Quintus Curtius Rufus’ Historiae Alexandri:
The Question of Authorial Identity and Intent
Jeffrey W Bussmann
Illuminated Frontispiece with Curtius Portrait. Quintus Curtius Rufus, Historiae Alexandri Magni. Gaspare
da Padova (?), circa 1480. Glasgow, University Library, MS Hunter 47, folio 1.
1
Quintus Curtius Rufus exists as the most Roman voice to record for us the life of
Alexander the Great. He presents the only remaining history of Alexander written in
Latin at a time when most scholars composed their works in Greek. Additionally, Curtius
lived in a time already deep into Imperial rule, and most likely endured life under some
of the more notorious Julio-Claudian emperors, undoubtedly coloring his views on
absolute monarchy and the turns it took in the life of Alexander. In short, Curtius’
history is shaped by certain ways of thinking and prejudices that had embedded
themselves into the Roman mindset of the first century CE. Thus, Curtius’ history is
valuable not only as another chronicle of Alexander’s deeds, but also for its portrait of the
Macedonian king as a reflection of Curtius’ own era.
In many ways, the cryptic history behind the Historiae Alexandri is what makes it
both endlessly fascinating and enigmatically frustrating. But this same sense mystery
usually evokes one of two reactions: quick dismissal of Curtius and his work, or close
scrutiny, so tangled that it misses the larger picture. It would do injustice to Curtius for
us to take the first approach and simply reject him as a poor, unprincipled historian. But
dipping an exploratory toe into the muddied waters of Curtian scholarship could urge us
to such a negative plan of action. A.B. Bosworth, in his entry on Curtius in the Oxford
Classical Dictionary, at one point discouragingly professes, “There is little consistency
(after strong criticism in the body of the work the final appreciation of Alexander is pure
encomium), and the exigencies of rhetoric determine the selection of source material.
Consequently he switches arbitrarily from source to source and sometimes blends them
into a senseless farrago.”1 We must not come down terribly hard on Bosworth, as he must
1. A.B. Bosworth, “Curtius Rufus, Quintus,” Oxford Classical Dictionary 3rd ed., eds. S. Hornblower and
A. Spawforth (1996), p. 416.
2
have formulated the best encyclopedic condensation he thought possible in the space
provided. Though it does not change the fact that Bosworth’s summary of the Historiae
Alexandri is a similarly Curtian (or what some believe to be Curtian) blend of truth and
half-truth. At a superficial level Bosworth unearths a core issue: Q. Curtius Rufus’ work
is highly problematic for the modern audience. On the other hand, we must not be too
lenient on Bosworth for his description either. His problematic synopsis and its clinical
tone give the impression that Curtius and his Historiae Alexandri is a closed field,
unworthy of investigation. Were this the case perhaps so much scholarly ink would not
have been lavished on Curtius and his work in the last two centuries.
However, as readers of Curtian scholarship, we are faced with exactly the
opposite situation. Elizabeth Baynham characterizes—quite astutely in my opinion—the
daunting profusion of Curtian theory with an art historical equivalent:
A survey of modern scholarship on Curtius’ date from, for example, 1959 to 1995
leaves one with an impression comparable to viewing an Escher drawing. The
same internal evidence is assessed and reworked, and the same problems are
approached from angles ranging from close linguistic analysis of the text to
examination of the external evidence offered by the legends of imperial coins.2
Her assessment rang true for my experience in researching Curtius; the more I looked
into the subject and the more that I learned, the less I felt I actually knew. Perhaps in
similar frustration the legendary W.W. Tarn once wrote, “Nothing is known about Q.
Curtius Rufus. To us he is only a name at the head of the book De gestis Alexandri
2. Elizabeth Baynham, Alexander the Great: The Unique History of Quintus Curtius (Ann Arbor: The
University of Michigan Press, 1998), p. 7.
3
Magni.”3 Indeed, the problem with Curtius is that not much concrete information about
him exists. From the surviving information, however, we can formulate a seemingly
infinitesimal number of hypotheses. In this paper I will try to rehearse the most popular
of the theories concerning Curtius, and after weighing the credibility of each argument,
offer judgement on a scale from very likely to highly unlikely. I will also attempt, with
my accrued knowledge on the subject, to synthesize my own hypotheses and to offer
interpretations that I think Curtian scholars may have largely ignored.
A good starting point is to investigate the historical Q. Curtius Rufus, about
whom little—although, with apologies to Tarn, not nothing—is known. Upon looking
for clues within the text of the Historiae Alexandri we can narrow the field of possible
dates that Curtius lived and worked. At 10.9.3 Curtius refers to a princeps (principi),
thus we must set 27 BCE the earliest possible date for Curtius to be writing.
