The language of the author is an important factor in determining his date. It has been extravagantly praised and unduly criticized. An example of the former is the verdict of McCrindle (o c p. 10): “it may also be said that his style for elegance does not fall much short of the perfection of Cicero himself.” Opinions about his language differ from that of mimpt (ed. 1849, pp xxv f.), who says: “die im Oanzen noch sehr reine, aber doch in einzelnen Dingen schon zum Schlechten sich hinneigende Latinitât auf das Zeitalters des Augustus weise,” to that of Niebuhr (p. 327 of the work cited), “dass Curtius habe zwar gewandt und glücklich die Manier und Sprache des augustischen Zeitalters, namentlichdie des Livius, nachgeahmt, allein mitunter verrathe sich durch einzelne Ausdrücke die spate, eiserne Zeit.” What Zumpt says would apply to the times of Claudius or Vespasian as well as to that of Augustus, and that of Niebuhr may be disregarded. The statement of Miitzell in his edition (Berlin, 1841) “is a fair one in maintaining (p lxxxvi): “dass der sprachliche Stoff bei Curtius in etymologischer, lexicalischer, und syntactischer Hinsicht mit wenigen nicht eben wesent-lichen Ausnahmen noch entschieden den Charakter der Klassicitàt trâgt, dass dagegen die rhetorische Behandlung desselben den nachtheiligen Einfluss, den der Bildungsgang des Schriftstellers und der weniger strenge und reine Geschmack des Zeitalters auf die gesammte Darstellung haben musste, sehr bestimmt erkennen lâsst.” This opinion Miitzell supports by numerous notes in his commentary. It seems possible that a more minute study of the language and style of Curtius might lead to some results, as well as further study of his clausulae. A beginning of the latter study was begun by Pichon (Revue de Phil xxx pp. 90 if.), based upon metrical clausulae, with no very decisive results. There seem to be not a few indications of accentual clausulae, as in Ammianus, and it has already been observed that these antedate the time of Ammianus.
MACEDONIA
Macedonia played no important part in the history of Greece until Philip II, son of Amyntas and father of Alexander the Great, became its king in 359 B.C.
In early times it was a small hereditary kingdom, situated north of Thessaly and Mount Olympus, east of the Shar range containing Mount Pindus, and west of the river Axius, not including Paeonia to the north and the coastline to the south. It was the basis of a river system flowing through broad plains separated by high mountains and making their way in three parallel lines to the sea. The rivers hindered the populace from uniting, but furnished access to the sea.
Various mythical genealogies derived the name Macedon from Macednus, son of Lycaon, from whom the Arcadians were descended (Apollodorus iii. 8. 1), or identified the Macedonians with the Dorians (Hdt i. 56). These and others of the kind were merely attempts to connect this semi-barbarous people with the rest of the Hellenic race. They were surrounded by Illyrians, Thracians, and Epirotes, but were an Aryan people, most closely resembling the Thessalians and other ruder members of the Greek race. Their native language most resembled that of the Thessalians. Whether Macedonia as a whole was closely akin to Hellenic stock is an uncertain and probably insoluble question, but the royal stock was in part of Hellenic blood.
The Macedonians gradually extended their frontiers to the west and south, but did not yet reach the sea (Thuc ii. 99; Hdt viii. 138). Their country was divided into Upper and Lower (or Highland and Lowland) Macedonia. The latter became famous through the energy of the dynasty of Edessa (in the small plain between Mount Bermion and the Axius), later called Aegae, who called themselves Heraclids and traced their descent to the Temenidae of Argos through Caranus. He, before the first Olympiad, made an expedition from Argos into Macedonia, and because of aid rendered to the king of the Orestae against the Eordenses was given a part of his kingdom (Diod vii. 16. 2). Little was known of them before the reign of Amyntas (520-500 B.C.), the fifth successor of Perdiccas I, who pushed his way from Aegae into Lower Macedonia in the seventh century B.C.; but further advance was prevented for a whole century by constant wars with the Illyrians, who not only attacked the frontiers, but formed a great part of the population and obstinately opposed the adoption of Hellenic manners of life.
