BIAS IN PTOLEMY'S HISTORY OF

ALEXANDERI
AR RI A N 's enthusiasm for Ptolemy's account of Alexander has often been echoed
in modern times.2 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.3
His version of the Alexander story is centred on Alexander, therefore Alexander
is depicted out of the close context of the Macedonian court.4 It is only through
the information preserved in other writers-traditionally, but undiscriminat-
ingly, 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.
From these studies a new dimension has been revealed in Ptolemy's history.
Far from being a simple military narrative, a general's story, 'to set the record
straight',5 it is as much a political history as any, even if much of the distortion
is caused by omitting crucial events. Strasburger in I934 noted Ptolemy's
penchant for throwing Alexander's activities into relief by omitting details
about his nobles', except in purely military contexts where mention was un-
avoidable.6 Strasburger attributed Ptolemy's unwillingness to allow too much
success to Alexander's nobles, and his complementary emphasis on Alexander's
own activities, to Ptolemy's loyalist point of view, and he did not regard it as
being of any great importance. But Badian's more recent work has shown
that, far from being unimportant, it is one of the most unsatisfactory aspects
of Ptolemy's historical work.
Welles has tried to plot another aspect of Ptolemy's bias:7 arguing from
fundamentals, that Ptolemy was himself active under Alexander, therefore
cannot have been unbiased in his treatment of his own career, he goes on to
illustrate, in terms of military commands, how Ptolemy on occasions exag-
gerated his own achievements, and on occasions disagreed with what other
authors had to say about his own activities. Moreover, we can add that this
exaggeration was not limited solely to military affairs. The silence about the
other Macedonian nobles, which Strasburger noticed, is more insidious than
An early version of this paper was read in TAPhA, I960, Historia, 1958, C.Q., I958.
to the meeting of Hibernian Hellenists at Also his comments on Pearson's book in
Ballymascanlon in March 1968. I am grate- Gnomon,I961 (reprinted in Studies in Greek
ful for comments made then, and to Pro- and Roman History [Oxford, I964], 250 ff.);
festor E. Badian for reading a subsequent C. B. Welles, Miscellanea Rostagni (Turin,
draft. I963), 01I f.
2
A(rrian) i. I (all references are to the 4 Clearly shown by H. Strasburger,
Anabasisunless otherwise stated). Cf. W. W. Ptolemaios und Alexander (Leipzig, 1934),
Tarn, Alexanderthe Great(Cambridge, 1949), 50 ff.
passim; L. Pearson, The Lost Histories of 5 So Pearson, Lost Histories, 193 ff. (with
Alexanderthe Great (New York, I960), esp. bibliography).
i88 ff. 6 Ptolemaiosund Alexander,50 ff.
3 See especially the articles of E. Badian 7 MiscellaneaRostagni, 101 ff.
234 R. M. ERRINGTON

at first appears: for it is used to exaggerate Ptolemy's own importance. In the

'conspiracy of the pages', which led to Callisthenes' arrest, Curtius' version--
which we have no reason to doubt in outline-has it that the conspiracy was
revealed in the first instance to Ptolemy and Leonnatus, who duly brought
matters to a head by informing Alexander (and who, by implication, took the
credit of saving the king's life). Arrian's version is broadly similar, but the
credit for bringing the conspiracy to Alexander's notice there belongs to
Ptolemy alone: Leonnatus does not feature in his account, and there is no
reason why Arrian should have omitted him, had Ptolemy mentioned his
part.2
Since Ptolemy exaggerated his own activities in this way, he also, inevitably,
depreciated the activities of his colleagues. In the case we have just noticed,
Leonnatus' reputation would have suffered were Arrian's (Ptolemy's) version
the only one to have survived. Exaggeration of Ptolemy's own activities is
perhaps to be expected, and we can take precautions against it. But his in-
sidious distortion by the simple omission of important facts about his colleagues
is clearly not intended only to throw Alexander's own activities into relief,
and to make them alone seem relatively more important. Ptolemy clearly used
the method more widely than has hitherto been thought, and while he uses
it to exaggerate discreetly his own career (often without actually lying-a
characteristic which appealed to Arrian!), we must explore whether it was
also used, equally discreetly, to denigrate his later opponents. Few of his later
opponents were, in fact, sufficiently important under Alexander to feature
largely in Ptolemy's narrative. But there are cases which seem to offer prima-
facie evidence, Antigonus, Aristonous, and Perdiccas.3 Since the case of
Antigonus is inconclusive, I shall deal with it first.
