09-23-2006, 02:33 PM
Alexander and biographies
from: http://www.livius.org/aj-al/alexander/al...r_z1a.html
Scheme newly ordered and presented by Ishwa
All the classical authors lived more than three centuries after the events they described, but they used older, nearly contemporary sources, that are now lost.
The sources are contained in a âVulgateâ Tradition, based upon Cleitarchus as secondary and Diodorus Siculus (1st century BCE) and Curtius Rufus (1sr century CE) as tertiary sources, and a âGoodâTradition, based upon Ptolemy as a primary and Arrian (2nd century CE) and as secondary source.
Cleitarchus' work is often called 'the vulgate' (Diodorus and Curtius Rufus being 'the vulgate tradition'). It is indeed a popular story: its contains romantic details, a convincing (but incorrect) psychological portrait, fantastic stories. It is certainly not a bad source, but modern historians prefer the account of Arrian, which is based on terse primary sources like Ptolemy. These are called the 'good' tradition.
Cleitarchus', who had presented the Macedonian king as a young prince who had been corrupted by his constant success. Arrian (he was in the Roman army too and in the senate and personal friend of the emperor), on the other hand, admires Alexander, although he is too much a philosopher to be completely uncritical. Sometimes, he condemns aspects of the conqueror's behavior, but as a whole, he is positive about Alexander's achievements.
NOTE Ishwa: As the eyewitness authors of the primary sources are all connected with Alexander, they would be rather diplomatic about (military) embarrassments, atrocities, losses and defeats, blunders, critique on their leader, etc.
Cleitarchus would be not suffering from this feature, which is certainly reflected in his Tradition.
Older Sources:
1. Astronomical Diary (not lost)
2. Callisthenes of Olynthus (lost): Alexanderâs court historian
3. a. Onesicritus of Astypalaea (lost): Alexander's helmsman
b. Nearchus (lost): Alexander's fleet commander
c. Ptolemy (lost): Alexanderâs commander
d. Aristobulus (lost): official in campaigns of Alexander
e. Cleitarchus (lost): not an eyewitness, independant
1. The Astronomical Diary, which is the only contemporary source. âThe most intriguing information from the Astronomical diary, however, is related to the battle of Gaugamela, which was fought on 1 October 331. It suggests that the Persian soldiers were demoralized and states that they left their king and fled during the battle (text). This is exactly the opposite of what we read in the four tertiary sources, Diodorus, Curtius Rufus, Plutarch and Arrian: they write that Darius left his soldiers.â
The official account of the battle was written by Callisthenes of Olynthus and as we will see, the stories of Diodorus, Curtius Rufus, Plutarch and Arrian are derived from this account. Modern reconstructions of the battle of Gaugamela that ignore the Astronomical diary are therefore nothing but reconstructions of what the Macedonians thought that had happened, and not of the battle itself.â
NOTE Ishwa: This information on one incident already betrays the tampering, whether deliberate or not, of information by the classical writers.
I. The âVulgateâ Tradition
A. Cleitarchus (book lost). He was not an eyewitness, thus this is a secondary source. This author was in Babylon when Alexander received an embassy from Rome; it may be true. The History of Alexander was finished between 310 and 301 BCE. The author of this secondary source had, written a fine history that focused on Alexander's presumed psychological development - from a brilliant young conqueror to a paranoid despot.â
His main source may have been the work of Alexander's court historian Callisthenes of Olynthus (to be discussed below). However, this work only covered the period until 329, and Cleitarchus added information from other sources; among these were the memoirs of Onesicritus of Astypalaea and Nearchus, Alexander's helmsman and his fleet commander. Another source of information was available in Alexandria: there were many Macedonian and Greek veterans living in this city, and they must have told Cleitarchus about their adventures. Perhaps Cleitarchus had already to make notes in Babylon.
His book was -if popularity is an indicator- the most entertaining history of Alexander's conquests. It offered many vivid descriptions and eyewitness accounts, usually from a soldier's point of view. We know these stories from Diodorus' Library of world history and the History of Alexander the Great of Macedonia by Curtius Rufus, because Cleitarchus' own book is now lost. However, Diodorus and Curtius Rufus retell the stories often in almost identical words, which gives us a good idea of the History of Alexander.
Summing up, we can say that Cleitarchus' work combined vivid descriptions, eyewitness accountants and a dark psychological portrait of Alexander. He also delights in fantastic tales and he sometimes sacrificed historical reliability to keep the story entertaining and to stress the psychological development.
B.1. Diodorus Siculus (65/60 and 35/30 BCE) wrote the Library of world history, of which Book 17 contain the exploits of Alexander.
