Skip to main content

Full text of "Curtius and Arrian: Part II"

See other formats

Early Journal Content on JSTOR, Free to Anyone in the World 

This article is one of nearly 500,000 scholarly works digitized and made freely available to everyone in 
the world by JSTOR. 

Known as the Early Journal Content, this set of works include research articles, news, letters, and other 
writings published in more than 200 of the oldest leading academic journals. The works date from the 
mid-seventeenth to the early twentieth centuries. 

We encourage people to read and share the Early Journal Content openly and to tell others that this 
resource exists. People may post this content online or redistribute in any way for non-commercial 

Read more about Early Journal Content at 

JSTOR is a digital library of academic journals, books, and primary source objects. JSTOR helps people 
discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content through a powerful research and teaching 
platform, and preserves this content for future generations. JSTOR is part of ITHAKA, a not-for-profit 
organization that also includes Ithaka S+R and Portico. For more information about JSTOR, please 

Part II. 

Narrative Common to Curtius and Arrian. 

In many passages the Curtian and the Arrian statements 
coincide exactly. And this is true of individual words as 
well as of longer passages. Curt. 4, 1, 14 de cetero: Arr. 2, 
14, 9 Tov Aowwov; Curt. 4, 15, 14 inter haec: Arr. 3, 13, 5 & 
tovrw; Curt.6,6, 21 strenue: Arr. 3, 25,6 orovdy ; Curt. 3, II, 1 
iam ad teli iactum pervenerant: Arr. 2, 10, 4 edOds yap as év 
xepoiv 9 pdx eyévero; Curt. 7, 5, 36 inde processit ad Tanaim 
amnem: Arr. 3, 30, 7 évOev S& éxi rév Tdvaiv rotapdv mpoyet. 
Equivalence of participial construction is also noticeable. 
Curt. 4, 6, 11 praetervolans: Arr. 2, 26, 4 treprerépevos; Curt 
3, 12, 7 iussum indicare, falso lamentari eas vivum: Arr. 2, 
12, 5 évreAdpevov dpdoa sr. fy Aapeios; Curt. 5, 3, 3 amne 
superato: Arr. 3,17, 1 das rév Iaowriypw rorayev; Curt. 4, 
10, 9 instructo igitur milite et composito agmine antecedebat 
(Livy 21, 34, 5 incedebat). Sed Persarum moratores erant, 
mille ferme, qui speciem magni agminis fecerant: Arr. 3, 7, 7 
évvrdgéas obv THY oTpatiav mpodxwpe as és paxnv’ Kai GAAoL ad Tov 
mpodpopav mpoceddoavres axpiBéotepov ovro xKarTiddvres Epackov 
Soxeiv elvai odiow od mAcious 7} xtAious Tos imméas, Curt. 7, II, I 
una erat petra, quam... obtinebat, alimentis ante congestis. 
quae tantae multitudini vel per biennium suppeterent. Petra 
... undique abscisa et abrupta semita perangusta aditur: Arr. 
4, 18, 5 ws S& éréXacav TH wétpa, KataAapBaver mavty amdtopov és 
Thy TpocBodyy oiria Te EvyKekopuopévors Tors BapBapovs ws és ypdviov 
moAtopkiav; Curt. 7, 4, 21 Oxo amne superato exustisque 
navigiis, quibus transierat, ne iisdem hostis uteretur, novas 
copias in Sogdianis contrahebat, which translates Arr. 3, 
28, Q AvaBas tov "OFov rorapoy Ta pev tAoia ef’ dv béBy Katéxavoer, 
abtos 8é és Navraxa THs Yoydiavys xwpas amexdpe, with a ne-clause 
thrown in giving the interpretation of Curtius. We find in 


Curt. 8, 10, 19 Acadira transit . . . usta et destituta incolen- 
tium fuga, although no mention is made of the burning of any 
other town. The explanation is that Curtius named only one 
of the two towns mentioned in Arr. 4, 24, 2 éumpyoavres thv 
modAw épevyov mpds Ta Opn, and in 4, 24, 6 Kat tadvtyv xaradapBdver 
éurrenpnopevyv tm6 Tav évotkovvTwy Kal TOUS dvOparous meevydras. 

Diodorus in 17, 38, 4-7 considers Alexander’s treatment of 
the captive women as the greatest of his acts, because success 
in war comes rather 8a riyyv 7 8” dperyv. Arrian, closing 
his account of the visit to the captives, says in 2, 12, 8 Kai ratra 
éyo of’ ws dAnOn obte Os TavTn dmioTa avéypawa. GAN’ ETE odTws 
érpaxOn, erawa ’AdéEavSpov tis Te és Tas yuvaixas KaToLKTicEws Kal 
THs és TOV éraipov TicTews Kal Tins’ eite miavds Soxei Tots 
ovyypapacw ’AXé~avSpos ws Kal tavta dv mpdéas Kal eixwv, kal én 
rode eras ’AACEavSpov. Curtius in 3, 12, 18-22 moralizes on 
the same act, discussing the proposition “hac continentia 
animi si ad ultimum vitae perseverare potuisset,” giving a 
conditional setting as does Arrian. Some passages have the 
subjunctive for the optative in the Greek: Curt. 3, 1, 8 nisi 
misisset: Arr. I, 29, 2 ef py ddixoiro; Curt. 3, I, 16 qui... 
solvisset: Arr. 2, 3, 6 dors Avoee; Curt. 6, 5, 8 venire eos 
iussit, fortunam, quam ipse dedisset, habituros: Arr. 3, 23, 8 
*ExéAevoe 82 yxew Evpravras kal mapadiddvat odas adtovs émitpétov- 
tas ’AdeEdvdpw xpjobat 6 te BovAotto, } oaleoOat ory Sivawro, In 
Curt. 6, 5, 19 the pluperfect ni reddidissent, neminem esse 
victurum, represents the future indicative in Arr. 5, 19, 6 Kai 
’AdéEavdpos mpoexnpréev ava Thy xdpav mavtas dmoxteveiv Odgious, «i 
By amdgovow abt tov immov’ Kal arnyxOn ebbds éxi rH Kypdypate; 
cf. Diod. 17, 76, 7 os dv wh tov tmmov drodoo. Curt. 8, I, 9 si 
dedignaretur: Arr. 4, 15, 3 «i dmaguoi. 

u. THe Fountain oF AMMON. 

We have four different full accounts of the wonderful 
spring at the temple of Ammon. Two of these are in 
Greek—Arr. 3, 4, 2, and Diod. 17, 50, 4-5; two are in Latin— 
Curt. 4, 7,22 and Pomponius Mela, Chorogr. 1, 8, 39. It is 
also mentioned in Pliny, N. H. 2, 228 Iovis Ammonis 
stagnum interdiu frigidum noctibus fervet. Mela says fons 
media nocte fervet, mox et paulatim tepescens fit luce frigidus, 
tunc ut sol surgit ita subinde frigidior per meridiem maxime 


riget. sumit deinde teporem iterum, et prima nocte calidus, 
atque ut illa procedit ita calidior rursus cum est media per- 
fervet. Curtius has est aliud Ammonis nemus: in medio 
habet fontem—Solis aquam vocant. sub lucis ortum tepida 
manat, medio die, cuius vehementissimus est calor, frigida 
eadem fluit, inclinato in vesperam calescit, media nocte fervida 
exaestuat, quoque nox propius vergit ad lucem, multum ex 
nocturno calore decrescit, donec sub ipsum diei ortum adsueto 
tepore languescat. The cycle in Arrian is from év peonpBpia 
to peonpBpias; in Diodorus from dy’ jpépa to ava to pwrt; in 
Mela from media nocte to media; and in Curtius from sub 
lucis ortum to sub ipsum diei ortum. Arrian has the adjective 
yuxpdv at the beginning and yuxpdrarov at the end, while Mela 
has fervet and perfervet, and in the use of frigidus ... frigi- 
dior, calidus ...calidior, resembles Arrian more than does 
Curtius, though the words of Curtius inclinato in vesperam 
exactly reproduce Arrian’s éyxAivavros 8 Tov HAlov és éorépay. 

wu. THe Letrers or ALEXANDER AND Darius. 

