An Introduction To The Metz Epitome Its Traditions and Value

An Introduction to the Metz Epitome:
its Traditions and Value
The historical and quasi-romantic traditions represented by the Metz

Epitome and its companion piece on the death and will of Alexander (Liber
de morte) are late, problematic and derivative texts on the reign of
Alexander the Great, which students often overlook and scholars often
discredit on grounds of date and reliability.1 It seems appropriate to offer an
introductory appraisal of these texts with a view to asserting their
importance; however, some preliminary comments on the function of
epitomes in the later Roman Empire may help establish a historiographical
context.
Today, a well-known periodical and a familiar standby of salons and
surgeries, namely the Reader's Digest, offers a variety of articles which
range across the broad spectrum of human interest. Its aim is clear: it seeks
to inform, to a limited degree, and to entertain, in a calculated short space
of time. The Reader's Digest's other claim to fame is its production of
'condensed' volumes, which work on the assumption that the mass of
people actually prefer an abridged version of the world's literary classics. In
this aspect of abridgement, the Reader's Digest could be said to be
following the ancient historiographical practice of making epitomes of
existing works, which in post-classical times became a popular form of
literary production. They were often made for economic reasons; the sheer
size of an original (for example, the 142 books of Livy's history) would
naturally entail greater expense in copying and clumsiness in distribution.
They were also written for the reader's convenience, if Martial's epigram
(14.190) about Livy's history (Livius ingens) is any guide to general
opinion: perhaps not everybody would really want to plough through all
that lactea ubertas.2
In the late Imperial period (3rd-5th centuries A.D.) historiography
declined in the West. If I may venture a generalisation, the influx of new
men from the provinces and Germany into the leading classes, as well as an
This paper was first presented as a seminar held in the Department of Classics and Ancient
History of the University of Western Australia. I am most grateful to Professor A.B.
Bosworth and his colleagues for their useful comments and their hospitality. I also
appreciated the advice of the anonymous referee for Antichthon and Associate Professor
G.R. Stanton, both of whom helped in the reshaping of the seminar into article form.
1
Cf. P. Bernard, 'Diodore XVII, 83, 1: Alexandrie du Caucase ou Alexandrie de
l'Oxos?', Journal des Savants (1982) 217-242. The Metz Epitome has remained
inaccessible to students without Latin and the text's corrupt nature has hitherto
deterred translators; however, I look forward to the publication of Professor J.C.
Yardley's recent English translation which will fill this obvious gap. The text of the
Metz Epitoma rerum gestarum Alexandri Magni and the Liber de morte cited here is
that by P.H. Thomas (Leipzig 1966).
For a standard, although somewhat dated, history of the epitome see M. Galdi,
L'Epitoma nella letteratura latina (Naples 1922); also P.A. Brunt, 'On Historical
Fragments and Epitomes', CQ 30 (1980) 477-494.
60
Antichthon 29 (1995) 60-77
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. UCL, Institute of Education, on 28 Jan 2017 at 08:26:25, subject to the Cambridge
Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0066477400000940
An Introduction to the Metz Epitome 61
apparent change in literary tastes,3 resulted in an increased demand from the
highest levels (including the Emperor himself) for breviaria (or concise,
short surveys of [Roman] history) and epitomes. Festus' summary of
Roman history from the city's origins to the accession of the Emperor
Valens, which he dedicated to his princeps (c. A.D. 369), occupies about a
mere twenty pages of a Teubner text.4
But epitomes and related forms of extraction could also be justified on
other pragmatic, literary and didactic grounds; for instance, the collection of
pithy maxims of kings and commanders attributed to Plutarch, which its
author deemed a handy compilation for an active emperor like Trajan,5 or
again Polyaenus' dedication of his Strategemata to Antoninus and Verus,
where he hopes that his collection will be of some use to his rulers and
their staff in their forthcoming Parthian campaign.6 Aelian likewise
dedicated his Tactica to an emperor and even included a table of contents for
the latter's convenience.7 One may also recall Justin's Preface to his
Epitome of Pompeius Trogus' Philippic History. Justin claims his object-
ive will be an anthology of better passages which he has chosen for the
delight and instruction of the reader.8
Even simple condensation will cause changes to the original in
emphasis and context and, as P.A. Brunt observed, ancient epitomes will
invariably reflect the selective interests of the epitomator.9 With a text
like Justin, it is difficult to gauge how much his methodology has been
more or less 'scissors and paste' of Trogus, with perhaps a sentence or two
of his own to provide the transitions, and how much he felt he was writing
a creative work of his own. A growing body of scholarly opinion inclines
to the latter view and evidence suggests that Justin probably meddled with
Trogus' work a good deal more than his Preface would indicate.10
Justin's text is a sad example of how an epitome was more successful
than the original and probably resulted directly in its loss. However, with
Justin we have at least his Preface, 44 books and the Prologues which
3
See B. Croke and A.M. Emmett (eds.), History and Historians in Late Antiquity
(Sydney 1983) 2, who suggest a marked decline in educational and literary standards;
but compare P. Brown, The World of Late Antiquity (London 1971) 34 f. and E.
Malcovati, 'I Breviari del IV secolo', AFLC 21 (1942) 5-11, who argue for a strong
interest amongst the upper classes in cultural tradition. Cf. also A.H.M. Jones, The
Later Roman Empire 2 (Oxford 1964), especially 1006 f.
4
A. Momigliano, Essays in Ancient and Modern Historiography (Oxford 1977) 112. Cf.
also J.W. Eadie, The Breviarium of Festus (London 1967).
5
Cf. Plut. Mor. 172 C-E; the attribution is controversial but see D.F.C. Babbitt (Loeb
Moralia 3.3 f.) who believes the work was genuine; cf. Brunt (above, n.2) 491 n.40.
6
Cf. Polyaen. Pref. 1.
7
Aelian, Tact. Pref. 7; cf. B. Campbell, 'Teach Yourself How to be a General', JRS 77
(1987) 13-29.
8
Just. Pref. 4-5: 'cognitione quaeque dignissima excerpsi et omissis his, quae nee
cognoscendi voluptate iucunda nee exemplo erant necessaria, breve veluti florum
corpusculum feci, ut haberent et qui Graece didicissent, quo admonerentur, et qui non
didicissent, quo instruerentur.'
9
Brunt (above, n.2) 487.
10
See P. Jal, 'A propos des Histoires Philippiques: Quelques remarques', REL 65 (1987)
194-209; cf. J. Yardley, 'The Literary Background to Justin/Trogus*, AHB 8 (1994)
69-70.
62 Elizabeth Baynham
indicate some of Justin's more blatant omissions; the text, together with
known and potential testimonia of Tragus' work elsewhere, enables us to
gain at least some idea of the nature of the original Historiae Philippicae.''
Unfortunately, we are in no such position with the so-called Metz
Epitome. We do not know the name of the epitomator, or the author of the
original or even when the original and its subsequent abridgement were
composed.12 The extant text is in a shortened and very corrupt state. The
name derives in part from Metz Codex 500, which was compiled in the
tenth and possibly also in the eleventh and twelfth centuries.13 Metz itself
is a town in the French province of Lorraine, but not far from the German
border and the industrial city of Saarbriicken.
The original manuscript, stored in the town's public library, was
destroyed by fire in a bombing raid in 1944. The compilation contained a
number of literary and religious works, but in particular three smaller
pieces in Latin on Alexander the Great; a letter from Alexander to his
teacher Aristotle about his own journey and the country of India (Epistula
Alexandri Macedonis ad Aristotelem magistrum), an epitome of a history
on the deeds of Alexander the Great (Epitoma rerum gestarum Alexandri
Magni) and a document on the death and will of the king (subsequently
termed by Reinhold Merkelbach the Liber de morte testamentoque
Alexandri).14
Although the latter was appended to the Epitome in the manuscript,
and the consecutive numbering of the chapters (or sections) suggests they
are related, each text has been recognised as a separate, independent
treatise.15 The genre of each seems clearly different: the Epitome (1-86) is
part of a historical narrative on Alexander's campaigns and the Liber de
morte (87-123) either a copy of a genuine political/historical document
composed by one faction for propagandist purposes during the early years
of the Diadochoi, or a work of pure fiction, composed at a much later time,
which was absorbed by the Alexander Romance.16
Waldemar Heckel has affirmed the case for thefirsthypothesis and in a
forthcoming article expands his view that the Liber de morte is a
O. Seel attempted a 'reconstruction' of Trogus based on Justin's epitome, from what
he determined were echoes or parallels in other texts; see Pompei Tragi Fragmenta
(Leipzig 1956), especially 1-3 for his collection of testimonia.
12
This assumes the text is an epitome; on the frequent misuse of titles, see Eadie (above,
n.4) 11. But in the case of the Metz Epitome, although there are no other references
with which to compare, the title appeared on the Metz Codex and stylistically the text
reads like an epitome.
13
See F. Pfister, 'Zur Epistola Alexandri ad Aristotelem', VAntiquiti Classique 8 (1939)
410.
See R. Merkelbach, Die Quellen des griechischen Alexanderromans [Zetemata, 9]
(Munich 1954) 122; see also the revised second edition (Munich 1977).
O. Wachsmuth was the first to note the texts' dissimilarity on structural grounds: see
'Zur Metzer Alexander-Epitome', RhM 56 (1901) 150-154; cf. D. Geissenddrfer,
'Die Quellen der Metzer Epitome', Philologus 111 (1967) 258-266.
For a survey of the scholarship on the issue see W. Heckel, The Last Days and
Testament of Alexander the Great (Stuttgart 1988) 2 ff. The thesis that the Liber de
morte was propaganda was first raised by A. Ausfeld, 'Das angebliche Testament
Alexanders des Grossen', RhM 50 (1895) 357-66; subsequently refined by R.
Merkelbach (above, n.14).
representation of a very early tradition that Alexander had been poisoned; he

