J.E. Atkinson, Curtius Rufus: Histories of Alexander the Great Book 10. Clarendon Ancient History Series.

Polanski, Tomasz

J.E. Atkinson, Curtius Rufus: Histories of Alexander the Great Book 10. Clarendon Ancient History Series. Oxford, Clarendon Press 2009. Pp. 320. ISBN 978-0-19-955762-2. Price UK90.00 [pounds sterling]. (1)

I would like to begin my review of this book with Yardley's translation, and then turn to Atkinson's introduction and commentary. The Yardley translation is exact, idiomatic and literary. A good test of the interpreter's art of translation is offered by such rhetorical passages as, for example, Alexander's speech addressed to the mutinous soldiers in Opis (2.15-29), and successively to the Iranian units (3.7-14). The interpretation as regards semantics, phraseology and rhetorical embellishments is well done. For my part, I would suggest a few minor corrections. Yardley translates virginesque principes feminarum stupra perpessae ... (1.3) as 'virgins and women of the highest breeding had been sexually assaulted'; I would prefer: 'they (sc. the Macedonians) had sexually abused even young girls and women of aristocratic descent.' Where Yardley interprets monumentum, litteris gentis eius scriptam (1.4) as unspecific and general ('the monument bore writing in the script of that race'), I would be inclined to read it specifically as 'the inscription incised in the local script' (gentis eius, of the islanders). At 1.30 (cui [scil. corpori Cyri] dare volebat inferias), Yardley writes of Alexander 'wishing to pay funeral honours to the corpse of Cyrus', but inferiae means 'sacrifices to the dead.' At 1.31: Alexander found an acinaces in Cyrus' grave. This word does not refer to 'a scimitar' - it is a short dagger-like straight Persian sword, one of Curtius' frequently occurring technical terms. Yardley has 'May I not tempt providence, but the line of this same house will prolong the conditions of this age, for ever, I pray (Absit modo invidia, excipiet 9.6). The translator understands absit invidia as an incantation. I understand it in a somewhat different way, as conditional; if the hatred does not return, the future of this dynasty - may it be eternal, and if not, at least long lasting - will take upon itself the destiny of this age.

I am probably too traditional in my expectation that I would find Curtius' Latin text included in Atkinson's book. But, after all, why not reprint Muller's edition (1954), of which Atkinson has such a high opinion? Curtius' Book 10 is not that long. It amounts to roughly twenty-three Teubner pages in Vogel's edition (Vogel's edition is not cited among the 'Editions of Curtius,' pp. 249-50).

At the beginning of the introduction we find an essential point: 'as Curtius was writing in an unfree society, it must be a working assumption that the histories may at significant points have a metatextual level of meaning' (p. 1). This insight, which is reflected on many pages of Atkinson's commentary, is very welcome to a reviewer from post-totalitarian Central and Eastern Europe, with his retrospective view from behind the Limes on the destructive force of the Roman imperial literary censorship. Atkinson's important statement is followed by a second one, which directs the reader's attention to another key factor for the understanding of Curtius' allusive language and his well thought out selection of the historical material, which frequently seems to resound with contemporary events of Curtius' own times: 'the intermittent imitation or emulation of Alexander as a feature of Roman politics' (p. 39). This is actually one of the central problems which confronts Curtius' reader, namely, which Roman did Curtius have in mind? Was it Pompey, Crassus, Caesar, Trajan, Caracalla or Alexander Severus? The Alexander tradition tended to idealise him. M. Bieber showed this very well in her book, Alexander the Great in Greek and Roman Art (Chicago 1964). This book, which is still indispensable, has not been included in the bibliography (Atkinson only refers to Stewart's 2003 paper). Bieber's book throws light on Alexander's facial appearance and his physical characteristics, which might have been interesting to adduce in the context of Curtius' epitaph of Alexander in Book 10. However, the Greek belles-lettres also developed a hostile tradition, even if it was never as prominent in the Graeco-Roman literature as the idealising tradition. The hostile tradition, which may be of assistance to the reader of Curtius' Histories of Alexander, can be illustrated by Ephippus of Olynthos' portrait of Alexander as [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] ('a dangerous killer and mentally ill person')--Ephippus, who is absent from the Index, appears on pp. 108-09). Curtius also refers to Alexander's iracundia and cupiditas vini (5.34; pp. 168-69). (2) Was this tradition also exploited by Curtius in his allusive, covert criticism of a Roman emperor or emperors? Their cruelty (Parmenion), moral degradation (Bagoas), drunkenness (Meidias)? Curtius 'warns him (scil. the emperor) off an enforced ruler cult, the adoption of alien cultural practices, homicidal paranoia, and alcohol abuse' (p. 43). He continues: 'Curtius is ... critical of yesmen and flatterers ... Curtius presents resistance to Alexander in far stronger terms than does Arrian' (p. 43 n. 123). This is very important: it means that Curtius developed his own Aesopic idiom to express his criticism of a Roman emperor or emperors. (3) The execution of Osines, an innocent and loyal servant of Alexander, may be pointed out as an instance of Curtius' allusive reference to the Roman imperial court (1.38). Atkinson's sound remark that we have evidence that Osines was a cruel satrap who actually abused power adds substance to the theory that Curtius remodelled the historical figure for moralistic reasons, and employed Osines' case to express his indirect criticism of an unidentified Roman emperor. However, we must be careful. I do not think that Curtius' passage of the Nasamones can be interpreted as an allusion to Domitian (p. 6). This is a traditional Herodotean passage (Hdt. 4.172), which is the common heritage of the Greek and Latin historians. Curtius told the story in relation to Alexander's expedition to the oasis at Siwa, where a reference to Herodotus might have seemed self-evident.