The letters which passed between Alexander and Darius 
would furnish an excellent basis of camparison, if literal re- 
production of contents had been a part of the plan of the 
historians. But as Arrian in 7,25,1 and Plutarch in Alex. 76 
give the contents of the Ephemerides in widely differing 
form, we assume that the letters as we have them give merely 
the substance of the originals. They are mentioned by Diodo- 
rus in 17, 39 and 54, and are summarized by Justinus in 11, 
12. Curtius in 4, I, 4 seqq., as does Arrian in 2, 13, 8, men- 
tions Strato, the surrender of Aradus, and the coming of 
Alexander to Marathos. While there (Curtius ibi), Arrian 
2, 14, I “Ere 88 év Mapdéw ’Adcédvdpov dvros adixovto mapa Aapeiov 
mpéoBes, émotodnv tre KopiLovres Aapeiov Kai aitol amd yAdooys 
Senadpevor ddeivar Aapeiw rH pntépa Kal THY yuvaika Kal Tovs Taidas. 
Both Curtius and Arrian say that the request was for the 
mother, wife and children of Darius, but these are given in 
different order. According to Arrian, Darius also asked that 
a messenger be sent back with his own, and this messenger, 
Thersippus, is mentioned before the report of the reply, 
while Curtius gives his name after quoting the letter. Both 
writers state that the reply charged the Persians with bringing 


war on Macedonia and Greece. Both mention Philip, the 
plotting of Darius against Alexander, the invitation to come: 
to Alexander, and protection should he be afraid to do so. 
One statement assigned by Curtius to Alexander in sec. 13 et 
di quoque pro meliore stant causa, makes of general applica- 
tion one in Arrian 2, 14, 7 tov Oedv por ddvtwv, while the last 
sentence, de cetero, cum mihi scribes, memento non solum 
regi te, sed etiam tuo scribere, slightly abbreviates the state- 
ment of Arrian in sec. 9 Kal rov Aourov érav wéumrps Tap’ epé, as 
mpos Baotréa ris ’Acias wépre, pnde [a] e& toov éerioteAde, GAN’ ds 
kupio évt. wavtav tov ody ppdle ef tov déy° ci 88 wy, ey BovAcdcopar 
Tepi Gov ws ddiKovvTos, 

Interiecto tempore (Just. 11, 12, 3), tsdem fere diebus 
(Curtius 4, 5, 1), “Ere 8& év rq wodtopxia tas Tupov Evvexopevov 
*"AdeEdvdpou (Arrian 2, 25, 1), a message came from Darius 
proposing a ransom, a cession of land, and a marriage ar- 
rangement. The statement of the amount of the ransom 
varies, but it seems to have been ten thousand talents for each 
party—mother, wife, children; the cession was to extend to 
the Euphrates; the bride was to be the daughter of 
Darius. The details of the terms agree with those given by 
Arrian. The Alexander-Parmenio incident which is con- 
nected with the letters is associated by Curtius in 4, II, 14, 
with a third letter and the words nunc Alexander de pauper- 
tate securus sum et me non mercatorem memini esse, sed 
regem, seem to be an expansion of Arrian’s émel 5¢ ’AA€éavdpds 

iv. ANALYsIS OF Boox III anp OrHer SEcTIons, 

The first sentence in Curtius, inter haec Alexander ad con- 
ducendum ex Peloponneso militem Cleandro cum pecunia 
misso Lyciae Pamphyliaeque rebus compositis ad urbem 
Celaenas exercitum admovit, is a combination of three inde- 
pendent statements in Arrian: 1, 24, 2 "Evepie 8@ kai KAcéav8pov 
Tov TloAepoxparous émi EvAAoyH oTpatwtav eis TeAordvyygov, in sec. 
3 atrés 88 émt Avkias re xal Tlap@vdAias ye, and I, 29, I Kai 
adixveirat és KeAawas weurraios, changing two of Arrian’s verbs 
to the ablative absolute, and summing up the results of the 
coming of Alexander by the word compositis. Like this is 
Curtius 5, 13, 1-2: Alexander audito Dareum movisse ab 
Ecbatanis, omisso itinere, quod petebat [in Mediam] fugien- 


tem insequi pergit strenue. Tabas—oppidum est in Paraeta- 
cene ultima—pervenit: ibi transfugae nuntiant praecipitem 
fuga Bactra petere Dareum. Certiora deinde cognoscit ex 
Bagistane Babylonio. This also combines parts of Arrian 3, 
19, 3 and 4 ’Agrxveira: Swdexaty fuepa és Mydiav. évOa enabev oix 
otcav déidpaxov Svvayww Aapeiw ode Kadovciovs 7 Sxvbas aire 
ovppdxous HKovtas, GAA’ Ste devyew eyvwxas ely Aapetos* 6 8€ ere 
HaAAov Hye orovdy. as 8€ dzeixey "ExBa-dvwv doov tpidv juepav 
6d6v ... drhnvra 6 “Oyou mais; 3, 20, 2 ’Adixveitat és “Pdyas; and 
3, 21, I Kal & rovrtw ddixveitat map’ abtov amd tov Aapetou 
orpatotédov Baytordvys BaBvAwvos avnp. Curtius states some of 
Arrian’s facts a little differently, and for “Péyas has Tabas, 
but such changes are immaterial. The following geographi- 
cal sections 2-5 and 11-13 are not from Arrian, who does 
give in one sentence (1, 29, 2) one-half of the citadel episode, 
while Curtius gives a possible complete transaction, Alexan- 
der... illi, Alexander... (illi). Section g is Arrian 1, 29, 
5, although 10, beginning with ceterum, is the reflection of 
Curtius on the course of events. The story of the cutting of 
the Gordian knot, which had already been given at consider- 
able length by Pompeius Trogus (Justinus 11, 7, 3-16), is 
short in comparison with that given by Arrian in 2, 3, 1-8. 
Arrian gives Adyos as the source for the story, and it is evident 
that both Trogus and Curtius drew from the current account, 
as Justinus has cupido eum cepit, and Curtius cupido incessit 
animo. Also the statement in Justinus si quis solvisset, eum 
tota Asia regnaturum, has the order of the parts reversed in 
Curtius, Asiae potiturum, qui... solvisset. Arrian states the 
facts (2, 3, 1-7), and then interprets the feelings of Alexan- 
der. Curtius likewise gives the situation, circa regem erat et 
Phrygum turba et Macedonum, illa expectatione suspensa, haec 
sollicita ex temeraria regis fiducia, and then expands the 
statement of Arrian. And in so doing in sec. 17 beginning 
with quippe, he gives in other words what he had already 
stated in sec. 15 notabile erat iugum adstrictum compluribus 
nodis in semetipsos inplicatis et celantibus nexus. Sections 
22-24 give the facts in Arrian 2, 4, 1-2, and also contain a 
piece of information about the Veneti which was gathered 
from Livy 1, 1, 2-3. At this point the scene shifts to Persia, 
and the Alexander account is interrupted by chapters 2 and 3. 


