A ST UD ! O F P L UT A R CH ’ S

LIFE OF A RTA XE RXE S

!V ITH E SP ECIAL

REFE RENCE TO THE SOURCES.

FOR T HE ACQ UI SIT ION OF T HE DEG REE

D OCTOR OF P HI LOSOP H ! FROM LEII’ ZIG UNI V ER SIT!

A D ISSERTATION

CHA R LE S FOR STE R SM IT H

F P RT NB R G . s A O S A A U ( s. c . ) U . .

L E I P Z I G

P RINTED B! METZGER VVITTIG .

1 8 8 1 .

A n investiga tion of the sou r ces u sed by Plutarch in the x f life of Artaxer es is attended with much di ficulty . Though one h a s little doubt after reading the Life that he will have

a Dinon to do m inly with Ctesias and , yet the meagre excerpts from Ctesias (in Photius) on the one hand ff Dinon o er little , and the fragments of on the other

a o no m a lm st opportunity of making a co p rison . With

a to Hera clides w h o reg rd , is once mentioned in the

L f a r o e ff. i e, we still worse As to Xenophon, a compari s o n only proves that what Plutarch h a s from him in the Artaxerxes w a s taken principally at second hand through

some other source . It seems to me how ever that the Life bears many ma rks of a general use of one leading authority by Plu ta rch and tha t his mention of other authors is generally owing to these being cited either in praise or blame by his general guide not an unusual thing with him . This is the genera l principle by which I have been guided in

v o f m a the in estigati n , but a ter all it ust be confessed th t the question is largely one of probabilities . ’ Hang s I ) work seems to me to have settled many points

s v in which Plutarch is indebted to Cte ias, but errs, I belie e, in assigning too much to this source a natural cons e qu ence of the assumption that Ctesias was the leading 20 authority for the first chapters .

1 M . Ha n Die el en P l a r h s in den Le ens es re n en der ) g , Q u l ut c b b ch ibu g '

r e en 8 fl . u n en 1 8 . G i ch , 7 T bi g 54 On the other hand he does not give Dinon sufficient credit for what he contributed to the former half of the

L a a ife , nor does he ttempt by a close investig tion of sep

Dinon w a s arate chapters to show that , what he assumes, f the chief source for the latter hal . Schottin has in the

' main followed Ha u g a nd has added nothing really of value to his investiga tion of the sources . It seems to me we are ’ justified by P lutarch s bearing tow ard Ctesias to suspect in

Dinon a l L the le ding source for the who e ife, and a close investigation confirms the opinion . In the proper pla ce I will attempt to account for the fact that Plutarch’s narration of the battle and its imme diate consequences at the Persian court is almost entirely from Ctesias . The account of th e battle seems to me to

a throw light upon the ch racter of Ctesias as a historian . As the discovery of the cuneiform inscriptions prove Hero dotu s w s to have been nearly al ays right, while Ctesias mu t have intended wilfully to deceive ; so here a close compar ’ ison with Xenophon s masterly description of the battle of Cuna xa leaves no doubt in my mind that Ctesias w a s guilty f i r of great perversion of acts, in order to g ve a d amatic account of the fall of Cyrus . I have therefore devoted the s e c o n d p a r t of this diss ertation to a consideration of the ff di erent accounts of the battle , taking issue mainly with o Dr . m w el in his tw interesting articles in P h ilolo g u s XXXlV . With ou t further introduction I proceed now to i the cons deration of the different sou rces .

- o n

1 S n Obs rva ti on s de P l u ta rch i a i 1 6 o e e Arta x rx s . Ba z en 8 ) ch tti , Vit e ut 5, I D N O N .

F a II 8 . MULLER H st. Gra ec . r . . 8 se , i g qq

’ With regard to Dinon s native land we have only the

f a s a . ct th t he is cited everal times by Pliny (Nat . Hist

h . 60 cf. riec s a s Schaefer , Q uellenkunde der g Ge chichte )

