¹ Restrictions of space preclude listing all of Ptolemy's ‘admirers’. The best known are Schwartz, E., ‘Arrianos’, RE 2 (1895), 1238Google Scholar; Jacoby, F., F. Gr. Hist. IIB, esp. pp. 498–500Google Scholar; Kornemann, E., Die Alexandergeschichte des Königs Ptolemaios I von Ägypten (Leipzig, 1935), pp. 170, 208 ff., 260Google Scholar; Tarn, W. W., Alexander the Great 2 (Cambridge, 1950), pp. 1–2, 268, 443Google Scholar. For further readings see Seibert, J., Alexander der Grosse (Darmstadt, 1972), pp. 19–21Google Scholar. All dates in this paper are B.C.

² Alexander in Babylon und die Reichsordnung nach seinem Tode (Wien, 1970), pp. 89 ff.Google Scholar; cf. Badian, E., ‘Agis III’, Hermes 95 (1967), 86Google Scholar.

³ Compare Jacoby, F., F. Gr. Hist. IIB, pp. 499–500Google Scholar; Strasburger, H., Ptolemaios und Alexander (Leipzig, 1934), pp. 15–16Google Scholar; Tarn, 2. pp. 19, 43; Pearson, L., The Lost Histories of Alexander the Great (N.Y., 1960), pp. 152, 193Google Scholar, and the bibliography cited in Goukowsky, P., Essai sur les origines du mythe d'Alexandre (336–270 av. J.-C). I: Les origines politiques (Nancy, 1978) (hereafter cited as Goukowsky), p. 338 n. 345Google Scholar.

⁴ Montgomery, H., Gedanke und Tat (Lund, 1965), p. 224Google Scholar; Seibert, J., Untersuchungen zur Geschichte Ptolemaios' I (München, 1969), pp. 152–6Google Scholar; esp. Errington, R. M., ‘Alexander in the Hellenistic World’, in Alexandre le Grand. Image et réalité (Fondation Hardt no. 22, Genève, 1976), pp. 137 ffGoogle Scholar. Cf. Goukowsky, pp. 75 ff.; Rosen, K., ‘Politische Ziele in der frühen hellenistischen Geschichtsschreibung’, Hermes 107 (1979), 462 ffGoogle Scholar.

⁵ Pearson (note 3 above), pp. 192–3, was hesitant concerning the traditional dating of Ptolemy's history. Badian's, E. review of his book, Gnomon 36 (1962), 666Google Scholar, tied in the work with Ptolemy's war with Perdiccas and his taking possession of Alexander's body. In ‘Alexander the Great’, CW 65 (1971), 40Google Scholar, Badian dates the history at the time between the ‘snatching’ of the body and 308, in the context of Ptolemy's presumable ambition to become Alexander's successor. (See, however, his remarks in ibid. p. 38 and in Alexandre le Grand [note 4 above], p. 36.) Errington, R. M., ‘Bias in Ptolemy's History’, CQ n.s. 19 (1969), 241CrossRefGoogle Scholar, clearly related the work to the war with Perdiccas and dates it to post 320.

⁶ Gnomon, 36 (1962), 666Google Scholar.

⁷ ‘Bias in Ptolemy's History’, CQ n.s. 19 (1969) (hereafter cited as Errington), 232–42Google Scholar.

⁸ Errington, 237. Cf. Jacoby, , F. Gr. Hist. IIB, p. 501Google Scholar; Berve, H., Das Alexanderreich auf prosopographischer Grundlage 2 (München, 1926), p. 313Google Scholar; Goukowsky, p. 238 n. 344. Strasburger, , Ptolemaios und Alexander, p. 22Google Scholar sees here a typical Ptolemaic description based on ‘psychological alternatives’ which stresses Perdiccas' impetuousness as against Alexander's hesitation. But Alexander hesitated not at all.

⁹ For all these, with references, see Errington, pp. 236–8 and below. Errington notes another Ptolemaic omission: Perdiccas' command over the siege of Tyre in Alexander's absence (Curtius Rufus 4. 3. 1). The omission, if by Ptolemy, need not be attributed to ill will. Alexander's campaign in Lebanon lasted just ten days, and Arrian 2. 20. 4–5 also omits the name of Craterus, who shared command with Perdiccas. There is no known Ptolemaic bias against Craterus.

