Hostname: page-component-cc8bf7c57-l9twb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-11T23:10:11.875Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Bias in Ptolemy's History of Alexander1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

R. M. Errington
R. M. Errington
Affiliation:
The Queen's University, Belfast
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Arrian's enthusiasm for Ptolemy's account of Alexander has often been echoed in modern times. With much justification it is generally agreed that Arrian's account of Alexander, through its reliance on the works of Ptolemy and Aristobulus, is our best and, on the whole, most reliable account of Alexander. Recent work, however, has illuminated Ptolemy's weaknesses, and we can no longer regard Ptolemy as utterly reliable in every important respect. His version of the Alexander story is centred on Alexander, therefore Alexander is depicted out of the close context of the Macedonian court. It is only through the information preserved in other writers—traditionally, but undiscriminatingly, considered unreliable—that, for instance, the picture of Alexander's struggle with his Macedonian nobles has begun to emerge. And in matters of this kind Ptolemy's version is so much the court ‘official’ version that it cannot be regarded as trustworthy.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 19 , Issue 2 , December 1969 , pp. 233 - 242
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1969

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

2 A(rrian) 1. 1 (all references are to the Anabasis unless otherwise stated). Cf. Tarn, W. W., Alexander the Great (Cambridge, 1949),Google Scholarpassim; Pearson, L,The Lost Histories of Alexander the Great (New York, 1960), esp. 188 ff.Google Scholar

3 See especially the articles of Badian, E. in TAPhA, 1960,Google ScholarHistoria, 1958, C.Q., 1958. Also his comments on Pearson's book in Gnomon, 1961 (reprinted in Studies in Greek and Roman History [Oxford, 1964], 250 ff.);Google ScholarWelles, C. B., Miscellanea Rostagni (Turin, 1963), 101 ff.Google Scholar

4 Clearly shown by Strasburger, H., Ptolemaios und Alexander (Leipzig, 1934), 50 ff.Google Scholar

5 So Pearson, Lost Histories, 193 ff. (with bibliography).

6 Ptolemaios und Alexander, 50 ff.

7 Miscellanea Rostagni, 101 ff.

1 C (urtius) 8. 6. 22.

2 A. 4. 13. 7.

3 Otto (ap. Berve, H, Das Alexanderreich auf prosopographischer Grundlage (2 vols., Munich, 1926), ii. 351 n. 6),Google Scholar suggests that Seleucus' military career under Alexander has also been suppressed–though he does not say who might have suppressed it. This is an unnecessary assumption and cannot be demonstrated (as Berve, loc. cit., points out), since no source supplies much information about Seleucus under Alexander. Berve's own suggestion is quite satisfactory, that Seleucus simply was not important at the time.

4 Alexander, ii. 110–11.Google Scholar

5 C. 4. 1. 35.

6 Alexander, ii. no; cf.Google ScholarPearson, , Lost Histories, 192 (briefly).Google Scholar

1 Alexander, ii. 110; cf. 43.Google Scholar

2 Ibid. 109.

3 A. 6. 28. 4; cf. Strasburger, , Ptolemaios und Alexander, 46;Google Scholar A. sua. ( ≐ F. Jacoby, , FGH no. 156), frg. 10, 6.Google Scholar

4 A. Ind. 18. 5.

5 C. 9. 5. 15 ff.

6 A. 6. 9. 10; cf. Strasburger, , Ptolemaios und Alexander, 45.Google Scholar

7 A. 6. 11. 7.

8 A. 6. 11. 8.

5 A. succ. 2; C. 10. 6. 16 f. I shall show in JHS 1970 C.'s probable use of Hieronymus for his account of events at Babylon.

1 A. succ. frg. 10, 6. On the date cf. Manni, E, RAL ser. 8, iv (1949), 53 ff.Google Scholar

2 The remaining information about Aristonous after Perdiccas' death shows him only indirectly opposed to Ptolemy: he joined Olympias—whether or not he was attached to Polyperchon first—and fought for her against Cassander in 316 (Diod. 19. 35. 4), and was her governor of Amphipolis until her surrender to Cassander, when he was murdered by Cassander (Diod. 19. 51. 1 ff.). Although Ptolemy was nominally friendly towards Cassander, it is difficult to see anything in this later career of Aristonous which would exacerbate Ptolemy's hostility towards him.