suggests that the author had in front of him a version—probably in
Greek—of the original pamphlet, a document which Cleitarchus and his
followers (Curtius, Diodorus and Trogus) later rejected. I shall come back
to this point, although I must say here that I do not intend to explore his
historical and prosopographical analysis which dates the pamphlet to
317 B.C. On his reckoning, the pamphlet was preceded by Onesicritus but
known by Cleitarchus; however, judgement is arbitrary on the issue. For
the purpose of this discussion, I shall accept that the tradition used in the
Liber de morte is early.17
Nevertheless, both texts may have been the work of one intermediate
compiler: again I shall have more to say in due course.
To return for the moment to the Metz Codex: the Epistula ad
Aristotelem was well represented in other codices elsewhere;18 thus the
interest of nineteenth-century scholars became focused on the Epitome. In
1886 D. Volkmann and five of his colleagues produced the editio princeps;
however, this only ever received a limited circulation and was not available
in bookshops. Systematic study of the texts had to wait until O. Wagner
published an edition with a comprehensive Preface in 1900.19 Since then,
scholarly interest has centred on textual improvement and P.H. Thomas'
(1966) Teubner edition now appears to be the most accessible and usually
cited edition.
But there has also been considerable discussion of the questions of
date, literary classification, sources, authorship and the relationship of the
Epitome to the Liber de morte. On the problem of the date, suffice it to say
for now that the date of the texts is generally agreed to be late, c. the fourth
or fifth centuries A.D., as Wagner suggested and as Lellia Ruggini's
systematic analysis of the language and style of the two texts de-
monstrated.20
For the remainder of this article I am going to concentrate on two
areas: firstly on the use of traditions in the historical narrative of the Metz
Epitome and secondly (as I indicated above) on the question of single
compilation.
The Metz Epitome has long been acknowledged as part of the so-called
'Vulgate'; roughly speaking, it belongs to the same corpus as Diodorus,
Curtius and Justin and, to a lesser extent, Plutarch. The term 'Vulgate' in
itself is little more than a label, which at its most basic definition simply
means the presence in all these extant histories of a common source, which
17
Contra Heckel. see J. Seibert, 'Das Testament Alexanders, ein Pamphlet aus der
FrUhzeit der Diadochenkampfe?' in A. Kraus (ed.), Land und Reich, Stamm und
Nation: Festgabefiir Max Spindler (Munich 1984) 1.247-260 and Gnomon 62 (1990)
564-567; but cf. W. Heckel, 'The Early Evidence for the Plot to Poison Alexander the
Great' (forthcoming).
1
Cf. L. Ruggini, 'L'Epitoma rerum gestarum Alexandri Magni e il Liber de morte
testamentoque eius', Athenaeum 39 (1961) 285 n.l.
19
GeissendoYfer (above, n.15) 258. For Wagner's text, see Incerti auctoris epitome
rerum gestarum Alexandri Magni ed. O. Wagner, Diss. Strasbourg 1900 and NJKPh
Suppl. 26(1901)91-167.
20
Athenaeum 39 (1961) 285-357.
represents an alternative account to the principal, or 'court', traditions used

