There can be no doubt about the desirability of the project. Of the five major surviving accounts of Alexander, Justin's is the only one not available in a Loeb edition, or indeed in any English translation since J. S. Watson's Bohn version of 1884,[2] and is the only one not equipped with at least the beginnings of an English commentary.[3] Although he is 'the poorest representative of the so-called "Vulgate tradition"' (Heckel, at the end of the Introduction), Justin deserved to be made available in this way to serious students of Alexander.
The first part of the Introduction, by Yardley, is on 'Justin and Trogus'. Starting with what is known of Trogus, as a contemporary of Livy who knew Livy's work and criticised it (Justin 38.3.11: apart from that, it is possible that each influenced the other), he proceeds to Justin, hesitating to fix his place of origin (but considering Africa to be possible), but believing that Justin has intruded himself sufficiently into his summary of Trogus to justify the inference from such passages as 41.1.1 and 42.2.7-9 that he is to be dated before the establishment of the Sassanid empire in 226/7.[4] Yardley finds echoes not only of Virgil but also of later poets, and therefore argues that these echoes are the work not of Trogus but of Justin. He suggests that Justin was not a mechanical epitomator, and certainly not a historian, but 'a "creative writer" with oratorical interests', who set out to do for Trogus what Florus in the second century had done for Livy - and he seems to me to make out a good case for his view of Justin.
In the second part of the Introduction Heckel writes on 'History and Historiography'. He looks at what can be established about the contents of Trogus' history, and finds the reason for the choice of title, Philippic History, irrecoverable; argues that Trogus was careful, though not systematic, in matters of chronology; notes that in spite of his Gallic origin Trogus adopted the Greeks' hostile view of the Gauls, while his picture of the Romans is uneven; and cautiously accepts the view of A. von Gutschmid [5] that Trogus drew heavily if not exclusively on Timagenes of Alexandria (first century B.C.: FGrH 88). Turning to Alexander the Great, Heckel accepts the orthodox view of a 'vulgate' tradition derived from Clitarchus; rejects any suggestion that either Diodorus or Trogus used the other; accepts that Curtius used Trogus, suggesting in particular that Trogus conflated Darius' negotiations with Alexander in a single episode, and postponed the rising of Agis in Greece until after the death of Darius, and that Curtius did not follow Trogus on the first point but did follow him on the second; but concludes that most of the serious distortions and errors in Justin's work look as if they are to be blamed on Justin rather than Trogus.
The translation is fluent and accurate, but keeps less closely than Watson's to the structure of the Latin.
28 pages of translation are followed by 227 pages of commentary. Justin's narrative is divided into sections of a chapter or so in length, each of them supplied with an introductory note, citing other sources and a select bibliography. The actual commentary is a dense work, abounding in references to the material cited in those introductory notes and to much more besides - and, though users of this book do not need to know Latin (or Greek), many of the modern works cited are in German (especially), French or Italian. Heckel has written much on Alexander before, and is thoroughly at home with the sources and modern studies: what he has put together here will be extremely useful to advanced students and to their teachers, though readers at the lower end of the market envisaged for this series may find it intimidating.
At the end of the main translation, Yardley translates the Prologues of books XI and XII of Trogus. In appendixes he translates the fragments from those books, the end of Justin IX (cf. above) and Justin 10.3; and finally he collects expressions in Justin XI-XII which are common to Justin (i.e. Trogus) and Livy, those which are likely to be Trogan but not Livian, expressions apparently due to Justin himself and not to Trogus; and echoes of poetry in Justin. The book has three maps and an index.
This is a valuable addition to the range of books making it possible for those who do not read Greek and Latin to study Alexander seriously, and the commentary will be useful to all who work on Alexander at an advanced level.
[2] London: Bell, 1884 (with Nepos and Eutropius). M. C. J. Miller has produced an edition of books VII-XII giving a Latin text (it is not clear whose), Watson's translation ('modernized to some extent'), maps and genealogical tables, a few notes (based on Watson's footnotes), a few pages on XI-XII from Tarn's Alexander the Great, bibliographies on Justin and on Philip and Alexander, and an index of names (Chicago: Ares, 1992). [Return to text]
[3] Arrian, Anabasis: A. B. Bosworth (O.U.P., 1980-); also notes in the Loeb edition of P. A. Brunt (London: Heinemann/Harvard U. P., l976-83). Curtius: J. E. Atkinson (Amsterdam: Gieben/Hakkert, 1980-). Diodorus: notes in the Loeb edition of C. B. Welles (Vol. viii. London: Heinemann/Harvard U. P.,1963). Plutarch, Alexander: J. R. Hamilton (OUP., 1968). [Return to text]
[4] Contra R. Syme, Hist. 37 (1988) 358-71, who regarded those passages as taken over from Trogus, and dated Justin to the late fourth century. Yardley's argument is accepted by Develin in the American Philological Association volume. [Return to text]
[5] RM n.s. 37 (1882) 548-55. [Return to text]
Back to HISTOS: Contents of the current volume
Back to HISTOS Main Menu
To Durham Classics Department Home Page