#curtius

[eosphoroz]

X for the bookish ask game~

A to Z bookish survey 📚

X. Marks the spot (start on your bookshelf and count to the 27th book)

Curtius' The History of Alexander

Because, you might not know this, but I am obsessed with this man (note that the book before this one is Mary Renault's Fire from Heaven and the next one is Peter Green's Alexander of Macedon)

[jeannereames]

I see you talk a lot about historiography! What would you consider the most important development of Alexander’s historiography?

What the Hell is Historiography? (And why you should care)

This question and the next one in the queue are both going to be fun for me. 😊

First, some quick definitions for those who are new to me and/or new to reading history:

Historiography = “the history of the histories” (E.g., examination of the sources themselves rather than the subject of them…a topic that typically incites yawns among undergrads but really fires up the rest of us, ha.)

primary sources = the evidence itself—can be texts, art, records, or material evidence. For ancient history, this specifically means the evidence from the time being studied.

secondary sources = writings by historians using the primary evidence, whether meant for a “regular” audience (non-specialists) or academic discussions with citations, footnotes, and bibliography (sometimes referred to as “full scholarly apparatus”).

For ancient history, we also sometimes get a weird middle category…they’re not modern sources but also not from the time under discussion, might even be from centuries after the fact. Consider the medieval Byzantine “encyclopedia” called the Suda (sometimes Suidas), which contains information from now lost ancient sources, finalized c. 900s CE. To give a comparison, imagine some historian a thousand years from now studying Geoffry Chaucer from the 1300s, using an entry about him in some kid’s 1975 World Book Encyclopedia that contains information that had been lost by his day.

This middle category is especially important for Alexander, since even our primary sources all date hundreds of years after his death. Yes, those writers had access to contemporary accounts, but they didn’t just “cut-and-paste.” They editorialized and selected from an array of accounts. Worse, they rarely tell us who they used. FIVE surviving primary Alexander histories remain, but he’s mentioned in a wide (and I do mean wide) array of other surviving texts. Alas this represents maybe a quarter of what was actually written about him in antiquity.

OKAY, so …

The most important historiographic changes in Alexander studies!

I’m going to pick three, or really two-and-a-half, as the last is an extension of the second.

FIRST …decentering Arrian as the “good” source as opposed to the so-called “vulgate” of Diodoros-Curtius-Justin as “bad” sources.

Many earlier Alexander historians (with a few important exceptions [Fritz Schachermeyr]) considered Arrian to be trustworthy, Plutarch moderately trustworthy if short, and the rest varying degrees of junk. W. W. Tarn was especially guilty of this. The prevalence of his view over Schachermeyr’s more negative one owed to his popularity/ease of reading, and the fact he wrote on Alexander for volume 6 of the first edition (1927) of the Cambridge Ancient History, later republished in two volumes with additions (largely in vol. 2) in 1948 and 1956. Thus, and despite being a lawyer (barrister) not a professional historian, his view dominated Alexander studies in the first half of the 20th century (Burn, Rose, etc.)…and even after. Both Mary Renault and Robin Lane Fox (neither of whom were/are professional historians either), as well as N. G. L. Hammond (with qualifications), show Tarn’s more romantic impact well into the middle of the second half of the 20th century. But you could find it in high school and college textbooks into the 1980s.

The first really big shift (especially in English) came with a pair of articles in 1958 by Ernst Badian: “The Eunuch Bagoas,” Classical Quarterly 8, and “Alexander the Great and the Unity of Mankind,” Historia 7. Both demolished Tarn’s historiography. I’ve talked about especially the first before, but it really WAS that monumental, and ushered in a more source-critical approach to Alexander studies. This also happened to coincide with a shift to a more negative portrait of the conqueror in work from the aforementioned Schachermeyr (reissuing his earlier biography in 1973 as Alexander der Grosse: Das Problem seiner Persönlichtenkeit und seines Wirkens) to Peter Green’s original Alexander of Macedon from Praeger in 1970, reissued in 1991 from Univ. of California-Berkeley. J. R. Hamilton’s 1973 Alexander the Great wasn’t as hostile, but A. B. Bosworth’s 1988 Conquest and Empire: The Reign of Alexander the Great turned back towards a more negative, or at least ambivalent portrait, and his Alexander in the East: The Tragedy of Triumph (1996) was highly critical. I note the latter two, as Bosworth wrote the section on Alexander for the much-revised Cambridge Ancient History vol. 6, 1994, which really demonstrates how the narrative on Alexander had changed.