' ’

o Col o /zom . . . z D n . u i n p u s C Muller [Clit Frag 74. Anhang

A r r ia n . Dub ner (ed , Paris thinks that for some time

v a t Clita r ch he li ed in Egypt , least that his son was born there . The work of his with which we have to do w a s entitled “s pen d a nd exten ded from the foundation of the Assyrian r 1 o on u est mona chy (fr . ) t the ¢ q of Egypt by Artaxerxes g

0 . Och u s 34 B C . (fr . He seems to have been the chief

s for a a x x t ource Plut rch in the life of Art er es, for the lat er

v a s a ne er censures him , he does Ctesi s, though the frag ments which we ha ve from h im seem scarcely to justify

a that confidence . The only dvantage he seems to enjoy over Ctesias in point of histor ica l fidelity is tha t no instance

of u a a willf l f lsehood is recorded gainst him , while several x seem pretty evident against Ctesia s . For the e pedition of ’ so fa r a s Dinon s a no Cyrus, he treated of it, uthority was

o a nd for ffa one doubt Xenoph n , a irs at the Persian court of his sour ces was proba bly the physician P olycr i tu s men ti one 2 1 a x x . d in c . of the Art er es It is a disputed question whether the P olycr itu s Men da eu s there m entioned w a s the same a s the author of a a . “

a ff m history of Sicili n a airs, though it is not i probable that

w a s . . u r z u Ar ria n 2 he (cf C M lle , Anhang 1 9 note) . ii l M ler . . a i o a a (Hist Gr Fr g . under D n n ; nd a g in under P o lycr itu s in Anha ng z u Ar r ia n 1 2 9) also a dvances the opinion tha t Dinon w a s acqua inted with the history of Ctesia s a nd ’ a f m i fl a r a t a th t ro him or ginally owed, in p t least, Plut rch s

harsh cr iticisms of Ctesias . The str ongest evidence of this

a v a 2 1 seems to be the charge d anced against Ctesi s in c . ‘ which is a s follows : Aéyet a t as 6Kmofa ; r iqv ém or okfiv

Aa tbv n a e oj z a t t oil 1- 06Kévw vo: én eot a l évmc 31m) fi p w p q ; p , ; ’ ’ ' xa i K oia v omoor efk a tit ov d) uy éh ov ovr a m i én i m g , ; p p ; c B ’ ’ ’ fia kdooy n polEeow . O é Kmoia g a ti t ov ottp éa u r of) fia mké a ‘ ' o n c fi v e oo f t ) " - cpn i po ei va t t iq A tt m a v mit ? ca nt m. This charge w a s evidently made by some one a cqu a in ’ ted with Ctesias na rration of the negoti a tions between

Conon a nd the king . The author w a s b esides no doubt ’ the same who stated that Conon s letter w a s to be dcliv

a n in n P ol critu s Z ered by Ctesi s , o ly case either y nor eno ’ wer e present ; for it is not a t a ll probable that Ctesia s excessive va nity would ha ve allowed him to ma ke such a

exc . of sta tement a bout him self. Besides we see from 63

a a a r a Photius, that Ctesi s stated, th t lette had alre dy been

o f a sent to himself by Con n , be ore the one lluded to by

a a nd h a d c n Plut rch , that he spoken to the king con er ing

a a a v n Conon . It is not likely th t he, who cl imed to h e bee alrea dy in friendly correspondence with a nd enga ged in

of a a n the business Conon , would state th t he gave such of injunction a bout the delivery his letter .

Dinon w a s a fo a e As const ntly be re Plut rch in this lif ,

x a a nd a a is mentioned in the ne t ch pter, cert inly wrote bout

o of r the c nnection Conon with the Pe sians (Cornelius Nepos,

f e a s Conon 5, urthermore b c use the cen ures which Plu ’ a va a in a 0 s I 6 1 tarch d nced ag st Ctesi s in , and 3, just

Dinon o e a s ff e i a where is intr duc d di ering from Ct s as , c use us to suspect in Dinon a n unfri endly disposition toward Ctesia s ; we ar e inclined to look to him as the a uthor of this charge . 5

v h e ex l . I a Then we find , I ha e no doubt , in c 3 t p ’ a of a a w a s n tion Conon s injunction , namely th t Ctesi s a