The son of Amyntas, Alexander Philhellen (c. 480 B.C.), was a contemporary and to certain extent an ally of Xerxes. He presented himself as a contestant in the Olympic Games and was accepted after he had succeeded in proving his Argive descent by way of Caranus. He and his son, Perdiccas II, because of the fall of the Persian power in Thrace, gradually extended their dominion as far as the river Strymon (modern Struma). Perdiccas made Pella his capital. He was at first an ally of Athens, but became her active enemy. He was succeeded by his son Archelaus (415-399), who first established fortresses and built roads. He also formed a Macedonian army and intended to procure a navy (Solin ix. 17). He had tragedies of Euripides acted at his court under that poet’s direction and adorned his palace with paintings by Zeuxis (Ael. Var. Hist xiv. 7). For some generations the court language was Attic Greek. Archelaiis met a violent death in 399 B.C. (Diod xiv. 37. 5), and his son Orestes was made king under the regency of Aëropus. The period from 399 to 369 is one of confusion and dis-xxiv order, and little more than the names of the kings is known. Aëropus after four years killed his ward and reigned in his place for two years. He was succeeded by his son Pausanias, who after two years was assassinated and succeeded by Amyntas, who was obliged to cede all the country around the Thermaic Gulf to Olynthus (Diod xv. 19. 3). Amyntas, who was a dependent, if not a tributary of Jason, tagus of Thessaly, died at about the same time as Jason (370 B.C.), and was succeeded by his young son Alexander II, who was assassinated after two years. Eurydicê, widow of Amyntas, with her two sons, Perdiccas III and Philip, took refuge with Iphicrates, who secured the throne of Macedonia to the family of Amyntas (360-359; Nepos, Iphicrates iii. 3). Pelopidas placed a regent over Perdiccas and carried off Philip, then fifteen years old, as a hostage to Thebes, where he profited by the friendship of Epaminondas. He introduced military improvements, making the Macedonian phalanx a more solid version of the Theban and supporting it by charging cavalry. Perdiccas was slain in battle with the Illyrians in 359 B.C. and succeeded by Philip II, who ruled until 336 B.C. (Diod xvi. 1. 3).
Philip made his little barbarian kingdom into a powerful nation. He trained his son to carry out his policy and plans. For his war with the Athenians and his victory at Chaeronea, his appointment as Commander of the Greeks in an expedition against the Persians, his marriage with Cleopatra and quarrel with Alexander, his assassination in 336 B.C. and the condition of his kingdom at the time of his death, see the Summary of Book I (pp. 15-18).
ALEXANDER
For his early life and education and his career until the beginning of Book III see the Summaries of Books I and II (pp. 3-59). The dates of his expedition involve difficulties from the year 331 B.C., when he defeated Darius at Gaugamela, to his recrossing of the Hindu Kush in 327. There is difference of opinion as to the years 330-329 and 328-327, involving Alexander’s first crossing of the Hindu Kush. This question has been discussed by Hogarth and Tarn and most recently by Robinson, who summarizes the views of Hogarth and Tarn and offers a new theory of his own. The evidence for the period 330-327 is as follows: Alexander, setting out from Persepolis some time in 330, resumed the pursuit of Darius and found his murdered body near Shahrud. Then after a delay in the region of the Caspian he turned south into Seistan, and marched in deep snow (Arr iii. 28. 1 f.) through the land of the Arachotae, and arrived at the southern foot of the Hindu Kush. Here Strabo (xv pp. 724-725) says that he established winter quarters and built a city (Alexandria ad Caucasum). He crossed the range into Bactra before the snow was yet out of the passes (Arr iii. 28. 9), in the early spring of 329, crossed the Oxus in pursuit of Bessus, and halted at Maracanda. From there he went to the Iaxartes, and carried on a vigorous campaign in the surrounding neighbourhood. He then proceeded to Maracanda and Zariaspa. He remained in Zariaspa “until the depth of winter passed” (Arr iv. 7. 1). Arrian does not mention the coming of spring, but says that Alexander recros
sed the Oxus, swept the country as far as Maracanda, and carried on a campaign for some time, chiefly against Spitamenes. He then had his army rest at Nautaca “for what was about the depth of the winter” (Arr iv. 18. 2). On the approach of spring Alexander left Nautaca and resumed operations against the “rocks,” went to Bactra, and in the early summer of 327 recrossed the Hindu Kush.