In his examination of some information which Curtius provides, and
which he thinks Arrian ought to have, Tarn deals with the case of Antigonus.4
Antigonus was appointed to the satrapy of Phrygia Major in 334, which he
retained until Alexander's death. After Issus, in 333, Antigonus had a major
success in dealing with the remains of the Persian army which tried to escape
through Asia Minor. This we know only from Curtius.5 It is not in Arrian,
and the reasonable conclusion is that it was not in Ptolemy. Tarn attributed
this to Ptolemy's hostility towards Antigonus: 'Ptolemy was not going to relate
the acta of one who had been his most bitter enemy.'6 And since it is clear that
distortion by omission was peculiarly Ptolemy's among the Alexander his-
torians, Tarn's interpretation has a prima-facie plausibility. Yet in this instance
Ptolemy can be defended: for Antigonus' activities in Phrygia after 333 were
no part of the Alexander-centred story favoured both by Ptolemy and by
Arrian: they were essentially off-stage activities, however important in them-
selves. Even if Ptolemy had recorded Antigonus' success, there is no reason for
Arrian to have followed him in this. Moreover, the manner of Tarn's argument
begs a large question about the date at which Ptolemy wrote: he accepts the
C(urtius) 8. 6. 22. 2 A. 4. 13. 7. Berve, loc. cit., points out), since no source
3 Otto (ap. H. Berve, Das Alexanderreichauf supplies much information about Seleucus
prosopographischerGrundlage(2 vols., Munich, under Alexander. Berve's own suggestion is
1926), ii. 35I n. 6), suggests that Seleucus' quite satisfactory, that Seleucus simply was
military career under Alexander has also been not important at the time.
suppressed-though he does not say who might 4 Alexander,ii. I Io-I. 5 C. 4. I. 35.
have suppressed it. This is an unnecessary 6 Alexander, ii. I o; cf. Pearson, Lost
assumption and cannot be demonstrated (as Histories, I92 (briefly).
 BIAS IN PTOLEMY'S HISTORY OF ALEXANDER 235
common assumption that Ptolemy wrote late in life, therefore after he had
been hostile to Antigonus (after 3 I4).1 This may be reasonable; but if Ptolemy
wrote before 314, there can clearly be no question of his having been openly
hostile to Antigonus at the time of his writing, and therefore no question of his
having concealed Antigonus' activities through jealousy. We shall return to
this point later. It is sufficient for the present to notice that there is no con-
clusive reason for seeing hostile bias in Antigonus' omission.
The second of our examples is more interesting. Again, Tarn has drawn
attention to it.2 The man in question is Aristonous, about whom essential
information is preserved in Curtius alone, and though Arrian mentions him
twice, neither instance comes from Ptolemy. The strange thing is that Aris-
tonous was an important man at the court: he was a somatophylaxat least as
early as 326, since Arrian cites him in a list of somatophylakes,
which he took from
Aristobulus, when Peucestas was made somatophylaxin 325; and Aristonous
is also named later as 'Alexander's somatophylax'.3The only other mention in
Arrian comes from Nearchus: Aristonous is named as one of the trierarchs
on the Indus.4 It is Curtius who gives us details of Aristonous' sole known claim
to fame under Alexander. At the capture of the city of the Malli, Aristonous is
one of those who, together with Peucestas, Timaeus, and Leonnatus, fought
to protect Alexander's body, and was wounded for his pains.5 Arrian, as is
well known, uses the discrepancies among the accounts of this battle for a dis-
cussion of his source material, but his narrative, probably taken from Ptolemy,6
features Peucestas, Leonnatus, and an otherwise unknown Abreas, a dimoirites.
