In Search of the Lost Testament of Alexander the Great

by David Grant

  153.Following Robbins (2001) p 79.

  154.Discussion of the Bronze Age references in West (2008) p 76.

  155.Robbins (2001) p 66. Herm (1975) p 180 for phoinikia grammata and its early Greek usage.

  156.Discussed in Robins (1987).

  157.The Suda identified a work titled Selection of Attic Words and Phrases that likely belongs to the grammatician.

  158.Polybius 3.22, translation by Ian Scott-Kilvert, Penguin Classics edition, 1979.

  159.Discussed in Revilo (1949) pp 249-257; cited in Tacitus 11.14 and Suetonius Claudius 41.

  160.J Dryden Preface concerning Ovid’s Epistles 16.

  161.Grant (1979 p XI.

  162.Nietzsche (1974) pp 137-8 and citing Nisetich (1980) p 73.

  163.Tacitus 11.13 for Claudius’ comment on the alphabet. He is often referred to as the ‘Clod’ thanks to Seneca’s work best known today (thanks to Cassius Dio) as the Apocolocyntosis, a satire of Claudius’ last days and his death attributed to Seneca; full discussion in chapter titled Comets, Colophons and Curtius Rufus.

  164.See discussion on the Apelles portraits in Stewart (1993) p 27. Pliny preserved much of what we know about Apelles and his paintings, for example at 35.86-92 for his payment by Alexander; also Plutarch 4.3-4. For the claim that Alexander allowed none other to paint him Cicero Ad Familiares 15.12.7, Horace Epistles 2.1.239, Pliny 7.125, Valerius Maximus 8.11 ext. 2.

  165.Pliny 13.74-82 and Casson (2001) p 111 for Claudius’ works and recitals. According to Suetonius Claudius 42.2, Claudius wrote a history of the Etruscans in twenty books.

  166.Discussed in Grant (1979) p IX.

  167.Quoting from the Preface to Ranke’s Geschichte der romanischen und germanischen Völker von 1494 bis 1514, 1824.

  168.Suetonius is rumoured to have had an affair with Vibia Sabina, then married to Hadrian, according to the Historia Augusta 11.3. Suetonius was dismissed from office for it. This may be rumour and he may have simply been disrespectful, for we would have expected harsher treatment if true.

  169.The earlier model being in the form of JF Bielfeld The elements of Universal erudition, Containing an Analytical Abridgement of the Science, Polite Arts and Belles Lettres, Vol. III, Published by J Robson, London, 1770.

  170.Quoting Cruttwell (1877) p 7.

  171.Quoting Teuffel-Schwabe (1892) pp 4-5.

  172.Discussed by Momigliano (1954) p 27.

  173.Hammond (1993) p 154.

  174.Hammond (1993) p 190 and Pearson (1960) p 213.

  175.Syme (1987) pp 111-114 and discussed by Baynham (1999) p 201. The Metz Epitome dating discussed in Bosworth-Baynham (2000) p 65; Baynham (1995) pp 63-65. Testudo also appeared in the Metz Epitome although the text is corrupt. However Wagner suggested the reference to the king’s tunic employs a phrase rarely used in Latin and argues for a Hellenic original; for discussion see p 65. For the unique citations of the Metz Epitome see Heckel-Yardley (2004).

  176.Curtius used testudo at 5.3.9 and implied its formation again at 5.3.21 and 7.9.3.

  177.Xenophon Hellenika 3.1.7.

  178.Wheeler (1902); Mahaffy (1888) and quoting Goralski (1989) p 83 on Rooke.

  179.Discussed in Shipley (1903) pp 1-25.

  180.Following Shipley (1903) pp 7-8.

  181.Following the observation by Momigliano (1966) p 139 and quoting Momigliano (1966) p 134; and for Stephanus pp 139-140.

  182.Valla’s translation of Thucydides Preface 4. Valla was quoting Cicero De Oratore 9.30.

