Delphi Complete Works of Quintus Curtius Rufus
Page 138
The title of the work is given by Hedicke as Historiae Alexandri Magni Macedonis, which appears in the colophons of codices B and F. Other colophons, and the title of Codex V, have simply Historiae and Codex S has Historiae Magni Macedonis Alexandri. Magnus was applied to Alexander as early as the first century B.C. (Nepos, De Regibus, 2).
MANUSCRIPTS AND EARLY EDITIONS
The Historiae have been preserved in a considerable number of manuscripts, none of which is earlier than the ninth century. All the surviving codices are descended from a single ancient example, originally incomplete, as stated above. Of these the Bernensis (B), Florentinus (F), Leidensis (L), Parisinus (P), and Vossianus (V) are generally regarded as the best. Because of certain corruptions they are commonly divided into two classes. One consists of Parisinus 5716 (P), in the Bibliothèque Nationale of Paris. It was written in Carolingian letters at the beginning of the tenth century, and emended by a corrector. In the fourteenth century it was revised in many places by a learned man, who used for the purpose B or a very similar codex; his alterations, additions, and omissions corrupted rather than improved the manuscript. Its last leaves have been torn off and it ends with x. 10. 16, armisque ponendis.
The second class is represented by B, F, L, and V. B, Bernensis 451, is now in the Public Library at Berne. It was written in the ninth century in handsome Carolingian letters, and corrected and annotated at about the same time by another monk, who used an example of the same codex for the purpose. Afterwards there were others who attempted to emend the work of Curtius by corrections, or erasures, or annotations. F, Florentinus, is in the Laurentian Library at Florence (plut, lxiv, cod. 35). It has lost its first quaternion and begins with iii. 10. 6, vix gladio futurum opus. It was written in Carolingian letters at the end of the tenth or the beginning of the eleventh century, and revised and annotated by a corrector. Later it suffered alterations or erasures from two or three men. L, Leidensis 137, is in the University Library at Leyden. It has lost its last folio and ends with x. 10. 16, dumtaxat patientem. It was written in the tenth century, for the most part in Carolingian letters, and revised and annotated by a corrector. Unfortunately it was later badly corrupted by alterations, insertions, and omissions by many hands. V, Vossianus, is now in the University Library at Leyden among the codices Vossiani, Q. 20. It lacks the last oho and ends with the words purgavere corpus. It was written in Carolingian letters of the tenth century, and revised and annotated by a corrector. Afterwards, especially in the fifteenth century, it was further emended or corrupted by very many hands.
Although these codices are not lacking in errors, nor wholly free from interpolation, they are nevertheless without the blemish with which all the other extant manuscripts, designated by “I,” are disfigured through the excessive lawlessness of their scribes, which makes it impossible to determine which of their readings are derived from their archetype and which are conjectures of the scribe. Each of the codices B, F, L, P, and V has its own merits and defects, so that no one of them can be wholly neglected. The agreement of both classes gives the reading of their archetype (A). Where they differ, careful consideration is necessary to determine which should be followed, taking into consideration the sense of the passage, the usage of the Latin language, and that of Curtius himself. If no decision can be reached in that way, Hedicke believes that an editor will perhaps be nearest to the truth in following P; this he regards as an inferior example of a better class, and the archetype of B, F, L, and V (C) as a better example of an inferior class. The latter archetype seems to have suffered some revision, since the four codices which are derived from it have marginal notes correcting or explaining the words of Curtius, such as often occur in manuscripts dating from the fall of the Roman empire. It is unfortunate that we have only one example of the former class, and hence cannot judge how many of its errors are due to its archetype and how many to the carelessness of the scribe.