Aristonous is not mentioned. Arrian admits that accounts vary: all are agreed
on Peucestas, but they do not agree on Leonnatus and Abreas.7 It is clear
that Ptolemy must have provided the account which Arrian follows, yet, as
Arrian himself admits, Ptolemy was not himself present at the battle ;8 and
Curtius, for one, found information about Aristonous elsewhere-but although
he knew Ptolemy's book, he chose to ignore Ptolemy's trivia about the
insignificant Abreas. The conclusion which immediately presents itself is that
Ptolemy has deliberately concealed Aristonous' bravery, and chosen instead to
feature the unimportant Abreas; were it not for Aristobulus' list of somato-
phylakes, Nearchus' list of trierarchs, and Curtius' wide reading and good
sense, we should know precisely nothing about Aristonous under Alexander.
This would be particularly odd in view of the fact that Aristonous was an
important man after Alexander's death. Arrian's Successors,taking information
from Hieronymus of Cardia, lists him among the nobles who supported Per-
diccas against Meleager in the first struggle at Babylon in June 323; Curtius
also makes him prominent at Babylon, and Curtius was also probably using
the reliable Hieronymus.9 In this prominence at Babylon may lie the explana-
tion of Ptolemy's silence about Aristonous under Alexander. For Aristonous
was a firm supporter of Perdiccas at Babylon and after; and the speech which
Curtius attributes to Aristonous at Babylon is not only the statement of one
fully committed to supporting Perdiccas, but is also the first speech after

I Alexander,ii. II0; cf. 43. 6 A. 6. 9. 10; cf. Strasburger, Ptolemaios

2
Ibid. I09. und Alexander, 45.
3 A. 6. 28. 4; cf. 7 A. 6. I. 7.
Strasburger, Ptolemaios 8 A. 6. I. 8.
und Alexander,46; A. succ. ( -F. Jacoby, 9 A. succ.2; C. Io. 6. I6 f. I shall show in
FGH no. I56), frg. Io, 6. JHS 1970 C.'s probable use of Hieronymus
4 A. Ind. I8. 5. 5 C. 9. 5. 15 if. for his account of events at Babylon.
236 R. M. ERRINGTON

Ptolemy's own intervention in the struggle, and is largely responsible for

Ptolemy's proposal's being ignored. Moreover, this was not Aristonous' sole
action directly against Ptolemy's interests: the Vatican papyrus fragment of
Arrian's Successorsshows him in action on Perdiccas' behalf in Cyprus, at the
time when the leading Cypriot kings had allied with Ptolemy against Per-
diccas, and when Perdiccas was in the process of invading Egypt in 320.'
Ptolemy clearly had reason for thinking Aristonous hostile, and for deliberately
suppressing his activities under Alexander.2
Concealment-surely deliberate-by Ptolemy of his enemy's earlier activities,
which alone explain why Aristonous was at all prominent among the nobles
at Babylon, leads us directly to an examination of Ptolemy's attitude to Per-
diccas himself under Alexander, for Perdiccas proved to be Ptolemy's chief
enemy-though only comparatively briefly-after Alexander's death: he
was the only man to turn the whole might of the central government's power
and propaganda against Ptolemy's possession of Egypt. There was every reason
for Ptolemy to be hostile towards Perdiccas as towards his lieutenant Aristo-
nous; and we shall see that his method of distortion by suppression was also
employed in Perdiccas' case-naturally, much more widely, inasmuch as
Perdiccas was a more important man, than with Aristonous. We shall therefore
proceed by comparing the picture of Perdiccas' career as it emerges from
Ptolemy, on the one hand, and from the non-Ptolemaic sources on the other.