Additionally, with reference to Alexander’s past movements in the region of
Mesopotamia, at 6.2.12 Curtius claims that “now” (nunc) the thriving and quite
formidable Parthian empire resides there. We can then set 227 CE, when the Parthian
empire dissolved, as the latest possible date for Curtius to be writing.4 The validity of
using Curtius’ statement, “Hinc in Parthienen perventum est, tunc ignobilem gentem,
nunc caput omnium qui post Euphraten et Trigim amnes siti Rubro mari terminantur,” to
ensure a pre-227 CE dating has lately been questioned.5 However, as Curtius asserts that
3. Tarn’s assertion here is clearly facetious. Curtius had been a hot topic of scholarly debate since the
nineteenth century. Even precluding the nineteenth century material, Tarn would have been well aware of
Curtian articles by R. Steele, F. Wilhelm, and J. Stroux, to name but a few. W.W. Tarn, Alexander the
Great, vol. II (Cambridge, 1948), p. 91, as cited by J.R. Hamilton, “The Date of Quintus Curtius Rufus,”
Historia: Zeitschrift feur alte Geschichte 35.4 (1988), p. 445.
4. R.D. Milns, “The Date of Curtius Rufus and the Historiae Alexandri,” Latomus 25 (1966), p. 490.
5. For a full discussion of the issue see A.M. Devine, “The Parthi, The Tyranny of Tiberius, and the Date
of Q. Curtius Rufus,” Phoenix 33.2 (summer 1979), p. 143. Devine claims that the much later Latin
historian Ammianus Marcellinus equates late Parthi with the Persian Sassanids, their usurpers.
4
in his time the Parthians were the “head” of all peoples dwelling in the area, I am willing
to accept 227 CE as a safe terminus post quem non.
R.T. Bruère further narrows the range of dates, slashing our nearly two hundred
and fifty year range in half. He agues that the poet Silicius Italicus, who died circa 101
CE, knew of the Historiae Alexandri.6 From this tighter scope of about one hundred and
twenty five years three plausible Curtii exist on historical Roman record. The earliest of
the three Curtii is a Q. Curtius, whom Cicero, in reference to this Curtius’ prosecution of
political candidate Memmius, calls a, “bono et erudito adulescente” (ad Quint. Frat.,
3.2).7 The early date of the letter (c. 55 BCE) does not necessarily exclude Cicero’s
Curtius from the running. This Q. Curtius was clearly an ambitious young man at the
time Cicero wrote the letter. It would not be a stretch for us to guess that he could have
still been going strong in the years after Augustus assumed supreme power.
Additionally, taken in light of the strong rhetorical tone of the Historiae
Alexandri, Cicero complimenting the young Curtius’ prosecution skills makes a good
case that he is our man. On the other hand, Milns argues that, “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.”8
It has also been argued that the author of the Historiae Alexandri betrays familiarity with
6. R.T. Bruère, C.Ph. 47 (1952), p. 291f, as cited by Milns, p. 490.
7. There is another severe problem with Cicero’s Curtius. Three authors that I have read (Baynham, p. 216;
Hamilton, p. 445; and Milns, p. 503) assert that Cicero refers to a Q. Curtius. In fact, based on the two
editions of Cicero’s letters that I have consulted (Loeb, Cicero: The Letters to his Friends, vol. III (London:
William Heinemann Ltd., 1927), p. 575; and The Perseus Project website, http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgibin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0022&query=head%3D%23184), Cicero never mentions a Q.
Curtius, but rather a Q. Acutius. I do not know what has caused this confusion, but suppose that it might be
the result of modern authors referencing one another, rather than looking at the primary material.
Additionally, though the Loeb edition makes no mention of it, there could be a discrepancy between
codices here.
8. Milns, p. 503.
5
Vergil’s Aeneid.9 We must accordingly find the case for Cicero’s Curtius weak and
disqualify him from our consideration.