Diodorus has an account of the destruction of Persepolis
B2. Quintus Curtius Rufus (between 31 and 41 CE) is the only Roman writer whose work, the History of Alexander the Great of Macedonia, has survived.
âIt has Cleitarchus as its source. He has read other sources (Ptolemy, Aristobulus) and sometimes corrects his model.
Curtius gives a description of the fall of Tyre, including a description of a mass crucifixion and also an account of the difficult crossing of the Hindu Kush
II. The âGoodâ Tradition
A. Ptolemy, eyewitnesses. Ptolemy was the personal friend of Alexander. After the death of Alexander, he was recognized as an independent ruler, and had himself proclaimed king in 306. This, and not the conquest by Alexander, meant the formal end of the unity of the Achaemenid empire
In the first place, he uses Callisthenes' Deeds of Alexander and a sequel, because he has the correct chronology of the events and knows the names of the appointees. In the second place, Ptolemy sometimes exaggerates his own role. In his opinion, Alexander had been a rational expansionist.
At one place, Ptolemy corrects Cleitarchus' account of Alexander's campaigns, and this proves that Ptolemy's history was published after theHistory of Alexander, which can be dated between 310 and 301
It is possible that Ptolemy started to write his memoirs in order to prove that he was worthy of the royal title he had assumed: for example, he wrote that he had killed an Indian king and had stripped him of his armor, an incident that must have reminded his readers of the behavior of the heroes of Homer, who had been kings.
B. Arrian Was first in the Roman army and then in the senate. He wrote many books of which the seven books of the Anabasis: the history of Alexander's march into Asia, the Indikê (one book), telling about the marvels of India and the voyage home of Alexander's admiral Nearchus and the ten books Events after Alexander, known from a Byzantine summary.
His sources are mainly Aristobulus and Ptolemy.
Independent Tradition (combining both)
Plutarchus (46-c.120 CE): We should read his Life of Alexander as a collection of short stories, in which virtues and vices are shown. The most important theme (one might say: Plutarch's vision on Alexander's significance in world history) is that he brought civilization to the barbarians and made them human; Alexander is, so to speak, a practical philosopher, who improves mankind in a rather unusual but effective way. This theme is more explicitly worked out in a writing called The fortune and virtue of Alexander. Alexander's presumed philosophical interests are shown in stories like Alexander's conversation with Diogenes.
Plutarch has read many books on Alexander, and one cannot simply say that he belongs to the 'vulgate' tradition (which follows Cleitarchus) or the 'good' tradition (which follows Ptolemy). He tells his own, moral story and has taken elements from all traditions. His Life of Alexander is especially interesting because it contains a great many childhood stories, which he seems to have taken from a book called Alexander's education, written by a Macedonian named Marsyas, who went to school with the crown prince.
III. The âOrientalâ Sources
A. Arda Viraf (commentaries on the Avesta in the third or fourth century of the common era), etc. tell stories about a serious religious persecution by 'the accursed Alexander', who killed the Iranian priests and ordered the holy book of Zoroastrianism, the Avesta, to be burned.
B. Aethiopian sources, etc.
Other (lost) primary sources
1. Onesicritus is not heard of during the first half of Alexander's campaign and makes his first appearance in our sources in 326, when he translated the conversation between Alexander and the Indian sages at Taxila. During the voyage to the south, Onesicritus was the helmsman of Alexander's royal ship; when a large part of the Macedonian army had to be shipped back to Babylonia, he was also present.
After his return, he published How Alexander was educated, a primary source that is now lost. It is certain, however, that in this book, he claimed to have been the commander of the fleet, which was not true and caused admiral Nearchus to write an account of his own.
2. Aristobulus. He was probably one of the friends of Alexander's father Philip and accompanied Alexander on his war in the East. Since he is never mentioned as a participant to the fights, it has been assumed that he was either a military engineer or a non-military official. He may have been Alexander's greatest admirer, because when there are more than one versions of the same event, Aristobulus usually gives the kinder version. For example: all authorities agree that Alexander was a heavy drinker, but Aristobulus explains that this was merely because he loved to be with his friends. And when a drunken Alexander killed Clitus, Aristobulus says that it was Clitus' own mistake. Another example: Ptolemy writes that Alexander ordered Callisthenes, who had criticized him in public, to be crucified, and Aristobulus says that the man died in prison.
3. Nearchus: In India, Nearchus initially had some minor commands, but was made admiral of the Macedonian navy (326); in this quality, he was responsible for the transport of the army to the Ocean and -later- for the shipping of troops to Babylonia. After the death of Alexander, he backed Heracles, the son of Alexander and Barsine; the boy was killed, however, and Nearchus retired to write a book called Indikê.
from: http://www.livius.org/aj-al/alexander/al...r_z1a.html
Scheme newly ordered and presented by Ishwa
All the classical authors lived more than three centuries after the events they described, but they used older, nearly contemporary sources, that are now lost.
