A Source for Arrian’s Discussion of Alexander’s Character at Anabasis 7.1–2

Bradley Buszard (Christopher Newport University)

P.A. Brunt in the appendices to his revision of the Loeb Anabasis lists seven digressions that he considers unnecessary to Arrian’s narrative of Alexander’s expedition (app. 28.15). He attributes six of them to a combination of Ptolemy, Aristobulus, and Nearchus. The last, from 7.1.4–7.2.4, he attributes instead to “debateable sources.” I will argue that the primary influence on this last digression was one of Plutarch’s parallel Lives, the Alexander-Caesar.

Arrian’s analysis at 7.1–2 introduces the final book of the Anabasis, which immediately follows Alexander’s return to Pasargadae in 324 B.C. It occupies a significant position in the work, dividing Alexander’s conquests and the sad events of his final year, which include his dispute with the Macedonian troops (7.8–11) and the death of Hephaestion (7.14). It is organized into five sections. First comes a description of Alexander’s supposed plan to subjugate Africa and the Black Sea (7.1.1–3), then Arrian’s own estimate of Alexander’s ambition (7.1.4), then an anecdote on the criticism of Alexander by the Indian sophists (7.1.5–6), then a brief account of the encounter between Alexander and Diogenes of Sinope (7.2.1), then finally an extended narrative on the character and death of the Indian sophist Calanus (7.2.2–7.3.6).

Three of these sections concern characters and events that Plutarch treats in his Alexander, and so may be derived in part from Plutarch’s account. Alexander’s plan to circumnavigate Africa, though not the Black Sea, appears in Al. 68.1, his encounter with Diogenes in Al. 14.1–5, and the death of Calanus in Al. 69.6–8. True, Arrian never cites Plutarch explicitly, and asserts in his introduction his strong preference for Aristobulus and Ptolemy as sources (An. 1.1.2). And if one were to restrict the comparison to passages in Alexander alone, one might argue the impossibility of distinguishing a direct link between Plutarch and Arrian from the influence of a source common to both. Yet neither complaint is decisive. Even Xenophon, who was an important source on Persia and provided Arrian his literary model, is only cited twice in the entire work (2.8.11 and 7.13.4). More important, the parallels between Arrian and Alexander-Caesar are not restricted to the Greek half of Plutarch’s parallel biography.

The decisive evidence appears in the two remaining passages from An. 7.1–2, which match two digressions in Plutarch’s Caesar. The primary criticism of Alexander espoused by the Indian sophists is quite similar to that directed against Caesar by Plutarch in his own narrative voice at Caes. 69.1, and Arrian’s own ostensibly positive estimate of Alexander’s ambition and rivalry with himself is nearly identical to Plutarch’s diatribe against Caesar’s ambition at Caes. 58.4–5. There are two possible explanations. Either Plutarch and Arrian both read an earlier analysis of Alexander’s character independently and Plutarch decided to use that analysis for Caesar instead of Alexander, or Arrian read Alexander-Caesar in its entirety and adopted Plutarch’s analyses in Caesar for his own use at An. 7.1–2. I consider the latter far more likely. First, it does not require us to invent a hypothetical source to explain the parallels. Second, it concurs with the scholarly consensus on Plutarch’s creative independence and originality that has prevailed since D.A.Russell’s groundbreaking essay on the Life of Coriolanus in 1963 (JRS 53, 21–8).

If this interpretation is correct it reveals a striking fluidity in Arrian’s adaptation of source material. Arrian has adopted Plutarch’s condemnation of Caesar’s ambition at Caes. 69.1, but has placed it in the mouth of the Indian sophists, distancing himself from the criticism and so moderating its impact. He has similarly adopted Plutarch’s rebuke of Caesar’s self-rivalry at Caes. 58.4–5, but has recast it as approbation and so made the material serve his own narrative ends.