All this led to an unfortunate kick-back among Alexander fans who wanted their hero Alexander. They clung/still cling to Arrian (and Plutarch) as “good,” and the rest as varying degrees of bad. Some prefer Tarn’s view of the mighty conqueror/World unifier/Brotherhood-of-Mankind proponent, including that He Absolutely Could Not Have Been Queer. Conversely, others are all over the romance of him and Hephaistion, or Bagoas (often owing to Renault or Renault-via-Oliver Stone), but still like the squeaky-nice-chivalrous Alexander of Plutarch and Arrian.

They are very much still around. Quite a few of the former group freaked out over the recent Netflix thing, trotting out Plutarch (and Arrian) to Prove He Wasn’t Queer, and dismissing anything in, say, Curtius or Diodoros as “junk” history. But I also run into it on the other side, with those who get really caught up in all the romance and can’t stand the idea of a vicious Alexander.

It's not necessary to agree with Badian’s (or Green’s or Schachermeyr’s) highly negative Alexander to recognize the importance of looking at all the sources more carefully. Justin is unusually problematic, but each of the other four had a method, and a rationale. And weaknesses. Yes, even Arrian. Arrian clearly trusted Ptolemy to a degree Curtius didn’t. For both of them, it centered on the fact he was a king. I’m going to go with Curtius on this one, frankly.

Alexander is one of the most malleable famous figures in history. He’s portrayed more ways than you can shake a stick at—positive, negative, in-between—and used for political and moral messaging from even before his death in Babylon right up to modern Tik-Tok vids.

He might have been annoyed that Julius Caesar is better known than he is, in the West, but hands-down, he’s better known worldwide thanks to the Alexander Romance in its many permutations. And he, more than Caesar, gets replicated in other semi-mythical heroes. (Arthur, anybody?)

Alfred Heuss referred to him as a wineskin (or bottle)—schlauch, in German—into which subsequent generations poured their own ideas. (“Alexander  der  Große  und  die politische Ideologie  des Altertums,” Antike und Abendland 4, 1954.) If that might be overstating it a bit, he’s not wrong.

Who Alexander was thus depends heavily on who was (and is) writing about him.

And that’s why nuanced historiography with regard to the Alexander sources is so important. It’s also why there will never be a pop presentation that doesn’t infuriate at least a portion of his fanbase. That fanbase can’t agree on who he was because the sources that tell them about him couldn’t agree either.

SECOND …scholarship has moved away from an attempt to find the “real” Alexander towards understanding the stories inside our surviving histories and their themes. A biography of Alexander is next to impossible (although it doesn’t stop most of us from trying, ha). It’s more like a “search” for Alexander, and any decent history of his career will begin with the sources. And their problems.

This also extends to events. I find myself falling in the middle between some of my colleagues who genuinely believe we can get back to “what happened,” and those who sorta throw up their hands and settle on “what story the sources are telling us, and why.” Classic Libra. 😉

As frustrating as it may sound, I’m afraid “it depends” is the order of the day, or of the instance, at least. Some things are easier to get back to than others, and we must be ready to acknowledge that even things reported in several sources may not have happened at all. Or at least, were quite radically different from how it was later reported. (Thinking of proskynesis here.) Sometimes our sources are simply irreconcilable…and we should let them be. (Thinking of the Battle of Granikos here.)

THIRD/SECOND-AND-A-HALF …a growing awareness of just how much Roman-era attitudes overlay and muddy our sources, even those writing in Greek. It would be SO nice to have just one Hellenistic-era history. I’d even take Kleitarchos! But I’d love Marsyas, or Ptolemy. Why? Both were Macedonians. Even our surviving philhellenic authors such as Plutarch impose Greek readings and morals on Macedonian society.

So, let’s add Roman views on top of Greek views on top of Macedonian realities in a period of extremely fast mutation (Philip and Alexander both). What a muddle! In fact, one of the real advantages of a source such as Curtius is that his sources seem to have known a thing or three about both Achaemenid Persia and also Macedonian custom. He sometimes says something like, “Macedonian custom was….” We don’t know if he’s right, but it’s not something we find much in other histories—even Arrian who used Ptolemy. (Curtius may also have used Ptolemy, btw.)