by Arrian; yet the term should not imply that the vulgate authors made
exclusive use of the one tradition.21 Various scholars have tried to connect
the Metz Epitome with lost or extant histories of Alexander, such as
Timagenes', 22 or Quintus Curtius'23—and admittedly, of all our sources,
sections of the Epitome correspond quite closely to parts of Curtius, Books
7-9. Yet there are enough differences to indicate that Curtius was probably
not the direct model24 and the similarities in this case may be explained by
a shared source, most likely Cleitarchus.
What I intend to illustrate is not only the Metz Epitome's almost
certain use of early historical sources, but also its peculiar extraction and
mixture of authorities. The Metz Epitome is valuable for cross-referencing
to our extant sources because, as we shall see below with the account of
the Massaga siege and other examples, it often supplements them. How-
ever, more importantly, the text contains historical information found
nowhere else. Despite its late date, its inaccuracies and its sketchy nature, I
shall argue that the Metz Epitome should be taken seriously and regularly
considered alongside Curtius Rufus, Diodorus, Justin and Plutarch.25
Quellenforschung always has its limits, especially in the attribution of
sources—and it is often an irresistible temptation to accord material to a
name, whose own work survives in the scantiest of testimonia—like
Timagenes—or to the even more obscure Diyllus.26 Nevertheless, with a
text like the Metz Epitome, where the lack of evidence on the original
makes it very difficult to determine how much the epitomator has tampered
with it, comparison with the other extant Alexander histories is the most
appropriate methodology. Only then can we suggest the interests of the
author and the possible expectations of his audience.
In its surviving state, the historical narrative covers only part of the
king's reign after the death of Darius: from his campaigns in Hyrcania to
Southern India (1-86) where the text breaks off. We do not even know
2
' Cf. N.G.L. Hammond, Three Historians of Alexander the Great (Cambridge 1983) 1 f.;
A.B. Bosworth, Conquest and Empire (Cambridge 1988) 298.
22
See G. Landgraf, 'Die Sprache der neuaufgefundenen epitoma rerum gestarum
Alexandri Magni', BPhW (1901) 252-254 and 'Die Vorlage der neuaufgefundenen
Epitome rerum gestarum Alexandri Magni', BPhW (1901) 410-414. In these articles,
Landgraf explores similarity in language usage in Sisenna, Sallust and the Bellum
Africanum; he concludes (cf. 'Die Vorlage', 413) that the epitomator used a Latin
adaptation of Timagenes' treatment of Alexander with some supplementation from
Cleitarchus.
23
See F. Pfister, 'Studien zum Alexanderroman', Wurzburger JahrbUcher 1 (1946) 29-
66 (= Kleine Schriften zum Alexanderroman [Meisenheim am Glan 1976] 17-52). He
believes Curtius was used directly along with other sources (28).
24
See Merkelbach (above, n.14 [1954]) 118 n.2.
One may note P. Goukowsky's recent, pertinent comment; see 'Alexandrie de l'Oxus
ou Alexandrie du Caucase?' in M.M. Mactoux and E. Geny (eds.), Melanges Pierre
Uveque, 2 Anthropologie et SociM (Paris 1989) 245.
26
Cf. N.G.L. Hammond, 'The Sources of Diodorus Siculus 16 (I)', CQ 31 (1937) 79-91
and Three Historians (above, n.21) who argues that Diyllus was one of the main
sources Diodorus used in Books 16-17; but more recently, see M.M. Markle,
'Diodorus' Sources for the Sacred War in Book 16' in I. Worthington (ed.), Ventures
into Greek History (Oxford 1994) 43-69.
whether the original was a Greek or a Latin history; for example, the
epitomator (40) uses the classical Roman military term testudo21 to
describe a tactic used during the siege operations against Queen Cleophis.
The word normally describes either a formation of overlocking shields or a
mobile protective shed (cf. Caesar, BCiv. 2.2.4) and although the passage
is corrupt, the context seems to suggest the latter. Its appearance here is
not necessarily inappropriate or indicative of a Latin model; Curtius, who
did work from early Greek sources, also uses the same word although not
in this context and more likely in its alternative sense of a screen of
shields.28
Another interesting linguistic question is raised at Metz Epitome 2
where Alexander adopts the costume of the Great King. The sentence is
very corrupt, but the context and the phraseology (tunicam mesoleucum)
clearly means the Great King's tunic, purple with a broad stripe of white in
its centre, which was described by Xenophon and other sources.29 Meso-
leucos is not a common word in Latin;30 Wagner's alternative reading
mesoleucon, a Greek adjective of two terminations, suggests that the
epitomator may have simply transliterated the Greek letters and therefore
was perhaps working from a Greek source; but unfortunately the trans-
literation could have occurred at any stage in the transmission of the text
and again is probably of little use to us.
The Epitome is certainly an odd text which in some ways seems like a
poor rehash of our more substantial narratives. There is the marked
emphasis on traditional motifs—like the comparison of Alexander's
achievement with Father Liber (Dionysus) or Hercules.31 The text is
brightened with a generous splash of dramatic colour and sensationalism;
for instance, certain episodes which are well represented (with varying
degrees of detail) in our other sources, such as the gruesome murder of
Spitamenes by his wife (20-23), the lion-fighting dogs of King Sopithes
(66-67) and Alexander's cruel and paradoxical battle of wits with the slick
Indian philosophers (78-84) 32 are given rather more space than one may
expect would be suitable for an abridgement.
7
The text is uncertain; testudinesque is accepted by Wagner, but cf. Thomas 13. We
may also compare another classical military term, scorpio (42), for a kind of catapult.
28
Cf. Curt. 5.3.9; see J.E. Atkinson, A Commentary on Q. Curtius Rufus' Historiae
Alexandri Magni, Books 5 to 7.2 (Amsterdam 1994) 81. Curtius may have been
referring to the Greek x€^vr\ (cf. Dio 49.29.2), a variation on auuaama/uds; a tightly
packed formation using overlapping shields; cf. Diod. 16.3.2, Polyb. 4.64.6-7, Arrian,
Tact. 2.4. On the types of these formations, see F.W. Walbank, A Historical Comment-
ary on Polybius 2 (Oxford 1967) 183 ff., 3 (Oxford 1979) 342-44.
29
Cf. Xen. Cyr. 8.3.3, Ephippus apud Ath. 12.537 E = FGrH 126 F 5, Curt. 3.3.17.
Cf. Pliny, NH 37.174 who uses mesoleucos as a technical term to describe a precious
stone when marked with a white stripe; according to the OLD, it also referred to a
plant with variegated leaves, see Pliny, NH 27.102.
3
' Cf. 12, 34, 36-37 (Dionysus), 46-47 (Hercules and the Rock of Aornus). See also
below, n.65.
32
Spitamenes: see Curt. 8.3.1-15, cf. Arrian, Anab. AMI. The dogs: Curt. 9.1.31-34,
Diod. 17.92, Strabo 15.1.31 (C 700); elsewhere, Plutarch cites Aristobulus as an
authority on a breed of dog which fought lions, cf. FGrH 139 F 40. The Gymno-
sophists: cf. Plut. Alex. 64, the Berlin Papyrus 13044 = FGrH 153 F 9 and, for a
In particular, the story of Sopithes' dogs, which were so tenacious that
they held on to their quarry even whilst being dismembered, enjoyed a
relatively wide distribution in the Alexander traditions. As it appears in the
Epitome, the episode is consistent with the other accounts, save for the
elaborated detail that the best of the dogs had supposedly been sired by
tigers—the offspring of those fortunate bitches which the tiger had not
eaten. While the inclusion of this piece of zoological fantasy says some-
thing about the tastes of the epitomator (and his audience), the tradition
appears (in a more restrained form) in Diodorus 17.92.1 and again it is
likely that the story ultimately derived from Cleitarchus.
Overall there is a tendency for the anecdotal, like the story of Acuphis
of Nysa (36-38) who, when Alexander asked him for a '100 of the best
men (optimi)', replied that no state could survive such a deprivation and
said the king would do the place a favour if he were 'to take 200 of our
very worst!' This tradition, perhaps initiated by Aristobulus, which again
was evidently well known, is represented essentially in the same form in
Arrian (Anab. 5.2.2-4—with some extra information)33 and Plutarch
(Alex. 58.8-9).
On the other hand, beyond the reference (1-2) to Alexander's orient-
alism, which has a distinct leaning towards tyranny,34 we find a complete
neglect of those episodes—notorious in the vast bulk of the rhetorical
literature—detailing the king's conflict with his followers over his
policies, such as the murder of Cleitus or the Conspiracy of the Pages and
the fall of Callisthenes.35
I suspect these omissions are deliberate rather than the fault of