The two remaining candidates for authorship of the Historiae Alexandri present
stronger cases. The first of the two, a rhetor Q. Curtius Rufus, shows up in the index to
“several of the better” transcriptions of Suetonius’ De Rhetoribus et Grammaticis.10 As
demonstrated by the rhetoricians on the list, for whom we have additional documentation,
Suetonius’ cataloging approximates a chronological progression. We can then postulate
this Curtius’ floruit anywhere from a Tiberian to Claudian date.11 Nothing else is known
of Suetonius’ Curtius, unless we try, as some scholars unconvincingly have done, to
merge him with our third and final candidate for authorship of the Historiae Alexandri.12
Pliny (Ep. 7.27.2-3) and Tacitus (Ann. 11.20.4-21.4) name a Curtius Rufus who
was a candidatus Caesaris for the office of praetor some time during the reign of
Tiberius.13 While Baynham, Devine, and Milns include this Curtius Rufus in the running
for authorship of the Historiae Alexandri, Henry Furneaux, in his notes on Tacitus’
Annales, confidently asserts: “That he was the father of Q. Curtius Rufus, the historian, is
very probable. Had he been (as some have thought) the historian himself… Tacitus
would have said so.”14 In any case, the texts tell us that the Curtius of Pliny and Tacitus
was a talented individual, but perhaps of lowly origin. Tacitus’ bizarrely rendered
account, in which Curtius hears voices from heaven telling to him his destiny, claims that
9. Baynham, p. 20.
10. Loeb Suetonius, vol. II (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1951), p. 395, as cited by Devine, p.
148; and Milns, p. 503.
11. Devine, p. 148; and Milns, p. 504. Milns gives greater detail and dates concerning the rhetores
Suetonius lists just before and after Q. Curtius Rufus.
12. Milns, p. 505.
13. Devine, p. 148; and Milns, p. 504. It has been generally accepted that the Curtii both Pliny and Tacitus
speak of are one in the same.
6
Curtius may have been “gladitore genitum” (Ann. 11.21.1). Thus, Curtius was a novus
homo, who reached a position of prestige through his keen faculties. But something went
awry in Curtius’ cursus honorum, as he only reached the office of consul “inter pares
difficilis,” and only through “superiores tristi adulatione” (Ann. 11.21.4).15 With his
career revived under the reign of emperor Claudius, this Curtius Rufus advanced to the
office of consular legate in 46 CE, and finally to proconsulship of Africa where he died
either at the end of Claudius’ or the beginning of Nero’s principate.16
As we can see, the case for any one of the three Curtii is not exceptionally strong.
Furneaux gets to the heart of the problem when he notes that neither the Curtius of Pliny
and Tacitus, nor the Curtii of Cicero or Suetonius, are explicitly referred to as authoring
any works of history, much less the Historiae Alexandri. The writer of the Historiae
Alexandri could be one of the historical Curtii, or he could be none of them. However,
Milns claims that, “in view of the comparative rarity of the name in Imperial times there
is a strong possibility that he is [one of the three].”17
If we do accept the author of the Historiae Alexandri to be one of the three Curtii
examined above, we can then begin to sketch out likely eras for the composition and
publishing of the work. Presumably, the work would have included a preface stating the
author’s intention in writing the history and also giving clues as to his own time period.18
But any such preface, along with the first two chapters of the Historiae, has been lost to
the ravages of time. We must accordingly scour the extant corpus for hints as to Curtius’
date. Vague similarities to any number of emperors abound; but really, these parallels
14. Henry Furneaux, ed., introduction and notes, The Annals of Tacitus, vol. II (Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1896), p. 27.
15. Devine, p. 148.
16. Baynham, p. 217; Devine, p. 148; and Milns, p. 504.
7
between imperatores and the life of Alexander prove nothing. The only outright
reference to Curtius’ own time materializes in the so-called “imperial panegyric” of book
ten. Comparing the turmoil ensuing immediately after Alexander’s unexpected death to a
similar social trouble in his own time, Curtius says:
Proinde iure meritoque populus Romanus salutem se principi suo debere
profitetur, qui noctis quam paene supremam habuimus novum sidus illuxit.
Huius, hercule, non solis, ortus lucem caliganti reddidit mundo, cum sine suo
capite discordia membra trepidarent. Quot ille tum exstinxit faces! quot condidit
gladios! quantam tempestatem subita serenitate discussit! Non ergo revirescit
solum, sed etiam floret imperium. (10.9.3-5)
While the ambiguity of what Curtius writes here opens the floodgates for a new deluge of
problems (which I will address momentarily), he also apprises us of important realities of
his contemporary Roman world.
If we may assume that out of all the books in the Historiae Alexandri Curtius
wrote book ten last, and thus very close to its publication date, then we may safely infer
that he has also recently witnessed a transition from one unnamed emperor to the next,
and the tense intermediary moments in between the shift of power. Whether Rome
merely teetered on the brink of armed conflict but was swiftly saved by the new emperor,
or plunged into actual civil war, I will answer shortly. First, we can name the emperors
from our agreed upon timeframe (roughly 27 BCE to 101 CE) who came to power
following periods of crisis. A preliminary list would consist of Augustus, Claudius,
17. Milns, p. 504-05
18. Hamilton, p. 445.
8
Galba, Vespasian, and Nerva.19 We may immeditaely strike Nerva from consideration,
on account of his brief reign (96 to 98 CE) and too late occurrence in our accepted
timeframe.20 Likewise, Augustus may be eliminated for his early date. At 10.9 Curtius
speaks familiarly about the concept of empire (imperium), and not as if it is a new entity.