It is highly probable that more manuscripts of this class once existed. Besides the Coloniensis, used by Franciscus Modius in his editions (Cologne, 1579 and 1591), which his notes show to have agreed in many places with P, a few fragments have come down to us of manuscripts of the tenth century whose readings agree with P and differ from those of the other class. These are D, Fragmentum Darmstadiense (cod. 3152), of the tenth century, containing iv. 2. 14, territoque rege, to iv. 2. 24, interficiunt; E, Frag. Einsidlense (476, folio 36), of the tenth century, containing vii. 1. 34, -cere homo superbissimus, to vii. 2. 8, Amyntan mea sen-; H, Frag. Herbipolitanum, of the tenth century, xii containing viii. 1. 3, ignarus, to viii. 1. 7, super, and viii. 1.10, quae appellatur Bacaira, to viii. 1.14, repulso et abire. In the same category belongs S, Schedae Vindobonenses, three leaves of a codex now lost, which are preserved in the Imperial Library at Vienna, 492 (hist prof. 622). They were written in the tenth century, and contain x. 8. 22, id inpeiratum est, to the end of the work. Hedicke also somewhat hesitatingly includes R, Excerpta Rhenaugiensia now in the Public Library at Turin (cod. 95, p. 184); these were written in the ninth century, and although, as Hedicke says, they have almost no value for emendation and load the critical notes with a great number of errors, they pass from one class to the other in a remarkable manner, and even show readings which suggest interpolation. They contain vii. — 8. 12, igilur unum ex, to vii. 8. 30, considera, and viii. — 7. 3, utor inquid beneficio, to viii. 10. 2, ducibus usurus.
All the other codices, designated in the Sigla as I, codices interpolati,” show undoubted indications of interpolation; they often give good readings, but it is impossible to determine whether the readings are due to the skill of an interpolator or to the testimony of a manuscript.
The main difference of opinion has been, whether B, F, L, and V are copies of P, or are from a separate archetype. The latter view is held by Hedicke, who bases his text upon the five codices B, F, L, P, and V, and is now generally accepted. Some help may be gained from certain of the early editions (see the Bibliographical Note). Those of Franciscus Modius, Cologne, 1579 and 1591, contain a rich collection of corrections from Janus Meller Palmer, some of which seem to have been based upon manuscripts. In the use of Modius’s editions great caution is necessary, since, although they are on the whole excellent, they have many doubtful readings, due to an arbitrary treatment of critical problems. In the editions of J. Freinshem, mentioned above, is printed a Variorum lectionum libellus, in a more correct form in the edition of 1670; this was used by Snakenburg (Delft and Leyden, 1724) in his Variantes Lectiones, but with important inaccuracies. In 1250 (Voss, De Poetis Latinis) Bishop Philip Walter (Philippus Gualterus) wrote a poem entitled Alexandreis, of which the greater part of the material was taken from Curtius and a number of his phrases and words were embodied in the poem. Among these are many which in the manuscripts of Curtius show corruptions or variants. In some of these all the manuscripts show common corruptions (e.g. v. 9- 12). In other places Walter seems to have followed readings which belong only, or mainly, to the inferior class of manuscripts (e.g. iv. 10. 27). On the contrary in other places he had before him readings which now are partly in the first class and partly in the majority of manuscripts (e.g. iii. 5. 13). The conclusion seems to be justified that in Walter’s time the condition of the text of Curtius did not differ essentially from that which appears in our older and younger codices, and that Zumpt’s idea, that the text of the interpolated manuscripts was formed in the fourteenth or fifteenth century, is at least improbable. For other early editions see the Bibliographical Note, pp xxxii-xxxiv.
THE SOURCES
While Alexander’s expedition was in progress two separate accounts of it were being made; one was a record of each day’s events, the Ephemerides, or Day Book, under the supervision of Eumenes of Cardia and Diodotus of Erythrae, the other a finished History by Callisthenes of Olynthus. After Alexander’s death several of his contemporaries wrote histories of the expedition. The most important of these were Aristobulus and Ptolemy, son of Lagus, who based their accounts on Callist
henes (see Arrian, Preface). All these records, together with a group of histories composed in the next century or two, have been completely lost, except for a few fragments collected by C. Muller in Diibner’s Arrian (Paris, 184.6). There are preserved, wholly or in part, the works of four historians and a biographer, who wrote several centuries after Alexander’s death: Arrian, Diodorus Siculus, Justin, Curtius, and Plutarch. Four of these obtained their information from various sources; the fifth and best, Arrian, based his account mainly on the histories of Ptolemy and Aristobulus, hence on Callisthenes and the Ephemerides.