lacunae—although these do occur. The emphasis in the Metz Epitome is
on Alexander's military achievement and he is presented as an all-
conquering king; hence the capture of Ariomazes' Rock, through the
famous strategem of 'the winged men' (17-18), the Rock of Aornus (46-
47), Alexander's siege of Massaga (39-45), his campaign against King
Porus (56-64) and the capture of the Malli fortress (75-78) are given due
prominence.
The siege of Massaga and the episode concerning Alexander's massacre
of a force of Indian mercenaries36 may be taken as a test-case for analysis in
terms of its tradition and presentation in the Epitome, since it represents
one of those vivid examples of divergence between Arrian and the vulgate
different version of the episode, Ps -Call 3.S-6; on the traditions, see JR. Hamilton,
Plutarch, Alexander: A Commentary (Oxford 1969) 178-179.
See A.B. Bosworth, A Historical Commentary on Arrian's History of Alexander
(Oxford 1980-) [hereafter Arrian] 2.210.
The text is heavily corrupt. On one level, tyrannical tendencies are suggested by the
king's adoption of a personal bodyguard which has implications of tyranny; on
corporis sui custodes multos, cf. Livy 1.15.8, Plut. Marius 35; on Livy's tradition, see
R. Ogilvie, A Commentary on Livy, Books 1-V (Oxford 1965) 84. According to Plato,
Repub. 8.567 d-e, the appointment of personal bodyguards was normal practice for a
tyrant. But the context in ME seems rather to suggest the conventional vulgate
tradition.
35
Cf. Goukowsky (above, n.25) 261 n.7.
36
Siege of Massaga: see Curt. 8.10.22-36, Arrian, Anab. 4.26-27.4, Diod. 17.84, cf.
Polyaenus 4.3, Just. 12.7.9-11.
sources. If I may briefly summarise the incident: in the autumn of 327
Alexander took Massaga, a heavily populated Indian city, either by
surrender, if we accept the Vulgate, or by assault, if we follow Arrian. The
Indian mercenaries were slaughtered following a truce they had negotiated,
either as a result of the town's surrender (Vulgate), or during the course of
the siege (Arrian, Anab. 4.27.2-3). The fact of the massacre is indisput-
able. What remains is whether Arrian is right in alleging that after
promising to serve with the king, the Indians broke the terms of the truce
out of misunderstanding or bad faith, or whether Alexander himself
deliberately violated a formal treaty, mereby incurring what Plutarch (Alex.
59.6-7) termed a KTJXL^ (stain) on his military reputation.
To return to the Epitome's narrative; despite its brevity, the setting
corresponds with the other accounts: Alexander, on his way down the
Kabul valley,37 in the region of what is now the lower Swat, advances on
the town of Mezaga ('Massaga' in Arrian [Anab. 26.1, Ind. 1.8], 'Masoga'
in Strabo [15.1.27], 'Mazagae' in Curtius [8.10.22]), the capital in the
kingdom of Assacenus. According to the Epitome (cf. Curtius 8.10.22), on
the death of the king Assacenus, the country had come under the rule of the
late king's mother, Cleophis (she is not named in Arrian),38 who was pre-
sumably acting as regent for the king's son (cf. Curt. 8.10.35, Arr. Anab.
4.27.4). The town had also been reinforced by the late king's brother,
Amminais, who had commissioned a force of 9,000 mercenaries. As a
historical character, he is unique to the Epitome, but the account is not
implausible. Arrian (Anab. 4.26.1) mentions a mercenary force of 7,000,
which is not an incompatible figure;39 moreover, according to Arrian
(Anab. 4.27.2) the Indian resistance collapsed on the death of its
commander, who may well have been this man.40 Amminais is not
mentioned again in the Epitome, yet the detail (43) of the mercenaries
opening their own negotiations with Alexander, separate from those of
Cleophis, indicates not only their distrust of her and division from her (as
the text acknowledges), but also the probable absence of the man who had
hired them.41
The account of the siege operations in the Vulgate (Curtius, Diodorus
and Justin) is compressed in comparison with Arrian's more detailed and
explicit narrative; but details in common occur between Curtius (8.10.25-
33) and the even more compact Epitome (40-42). In particular, the length
37
ME (39) says the 'Cordiaean mountains'; cf. Just. 12.7.9, Curt. 8.10.19, the 'Daedal-
ian' mountains.
38
W. Heckel, Justin's Epitome of Pompeius Trogus Books 11 and 12 (Oxford, forth-
coming 1996) 12.7.9-11 ad loc. suggests the name may go back to Cleitarchus, but see
A. v. Gutschmid, 'Tragus und Timagenes', RhM 31 (1882) 553-54. Cf. also Bosworth,
Arrian 2.170.
39
So Bosworth, ibid. On Amminais, see H. Berve, Das Alexanderreich auf prosopo-
graphischer Grundlage 2 (Munich 1926) no. 54.
40
So Heckel, ibid.; cf. Berve (above, n.39) 2.25-26 but see Bosworth, Arrian 2.174, who
says the commander or hegemon of Massaga need not have been a member of the
ruling dynasty.
4
' A brother of Assacenus is mentioned by Arrian, Anab. 4.30.5, but this does not
preclude Amminais' possible death at Massaga; Assacenus may have had several
brothers—so Bosworth, Arrian 2.194.
of the circumference of the city wall is the same (35 stadia), both histories
mention a ditch as part of the fortification, the description and circum-
stances of Alexander's injury are similar, and similar emphasis is given to
die king's psychological or technological victory; the startling appearance
of the siege-engines and towers and the apparently supernatural movement
of the projectiles convince the natives that their enemy is more than
human—so they surrender. But whereas Curtius' account is his usual rich,
rhetorical description, with a careful eye for dramatic impact, the epitom-
ator has merely selected what he deemed the necessary details: the site, the
town, its rulers, fortifications, Alexander's wound, the siege operations and
Cleophis' capitulation.
Historically, the siege of Massaga was significant. As A.B. Bosworth
remarks (Arrian 2.174), it presented Alexander with the most serious and
prolonged resistance he had yet encountered in India and he may have indeed
intended the massacre of the mercenaries as a pointed object lesson to other
forces. Moreover, if we accept the evidence of the Vulgate (ME 40; cf.
Curt. 8.10.27-29) the arrow-strike Alexander suffered may have not been
the trifling flesh wound Arrian (Anab. 4.26.5) would suggest;42 we may
think of the siege of Gaza (cf. Curt. 4.6.25-9), where again stubborn
resistance coupled with personal injury and insult probably contributed to
the king's brutal treatment of Betis, the commander of the city.43
For some reason, the incident of the massacre does not appear in
Curtius. Instead, we have the narrative of the siege and Cleophis' surrender,
with an innuendo, thrown in for good measure, about her physical
attraction for the king—and a child that was possibly fathered by him,
called 'Alexander'. This tradition of a liaison between Alexander and the
Queen is almost the sole focus of Justin's interest; he mentions neither the
siege nor the massacre and openly attests both the child's paternity and that
Cleophis was called the 'royal tart' (12.7.11: scortum regium) by the
Indians. But although the Epitome comments that Alexander was struck by
the beauty of the Queen (cf. Curt. 8.10.35) and her dignitas, there is no
hint of an affair. So one explanation is that Curtius may have simply
followed Trogus' source. Such a source may have omitted the mercenary
episode but paralleled the Epitome's tradition on the siege operations.
However, it is also possible that Curtius, in addition to drawing on
(probably) the same tradition used by the Epitome, also exploited another
that was known to Trogus. Over one hundred years ago A. von Gut-
schmid44 suggested that Timagenes may have invented the name of
Cleophis and her child as a play on Cleopatra and Caesarion (Ptolemy XV
Caesar); hence its contemporary appeal for Trogus and Curtius. The
Cf. Plut. Alex. 28.2, Mor. 180 E , 341 B; on the adulatory tradition surrounding the
story, see Bosworth, Arrian 2.172.
Betis of Gaza: cf. Hegesias, FGrH 142 F 5; Alexander supposedly dragged him alive
behind his chariot around the walls of the city. On the historicity of the episode, see
J.E. Atkinson, A Commentary on Q. Curtius Rufiis' Historiae Alexandri Magni, Books 3
and 4 (Amsterdam 1980) 341-3.
Above, n.38.
hypothesis is enjoying a recent revival; one may wonder whether either
Trogus or Curtius would have toyed with such unsubtle literature.45
Another interpretation could suggest that the epitomator (or his model)
edited out the story of a liaison in the interests of moral propriety; for
instance, Cleophis appears to assume a more mature profile than she does
in Curtius, where she appears with her parvusfilius(little son) rather than