  183.Valla’s translation of Thucydides Preface 9.

  184.Discussed in Shipley (1903) pp 1-25.

  185.Full detail of Symmachus in Hedrick (2000) pp 181-182; for detail of the later recensions see Foster (1874) p 32. For details of the Nichamachean recensions see Hall (1913) pp 246-247 and Kraus (1994). The new copy bore the subscription Victorianus emendabam dominis Symmachis (‘I Victorianus emended (this) by the authority of Symmachus’), thus anticipating the useful colophons, the publication and production notes, of the Middle Ages.

  186.Discussed in Gregory (1886) pp 27-32.

  187.Horace Ars Poetica.

  188.Niebuhr seems to have appreciated the role of the common people after his term of residence in England. The Römische Geschichte was first published between 1827 and 1828. Also Grafton (1990) p 69 for comment on Niebuhr and Livy.

  189.Quoting Niebuhr (1844) p 38 who proposed scribes refused to copy the later books of a by then ‘old and loquacious’ Livy.

  190.For the description of Livy see Macaulay (1828). Livy 31 for the scale of the task before him.

  191.A dittography is a scribal error in which a letter, syllable or word is accidentally repeated in the text; a haplography is an error where a word, syllable or letter is written just once instead of twice, a parablepsy is an error resulting from a distraction to the eye which causes an omission in the text.

  192.Plutarch Demosthenes 14.4.

  193.Discussion in Cook (2000) pp 537-547.

  194.Discussion of Demosthenes’ spuriously assigned speeches in Worthington (2000) p 1.

  195.The debate is discussed in Schamp (2000) p 232.

  196.Photius Myriobiblion Introduction.

  197.Photius ran a reading circle at which summaries of histories were read; discussed by JR Morgan in Gill-Wiseman (1993) p 194.

  198.Many of the Greek city-states used different names for the calendar months. Caesar abolished the lunar year and intercalary month, reverting to a solar year. Diodorus tried to synchronise the archon changes in Athens with the campaign years during the Successor Wars, causing as much as six months’ slippage along the way. Discussion and citations for Caesar in Hannah (2005) p 98. Also discussed in more detail in chapter titled The Silent Siegecraft of the Pamphleteers.

  199.Digory Whear On the Plan and Method of Reading Histories 1623.

  200.Translation from JF Healy, Pliny the Elder on Science and Technology, Oxford University Press, 1999, Preface p VIII.

  201.Taken from PG Naiditch and R Resinski Philodemus and Greek Papyri: an exhibition 1 April-31 August 1994, UCLA, University Research Library, Dept. of Special Collections, April 1994. This was read in a review of 1847, some eleven years after Gell had died. The Caliph Omar of Damascus is one of the suspects for the burning of the Library at Alexandria. Its actual fate is unconfirmed.

  202.Following Bishop (1983) p 360 and p 366.

  203.Aristotle’s work is thought to be preserved through his lecture notes. The current organisation into treatises and sequences was certainly not his. Diogenes Laertius Aristotle 12 for the calculation of lines. For Demetrius of Phalerum see Reeve (2001) Introduction p 15; Diogenes Laertius Demetrius for detail of his output.

  204.Diogenes Laertius Plato 55-61 mentioned Thrasyllus’ collection and identifications. Well discussed in Gibson (1998).

  205.Pliny preface 24.

  206.Cicero Ad Quintum, fr 2.11.4 The full citation is ‘paene pusillus Thucydides’ or ‘almost a miniature Thucydides’.

  207.Flower (1994) Introduction p 1. Diodorus 16.3.8 for the loss of five of Theopompus’ books.

  208.Diogenes Laertius Diogenes 24.

  209.Plutarch Nicias 29.

  210.Full discussion in Balme (2001).

  211.Discussed in Gudeman Greeks (1894) p 72.

  212.Discussed in Gudeman Romans (1894) p 161. Aulus Gellius on the other hand suggested there had been another comedian named Plautios and hence the confusion.