¹⁰ See Errington, pp. 241 ff.; Badian, E., CW 65 (1971), 38, 40Google Scholar; Bosworth, A. B., ‘Arrian and the Alexander Vulgate’, in Alexandre le Grand (note 4 above), pp. 15–16, 27, 29, 32Google Scholar; idem, A Historical Commentary on Arrian's History of Alexander 1 (Oxford, 1981, hereafter cited as Bosworth, Commentary), pp. 23, 25 ff. Compare also Levi, M. A., Introduzione ad Alessandro Magno (Milano, 1977), pp. 44, 52, 56–8, 81–2Google Scholar. Errington, in Alexandre le Grand, p. 45Google Scholar seems to retract slightly his earlier position when he states that Ptolemy's work was not a flagrant political pamphlet. He still implies, however, that it was used for propaganda.

¹¹ Arrian 1. 8. 5. The present analysis aims, not at reconstructing the course of the battle (for which see, for example, Bosworth, , Commentary, pp. 80 ff.Google Scholar), but at dealing with its presentation in Arrian.

¹² See Antigonus' remarks concerning the rebuilding of the city by Cassander: Diod. Sic. 19. 61. 1–3. For the Greeks' reaction see, for example, Ephippus, , F. Gr. Hist. no. 123, F3, P1 b. 37. 2. 13Google Scholar; Pausanias 9. 7. 2.

¹³ Hammond, N. G. L., Alexander the Great. King, Commander and Statesman (London, 1981), p. 4Google Scholar. Cf. more generally Brunt, P. A., ‘On historical fragments and epitomes’, CQ n.s. 30 (1980), 476–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Levi (note 10 above), p. 45 and Goukowsky, p. 141, point to the difficulties of appreciating the nature of Ptolemy's work but go on to analyse its characteristics. The latter scholar argues reasonably against dating Ptolemy's work by its presumed bias (p. 142). Nevertheless, he dates it to the period after Ipsus because of Ptolemy's alleged failure to mention Antigonus' and Lysimachus' achievements under Alexander (p. 143).

¹⁴ Strasburger, , Ptolemaios und Alexander, p. 35Google Scholar.

¹⁵ Bosworth, , Commentary, p. 311Google Scholar, suggests that Arrian's source (and perhaps it was Arrian himself?) digressed in 3. 15. 2 to the general list of casualties. If the list was originally located (apud Callisthenem?) at the conclusion of the battle description, as it is now placed in Diod. 17. 61. 3 and Curt. 4. 16. 32, Perdiccas' name could have been missed in the process of copying.

¹⁶ Ptolemy as a bodyguard: Arr. 3. 27. 5; Peucestas: Arr. 6. 28. 3–4.

¹⁷ Errington, p. 237.

¹⁸ Gaza is presumably the unnamed city in Curt. 7. 6. 16.

¹⁹ Benveniste, E., ‘La ville de Cyreschata’, Journal Asiatique 234 (1943–1945), 165 f.Google Scholar; cf. Hamilton, J. R., Plutarch, Alexander. A Commentary (Oxford, 1969), p. 122Google Scholar. Plut, . Moral. 341b is of no help hereGoogle Scholar.

²⁰ Cf. Berve (note 8 above), p. 34; but see Hamilton, op. cit.

²¹ Errington, pp. 238–9.

²² Berve, p. 316; Strasburger, , Ptolemaios und Alexander, p. 47Google Scholar; Kornemann (note 1 above), p. 247; Pearson (note 3 above), p. 193; Errington, p. 240; Bosworth, , ‘The death of Alexander the Great; rumours and propaganda’, CQ n.s. 21 (1971), 128 n. 7, 132, 134CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

²³ Tarn, W. W., ‘Alexander's Hypomnemata and the World Kingdom’, JHS 41 (1921), 4 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar; cf. Fontana, M. J., La lotta per la successione di Alessandro Magno (Palermo, 1960), pp. 117, 252 ffGoogle Scholar. Goukowsky, esp. pp. 117–18, cf. 31–4 accepts Arr. 7. 4. 10 as authentic but on the basis of a questionable distinction between the chiliarch's duties.

²⁴ See note 22 above.

²⁵ See Anab. 6. 28. 2; 7. 13. 3; 7. 15. 6 and Bosworth, , Commentary, p. 30Google Scholar. Compare Bosworth, ibid. pp. 33 f. on Arrian's biased attitude towards Alexander, which was adopted from his sources.