Alexander’s Itinerary is the name given to a complete list of the places visited by him, collected from the works of the historians and the biographer mentioned above by C. A. Robinson, Jr. (The Ephemerides of Alexander’s Expedition, Providence, Brown University, 1932, pp. 13 ff.). It falls into three divisions. In the first division it is in substantial agreement with the five authorities (they are not equally full, but there are few discrepancies); in the second division there are many discrepancies and general confusion; In the third divison the authorities and the Itinerary are again in essential agreement. It seems clear that in the first and third divisions the later historians drew from a common source, while in the second they did not. From this Robinson concludes that the Ephemerides were available, directly or indirectly, to historians for the first and third divisions, but were completely lost for the second. The first division ends in 327 B.C., the year in which Callisthenes was arrested. Therefore until a short time before his arrest the Ephemerides were preserved through Callisthenes. This explains the agreement in the Itinerary thus far, since the historians of Alexander’s conquests are based essentially on the work of Callisthenes (Prentice, Trans. Amer. Phil. Assoc, liv. (1927), pp. 74-78), so far as it went. Subsequently, although the secretaries continued to write Ephemerides, there was no one present whose task it was to compose a formal history of the expedition, and when, sometime later, the Ephemerides were lost, there existed no authoritative source for the second division. In the third division, which extends to the end of the expedition, the various versions of the Itinerary are in essential agreement, for the Ephemerides, preserved in this division, form the basis of later accounts.
Arrian in his Preface says that he has accepted the statements of Ptolemy and Aristobulus where they agree, and where they disagree he has accepted the more credible, a plan which he does not consistently carry out. Arrian adds that he has incorporated in his narrative some statements of other writers, but he gives them merely as reports of Alexander’s action. These, when he adheres to his plan and does not present them as facts, he generally quotes as ‘legomena’.
The most complete quotations from the Ephemerides for the last days of Alexander are to be found in Arrian and Plutarch. They did not come directly from the Ephemerides, but from someone who was using and quoting them. In other words, Arrian and Plutarch did not quote directly from the Ephemerides. A story in Plutarch, Eumenes ii. 2-3, shows that the papers of Eumenes were destroyed at the time when Nearchus was about to sail from the Indus to the Persian Gulf (probably in Oct. 326 B.C., Arr viii. 21, note).
The Ephemerides may have been preserved, after the expedition, for the period covered by the third division of the Itinerary, which extends from the second crossing of the Hydaspes to the death of Alexander. This is suggested by a statement of Suidas (s v. Strattis) that Strattis of Olynthus wrote five books about the Ephemerides of Alexander, and surely Strattis must have had something to write about; but the proof is the practical agreement of the various narratives of the third division with respect to the actual itinerary. The meagreness of details in this division, in contrast with the first, may be due to the possibility that the Ephemerides were no longer in the competent hands of Eumenes, for Arrian (viii. 18. 9) speaks of Evagoras as the accountant of the whole expedition which set out from the Hydaspes. We know from Arrian v. 24. 8 that Eumenes was sent with a military force to two other cities in connexion with the capture of Sangala (cf, Nepos, Eumenes i. 6; xiii. 1), so that he may have exchanged the position of a secretary for that of commander, although Arrian still speaks of him as . Robinson suggests that the Ephemerides were collected and published, possibly by Strattis, and soon after passed into the general body of literature.
Curtius’s principal source is Clitarchus, son of Dinon (Pliny, N.H. x. (49) 136), who accompanied Alexander’s expedition and wrote a highly coloured account of it. Clitarchus treated the expedition as a brilliant adventure and the king as a tyrant spoiled by Fortune. Curtius used Clitarchus in a changed and contaminated form, perhaps through Timagenes, whom he mentions in viii. 5. 21 in connexion with Clitarchus and Ptolemy. He modelled his style upon Livy, but at times, because of his strong tendency to rhetoric, he has more resemblance to Seneca. His word-order is pointed and studied, with short, pithy sentences and frequent poetic colouring. He differs with Clitarchus in ix. 5. 21 and follows Ptolemy, censuring Clitarchus for carelessness or credulity; cf. Cicero, De Leg i. 2. 7 and Brutus xi. 42, Quintilian x. 1. 34. That Curtius was not a critical historian is shown by his words in vii. 8. 11 and ix. 1. 34, as well as in other ways.