It is believable that he has previously witnessed smooth transitions of imperial power that
contrast to this indeterminate tumult of his recent time. We could also in his lifetime go
so far as to say that he does not value republican government, as a result of never
experiencing exposure to it. Thus, having excluded Augustus and Nerva from the
reckoning, the two most popular theories remain: that Curtius (1) wrote under Tiberius
and/or Caligula, publishing his work during the reign of Claudius, or (2) wrote under
Nero, publishing his work shortly after the accessions of either Galba or Vespasian.
Of the two scenarios, the Claudian model is more widely accepted, due largely to
Claudius’ acclamation only amongst severe social discord, not civil war. Curtius’ use of
the word paene insists that crisis loomed imminently, but was ultimately avoided.21 But
why would Curtius want to pay emperor Claudius the compliment of inclusion into his
work, and is it even a compliment at all? If we accept the Curtius of Pliny and Tacitus,
we see that Curtius’ rising public career fell into disrepair (for unknown reasons) during
the principates of Tiberius and Caligula. There follows a long gap in our information on
this Curtius, until his political resurrection under Claudius. It is not hard to believe that
this Curtius could have been part of Claudius’ close circle, and won the consulship
19. A minority of scholars argue for much later dates. For example, A.B. Bosworth, once again dropping
the ball with regards to Curtian scholarship, argues unconvincingly for a Trajanic dating of the Historiae
Alexandri. A.B. Bosworth, “History and Rhetoric in Curtius Rufus,” Phoenix 37 (1983), pp. 150-61.
20. Milns, p. 490.
21. Milns, p. 491.
9
through sycophancy (Tacitus Ann. 11.21.4). Hence, he pays added compliment to
Claudius in his Historiae Alexandri.
The most fascinating theory asserting the Curtius of Pliny and Tacitus as the
author of the Historiae Alexandri and pinning him to a Claudian publication date comes
from A.M. Devine. To sum up, Devine conjectures that Curtius advanced his political
star under Tiberian rule, but only through the influence of Sejanus. The fall of Sejanus in
31 CE did not cost Curtius his life, but forced him into a long exile where he began to
compose a history of Alexander. Languishing until the murder of Gaius Caligula
(apparently no sympathizer with Sejanus’ disciples), Curtius was finally restored his
reputation by paying compliment to Claudius in book 10 of his Historiae. Claudius, as a
lover of history and literature, repaid Curtius with a second chance at a public career.22
While Devine’s account is inventive, fun to read, and hypothetically possible, he
speculates to the point of historical fantasy and parses Curtius’ words in a way I have not
seen equaled. Nor does he consult any external evidence to bolster his argument.
In a more plausible vein scholars have given much attention to the eerily
corresponding accessions of the hapless Philip Arrhidaeus following the death of
Alexander, and the equally bumbling Claudius after the murder of Gaius Caligula. At
first glance, comparing Claudius with Arrhidaeus seems far from complimentary. In the
Historiae Alexandri Arrhidaeus appears to be a normal man, and even talented diplomat.
But focusing on a Curtian point of view permits us to forget the other important
Alexander histories. Ian Sharples is quick to remind us that:
The extant sources which deal with these events are virtually unanimous in their
appraisal of Arrhidaeus as having suffered from some sort of affliction—probably
10
mental—which rendered him unfit to rule in his own right. Assessments of his
condition vary: Dexippus refers to him as ‘feeble’ and Justin mentions only his
‘greater infirmity,’ whilst the Heidelberg Epitome calls him ‘epileptic’ and
Diodorus, Plutarch, and Appian declare him mentally defective. Plutarch adds
that he had been normal enough as a child, but that Olympias had given him a
drug which weakened his body and addled his mind.23
If we consider Arrhidaeus’ impairment in conjunction with Claudius’ reputed shuffling
walk, stuttering speech, and overall role as the jester of the Julio-Claudian court, Curtius’
comparison is hardly laudatory.24 But, as Sharples and T.R. Martin allege, Curtius
remains deliberately rather than ignorantly silent about Arrhidaeus’ retardation.25 The
ultimate effect of the comparison, if a Claudian date can be accepted for Curtius, is to
consider two rulers who came to the throne under similar circumstances, and clearly paint
one as a victor and the other a failure. Martin claims that, “Curtius carefully and
proleptically points out the hollowness of Arrhidaeus’ temporary success as reunifier of
the Macedonian army to contrast it with the reality of the princeps’ accomplishment in
preserving the Roman state.”26 Faced with Martin’s argument—which he also
supplements with Josephus’ accounts of Claudius’ installation as princeps—we might
feel more confident about taking book ten in the Historiae Alexandri as a genuine
compliment to Claudius.