- a u x philo l co e , and Conon feared to intrust, e cept in case

r a a of necessity, to a pa tis n of Sp rta a letter the object of which was to win the alliance of the ki ng aga inst the ’ 1 c s I 6 cr iti Spa rtans . ) After noticing in and the severe

cism s D non r e r e uttered against Ctesias , just where i is p sented a s differing from him a nd where there can be little

a a r doubt th t he is the uthor of the c iticisms, it seems clear 1 that we have in c . 3 two more in stances of censure of ’ a Dinon a nd a n a Ctesi s on the part of , ppeal to Xenophon s

a . a a s to th e uthority In the one c se, number of the royal

a troops, Plut rch says there may be doubt, but the other he

bra nds as fa lse . I believe then tha t this cha rge a gainst ’ Ctesia s of being a philo - la conc expla ins Conon s direction

nd a f r a a o . 1 about his letter, th t the uthor the charge in c 3

n . 1 a r r o a is Dino . In c 9 we h ve ve y p b bly some more ’ of in n s fa u t ndi specimens D o detail l fi ng w ith Ctesia s . In

2 2 inon a n c . D mentions the h tred of the ki g toward the

a a of Spart ns, and the further rel tion the conduct of Anta l cida s at the Persia n court seems to betra y the Opponent

a z h ilo of Spart , whom we recogni e in the charge of p la

1 . eonism in c . 3 From the manner in which Plutarch used ’ a a s a o s I I 1 2 1 — 1 s o Ctesi s uthority in , , 4 9 it seem m re na tura l to seek the source for his ha rsh criticisms of that one in some other tha n himself. Besides it is ha rdly chance that these two differ so co nsta ntly a nd in such slight - par ticu la r s a so f n , and th t Plutarch introduces o ten the opposi g sta tements of just these tw o out of a ll the number who wrote about ma ny of these events . ’ Of Dinon s use of Xenophon we ha ve almost absolute f h f “ proo in t e ollowing passa ge from c . 1 3 : Th e a ccounts ” Dinon a nd a s fa r of Xenophon m ke the combatant more . It is not distinctly a ffirmed that Xenophon and Dinon gave the same number, but it is implied, and we may confidently

1 See a so Re Ctesia e Cn idii a . 1 ) l ttig , vit p 9. affirm that the number is not here opposed to

a the of Ctesias, simply because th t number had

a r already been given in c . 7 . There r e besides seve al pas sages in which Plutarch relates the same things that Xe no h on a p had told , only little fuller , as if the latter had been supplemented from the Persian side ; in some insta nces indeed the very words of Xenophon being found , where it is perfectly clear that he was not the source, directly at least, of Plutarch . These passages will be considered under ’ Dinon th e . s separate chapters use of Xenophon would, with Plutarch’s great admiration of that author and his ’ for s reputation historical integrity, tend to inspire Plutarch ’ confidence and induce him to trust more rea dily to Dinon s abuse of Ctesias ; and this is probably one explana tion of

a Dinon , the fact th t Plutarch , not once finds fault with but censure s Ctesias repeatedly and sometimes seemingly without

cause . With regard to Plutarch’s general manner of using his

fo ti u s P cli n b er i s . sources K . F . Hermann (de vitae p IV) “ : a u ctor em P lu ta r ch u s nomina t very aptly says Si quem ,

ostenta ndi u t fidem na rr a tioni su a e non causa facit , neque lector em conciliet eor u m ver ita tem apud , sed aut , quorum

ra esta r e nolit indica tu r u s ipse p , fontem , aut ubi res in con trover sia posita est iu diciu m suum testimonio suo confir

in r elictu m maturus, narrando autem nisi quid ambigue sit, ” vel verba aliena tamquam sua usurpare non du bita t. So

' ' in the life of Pericles Stes imé r oms Th a szu s and D a n s of

Sa mos a , whom he names oftenest, he really uses le st of all, but Th u cydides and Ephorus he follows generally without f v naming them ; so he ollowed Xenophon in arious lives, and so he seems to ha ve used Dinon in the greater part f of this life . A ter these general remarks we enter into an

investigation of the chapters separately .