The sources are contained in a âVulgateâ Tradition, based upon Cleitarchus as secondary and Diodorus Siculus (1st century BCE) and Curtius Rufus (1sr century CE) as tertiary sources, and a âGoodâTradition, based upon Ptolemy as a primary and Arrian (2nd century CE) and as secondary source.
Cleitarchus' work is often called 'the vulgate' (Diodorus and Curtius Rufus being 'the vulgate tradition'). It is indeed a popular story: its contains romantic details, a convincing (but incorrect) psychological portrait, fantastic stories. It is certainly not a bad source, but modern historians prefer the account of Arrian, which is based on terse primary sources like Ptolemy. These are called the 'good' tradition.
Cleitarchus', who had presented the Macedonian king as a young prince who had been corrupted by his constant success. Arrian (he was in the Roman army too and in the senate and personal friend of the emperor), on the other hand, admires Alexander, although he is too much a philosopher to be completely uncritical. Sometimes, he condemns aspects of the conqueror's behavior, but as a whole, he is positive about Alexander's achievements.
NOTE Ishwa: As the eyewitness authors of the primary sources are all connected with Alexander, they would be rather diplomatic about (military) embarrassments, atrocities, losses and defeats, blunders, critique on their leader, etc.
Cleitarchus would be not suffering from this feature, which is certainly reflected in his Tradition.
Older Sources:
1. Astronomical Diary (not lost)
2. Callisthenes of Olynthus (lost): Alexanderâs court historian
3. a. Onesicritus of Astypalaea (lost): Alexander's helmsman
b. Nearchus (lost): Alexander's fleet commander
c. Ptolemy (lost): Alexanderâs commander
d. Aristobulus (lost): official in campaigns of Alexander
e. Cleitarchus (lost): not an eyewitness, independant
1. The Astronomical Diary, which is the only contemporary source. âThe most intriguing information from the Astronomical diary, however, is related to the battle of Gaugamela, which was fought on 1 October 331. It suggests that the Persian soldiers were demoralized and states that they left their king and fled during the battle (text). This is exactly the opposite of what we read in the four tertiary sources, Diodorus, Curtius Rufus, Plutarch and Arrian: they write that Darius left his soldiers.â
The official account of the battle was written by Callisthenes of Olynthus and as we will see, the stories of Diodorus, Curtius Rufus, Plutarch and Arrian are derived from this account. Modern reconstructions of the battle of Gaugamela that ignore the Astronomical diary are therefore nothing but reconstructions of what the Macedonians thought that had happened, and not of the battle itself.â
NOTE Ishwa: This information on one incident already betrays the tampering, whether deliberate or not, of information by the classical writers.
I. The âVulgateâ Tradition
A. Cleitarchus (book lost). He was not an eyewitness, thus this is a secondary source. This author was in Babylon when Alexander received an embassy from Rome; it may be true. The History of Alexander was finished between 310 and 301 BCE. The author of this secondary source had, written a fine history that focused on Alexander's presumed psychological development - from a brilliant young conqueror to a paranoid despot.â
His main source may have been the work of Alexander's court historian Callisthenes of Olynthus (to be discussed below). However, this work only covered the period until 329, and Cleitarchus added information from other sources; among these were the memoirs of Onesicritus of Astypalaea and Nearchus, Alexander's helmsman and his fleet commander. Another source of information was available in Alexandria: there were many Macedonian and Greek veterans living in this city, and they must have told Cleitarchus about their adventures. Perhaps Cleitarchus had already to make notes in Babylon.
His book was -if popularity is an indicator- the most entertaining history of Alexander's conquests. It offered many vivid descriptions and eyewitness accounts, usually from a soldier's point of view. We know these stories from Diodorus' Library of world history and the History of Alexander the Great of Macedonia by Curtius Rufus, because Cleitarchus' own book is now lost. However, Diodorus and Curtius Rufus retell the stories often in almost identical words, which gives us a good idea of the History of Alexander.
Summing up, we can say that Cleitarchus' work combined vivid descriptions, eyewitness accountants and a dark psychological portrait of Alexander. He also delights in fantastic tales and he sometimes sacrificed historical reliability to keep the story entertaining and to stress the psychological development.
B.1. Diodorus Siculus (65/60 and 35/30 BCE) wrote the Library of world history, of which Book 17 contain the exploits of Alexander.