the parvus nepos (little grandson) of the Epitome. Yet speculation on
grounds of age does not necessarily rule out sexual appeal; the Epitome
acknowledges her physical beauty and even with a grandchild she could still
have been within child-bearing age herself. It is possible historically that
the king may have found her attractive. The evidence suggests that he
seems to have enjoyed the company of women older than himself; not only
Ada of Caria or Sisygambis, the Persian Queen-mother, but Barsine, the
widow of Memnon. Of all these relationships only the latter appears to
have been sexual; but while Alexander had sound, political reasons for
cultivating the other women, there is no reason to deny his personal
affection for them.46
More pertinent is the Epitome's apparent omission of the visit of the
Amazonian Queen to Alexander, which is also widely represented in the
vulgate traditions—and where her explicit purpose (according to certain
sources) was to become pregnant by Alexander.47 The story was considered
apocryphal by Plutarch (Alex. 46) but credibility, in view of the Epitome's
predilection for the sensational elsewhere, does not appear to have been a
high priority. One has to acknowledge that the king's romantic habits do
not appear to have been of interest to the epitomator (or his original), any
more than Alexander's conflict with his own nobles.
Nevertheless, the affair between Cleophis and Alexander appears to
have been a development subsequent to the source used by me Epitome's
model and, along with the corroboration of Curtius, evidence of (probably)
an early tradition is also supplied by Diodorus (17.84.1-6). Although the
bulk of his account was evidently lost in the lacuna, Diodorus, like the
Metz Epitome (44) and Polyaenus (4.3.20), presents a menacing Alexander
who deliberately pursues the mercenaries and their families; they form a
defensive circle, with their baggage and families located in the centre (Diod.
17.84.3; cf. ME 44). When the mercenaries remind Alexander of the treaty,
45
See Heckel's discussion (above, n.38); cf. O. Seel, Eine rdmische Weltgeschichte
(Nuremberg 1972) 181 f. Tragus' father served Julius Caesar (cf. Just. 43.11); Curtius
(9.5.21) depreciates Timagenes as a source.
46
Ada of Caria, see Arrian 1.23.7-8. She adopted Alexander as her son and was given
the satrapy of Caria, although the king left a substantial force with a Macedonian
general in charge. Cf. Plut. Alex. 22.8 f., who records the anecdote that Ada sent the
king cakes and delicacies 'out of kindness'. On the political significance of Alex-
ander's organisation, see Bos worth (above, n.21) 230, Simon Hornblower, Mausolus
(Oxford 1982) 45-51. Alexander's courteous treatment of Darius' family was famous
and Alexander accorded the title of 'mother' (as with Ada) to Sisygambis (so Curt.
5.2.22); see Bosworth, ibid., 63-64, Atkinson (above, n.28) 68. Barsine, cf. Plut. Alex.
21.7; according to Just. 11.10.3, Alexander had a son by her called Hercules; see
Heckel (above, n.38) ad loc.
47
Cf. Curt. 6.5.25-32, Diod. 17.77.1-3, Just. 12.3.5-7, cf. 2.4.33, 42.3.7, Plut. Alex. 46,
Strabo 11.5.4. On the tradition, see Hamilton (above, n.32) 123 f.
his grim response is to say that he had granted them 'the right to leave, but
not of being the friends of the Macedonians forever'. This is more or less
supported by the other vulgate sources;48 we may compare the king's
excuse in the Epitome, that he gave permission exeundi, non abeundi ('to
leave the town, but not to go away from it'), a somewhat black-humoured
jest which Tarn rightly termed as the 'abominable quibble'.49 In a fashion
similar to his narrative of the sack of Thebes (17.11-13), Diodorus elabor-
ates the pathos of the massacre; the epitomator confines himself to the bald
statement that after 'a ferocious struggle, the mercenaries were killed to a
man' (45).
Thus, for this episode, the Epitome represents not only a supplement
to the Vulgate but, paradoxically, the most 'complete' of the vulgate
accounts; a narrative which, despite its skeletal nature, puts Arrian's (and
his source's) apologetic tendencies into sharp relief.
Other unique information, some of it plausible (as with Ps-Call.),
some likely inaccurate, occurs in the Metz Epitome. I shall only mention a
few examples. According to the Epitome (70) Alexander's wife, Rhoxane,
bore the king a son, who died when the army returned to the Hydaspes late
in 326 B.C. The chronology is not impossible (a time period from approxi-
mately 328-326) but the other traditions mention Rhoxane's pregnancy at
the time of Alexander's death, with no reference to an earlier confinement.
The existence of an earlier child from their union is impossible to deny or
verify;50 still it seems unlikely that the story was pure fabrication. The
Epitome correctly names Rhoxane as the daughter of Oxyartes and at the
time of her marriage adds the detail that Alexander compelled the other
Macedonians to marry Bactrian women—which recalls the famous Susa
marriages in 324—although it is quite likely that the garrison forces would
regularly have taken local wives." However, the incident of mass-
marriages in Sogdiana was apparently reported by Diodorus in the missing
portion of Book 17—or so at least the manuscript table of contents would
indicate. Given that Diodorus probably followed one (or perhaps two)
traditions fairly faithfully and that Cleitarchus was one of those sources, it
is likely that he is the authority here represented in both Diodorus and the
Epitome. The Sogdianian marriages were apparently omitted by Curtius
and are not attested elsewhere, but historically they could have occurred,
particularly in establishing the precedent which was later repeated in the
ostentatious, society affair in Susa.52
Moreover, in certain places the Epitome seems to possess affinities
with aspects of a tradition which is represented in Pseudo-Callisthenes, the
mainstay and ancestor of the Alexander Romance. For instance, at 3-4
Ariobazanes (sic), who is presumably to be identified with Ariobarzanes,
48 Cf. Polyaen. 4.3.20: 6 Si wepl efoSov fiei/ difioXoyei awTeOelaQai, rrepi 8e dcpeaecu?
fir/Sip vneaxfjoGai.
49 See W.W. Tarn, Alexander the Great 2 (Cambridge 1948) 363.
50 The child's existence is accepted by Heckel (above, n.38) ad 12.15.9; cf. Berve
(above, n.39) no. 688 (347).
51 Cf. Diod. 17.107.5, Curt. 10.3.11, Arrian, Anab. 7.4.6.
52 Cf. A.B. Bosworth, 'Alexander and the Iranians', JHS 100 (1980) 1-21, Conquest
(above, n.21) 156.
the satrap of Persis, Alexander's adversary at the Persian Gates53 is
incorrectly represented as Bessus' accomplice in the assassination of
Darius. The same vexing detail appears elsewhere only in Pseudo-
Callisthenes (2.20-21). Yet there is an importance difference: in Pseudo-
Callisthenes, Ariobarzanes and Bessus visit Alexander in the fatal
expectation of receiving rich rewards for their regicide (and are crucified for
their trouble), but in the Epitome Ariobarzanes flees into India and is not
mentioned again in the remaining text. One convenient way of accounting
for this peculiarity is conflation and scribal error (or indolence as Wagner
suggests) in relation to the names of Bessus' historical accomplices,
Satibarzanes and Barsaentes (cf. Arrian, Anab. 3.21.10). Satibarzanes was
the satrap of the Arii, where (if one rightly accepts the textual emendation
Arios for agros) the Epitome also locates Darius' assassin. The purported
flight of Ariobarzanes into India in the Epitome recalls the similar action
of Barsaentes, the satrap of Drangiana, in Arrian 3.25.8 (cf. Curt.
6.6.36).54 The identification of Barsaentes becomes clearer when one
considers the name of Barsaentes' ally, the Indian king, Samaxus, who was
ruler over a small district (Curt. 8.13.4). It is possible that the Metz
Epitome's tradition described Barsaentes' flight from Drangiana into India
and his reception by King Samaxus. In due course, the epitomator vigor-
ously compressed the material and omitted any reference to Samaxus;
however the name may have remained in his mind and he consequently
misrepresented the Arimaspians as remaxii (4). Confusion of oriental
names especially is common in the sources;55 nevertheless, through care-
lessness on the part of either the epitomator or a subsequent editor,
Ariobarzanes, a Persian famous for his heroic resistance elsewhere (cf.
Curt. 5.4.33), ends up in a place he never was and recorded as a perpetrator
of a crime he did not commit.
The use of letters is another unusual aspect of the Metz Epitome. Our
other mainstream histories quote a considerable amount of correspondence
as well, some of which may even have been authentic;56 whereas in the
Alexander Romance letters, particularly between Alexander and Aristotle, or
