by David Grant
AUDIATUR ET ALTERA PARS: CVRTI OR CLVVI? – A CASE FOR CONFUSION
If Cluvius Rufus is a candidate for the authorship of the Alexander monograph, how could the confusion with a ‘Curtius Rufus’ have originally arisen? Well, firstly, the career similarity with the widely favoured candidate is striking. The Q Curtius Rufus referred to in the index to Suetonius’ De Rhetoribus was an eloquent rhetor, and Tacitus’ African governor was a well-connected politician. Cluvius Rufus was both it seems, and he was without doubt a historian.186
The Latin alphabet then had twenty-three capital characters. The letters J, U and W were added in the Middle Ages (or later) to facilitate use of the Roman alphabet in languages other than Latin, and ‘U’ sounds would have previously been written as V. Hence Curtius Rufus would have appeared as CVRTII RVFI when pertaining to ownership of the manuscript title; we still see this in the 1623 Cvrtii Rvfi de rebvs ab Alexandro magno gestis manuscript from Mattaus Rader in Germany, for example. ‘Cluvius’ Rufus, appearing as CLVVII RVFI in similar circumstances, resided as close then to ‘Curtius’ as it does today, and possibly with more scope for confusion, as would CVRTIVS and CLVVIVS written as standalone names.
We still don’t know when an uncorrupted Curtius manuscript was last available for reference, but certainly it was some time before the 9th century Codex Parisinus 5716 was produced. Neither do we know when ‘Quintus’ first appeared in the colophons. However, if a medieval scribe or his overseer was attempting to link the author to a historical figure, and one known to be a high ranking equestrian from the Claudian age with a rhetor’s eloquence, then the Curtius Rufus so conspicuously investigated by Tacitus and appearing in Suetonius’ De Rhetoribus, was an obvious choice, with the ‘Q’ (most obviously ‘Quintus’) for his praenomen being erroneously attached following the latter.
Other misidentifications in the biographing of Alexander are not difficult to pinpoint and we might even have another example of the corruption of Cluvius. The aforementioned and otherwise unattested ‘Cluitus’ was cited in Josephus’ Jewish Antiquities in a text concerning the murder of Gaius, the emperor better known by his agnomen, Caligula. Mommsen argued that the identity in Josephus’ original Greek manuscripts should be corrected to ‘Cluvius’, recalling the historian’s own advice to a praetor that he keep quiet on the planned treason.187 Again the arguments are not conclusive and were rejected by some later scholars, but the parallels are striking.188
The poet Martial curiously suggested that a colourful writer named Canius Rufus had covered the lives of Claudius and Nero:189
Tell me, Muse, what my Canius Rufus is doing: is he putting on paper the acts of Claudian times for posterity to read, or the deeds which a mendacious writer ascribed to Nero? Or does he emulate the fables of rascal Phaedrus?190
Canius Rufus was cited as a ‘poet and historian from Gades’, modern Cadiz. Martial himself came from Hispania Tarraconensis, northeast Spain, and it is tempting to link Canius Rufus to Cluvius once more due to his Spanish presence, though in the northern region and not Gades. Yet the cognomen was common; Martial mentioned the name ‘Rufus’ thirty-three times in his Epigrams; a century earlier Cicero wrote to his young protégé, Marcus Caelius Rufus, who appears to have even been an avid reader of Cleitarchus, Curtius’ principal source. Caelius was the talented author of some of the more prominent letters in Cicero’s epistolary ad Familiares.191 Catullus may have been referring to him in his Rufus, and if so, the references support a controversial figure that needed Cicero’s defence: the pro Caelio.192
Yet the addition of the poet from Gades places us in a position in which we must accept, if names have indeed been transmitted intact (and Josephus’ ‘Cluitus’ aside), that both a Cluvius Rufus and a Canius Rufus, each well connected and linked to regions of Spain, penned accounts of Claudius and Nero, whilst the clues in Curtius Rufus’ imperial encomium arguably fit Nero’s emperorship. Additionally, the works of all three have either disappeared or exist without any background to the historian.
Interestingly, the ‘Phaedrus’ referred to in Martial’s Epigram is likely Gaius Julius Phaedrus, a Romanised Macedonian contemporary who wrote between 43 CE and 70 CE, and who Latinised the books of Aesop’s fables. His largest collection bears the name Romulus and a prose manuscript dating to the 10th century is addressed Aesopos ad Rufum, suggesting a dedication by the compiler to a ‘Rufus’.193 Was that to Canius Rufus with whom Phaedrus might have been acquainted?