From this evidence it would seem that Alexander passed through the land of the Parapanisadae (roughly the Cabul valley) in November (i.e. just after the setting of the Pleiades), spent the winter of 330- 329 at the south foot of the Hindu Kush, the winter of 329-328 at Zariaspa, and that of 328-327 at Nautaca. Hogarth first pointed out that it was impossible for Alexander, leaving the Caspian in October 330, as is generally assumed, to reach the Hindu Kush by the winter of 330-329. He therefore places Alexander in Seistan for the winter of 330-329, in Cabul (the land of the Parapanisadae) in November 329, and at the foot of the Hindu Kush that winter. This leaves the winter of 328-327 to be accounted for, with both Zariaspa and Nautaca mentioned by Arrian as winter quarters. Hogarth maintains that but one winter is referred to and divides the winter between the two towns. Tarn says that Alexander apparently never took winter quarters at all in 330-329, but in the spring of 329 had reached the Cabul valley, thus meeting Hogarth’s objection of distance. Accepting the obvious meaning of Arrian, he assigns the winters of 329-328 and 328-327 to Zariaspa and Nautaca respectively. The arguments against Hogarth are that there is absolutely no evidence that Alexander spent a winter in Seistan, and there are difficulties in assuming that only one winter was spent in Zariaspa-Nautaca. He made an important contribution to the subject by pointing out that Alexander, leaving Zadracarta in November, could not possibly have reached the Hindu Kush, as had been previously believed, by December. Robinson agrees with Hogarth that the obvious meaning of Arrian and Strabo is that Alexander was in the Cabul valley in November and took up winter quarters at the south foot of the Hindu Kush, and with Tarn that Arrian’s later account simply means that Alexander spent one winter in Zariaspa and the next at Nautaca. He does not agree with Hogarth that Alexander spent a winter in Seistan before the one at the Hindu Kush and divided a winter between Zariaspa and Nautaca; nor with Tarn that Alexander did not reach the Hindu Kush until the spring of 329- To meet the very serious objection of Hogarth that Alexander, leaving Zadracarta in October, could hardly reach the Hindu Kush that winter, Robinson raises the question whether Alexander really did leave Zadracarta in October. Hogarth (p. 289) gives the following table from Gauaramela:
His conclusion is that the death of Darius took place near Shahrud about the 300th day after Gaugamela, i.e.., at the very end of July or beginning of August, 330. This corresponds with Arrian’s statement (iii. 22. 2) that the month of the murder was the Attic Hecatombaeon. But the month-dates of Arrian are uncertain, as Hogarth warns us two pages before (p. 287). The only point in this table that can be questioned is Plutarch’s statement that Alexander remained in Persia four months. The question is whether we ought to believe this single statement of Plutarch or the evidence of Arrian (supported incidentally by Strabo). If we accept the four months of Plutarch, then Darius’ death must have occurred in midsummer, 330, and we are unable to accept Arrian’s statements that Alexander reached the Hindu Kush that winter and spent a winter respectively in Zariaspa and Nautaca. But if we assume that Plutarch exaggerated the length of Alexander’s stay in Persia, then Darius’ death will fall early enough in 330 to allow Alexander time to reach the Hindu Kush that winter and to spend the next two winters at Zariaspa and Nautaca respectively. The latter is the alternative which Robinson accepts. He shortens Alexander’s stay in Persia to seven weeks, which he regards as a more reasonable time for a man of action, and Arrian (iii. 20. 1) tells us that when Alexander did start, he pressed on with the utmost vigour. Robinson’s conclusion is illustrated by the following table:
This seems to be the only arrangement which fits Arrian’s statements. The statement of Plutarch may be neglected, as unreasonable, and in the light of his general account of the stay in Persia, which Robinson (p. 78) calls “worthless.”