22. Devine, pp. 149-50
23. Ian Sharples, “Curtius’ Treatment of Arrhidaeus,” Mediterranean Archaeology 7 (1994), p. 53.
24. See Suetonius’ Divus Claudius and Seneca’s Apocolocyntosis for more on Claudius as the
laughingstock of the royal house.
25. Thomas R. Martin, “Quintus Curtius’ Presentation of Philip Arrhidaeus and Josephus’ Accounts of the
Accession of Claudius,” American Journal of Ancient History 8 (1983), p. 183; Sharples, p. 54.
26. Martin, p. 183.
11
Nevertheless, all charming whodunits involving Tiberius, Sejanus, Caligula, and
Claudius must be trashed if we are to consider the Galban/Vespasianic model. It is not a
stretch to suppose that should Curtius have composed his history under the reign of Nero
his portrait of Alexander would have echoed Neronian traits. We need not look any
farther than Alexander’s ever-increasing Orientalist policies and personal traits for
similarities to Nero (though I will save my own interpretation of the emperor caricatured
by Curtius’ Alexander until the end of the paper).
R.D. Milns senses a Neronian flavor to Curtius’ portrayal of Alexander, but seems
less intent on proving it than he is on inflexibly declaring Curtius to have published the
Historiae under Galba. At issue again is the “imperial panegyric,” which Milns claims to
necessitate a Galban, rather than a Vespasianic reading. That Curtius at 10.9.3 states civil
war nearly (paene), not actually, happened bears repetition. It is this technicality that
Milns uses to exclude Vespasian, as he came to power in 69 CE, perhaps the bloodiest
year in the first century of imperial rule. Galba, on the other hand, “himself had come to
the throne without striking a blow, if we can except the unfortunate mistake about the
classiarii just outside of Rome. The armies of the Danube, the East and Egypt had all
come over to his cause without difficulty.”27
The astral symbolism in Historiae 10.9 provides another key issue of Milns proGalban debate. Curtius writes that the newly inaugurated princeps has acted like a new
star (novum sidus), bringing a renewed light of hope to the known world (Huius, hercule,
non solis, ortus lucem caliganti reddidit mundo). But why should Curtius also claim that
this new star eclipses the rays of the sun? Milns, I believe uncovers a truth in thinking
that the metaphor,
12
takes an added meaning when one considers Nero’s claims in his later years to be
equated with the supreme sidus, the sun (or sun-god), as the light of the world…
Curtius, then, in the passage at issue, is not only using a long meteorological
metaphor to illustrate Galba’s accession, but it is also at the same time using
Neronian propaganda against its author.28
In order to make the argument more cogent I would simply delete the name “Galba” from
Milns statement, an insert “Vespasian” in its place.
As a whole, Milns’ article, like the Sejanus theory proposed by Devine, is
fascinating for consideration, but scarcely plausible. The brevity of Galba’s principate,
lasting only from mid-June 68 to January 15th 69, make him a dubious choice for the
antecedent of Curtius’ novum sidus. Milns counters the shortness of reign by guessing
that Curtius would have had most of the Historiae written by Nero’s demise, save for the
final chapters of book ten, completing and publishing the work soon after the rise of
Galba.29 I believe that here Milns greatly underestimates the revision process inseparable
from any substantial work of literature.30 The Historiae Alexandri, aside from Curtius’
occasional snafus of accuracy, is a highly polished magnum opus. That Curtius rushed
off the publication of his life’s work immediately after the death of a hated emperor to me
seems inconceivable. We must not forget that Vergil preferred his Aeneid to be burned,
rather than published in its rough, unedited state.
