The Nature of Alexander Read Online Free PDF Page B

them.
He won them over by his cheerful friendliness, and by asking questions which were not childish nor trifling, but about the length of the roads, and what the journey was like inland; about the King himself, how he behaved in battle, and about the Persian prowess and strength.
    His father had turned Pella into a military base and his palace into a staff headquarters; the child had probably run about among soldiers since he was on his feet. The sublime confidence with which he took command of them in his mid-teens suggests he had long known them with the privileged intimacy of a regimental pet.
    It would be as a family guest that he first met a youth who, being eleven years his elder, would have seemed a man to him: his future historian, Ptolemy. He was a kinsman on his mother’s side, either in a regular way or, as tradition has it, by a liaison with the adolescent Philip before he left for Thebes, in which case the boys were half-brothers. Later generations of Ptolemys did not disclaim the bar sinister. Born as he was at Pella, Ptolemy I must have known Alexander throughout his life span.
    Arrian’s History starts at his accession, probably because Ptolemy’s did, which is a pity, for his knowledge of earlier years would have been invaluable. Ptolemy is of course his own chief authority for himself, but is respected by ancient authors. He edited out his rivals’ exploits—a perennial liability in retired generals’ memoirs—and made the most of his own, but was honoured for not inventing any; and he wrote towards the end of a long life, when the tumult and the shouting had largely died, the captains and the kings departed. Arrian recommends him on the grounds that not only did he campaign with Alexander, “but, as he was a king himself, falsehood would have been more shameful to him than to anyone else.”
    Modern sniggers at Arrian’s childish snobbery, evoked by these sensible words, are themselves curiously naïve. He is not of course attributing to kings a superior sense of honour, but stating the obvious fact that they are vulnerable to public disgrace. Ptolemy was more than a decade older than Alexander, who in turn had had in his army, towards the end of his life, many men at least ten years his junior. In a city like Alexandria, the recitals of the History—the method of publication in the ancient world—would have attracted plenty of alert veterans still in middle life, living on their memories. The founder of a dynasty cannot afford the ridicule of such an audience.
    By then, Alexander had been out of the reach of flattery for a good twenty years; yet detractors, irked by the fact that the sources most “favourable” are men who knew him in life, have sought in Ptolemy for ulterior motive, apparently oblivious of the fact that their case is based upon the opposite of what it sets out to prove. Ptolemy’s interest is alleged to lie in creating propaganda for his own dynasty. But he wrote for a living audience, before posterity. Why, in the first place, drag all the way to Egypt the body of a corrupt tyrant about whom thousands of influential people would know the truth? Why not fill the History with stories to his discredit in which Ptolemy shone by contrast? Yet anti-Alexandrists have always assumed that he favours Alexander to bask in his reflected glory; which is certainly having it both ways.
    One need not of course discount the latter motive; it would be human enough. But Ptolemy’s loyalty predates all possible self-interest and indeed once cost him dear. Later, though never promoted to the eminence of Craterus or Hephaestion, this capable and, as it was to prove, very ambitious soldier remained unswervingly true. Is it too much to suppose that something in Alexander inspiredthese feelings and caused them to outlast his life, and that Ptolemy wrote among men who shared them? He wanted to remember the best, they wanted to hear it. It is after all the simplest explanation.
    In 348, when