Abstract

In a recent article, P.G. Christiansen has strenuously questioned the communis opinio that Claudian was an immigrant from the Greek-speaking eastern Empire. Although Christiansen injects a healthy skepticism into the debate about Claudian's biography, his arguments in favor of Claudian being a native Latin speaker are flawed or unpersuasive. The only relevant external evidence indicates that in the centuries after Claudian's death he was considered an Egyptian. The evidence in Claudian's poems – the unique passing reference to Nilus noster in carm. min. 19, the invocation the symbols of Egypt at the end of carm. min. 22, and Claudian's claim in carm. min. 41 that his first public Latin composition occured in 395 c.e. – suggest an eastern origin. The example of the inscription to Cronius Eusebius suggests that the bilingualism in the inscription to Claudian could point to a personal connection with Greek. Since the positive case for a western origin can be neither supported on linguistic or textual grounds, and recent research has shown that high levels of Latinity were possible for contemporary authors in the eastern Empire, the case for a western origin is decisively weaker than that supporting an origin in Egypt.