3, 1 is Arr. 2, 2, 1, and the following story is told in Plut. 
Alex. 18, but most of the statements gathered from another 
account are thrust in, breaking the continuity of the account 
of Curtius. This can be seen by comparing the close of 
chapter 1 and the beginning of chapter 4, Cappadociam petit 
...interea Alexander Abistamene Cappadociae praeposito 
Ciliciam petens cum omnibus copiis in regionem, quae Castra 
Cyri appellatur, pervenerat. Arrian has in 2, 4, 2 Airés 8 émi 
Karradsoxias éddoas ipracav thy évtos “AAvos woTapov mpoonyayeto 
kal é7t trép Tov "AAvy ToAAnY’ KataoThoas dé Karmadoxév SaBixray 
catparnv aitos tponyev emt Tas TAGS Tas Kidsxlas. Kal dgixdpevos 
éri 76 Kipov tov dv Zevodevt. otpardémedov, as Katexopevas Tas 
mvdas pudaxais ioxupais cide, Tappeviwva pév ato xatadeirer adv 
tais Td€eot tov meLav, Goo. Bapitepov wmdiopevor joav; see Curt. 3, 
4,15. The mention of the castra Cyri calls for an explanation 
which is not Arrian’s, and is incorrect. Curtius then states 
the arrival of Alexander within fifty stades of the entrance 
to Cilicia: Pylas incolae dicunt artissimas fauces, munimenta 
quae manu ponimus, naturali situ imitantes. The account of 
Arsames then interrupts the story (sec. 3-10), and when 
Curtius resumes it, just as if he had not already mentioned 
the Pylae, he says Alexander fauces iugi, quae Pylae appel- 
lantur, intravit. 

Chapter 5 gives the episode of the Cydnus, but also contains 
the assumed meditations of the soldiers and of Alexander in 
the presence of the great danger. Chapter 6 has the romance 
of the physician Philip, giving the interpretations of Curtius 
woven into the facts stated by Arrian. Some parallel 
passages will show the latter: Arrian 2, 4,7 6 8 Kudvos pée did 
péons THs woAews: Curt. 5, 1 mediam Cydnus amnis ... inter- 
fluit; Arr. (sec. 8), ®iAurmov dé ’Axapvava, iatpov, Evvévta ’Adeé- 
évipw: Curt. 3, 6,1 Philippus, natione Acarnan, fidus admodum 
regi; Arr. (sec. 9) Tév pév 8) wapackerdlew tiv KiAKa, ev Todt 
be “AreEdvdpw S00nvar emiotroAnv mapa Tlappeviwves pvdAdgacbat 
Pidirrov’ dxovew yap SiefOdpOat vrs Aapefov xphpacw ote happdke 
dmoxteivat ’Adé~avdpov. Curt. (sec. 4) inter haec a Parmenione 
... litteras accepit, quibus ei denuntiabat, ne salutem suam 
Philippo committeret: mille talentis et spe nuptiarum sororis 
eius esse corruptum. The latter part of sec. 9, and sec. Io 
of Arrian are reproduced in sections 9 and Io of Curtius, but 
the remainder of the chapter is original with Curtius. 


Chapter 7 opens with a statement about Darius hearing of 
the sickness of Alexander, and then crossing the Euphrates. 
The scene shifts back to Alexander, and sections 2-10 are a 
mosaic. The first sentence iam Alexander viribus corporis 
receptis ad urbem Solos pervenerat begins with an ablative 
absolute, Curtius’ own, and closes with a translation of Arr. 2, 
5, 5 és SdAous adixero. Section 3 is worthy of notice from the 
form into which it is put: vota deinde pro salute suscepta per 
ludum atque otium reddens ostendit, quanta fiducia barbaros 
sperneret: quippe Aesculapio et Minervae ludos celebravit. 
The quippe-clause combines parts of two sections of Arr. 2,5, 
8-9, while the first of the sentence is the comment of Curtius 
on the facts. The basis of sec. 4 Myndios quoque et Caunios 
et pleraque tractus eius suae facta dicionis, is from Arrian, 
though pleraque stands for two towns mentioned by him. 
Section 5 is section 9 of Arrian, but in sec. 6 Curtius goes 
back to Arr. 2,5, 1. The account of the council (sec. 8-10), 
and that of Sisenes (sec. 1I~15) are not from Arrian. 

The first twelve sections of chapter 8 set forth a discussion 
among the Persians something like that about Charidemus as 
given in Diod. 17, 30, 2-7. It is then stated in sec. 13 forte 
eadem nocte et Alexander ad fauces quibus Syria aditur, et 
Dareus ad eum locum, quem Amanicas Pylas vocant, pervenit, 
although we find in 3, 7, 10 itaque inter angustias saltus 
hostem opperiri statuit. In the following sections Curtius 
expands the narrative of Arrian by giving the details of the 
mutilation of the captives (cf. Florus 1, 39, 7), and varies 
from Arr. 2, 7, 1 that there might be messengers to inform 
Alexander of the arrival of Darius. Then there follow two 
pieces of fiction, one (sec. 20-22) preceding, and the other 
(sec. 25-30) following a few facts. 

Frankel, pp. 105-6, calls attention to the harmony in the 
descriptions of the battle of Issus as given by Callisthenes, 
Arrian and Curtius. The last two have the same numbers, 
but Curtius has names not given by Arrian. In chapter 9, 
3, Curtius explains Arr. 2, 8, 6 ’Emi 8& rovrow rév Kapddx[x ]ov 
kadoupévov évbev xai evOev és éEaxtopvpious* b7Airat 8& Foav Kal 
ovro. by in subsidiis pugnacissimas locaverat gentes. The 
Grecian commanders are as given by Arrian in 2, 8,3-4. The 
horsemen, Macedones Thessalis adiuncti, are given in reverse 


order by Arrian, sec. g Kai rots @eooadots cai Tovs Maxeddvas, 
just as Thraces quoque et Cretenses is the reverse of of re 
Kpjres toédrat xal of @paxes in Arr. 2,9, 3. Of chapter 10 we 
have already spoken, but we may here add that the stages of 
the battle as given by Curtius in chapters 9, 10, and II acies 
stetit, iam in conspectu, and tam ad teli iactum pervenerant, 
reverses Arrian’s arrangement of the first and second stages. 
The facts stated in chapter 11, the attack of the Persians on 
the left wing of the Macedonians, the movements of the 
Thessalians, the operations on the right, are as given by 
Arrian, but are interspersed with reflections and some extra- 
Arrian material. The losses given in sec. 27 in acie autem 
caesa sunt Persarum peditum c milia, decem equitum, are 
evidently from Arr. 2, 11, 8 Td 8& dAdo TAHOos eis Séxa pddiora 
pupiddas kal ev rovrous immeis trép tovs pupiovs, The number is 
given indefinitely by Plut., Alex. 20 KaraBaddv tmp evdexa 
pupiddas; and in Diod. 17, 36, 6 Kara 8& rHv wayyy éredciryoav 
tov BapBdpov meLot piv Trelovs tev déxa prupiddov, immeis 8 ovdK 
€Adrrous trav pupiwv. The accounts by Arrian and by Curtius 
of what followed the battle are alike in general outlines (see 
Frankel, p. 210), but differ in the order in which the different 
actions are given. The final chapter of Book III gives 
incidents and names not found elsewhere, and evidently not 
from the same source as the preceding; for it has in sec. 
13 Oxathris—frater hic erat Darei, the writer evidently for- 
getting that the same information had been given in sec. 8 of 
chapter II. 

