum) was intended to refresh the memories of those in his audience who had read history in Greek, and instruct those who had not (et qui non didicissent, quo instruerentur). The latter remark at least suggests an interest in making world history accessible, even if in abbreviated form, to Romans in their native language, but it is hard to know whether this is Justins own thought, or whether he had borrowed it from Trogus preface. Justin was probably not as interested as Trogus in the big themes of universal history such as the rise and fall of imperial kingdoms, but he seems to have preserved enough of the original to maintain some degree of continuity, and even to allow the development of related themes, like the machinations of royal women (Semiramis, Eurydice, Olympias, etc).31 However much exasperation Justin may now cause the modern student (especially of early Hellenistic
29 31

See Walbank 195779: 2.2213. See Riley 2002.

30

On Nepos in general, see Geiger 1985.

294
Cambridge Collections Online Cambridge University Press, 2010

Reception of Alexander

history), if we accept the limitations imposed by his work and accept his own statements at face value his work is reasonably successful, and in its own way, effective. Curtius history of Alexander is very different in its scope and aims a more elaborate, extended narrative, highly rhetorical, and blatantly exhibitionist. Nevertheless despite modern efforts to read rhetorical patterns, subtexts, Roman coloring, political allegories, and contemporary meanings into his work, he openly refers to Rome on only a few occasions. Curtius main objective was to write a history of Alexander which was very rmly rooted in the sources he was using. He may well have intended his audience to draw their own conclusions, but he was fundamentally interested in Alexanders career and context. He was just telling the story in the best possible way; modern opinion on the value of his work remains divided.32 Some observations on one episode that is treated by Justin (12.9), Curtius (9.4.266.27), and the Metz Epitome (768) will offer some insight not only into their respective methodologies, but their shared characterization of Alexander as a larger-than-life king ghting against barbarians in an area as remote and exotic as India. In Feldherrs interpretation of Tacitus excursus on the Jews (this volume), the latter are presented as a reection of the Romans; in the Roman historians account of Alexanders nal, dramatic assault on the Malloi fortress33 in the Southern Punjab in 325 BCE, the natives are mere extras on Alexanders stage. According to Arrian, a Greek historian of the second century CE, the Macedonian attack was a pre-emptive strike, based upon received intelligence of the Indians own war preparations (Arrian 6.4.3), and deliberately intended to inict terror and destruction upon the local population. In the course of the assault upon the natives stronghold, Alexander, suspecting that his men were hesitating or shirking, and wanting either to inspire or shame them, climbed the scaling ladders rst and mounted the wall, either alone or in the company of only a few companions. The ladders broke, leaving the king isolated and very vulnerable to enemy missiles. But instead of jumping back to his men who were waiting below to catch him (Curt. 9.5.1), Alexander leapt forward into the town. The incident offers parallel narrative, by all our extant Alexander historians, as well as occurring in other writers like Strabo and Appian,34 for the simple reason that it was one of the most remarkable battle encounters in the kings reign, the stuff of
32

33

34

Baynham 1998: 56; cf. Oakley 2005: 3.662, In holding that Curtius characterization of Alexander was muddled Tarn (1948: ii. 95100) was not entirely unfair. The Kudraka. The vulgate sources conate the Malloi with the Sudracae or Oxydracae (cf. Diod. 9.4.15; Justin 12.9.3) and place Alexanders siege in the territory of the Sudracae. See Bosworth 1996: 13342. Cf. Diod. 17.9899, Plut. Alex. 63; Mor. 327b, 341c, 343de; Arrian 6.811, Strabo 15.1.33, 701; Appian BCE 2.149e152.

295
Cambridge Collections Online Cambridge University Press, 2010

elizabeth baynham

legend,35 conspicuous for the insane bravery (or recklessness) that led Alexander into a situation which almost cost him his life, and remarkable because despite being massively outnumbered and sustaining a serious wound to the sternum, possibly even his lung, as well as enduring primitive eld surgery, the king survived. All of these factors can only have enhanced contemporary perceptions of Alexanders divinity, regardless of whether they were genuine or deliberately cultivated by the king and his followers. The episode is also well known among modern Alexander historians as the scene for a famous error in ancient historiography; namely, that one of Alexanders eyewitness historians, Ptolemy, was celebrated in several Alexander histories for his heroism at the siege. Cleitarchus and Timagenes evidently mentioned Ptolemys role; so, too, did Plutarch in the Moralia (344 d). In fact, Ptolemy was not even present in the Malloi campaign, let alone the nal assault, as he recorded himself. We do not know how widely known this inaccuracy was; only the two specialist monographs on Alexander by Curtius (9.10.21) and Arrian (6.11.8) note the mistake and explore its implications in any detail. Yet it should not surprise us that our other extant histories do not mention the error, given the abbreviated nature of their accounts and differing objectives.36 Arrian also pointedly lists other mistakes and variants: the conation of the Malloi people with the Oxydracae, the confusion over which ofcers went over the wall with the king, and the precise wounds he sustained. Such differences in detail undoubtedly underscore the fact that the transmission of the tale became contaminated at the outset, as some individuals alleged participation was highlighted, while that of others was suppressed.37 Nevertheless the historiography proclaims a consistent and strident message: Alexanders behavior at the Malloi fortress, regardless of whether it was irresponsible or inspirational, was exactly the type of thing that set him apart from other men. Perhaps it is not surprising that the episode also became a focus for some Roman literary imitatio; Augustus in his autobiography evidently wanted his audience to draw a parallel between Alexanders actions and his own inspiring example to his soldiers during their assault on the city of Metulum during the Illyrian campaign of 353 BCE.38