C. 1 . It is strange that Plutarch while accepting the authority of Ctesias with regard to the name of Artaxerxes

before he became king, should yet for the brothers of the

Osmnes Oxa tfzr es ff king, and , have adopted totally di erent forms from those gi ven by Ctesias . Certainly Osta nes differs

’ Ar tostes Ar s zk a s Ga mes a nd a s as much from , as from , Ctesi h a d a s good a pportu nity to know the correct form of th e f one a s o the other . The explanation I ima gi ne to be this i ’ with regard to the k ng s name , which went out of use

a e after he scended the throne , Plutarch could depend b st upon Ctesias, the physician of the king, who had the best opportunities to know ; but with regard to the others it

w a s ff a s e . di erent , they continued to bear the same nam s

Os ta nes f Diodor u s Oxa The form is ound in XVII, 5and

/zr e . v t s in XVII, 34 These seem to ha e been then the forms

a s of the n mes in common use, among the Greeks at lea t, ’ a and this f ct probably decided Plutarch s choice . It is m noteworthy that these same for s occur again in c . 5, where there is gr eat probability that Dinon was before

Os ta nas . 2 2 Dinon Plutarch, and again in c where is intro d u ced Osta nes by name, though not in connection with of

r I in n cou se . ) The case becomes more probable for D o as source for these names when we compare the manner in w hich he differed from Ctesias in this chapter with regard

Da r ses . 1 to the name , and in c 9 as to The ' a Aa etoo xa i ll a u ooit tao n a i ae é évo‘vr o t éooa e phr se p p g ; y p c, ’ , n eo ut a t o ev A t o é * et éxei vov 3s Ka oc p fi g h p EpEqg , p p ; is taken ’ fr om the opening sentence of Xenophon s Anabasis , but there is no other trace of Xenophon in this chapter ; in

v v a Os ta nas this ery sentence, howe er, occur the n mes and

Oxa t/zr cs a nd x , the best e planation seems to be , that this

sentence , as Plutarch has it , came from Xenophon through i D non . The ma nner in which Dinon is introduced here “ ” ( although Dinon says th at he was ca lled Oa r ses ) seems

1 We m s b e a r e o e er not to a e too rea th e form of ) u t c ful , h w v , t k dily ese n a mes a s con s e e en e ere er e o r a tes a s w a s th clu iv vid c , wh v th y ccu , th t C i

n ot th e a or for in . 1 ere a r re a es th e s or of th e uth ity , C 7 wh Plut ch l t t y n s men of th e e n M a oa d t ' es a s w a s a mos er a n pu i h t u uch fi qc, Ct i l t c t i ly th e a or of a r o th e e n w a s a e b es a s B a a uth ity Plut ch, th ug h u uch c ll d y Ct i y n d t ng o C B n t imply a ontradiction of Ctesias by ino , and the harsh

criticism which follows originated no doubt with him . ( ' 2 M: un e t v Kfi ov oi l ltov tltofioa C. . H wimp fipx b p p t Q

’ ’ ita l Bou l opévn Ba otks uew éxsi vov originated no doubt in Anab . 1 n a v I, , 4. The following stateme t , that Cyrus h ing been

n a sent for by his father we t up to him , seems to h ve ref 1 2 erence to Anab . I, , ; but of the remainder , that he

a hoped to be appointed to the kingdom , Xenophon s ys ’ o nothing , as he knows n thing of the intrig ues of Cyrus

v a mother in his favor . Here then in two successi e ch pters the very wo rds of Xenophon a r e used to form pa rts of

sentences, which contain yet other statements of which he

know s noth ing . In the excerpts of Photius Ctesias makes no allusion to

the hopes of Cyrus , or the intrigues of his mother , yet it is very stra nge that the excerptor should have omitted

h a d a . such important statements, if Ctesias m de them There

a s seems to be evident in Ctesias , in Xenophon , a desire to put the case of Cyrus in as favora ble a light a s pos sible ; they agree so nearly in their narra tion of these occur

r ences n a , that it seems o ly n tural to suppose they must v m ha e had the same motive . They both ention simply the