Quellenforschung occupies a large part of the introduction (pp. 19-32). 'Sallust may have had some influence on Curtius in terms of his approach to historiography, but little evidence of intertextual referencing has been adduced ... there is no real evidence that Curtius was in any way influenced by Velleius Paterculus or Valerius Maximus ...' (p. 29). It is also obvious that the Classical historians refer in a more or less overt way to Polybius, Thucydides, Herodotus or Tacitus (pp. 14-17), but this is of little assistance to the reader with regard to Curtius' Book 10. Tacitus was a model historian for all the Roman historiographers, including Ammianus Marcellinus. However, Tacitus was a genius. Curtius is not to be despised. He is interesting, clear and informative, but he cannot be labelled a genius in matters of literary style. This said, Atkinson's remarks on intertextual relations between Curtius, on the one hand, and Justin and Pomponius Mela, on the other, may be of actual value to Curtius students (p. 31). I think Atkinson's expert knowledge can be used in the best possible way when applied to 'Historians of Alexander the Great' and their later Roman followers from Lucullus, Pompey and on, the literary genre in itself in the Graeco-Roman letters. H. Montgomery's paper, The Greek Historians of Alexander the Great as Literature, offers a relevant discussion. (4) With regard to the confusion brought about by Quellenforschung, Montgomery remarked that the Ephemerides may have been untrustworthy to the same degree as Ptolemy's history was and consequently pointed to J. Kristeva's intertextual studies as a possible way out for Alexander scholarship (Atkinson's 'intertextual references to Trogus,' p. 26, at least point in this direction). Quellenforschung has achieved much - no-one will ever doubt this. However, it also calls to mind stories of the bottomless well. Its methodology takes up time and energy for a small reward in the shape of facts and a large amount of speculation. I have translated Diodorus' Books 16, 19 and 20 into Polish and I am strongly convinced that I was actually reading extensive parts of Hieronymus of Cardia's history; of an anonymous historian of Agathocles (Duris?); of a factional, narrow-minded historian of Sicily (and by the way a good writer); and a historian of the Delphic Holy War (Theopompus? Marsyas?). The Greek styles and historical schools change so dramatically in the relevant sections of Diodorus' Library of History that it cannot be any otherwise. However, I cannot prove it. There is no external evidence.