35 36

37

38

Bosworth 1988b: 136. Plutarch only mentions Peucestas and Limnaeus as Alexanders saviors in Alex. (63.7). Interestingly, Diodorus does not mention Ptolemys heroics in this context, although Cleitarchus was his main source for Alexander, and his history is pro-Ptolemaic elsewhere (cf. 17.103.67; 18.33.6; 18.36.6). I must acknowledge the generous access I have had to the MS of Bosworths forthcoming Commentary on Arrian volume iii; Arrian 6.9.3 ad loc. I am also grateful to Professor Bosworth for his comments on this chapter. Appian, Illyr. 19.55-56; see Bosworth 1977: 2535.

296
Cambridge Collections Online Cambridge University Press, 2010

Reception of Alexander

Justins narrative is very cursory and yet paradoxically his abbreviation creates an exaggerated account. His Alexander is a superman who scales the wall rst, and believing the fortress to be undefended leaps down into the city, whereupon he single-handedly resists the attack of several thousand men, who have suddenly emerged from their hiding places, expecting a quick and easy victory, and condent of terminating, with the life of a single man, a world-wide war. In Justin, both Alexanders credulity and performance beggar belief, but that is not the point. An ancient audience had the great heroes of epic and myth in its collective subconscious; a modern audience likewise willingly suspends disbelief during any action movie, where the protagonists are generally made of tougher stuff. Justins focus is on the kings aristeia and in emphasizing Alexanders ability as a warrior par excellence, he draws a pointed contrast with Alexanders later death by poison at the hands of the people who are closest to him like that of his great role model Heracles. Justin may abbreviate, but neither he nor Trogus before him fabricates detail. Oddly enough the Metz Epitomes version, which usually agrees with the vulgate, concurs here with Arrian and Plutarch; Alexander was accompanied by (three) other ofcers. The text names only one of Alexanders companions, Leonnatus (cf. Arrian 6.10.1 ; Curt. 9.5.1517), but it does afrm (ME 77) that the king sustained a critical wound to the front through his cuirass, circa stomachum. We do not get a lot more, but evidently the Epitomes compressed treatment is not as simple as it seems, and at least gives some indication of the complexity of the original tradition. It is Curtius and Arrian who provide the most detailed and stylish expositions, but on account of space restrictions, only a few aspects will be highlighted here. Like Diodorus (17.98.34), Curtius sets the scene prior to Alexanders assault with an exchange between the king and one of his seers, Demophon, who advises Alexander to postpone the siege because of unfavorable omens. Demophon is a historical character,39 but this is the only time he is mentioned in Curtius. Schwartz claimed that Curtius distorted a Homeric allusion which was possibly in the original source, particularly in his version of Alexanders response;40 in Diodorus, the king abuses Demophon for dampening the soldiers enthusiasm, recalling the scene immediately before the Trojan attack on the Achaean ships (Il. 12.20543), when the Trojans are frightened at the sight of a struggling eagle entwined with a snake, and Polydamas negative interpretation of its meaning draws a sharp and menacing reply from Hector. Schwartzs comment is something of a red herring. Many scholars have tended to see Diodorus as the plodding,
39

Berve 1926: no. 264.

40

Schwartz 1901: 1881; see Atkinson 2000: 539.