THE AUTHOR
The name of the author is restored by Hedicke as Quintus Curtius Rufus and is generally accepted in that form, although some call him simply Quintus Curtius. The nomen and cognomen are found in the title of codex V; B, F, L, and P lack a title. The praenomen is found in the titles of many inferior manuscripts and in the colophons of B, F, L, and P, but not in that of V. It is possible that the cognomen arose from the identification of the author with one of three men, Q. Curtius, Curtius Rufus, and Q. Curtius Rufus, known in the late republican and early imperial periods. These are a bonus et eruditus adulescens who prosecuted Memmius de Ambitu (Cic. Ad Quint. Fratrem iii. 2); a Q. Curtius Rufus, named in the Index of Suetonius, De Rhet. (L.C.L. Suetonius ii p. 395), where he appears between M. Porcius Latro and L. Valerius Primanus; a Curtius Rufus mentioned by Tacitus, Ann xi. 20-21, and by Pliny, Epist vii. 27.
Since the date of Cicero’s letter is 55 B.C., it seems hardly probable that the first-named Curtius outlived Augustus. The life of the last-named seems to have fallen in the period of Tiberius, Caligula, and Claudius. It seems improbable that he wrote the Historiae, because of the nature of his career, the failure of Tacitus to mention any literary work in his full account of the man, and the inexactness of the author of the Histonae in military matters. The Q. Curtius Rufus mentioned by Suetonius may have appeared first under Tiberius (see M. Seneca, Controv ii. 10 and ii. 12 on M. Porcius Latro) and he may have continued to teach under Caligula and Claudius and have lived into the time of Vespasian. That he wrote the Historiae at an advanced age under Vespasian, although held by some, seems untenable, since that work shows no signs of the hand of an aged man.
There are two passages in the Historiae from which conclusions about the author’s date have been drawn. The first is iv. 4. 21, where he says of Tyre: “multis ergo casibus defuncta, et post excidium renata, nunc tamen, longa pace cuncta refovente, sub tutela Romanae mansuetudinis adquiescit.” From this passage Niebuhr assigned the writer’s time to that of Septimius Severus, who gave Tyre the rights of a colony as a reward for its support in the war against Niger. The condition of Rome when Severus became emperor corresponds in some respects with the conditions related in the second passage (x. 9- 3-6), but subita serenitas cannot apply to the battles with Pescennius Niger and Clodius Albinus, not to mention other objections. Of these it may be emphasized that in the time of Antigonus (315 B.C.) Tyre was able to sustain a siege of fifteen months (Diod xix. 61. 5).
In considering this question there seems to be no reason to suppose that Curtius composed either passage as an indication of the time at which he was writing, or that he had any idea that such an indication was necessary, unless we are to assume with some (e g. Valens Acidalius, Animadversiones in Quintum Curtium, Frankfurt, 1594) that there was a conspiracy of silence with reference to the author of the Histor
iae. If we do assume this, which seems most improbable, although it is true that his work was seldom, if ever, mentioned in ancient times, he certainly could have dated his time more clearly and without resort to the alleged word-play on câlïgo and Caligula. To say nothing of the variations in quantity, caligo and caligare are frequent in Curtius in their literal sense, and he seldom, if ever, indulges in word-plays.
Apart from the author’s purpose in writing it, however, the passage may of course be used to date the work, since it is obviously not from a Greek original and there are no textual variants of importance. It has been understood to refer to the accession of many rulers, from Augustus to Constantine. At present most scholars favour Claudius or Vespasian. The translator, after some hesitation, decides for Claudius on chronological grounds, since there is no indication that the author was advanced in years; and he is inclined to identify him with the rhetorician named by Suetonius. The Historiae seem to be the work of a rhetorician rather than of an historian. One of his principle aims was to insert in his work brilliant speeches and romantic incidents. Doubtless he wished to give a correct account, but his imperfect knowledge of history and geography led him into many errors. His speeches are carefully prepared and are of a high order, although the estimate of Zumpt, quoted by McCrindle (o c p. 11), that they are marked with a degree of power and effectiveness which scarcely anything in that species of writing can surpass,” seems decidedly too high. Curtius was admired by many great scholars of early times, but of late he can hardly be called a popular writer, in spite of the interest of the Historiae. As Rufus is a common cognomen, it is of course possible that a different Q. Curtius Rufus, otherwise unknown, was the author.