²⁶ For example, 7. 1–3, 12. 5, 13. 4, 27–30. For the characteristics of Book Seven compare Badian, . ‘A King's notebooks’, HSCP 72 (1968), 192–4Google Scholar, and especially Stadter, P. A., Arrian of Nicomedia (University of North Carolina Press, 1981), pp. 86–8Google Scholar.

²⁷ I have counted forty-six cases of Arrian using words and expressions which imply that he was following a source other than Ptolemy and Aristobulus: 7. 1. 2, 1. 3, 1. 5, 2. 1, 2. 3, 2. 4, 3. 2, 12. 5, 13. 1, 13. 2, 13. 6, 14. 1, 14. 2, 14. 3, 14. 4, 14. 5, 14. 6, 14. 7, 14. 8, 15. 4, 15. 5, 17. 2, 18. 6, 20. 1, 20. 2, 20. 4, 20. 5, 24. 4, 25. 1, 26. 1, 26. 3, 27. 1, 27. 2, 27. 3. Not every occurrence oioratio obliqua means a subsidiary source; cf. the famous example of Arr. 7. 20. 1 and Strabo 16. 1. 11 (p. 741), both using Aristobulus. Still, the burden of proof rests upon whoever wishes to show the derivation of the majority of the legomena in Book Seven from Arrian's main source.

²⁸ Anab. 7. 13. 3, 15. 6, 26. 3. The favourable reference to Ptolemy in 7. 15. 3 implies that he was Arrian's source for the campaign against the Uxii (7. 15. 1–3).

²⁹ Anab. 7. 13. 3; F. Gr. Hist. no. 139, frs. 52–5, 60–1. By way of comparison Book Six of the Anabasis includes Ptolemy's fragments nos. 24, 25, 10, 26a, 27 (F. Gr. Hist. 138) and Aristobulus' fragments nos. 16, 49a; 50, 51 a (F. Gr. Hist. 139). The narrative mentions Nearchus five times (6. 2. 3, 13. 4, 13. 5, 24. 2, 24. 3), Onesicritus once (2. 3), and includes expressions which convey the use of subsidiary sources in 6. 11. 1, 11. 3–4, 7–8 (all in the context of Arrian's demonstration of his historiographical pretensions), 22. 8, 26. 1, 28. 1. The contrast with the use of the sources in Book Seven is striking.

³⁰ Levi's attempt (note 10 above), pp. 81–3, to trace Seleucid propaganda in Aristobulus' history lacks sufficient evidence.

³¹ Arrian's silence might even be anchored in historical grounds. Badian, though uncommitted, raised doubts concerning the story of the ring: HSCP 72 (1968), 185, 204Google Scholar.

³² Diod. 18. 25. 4. Diod. 18. 14. 1–2 is confused chronologically. Ptolemy's hostility towards Perdiccas is deduced from later events, and the negotiations with Antipater are antedated to the period preceding the Cyrenian campaign: Seibert, J., Hislorische Beiträge zu den dynastischen Verbindungen in hellenistischer Zeit (Historia Suppl. 10, Wiesbaden, 1967), p. 17Google Scholar; Briant, P., Antigone le Borgne (Paris, 1973), p. 183, n. 2Google Scholar. I follow here the chronology of Manni, E., ‘Tre note di cronologia ellenistica’, RAL ser. 8, 4 (1949), 53 ff. in spite of Briant's objections to his reconstruction (pp. 218 ff.)Google Scholar.

³³ The main source for the deliberations in Babylon is Curtius 10. 6 ff. They were recently analysed by F. Schachermeyr (note 2 above), esp. pp. 134 ff.; Errington, R. M., ‘From Babylon to Triparadeisos’, JHS 90 (1970), 46–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bosworth, , CQ n.s. 21 (1971), 112 f.CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Briant, esp. pp. 235 ff.; Goukowsky, pp. 75–84, 193–4.

³⁴ Pausanias (1. 6. 2) makes Ptolemy responsible for the division of the empire at Arrhidaeus' expense. Yet he neglects to mention that the Macedonians, who were persuaded by Ptolemy to hand over Alexander's body to him (ibid. 3), were led by Arrhidaeus, who should have known better. Pausanias' narrative also conveys the distinct, but misleading, impression that Perdiccas had been first pushed back from Egypt and then murdered: ‘⋯ξωσθε⋯ς δ⋯ Αἰγ⋯πτου…⋯π⋯θανεν ὑπ⋯ τ⋯ν σωματοϕυλ⋯κων’ (1. 6. 3). The Egyptian treasury: Diod. 18. 14. 1, and see Seibert (note 4 above), pp. 77, 97–100.