Further debilitating to Milns’ case is Curtius’ declaration, “Absit modo invidia,
excipiet huius saeculi tempora eiusdem domus utinam perpetua, certe diuturna
27. Milns, p. 496.
28. Milns, p. 498.
29. Milns, p. 493.
30. Milns, p. 506.
13
posteritas” (10.9.7). In light of Galba’s childlessness, and lack of any foreseeable heir,
how can Curtius be referring to Galba? Milns’ counterattack to the problem I find
flimsy: “Now, the one thing that the word posteritas does not mean in Classical or Silver
Latin is « children » in the sense of a man’s offspring… The phrase, then, means nothing
more than « the succeeding generations that belong to the same house ».”31 Thus, Curtius
could be referring to de-facto son Piso. Although adopted by Galba only adopted five
days before his overthrow and murder, Milns seems to think the statement at 10.9.7 is
Curtius actively urging Galba against his reputedly frequent postponements of the
adoption.32
The weaknesses of Milns’ pro-Galban argument, compounded by the general
sense of discord pervading Galba’s brief regime, make him an improbable subject for the
“imperial panegyric” to my eyes. In retrospect, many of Milns’ assertions actually
disclaim Galba and adhere stronger to Vespasian. Returning once again to the astral
symbolism, it has been argued that Curtius, “parallels the language of Pliny’s panegyrics
to Vespasian.”33 Furthermore Vespasian better fits Curtius’ exhortation for the new
emperor to have an eternal, or at least long-lasting progeny. Indeed, his two sons, Titus
and Domitian, guaranteed that the lineage would persist—that is, at least until Domitian’s
death in 96 CE.
At this point, we should step back for a moment from the debate concerning
Curtius’ writing and publication period. Asking broader questions of the work may help
to better guide our exploration. First I believe we should ask what are the intentions of
31. Milns, p. 494.
32. Milns, p. 495.
14
Curtius in writing his Historiae Alexandri? Tarn suggests that the Historiae were meant,
“to show the world what a clever man Q. Curtius Rufus was,” and, “to impress upon the
world a particular view of Alexander.”34 In my opinion, the first of Tarn’s
assumptions—along with any conjecture that Curtius wrote a history of Alexander in ten
books simply for his own amusement or solely as polemic against a certain princeps—is
much too flippant. Crass dismissal notwithstanding, the second of Tarn’s assertions is
crucial.
As early as the nineteenth century S. Dosson recognized that Curtius was a
“Roman who wrote for Romans.”35 Scholars repeatedly mince Curtius’ words, but often
miss the glaringly obvious. The simple reality is that Curtius composed the Historiae in
Latin rather than in Greek. The reason for his choice could simply be pragmatic. Using
the Historiae Alexandri as a forum to explore Latin oratory and the standard
declamations on Alexander that rhetorical schools employed would necessitate that
Curtius choose Latin. Like Baynham prompts, we ought to accept the intrinsic rhetorical
nature of the Historiae before passing further judgement.36
But returning to the issue of language choice, it is clear to me that Curtius’ pick of
Latin is significant and packed with meaning. The way in which Roman historians
showed erudition was to compose their tomes in Greek. Curtius, quite oppositely,
eschews Greek for the vernacular. In doing so he vastly widens his potential audience.
Let us not mistakenly argue that Curtius is writing a primordial “bestseller” or throwing
33. J. Rufus Fears, “The Solar Monarchy of Nero and the Imperial Panegyric of Q. Curtius Rufus,”
Historia: Zeitschrift feur alte Geschichte 25.4 (1976), p. 495. See especially Pliny H.N. 27.3 (a
considerable resemblance to Curtius 10.9); 33.41 (a more oblique passage).
34. Tarn, vol. II, p. 92, as cited in Milns, p. 499.
35. S. Dosson, Étude sur Quinte-Curce (Paris, 1886), p. 218, as cited by Baynham, p. 15.
36. Baynham, p. 9.
15
open the realm of historiography to the masses. But his selection of the Latina lingua
must not be overlooked.
In order to elucidate my point I will formulate a modern example. Today when we
study Alexander we inevitably discuss his pothos. However, we never seem to be self
consciously aware that in referencing pothos we always preserve, or at least transliterate,
the Greek. Our own language has no word that means precisely what pothos does; an
attempt to explain the concept we require many words or even sentences. The resulting
usage of the word pothos distances us considerably from Alexander, both geographically
and temporally. He becomes a dusty, archaeological relic (I speak sarcastically here)
with no bearing on our contemporary reality. However, Curtius Roman-izes all of the
qualities of Alexander, and even the Persians (amazingly Darius has praetors!). How
could a reader not make connections to present day imperial Rome? Preserving the
Greek may have isolated his readers from the story of Alexander, but writing in Latin
give immediacy to the story, and makes it especially pertinent to his own time.
