Quintus Curtius: History of Alexander, Volume I, Books 1-5 (Loeb Classical Library No. 368)

Quintus Curtius Rufus may be regarded as a mediocre super-rhetorical writer, or as genius. As a primary source it is subject of inquiry and interpretation. Nevertheless, I think you should heed this:1.- Curtius is an important source for Alexander the Great’s history, although much had been said about his “uncritical” methods. If you want historical accuracy, perhaps you should look first for Arrian, Plutarch, Justinus or a textbook (look for Graham Shipley’s). My advice is that you should give Curtius a chance and not just drop him out for what critics have said about him. Rolfe’s notes are quite helpful for contrasting specific passages of the history and he is an easy-reader. Thus, a great source for introducing into the wondrous world of Alexander the Great.2.- Keep in mind that Curtius’ agenda was mostly Roman, this means, there are a lot of glimpses to Rome and that may be both, his weakness (as historical objectivity) and his strength (as a translator of Greek history to a Roman audience). For Latin readers, Curtius is the closest thing I have ever found to a novel in literary terms, and not hard. He writes actions, great speeches (see the one addressed by Alexander at VI.iii.1), pathetic moments (see the Gordian knot episode at the beginning) and descriptions (see the Hanging Gardens of Babylon’s episode). Alexander is presented as a magnificent general who was tempted by glory and foreign customs. His portrait is quite human and a reader would feel sympathetic towards his rise and fall in moral issues. Do not expect neither an apology, nor a diatribe.3.- Curtius text is incomplete. That means, we do not have all his work and there are some lacuna.4.- Consider that Rolfe’s edition dates from 1946. His introduction is quite useful, although it should be completed with other texts (for example, Michael von Albrecht’s History of Roman Literature) and like other LCL texts, it is very short. His notes help a lot in finding comparisons within Plutach, Arrian and Justinus, and some of them make a stylistic approach. His translation is literal, yet readable. As I told before, I find Curtius extremely close to novel literary technique and that definitively helps the translator who doesn’t need to twist the English, nor change the Latin like would happen with a translation of Cicero. Also his text reproduces some critical notes. I have compared some of them with Teubner’s new edition by Lucarini (2009) and I could say that the Latin text shows not many variations, and the most important are noted by Rolfe, although Lucarini’s critical apparatus offers many other possibilities, must of them of scarce importance for a common reader. If you prefer only Latin critical work on the text, Lucarini is the best, yet very expensive.With that being said, Rolfe’s notes and translation are still very useful and a great choice for all, from Classics students to Alexander the Great fans. Curtius is a primary source, which means is subject of analysis, but it happens to be a very gentle writer. Certainly a must-have for Classics and Latin readers!Hope is useful!