First, it is clear that a great deal of formal information, about battle align-
ments and commands, is common to all sources; and since this seems to be
fuller and more accurate before the death of Callisthenes than after, it may
have come in the first instance from Callisthenes' history, and have reached
our extant authors either directly, or through Ptolemy and Aristobulus (Arrian),
Clitarchus (Diodorus and ? Curtius), or others. It is therefore quite meaning-
less for our purpose that (for instance), both Curtius and Arrian mention the
presence of Perdiccas' taxis in the dispositions before the battle of Issus, and
that they are joined by Diodorus in giving the same information for Gau-
mela.3 If battles have to be described in detail, it is clearly important that
the dispositions should be described. These purely formal mentions of Perga-
diccas' presence account for no fewer than eight out of eighteen references to
him in Arrian, where he relies on Ptolemy, only four out of twenty in non-
Ptolemy. Some of the remainder are insignificant for our purpose: for instance,
the fact that Perdiccas was one of Philip's bodyguards is recorded only by
Diodorus;4 but there is no essential reason why Ptolemy (or Arrian) should
have mentioned this detail. There is no point in discussing such inconclusive
details: we shall therefore stick to such instances as shed some light on our
investigation.
The first of these is very important, for it is a direct conflict between an
attested fragment of Ptolemy and Diodorus, over Perdiccas' part in Alexander's
I A. succ. frg. o, 6. On the date cf. E. surrender to Cassander, when he was mur-
Manni, RAL ser. 8, iv (I949), 53 ff. dered by Cassander (Diod. 19. 51. i ff.).
2 The
remaining information about Aris- Although Ptolemy was nominally friendly
tonous after Perdiccas' death shows him only towards Cassander, it is difficult to see any-
indirectly opposed to Ptolemy: he joined thing in this later career of Aristonous which
Olympias-whether or not he was attached would exacerbate Ptolemy's hostility to-
to Polyperchon first-and fought for her wards him.
against Cassander in 316 (Diod. 19. 35. 4), 3 References in Berve, Das Alexanderreich,
and was her governor of Amphipolis until her ii. 213-14. 4 Diod. I6. 94. 4.
 BIAS IN PTOLEMY'S HISTORY OF ALEXANDER 237
destruction of Thebes in 335.' Ptolemy's tendency throughout his book is to
apologize for Alexander, wherever he can prevent his distortion from being
too obvious, and to depict him as being correct and right and his actions
justified. Ptolemy's version of the destruction of Thebes-a difficult enough
problem for his Tendenzso early in his book-is that the crucial attack which
ultimately captured the city was started by Perdiccas without Alexander's
orders, and that Alexander had to go to his rescue, and by so doing captured
the city. The version has the clear merit for Ptolemy of partially absolving
Alexander of the blame for Thebes' destruction; and this purpose becomes
even clearer as his account progresses,when the Phocians, Plataeans, and other
Boeotians are said to have been moreprominentthan the Macedoniansin sacking
the city.2 Here, Ptolemy chooses the ill discipline of Perdiccas as his chief means
of absolving Alexander from the distasteful responsibility for destroying
Thebes. His dual purpose is clear enough, and has often been recognized,
particularly when it is confronted with Diodorus' version which (much more
soberly and reasonably) has Perdiccas acting on Alexander's orders, and the
other Greeksjoining in the destruction only when it is already under way.3
Tarn preferredPtolemy; but, long before, Berve had rightly thought Diodorus'
version more trustworthy.4
This is one of the few preserved traceable examples where Ptolemy dis-
torted other than by omission.5But omission can hurt Perdiccasjust as well.