There is also a slight difference of opinion as to the day of Alexander’s death. Arrian and Plutarch give the most complete quotations from the Ephemerides for the last days of Alexander, taking them, not from the Ephemerides directly, but from someone who was using and quoting from them. Arrian’s account is fuller than that of Plutarch, but he does not specify the days by dates, but simply says “on the next day.” It is possible, however, to arrange his whole account into a day-by-day record from his banquet with Médius to the day of Alexander’s death, with only three exceptions. The first of these is the day which Robinson designates in his Itinerary (p. 65) as the 18th. It is obviously subsequent to the 17th, for Alexander has slept in the bathroom (as Plutarch also says) after a long night of drinking, and then is carried to the sacrifices. There is no indication from the rather complete account of the eighteenth day that the activities of more than one day are here described. After the sacrifices Alexander lay in the banqueting-hall, where he discussed plans with his officers, and then, when the heat of the day was over, crossed the river to the park. The second exception is the day which Robinson has called the 25th. There is no definite break in Arrian’s account between this and the preceding day. Arrian says that on the next day (the 24th) Alexander, although very ill, offered the sacrifices. He then gave orders for the generals to remain in the court, and the taxiarchs and pentakosiarchs to spend the night outside. Turning to Plutarch, we find the content of his account and almost the very wording to be the same. Certainly this part of Arrian must be equated with the 24th day of Plutarch. Arrian, continuing, says that “Alexander, being now in a dangerous condition, was brought from the park to the palace. When his officers entered the room, he knew them, but no longer spoke, being speechless.” Surely this is the same day as described by Plutarch: “on the 25th, he was carried to the palace on the other side. He slept a little, but the fever did not abate. When his officers came to him he was speechless.” The third exception is the day of Alexander’s death. At first glance it is not obvious from Arrian whether Alexander died on the day called by Robinson the 27th or one or more days later. But at least one night intervenes between this day and the day of his death, for Attalus, Seleucus, and others slept in the temple of Serapis and asked the god certain questions. The companions reported the answers of the god, says Arrian, and not much later Alexander died. It is perhaps safe to assert that by this day Arrian meant the 28th. Plutarch tells of two days’ celebration before he states that he is quoting from the Ephemerides. He begins his explicit quotations on the 18th day of the month Daesius and records each day thereafter with just two exceptions. The first is the 23rd, which for some reason Plutarch does not mention. The second is the 27th, but just before it he gives the date 26th and just after it the date 28th. Arrian supplies the needed division. Hence, according to Arrian, he died on the 28th.
The Delphi Classics Catalogue
We are proud to present a listing of our complete catalogue of English titles, with new titles being added every month. Buying direct from our website means you can make great savings and take advantage of our instant Updates service. You can even purchase an entire series (Super Set) at a special discounted price.
Only from our website can readers purchase the special Parts Edition of our Complete Works titles. When you buy a Parts Edition, you will receive a folder of your chosen author’s works, with each novel, play, poetry collection, non-fiction book and more divided into its own special volume. This allows you to read individual novels etc. and to know precisely where you are in an eBook. For more information, please visit our Parts Edition page.
Series Contents
Series One
Anton Chekhov
Charles Dickens
D.H. Lawrence
Dickensiana Volume I
Edgar Allan Poe
Elizabeth Gaskell
&
nbsp; Fyodor Dostoyevsky
George Eliot
H. G. Wells
Henry James
Ivan Turgenev
Jack London
James Joyce
Jane Austen
Joseph Conrad
Leo Tolstoy
Louisa May Alcott
Mark Twain
Oscar Wilde
Robert Louis Stevenson
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
Sir Walter Scott
The Brontës
Thomas Hardy
Virginia Woolf
Wilkie Collins
William Makepeace Thackeray
Series Two
Alexander Pushkin
Alexandre Dumas (English)
Andrew Lang
Anthony Trollope
Bram Stoker
Christopher Marlowe
Daniel Defoe
Edith Wharton
F. Scott Fitzgerald
G. K. Chesterton
Gustave Flaubert (English)
H. Rider Haggard
Herman Melville
Honoré de Balzac (English)
J. W. von Goethe (English)
Jules Verne
L. Frank Baum
Lewis Carroll
Marcel Proust (English)
Nathaniel Hawthorne
Nikolai Gogol
O. Henry
Rudyard Kipling
Tobias Smollett
Victor Hugo
William Shakespeare
Series Three
Ambrose Bierce
Ann Radcliffe
Ben Jonson
Charles Lever
Émile Zola
Ford Madox Ford
Geoffrey Chaucer
Delphi Complete Works of Quintus Curtius Rufus Page 139