Now I would like to focus on Atkinson's commentary. Almost at the beginning of Book 10 we read an extremely interesting report about Nearchus' naval expedition from the mouth of the Indus to Schatt el-Arab (1.10-15). This passage makes up a parallel account to Nearchus' more extensive report, which has been preserved as an appendix to the Anabasis of Arrian (the Indica). I do not agree with Atkinson's geographical reconstruction of Nearchus' account in Curtius' text (p. 84: cetera incolis crediderant ... esse haud procul a continenti insulam, 1.14). Nearchus' geography of the region between the River Indus and the Straits of Hormuz seems to be as fantastic as that of the Odyssey or Sindbad's voyages. However, from the Straits on to the north it seems to be readable and real. The Persian Gulf was well known to the Greek sailors and geographers. The reported speech speaks of a legendary, unknown island, which Nearchus and Onesicritus were told about by local sailors. I have visited Chusistan and sailed to the Islands of Qeshm and Hormuz and I cannot believe that Nearchus, who sailed along the eastern coast of the Persian Gulf, might have described these islands as a fairyland. However, this point is not essential. Atkinson limited his bibliography on Nearchus to a couple of minor papers (p. 81), whereas Nearchus' Greek Indian expedition has grown in the course of time into an extensive and extremely interesting subject in ancient Oriental studies. I think the commentator was obliged to cite this bibliography. The Nearchus chapter belongs to the best sections of Pearson's Lost Histories of Alexander the Great (New York 1960). (5)

The same has to be said in the context of an interesting passage on the Macedonian administration in Iran: Invisum Macedonum nomen avaritia eorum (scil. of the corrupted, immoral and arrogant Macedonian satraps) ac libido barbaris fecerat (1.4), and Alexander's speech to his Iranian contingents adhibito interprete (3.6; p. 136; cf. p. 221: Peucestes and Laomedon were able to communicate directly with the Persians and their subjects. Did they speak Aramaic, Iranian or both?) Collected together the Iranian passages amount to a large part of Book 10. Consequently some Iranian and Oriental bibliography is needed. S. Eddy in his book The King is Dead: Studies in the Near Eastern Resistance to Hellenism 334-31 BC (Lincoln, Nebraska 1961) referred to the Macedonian atrocities and robberies committed in Iran, including the robbery of Cyrus the Great's legendary tomb in Pasargad (cf. 1.30-35); cf. Arrian's description of the surrounding landscape, its architecture, sepulchral paraphernalia and inscriptions (Anab. 6.29; Curt. 1.3: ne sacris quidem abstinuerant of the high-ranking Macedonian robbers). Atkinson actually adduces very interesting cuneiform texts which document the pillage, robberies and severe taxation during the Macedonian occupation of Babylon (Sherwin-White 1987; Briant 1996). (6) Alexander's dramatic speech to his Iranian army units in the face of the Macedonian mutiny in Shush and Opis offers an opportunity to discuss the essential problem of Alexander's attitude to the Iranians (3.7-14). It is not enough to limit the commentary (p. 133) to Bosworth's 'no visionary policy of fusion' on the part of Alexander (1980b), and to skim over the serious arguments adduced by M. Olbrycht in Aleksander Wielki i swiat iranski (Rzeszow 2004), which Atkinson dismisses as 'the old orthodoxy' (p. 136). (7) I agree with M. Olbrycht that after 330 BC Alexander must have been aware that he would be able to construct and preserve his monarchy only on territorial divisions, loyalties, local economies and administrative and military structures developed by the Iranian aristocracy, which has always been remarkable for its instinct of statehood. There was no other way. The narrow-minded Greeks and Macedonians were unable to preserve the integrity of the great Achaemenid empire.

The commentary on pp. 134-139 is really well done. When Atkinson turns to discuss the papers by Olbrycht, Stewart or Goukovsky, his commentary is captivating. He discusses Roxana's son Alexander IV, Oxyartes who preserved his power and influence, and Roxana's brother Itanes, a high-ranking officer in Alexander's army. Atkinson also recalls Ctesias' Persica (p. 153). (8)

I was absorbed by Atkinson's comment on H. Berve's paper (1938) on Blutvermischung and Herrenvolker as allegedly Alexander's ideas (pp. 140-41). (9) I am grateful to Atkinson for touching on the problem of ideologisation and indoctrination present in the humanities of our time. This is a widespread and lasting problem, a real plague in the humanities of Eastern and Balkan Europe. (10)

Bosworth's comment (p. 137) cited by Atkinson that Alexander was not going to allow his Persian soldiers to marry Macedonian women sounds ludicrous. Imagine we are c. 6000 km from home, at the feet of the monumental Zagros Mountains with their tops covered by eternal snows, at Shush, in an extremely hot climate, on the shores of Schatt el-Arab, and we have managed to get there from the Balkans not by aeroplane or a motor car as I do, but on foot.