At the siege of Tyre we have to look to Curtius to find the fact that Alexander
at one stage left Perdiccas and Craterus in joint command of the siege opera-
tions while he went against some Arabs.6This could conceivably be an omis-
sion of Arrian's, so undue weight should not be placed upon it. But when we
come to Gaugamela Ptolemy is clearly culpable: a list of nobles wounded in
the battle is uniformly given by Diodorus and Curtius as Hephaestion, Per-
diccas, Coenus, and Menidas; Arrian has merely Hephaestion, Coenus, and
Menidas, omitting Perdiccas.7Arrian himself had no reason to deprive Per-
diccas of his glory: his omissionmust be Ptolemy's responsibility.Furthermore,
we owe to a random mention in Curtius our knowledge that Perdiccas had
already reached the high rank of somatophylax by 330, for he participated in
the Philotas affair in this capacity. Ptolemy himself, we know, did not become
somatophylax until after the affair, as a direct result of a vacancy created by
the purge which followed.8
From this time onwards Ptolemy himself had the same high status as
Perdiccas, and they were often associated. But it can scarcely be an accident
that Ptolemy's own activities are given much more prominence in Arrian
than Perdiccas'-or indeed, than any of the other nobles': we have already
seen how Leonnatus' part in discovering the conspiracy of the pages was sup-
pressedby Ptolemy-in their personalassociationwith Alexander. In Sogdiana
in 329 Curtius alone9 mentions that Perdiccas and Meleager were left in
charge of a siege; and in the next spring, when Alexander split up the army
into five sections, commanded respectivelyby himself, Hephaestion, Perdiccas,
I A. i. 8. I ff. == FGH no. 138, frg.' 3; involving Perdiccas) cf. Badian, Studies,258;
Diod. I7. I2. 3 ff. Welles, MiscellaneaRostagni, Ioi ff.
2 A. i. 8. 8. 6 C. 4.
3. i; cf. A. 2. 20. 4.
3 Diod. I7. I 2. 3. 7 Diod. I7. 6i. 3; C. 4. i6. 32; cf. A.
4 Tarn, Alexander, i. 7-8; Berve, Das iii. 15. 2.
ii. 313.
Alexanderreich, 8 C. 4. 8. I7 (Perdiccas); A. 3. 27. 5
5 For some other important examples (not (Ptolemy). 9 C. 7. 6. 19-21.
238 R. M. ERRINGTON
Ptolemy, and Coenus and Artabazusjointly, Ptolemy is the only man explicitly
called somatophylax, yet Hephaestion and Perdiccas were also members of the
corps.' This might be quite accidental. But it is odd that Arrian here uses
this distinguishing phrase in addition to his usual defining phrase, 'Ptolemy,
son of Lagus'. There is no obvious need to mention that Ptolemy was somato-
phylax.It seems to carry the false implication, which may well be deliberate,
that all the others were not.
Another conflict of evidence occurs in connection with the death of Clitus
in Maracanda, in winter 328/7. Alexander held a party in connection with
a sacrifice to the Dioscuri, in the course of which Alexander's achievements
were openly praised in terms which offended some of the older Macedonians,
since they implied depreciation of the achievements of Philip. Clitus objected,
and Alexander tried to kill him, but was at first restrained.There are different
versions of the incident from here on, but all sources agree that the upshot
was that very soon after the first provocation the party provided another
opportunity for Alexander, and this time Clitus was duly murdered.
Arrian's main version of the first part of the incident, in which Alexander
was at first restrained, is vague. He says simply that Alexander was restrained
by 'some of his drinking companions'.2 He also cites explicitly Aristobulus,
whose version was that Ptolemy rushed Clitus away before any damage could
be done, but that Clitus rushed back and presented Alexander with his
opportunity.3 Aristobulus'version is clearly an attempt to exonerate Alexan-
der, and to depict his action as duly provoked-which is consonant with his
reputation in later antiquity as a flattererof Alexander.4If Arrianis here follow-
ing his usual custom, his main version will be Ptolemy's, while he cites Aristo-
bulus' version as a variation. In this case Ptolemy chose to conceal his own
part in the affair under the blanket term which Arrian gives as rov V[TLVOVCOVTwV.
In outline, Curtius' account agrees with Arrian's first version, but gives more
detail: r-CvfVUTTLVOVTrwv becomes Ptolemy and Perdiccas, aided by Lysimachus
and Leonnatus.5 Where Curtius' source found these names is not clear:
Plutarch's account of the events, which perhaps comes from Chares, does
not mention them.6 It is difficult to believe that they are invented-though
it is not impossible. However, if they are (more or less) correct, Ptolemy's
vague phrase can be seen to have concealed his own participation; but it has
also concealed the participationof others. It is easy enough to see that Ptolemy
himself was not proud of his involvement in the highly discreditable episode,
and if he omitted his own part, he could scarcelyallow others to be prominent.