The concept that Curtius wanted the relevancy of Alexander to persist in imperial
Roman times also intertwines with his rhetorical methodology. Alexander endured, even
in the first century CE, as a figure that could equally inspire not only admiration, but also
dread. Baynham deftly puts the Roman (and perhaps modern) appeal into words:
As the conqueror of a vast extent of territory, Alexander held an innate fascination
for the Romans, themselves a warlike and imperialistic people. This fascination is
amply illustrated not only by Alexander’s popularity as a rhetorical topos but by
16
several Roman generals’ outright admiration for him. However, mixed with
admiration, the Romans also expressed ambivalence and hostility.37
Perhaps even more fascinating to the Romans was his flawed character. Often he
claimed immortality for himself, but was certainly not without—much like his alleged
ancestors Hercules and Perseus—fundamental human weaknesses. Similarly imperfect
characters are the ones who continue to hold us in awe today.
Curtius professes the same attraction to Alexander’s character. In fact the polarity
of Alexander’s equally virtuous and vicious traits may be the primary motive, barring
rhetorical exercise, that spurs him to write the Historiae. During his occasional lapses
into first person narration Curtius provides an invaluable window to the enchantment
with Alexander which necessitated him to write his own treatment of the story. Here, I
do not think it is possible to over-quote Curtius, as every clue he drops holds value.
Quite early in the extant corpus, and just after Alexander’s touching encounter with
Sisigambis, Curtius postulates:
Equidem hac continentia animi si ad ultimum vitae perseverare potuisset,
feliciorem fuisse crederem quam visus est esse, cum Liberi patris imitaretur
triumphum, usque ab Hellesponto ad Oceanum omnes gentes victoria emensus.
Sic vicisset profecto superbiam atque iram, mala invicta, sic abstinuisset inter
epulas caedibus amicorum, egregiosque bello viros et tot gentium secum
domitores indicta causa veritus esset occidere. Sed nondum Fortuna se animo
eius superfuderat; ita, qui orientem tam moderate et prudenter tulit, ad ultimum
magnitudinem eius non cepit. (3.12.18-20)
37. Baynham, 10. Jon A.P. Gissel advances a similar argument, citing the ideal-king/tyrant tension at work
in Alexander’s magnetism; “The Philotas Affair in Curtius’ Account of Alexander (VI.7-11): A Rhetorical
17
Not only does Alexander wage war with mortal foes, but also his larger battle is one of a
cosmic nature. The moralizing angle from which Curtius approaches his subject injects
the Historiae with tinges of the medieval morality play. To be sure, we cannot forget the
important smaller episodes of the Historiae which apprise us of Alexander’s
multitudinous and diverse qualities. But concerning a macroscopic scale the story is
simply that of a mortal protagonist in eternal combat with the will of Fortuna. It is not
restating the obvious to remind ourselves that Curtius deliberately chooses to treat
Alexander in this way, because many of our other primary sources (Arrian and Diodorus
Siculus pop immediately to mind) choose to highlight alternative themes.
Far from wishing to trivialize every angle I have explored in this paper, I would
begin to seal up the question of authorial identity and intent at work in Curtius’ Historiae
Alexandri by asserting that the specifics of the opus do not matter much in the long run.
The only real thing at stake is the career of every person who has built a reputation
dismembering Curtius (the man and the work) and reassembling him into scholarship. In
reality, the minutiae of Curtius and his Historiae mean nothing to us if we lose sight of
the larger picture.
Concerning the details of his work, I—in league with many others—find a
Vespasianic date of publishment preferable when examining the Historiae. However,
unlike every Curtian scholar that I have read (except Baynham to her credit), I do not
hold Curtius responsible for making reference to only a Neronian/Vespasianic world. In
working so hard to prove that Curtius worked under one princeps or another we grow
accustomed to the vision of him existing in a vacuum.
Analysis,” Classica et Mediaevalia 46 (1995), p. 234.
18
Returning a final time to the novum sidus of 10.9, Fears reminds us that, “astral
symbolism had been basic element in imperial propaganda since the beginning of the
Principate. Comparison of the living ruler with the sun was a well-known theme in
Hellenistic panegyric; and by the time of Augustus, it was so hackneyed that Horace
demurred to use it.”38 In other words, we cannot use Curtius’ choice of a metaphorical
star in order to pin him to a singular emperor. But why should we even hold Curtius to
confining his sidus to a single, unidentified princeps? I would argue that the ambiguity
of the metaphor, compounded by its status as a stock literary device in the first century
CE, make a strong case that Curtius speaks symbolically. The sidus simply represents an
archetypal ruler, rather than any particular historical figure.