Olympias, provide an obvious vehicle for fabulous travelogue. However,
53
See Berve (above, n.39) no. 115 who sees the defender of the Persian Gates as the
son of Artabazus. But see Bosworth, Arrian 1.325, who argues that the satrap of Persis
was from a different family.
54
In fact, Goukowsky (above, n.25) 246 prefers to emend agros to ad Drangas.
Drangiana (or Zarangaia: on the terminology of the area, see Bosworth, Arrian 1.358)
was immediately south of Areia.
55
Cf. Goukowsky, ibid., n. 12.
56
The authenticity of the letters is problematic. Many of them are cited in Plutarch
without corroboration by other sources. Some correspondence is thought genuine,
some letters—for example in the Alexander Romances—are pure fantasy, whilst
others, like the epistles between Alexander and Darius are probably literary embell-
ishments by the later traditions on earlier sources. See Bosworth (above, n.21) 299, L.
Pearson, "The Diary and Letters of Alexander the Great', Historia 3 (1955) 419-455,
J. Hamilton, 'The Letters in Plutarch's Alexander', PACA 4 (1961) 9-20. On the
authenticity of Darius' correspondence with Alexander and other issues, see
Bosworth, Arrian 1.227 for bibliographical references, but especially G.T. Griffith,
'The Letter of Darius at Arrian 2.14', PCPS 14 (1968) 33-48.
two provocative letters, one from Porus (ME 56-57), the other from the
Gymnosophists (72-74), are quoted in the Epitome. The tradition of a
letter from both these correspondents also appears in Pseudo-Callisthenes
(cf. 3.2, 3.5). But whereas there is a considerable difference in the context
and content of the Porus letter between Pseudo-Callisthenes and the Metz
Epitome, the latter finds a parallel in a version of a Greek letter already in
circulation around the first century B.C. and now contained in the Hamburg
Papyrus. Merkelbach has argued that the Porus letter in particular was an
insertion in the Epitome which ultimately derived from a collection of such
correspondence.57
Yet the Epitome's treatment of Alexander's encounter with Porus is
interesting for a number of reasons. ME 56-57 has certain aspects in
common with Curt. 8.13.1-2, in Alexander's demand for tribute, the
appearance of Cleochares as an envoy and Porus' response that he would
meet Alexander under arms; also (ME 54, cf. Curt. 8.13.6) the same
figures on Porus' military strength are provided: 85 elephants, 300 chariots
and 30,000 infantry. Again a certain Attalus is dressed like Alexander as a
distraction for Porus (ME 58) and when Porus is defeated (ME 61) he asks
Alexander to consult his feelings as a king—which is similar to the
famous request in Plutarch and Arrian, 'Treat me as a king.'
But there are some intriguing details in the Epitome's account—the
claim (62) that Alexander founded Bucephala (named after his horse
Bucephalus) in the place of the battle, rather than on the west bank of the
Hydaspes,58 and also that the king invited Porus to travel back with him to
Macedonia (64). Dieter Geissendorfer suggested (with some caution) that
Megasthenes may have been the source for these variations, since what he
terms Porus' 'scarcely heroic manner' (die wenig heldenhafte Haltung des
Porus) would fit in well with Megasthenes' 'hostile' attitude to Alexander
and thereby lessen the value of the victory over Porus.59 He may well be
right about Megasthenes as a possible source, although not for the reasons
that he suggests, particularly if A.B. Bos worth is correct about the
aggrandisement of Porus and the battle in the Alexander traditions.60
Besides, on the contrary, Porus is not presented as an unheroic figure in the
Epitome—and he is certainly not the buffoon he has become in the
Alexander Romance. Rather, he is shown as a brave and defiant king,
whose response to Alexander's request that he journey with him is a
57
See Geissendorfer (above, n.15) 264; cf. Pap. Hamb. 129 in R. Merkelbach (ed.),
Griechische Papyri der Hamburger Stoats una" Universitdtsbibliothek 2 (Hamburg
1954) 79-105; cf. Merkelbach (above, n.14 [1977]) 249-250.
58
So Brunt's suggestion, Loeb Arrian 2.61 n.5 and apparently the consensus view: see
Bosworth, Arrian 2.311 ff.; cf. Arrian, Anab. 5.19.4, Curt. 9.1.6, Strabo 15.1.29
(C 698), Diod. 17.89.6. Stephanus of Byzantium, s.v. Boo? KeipaAat says the king
founded Bucephala 'where his horse had died after he had crossed and fought'. Tarn
(above, n.49) 2.236-7 cited the evidence of Ptolemy the geographer in support and his
views were accepted by Geissendorfer (above, n.15) 262 n.2 but more cautious is
Bosworth, Arrian 2.312.
59
Geissendorfer (above, n.15) 264.
60
See A.B. Bosworth, 'The Historical Setting of Megasthenes' Indica', CP 91 (1996)
113-27.
typically proud refusal.61 In short, the Metz Epitome reinforces the myth
of Alexander's victory; it does not tarnish it.
I turn finally to the question of single or separate authorship of the
two texts. Friedrich Pfister in an important article in 1946 argued that both
the Epitome and the Liber de morte were not only independent works but
written by different people. However, Ruggini's linguistic analysis
suggested that not only were the texts from the same era, but that they may
have been compiled by the one hand62 and I should like to add some
observations in support of her conclusions.
Firstly, the same phrase, ubi silentium esse sensit occurs in both the
Epitome (21) and the Liber de morte (101);63 moreover, the context is
similar in both passages (i.e. someone who is lying in bed waits until all
is quiet before getting up in order to carry out an illicit activity).
Spitamenes' wife decapitates her husband in the Epitome, whereas in the
other text Alexander wants to throw himself into the Euphrates.
Also present in both texts is a recurring theme. As I said earlier,
Father Liber and Hercules appear several times as Alexander's role-models.
In the Epitome (34) Alexander, en route to the Indus, comes to another
river (unnamed) where he meets native tribes living on the opposite bank.
They tell him that Father Liber had been the first son of Jupiter to visit
them, Hercules the second and Alexander the third ('primum Iovis filium
<Liberum Patrem>, alterum Herculem, tertium Alexandrum venisse
commemorabant'). The story is probably traditional since it appears, with a
slight variation in emphasis, in Curtius 8.10.1.64 Alexander's identi-
fication with these divine figures, both benefactors of mankind, who
likewise attained immortality, is well documented and undoubtedly
historical.65
6
' The text is corrupt and it is difficult to establish exactly what Poms is saying, but the
essence appears to be that while he would desire to see Alexander's country, he
would not do so as a captive: 'si me exempli causa deportare vis, habes potestatem
deportandi mortuum.' Cf. the refusal of Dandamis in Arrian, Anab. 7.2.3.
62
For details on Pfister and Ruggini see above, nn.20 and 23 respectively.
63
This was pointed out to me by Professor J.C. Yardley. The same phrase occurs
nowhere else in Latin literature; for ubi silentium cf. Sallust, Bell. lug. 33.3.6, Pliny,
Ep. 2.14.10.4, Livy 27.42.11. For silentium sensit, cf. Tac. Ann. 2.38.20—but the
phraseology is different. A parallel usage of dilucescere (not a very common word)
occurs at ME 16 et cum diluxisset and Liber de morte 103 at ubi diluxit.
64
See P. Goukowsky, Essai sur les origines du mythe d'Alexandre 2 (Nancy 1981) 31,
who suggests elaboration on the part of the Vulgate; but see A.B. Bosworth, 'The
Creation of Belief, chapter 4 in Alexander and the East (Oxford, forthcoming 1996)
n.115.
The Argead house traced its descent from Temenus, the Heraclid conqueror of
Argos; cf. Hdt. 8.137, Thuc. 2.99, 5.80. Alexander's imitatio of his ancestor is notable
and may have been genuine, rather than simply the propaganda of his successors; cf.
Arrian, Anab. 3.3.2-3 (Siwah, see Bosworth, Arrian 1.269-70), Arrian, Anab. 4.28.1
cf. 30.4, Diod. 17.85.2, Curt. 8.11.2 (Aornus, see Bosworth, Arrian 2.180). On Alex-
ander's identification with Heracles in iconography see Andrew Stewart, Faces of
Power (Berkeley 1993). For a thought-provoking analysis of Alexander's divine
aspirations in relation to his exploitation and emulation of Dionysus, see A.B.
Bosworth, 'Alexander, Euripides and Dionysos: the motivation for apotheosis' in
Robert W. Wallace and Edward M. Harris (eds.), Transitions to World Power 360-
146 B.C. (Norman, Oklahoma, forthcoming 1996).
But we may compare the Liber de morte (95) when, having received a
dreadful prodigy of a dead child which had living animal parts, Alexander
asks Jupiter to accept him as his 'third mortal in heaven' and the author
remarks:
His, ut videtur, Liberum Patrem primum adnumerabat immortalem