The fact remains that there is no evidence that Cluvius Rufus published a book on Alexander. This would be troublesome if much else was known about his work, but save his own reference to the Histories, nothing is. His subject matter is not described, only implied by the citations in the sources, and neither was he mentioned in Quintilian’s list of the literati that appeared in his Institutio Oratoria, yet this remained incomplete as Quintilian himself admitted; neither Pliny the Younger nor other writers mentioned by Tacitus featured in his famous line-up.194 As Syme has remarked, surviving detail on historians publishing in the long interval between Livy and Tacitus is sparse.195
We do not even know where, or when, Tacitus, the mighty Roman annalist, was born, or in fact, his praenomen: only books one to four of Tacitus’ fourteen-book Histories are preserved complete. The first half of his Annals survived in a single copy of a manuscript from Corvey Abbey, and books eleven to sixteen (and what remained of his Histories) are reproduced from a single manuscript found in the Benedictine Abbey at Monte Cassino – a ‘barbarous script’ commented Poggio Bracciolini. The latter, the Codex Mediceus II, written in the Langobard script of the mid-11th century (though evidence suggests it derives from a 5th-century Rustic Capitals manuscript, possibly through an intermediary),196 gave Tacitus’ praenomen as ‘Publius’, whereas Apollinaris Sidonius (ca. 430-489 CE), a learned Gallo-Roman aristocrat, named him ‘Gaius.’197
The paucity of Tacitus’ material likely reflects the disfavour of both the late Caesars and the Church fathers, for he was openly contemptuous of the ‘new’ religion, as well as the tyranny of the early emperors. We may also question whether his last annalistic work was to be titled Annals for he actually named the former Ab excessu divi Augusti. We do not even know if it was, in fact, designed to be distinct from what we call his Histories, though the temporal divide between past and contemporary history did likely separate them.
In Momigliano’s view, Cluvius Rufus was not just a source; he was the principal source for Tacitus’ own Historiae and for much of his Annals, hence Momigliano concluded: ‘The surviving books of Tacitus’ Annals are the most conspicuous example of a great work of history written with the minimum amount of independent research.’198 If, as it has recently been argued, the textual similarities suggest that Tacitus drew from Curtius’ Historiae of Alexander, we should give credence to the fact that Curtius and Cluvius are one and the same author. If not, then the evidence requires we accept that Tacitus, the ‘Roman Thucydides’, took detail and style from both a Cluvius Rufus and a Curtius Rufus. Has Nineveh become Babylon once again?
COLOPHONEM ADDERE–THE FINISHING TOUCH199
Although we could ourselves be accused of attempting to ‘tidy up’ history too neatly here, a few loose ends do need comment before we close the chapter. Much of this debate has focused on the so-called Julio-Claudians. This, it could be argued, is a modern anachronism, and to quote one scholar’s view of the issue: ‘There never was such a thing as the Julio-Claudian dynasty.’ Claudius was an imposter to the Julian line (he ‘was not a Caesar either by blood or by adoption’) and the label heralds back to a reference in a speech given by Galba as another rhetorical device.200
As for common interpretations of Josephus’ fortuitous outcome at Jotapata, it has been argued that rather than a lucky survivor of a ‘Roman roulette’, the mathematical outcome of which is still known today as the ‘Josephus Permutation’, he simply sold out his comrades to buy his own survival, an action that has been termed ‘a shocking duplicity’. Pe
rhaps the conclusion to the siege was aided by his Pharisee training for it resembled the Greek Stoic doctrine on the path to death.201 The detail behind the outcome, which recorded 40,000 deaths (archaeologists suggest more likely 7,000), will never be unravelled, for it, along with the portrayal of Titus’ and Vespasian’s subjugation of the Jews, was recorded by Josephus himself; his remains the sole account of the unique detail concerning the wars in Judaea.202
The word ‘colophon’ (‘summit’) which denoted a copyist’s final note and which preserved Curtius’ praenomen, might have derived from the so-named city in Lydia, birthplace of Deinon, Cleitarchus’ father. For Strabo mentioned that the roots of the proverb colophonem addere, ‘to put a finish to anything’, stemmed from the superlatives afforded to the Lydian cavalry that usually brought victory to its allies. And to sum up the fate of Curtius’ identity, a colophoned ‘Quintus’, and a career that paralleled a disrespected senator who died governing Africa, might have led to the misattribution of one of the most important books ever written about Alexander and to the historicity of his Will called into question within it.
NOTES
1.Tarn (1948) p 91.
2.Quoting Bosworth (1996).
3.Quoting Fears (1976) p 214.