This analysis shows that there are four elements in the 
work of Curtius: a Grecian historical, a subsidiary Persian, a 
traditional, indicated occasionally by fama in Curtius and by 
Aéyos in Arrian, and an original Curtian. And the sure 
indication of the composite character of the work is the fact 
that at four different points where the current of the 
Alexander account is interrupted, the resumption does not 
agree with the termination of the previous Alexander section. 

Curtius also gives evidence of the composite character of 
his work by the use of igifur as a resumptive particle in weld- 
ing together once unconnected facts. In Curt. 3, 4, 2 the 
facts are as given by Arr. 2, 4, 2, and 5 from which is gained 
the name Arsames. This is introduced igitur Arsames, and 


reads as if the advice given in Diod. 17, 18, 2 had been 
adopted. Curt. 5, I, 43 begins igitur rex ... relinquit, the 
information coming from Diod. 17, 64, 4-5; but the following 
65, I is given in Curt. 5, 1, 40. In Curt. 6, 6, 18 seqq. the 
facts from Arr. 3, 25, 3 and 4 are separated by a section 
found in Plut. Alex. 57, the particle introducing the second 
part from Arrian. Curt. 8, 10, I is connected in the same 
way with 8,9,1. Curt. 3, 7, 2-5 is an epitome of Arr. 2, 5, 
5-9, igitur with three ablatives absolute, in the last sentence, 
stating what Arrian also gives with three participles. 

Some breaks in the narratives of Curtius and Diodorus 
make it impossible to determine accurately the amount of 
space given to the different stages of the career of Alexander. 
Curtius has 79* pages from the beginning of Book III to 
Arbela, 127* from Arbela to India, and 68 from India to the 
death of Alexander. The figures for the same periods are 
for Diodorus 48—30*—so*, and for Arrian 80—72—175. 
These figures indicate for Curtius and Diodorus about equal 
stress on the first and third periods, the emphasis being placed 
by Curtius on the second, and by Arrian on the third. Had 
Curtius drawn only from Arrian he must have condensed for 
the third period and enlarged for the second. The latter is 
the most intensely rhetorical portion of the work of Curtius, 
and the speeches inserted lie largely outside the range of 
Arrian’s account. In the third period the account of Curtius 
is for the most part parallel to that of Diodorus, and little 
use was made of Arrian. This being the case we shall con- 
sider a number of passages from the second period in order 
to emphasize more fully some phases of the work of Curtius. 

Book V, from Arbela to the death of Darius, has only an 
occasional statement parallel to that of Arrian, and the same 
is true of the first three chapters of Book VI. Beginning 
with chapter 4 we shall give some passages from Curtius 
indicating something in regard to the genesis of the state- 
ment. The parts due to Arrian will be in Roman type, 
those to Diodorus in capitals, those to Curtius in italics, and 
those of unknown origin in brackets. Curtius 6, 4, 1-3: 
summa militum alacritate iubentium quocumque vellet duceret, 
oratio excepta est. nec rex moratus impetum (see Plut. Alex. 


FINES HYRCANIAE PENETRAT Cratero relicto cum iis 
copiis, quibus praeerat, et ea manu quam Amyntas ducebat, 
additis DC equitibus et totidem sagittariis, ut ab incursione 
barbarorum Parthienen tueretur. Erigyium impedimenta 
modico praesidio dato campestri itinere ducere iubet. Ipse 
cum phalange et equitatu CL STADIA EMENSUS castra in 
valle, qua Hyrcaniam adeunt, communit. Nemus praealtis 
densisque arboribus umbrosum est pingue vallis solum rigan- 
tibus aquis, quae ex petris imminentibus manant. Then 
follows the account of the Ziobetis, from Diodorus 17, 75, 2. 
It will be noticed that the beginning is found in Plutarch 
Tatra eirdvros abtov mavres éfé€xpayov drow BovAcTar THS oikovpévys 
dyew; that the numbers are from Diodorus, and that the de- 
scription of the road (Livy 21, 32, 5), of the nemus (Verg. 
Aen. I, 165), and the wi-clause are due to Curtius himself. The 
remainder is an adaptation of a sentence in Arrian 3, 23, 2 
and the following ’Epsyviov 8& rovs te gévovs Kai rHv ouryv 
ixmov dvadaBovra Thy AewPdpov TE Kal paKxpoTépay HyeioOar éxédevoe, 
Tas dpatas Kal Ta oxevopdpa Kal Tov GAAov 6utrov a&yovta, “YrepBarov 
8& ra Tpata Spy Kal Kataotpatomedevoas abtov dvakaBav rovs Te 
braomortas Kal THs Maxedovxys padayyos Tovs KovPotdrous Kal THV 
togoTav éotw ods Het xadernv 68dv Kai Svomopov, PvAakas Tov 6dav 
katahirev, tva opadepdv tiaiT@ épaivero, ws pH Tois éropévois Kat’ 
éxetva erBoivto of Ta Spy exovtes Tav BapBapwv. adros dé pera THv 
tofotav SueAOwv ra oreva ev TH wHiw KaTectparorédevce pds TOTAPa 
od peyddw., 

Curtius 6, 4, 8 quartum iam diem eodem loco quietem militi 
dederat, cum litteras Nabarzanis, qui Dareum cum Besso 
interceperat, accipit. Sec. 23-24 [xxx hinc stadia proces- 
serat] cum Phrataphernes ei occurrit seque et eos qui post 
Darei mortem profugerant, dedens: quibus benigne exceptis 
ad oppidum Arvas pervenit. Hic ei Craterus et Erigyius 
occurrunt: praefectum Tapurorum gentis Phradatem addux- 
erant. Hic quoque in fidem receptus, multis exemplo fuit 
experiendi clementiam regis. Satrapen deinde Hyrcaniae 
dedit Menapin: [exul hic regnante Ocho ad Philippum per- 
venerat]. Tapurorum quoque gentem Phradati reddidit. Ch. 
5, 21-22 Rex obsidibus acceptis Phradati parere eos iussit. 
[Inde quinto die in stativa revertitur]. Artabazum deinde 
geminato honore, quem Dareus habuerat ei, remittit domum. 


Iam in urbem Hyrcaniae, in qua regia Darei fuit, ventum 
erat: ibi Nabarzanes accepta fide occurrit dona ingentia 
ferens. The last statement is from Arrian 3, 23, 4 Kai évraiéa 
évros a’tov NaBapldvys te 6 Aapeiov yiAtépyys Kal Ppatadépvys 6 
‘Ypxavias te kal UapOvaiwy catpdmys Kai dAdow Tov appl Aapetov 
Tlepoav of éeripaveoratot adixopevor tapédocav aodas adtovs, tmopeivas 
8: ev 76 otpatorédw téccapas jpépas avédAaBe rors vrodeapbevras, 
but in the preceding passage Arr. states that Nabarzanes, 
Phrataphernes and others of the most prominent Persians 
surrendered themselves. It is improbable that Nabarzanes 
wrote when the others came, and the words patriam esse, 
ubicumque vir fortis sedem sibi elegerit, are too much like 
Cicero, Tusc. Disp. 5, 37, 108 to be considered otherwise 
than’as an exercise by Curtius himself. Sections 23-24 are 
from Arrian, with Arvas for dpas (see page 30) and 
Menapin for ’Appudryv, Arr. 3, 22,1. The last section cor- 
responds partly to Arrian 3, 23, 7 and 9; and 3, 25, 1 Tatra 
8 Siarpagdpevos yey as emt Za8pdxapta, tyv peylorny modAw Tis 
"Ypxavias, iva cai ta Baoidea Tois ‘Ypxavious Fv. 