factum, secundum Herculem, tertium se non minoribus factis dignum
deorum mensis dixerat.
Apparently he meant by this that he counted Father Liber as the first
to have been immortalised and Hercules second; and in placing himself
third he had made the claim that his achievements, not inferior to
theirs, entitled him to sit at the tables of the gods. (J.C. Yardley
trans.)
Where did such a statement come from? The concept of Alexander

earning divine status through his achievements is, as I said, traditional;
indeed it is apparently deeply and consistently rooted in the sources sur-
rounding the proskynesis debacle—for instance, the respective speeches of
Anaxarchus in Arrian (4.1.6-7) and Cleon in Curtius (8.5.9-12). But the
wording of the statement in the Liber de morte strikes me as interesting.
There is no parallel in the historical tradition. The opinion inherent in ut
videtur66 could suggest that the remark was inserted by the epitomator
himself as an explanation based on his recollection of the story back in the
historical work.
It is, however, equally possible that the Liber de morte is simply
reflecting contemporary propaganda and that the comment belonged to the
original pamphlet. A similar version appears in Kroll's text of the A MS of
Pseudo-Callisthenes (3.30) and its fifth-century Armenian derivative,67
which are considered early transcriptions of the lost alpha archetype. But
curiously, the statement is not a consistent part of the Romance; it does
not appear in Julius Valerius (c. 3rd-4th century A.D.) or the ji recensions.
These texts were also descended from a. Although Julius Valerius contains
the context of the prodigy which precipitates Alexander's comment in the
Liber de morte, his response is quite different. One could argue that the /?
recensions, in reworking the alpha model, retained the story of the omen,
while dropping Alexander's reply, and that his response in Valerius was the
licence of Valerius.68
Cf. Verg. Eel. 4.63 etc. 'nee deus hunc mensa, dea nee dignata cubili est.' W.
Clausen, A Commentary on Virgil Eclogues (Oxford 1994) 145 mentions the parallel
offered by Nonnus' (also Late Antique) Dionys. 8.416-18 when Semele is translated
to heaven and sits at the table of the gods. The detail of the table could be Hellenistic
as Clausen suggests, but it is also possible that a Vergilian echo may have influenced
the epitomator. (I am indebted to Dr N. O'Sullivan for the reference.)
Cf. A.M. Wolohojian, The Romance of Alexander the Great by Pseudo-Callisthenes
(New York 1969) 260 (149).
Jul. Val. 30: 'His dictis, interpres ierat aversus scilicet si qua posset et exusturus
religiosius portenti illius minas. Alexander vero animo constematus cum gemitu sic ait:
"Pro bone Juppiter, quam bona res est ignoratio metuendorum!" Sed hactenus ilia
animi commotio fuit.'
Yet the lost, so-called delta text provides an interesting comparison.69