However, the consensus of modern opinion is that Arrian's main version
is not here drawn from Ptolemy.7If this is correct-and there are good grounds
for it-it must imply that Ptolemy simply omitted the whole unsavoury
episode, a practice entirely in accordance with his normal technique of sup-
pressing the inconvenient or unpalatable. In so doing, of course, he has also
omitted-as we have already seen from discussing the implications of rcov
v1tLTtvovrwv-bothhis own part and that of his colleagues. However we regard
I A. 4. i6. 2; cf. Berve, Das Alexanderreich, 5 C. 8. I. 43 ff.
i. 25 ff. 6 Plut. Alex. 50-I; cf. Pearson, Lost
2 A. 4. 8. 7. Histories,6o.
3 A. 4. 8. 9. 7 So Strasburger, Ptolemaiosund Alexander,
4 Cf. Pearson, Lost Histories, 150 ff., with following Schwartz, R.E. s.v. 'Arrianos',
Badian's comments, Studies,255-6. 1240, and Jacoby, FGH II D, 517.
 BIAS IN PTOLEMY'S HISTORY OF ALEXANDER 239
the question of Arrian's source, we clearly have here a further example of the
discreet silence which has already been seen to be the chief characteristic of
Ptolemy's propaganda technique. Unfortunately for Ptolemy, his was not the
only version of the incident to survive: Aristobulus chose him as the deusex
machinafor his own justification of Alexander's conduct. Someone much more
straightforwardprovided information which perhaps Clitarchus wrote up for
Curtius' use. For despite some (trivial) dramatic additions for which Curtius
himself might easily be responsible, Curtius'version shows fewer signs of ten-
dentious distortion than either of Arrian's, and is therefore likely (in outline)
to be closer to the truth. Also the fact that it is not altogether incompatible
with Plutarch's version-which, if from Chares, will represent an eyewitness
account-suggests the same conclusion.
From the death of Clitus to the end of the Indian campaign relatively
little evidence for our purpose is available: both Curtius and Arrian confirm
that Perdiccas was sent ahead of the main expedition with Hephaestion to
arrange the bridging of the Indus; and though Arrian gives much more
prominence to Ptolemy's activities than does Curtius, this is explicable from
Arrian's use of Ptolemy, who, it is clear, also liked where possible to give his
own activities a discreet prominence. Nor can much be made of the remaining
instances of Perdiccas' activities as mentioned by Arrian; they are mostly
either simple military commands with little or no detail given, or references
to groups of men among whom Ptolemy also is mentioned.2 Only one more
direct referencemay reflect Ptolemy's bias in action: the occasion is the attack
on the city of the Malli, where Alexander was almost fatally wounded.3 The
incident as presented by Arrian, who is no doubt influenced by Ptolemy's
presentation, does nothing to enhance Perdiccas' military reputation; for it
was directly because of the slowness in action of his section of the army that
Alexander was cut off and wounded. If this does reflect Ptolemy, it is con-
sistent with his general attitude to Perdiccas.
Crucial omissions now remain to be considered, for they constitute the
body of facts which alone explain how Perdiccaswas, at the time of Alexander's
death, quite pre-eminent among the Macedonians; if we only had Arrian,
with his emphasis, taken from Ptolemy, on Alexander's own achievements, it
would come as a totally unexplained phenomenon to find (even in Arrian's
own book on the successors) Perdiccas' immediate dominance at Babylon
after Alexander'sdeath. Ptolemy's subtle distortionby suppressionmust clearly
be at work again, with its purpose of emphasizingAlexander'ssupremacyover
all. The vital facts which Ptolemy has suppressed are that Perdiccas, on
Hephaestion's death in 324, virtually succeeded to Hephaestion's position as
chief companion of the king and second-in-commandof the empire. Diodorus,
following Clitarchus-who is likely to have been well informedon these events,
since he may have been an eyewitness; but in any case he had no axe to grind
and no reason to falsify details which would be widely known-says that
Perdiccas was given the highly personal and honorific task of conveying
Hephaestion's body to Babylon ;4 and Diodorus is supported by Plutarch-
1 C. 8. Io. 2 ff.; A. 4.22. 7 ff- 'Arrianos', 1241; Strasburger, Ptolemaios
2
Military: A. 6. 6. 4ff.; 6. 15. I; cf. und Alexander,45.