Sections 1-12 of chapter 6 give an account of the moral 
decline of Alexander. The remainder is from Arrian 3, 25, 
with the insertion of sections 14-17 giving an account of the 
burning of the baggage, and 26-32, the burning of the defensive 
hedge. The Latin of sec. 13 is namque Bessus veste regia 
sumpta Artaxerxen appellari se iusserat Scythasque et ceteros 
Tanais accolas contrahebat. Haec Satibarzanes nuntiabat. 
This gives almost literally a part of fourteen lines of Arrian 
3, 25, 2-3, but the order is reversed: ’Exeiev 8@ émi ra ris ’Apetas 
Spia kat Yovotav, rédw THs ’Apetas, tva cat SatiBaplavys je wap’ 
abrov 6 tév ’Apelwy catpdarys. tovTw pév 84 THv catpamelay drodovs 
Euprepre ait ’Avdéurmov tav éraipwv Sods abt tev immaxovTio Tov 
és TegoapdKovta, ws éxot pidaxas xafiotévat TGV TérwV, TOU ph 
ddixetoGar Tois ’Apelovs mpos THs otpaTids Kata THY mdéposov. 

"Ev rovtw dé ddixvotvrar rap’ avtév Iepoav tives, of yyeAAov 
Biooov rhv re Tidpav épOyv éxew kal Thv Tlepowxyy atoAyy doposvra 
"Aptagéptny te xadeioGar dvti Bhocov cai Baoitéa pdoxew iva THs 
*Agias* éxew te dud’ atrov Ilepoav re rods és Béxtpa Siadvydvras 
kat avtév Baxtptavav wodXdot's* mpocSoxdcba. 8% Héew abrd Kai 
SxvOas Evppdxous. 

Continuing in sections 18-22 Curtius says: Igitur Bactria- 
nam regionem petebant. Sed Nicanor, Parmenionis filius, 


subita morte correptus magno desiderio sui adfecerat cunctos. 
Rex ante omnes maestus cupiebat quidem subsistere funeri 
adfuturus, sed penuria commeatuum festinare cogebat. [Itaque 
Philotas cum duobus milibus et pc relictus], ué iusta fratri 
persolveret: ipse contendit ad Bessum. Iter facienti ei lit- 
terae adferuntur a finitimis satraparum, e quibus cognoscit 
CUM EXERCITU, ceterum Satibarzanen, quem satrapeae 
Ariorum praefecisset, defecisseabeo. Itaquequamquam Besso 
imminebat, tamen Satibarzanen opprimendum praeverti opti- 
mum ratus levem armaturam et equestres copias educit totaque 
nocte itinere strenue facto improvisus hostisupervenit. Cuius 
BUS EQUITUM—nec plures subito contrahi poterant—Bactra 
VERUNT. It is to be noticed that igitur refers, not to what 
immediately precedes, but to the close of the Arrian passage 
before the insertion of sections 14-17. Cf. Arrian 3, 25, 4-5: 
*Ar€Eavdpos Sé bpod 7dn Exov THy Tacav Sivapiv ye exit Baxtpuv, 
iva kai Bidurros 6 MeveAdou rap’ abrov adixeto ex Mydias, éxwv Tovs 
re picOoddpous imméas, dv Hyeito abtds, Kal Ococaddv Tois eHeAovTas 
iropetvavras Kal Tovs E€vous Tovs ’Avdpoudxov. Nixdvwp d€ 6 Tap- 
peviovos 6 Tov tracmorov dpywv TeTeAeTHKE On voow. idvre be 
*AAcEdv8pw thy exit Baxtpa eényyéAGn SateBaplavys 6 ’Apeiwy oatpa- 
ans ’Avdéummov pev kat Tovs immaxovriotas Tovs giv ait amexTovas, 
étiiLwv 8& Tobs ’Apeiouvs Kal évvaywv eis ’Aptaxdava OAL, iva, TO 
Bacidcov qv tév ’Apeiwy’ exeiBev Sé dre eyvxer, eredav mpoKexwpy- 
kota ’AAégavSpov rvOnrat, ievar Eiv TH Svvdper Tapa Byooov, ws Sv 
éxeivy émOnodpevos Sry av TUyy Tois Maxeddor, Tatra ws eéyyyéAPn 
aitg, THv pev emi Bdxtpa 68dv odk jyev . . . arovdy Hyev ws emi 
SariBaplavynv te kal rovs ’Apeiovs cal bieAGav év Svaiv juepais ora- 
Siovs és é€axociovs mpds ’Aptaxéava jxev. In the passage of 
Curtius Nixdvup 8€ becomes sed Nicanor, idvr iter facientt, 
omovdg strenue, while improvisus stands for the time and dis- 
tance of the march. Curtius 6, 6, 33-34, 36 Hinc ad Craterum, 
qui Artacoana obsidebat redit. ille omnibus praeparatis regis 
expectabat adventum captae urbis titulo, sicut par erat, 
cedens. Igitur Alexander turres admoveri iubet: ipsoque 
adspectu barbari territi, e muris supinas manus tendentes 
(Caes. B.C. 2, 5, 3), orare coeperunt, iram in Satibarzanen, 


defectionis auctorem, reservaret, supplicibus semet dedentibus 
parceret. Rex datavenianon obsidionem modo solvit, sed omnia 
sua incolis reddidit ... Hac manu adiecta ADIT DRANGAS. 
Bellicosa natio est. Satrapes erat Barzaentes, sceleris in 
regem suum particeps Besso: is suppliciorum, quae meruerat, 
metu profugit in Indiam. In sections 25-32 Curtius states 
that Craterus captured a cliff which Alexander had left for 
him to besiege. Then without previous mention he speaks of 
the return to Artacoana, which Alexander reached according 
to Arr. 3, 25,5, while sec. 8 of Arrian gives the content of the 
last sentence quoted from Curtius. 

Original Arrian Element in Curtius. 

More equivalent passages are given by Dosson, pp. 141-143, 
and, assuming that Arrian followed Curtius, he argues that 
Curtius must have made use of Aristobulus and Ptolemy, 
who furnished the larger part of the contents of the Anabasis. 
The closeness with which the Latin follows the Greek at 
many points leaves no room for doubt that Curtius made use 
either of Arrian or of the writers from which Arrian drew. 
One or the other alternative must be accepted. Against the 
conclusion of Dosson we advance the theoretical objection 
that it makes the Roman writer the originator of the method 
of the Greek in correcting the history of Alexander by intro- 
ducing in fuller measure the accounts written by Aristobulus 
and Ptolemy. And of most interest are the little pieces of 
information common to Arrian and Curtius, and not given by 
Aristobulus. However, one piece of information from Aris- 
tobulus is very noticeable. Arr. 4, 13, 5 relates that some say 
that Alexander drank till daybreak, but Aristobulus tells of 
the Syrian woman who led him to drink allthe night. Curt. 8, 
6, 12 seqq. blends the two statements and modifies the last: Et 
ille per ludum bene deos suadere respondit revocatisque amicis 
in horam diei ferme secundam convivii tempus extraxit. 