Tissa h er nes i accusation of Cyrus by p , from which accusat on “ ” off Xenophon says that his mother begged him , Ctesias, “ ” v howe er , that he was acquitted of the charge by his

mother . It may be noticed further that in the scene where Ctesias ma kes the messenger announce to Parysa tis the

a a . . 2 2 2 de th of Cyrus (Dem . Ph l de Eloc S when he v stated that Cyrus was ictorious and that the king had fled, she distinctly a ssigned the blame for all the evil that had

Tissa h ernes befallen the king to p , as if his false accusation i and the dishonor wh ch fell upon Cyrus in consequence,

a were the sole c uses of the insurrection of the latter . Certain it is that the case aga inst Cyrus is stated much more

a an plainly in this and the following ch pters of Plutarch, th

either Ctesias or Xenophon gave it . The allusion to Demaratus is a still further indication th e of a r f m exc 2 against use Ctesi s he e , for we see ro . 3, that Ctesias said tha t Demaratus came to Xerxes first at w a s a a Abydus, when he m rching gainst Greece, while this

s w a s f account a sumes that he at the Persian court , be ore

x D a r iu s . ) the e pedition of into Greece Herodotus (VII, 3

a a v a st tes th t on the ad ice of Demaratus, who went to Sus

w a s x while Darius still alive , Xer es was appointed to the x throne to the e clusion of an elder brother, who was born l before Da rius beca me king . It is not a t a l improba ble th a t the sta tement of Ctesias with regard to Dema ra tus of wa s meant to be a contradiction Herodotus , as was so ’ s r a nd Dinon s often the ca e in his histo y, that we have here

contra diction of Ctesias in turn . n 2 6 t . If in this connec ion the beg inni g of c be read,

a m a i a s a i we find rked sim l rity in the occurence rel ted, w th “ a r f a : a m nifest e erence to this pl ce, for there it is said The t v well disposed hought that , as he had recei ed it , so he ought to leave the kingdom to Da rius a s right of the eldest and the a ttempt of Cyrus to come into power through the influence of his mother is just the pa rallel to that of Och u s to get the a ppointment by the assistance of Atossa ; whence

we might infer the same a uthority in both pa ssa ges .

t a Dinon C. . 3 The allusion to A hen looks to , inasmuch as we should expect from Ctesias the Persia n name of the

deity . See a lso in this connection the allusion to Hera in

2 a nd 2 . c . 3 to Artemis in c . 7 These Greek names for Persian deities a re just what we would expect from the Dinon a graecising . The whole consecr tion scene is assigned “ Ha u a by g to Ctesi s, because the account betrays one well ” t acquainted with Persian customs and usages, but in his

a In x he can h rdly be co r rect . the e cerpts of Ctesias there a o a is no llusi n to this scene , and it seems h rdly probable x u v the e cerptor wo ld ha e omitted it, had Ctesias described B “ . w a : it esides, the ords of Plut rch Some say, that the

s arrest was made after thi accusation , others that Cyrus went into the temple and w a s betrayed in his concealment ” t t s ib by the priest , show hat more han one author de cr ed ma a t a n a the scene . It y be accepted y r te that Ctesi a s did not ma ke the statement tha t Cyrus w a s betrayed it

a a th e a e his pl ce of conce lment by priest, for in th t case h “ could not well ha ve said tha t Cyrus was a cquitted of th e ” Di on h d charge . That n a written a bout this scene seems

a 6 Din t clear if we comp re w ith c . . There on sta tes tha

a a a a a a a n r P rys tis plotted g inst and murdered St teir , being g ) with her on account of her reproaches with regard to th c

intercession for Cyrus on this occasion . From the connection it is clear that Dinon w a s a t ’ lea st in pa rt authority for th e statement of Sta teir a s r e ~ pr oa ch es which aroused in Parysatis so dea dly a hatred a nd he must then a lso h a ve narra ted the scene to w h icl

a a a Tissa h er these repro ches refer, that is, the ccus tion of p

nes and the intercession of Pa rysa tis . ’ 6 e The allusions here a nd in c . to Cyrus knowledg

a if a fra m . 8 of M gism are significant, we comp re with g 5,

10 B w v a 9, of inon , from hich it is e ident th t he paid con i bl s der a e attention to this religion .

4 x s C. . Mildness is represented as a quality of Artaxer e ’ c s 2 0 Dinon in , 4 and 3 , in the last being without doub

a fi the uthority. On the other hand the rst act of his men i x t oned by Ctesias was one of exceeding cruelty (e c . 57) “ 1 : vo a x Ha ug (p . 9 ) says Die Schilderung n Art erxes Cha

r a k ter e d a s lanz endste L t , die s ine Tugenden in g icht stell i B Lob r ed ne ver r ath den K tes a s . inon war sicherlich ein ”