  213.Details in Gudeman Romans (1894) p 159.

  214.Herodotus 4.42 reads: ‘For Libya shows clearly that it is bounded by the sea, except where it borders on Asia. Necho king of Egypt first discovered this and made it known. When he had finished digging the canal which leads from the Nile to the Arabian Gulf, he sent Phoenicians in ships, instructing them to sail on their return voyage past the Pillars of Heracles until they came into the northern sea and so to Egypt. So the Phoenicians set out from the Red Sea and sailed the southern sea; whenever autumn came they would put in and plant the land i
n whatever part of Libya they had reached, and there await the harvest; then, having gathered the crop, they sailed on, so that after two years had passed, it was in the third that they rounded the Pillars of Heracles and came to Egypt. There they said (what some may believe, though I do not) that in sailing around Libya they had the sun on their right hand.’

  215.Almagest derived from the Arab superlative megiste preceded by ‘al’.

  216.Cleanthes’ denunciation of Aristarchus was recorded in Plutarch’s Concerning the Face that Appears in the Orb of the Moon 922F while Aristarchus’ proposal of an axial spinning earth about the ecliptic was provided in the same text at 922F-923A. Diogenes Laertius Cleanthes additionally recorded that Cleanthes wrote a treatise named Against Aristarchus, a work in which presumably the denunciation sat.

  217.See discussion in Pownall (2004).

  218.Greek heliocentric theory discussed in Teresi (2002) p 130 and Heath (1913) pp 301-311. The view that ancient Greek astronomers and philosophers were ignorant of heliocentrism and adhered to a geocentric view is challenged in I Liritzis (2008) Ancient Greek Heliocentric Views Hidden from Prevailing Beliefs?, Journal of Astronomical History and Heritage 11 (1), pp 39-49.

  219.St. Augustine Confessions book 8.7.17.

  220.St Augustine Of the Falseness of the History Which Allots Many Thousand Years to the World’s Past, from The City of God Book 12.10.

  221.Discussed in JF Healy Pliny the Elder on Science and Technology, Oxford University Press, 1999.

  222.PG Naiditch and R Resinski Philodemus and Greek Papyri, UCLA University Research Department, Exhibition Catalogue, 1994, quoting Sir William Gell.

  223.Quoting Deane (1918) p 41 for ‘antiquarian sentiment’.

  224.Momigliano (1977) p 79 ff for discussion of Pausanias’ reintroduction into Europe.

  225.Casson (2001) p 57. For Aristotle’s prejudice evidenced in the Constitution of the Athenians see Grant (1995) p 125.

  226.A point made by Flower (1994) p 42. The ‘Attic Bee’ quote is from Digory Whear’s historical treatise in 1623, a term previously used for Sophocles: see Athenaeus 13.598c. Barnes (2000) p 12; see discussion of the Oxyrhynchus historian in Warner (1966) pp 16-17 and Shrimpton (1991), Introduction, p XVIII. Warner (1966) p 30 for the suggestion that Cratippus may be the author. The historians appear to criticise Thucydides’ use of speeches as part of the narrative; Sacks (1990) p 94 for Cratippus’ opinion, from Dionysius of Halicarnassus On Thucydides 16.349. As the work appears to be a continuation of Thucydides’ account (410 BCE onwards) a link is further established.

  227.See further discussion of the finds at Oxyrhynchus in Green (2007) pp xxxiv-xxxv.

  228.Discussed in Higbie (2003).

  229.Pseudo-Plutarch Lycurgus 841f. Highet (1949) for the surviving plays.

  230.They are listed by Dosson in his Etude sur Quinte Curce, 1887, pp 315-356.

  231.McKitrerick (2004) p 28. Also a comprehensive summary of the Curtian manuscripts given in Curtius’ History of Alexander, Loeb Classical Library edition, 1971 reprint, Introduction pp IX-XIV, translation by JC Rolfe.