I would also extend my generalization to the main subject of the Historiae. Why
should Curtius limit his literary characterization of Alexander by incorporating only
Claudian or only Neronian allusions for his contemporary audience? As a treatise on
kingship and its responsibilities (let us not forget that it holds value also as a chronicle of
the “real” Alexander’s deeds), I believe that Curtius would want to draw upon countless
former rulers in order to formulate an effective story. Perhaps I am too naïve in my aim.
Nonetheless, Baynham backs up my point: “It is…erroneous to see the work as an
allegory for any one emperor. Curtius’ interest lies in regnum itself, in the concept of
absolute power and its effect on the rex and its followers. Thus it is possible to see
echoes of many principes within the Historiae.”39 If Curtius was indeed writing in the
Neronian/Vespasianic age he could have possibly infused strains of each preceding
38. Fears, p. 495.
39. Baynham, p. 216. Again to her credit, Baynham is the only author I have read to entertain such a liberal
view on Curtius. I find this unwillingness to entertain a vaster scope on Curtius a serious problem with the
existing scholarship.
19
emperor into his work. Any Latin reader would have recognized the essentially Roman
qualities of Curtius’ Alexander, and be able to connect his behavior to the collective
legacy of past principes. Conceivably one would recall in conjunction with the positive
aspects of Alexander the first emperor Augustus or the new Vespasian, and for the
negative aspects the late-Tiberius, Gaius Caligula, Claudius or Nero. In this way Curtius’
Historiae is inseparable from the Roman mindset of the first century CE;
acknowledgement of the site-specific (I speak temporally) nature intrinsic to the
Historiae is imperative. But more importantly in encouraging a way to perceive the
Historiae Alexandri I stand firmer in declaring that Curtius fuses elements of the
Hellenistic and Roman past and his present moment in order to fabricate a symbolic tale
with timeless implications.
20
Bibliography
Baynham, E. Alexander the Great: The Unique History of Quintus Curtius. Ann Arbor:
The University of Michigan Press, 1998.
Bosworth, A.B. “Curtius Rufus, Quintus.” Oxford Classical Dictionary. 3rd ed. Eds. S.
Hornblower and A. Spawforth. 1996.
Bosworth, A.B. “History and Rhetoric in Curtius Rufus.” Phoenix 37 (1983): pp. 150-61.
Bruère, R.T. C.Ph. 47 (1952).
Cicero. Cicero: The Letters to his Friends, with an English Translation By W Glynn
Williams, M.A. 3 vols. London: William Heinemann Ltd., 1927.
Crane, G., Editor-in-chief. The Perseus Digital Library. < http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/
>.
Curtius Rufus, Quintus. Quintus Curtius, with an English Translation by Jon C. Rolfe,
Litt.D. 2 vols. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1956.
Devine, A.M. “The Parthi, The Tyranny of Tiberius, and the Date of Q. Curtius Rufus.”
Phoenix 33.2 (summer 1979): pp. 142-159.
Dosson, S. Étude sur Quinte-Curce. Paris, 1886.
Fears, J.R. “The Solar Monarchy of Nero and the Imperial Panegyric of Q. Curtius
Rufus.” Historia: Zeitschrift feur alte Geschichte 25.4 (1976): pp. 494-96
Gissel, J.A.P. “The Philotas Affair in Curtius’ Account of Alexander (VI.7-11): A
Rhetorical Analysis.” Classica et Mediaevalia 46 (1995): pp. 215-236.
Hamilton, J.R. “The Date of Quintus Curtius Rufus.” Historia: Zeitschrift feur alte
Geschichte 35.4 (1988): pp. 445-56.
Martin, T.R. “Quintus Curtius’ Presentation of Philip Arrhidaeus and Josephus’ Accounts
of the Accession of Claudius.” American Journal of Ancient History 8 (1983): pp.
161-190.
McKendrick, Scot. The History of Alexander the Great: An Illuminated Manuscript of
Vasco da Lucena’s French Translation of the Ancient Text by Quintus Curtius
Rufus. Los Angeles: The J. Paul Getty Museum, 1996.
Milns, R.D. “The Date of Curtius Rufus and the Historiae Alexandri.” Latomus 25
(1966): pp. 490-507.
21
Pliny, the Younger. Pliny Letters, with an English Translation by William Melmoth. 2
vols. London: William Heinemann, 1915.
Sharples, I. “Curtius’ Treatment of Arrhidaeus.” Mediterranean Archaeology 7 (1994):
pp. 53-60.
Suetonius, with an English Translation by J. C. Rolfe, Ph.D. 2 vols. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press, 1951.
Tacitus. The Annals of Tacitus. 2 vols. Henry Furneaux, ed., introduction and notes.
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1896.
Tarn, W.W. Alexander the Great. 2 vols. Cambridge, 1948.
22