K o z u a . des nigs , dem er so viel verdanken h tte This

a think doubtful . The sympathies of Ctesi s were with Cyr u

a a w i and Clearchus . In ddition to wh t is stated above tl a n regard to his position toward Cyrus , consider the m ne in w hich he denied the king the honor of having kille< ’ Cyrus (c s 1 1 and the sta tement that many revolte< k m from the king to Cyrus , but from Cyrus to the ing

e a a c one (ex . that as far as we can m ke out of his count of the battle of Cunaxa he put everything in a muel

s v s m ill les fa orable light for the king , than the facts ee have warranted ; a nd the murders which he relates th a Parysa tis committed aga inst all who had a nything to do

with the death of Cyrus . For these must be viewed not

a s a a simply recit l of the cruelties of Parysatis ; but, as the death of Stateira is attributed by Ctesias to revenge for

the death of Clearchus , so these punishments must be looked upon as showing especially how fea rfully Parysatis

a v enged the dea th of her son . At any rate we would as soon expect a favora ble characteriz a tion of Artaxerxes from ’

c s 2 a nd 2 . the authority for 4 5, as from any other source The story of the oath of Artaxerxes by the god

' 2 a a M ztfzm Haug (p . 9 ) thinks n indic tion of an author well

v ffa ersed in Persian a irs, and therefore he assumes this to

b e a a nd Sch ottin Ob ser v: . Ctesi s, with him agrees ( de Plut

A x . vita r ta . p In fact this is the main reason why they

a ssign the whole characteriz ation of the king to Ctesia s .

B u t C ro . a Xenophon in y p VII, 5, 3 m kes the elder Cyrus

’

v M ztlzm Oecon . 2 in oke , as in 4, 4 he makes the younger x x Cyrus , before the accession of Arta er es to the throne,

v . in oke the same deity ; and the same author in Anab V, 2 4, 4 and 35mentions the rearing of horses for the king, L . a “. to be sacrificed to this deity. Rawlinson (Anc . Mon “ 1112 8 : , 34 ) says The worship of Mithra , or the sun, does not a ppear in the inscriptions until the reign of x h w e f r x . o , Artaxer es Mnemon , the victo of Cuna a It is t { er impossible to doubt that it was a portion of th e Per _ ” sian religion at least as early as the date of Herodotus . “ And in a note he adds : None of th e early kings

n a a ll w me tion Mithra, yet his emblem ppears on the kno n x royal tombs , e cept that of Cyrus . Note also the occur ’ ‘ v rence of the name Mithridates gi en to , or by Mithra in

th e z 1 B u t reign of Cyrus (E ra , that the image of this x god was first set up by Arta erxes Mnemon , and that he to was the first who invoked Mithra be his protector, seems “B K . clear from the inscription (Spiegel, eilinschriften p y the grace of Au ra ma z da have I set up in this temple Ana

. Au ra ma z da hita and Mithra May , Anahita and Mithra ”

! B Ch a lda eu s Gra ec. . 0 protect me erosus (Hist . Min II, 59) 1 2

x x na h it states also, that Arta er es had set up images of A

' An i r or a tis , in all the chief cities of his kingdom , amo

' others at Ecbatana ; and a temple of Ana i tis at Ecb a ta r ’

. 2 a u th ori is alluded to by Plutarch in c 7 . Plutarch s t

’ 2 for the statement about Anai tis in c . 7 might very w e then be supposed to be a cquainted also with the w or sh i