  232.J Mutzell had already published an influential well-informed edition in 1842 in Berlin in two volumes; discussed in Timpanaro-Most (2005) p 53. The two traditions was a distinction first made by Nikolaas Heinsius, the Dutch philologist and son of Daniel Heinsius, Joseph Scaliger’s pupil.

  233.Following Baynham (1998) p 37.

  234.Discussed in Atkinson (1997) pp 3448-3449; also Curtius’ History of Alexander, Loeb Classical Library edition, 1971 reprint, Introduction pp IX-XIV, translation by JC Rolfe.

  235.Following discussions in Baynham (1998) pp 4-5, Berzunza (1941) p 133 and Curtius’ History of Alexander, Loeb Classical Library edition, 1971, Introduction pp XXXII-XXXIII.

  236.Quoting Higbie (2003) p 222.

  237.Following Berzunza (1941) p 133.

  238.‘Anonymous fluidity’ taken from Townsend (1996) introduction p 23.

  239.Full discussion of the supplements in Curtius and the associated MSS can be found in Smits (1987) pp 89-124.

  240.Details in Smits (1987) p 90. The 1946 Loeb Classical Library edition of Curtius still houses Freinsheim’s added text. The comment on Freinsheim’s efforts preserved in the preface by WH Crosby in the 1854 Cellarius edition.

  241.John Dryden Preface Concerning Ovid’s Epistles 16

  242.Ovid Metamorphoses, Epilogue, lines 871-874.

  243.‘The Iliad’s wife’ as proposed by Samuel Butler, see Fitzgerald (1998) p ix for discussion.

  244.Highet (1949) pp 114-115 for the various Iliad translations.

  245.Bentley’s comment appeared in Samuel Johnson’s The works of the poets of Great Britain and Ireland (1804) p 568.

  246.This tradition was discounted by Timaeus (but upheld by Diodorus; see Diodorus 13.90.4-7 in which he attacked Timaeus’ account).

  247.Lucian Phalaris.

  248.For Phalaris’ cruelty see Pindar Pythian 1.96-98.

  249.The definitive work on the Epistles was R Bentley’s Dissertation upon the epistles of Phalaris, 1697, collected in Works of Richard Bentley, Dyce (1836) v.1-2. It included dissertations upon the epistles of Themistocles, Socrates and Euripides. Full discussion of the ‘battle of the books’ in Lynch (1998). Highet (1949) p 285 for Bentley’s parallel exposures.

  250.Discussed in Highet (1949) pp 285-286; see chapter titled Spear-Won History: the Fable Agreed On for the Battle of the Books.

  251.The Miscellaneous Prose Works of Sir Walter Scott, 1848 Volume 1, Life of John Dryden p 318.

  252.Following the observation of DS Carne-Ross in Fitzgerald (1998) pp lxi-lxiii on poetic structure.

  253.Quoting Shelmerdine (1995) Preface iii. Highet (1949) p 200 for the loss of lyric poetry.

  254.J Dryden Preface Concerning Ovid’s Epistles, 1683 text, sections 12 and 19.

  255.The comment on Bardon’s edition came from WS Watt and is discussed in JE Atkinson’s commentary p 23 on Curtius in A Commentary on Q. Curtius Rufus’ Historiae Alexandri Magni, Books 5 to 7, 2, Acta Classica, Supplementum 1.

  256.Grant (1956) p 25.

  257.Quoting Wolfgang Schwadewaldt in the Bryn Mawr Classical Review, June 2010, review of Mindt N (2008) Manfred Fuhrmann als Vermittler der Antike: ein Beitrag zu Theorie und Praxis des Ubersetzens, Transformationen der Antike, Bd5, Berlin, New York.

  258.Discussed in detail by Pitcher (2009) chapters 1 and 2.

  259.Modern opinion credits Mikhaēl III (842-867) and the family councilor Theoctistus with the reforms that heralded in the ‘Macedonian Renaissance’, a name coined in the title of a book by K Weitzmann in 1948. For the various traditions relating to Basils I’s roots see discussion in Tobias (2007). For the ‘Third Sophistic’ see Pernot (2000) p 206.