The work of Ptolemy seems to have been used but little by 
the Alexander romancers, and it remained for Arrian to call 
attention to its real value. This renders of more importance 
some Ptolemaic passages which Curtius may have gotten 
through Arrian. The accounts given by Diodorus in 17, 67; 
by Arrian in 3,17; and by Curtius in 5, 3, I-15 agree in the 



main, but only Curtius and Arrian mention the part taken by 
the mother of Darius; and for this piece of information 
Arrian expressly names Ptolemy as his authority. The last 
sentence in Curtius is a combination of the facts stated by 
Arrian combined with the conclusions of Curtius. We have 
a fourfold description of the seizure and fate of Bessus. 
Diodorus closes with the word decdevddvyoav, and then comes 
a break in his narrative. Plutarch Alex. 43 has this last 
word of Diodorus, and then continues ’Op6iwv d€évdpwv eis tabTd 
Kappbevtwv éExatépw pépos mpocapTyoas Tov owpatos, eita peleis 
ExdtEpov, GS Oppyto pypyn Pepopevov, TO TpooHKov adT@ pépos veipacbae, 
Tore 8 tov Aapelov 76 pev copa Kexoopypévoy BactAikos mpos THV 
pyntépa aréotede, a variation of the punishment, which, ac- 
cording to Livy, 1, 29, 10, was inflicted on Mettius. Of this 
punishment Curtius and Arrian indicate nothing, and both 
divide the account into two parts. Arrian in 3, 30, 5, from 
Ptolemy, says that Bessus was sent into Bactria, and he states 
in 4, 7, 3 "Ev0a 8) E&AAoyov ék tév TapévTwv Evvayayov ’AEEavdpos 
mapnyayev és adtovs Byooov’ Kal katnyopnoas THV Aapeiov tpodociav 
Thy Te piva Byooov drotpnOnvar Kal Ta Ta dxpa éxédevoev, adTov 
88 és "ExBadrtava dyeoOat, os éxei ev TH Miduv Tre kat Tepoav EvdAACyo 

Curtius in 7, 5, 36-43 describes the reception of Bessus by 
Alexander, and states in sec. 4o the command, tradi Bessum, 
ut cruci adfixum mutilatis auribus naribusque sagittis confi- 
gerent barbari adservarentque corpus, ut ne aves quidem 
contingerent. But according to sec. 43 the punishment was 
deferred, ut eo loco, in quo Dareum ipse occiderat, necaretur. 
In 7, 10, I0 it is stated, Bactra pervenit. inde Bessum 
Ecbatana duci iussit... poenas persoluturum, a translation of 
Arr. 4, 7, 3, given above. With these can be placed Curt. 8, 
1, 19=Arr. 4, 17, 3 (Frankel, pp. 278 and 290), and Curt. 8, 
5, 1=Arr. 4, 22, 2 (Frankel p. 279), the last passage from 
Curtius being noticeable for the change in the order of the 
names as given by Arrian. 

In 6, 13, 4 Arrian gives an account from Nearchus of 
the criticisms of Alexander by his friends for the risks 
he ran in battle. In connection with the incident Arrian 
remarks Kai épws td pévovs te Tov ev Talis pdxals Kal Tov 
Zpwros ras Sdéys, Kabdrep of GAAnS Twds HOovijs eEyTTwpevor, od 


Kaptepos jv dméxeoOar Tév Kwdvvev. Curtius puts the criticism 
into a long harangue by Craterus (9, 6, 6-14), with a still 
longer reply by Alexander (sections 17-26). In this he 
develops the idea given by Arrian, saying in sec. 19 ego me 
metior non aetatis spatio, sed gloriae (see Cic. Archias 11), 
and in sec. 21 adapts a statement from Cic. Verr. 5,14, 45 ego 
vero non deero et, ubicumque pugnabo, in theatro terrarum 
orbis esse me credam. 

We find in Curt. 8, 1, 9 that the Scythian king offered his 
daughter in marriage to Alexander. Arr. 4, 15, 2 gives the 
same information, probably following Plut. Alex. 46, where a 
letter of Alexander to Antipater is given as authority for the 
statement. Likewise in Plut. Alex. 47, from the same source, 
mention is made of a movement among the Greek soldiers, a 
speech of Alexander, and the effect on the soldiers. Curtius 
writes of all these from 6, 2, 15 to 4, I inclusive. 

To assume that Curtius independently of Arrian and Plu- 
tarch selected these statements out of the mass of writings 
giving the history of Alexander is to credit him with a care 
in historical matters which is belied at every turn. But of 
even more importance is the use made by Curtius of purely 
Arrian material. Arrian often gives the source for state- 
ments found outside of Aristobulus and Ptolemy. This is 
frequently the Adyos, as in 3, 2, I; and 4, 28, 1, for which 
Curtius has fama in corresponding passages, 4, 8, 6; and 8, 
11,2. Arr. 4,1, 1 cites Homer as an authority, and in Curt. 
7, 6, 11 constabat is given as the basis of the assertion. Akin 
to this is the statement in Curt. 8, 10, 12 montis, quem Meron 
incolae appellant. Inde Graeci mentiendi traxere licentiam, 
Iovis femine Liberum Patrem esse celatum. The basis for 
this criticism is given in an address to Alexander by an 
Indian in Arr. 5, 1, 6 To dé dpos 6 rt wep rAnoiov earl TAS TOAEWS 
kal rovro Mypov érovépace Ardvucos, Sti 89 Kata Tov pidov ev pnpo 
7@ Tod Avés nb& On. Pliny, N. H. 6, 79 has the mild statement 
unde origo fabulae Iovis femine editum, and also Mela 3, 66 
unde Graecis auctoribus ut femori Iovis insitum dicerent aut 
materia ingessit aut error. We find in Curt. 5, 5, 3 nullam 
virtutem regis iustius quam celeritatem laudaverim, brought 
in at a point where Arrian has owovd#, a word which he fre- 
quently uses, as in 3, 19, 4, where Curtius at the same point in 


the narrative has in 5, 8, 2 adversus celeritatem; cf. Florus 
I, 41, 15 quid prius in hac mirere victoria? velocitatem?... 
an felicitatem? The last words of Curtius in 10, 10, 20 
omnis memoriae ac nomini honos habitus, seem an epitome of 
the last chapter of Arrian to the words 7, 30, 2 mrnpn 
obk avOpwrivy. 

We have the work of Diodorus and the Epitome of 
Pompeius Trogus by Justinus, both without ethical estimates 
of the work of Alexander. In contrast with these, both 
Arrian and Curtius give the ethical measure of Alexander, 
and in this they agree. It takes a score of superlatives for 
Arrian in 7, 28, 1-3 to express his high regard; and other 
judgments are scattered throughout the work. In 2, 12, 8; 3, 
10, 4; 4,9, 23 4,9, 6; and 6, 26, 3 we find éwawa ’Adé~avdpov, 
or an equivalent; and with a negative in 4, 7,4; and 5; 4,8, 
5; and 4, 12,6. There are also other forms of expressing his 
convictions in regard to the actions of Alexander, as in 3, 
18, 12, “AAX’ 088’ euol Soxet civ vo Spacat ToiTd ye ’AAEEavSpos ovde 
elvai tis adtyn Ilepodv trav radar Tyswpia. These passages indicate 
that he considered the passing of ethical judgments as one of 
the functions of a historian; and Curtius proceeds along the 
same line. His final judgment on Alexander in 10, 5, 27 
presents, like that of Arrian, a series of laudable elements of 
character: vis incredibilis animi, laboris patientia propemodum 
nimia, fortitudo, liberalitas, clementia, mortis contemptio, 
gloriaeque laudisque cupido, pietas erga parentes, benignitas, 
benevolentia, consilium par magnitudini animi, sollertia, modus 
immodicarum cupiditatum, veneris intra naturale desiderium 
usus, nec ulla nisi ex permisso voluptas—ingentes profecto 
dotes erant. Over against these fifteen “bona naturae”’ are 
put the few “vitia vel fortunae vel aetatis,”’ the desire for 
divine honors, anger at those scorning to worship him, imita- 
tion of the customs of conquered tribes, “nam iracundiarn et 
cupidinem vini sicuti iuventa inritaverat, ita senectus mitigare 
potuisset.” This last defect is mentioned again in the shorter 
catalogue of his virtues given in 5, 7, 1 ceterum ingentia 
animi bona, illam indolem, qua omnes reges antecessit, illam 
in subeundis periculis constantiam, in rebus moliendis effici- 
endisque velocitatem, in deditos fidem, in captivos clementiam, 
in voluptatibus permissis quoque et usitatis temperantiam 