C. 9. I. 19. Groups: A. 5. 13. I; 7. 4. 5; 4 Diod. 17. Ino. 8. On the date of Cli-
cf. C. 8. 14. I5. tarchus see (most recently) Badian, PACA
3 A. 6.
9. I ff., cf. Schwartz, R.E. s.v. viii (I965), 5 ff.
4599.2 R
240 R. M. ERRINGTON
here both using Hieronymus of Cardia, whose close association with Eumenes
made him well informed on court matters-in saying that Perdiccas succeeded
to Hephaestion's position as chiliarch of the companion cavalry-a military
command which by now implied that its holder would be Grand Vizier.'
Ptolemy found this an opportunity for discreet concealment. Arrian records
Ptolemy's informationthat Alexander never appointed another commanderfor
Hephaestion's chiliarchy, but that it remained known as 'Hephaestion's
chiliarchy', and kept the same standard. This seems to contradict Diodorus
and Plutarch, yet it is not incompatible. That we cannot simply choose to
believe Ptolemy's version against that of the others is clear from the additional
fact that in the same passage Plutarch preserves a promotion consequent on
that of Perdiccas, Eumenes' appointment to command Perdiccas' taxis. Per-
diccas must have been given the temporary command of Hephaestion's
chiliarchy-for reasons we need not investigate here-which accordingly re-
tained its name and standard. Presumably Perdiccas' taxis, now commanded
by Eumenes, similarly retained its former name and standard. Arrian omits
these crucial promotions; indeed, he implies that they did not take place. The
dissimulationis clear; it must be Ptolemy's, and Perdiccas' reputation is again
the chief sufferer.2
Lastly Curtius, probably taking his information from Clitarchus-who had
no reason to invent it-must be reliable when he makes Perdiccas Alexander's
confidant on his death-bed ;3 and Curtius, Diodorus, and Justin, all probably
using Hieronymus, who, through Eumenes, would know the fact from its
importance in the subsequent struggle at Babylon, record Alexander's giving
Perdiccas his signet ring. Tarn denied that this was fact because Ptolemy did
not say it.4 But his argument from silence is not at all cogent. Ptolemy, as
we have seen, had every reason for suppressing Perdiccas' prominence and
there is no justification any longer for regarding him as the sole straight-
forward purveyor of all truth.
Ptolemy's suppressionof important details about Aristonous and Perdiccas
seems proved, in so far as anything of this kind can ever be proved. The
reasonfor the suppressionmust originate in their co-operationagainst Ptolemy's
separatist inclinations in Egypt after Alexander's death. We can perhaps go
further and see Ptolemy's discreetly apologetic portrait of Alexander himself,
and his generally uninformative treatment of his officers, as also originating
in these years. For by depicting Alexander as supreme, by implication Ptolemy
depicted Alexander's officers as all being on the same level of prominence.
To depict the officers as equals under Alexander, to suppressthe outstanding
prominence of Perdiccas in the last years, was tantamount to depicting his
1 Diod. I8. 3. 4; Plut. Eumenes,I. Tarn, Possible hostility to Eumenes, also apparent
J,HS, 1921, 4 ff., argues unconvincingly that in this omission, will be from Eumenes' later
these are based on Duris-yet even Duris close association with Perdiccas. Unfor-
cannot alwayshave been wrong! On Hierony- tunately we cannot trace this in any detail
mus see T. S. Brown, AHR lii (I946-7), 684 ff. in Ptolemy's book.
3 C. IO.
2 A.
7. I4. Io. This explanation of the 5. 8.
contradiction in the sources seems more 4 Diod. 17. 117. 3; i8. 2. 4; C. 10. 5. 4;
satisfactory than that of Berve, Das Alexander- Justin, 12. 15. 12. Tarn, J_HS 1921, 4 ff.; cf.
reich, ii. 3I5-I6, and Tarn (tentatively, in also M. J. Fontana, 'Le lotte per la succes-
Alexander, i. II7) that Perdiccas did the sione di Alessandro Magno', 259 ff. (in
duties of the office without the name; it is Atti della accademiadi scienze, letteree arti di
far from clear that the Macedonian mon- Palermo,xviii, II, 1957-8). Good discussion
archyemployed such over-subtle distinctions. in Badian, HSPh lxxii (I967), 185 n. 12.
