Quintus Curtius Rufus

Baldwin's Fables and his Histories for Children were published by Godwin under this cognomen owing to his political views having prejudiced many people against his name.

His chief aim appears to have been to keep a certain moral elevation before the minds of children as in the excellent preface to the History of Rome where he dwells on the fact of the stories of Mucius, Curtius and Regulus being disputed but considers that stories if they be no more handed down from the great periods of Roman history are invaluable to stimulate the character of children to noble sentiments and actions.

But in Godwin's case as in many others it must have been a difficult task counteracting the effect of example for we cannot imagine the influence of a woman to have been ennobling who could act as Mrs. Godwin did at an earlier period of her married life who when one of her husband's friends whom she did not care about called to see Godwin explained that it was impossible as the kettle had just fallen off the hob and scalded both his legs.

When the same friend met Godwin the next day in the street and was surprised at his speedy recovery the philosopher replied that it was only an invention of his wife.

We have the books they read as usual, and well did Mary, no less than Shelley, make use of that happy reading time of life, youth.

The Latin authors read by Shelley were also studied by Mary.

We find her reading Quintus Curtius, 10 and 12 pages at a time.

Also on Shelley's birthday, August 4th, she reads him the fourth book of Virgil while in a boat with him on the lake.

Like I said, the proverbs are a reminder that at some level, human beings have known about toxic relationships for a long time and would come up with these sort of pithy sayings to capture it.

Now, this proverb has its origins in the first century to somebody who was named Quintus Curtius Rufus.

Now, it has showed up in many various forms since.

It's actually interesting, like I said, to think that as long as there have been human beings, they have been dealing with toxic people or apparently noisy dogs.

Terms and conditions apply.

CHAPTER X. that contrary to the vulgar opinion money is not the sinews of war since any man may begin a war at his pleasure but cannot at his pleasure bring it to a close a prince before he engages in any warlike enterprise ought to measure his strength and govern himself accordingly but he must be prudent enough not to deceive himself as to his strength which he will always do if he measure it by money by advantage of position or by the good will of his subjects while he is unprovided with an army of his own these are things which may swell your strength but do not constitute it being in themselves null and of no avail without an army on which you can depend without such an army no amount of money will meet your wants the natural strength of your country will not protect you and the fidelity and attachment of your subjects will not endure since it is impossible that they should continue true to you when you cannot defend them lakes and mountains and the most inaccessible strongholds where valiant defenders are wanting become no better than the level plain and money so far from being a safeguard is more likely to leave you a prey to your enemy since nothing can be falser than the vulgar opinion which affirms it to be the sinews of war this opinion is put forward by quintus curtius where in speaking of the war between antipater the macedonian and the king of sparta he relates that the latter from want of money was constrained to give battle and was defeated whereas could he have put off fighting for a few days the news of alexander's death would have reached greece and he might have had a victory without a battle but lacking money and fearing that on that account his soldiers might desert him, he was forced to hazard an engagement.

It was for this reason that Quintus Curtius declared money to be the sinews of war, a maxim every day cited and acted upon by princes less wise than they should be.

for building upon this they think it is enough for their defence to have laid up great treasures not reflecting that were great treasures all that is needed for victory darius of old had conquered alexander the greeks the romans and in our own times charles of burgundy the swiss while the pope and the florentines together would have had little difficulty in defeating francesco nephew of pope julius the second in the recent war of urbino and yet in every one of these instances the victory remained with him who held the sinews of war to consist not in money but in good soldiers croesus king of lydia after showing solon the athenian much besides at last displayed to him the boundless riches of his treasure-house and asked him what he thought of his power whereupon solon answered that he thought him no whit more powerful in respect of these treasures for as war is made with iron and not with gold another coming with more iron might carry off his gold after the death of alexander the great a tribe of gauls passing through greece on their way into asia sent envoys to the king of macedonia to treat for terms of accord when the king to dismay them by a display of his resources showed them great store of gold and silver but these barbarians when they saw all this wealth in their greed to possess it though before they had looked on peace as settled broke off negotiations and thus the king was ruined by those very treasures he had amassed for his defence in like manner not many years ago the venetians with a full treasury lost their whole dominions without deriving the least advantage from their wealth i maintain therefore that it is not gold as is vulgarly supposed that is the sinews of war but good soldiers or while gold by itself will not gain you good soldiers good soldiers may readily get you gold Had the Romans chosen to make war with gold rather than with iron, all the treasures of the earth would not have sufficed them having regard to the greatness of their enterprises and the difficulties they had to overcome in carrying them out.

But making their wars with iron, they never felt any want for gold, for those who stood in fear of them brought gold into their camp.

All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain.

introduction to alexander the great the story of this drama is derived from quintus curtius plutarch and justin the real hero is porus rather than alexander and when it was first acted in sixteen sixty five mention is made of it under the former title racine himself writes thus i have endeavoured to represent in porus an enemy worthy of alexander and i may say that his character has met with a high degree of public favour and some have even censured me for making this prince greater than alexander but such persons forget that in virtue of his victory alexander is really greater than porus that every line of the tragedy reflects his praises and that even the invectives of porus and dexiana are so many tributes to the conqueror's there is perhaps in porus something that interests us more from the very circumstance of his misfortunes for as seneca has remarked we are naturally disposed to admire nothing in the world so much as a man who can bear adversity with courage characters

alexander read by ran

Horace, Indian King.

They are using this stuff to tell their own narrative, and they have their own foci.

And so, um, the Alexander that's presented in Arrian, who's one of the more f- I guess, better known Alexander biographers, is pretty different from the Alexander presented in Curtius, who's the other long form, but he's writing in Latin.

He's writing, both of them are writing during the Roman Empire, but had different interests.

And so the Alexander we get as a mythologized figure is bent to tell the story of their own time that they're writing in.

So Diodorus Siculus, Diodorus of Sicily, is our earliest surviving source.

That's a biography.

Then the next one, there's some debate about when he lived, is Curtius, who's a Latin source.

So Diodorus is writing as the Roman Republic is collapsing and the Roman Empire is being born.

The emperor, though he had forbidden war, yet granted him triumphal distinctions.

Soon afterwards Curtius Rufus obtained the same honour.

He had opened mines in the territory of the Matiasi for working certain veins of silver.

The produce was small and soon exhausted.

The toil meanwhile on the legions was only to a loss, while they dug channels for water and constructed below the surface works which are difficult enough in the open air.

Worn out by the labour, and knowing that similar hardships were endured in several provinces, the soldiers wrote a secret despatch in the name of the armies, begging the emperor to give in advance triumphal distinctions to one to whom he was about to entrust his forces.

Of the birth of Curtius Rufus, whom some affirm to have been the son of a gladiator, I would not publish a falsehood, while I shrink from telling the truth.

On reaching manhood he attached himself to a quaestor, to whom Africa had been allotted, and was walking alone at midday in some unfrequented arcade in the town of Ardru Metum, when he saw a female figure of more than human stature, and heard a voice, Thou, Rufus, art the man who will one day come into this province as proconsul.

For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org. Introduction to Alexander the Great.

The story of this drama is derived from Quintus Curtius, Plutarch, and Justin.

The real hero is Porus rather than Alexander, and when it was first acted in 1665, mention is made of it under the former title.

Racine himself writes thus, I have endeavored to represent in Porus an enemy worthy of Alexander, and I may say that his character has met with a high degree of public favor, and some have even censured me for making this prince greater than Alexander.