3 References in Berve, Das Alexanderreich, ii. 213–14.Google Scholar

4 Diod. 16. 94. 4.

1 A. 1. 8. 1 ff. ═ FGH no. 138, frg/3; Diod. 17. 12. 3 ff.

2 A. 1. 8.8.

3 Diod. 17. 12. 3.

4 Tarn, , Alexander, i. 7–8;Google Scholar Berve, Das Alexanderreich, ii. 313.Google Scholar

5 For some other important examples (not involving Perdiccas) cf. Badian, Studies, 258; Welles, , Miscellanea Rostagni, 101 ff.Google Scholar

6 C. 4. 3. 1; cf. A. 2. 20. 4.

2 Diod. 17. 61. 3; C. 4. 16. 32; cf. A. iii. 15. 2.

8 C. 4. 8. 17 (Perdiccas); A. 3. 27. 5 (Ptolemy).

9 C. 7. 6. 19-21.

1 A. 4. 16. 2; cf. Berve, , Das Alexanderreich, i. 25 ff.Google Scholar

2 A. 4. 8. 7.

3 A. 4. 8. 9.

4 Cf. Pearson, , Lost Histories, 150 ff., with Badian's comments, Studies, 255-6.Google Scholar

5 C. 8. 1. 43 ff.

6 Plut. Alex. 50-1; cf. Pearson, Lost Histories, 60.

7 So Strasburger, Ptolemaios und Alexander, following Schwartz, R.E. s.v. ‘Arrianos’, 1240, and Jacoby, FGH II D, 517.

1 C. 8. 10. 2ff.; A. 4. 22. 7ff.

2 Military: A. 6. 6. 4ff.; 6. 15. 1; cf. C. 9. 1. 19. Groups: A. 5. 13. 1; 7. 4. 5; cf. C. 8. 14. 15.

3 A. 6. 9. 1 ff., cf. Schwartz, R.E. s.v. ‘pArrianos’, 1241; Strasburger, Ptolemaios und Alexander, 45.

4 Diod. 17. no. 8. On the date of Cli-tarchus see (most recently) Badian, , PACA viii (1965), 5 ff.Google Scholar

1 Diod. 18. 3. 4; Plut. Eumenes, 1. Tarn, JHS, I92i,4ff., argues unconvincingly that these are based on Duris—yet even Duris cannot always have been wrong! On Hieronymus see Brown, T. S., AHR lii (1946-7), 684 ff.Google Scholar

2 A. 7. 14. 10. This explanation of the contradiction in the sources seems more satisfactory than that of Berve, Das Alexanderreich, ii. 315–16,Google Scholar and Tarn (tentatively, in Alexander, i. 117)Google Scholar that Perdiccas did the duties of the office without the name; it is far from clear that the Macedonian mon archy employed such over-subtle distinctions. Possible hostility to Eumenes, also apparent in this omission, will be from Eumenes' later close association with Perdiccas. Unfortunately we cannot trace this in any detail in Ptolemy's book.

3 C. 10. 5. 8.

4 Diod. 17. 117. 3; 18. 2. 4; C. 10. 5. 4; Justin, 12. 15. 12. Tarn, JHS 1921, 4ff.; cf. also M. J. Fontana, ‘Le lotte per la successione di Alessandro Magno’, 259 ff. (in Atti delta accademia di scienze, lettere e arti di Palermo, xviii, 11, 1957–8).Google Scholar Good discussion in Badian, HSPh lxxii (1967), 185 n. 12.Google Scholar

1 Badian, , Studies, 256 ff.Google Scholar For the traditionl view, cf. Pearson, , Lost Histories, 193 ff.Google Scholar

2 Studies, 258.Google Scholar

3 From 305/4: cf. Samuel, A. E., Ptolemaic Chronology (Munich, 1962), 4 ff.Google Scholar