4.Curtius referenced Cleitarchus as a source at 9.5.21 and 9.8.15. The stylistic accord of Diodorus, Curtius and Justin’s epitome of Trogus suggested a common source for much of their works. See chapter titled Hierarchic Historians and Alexandrian Alchemy and Classicus Scriptor, Rhetoric and Rome for further detail on their relationship.
5.The 123 manuscripts are listed by Dosson in his Etude sur Quinte Curce, 1887, pp 315-356. The titles are discussed in Quintus Curtius Rufus, The History of Alexander, Penguin, London 1984, Introduction by W Heckel p 1. An author-owned 1623 edition from Mattaus Rader in Germany carries this final title.
6.Printed English editions of the Ab urbe condita range from The Early History of Rome to the Dawn of the Roman Empire. Arrian’s Anabasis is most commonly named The Campaigns of Alexander though ‘campaigns’ is far from a literal translation.
7.Cassius Dio 60.35; thus the title suggested Claudius had an apotheosis into a pumpkin, though modern interpretation suggests it implied ‘pumpkin head’. Full discussion in Sullivan (1966).
8.Quoting WHD Rouse’s 1920 translation of Seneca’s Apocolocyntosis.
9.A comprehensive list of studies dedicated to the theme can be found in Atkinson (2009) introduction pp 3-19, Baynham (1998) pp 200-219 and Quintus Curtius Rufus, The History of Alexander, Penguin Classics edition, 1984, Introduction pp 1-4.
10.Quoting Steel (1905) pp 402-423 and following Hamilton (1988) p 445 for the dating.
11.Dating arguments well summed up by Atkinson (2009) pp 3-9 and Baynham (1998) p 206, especially for Claudian supporters. Also see Tarn (1948) pp 111-116 for late dating arguments.
12.Pliny Epistles 7.27.2-3, Tacitus 11.20.4-11.21.4. See full discussion in the introduction of Heckel (1984). For similar arguments see Fears (1976) p 447.
13.Tacitus 11.21.2.
14.Suetonius De Grammaticis et Rhetoribus, Index 1.28. Q Curtius Rufus appeared between M Porcius Latro and L Valerius Primanus in Suetonius’ De Rhetoribus.
15.Milns (1966) p 504 for the dating based on the list of rhetors. Suetonius’ father was a tribune of equestrian rank and he himself became an intimate of Trajan and Hadrian. A further Q Curtius (not Rufus) is thought to have been mentioned by Cicero who complimented his prosecution skills, though his letter dates to ca. 55 BCE. But as Milns points out, this on ‘stylistic grounds, though inconclusive in many ways, must also exclude him, since it is obviously post-Ciceronian and has strong affinities with the Latin of the rhetorical schools of the first century AD’. Moreover, as another scholar comments, the name was actually penned as Q Acutius, not Curtius! Nevertheless in Milns’ view, due to ‘the comparative rarity of the name in Imperial times there is a strong possibility’ that the historian is one of these three. Milns (1966) pp 504-5. The rejection of the name comes from JW Bussman, Quintus Curtius Rufus’ Historiae Alexandri: The Question of Authorial Identity and Intent.
16.Summarised in Wells (1984) p 8.
17.Augustus fixed the sestertius at 1/100th of an aureus, thus 1 million sestertii equated to 10,000 aureii, each of which was approximately 8 grams in weight of gold. At a gold price of US $40 per gram, that gives a present-day gold standard value of approximately $3,600,000.
18.The loans of the Roman nobility discussed in Finlay (1973) pp 53-57.
19.Tacitus Histories 1.1.
20.Pliny Preface.
21.Parthian references can be found at Curtius 5.7.9, 5.8.1, 6.2.12, 7.12.11 describing their dominance over former Macedonian territory and ‘everything beyond the Euphrates’. Following Milns (1966) for the broad dating argument though he mentioned 227 CE as the fall of Arsacid Parthia. RT Bruère, C.Ph. 47 (1952) cited in JW Bussman, Quintus Curtius Rufus’ Historiae Alexandri: The Question of Authorial Identity and Intent. Silius’ Italicus’ knowledge of Curtius also discussed in Fears (1976) p 215 ff.
22.Curtius 4.4.21.
23.The statement that archery was still a widely practised skill at Curtius 7.5.42. Curtius 3.11.15, 4.9.3 for cataphracti; impact on dating arguments discussed in Fears (1976) pp 222-223.
24.Quoting Wilkes (1972) p 178.
25.Tacitus Histories 1.1, translation from the Loeb Classical Library edition, 1925.
26.Tacitus 2.1.
