Arrian wrote his history of Alexander (called Anabasis after Xenophon's work) in the second century ad, almost half a millennium after Alexander's death. However, his use of works written by Alexander's contemporaries permits use of his work today as an historical source. Arrian himself states that he relied primarily on two authors, both participants in Alexander's expedition: Aristobulus of Cassandreia (BNJ 139) and Ptolemy, the first Hellenistic king of Egypt (BNJ 138). Arrian's principal method was to assume that where his two chief sources agreed, he could accept as fact what they said (Proem, 1). That Arrian could compose a history of Alexander's conquest out of the overlap between Ptolemy and Aristobulus establishes one essential fact about those two authors: their works stood very close to one another, and this closeness distinguished them from the rest of the herd (Callisthenes of Olynthus [BNJ 124], Chares of Mytilene [BNJ 125], Onesicritus of Astypalaea [BNJ 134], Nearchus of Crete [BNJ 133], etc.).
In fact, the suspicion immediately arises that either Aristobulus or Ptolemy was using the other's work. The evidence for determining who was copying whom is slight, but coheres with the aprioristic argument that Ptolemy, the king of Egypt, had little reason to tailor his account after Aristobulus', but that Aristobulus may gladly have availed himself of a king's authority in difficult questions. Moreover, Ptolemy is far more likely than Aristobulus to have supplied the archival material present in Arrian (see below) and this consideration also suggests that Aristobulus had a reason to consult Ptolemy's work. If so, then the overlap between Aristobulus and Ptolemy is just Ptolemy; and Arrian then effectively purports to be following Ptolemy's account.
Moreover, various passages in Arrian reveal him to be a reasonably faithful copier of his sources: compare Arr. Ind. 11-12, with Diodorus, II 40-41 and Strabo, XV 1,39-41, 46-49, pp. 703-704, 707 (all copied from Megasthenes, BNJ 715, Fr. 4); or Arr. Anab. IV 12,3-5 with Plut. Alex. 54 (both taken from Chares of Mytilene, BNJ 125, Fr. 14). With certain qualifications Arrian's account in the main faithfully reproduces Ptolemy's. When Arrian departs from Ptolemy, he commonly marks the departure by a phrase such as "it is also said that. . ." or "there is also the story that. . ." (e. g., IV 12,3). The phrase, however, does not mark every departure from Ptolemy; nor does its presence in every single instance mark a departure from Ptolemy. Its presence or absence is a strong indicator, just not necessarily an inerrant one.
Ptolemy's use of archival material gives his work great value. For example, in his account of Alexander's march from Persepolis to Ecbatana Arrian preserves one unso-
Licited and false intelligence report (Anab. III 19,3), one obviously solicited report which debunked the false report (Anab. III 19,3-4), and one intelligence debriefing (Anab. II 19,4-5). The second report and the debriefing are dated to the day - i. e., had been filed with "date stamp." This highlights the strength of Ptolemy's account: he gets names, dates, and places right. Every modern account of Alexander's life inevitably relies heavily on Ptolemy through Arrian's transmission.
On the other hand, Ptolemy owed his career and his kingdom to Alexander. Often enough Ptolemy may have suppressed unpleasant material (e. g., Cleitarchus, BNJ 137, Fr. 25, mentions a massacre of 80,000 Indians, absent from Arrian) or purposely whitewashed Alexander's deeds. Ptolemy, moreover, had risen through the ranks, and he was suspiciously involved in some of the less savory incidents during the campaign (Arr. Anab. IV 13,7-14,1). Most modern historians have gradually accepted that they must read Arrian's account, especially when Alexander's reputation is concerned, with skepticism. This does not, however, detract from the many good qualities of Arrian's (i. e., Ptolemy's) account.
World History