" n su of Mithra . See also the allusio to the worship of the 2 w in c . 9; from hich it is clear that there is no g oo reason for assigning the story of the oath by Mithra t I ’ a a . n a r one uthor, r ther than another fact Plut rch s autho

2 h a d ity in c . 9 must have the very knowledge w h ic Haug would allow only to i C. The strongest evidence of the use of B inon this chapter is the allusion to Tir ib a z u s . This person

a not mentioned in the fr gments of Ctesias, but he plays

v a di great role in this life , and we ha e re son to believe ’ Din P r ik f a on s e s a c . lso in ( C . Nepos, Conon 5, He ’ c s 10 2 2 2 8 2 mentioned in this biog raphy in 5, 7, , 4, 7, , 1

10 a In c . he plays n important part which is not mentione by Ctesia s . The encouragement offered by Tiriba z u s to th

a king when he puts him upon his horse, fter he had b ee

‘ “ w : 0 fc thro n down by Cyrus king remember this day , ” it is worthy not to be forgotten, is so exactly in th

x a a a u nh e i style of his e hort tion to risk b ttle , that we s tz tingly assign both to the same source . In c . 5he is ch: r a cteriz ed a s omi n o u o m i n c a oi c o o . 2 a p ; p p p g, in c 4

i ' x u é ' a on o t ei Std o c t t a . 2 ci t/( fi a e pp p g p q , gain in c 7 as n l ; xc ' ' . a n a pa tpo pog In c . 7 Plut rch says concerning him : Tnp ’ ' olton Bé 83; c a cn n u nou t ok r oa w o eirrsi v ( in 0683? ( t B , p , p u j g , ; p ’ ' ‘ ‘ ' o a eiv x. t . k . 2 T t a o oivu n o oim v y u x , in c 4 np B C g qp M g ne é ’ ’ ' u u n Bt oiv8 a a 81a v r oi et evé evo a e p n p 7 i y p g , both which gr a B n . 1 ex ctly with the part i on makes him play in c 0 . Thi constant agreement is explained only on the su ppositio

1 zElia n . H s . va r . e s h s sa me s or m er b u t ~ ) i t I, t ll t i t y uch full , g iv

n o e a s to th e so r e. Th e s or clu u c t y with which 0. 5 opens i s g iven a !:

er f i n fElia n i s . V a r . I 2 . v y ully , H t , 3 I 3

that Plutarch followed one general authority for the facts

Tirib a z u s f rt v connected with , and is u her an e idence of a ff f general use of B inon in di erent parts of this li e . Besides

w e Osta nes a nd Oxa t/zr es may notice here the names , the statement that the king used to call his brothers to the f f same table with himsel being significant rom the fact, that

Osta nes is a a . 2 2 mentioned gain in the s me connection in c ,

w Dinon a . here is cited, and was almost cert inly the source

6. . . 86 . 10 C. Rawlinson (Anc Mon III, 4 , n ) doubts if Plutarch had any authority for the sta tement that Cyrus

a t ca n v had a party court , but that ery well be thought, if we compare with the intrigues mentioned at the opening

a n a . B e of c . 2 6 among the noble d powerful vass ls esid s

. 1 a a . Anab I, , 5seems to be confirm tion of this

of a . The number the Greek troops of Cyrus (An b I,

1 0 a Tis sa h er nes 7, ) and the st tement that p went up to

f 2 a in orm the king (Anab . I, , 4) would seem to be cert inly

I taken from Xenophon ) ; yet the statement tha t the skyta l e

a e was sent to Cle rchus, which is dir ctly opposed to Xeno ’ 1 L a a . a a phon s statement (An b I, , th t Cle rchus was a ce

v a f daemonian fugiti e, m kes it very doubt ul whether Xenophon

sk ta le was before Plutarch here . This allusion to the y gives

h a s rise to a very interesting question . The opinion been a dvanced that the disobedience of Clea rchus to the Spa rta n

authorities was only a made - out a ffair betw een Cyrus and

n a Sparta , that the suspicio s of the Persi n court might not

K u . Z r . Z e be aroused against Spa ta (Cf och, g der ehntaus nd, h i XI 1 1 xa D od . V T is rhymes e ctly with Ephorus (in , )

l e a P h a rna b a z u s who states that A cibiades r ve led to , that

1 Ritsch l O se o . n s a th e n m er of th e ree ) , pu Phil l I , 447 , thi k th t u b G k “ ” troops gi ven by Pluta r ch a t a little less tha n 1 3 000 w a s ta ken fr om ’ Din on on n fr om en o on s sa reemen mse a th e , c cludi g X ph di g t with hi lf, th t