 BIAS IN PTOLEMY'S HISTORY OF ALEXANDER 241

own position after 323 as being based on an equivalent prestige to Perdiccas'.

This was likely to be a much more effective means of propaganda than if
Ptolemy had obviously exaggerated his own status under Alexander, for that
would be expected; and the fact that we have to search for this type of per-
sonal exaggerationis evidence that Ptolemy avoided making himself invidiously
prominent in his book.
This bias which we have illustrated against Perdiccas and Aristonous-
leaving aside the doubtful case of Antigonus-might have some bearing on the
date at which Ptolemy wrote his history. Badian has already suggested that
the traditional period for the composition-Ptolemy's extreme old age in the
28os B.c.-should be reconsidered: his re-examination of the meagre evidence
for the relative dates of Ptolemy and Aristobulus shows it to be entirely in-
conclusive ; and the traditional purpose for Ptolemy's book, to set the record
straight, is equally unconvincing. In addition to the important instanceswhich
Badian cites of Ptolemy's suppressionof crucial details of court history, which
in themselves constitute a severe indictment against Ptolemy's good faith, the
more personal animosity which we have demonstrated offers further evidence
of a distinct purpose behind Ptolemy's Tendenz.Badian suggests that his book
might have been written during the early part of his career in Egypt, at the
time when, having snatched Alexander's body from Perdiccas' control and
buried it in Egypt, he seems to have been making some claim to be regarded
as Alexander's successor.2
Certainly, the traditional late date offers no convincing reason for Ptolemy's
purpose: there could be no urgency giving edge to his hostility towards Per-
diccas and Aristonous, no urgency to his suppressionof unsavorydetails about
Alexander, if he wrote when his own acknowledged kingship had existed for
nearly twenty years,3his actual control of Egypt for nearly forty. What point
was there, at this late stage of his life, in justifying himself in this over-subtle
way? If we take an earlier date, however (let us say sometime after 320, when
Perdiccas was assassinatedin Egypt while attacking Ptolemy, and Ptolemy had
access to such documentarymaterial as was collected at the royal headquarters)
Ptolemy had more reason for producing the kind of book he did. The previous
year he had gained the prestige of possessing Alexander's corpse; he was
investing massive resources in developing the city of Alexander, Alexandria,
as his capital; in every way his satrapy was to be dominated by the prestige
(and the physical remains) of Alexander. It is surely in this general context
that his Alexander-centred history assumes its greatest relevance. From this
time onwards the course of events might actually be affected by what people-
particularly the Macedonians and Greeks whom he wished to encourage to
support him in Egypt-thought about Alexander. After Perdiccas' death it
really mattered to Ptolemy what these people thought about Perdiccas and
what kind of information they had about him. And-perhaps most impor-
tantly-what Alexander had thought about Perdiccas, for this was an
immediate issue. After Perdiccas' death and in the context of an Alexander-
conscious Egypt which was on the defensive, the general levelling of the
officers'prestige under Alexander and the concealment of Perdiccas' closeness
to Alexander in the last months of the king's life were not only important: they
I Badian, Studies,256 ff. For the traditionl 3 From 305/4: cf. A. E. Samuel, Ptolemaic
view, cf. Pearson, Lost Histories, I93 iff. Chronology(Munich, i962), 4 ff.
2
Studies,258.
242 R. M. ERRINGTON

might even have been the crucial factors in retaining the long-term loyalty
of Ptolemy's Macedonian supporters. On Alexander Ptolemy built his king-
dom. His publicized view of Alexander and of the careers of his colleagues
(and of himself) under Alexander is vitally conditioned by this fact.
The Queen's University, Belfast R. M. ERRINGTON