Taking departure from Arrian’s famous statement (Anab. 1, Praef. 2) that he mainly relied on Ptolemy Soter’s account of Alexander the Great’s history since Ptolemy was the king and lies should be avoided by him, the roots of the idea of the royal truthfulness are discussed. It is claimed that the Greek political thought about monarchy and the institution of kingship had a strong ethical flavor but the argument of the kings’ veracity was not especially stressed out. Arrian, however, has found it both in Alexander the Great’s ideology and the ideology of the royal court in Ptolemaic Egypt. Essentially, however, the origins of the truthfulness idea are to be sought in the royal Oriental (Achaemenid especially), official ethics, under the influence of which Alexander certainly remained. The novelty of Arrian the historian’s decision should by thus appreciated. It does not mean that Arrian’s account of Alexander’s expedition is ideally objective but it certainly means that in his effort to give a possibly unbiased history of the Macedonian king’s achievements, he tried to do his best.

Arrian's Preface to the Anabasis Alexandrou and Plutarch's Prologue to the Life of Alexander It is usually maintained that the main object of Arrian’s criticism in his Anabasis are the historians of Alexander the Great. In the following I would like to argue that one of the writers Arrian criticized was also Plutarch of Chaeronea who wrote an influential biography of the Macedonian king. Although Arrian never referred directly to Plutarch’s Life of Alexander, he read not only many historical works on the king but used and criticized other accounts, called by him ta legomena (‘tales’). To this latter group Plutarch’s vita Alexandri should be included as well.

No abstract

The article deals with Arrian of Nicomedia's high estimation of the king Seleucus (called Nicator), a former officer in Alexander the Great's army. Seleucus had created the greatest -second to Alexander, in fact -empire and this is the main criterion by which he is appreciated by the Bithynian historian and philosopher. It is the same criterion that Arrian had adopted in evaluating Alexander's achievements. 'Greatness' constituted thus, to put it briefly, an old measure by which kings, commanders and eminent men were rated by Greek historians.

Tematem artykułu jest ciekawy paradoks, o jakim mówi Tertulian w rozdzia­le 22. swego traktatu O widowiskach. Jest rzeczą wiadomą, że stanowisko tego żarliwego obrońcy wiary chrześcijańskiej było jak najbardziej nieprzychylne dawnej rzymskiej instytucji walk na arenie, wyścigów konnych i przedstawień scenicznych – Tertulian widział w nich niebezpieczeństwo i zagrożenie dla mo­ralności chrześcijan. Przy okazji zwrócił on również uwagę na samo podejście Rzymian do walczących i skazańców, wskazując na sprzeczność w postawie tak organizatorów, jak i tłumów oglądających spektakle. Z jednej strony, walczący byli dla tłumów bohaterami areny, z drugiej ludźmi jednocześnie pogardzanymi i wyszydzanymi, zmuszanymi do upokarzających występów. Przyczynę takiego stanu rzeczy autor trafnie dostrzega w braku utrwalonych wzorców etycznych u Rzymian, w swoistym pomieszaniu pojęć dobra i zła. Instytucjami, które utrwa­lały taki stan rzeczy, były właśnie publiczne formy rozrywki.