gems, historical ancient reference, Onesicritus, Alexander the Great, ancient geography, Strabo, Megasthenes, India

While none of the writers who accompanied Alexander survives except in fragments, Onesicritus is perhaps the most tantalizing of them all; he is so much more important for our tradition than a first reading of what is left would indicate. He had studied under Diogenes the Cynic and was proud of it, a fact that must in itself have been rather startling to later writers, in whose pages Diogenes has been greatly transformed. But the Cynic tradition, though it was not always respectable, never entirely lost its vitality, and that a Cynic should have written the history of Alexander would not have seemed odd. What would have seemed odd was that a Cynic should have painted a favorable portrait of Alexander, whom later Cynics regarded as a tyrant. Onesicritus complete would be invaluable, both for a refreshing firsthand view of the great Macedonian and for an exposition of early Cynic doctrine. His attempt to harmonize the deeds of Alexander with the principles of Diogenes was perhaps the mainspring of the whole work. Onesicritus also described the voyage back from India to Babylonia; in this he had played an important part, second only to that of Nearchus. Nearchus wrote his own account, and an adequate summary has come down to us in Arrian’s Indica. Nearchus’ account may well have been superior to that of Onesicritus, but its survival is probably a tribute to the political sagacity of Nearchus in the chaotic period following Alexander’s death rather than to his excellence as a historian. Nearchus apparently wrote in anger to discredit Onesicritus, and he very nearly achieved his object. If the enmity of Nearchus and the popularity of his work tended to eclipse this interesting part of the narrative of Onesicritus, our author was equally unfortunate in his firsthand observations on India. Here there is no question of personal animosity. But years after Alexander’s death Megasthenes visited India in the service of Seleucus and wrote a general account of that region. It can be shown that in doing so he borrowed from Onesicritus without acknowledging his source. Later writers drew copiously on Megasthenes, so it is highly probable that extant accounts of India, such as that of Strabo, go back indirectly to Onesicritus. This study is an attempt to restore Onesicritus to his rightful position by analyzing the fragments and setting them against the background of other literature from the period. It is hoped that the sources of information have been presented in such a way that the reader will be able to form an independent judgment, regardless of the interpretation given in the text.