알렉산드로스에 대한 고대의 1차 사료를 제공하는 저술가들 중에서 플루타르코스와 아리아노스, 디오도로스 시쿨루스의 경우에는 시각 차이가 존재했고, 그로 인해 서술적 차이가 나타났다. 특히 디오도로스 시쿨루스는 헤파이스티온의 죽음에 대하여 매우 간략하게 묘사했는데, 그의 저작은 신화적 시대로부터 기원전 60년까지의 시대를 모두 포괄하는 보편사(普遍史)였기 때문인 것이 가장 큰 이유일 것이다. 그밖에도 디오도로스 시쿨루스는 플루타르코스나 아리아노스와는 달리 알렉산드로스에 대한 평가나 호오의 관점을 그다지 드러내고 있지 않다. 무엇보다, 그가 살았던 시기의 정치적 환경이나 출신 배경 등과 거의 상관이 없었기 때문이기도 하다.
또 알렉산드로스의 죽음을 알려주는 전조들을 보면, 플루타르코스, 아리아노스, 디오도로스 시쿨루스의 서술에서는 세부적 내용에 있어서 차이가 있다. 특히 당나귀와 사자에 관한 전조 부분은 플루타르코스가 자신의 글, 즉 「알렉산드로스 전」의 전체적인 구조를 완결하고 독자에게 강한 인상을 주기 위해 앞뒤를 맞춰 놓은 느낌으로 보인다. 또 다른 특징으로 디오도로스의 서술에서는 ‘궁정일지’가 언급되지 않는다는 점이 있다. 그리고 아리아노스와 플루타르코스 모두는 디오도로스 시쿨루스가 언급한 내용을 강하게 부인한다. 즉, 플루타르코스와 아리아노스는 독살설을 부인하고 있다. 그럼에도 불구하고 비교적 자세하게 독살설에 대해 소개하는 데, 이는 스스로의 서술에 권위를 부여하면서도 흥미를 끌 요소를 삽입하는 수사학적, 문학적 방법이라고 판단할 수 있다.
In this paper, we want to find some disparities in descriptions of Plutarchos, Arrianos, Diodoros Siculus, especially on Hephaistion's death and Alexander's. As a result of that study, we can find delicate disparity within those historians' descriptions. Actually, it is very clear why Diodros Siculus' description on Hephaistion's death is simple, because his work was universal history that dealt from mythological age to 60 B. C. The works of Plutarchos and Arrianos have different character. The point of their works are concentrated only to Alexander. Besides, Diodoros Siculus had not special interest about Alexander compared with Plutarchos and Arrianos. For His time and background was not related with Alexander. In the work of Plutarchos, we can find distinct disparity in his description about the combat with Cossaians and its intension and result. In this point, we can conclude that Plutarchos want to emphasize the excessive grief of Alexander and he draw into his work that combat for that reason. And we can find some disparities also in the omens of Alexander's death in the descriptions of Plutarchos, Arrianos, Diodoros Siculus. First of all, We can start the omen about the case of ass and lion. Plutarchos said that an ass killed a lion and he asserted that was the omen about Alexander's death. But if we retrospect all the content of Plutarchos' Alexandros, a sense of incongruity. That is, we can assume that is his literary and rhetorical device. Another peculiarity is that ‘Journal’ was not mentioned in the description of Diodoros Siculus. And Arrianos and Plutarchos denied powerfully on the Diodoros Siculus' description about Alexander's death. that is, both of them denied the poisoning theory. Nevertheless, they told that theory in details. we can conclude that was a literary and rhetorical device which granted authority on their works and inserted interesting element.
In this paper, we want to find some disparities in descriptions of Plutarchos, Arrianos, Diodoros Siculus, especially on Hephaistion's death and Alexander's. As a result of that study, we can find delicate disparity within those historians' descriptions. Actually, it is very clear why Diodros Siculus' description on Hephaistion's death is simple, because his work was universal history that dealt from mythological age to 60 B. C. The works of Plutarchos and Arrianos have different character. The point of their works are concentrated only to Alexander. Besides, Diodoros Siculus had not special interest about Alexander compared with Plutarchos and Arrianos. For His time and background was not related with Alexander. In the work of Plutarchos, we can find distinct disparity in his description about the combat with Cossaians and its intension and result. In this point, we can conclude that Plutarchos want to emphasize the excessive grief of Alexander and he draw into his work that combat for that reason. And we can find some disparities also in the omens of Alexander's death in the descriptions of Plutarchos, Arrianos, Diodoros Siculus. First of all, We can start the omen about the case of ass and lion. Plutarchos said that an ass killed a lion and he asserted that was the omen about Alexander's death. But if we retrospect all the content of Plutarchos' Alexandros, a sense of incongruity. That is, we can assume that is his literary and rhetorical device. Another peculiarity is that ‘Journal’ was not mentioned in the description of Diodoros Siculus. And Arrianos and Plutarchos denied powerfully on the Diodoros Siculus' description about Alexander's death. that is, both of them denied the poisoning theory. Nevertheless, they told that theory in details. we can conclude that was a literary and rhetorical device which granted authority on their works and inserted interesting element.