It is again considered to have been a version of either the A MS or the alpha
archetype, and in turn probably spawned the Syriac derivatives and the late
(10th cent. A.D.) version of Leo the Archpresbyter. In the latter text, as
with the Liber de morte when Alexander receives the prodigy, he entreats
Jupiter and says,
'Iuppiter altissime! Ut quid dies tarn brevissimo meos spatio con-

clusisti? Decebat me amplius vivere, ut adimplere magnalia, que meus
animus cogitavit. Sed quia tibi non placet, ut hoc perficiam, rogo, ut
me recipias in subiectum.'
There is no reference here to Father Liber or Hercules or being accepted as

the 'third mortal'—but he does ask to be received. Moreover, the king's
plea in Leo is very similar to the immediate context of the Liber de morte
where Alexander remarks, 'O Iuppiter ... utinam conatus meos me perficere
passus esses! sed quoniam ita tibi visum est, accipe me tertium
mortalem.'70
The most consistent feature of the various versions of the Romance
and the Liber de morte is that the king received an omen and made some
kind of comment. Exactly what he said is more difficult to determine. Of
course, without the alpha model of the Alexander Romance, it is imposs-
ible to say which derivative was the most faithful to it as the archetypal
text was subsequently expanded by layers of additional material. 71
Moreover we cannot tell whether the transcription of the Liber de morte
preceded the A MS.72
While the most straightforward and likely scenario is that the original
Pseudo-Callisthenes and the transcriber of the Liber de morte used the same
pamphlet,73 it is just possible that a text of the Liber de morte with an in-
dependent, explanatory note on Father Liber and Hercules may have
influenced the a recension of Pseudo-Callisthenes.
What is the value of a text like the Metz Epitomel As we have seen,
in some features of its historicity, the Epitome does leave a lot to be
desired. The author's geographical details are vague to say the least; to take
a minor example, Alexander's pursuit of Bessus (3) is simply described as
69
On the existence of S see G. Cary, The Medieval Alexander (Cambridge 1956) 11.
70
Cf. Karl Steffens (ed.). Die Historia de preliis Alexandri Magni, Rezension J3,
(Meisenheim am Glan 1975) 190. Cf. the Syriac version in The History of Alexander
the Great, trans. E.A. Wallis Budge (Cambridge 1889, repr. Amsterdam 1976) 135:
'This speech he said for this reason: Dionysus was a man and because of the name
and fame and power that he made for himself, he was reckoned when dead among
the number of the gods; and in a like manner Herakles; therefore Alexander spake of
himself as "the third dead" because these had not gained such name and fame and
might as Alexander.'
7
' Cary (above, n. 69) 9 f.
72
W. Kroll, Historia Alexandri Magni (Berlin 1926) xv dates the A MS to about the 3rd
century A.D.—in which case it would probably precede the Liber de morte, but the
chronology is not certain.
73
Cf. the diagram in Merkelbach (above, n. 14): (1954) 120, (1977) 226.
'taking what he believed was the shortest route through the mountains'.
One immediately asks 'Where—what mountains?'
The Metz Epitome is typically uninformative on topographical details,
locations and time and this statement is so indefinite it is virtually mean-
ingless. However, the passage seems to correspond with Curtius (6.6.13)
and Arrian (3.25.3-4) where the king first learned (possibly from
Satibarzanes) of Bessus' regal aspirations; according to Arrian their meeting
took place at Susia, a city of Areia and on the border between Areia and
Parthyaea. Susia has been identified with Tus.74 From this point Alexander
turned northward towards Bactria. According to D.W. Engels, the king took
the route across the Kuh-i-Hazar Masjed range, which was mountainous and
poorly supplied; hence his order to burn all excess baggage, weapons and
personal possessions (Curt. 6.6.15-16). However, the most direct route to
Bactria was east to the edges of the Kyzl Kum Desert and along the
northern foothills of the Hindu-Kush. The land along this road is under 500
metres high; hilly, but perhaps hardly 'mountainous'. At all events,
Alexander was recalled by news of the Areian revolt, concealed in the Metz
Epitome by the misleading agros.15 Thus through careful cross-comparison
we may surmise at least the likely direction of the original, while allowing
that details will remain controversial.
In conclusion, we must take into account the inevitable problems
created by the text's abridgement, its truncated state and also its era; as with
any ancient text, the Metz Epitome has to be judged within its context. It
may also be true, as Signora Ruggini concludes, that the Metz Epitome
comes from a pro-pagan environment, which was conscious of classical
tradition and which read archaic authors.76 Nevertheless stylistic elegance
was a low priority77 and most of the text's emphasis appears to have been
on entertainment, with minimal intellectual demands of its audience. In
relation to the Epitome's literary merits, we seem a far cry away from the
pointed sophistication of an Arrian, or a Quintus Curtius.
To summarise my argument: the same epitomator compiled both
texts. Whether he intended to connect one to the other is indeterminate. The
material he had in the Liber de morte was certainly different from his
historical narrative, yet it is possible that he may have intended the Liber
de morte either as a companion or as a sequel to the history—which has
precedents in classical historiography, like Arrian's History of the
Successors—or even as a continuation of his history. He merely switched
Cf. F. Schachermeyr, Alexander der Grosse: das Problem seiner Personlichkeit und
seines Wirkens (Vienna 1973) 312 n.358.
See D.W. Engels, Alexander the Great and the Logistics of the Macedonian Army
(Berkeley 1978) 93-95. On the problematic nature of the Metz Epitome's evidence in
this section, see the discussion of Bernard (above, n.l); contra. Goukowsky (above,
n.25).
76
Ruggini (above, n. 18) 323.
J.A. Willis (U.W.A.) described the style as 'sub-literary' in relation to other Late
Antique writers, Symmachus, Macrobius and Boethius; for some exempla, cf. 5
insinuandi for insuans, 20 magnificabat for magni faciebat, 29 omnibus formosissima
for omnium formosissima, with some confusion between omnium formosissima and
omnibus formosior. I am grateful to Professor Willis for his observations.
sources and added some connections himself. Heckel could well be correct
that the author of the Liber de morte used an authoritative version of the
original pamphlet but its semi-fabulous tone, with a theme of political
intrigue and murder, are not entirely inconsistent with the adventurist
flavour of the Epitome—and this may explain its appeal to the epitomator.
Unlike Curtius (10.10.5), he may not have recognised that the Testament
was propaganda and he certainly did not aim to interpret the complexities of
its politics.
Also, I hope I have shown that whatever its model was, the historical
narrative of the Metz Epitome is founded, at least for the most part, on first
generation accounts. If I am right about its connection with the Liber de
morte then the value of these texts does indeed rest on their sources. This
means they need to be not only accessible but, as I indicated earlier, duly
considered alongside their more famous counterparts in Alexander
historiography—and not simply dismissed as worthless or, in the case of
the Liber de morte, consigned to the quagmire of the Alexander Romance.
Ironically, a unique insight into the earliest corpus of Alexander
traditions and a piece of fourth-century myth-making may have been
preserved by—if one can forgive the anachronistic analogy—occasional
Reader's Digest demands of the late Roman Empire.
University of Newcastle, N.S.W. ELIZABETH BAYNHAM

An Introduction To The Metz Epitome Its Traditions and Value

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

An Introduction To The Metz Epitome Its Traditions and Value

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

An Introduction to the Metz Epitome:

its Traditions and Value

The historical and quasi-romantic traditions represented by the Metz

representation of a very early tradition that Alexander had been poisoned; he

represents an alternative account to the principal, or 'court', traditions used

His, ut videtur, Liberum Patrem primum adnumerabat immortalem

Where did such a statement come from? The concept of Alexander

Yet the lost, so-called delta text provides an interesting comparison.69

'Iuppiter altissime! Ut quid dies tarn brevissimo meos spatio con-

There is no reference here to Father Liber or Hercules or being accepted as

University of Newcastle, N.S.W. ELIZABETH BAYNHAM

Вам также может понравиться