  260.Quoting from the Bryn Mawr Classical Review June 2010 and its review of Mindt N (2008) Manfred Fuhrmann als Vermittler der Antike: ein Beitrag zu Theorie und Praxis des Ubersetzens. Transformationen der Antike, Bd5, Berlin, New York.

  261.Ovid alluded to many humorous comparisons that would be immediately identifiable to his audience in Rome, but which require additional explanation today to avoid them being taken literally and the wit overlooked. Discussion in Raeburn-Feeney (2004) translator’s note xli. Lucian engaged in satiric dialogue, often turning facts on their head for humour. None of his works dated back earlier than the 9th century manuscripts. For a full list of the manuscripts see the commentary by AM Harmon to the 1913 Loeb Classical Library edition of The Works of Lucian.

  262.Quoting M Wood from Gill-Wiseman (1993) Prologue xiii.

  263.Cicero De finibus honorum et malorum 3.74; discussed in Long (1986) p 107.

  264.Weill (1980) pp 158-159. The lack of vowels was particular to early Semitic languages.

  265.More on the so-called last plans in chapter titled Babylon: the Cipher and Rosetta Stone.

  266.See discussion in Shipley (2000) p 40. Quoting Atkinson (2009) p 146 for an alternative transmission into Kalistei, a pun on the
message on the Apple of Discord from Homer, for Justin 12.15.11 suggested Alexander was tossing his men the Apple of Discord. Diodorus 17.117.4 and Arrian 7.26.3 for kratistos: ‘the strongest or noblest’. Latin interpretation of that from Curtius 10.4.5 qui esset optimus (the ‘best’) and dignissimus (broadly the ‘most worthy’) from Justin 12.15.

  267.Detail from Atherton (1993) p 298.

  13

  COMETS, COLOPHONS AND CURTIUS RUFUS

  Who was the Roman historian, Curtius, and could his conspicuous dismissal of Alexander’s Will have been self-interested and politically motivated?

  Although we are heavily reliant upon Curtius’ texts for our knowledge of the events at Babylon in the days following Alexander’s death, his identity remains a mystery. Whilst both he and Diodorus knew of a tradition that linked the distribution of the empire to Alexander’s Will, it was Curtius who uniquely went to the trouble of denying it was so.

  Why? And what would he have gained from stating that, writing as he was some centuries later? Who was the Roman author, Curtius, when did he write, and what political and imperial pressures were influencing the direction of his account?

  ‘Nothing is known about Quintus Curtius Rufus. To us he is only a name at the head of the book De gestis Alexandri Magni: he is never mentioned anywhere, and no other writing of his is known or even referred to: possibly the name was not even the author’s real name. He presents a mass of problems, and the first is, why his book was ever written.’1

  WW Tarn Alexander The Great, Volume II, Sources and Studies

  ‘There is an unwritten law that the volume of scholarship on a subject is in inverse proportion to the evidence available’, so wrote Brian Bosworth in his opening of a review of the elusive ‘Quellenforscher’s phantom’, Cleitarchus.2 The observation holds true for the identity of Curtius Rufus, for Tarn’s chapter-heading remark – ‘we know nothing for sure about Curtius’ – is accurate and remarkable when considering the extent of his influence to the history of Alexander. Curtius’ book is an extremely detailed monograph and it remains the richest account of events at Babylon surrounding Alexander’s death. So it is equally vexing that ‘… no ancient reference is known to the Historiae Alexandri Magni Macedonis, or to a Q Curtius Rufus as the author of such a work.’3 If he is not quite as obscure as the ‘Pseudo-Callisthenes’ of the Greek Alexander Romance, or even ‘Suda’ (or Suidas) as an individual compiler of the otherwise anonymous Byzantine lexicon, we may nevertheless have been sidetracked once more on identity.