27.Cassius Dio 53.19.2 ff; cited in full in Wilkes (1972) p 186.
28.Discussion of the less than frank rendition of speeches by Tacitus and Livy, for example, in Gudeman Romans (1894) p 145.
29.See discussion in Morford (1973) p 210. Tacitus 4.43.1 for the comparison to Cordus.
30.Discussed in Scramuzza (1940) p 39.
31.In particular the study of Wiseman (1982) linked both the first Eclogue and Curtius to Nero’s emperorship.
32.Curtius 10.9.1-6, translation from the Loeb Classical Library edition, 1946.
33.Pliny 2.25.
34.Ovid Metamorphoses book 15 lines 745-870.
35.Curtius 10.9.1-6. For a full discussion on the chronology issues see Baynham (1998) Appendix pp 201-220, Heckel (1984) Introduction pp 1-4 and Atkinson (2009) pp 203-214.
36.For a useful summary of historical references to ‘star’ and ‘last night’ see Atkinson (2009) Introduction pp 207-208. Horace Satires 1.7.23-36; following Fears Solar (1976) p 495.
37.Hamilton (1988) pp 459-451 for the use of sidus and citing Pliny Panegyricus 19.1 for its attachment to Trajan.
38.Lucan Pharsalia 10.35-36. Curtius 9.6.8; for similarities to Virgil see Steele (1915) pp 409-410.
39.Tacitus Histories 1.38.
40.The theories and sighting are summarised in Barrett (1978). See Atkinson (2009) p 7; Pliny made 75 references to comets in his second book and mentioned the allusion to a hairy star frequently; at 2.25 for example.
41.Eusebius The Life of Constantine 28. Recent geological surveys might have pinpointed the crater of a meteorite that could be related to the sighting. Theories suggest a mushroom cloud could have constituted the ‘cross’ in the sky. See Dr David Whitehouse Space impact saved Christianity, BBC NEWS, 23rd June 2003.
42.This was first proposed in Steel (1915).
43.As an example of the significance attached to comets see Suetonius Nero 35.
44.Virgil Georgics book 1 lines 487-488.
45.Suetonius Claudius 46. The comet following Caesar’s death also alluded to in Ovid’s Metamorphoses, chapter 15, The Apotheosis of Caesar line 786. Suetonius Claudius 46, Cassius Dio 61.35 for the comet heralding in Nero.
46.Seneca Quaestiones Naturales, De Cometis 7.21.3. Quoting Tacitus 14.22. Calpurnius Siculus Eclogues 1.77.79 if they can be dated to 60 CE and not 54 CE; discussion in Barrett (1978) pp 99-100. The Octavia 231-232, wrongly ascribed to Seneca, also recorded the sighting; discussion in Barrett (1978) p 99.
47.Tacitus 15.47 translated by AJ Church and
WJ Brodribb (1864) Macmillan and Co. Seneca also confirmed the sighting ‘when Paterculus and Vopiscus were consuls…’ in his Quaestiones Naturales, De Cometis 7.28.3; see Barrett (1978) p 99 for the full entry.
48.Suetonius Nero 36 for the 66 CE sighting. Josephus Jewish War 6.289 for the Jerusalem sighting; the comet appeared ‘like a sword’ hanging over Jerusalem. The fact that it was allegedly visible for a whole year has made scholars question whether it was in fact Halley’s Comet of three years earlier used for rhetorical effect. Pliny 2.89 also recorded a comet in 76 CE in Titus’ fifth consulship.
49.Sir David Brewster The Edinburgh Encyclopaedia, 1832, Volume 9 p 427. For the works of art see Pliny 34.84. Suetonius Vespasian described Vespasian’s dubious financial dealings.
50.Suetonius Vespasian 5-6 for a list of portents and 7.2 for prediction of his alleged healing powers. Sextus Aurelius Victor De Caesaribus 9 recorded it but appears to be following Suetonius as well as Cassius Dio 66.17.2.
51.More on the eclipse at Gaugamela in chapter titled The Reborn Wrath of Peleus’ Son and Salpicius Galus and the sighting in chapter titled Sarissa Diplomacy: Macedonian Statecraft.
52.For a summary of Pliny’s career see Champlin (2003) p 41.
53.Cassius Dio 60.26.
54.Following the proposal of Atkinson (2009) p 209; rejected by Milns (1966) p 502, though neither linked this to Nero’s term.
55.Pliny 2.92-93, translation from J Bostok and HT Riley, Taylor and Francis, 1855. This may not relate the comet seen at Nero’s accession but to a later sighting.