³⁶ Thus Errington, , JHS 90 (1970), 65Google Scholar. Pace Seibert, , pp. 109–10Google Scholar, the Heidelberg epitome (F. Gr. Hist. no. 155) and Justin 13. 6. 20 do not make the conquest of Cyrene a cause for the war between Ptolemy and Perdiccas. It is perhaps significant that in a Perdiccan propaganda pamphlet (Iulii Valerii Alexandri Polemi [ed. Küler, B.], p. 166Google Scholar, for which see Merkelbach, R., Die Quellen des griechischen Alexanderromans [München, 1954], pp. 125 ff., 145Google Scholar), Alexander's testament deprives Ptolemy of Egypt but gives him Libya.

³⁶ Diod. 18. 29. 1, Arr, . F. Gr. Hist. no. 156, F10. 1Google Scholar. On the affair see Badian, , HSCP 72 (1968), 186–7Google Scholar; Seibert, pp. 66–7, 97 ff.; Errington, , JHS 90 (1970), 64–5Google Scholar; Müller, O., Antigonos Monophthalmos und ‘das Jahr der Könige’ (Bonn, 1973), pp. 59–61Google Scholar. On Alexander's tomb and its significance see Fraser, P. M., Ptolemaic Alexandria 1 (Oxford, 1972), esp. pp. 15–17, 225–6Google Scholar; Errington, in Alexandre le Grand, pp. 141–5Google Scholar; Goukowsky, pp. 91 ff.

³⁷ Diod. 18. 36. 6–7. For Goukowsky, p. 89 see Diod. ibid. and Errington, , JHS 90 (1970), 65–6Google Scholar.

³⁸ Arr, . Succ. 32–3Google Scholar; Diod. 18. 39. 2–3; cf. Polyaen, 4. 6. 6.

³⁹ Perdiccas' reputation: Diod. 18. 33. 3; Arr, . Succ. 28Google Scholar; Justin 13. 8. 1; Suda s.v. ‘Perdiccas’. Cf. Geyer, F., ‘Perdiccas’, RE 19 (1937), 613–14Google Scholar. Perdiccas' memory could have been cherished by some, hardly significant, communities in Coele-Syria: Goukowsky, p. 302 n. 39.

⁴⁰ Diod. 18. 46. 1. On possible friction between Alcestas and Perdiccas before the Egyptian campaign: Briant, pp. 196 ff. (see, however, Diod. 18. 37. 2). It is worth noting that all our information concerning the pre-323 career of Alcestas, who surely had no love for Ptolemy, comes from Arrian (Ptolemy?). In fact Curtius (8. 11. 1) grants Polyperchon a victory over Ora (Hora) which Arrian (Anab. 5. 27. 5–6) attributes to Alcestas. For more references see Berve (note 8 above), pp. 22–3. Attalus managed to gather soldiers after Perdiccas' death, but that only by virtue of his control over the treasury: Diod. 18. 37. 4; Arr, . Succ. 39Google Scholar.

⁴¹ Errington and Bosworth, note 10 above.

⁴² Anab. 1. 6. 9, 14. 2, 20. 5; 3. 18. 5; 4. 16. 2; 6. 9. 1 (cf. 5. 22. 6). If Curtius' ‘Sambagrai’ (9. 8. 4–7) and Diodorus' ‘Sambastai’ (17. 102. 1–4) are Arrian's ‘Abastanes’ (6. 15. 1), then, according to Arrian's version, they were vanquished by Perdiccas, while the other two sources have them surrender to Alexander. Moreover, if Ptolemy is the source of Arrian 4. 16. 2, then the reporting of Perdiccas' command over one-fifth of the army is much more significant than the omission of his title of a bodyguard in that context (Errington, p. 238).

⁴³ Errington, pp. 235–6; cf. Tarn (note 1 above), 2 pp. 109–10, but also Goukowsky, p. 302 n. 37.

⁴⁴ See Curtius 10. 6. 10; Arr, . F. Gr. Hist. 156F 10. 6 and the previous noteGoogle Scholar.

⁴⁵ Berve (note 8 above), p. 69, assumes that Aristonous' participation in the battle was deduced from his title of bodyguard.

⁴⁶ Seibert (note 4 above), pp. 122 ff.; Errington, , JHS 90 (1970), 65–6Google Scholar. The fact that Pithon became Antigonus' ally c. 317 would hardly make this year a terminus post quern for Ptolemy's history.