haud tolerabili vini cupiditate foedavit. Here and there 
throughout the work are scattered references to other virtues 
and to other vices, as are also some indications of Alexander’s 
return to his better self. It is said of him in 5, 7, 11, after 
the destruction of Persepolis, paenituisse constat (cf. Plut. 
Alex. 38) ; in 8, 8, 23, after the death of Callisthenes, quam 
crudelitatem sera paenitentia secuta est; and in 8, 2, 3, after 
the murder of Clitus, paenitentiam solitudo exciebat, the last 
corresponding to the remark in Arr. 4,9, 2 GAAG Ta emi Toiode 
av érawe AdeEdvdpov, 67. mapavtixa éyvw axéTALov épyov épyacdpevos. 

Plutarch De Alexandri Magni Fortuna aut Virtute, 342 F 
has Adrés 8 ciyev ev éavtd tas peyddas éAmidas, beginning with 
éAwidas, while Curtius closes with dotes (10, 5,32). The 
remainder of the section names most of the traits mentioned 
by Curtius, and there are then given the predominant charac- 
teristics of Cyrus, Agesilaus, Philip, Brasidas, Pericles, Aga- 
memnon, Achilles, Diomede and Ulysses. This section is 
summarized by Curtius: Fortitudo, non inter reges modo ex- 
cellens, sed inter illos quoque, quorum haec sola virtus fuit 
(10, 5, 27) ; cf. indolem, qua omnes reges antecessit (5, 7, 1). 
The comment of Curtius on Fortune, quam solus omnium 
mortalium in potestate habuit (10, 5, 35), is practically the 
same as Plutarch’s in 340 A kat yap ei da Tiynv péyas yéyove, 
peilov éoriv dre rH Tixy KaAds Kéxpytat. We do not know of any 
prototype in characterization for Plutarch and Curtius, as 
there is no indication of one in either Aristobulus or Clitar- 
chus so far as they are made known to us by Arrian or by 
Diodorus. In the absence of any such indications the work of 
Curtius must be judged in the light of its relation to Plutarch 
and Arrian. The latter evidently gleaned from the former 
and massed the material. The method of Curtius was the 
same, but he translated the nouns of Plutarch rather than the 
adjectives of Arrian. The judgment of the three is a unity 
in substance, and in form differs only as nouns differ from 

The description of the Caucasus in Curt. 7, 3, 19-21 seems 
based on the apparently original collection in Arr. 5,5. The 
utilization of this by Curtius is evident not only from indi- 
vidual expressions, Asiam dividit: ameipyew ryv ’Aciav; Taurus 
...committitur Caucaso: (évvexys) rovrw 6 Taipos; omnia fere 


flumina: doo... . Adyouv déor, but also from the selection and 
arrangement of the names. 

We find in Curt. 9, 5, 21 Ptolemaeum... huic pugnae 
adfuisse auctor est Clitarchus et Timagenes. Sed ipse, scilicet 
gloriae suae non refragatus, afuisse se missum in expediti- 
onem memoriae tradidit. Tanta conponentium vetusta rerum 
monumenta vel securitas vel, par huic vitium, credulitas fuit! 
Curtius in this comment unwittingly criticises himself, and the 
criticism is certainly based on Arr. 6, 11, 8 Katrot airés IroAc- 
patos dvayeypadev odd rapayevécba tovTw TG Epyw, GAAG oTpaTias yap 
avTos Hyovpevos aGAAas pdxeoOar paxas Kal mpds addovs BapBapovs. 
tavta pev 81 ev exBodrAq Tov Adyou avayeypddOw pot, ws pw dtadaimwpov 
ylyveoOat trois ereta avOpwros THY brép THY THALKOUTwOV Epywy TE Kal 
rabypdrov apnynow. Although Arrian here names Ptolemy, 
Frankel, p. 49, assigns this to Eratosthenes, a misinterpreta- 
tion based on a misinterpretation (p. 47) of the extent of a 
quotation by Plutarch from this writer. 

Arrian in 7, 5,6 states that for services rendered Nearchus 
and Onesicritus were crowned, and the latter is designated 
tov kuBepvatyv THS vews THS BactArkns. He also says in 6, 2, 3 
Tod pev 8) vavtikov mavtds Néapyos atte eényeiro, THs S€ adrov veds 
xuBepyntns <iv> ‘Ovyoixpitos, os ev tH Evyypady, yvtwa irép 
’AdeEdvSpov Evveypawe, kal rovto éfevoato, vatapyov éavTov eivar 
ypaas, xuBepvntyv évra, Curtius observes the same order in 
9g, 10, 3; and 10, 1, 10. Diodorus in 17, 104, 3 Tév 8& Aourov 
ordAov mapadovs Nedpyw kai tow dAdos tov didov, though not 
mentioning Onesicritus seems to make him equal with 
Nearchus. Pliny has in N. H. 6, 81 Onesicritus classis eius 
praefectus; and in 6, 96 and 10g Onesicritus et Nearchus, but 
in reverse order in 6, 124. The statements of Diodorus and 
Pliny show that the common view was that Onesicritus and 
Nearchus were equal in command, and it was only from 
Arrian that Curtius could get the information to correct the 
mistake. Stronger evidence of the indebtedness of Curtius 
to Arrian is furnished by Curtius 9, 5, 21 and Arrian 6, 11, 2 
TloAAG 8& Kai GAAa avayéypamrat Tois évyypadetow imtp tod wabh- 
patos, kal ) phun wapadeeapévy adTa Kata Tos mpwToUs Wevoapéevous 
ére kai cis huas dtaccle, obd8 adhoc. mapadiWotca kat epeEqs dAAots 
Ta Pevdy, el py iad tHode THs Evyypadys wavoerat. 

