Arrian's Preface
I have admitted into my narrative as strictly authentic all the statements relating to Alexander and Philip which Ptolemy, son of Lagus, and Aristobulus, son of Aristobulus, agree in making; and from those statements which differ I have selected that which appears to me the7 more credible and at the same time the more deserving of record. Different authors have given different accounts of Alexander’s life; and there is no one about whom more have written, or more at variance with each other. But in my opinion the narratives of Ptolemy and Aristobulus are more worthy of credit than the rest; Aristobulus, because he served under king Alexander in his expedition, and Ptolemy, not only because he accompanied Alexander in his expedition, but also because he was himself a king afterwards, and falsification of facts would have been more disgraceful to him than to any other man. Moreover, they are both more worthy of credit, because they compiled their histories after Alexander’s death, when neither compulsion was used nor reward offered them to write anything different from what really occurred. Some statements made by other writers I have incorporated in my narrative, because they seemed to me worthy of mention and not altogether improbable; but I have given them merely as reports of Alexander’s proceedings. And if any man wonders why, after so many other men have written of Alexander, the compilation of this history came into my mind, after perusing the narratives of all the rest, let him read this of mine, and then wonder (if he can).
I have accepted as fully authentic every statement about Alexander and Philip on which Ptolemy, son of Lagus, and Aristobulus, son of Aristobulus, agree. Where their accounts differ, I have chosen the version that seemed to me more credible and more worthy of record. Authors have given different accounts of Alexander’s life. No one has had more people write about him, or write accounts that differ so much. But I think the accounts of Ptolemy and Aristobulus are more trustworthy than the rest. Aristobulus served under King Alexander on his expedition. Ptolemy also accompanied Alexander on the expedition and later became a king himself. For him, falsifying facts would have been more disgraceful than for any other man. Both men are also more trustworthy because they wrote their histories after Alexander’s death. By then, no one compelled or rewarded them to write anything different from what had actually happened. I have included some statements by other writers because they seemed worth mentioning and not entirely unlikely. But I have presented them only as reports of Alexander’s actions. And if anyone wonders why I decided to write this history after so many others had written about Alexander, let him first read all their accounts, then read mine, and then wonder, if he can.
Ptolemaeus, surnamed Soter, the Preserver, was more commonly known as the Son of Lagus. He was a Macedonian of low birth. His mother, Arsinoe, had been a concubine of Philip of Macedon. For this reason, people generally believed that Ptolemy was the king’s son. Ptolemy was one of Alexander’s earliest friends, even before Alexander took the throne. He accompanied Alexander throughout his campaigns and was one of his most skillful generals and closest friends. When the empire was divided after Alexander’s death, Ptolemy received the kingdom of Egypt, which he passed on to his descendants. After a distinguished reign of thirty-eight years, he gave up the throne to his youngest son, Ptolemy Philadelphus. He lived for two more years and died B.C. 283. He was a generous patron of literature and the arts. He also wrote a history of Alexander’s wars, which was one of Arrian’s chief sources for his narrative. For his generosity, see Aelian (Varia Historia, xiii. 12). Plutarch and Strabo, as well as Arrian, drew much information from Ptolemy’s work, which Athenæus praised highly.
Aristobulus came from Potidaea, a town in Macedonia later called Cassandrea. He served under Alexander and wrote a history of his wars. Like Ptolemy’s history, it sometimes praised Alexander more than the facts warranted. Neither history has survived, but Arrian used them as the basis for his own account. In his treatise, Quomodo historia sit conscribenda, ch. 12, Lucian accuses Aristobulus of inventing marvelous tales of Alexander’s courage to flatter him. Plutarch based his Life of Alexander chiefly on Aristobulus’s work. Lucian tells us that Aristobulus wrote his history at the age of eighty-four (Macrobioi, c. 22). Alexander put him in charge of restoring Cyrus’s tomb (Arrian, vi. 30).
ἀναλέγομαι, meaning “to read through” or ἀναγιγνώσκειν, appears only in later writers, including Arrian, Plutarch, Dion, and Callimachus.
THE ANABASIS OF ALEXANDER.
THE ANABASIS OF ALEXANDER.