In any case, as a result of more care given to the themes of the historians, a growing sensitivity to Roman milieu for all of them has altered our perceptions of our sources.

These are, to me, the major and most significant shifts in Alexander historiography from the late 1800s to the early 2100s.

[moonshinemagpie]

Mary Renault just absolutely annihilating 1st century Roman historian Curtius

[me-and-my-friends-say-things]

Friend 9: I really appreciate you asking btw

Me: Yeah of course its just courteous to do SO

Friend 9: Courteous?

Oh

Nevermind

I had no clue how to read that

...maybe I am dyslexic

Me: polite, respectful, or considerate in manner. Its pronounced curt e us oh ok ill just send this anyways tho

Nah i thought it was spelled curtius you're good

[jeannereames]

Did Alexander drag Batis behind his own chariot, or did he just order it done? How do you think everyone else felt about it? It seems brutal, even for the time?

How one answers this depends a bit on how one already sees Alexander (positive or negative). Those who, following Badian and Schachermeyer, have a negative view, take it as proof of Alexander’s cruelty. Those who see him more positively want to dismiss it, or at least justify it.

The fact this particular titbit comes only from Curtius Rufus (4.6.25-29) makes it easier to dismiss.

But we must approach it logically. First, if he did do it, what might have been his motivating factors? And if he didn’t do it, what motivating factors led Curtius to invent it?

Curtius notes that Alexander claims to imitate Achilles in the Iliad. Yet Achilles’s dragging of Hektor’s corpse was not portrayed in any way, shape, or form as an admirable action (Hom. Il. 22.395). The Iliad is about Achilles’s descent and redemption, and dragging the corpse was his absolute nadir. He desecrates the body of an honorable enemy. If his extreme grief and guilt are the cause, it’s not held up as a good thing. His admirable act, when he recalls his humanity, is in returning the body to Hektor’s father, adding gifts.

So it’s a rather strange thing for Alexander to emulate on purpose. Furthermore, Batis wasn’t guilty of killing Alexander’s best friend to justify that level of inhuman rage. What was Batis guilty of?

Obstinacy. I want to point out here that Romans hated obstinacy in the enemy. THEY could show pertinacia or obstinatio: constancy, perseverance, steadfastness, determination. But in the enemy, it was contumacia: disobediency, stubbornness—obstinacy. Unlike the other two, it doesn’t really have a positive translation. In fact, when Pliny the Younger explains his method of trying Christians, “obstinacy” (contumacia) is one of the things of which they’re found guilty (along with contempt of court and atheism).

That said, Curtius doesn’t portray Alexander as just in his reaction to Batis’s stubbornness. It’s more subtle, and more interesting.

Let’s underscore a couple things: Batis and the Persian garrison with Arabic mercenaries had refused to surrender, despite what Alexander had just done at Tyre. This enraged the king. These points, the sources agree on. He was just SO done, plus he’d suffered two somewhat serious wounds there. But curiously, Curtius gives Batis a little “aristeia” in the midst of his city’s final defeat. It’s a nice Homeric touch. What’s an aristeia? A description of individual heroic fighting. Batis’s is only a couple lines (4.6.25-26a), but note it’s given to the enemy.

Right after Batis’s aristeia, Curtius reminds the reader that Alexander usually respected bravery in the enemy (4.6.26). What appears to have sealed Batis’s fate here was his refusal to yield or speak when brought to Alexander, he “obstinately” stares at the king, straight-backed, and won’t yield, bow, or speak. And YES, “contumacia” is the word used: sed contumaci quoque vultu intuens regem nullam…

Yet, with that aristeia, the reader should sense a certain respect for Batis. What’s up with that?

Part of Curtius’s larger theme is Alexander’s corruption by Eastern orientalism, as well as the overall corruption brought by power. Curtius even says, after Batis’s contumacia…“Then his wrath changed to ‘madness’ (rabiem…from rabiēs, yes the root of the disease rabies), for even then his new fortune suggested foreign customs (perigrinos ritus).” (4.6.29)

In short, his “new fortune” will lead to his moral decline, and this is an early hint of his madness to come. Remember, just above, Curtius had noted that Alexander usually respected bravery but was now acting out of character, treating Batis with “insolent joy” (4.6.26). And here, just a few lines later, he slips in, as the reason, “foreign customs” as a result of great success.