Diodorus has an account of the destruction of Persepolis
B2. Quintus Curtius Rufus (between 31 and 41 CE) is the only Roman writer whose work, the History of Alexander the Great of Macedonia, has survived.
âIt has Cleitarchus as its source. He has read other sources (Ptolemy, Aristobulus) and sometimes corrects his model.
Curtius gives a description of the fall of Tyre, including a description of a mass crucifixion and also an account of the difficult crossing of the Hindu Kush
II. The âGoodâ Tradition
A. Ptolemy, eyewitnesses. Ptolemy was the personal friend of Alexander. After the death of Alexander, he was recognized as an independent ruler, and had himself proclaimed king in 306. This, and not the conquest by Alexander, meant the formal end of the unity of the Achaemenid empire
In the first place, he uses Callisthenes' Deeds of Alexander and a sequel, because he has the correct chronology of the events and knows the names of the appointees. In the second place, Ptolemy sometimes exaggerates his own role. In his opinion, Alexander had been a rational expansionist.
At one place, Ptolemy corrects Cleitarchus' account of Alexander's campaigns, and this proves that Ptolemy's history was published after theHistory of Alexander, which can be dated between 310 and 301
It is possible that Ptolemy started to write his memoirs in order to prove that he was worthy of the royal title he had assumed: for example, he wrote that he had killed an Indian king and had stripped him of his armor, an incident that must have reminded his readers of the behavior of the heroes of Homer, who had been kings.
B. Arrian Was first in the Roman army and then in the senate. He wrote many books of which the seven books of the Anabasis: the history of Alexander's march into Asia, the Indikê (one book), telling about the marvels of India and the voyage home of Alexander's admiral Nearchus and the ten books Events after Alexander, known from a Byzantine summary.
His sources are mainly Aristobulus and Ptolemy.
Independent Tradition (combining both)
Plutarchus (46-c.120 CE): We should read his Life of Alexander as a collection of short stories, in which virtues and vices are shown. The most important theme (one might say: Plutarch's vision on Alexander's significance in world history) is that he brought civilization to the barbarians and made them human; Alexander is, so to speak, a practical philosopher, who improves mankind in a rather unusual but effective way. This theme is more explicitly worked out in a writing called The fortune and virtue of Alexander. Alexander's presumed philosophical interests are shown in stories like Alexander's conversation with Diogenes.
Plutarch has read many books on Alexander, and one cannot simply say that he belongs to the 'vulgate' tradition (which follows Cleitarchus) or the 'good' tradition (which follows Ptolemy). He tells his own, moral story and has taken elements from all traditions. His Life of Alexander is especially interesting because it contains a great many childhood stories, which he seems to have taken from a book called Alexander's education, written by a Macedonian named Marsyas, who went to school with the crown prince.
III. The âOrientalâ Sources
A. Arda Viraf (commentaries on the Avesta in the third or fourth century of the common era), etc. tell stories about a serious religious persecution by 'the accursed Alexander', who killed the Iranian priests and ordered the holy book of Zoroastrianism, the Avesta, to be burned.
B. Aethiopian sources, etc.
Other (lost) primary sources
1. Onesicritus is not heard of during the first half of Alexander's campaign and makes his first appearance in our sources in 326, when he translated the conversation between Alexander and the Indian sages at Taxila. During the voyage to the south, Onesicritus was the helmsman of Alexander's royal ship; when a large part of the Macedonian army had to be shipped back to Babylonia, he was also present.
After his return, he published How Alexander was educated, a primary source that is now lost. It is certain, however, that in this book, he claimed to have been the commander of the fleet, which was not true and caused admiral Nearchus to write an account of his own.
2. Aristobulus. He was probably one of the friends of Alexander's father Philip and accompanied Alexander on his war in the East. Since he is never mentioned as a participant to the fights, it has been assumed that he was either a military engineer or a non-military official. He may have been Alexander's greatest admirer, because when there are more than one versions of the same event, Aristobulus usually gives the kinder version. For example: all authorities agree that Alexander was a heavy drinker, but Aristobulus explains that this was merely because he loved to be with his friends. And when a drunken Alexander killed Clitus, Aristobulus says that it was Clitus' own mistake. Another example: Ptolemy writes that Alexander ordered Callisthenes, who had criticized him in public, to be crucified, and Aristobulus says that the man died in prison.
3. Nearchus: In India, Nearchus initially had some minor commands, but was made admiral of the Macedonian navy (326); in this quality, he was responsible for the transport of the army to the Ocean and -later- for the shipping of troops to Babylonia. After the death of Alexander, he backed Heracles, the son of Alexander and Barsine; the boy was killed, however, and Nearchus retired to write a book called Indikê.