The above remarks would be uncalled for if Curtius had 
already corrected the mistake. The general remark of Arrian 


suggested to Curtius the putting of Clitarchus and Timagenes 
on the pillory, and he followed the same course as did Plu- 
tarch with the statements in regard to the Queen of the 
Amazons. But more than this. The mention of Ptolemy 
shows that at this point he has abandoned the accounts of 
Clitarchus and Onesicritus, and is drawing directly from 
Arrian 6, 11, 8, the latter part of the passage being expressed 
in Curtius by the one phrase in expeditionem. That the work 
of Curtius is a composite one is clearly evident. And to this 
are due some of its defects. Editors call attention to the fact 
that the lack of clearness in the description of the battle of 
Issus (3, 9) and of the movements of Darius (5, 8) arises 
from an attempt to combine the accounts of Diodorus and of 
Arrian. His account becomes still more involved when there 
is an added Roman element. Ariobarzanes is mentioned in 
Arr. 3, 8, 5 as a Persian commander at Arbela, and later (3, 
18, 2) as a Persian satrap at the Gates of Persia. Later a 
man of the same name and son of Artabazus came to Alex- 
ander. (Compare in Arr. 2, 11,8 Arsames, killed at Issus, and 
in 3, 23, 7 A.son of Artabazus.) If this was the satrap it is 
passing strange that Alexander did not make use of his 
services, as he did of those of his father. But according to 
Curt. 5, 4, 34 Ariobarzanes was killed at Persepolis. The 
accounts in Diod. 17, 68 and Arr. 3, 18 agree in the main, 
though that of Arrian is the fuller. They disagree in regard 
to the time when the bridge was made across the Araxes. 
Neither mentions the death of the Persian leader. Curt. 5, 4, 
33 says that he fled with about forty horsemen and 5000 foot- 
men to Persepolis, was shut out from the city, and consecutis 
strenue hostibus, all were slain. “Craterus quoque raptim 
agmine acto supervenit (chap. 5, 1). Rex eodem loco, quo 
hostium copias fuderat, castra communit,” then pressed on 
with the cavalry, arrived at the Araxes at daybreak, and built 
the bridge. According to Livy 21, 32, 11-13 Hannibal had 
encamped in the mountains after a fight, and it was proper 
that Alexander should do the same thing. But the movements 
of the Persians across the river without a bridge when a 
Macedonian force was building one, the movement of Craterus, 
the defeat of Ariobarzanes, the meeting with the mutilated 
Greeks, are points which Curtius does not harmonize. 


From what source came the incentive to produce the work 
we can not tell. Cicero was familiar with the history of 
Alexander (see de Div. 2, 66, 135), and this had been given 
to the Romans somewhat in detail by Pompeius Trogus in the 
reign of Tiberius.1 Following writers reproduced some of 
the episodes. And we are told in Apuleius, Flor. 1,7, 24 eius 
igitur Alexandri multa sublimia facinora et praeclara edita 
fatigaberis admirando vel ausa vel domi provisa, quae omnia 
aggressus est meus Clemens, eruditissimus et suavissimus 
poetarum, pulcerrimo carmine illustrare. The subject was 
ever at hand for any writer who wished to show his skill in 
developing it. 

But the question has been asked whether a writer after the 
time of Arrian could have used the vocabulary found in the 
history of Alexander. Curtius went to his work with a mind 
steeped in the phraseology of classical writers, and it is this 
which he largely reproduces. The possibility of such a repro- 
duction can be shown by a single illustration. It has been 
said of Kossuth, “He used the English tongue so newly 
acquired by him with a rhetorical splendor and force that 
seems to us... little less than supernatural; when one 
remembers that so idiomatic a power had been won by him 
alone in a prison cell in a few weeks and with the Bible and 
Shakspere’s plays for almost his only text-books.” 

But in Curtius are found constructions and thoughts of a 
period later than the classical. There are quoted Cic. Rosc. 
Am. 50, 145 aliena misericordia vivo; and Pliny, Ep. 3, 19, 9 
and Pan. 10, 4 iam te providentia deorum primum in locum 
provexerat. And the two ideas are combined in Curt. 6, 9, 2 
deum providentia et misericordia vivo. By the time of Tacitus 
the misericordia principis was clearly recognized, but we can 
not tell when the transfer to misericordia dei (in Curtius 
necessarily deum) was made from the early Christian writers. 
Curtius was a rhetorician rather than a historian, and to him 
historical verity was less important than rhetorical coloring, 
and his success must be judged by the extent to which he 
attained the latter. The works of Diodorus and of Pompeius 
Trogus were before him when he wrote and we believe those 
of Plutarch and of Arrian also. There are in Curtius many 
personal items which apparently indicate some unknown 

*A, J. P. XXXVIII 20. 


source, as the mention of Cleo instead of Anaxarchus in 
8, 5. But in Justinus there are several peculiar personal 
touches, and in 12, 6, 14 an imaginary list of names that came 
to the mind of Alexander. Judging by Justinus the work of 
Pompeius Trogus must have been rich in the personal element, 
and we may safely assume that like the work of Livy it was 
freely used by Curtius. On this basis we may claim that to 
Pompeius Trogus is due the list of names given in Curt. 5, 
2,5. The entire chapter giving the events following the stay 
at Babylon, which Curtius in 5, 1, 36-39 represents as a 
Capua to Alexander, is based on Diod. 17, 65. Reinforce- 
ments came from Antipater (Diod. sec. 1) under the command 
of Amyntas Andromeni (Arr. 3, 16,10). Five days later the 
army entered Sittacene (Diod. sec. 2), and some changes 
were made in the military organization, ris orpatiwtixys Tté€ews 
éripednOnvac (Diod. sec. 2), and é ras iwrinys tov oTpatwrov 
diardgews (Diod. sec. 4). Curtius incorporates an epitome of 
Arr. 3, 16, 11, and gives the names of the eight victors in the 
contests. But sec. 3 has chiliarchas vocabant, based on the 
mention of the chiliarchia in Arr. 3, 29, 7 and 4, 24, 10, and 
sec. 4 is his own interpretation of the situation. Here we 
have the blending of material certainly from two secondary 
sources, and we believe from three, with his own interpreta- 
tion added. It is by these interpretations that he has given 
color to the entire work, and has shown that he has an imagi- 
nation akin to that which enabled Apuleius to portray the 
career of the transformed Lucius. And there is no need of 
conjuring up an intermediate Verfasser—a veritable auctor 
ex coniectura—to account for changes from sources which 
Curtius, just as easily as he, might either wittingly or un- 
wittingly have made. 

There were added also literary touches to heighten the 
artistic effect. Vergil wrote in the Georgics 4, 212 

Rege incolumi mens omnibus una est; 
Amisso rupere fidem 

and the words were taken as an illustration by Seneca, Ep. 
114, 23; and de Clem. 1, 4, 1. Curtius, getting the thought 
either from Vergil or from Seneca, takes it to adorn the nar- 
rative in 4,15, 24 Curru Dareus, Alexander equo vehebatur. 


Utrumque delecti tuebantur sui immemores quippe amisso 
rege nec volebant salvi esse nec poterant. 

If we correctly understand his aim the value of facts would 
not justify him in gleaning them from many authors. In one 
passage he mentions Ptolemy, Clitarchus and Timagenes, but 
Arrian gives the first as authority for the same fact, and 
Curtius names the others as guilty of the charge made by 
Arrian. It is possible that either Arrian or Curtius may have 
changed the order of terms as given by an earlier writer, and 
a different arrangement may not indicate that Curtius pur- 
posely varied from Arrian. But a thorough-going comparison 
of the vocabulary of Diodorus and of Arrian shows that the 
two writers were entirely independent of each other. An 
equally thorough examination of the works of Arrian shows 
that all the elements have been reduced to uniformity. 
Because ‘of this there is very little probability that Arrian 
drew from any source the identical words which Curtius 
has either translated literally, or varied in the Latin words. 
We cannot believe that Curtius by using Aristobulus and 
Ptolemy established a method of procedure for Arrian. As 
Curtius sets forth material found in Arrian in exactly the 
same way as he does that which he derived from Livy, the 
assumption that he followed Arrian seems to be valid. And 
it is this assumption alone that renders possible a uniform 
interpretation of all phases of his work.