297
Cambridge Collections Online Cambridge University Press, 2010

elizabeth baynham

unimaginative conduit of a primary source (most likely Cleitarchus) and Curtius as the more creative (if feckless) writer. However, without the full text of Cleitarchus, it is difcult to know which of our extant historians at any one time is closest to him; we cannot assume that any derivative writer was always consistent in the way he followed an earlier tradition, and in any case, the Homeric parallel seems a little tenuous. Both the omen and Polydamas loud response are very public events, where Hector is forced to act quickly in order to swing wavering morale; the nature of the omen or how it was interpreted is not clear in the Alexander sources, although both Curtius and Diodorus seem to imply that Demophon is reporting auspices he had either heard or conducted. Admittedly, like Homer, Curtius uses Alexanders exchange with the seer to highlight the character of a major player, but that is as far as the allusion goes if any exists. Instead, the appearance of Demophon recalls other episodes in Curtius history where Alexander displays an ambiguous attitude to soothsayers. At Gaza (4.6.16), he thinks he has diverted an adverse prophecy and sustains wounds as a result, whereas prior to his crossing of the Jaxartes (7.7.224) Alexander criticizes another seer, Aristander, for giving information about an unfavorable haruspicy to an ofcer instead of to him. There is development, too; earlier, at Gaza Alexander is not unaffected by superstitio; at the Jaxartes he demands rst-hand access to disturbing information (and presumably control, since Aristander immediately takes another, favorable reading); at the Malloi fortress the king actively sees haruspicy as a hindrance. Curtius own attitude to Alexanders leap into the Malloi town is made clear at 9.5.1; by going over the wall, an incredible and unheard-of deed (res est incredibilis atque inaudita), Alexander added more to his fama (notoriety) for temeritas (rashness) than he did to his glory. In this context Alexander is needlessly reckless: it is not as though the Macedonians were in a desperate situation, but by such irresponsible exposure to danger, the king risks the safety of the entire army, which would be leaderless if he were killed. These are issues that surface in a subsequent episode a tradition, most likely from Nearchus, followed by both Curtius (9.6.1315) and Arrian (6.13.45) in which the kings senior marshals reproach him while he is convalescing. But there is an interesting link between them. Speeches in Curtius, particularly those in oratio recta (direct speech) are usually seen as the most likely examples of free composition on the historians part. This precept is generally true, but as with other aspects of the text, each speech needs individual examination. As we have seen, Alexanders response to Demophons warning has been interpreted as Curtius departure from his tradition; Alexander asks the seer
298
Cambridge Collections Online Cambridge University Press, 2010

Reception of Alexander

whether he enjoyed being interrupted when he was intent upon his art, and upon receiving a reply in the negative, tartly responds that when he is equally engaged, there is no greater impediment than a seer; in other words, as one professional to another: Demophons business may be looking at the intestines of animals, but Alexanders is ghting. This conversation has no equivalent in the other histories and could well be Curtius embroidery; the theme that ghting and glory are Alexanders raison dtre, and that he is paradoxically safer on the eld of battle than he is in his own camp, is later extensively elaborated (9.6.245). However there is also an echo in Arrian. Arrian omits lengthy speeches, preferring to cite Nearchus briey as the authority for the story that the king was upbraided by his friends for taking unnecessary risks, and then addresses the issue of Alexanders recklessness in propria persona, overlaying an allusion to Xenophon (Anab. 3.1.2630)41 through introducing an old Boeotian soldier who merely comments that deeds are mens work (Arrian 6.13.45). Again there is the suggestion that the physical struggle is what Alexander does really well. Both historians are shaping the same issues and themes; the tone of Curtius is a little critical, whereas Arrian is apologetic. But both are underscoring that this king lived and breathed conquest. This chapter started with Shakespeare; like Shakespeare, Roman historiography on Alexander is both derivative and original. It produces images of Alexander as unmistakable and striking as Andy Warhols, and although the degree of their clarity and resolution might vary, the overall picture is more complex and multifaceted than the cynicism and satire of one-dimensional, mass-produced duplicates.42

Further reading Interest in Roman historiography on Alexander has increased in recent years, although compared with the literature on giants like Tacitus, the body of modern studies remains small, and inevitably fused with discussion of Alexander sources (see Baynham 2003). For a comprehensive guide to bibliography on Quintus Curtius Rufus from 1899 to 1999, see Koch 2000. Accessible texts of Curtius include Bardon 1961/1965 (Latin and French), Rolfe 1946 (Latin and English), Mller and Schnfeld 1954 (Latin and German). This last edition is superior to the others, and was recently used by Atkinson (1998, 2000), whose edition of Curtius (Latin and Italian) for the Mondadori series contains excellent notes and bibliography. The best
41 42

Bosworth 1996: 556. I am grateful to Professor Feldherr for the invitation to contribute to the volume and for his careful editing of this chapter.

299
Cambridge Collections Online Cambridge University Press, 2010

elizabeth baynham

available English translation is Yardley and Heckel 1984, with maps, notes, and informative appendices by Heckel. There are two commentaries on Curtius: Atkinson 1980 and 1994; see also his extended article (1998), Baynhams monograph (1998), Porods dissertation (1985) and his entry in Der Neue Pauly (1997). Other signicant studies with a predominantly literary focus include Moore 1995, and several readings of various episodes in Curtius in Spencer 2002. There is a full English translation of Justin in Yardley and Develin 1994, and a translation and commentary of the Alexander books 1112 in Yardley and Heckel 1997; also Yardleys interesting (if technical) study (2003) suggests Justin was a far more creative writer than has been previously thought. The historical part of the Metz Epitome is not available in a published English translation, although a translation (Yardley) and commentary (Baynham) are currently under preparation for the Clarendon Ancient History series. A translation of the Liber de Morte (a ctitious account of Alexanders last illness and his testament) is included in Heckel and Yardley 2004; on the documents problematic date, see Heckel 1988 and Bosworths article in Bosworth and Baynham 2000.

300
Cambridge Collections Online Cambridge University Press, 2010