I see what you did there, Curtius!

It gets even better. Back to the Homeric imitatio. Curtius says Alexander clamed imitation of Achilles, from whom his line came (via his mother, the Molossian royal house). But this implies Alexander has lost his moral compass (or is in the process of losing it) because he doesn’t see he’s emulating the wrong act. Yet Curtius’s readers would recognize as much.

So there’s some pretty complicated signaling going on. It’s elegant, really.

But could the bare bones of the event be true, even if Curtius dressed it up?

Sure. Consistently in the histories, Alexander has two chief faults: an excessive love of honor (philotimia) and desire for fame (kleos), as well as his terrible temper, made worse when in his cups or when he felt himself to be slighted (which circles back around to his philotimia). Batis insulted him by refusing to kow-tow…and Alexander blew his top, deciding to make an example of Batis, not unlike Thebes and Tyre, although aimed very specifically here.

So I think it’s quite possible he did do it, but not as an Homeric allusion. Alexander may have had a completely different reference in mind, assuming it wasn’t just “execution by dragging,” which was also a thing. (No, I’m not sharing as it’s the seed of a future article.) Btw, Curtius says only that Batis was tied by his ankles to the back of Alexander’s chariot, then the horses dragged him. Alexander wasn’t driving the chariot. (Another difference from Homer.)

There’s an unfortunate tendency to over-Homerize Alexander. He read widely. It wasn’t Kleitos quoting Homer that let Alexander to run him through; Kleitos quoted just a snippet of Euripides, who both Plutarch and Strabo tell us was his favorite playwright. Likewise, Alexander surely read Herodotos, Thucycides, Xenophon, Plato, Isokrates and probably a passel of other things we no longer know about.

So we shouldn’t just dismiss Curtius’s stories as automatically wrong because they’re hostile. As with the Branchidai incident (which is also horrible and which I also think happened, although it’s attested in more places than just Curtius), we must separate, insofar as we can, what Alexander thought he was doing from what Curtius says Alexander thought he was doing.

[jeannereames]

Is the story about Hephaistion kissing Alexander's ring after accidentally reading one of his private letters true at all? What does it indicate about the esteem in which Hephaistion was held?

I don’t know if it’s true. It’s in Curtius, related when Hephaistion casually started reading a letter from Alexander’s mother over the king’s shoulder (perhaps confirming, in a backhanded way, the height differerence). And he didn’t kiss it. When some of the men standing around saw and griped about Hephaistion’s cheek, Alexander set the seal to his lips, the same as he’d do to a sealed missive. It’s part of comment on his prominence at the court, and how he exercised it judiciously, not arrogantly, although reading over the king’s shoulder seems sorta arrogant to me. I think the implication of the story, however, is that he did it without thinking, because he was used to doing it.

[jeannereames]

So do you think Hephaistion really selected Abdolonymus as King of Sidon? Is the entire story a vehicle for Curtius moralising, or do you think that Hephaistion *was* given the task of finding a new king, and Curtius just decided to embellish it?

I already answered this? Yes, I think he selected him. But yes, I also think Curtius embellished it.

[gokurakuya]

Curtius  Alc.7,0%Vol. e37,5cl Brasserie {C} Impasse des Ursulines, B-4000 Liège www.Brasseriec.com www.lacurtius.com リエージュの名物の階段「Montagne de Bueren」のすぐとなりにある醸造所。前まで行ったけどタイミングあわなくて素通りしてしまった。旅行者の行きやすい醸造所は以外に少ないので貴重。今度絶対いく‼️ #brasseriec #curtius #liégeoise #montagnedebueren #belgianbeer #beer #belgischbier #bier #bièrebelge #bière #bierpassie #beerlover #beerstagram #instabeer #bierebelge #beergee #beerlover #belgianbeerlover #belgium #belgique #belgie #ベルギービール #ベルギー #ビール大好き https://www.instagram.com/p/CHTC56vFnew/?igshid=1vod5hmb4qxmn