⁴⁷ Tarn, 2 p. 110, blames Ptolemy for omitting Antigonus' achievements; but see Errington, p. 234 and compare Briant, p. 99. There is little doubt that Ptolemy had ample reason to dislike Perdiccas and that the two waged a war of propaganda: Merkelbach (note 36 above); Bosworth, , CQ n.s. 21 (1971), 112 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Goukowsky, pp. 88 ff., 305 n. 61, 336 n. 302. But neither Ptolemy's work nor probably the ephemerides were used as weapons in that war.

⁴⁸ For Ptolemy's autopsia see below. Rosen, K., Hermes 107 (1979), 463–5Google Scholar, maintains that Ptolemy stressed the military achievements of Alexander in the service of the Alexanderideologie, which was used to retain the loyalty of the soldiers and to make his rule legitimate. Judging from the extant sources, few histories of Alexander could avoid bringing the military into the foreground. Similarly, Bosworth's attempts to show a Ptolemaic bias against the sons of Andromenes, (in Alexandre le Grand, pp. 13–14)Google Scholar call for much co-operation on the part of his audience in order for the bias to be effective.

⁴⁹ Ptolemy's, military fragments are: F. Gr. Hist. 138, nos. 1, 3, 4, 6, 10, 15, 18, 20, 21, 24–6, 34–5Google Scholar. Alexander is especially idealized and justified in frs. 1, 3, 13, 16, 23. Ptolemy's autopsy: frs. 14, 18, 35; Arr. 4. 29. 1–6. For the following compare Levi (note 10 above), pp. 43 ff.; Bosworth, , Commentary, pp. 22 ffGoogle Scholar.

⁵⁰ Ptolemy frs. 20, 27, 28 b, 29; and esp. 26a. On Ptolemy's dissatisfaction with the vulgate see, e.g., Schwartz, , RE 2 (1895), 1237–8Google Scholar; Jacoby, , F. Gr. Hist. IIB, pp. 500–2Google Scholar; Strasburger, , Ptolemaios und Alexander, pp. 14 f., 27Google Scholar; Pearson (note 3 above), pp. 180, 205–6. Cf. Milns, R. D. and Schachermeyr, F. in Alexandre le Grand, pp. 42–3Google Scholar.

⁵¹ The conclusion holds true even if Ptolemy argued with Aristobulus on the details of Alexander's battle with the son of Porus: Anab. 5. 14. 3 ff.

⁵² See Errington, Bosworth, and Levi, note 10 above; Goukowsky, pp. 91 ff., 143.

⁵³ See the above note and Levi, pp. 51–2; Goukowsky, pp. 134, 141.

⁵⁴ See Arr. 6. 11. 8 and Curt. 9. 5. 2 above, and Diod, 17. 103. 6–8; Curt. 9. 8. 20–8 for Ptolemy's recovery. For other sources and an explanation for the absence of the last episode in Arrian see Goukowsky, , ‘Clitarque seul? Remarques sur les sources du livre XVII de Diodore de Sidle’, RÉA 71 (1969), esp. p. 320Google Scholar.

⁵⁵ This is especially true for F 35, which seems to stand out from Arrian's narrative in a splendid descriptive isolation. For Ptolemy's autopsy see note 49 above and Welles, C. B., ‘The reliability of Ptolemy as an historian’, in Miscellanea di studi alessandrini in memoria di Augusto Rostagni (Torino, 1963), pp. 101–16Google Scholar, whose analysis is disputed by Seibert (note 4 above), pp. 4 ff.

⁵⁶ Compare Strasburger, , Ptolemaios und Alexander, pp. 38–9, 42Google Scholar.

⁵⁷ See also Jacoby, , F. Gr. Hist. IIB, p. 499Google Scholar; Strasburger, pp. 53–4; Pearson (note 3 above), pp. 200–2.

⁵⁸ Cleitarchus, however, may not have taken part in the campaign. For his date see, for example, Schachermeyr (note 2 above), pp. 211 ff.; Levi (note 10 above), pp. 84 ff.

⁵⁹ See, e.g., Ptolemy frs. 1 (with Strasburger, , Ptolemaios und Alexander, p. 21Google Scholar), 13, 16–17. Compare Bosworth, in Alexandre le Grand, pp. 9 ffGoogle Scholar.

⁶⁰ I wish to thank the editors of Classical Quarterly for their most helpful remarks. No one but the author is guilty of the opinions expressed here.