In Atkinson's commentary we also come across interesting remarks on the relationship between Curtius' phraseology and the language of the Roman politics which is reflected in the numismatic materials (auctoritas, spes, pax and concordia). This may be of interest to those who are occupied with the language of Roman propaganda.

The concluding part of the commentary is well done as a whole (pp. 200-44): Arrhidaeus, the eulogy of a new emperor, legends on the Roman coins in their relation to Curtius' text, the chronology and list of satraps, the alleged assassination of Alexander, and the exciting search for his tomb in Alexandria. Atkinson has collected a lot of interesting literary, numismatic, historical and epigraphic material and appended it with interesting discussions. He has focused on the Macedonian and Greek affairs, and as far as Graeco-Roman scholarship is concerned, his commentary is very good. My additions have tried to supplement his discussion with some bibliographical references and a number of aspects to direct the reader's attention more to Oriental affairs.

Tomasz Polarnski (Krakow, Poland)

(1) The delay in the appearance of this review is not the fault of the present reviewer.

(2) In his book The Lost Histories of Alexander the Great (New York 1960), L. Pearson explored this branch of Greek historiography.

(3) V. Rudich's book, Political Dissidence under Nero: The Price of Dissimulation (London 1993) may also be of assistance to those of Curtius' readers who would be inclined to read between the lines.

(4) H. Montgomery, 'The Greek Historians of Alexander the Great as Literature', in J. Carlsen (ed.), Alexander the Great: Reality and Myth (Rome 1993) 93-99. Montgomery's monograph Gedanke und Tat (Lund 1965) is cited in Atkinson's bibliography.

(5) Neither has Geschichte und Geographie Bharatas in Arrians Indika by Franz Schwartz (Graz 1973) been included in the bibliography, like other papers by that well-known specialist in the Greek Indika literature. Other items notable by their absence include K. Karttunen, India in Early Greek Literature (Helsinki 1989); P. Chantraine (ed.), Arrien, L'Inde (Paris 1952); G. Wirth & O. von Hiniiber (edd.), Arrian, Der Alexanderzug Indische Geschichte (Munich 1985); A. Dihle, Antike und Orient (with his paper on The Conception of India in Hellenistic and Roman Literature) (London 1984); G. Huntingford's (1980) and W. Shoff's (1912) Periplus of the Erythrean Sea (London 1980, New York 1912).

(6) I would also point to A. Momigliano's book Alien Wisdom: The Limits of Hellenization (Cambridge 1975) with its relevant Iranian chapter and also to a discussion on the image of Iran and its culture in the Greek art and letters in T. Polariski, Ancient Greek Orientalist Painters: The Literary Evidence (Krakow 2002): on the Iranian Orientalism (28-36), the Alexander Mosaic and the Greek Battle Painting (171-91), Rhodogoune (211-26), Roxana (227-38) and other Iranian chapters.

(7) Cf. M. Olbrycht, 'Curtius Rufus, the Macedonian Mutiny at Opis and Alexander's Iranian Policy in 324 BC', in J. Pigori (ed.), The Children of Herodotus (Newcastle 2008) 231-52.

(8) There are two earlier monographs on Ctesias: J. Bigwood, Ctesias of Cnidus (PhD diss. Harvard 1964) and K. Glombiowski, Ktezjasz z Knidos, grecki historyk perskiej monarchii Achemenidow (Gdansk 1981, in Polish), and the most recent one by I. Madreiter, Stereotypisierung-Idealisierung-Indifferenz, which discusses the Persica of Ctesias and Dinon (Wiesbaden 2012).

(9) H. Berve, 'Die Verschmelzungs-politik Alexanders des Grossen.' Klio 31 (1938) 135-68.

(10) In this connection let me recall H. Fuchs and his Geistiger Widerstand gegen Rom in der Antiken Welt (Berlin 1938), with his allusive language and criticism of the Nazi regime in Germany which, perhaps significantly, was published at the same time as Berve's paper.