1 2 oo en in n a . 1 1 0 m s b e or r a nd h a s o g g iv A b , 7 , , u t c upt , t t h uld

B u t th e ose a reemen s e een th e e a s w e now h a e a nd b e rea d . cl g t b tw t xt v it th e n umbers g iven by Pluta r ch a n d D iodor u s i s a str ong a rg umen t i n fa vor of th e resen rea n o i s a n n eres n r o a nso a e p t di g ; th ug h it i t ti g , but p b bly i lv bl ’ ro em h ow to a o n for eno h on s sa r eem ent mse . p bl , cc u t X p di g with hi lf 1 4

' w i t/z tk e La ceda emom a ns w a s o w a r Cyrus , , g ing to make

Diodor u s 2 1 2 a on the king, and with XIV, , (Ephorus gain no doubt) who says the mercena ry troops sent to Cyrus t v by Spar a were feigned to be sent by pri ate persons, but

v w a s in reality were sent by the go ernment, which trying to keep all th ings in the da rk until it could be seen what

x of a would be the result of the e pedition Cyrus . See lso f f 1 1 a Diodoru s . I s Justinus V, , who grees per ectly with thi

a a a be prob ble, then , there is no re son to doubt th t the

l e B u t v if a skyta e was r a lly sent to Clearchus . e en Cle rchus had commun icated this fa ct to Ctesias during his imprison

a a v ment , the l tter would h rdly have di ulged it in his his

a tory through fear of the Sp rtans, with whom he seems to

e have taken up his residence a fter his retur n to Greec . Compa re the trea tment of the returned Ten Thousand by

n s a a e Sparta , which continued u til ho tilities g in brok out between Sparta a nd Persia . As B inon however wrote a bout the same time with

h a d a to Ephorus, the whole story prob bly already come

e in a d a a t of light . The referenc to D on n Ctesi s the close

a a if the chapter shows th t both were before Plut rch , and it be improbable tha t Ctesias would ma ke such a sta tement f a s o sk ta le a a Dinon . that the y , we turn n tur lly to

7 . a w a s C. Th t Xenophon the source either directly for or indirectly the number of combatants in the royal army, for the disorderly manner in which the a rmy of Cyrus w as

a marching, the consternation c used by the sudden announce

a a a or ment th t the king was ne r at h nd, the quiet and der l a a f a y m nner in which his troops c me orw rd , is per f c e tl a a . 10 . y cle r from comparison with Xen Anab . I, 7, sqq ; but the tota lly different dimensions of the ditch given by

e x f e s Plutarch mak it e tremely doubt ul, wh ther he con ulted

f . Xenophon directly or not (c . Schottin p It is hard to

v a x con concei e reason why Plutarch , who e presses such fidence in Xenophon with regard to his narra tive o f th e

a b ttle , should not adopt his dimensions for the ditch, a

h a thing which he certainly d the best opportunity to know .

1 6 count of Ctesias alone is given ; for Dinon followed here in all probability the authority of Xenophon . ’ 3 Dinon s a 1 . C. p rt in this chapter has already been

. 1 a v a lluded to . We pass now to c 9, bec use the e idence ’ l a v a c s 1 1 — 1 8 is a l in f or of Ctesi s as source for Plutarch in ,

. 1 e x a part of c 3 cepted . This evidence it will be best to

discuss under the head of Ctesia s . B 19 . a C. In this ch pter inon is mentioned three times

as differing slightly from Ctesias . It is probable that he and Ctesia s however ga ve in most other respects the sa me

x a account , e cepting of cou rse the time to which llusion is 6 ma de in c . . The slight particulars in which Dinon differs from Ctesias furnish us aga in in all probability with some specimens of his fa u ltfinding with rega rd to Ctesias . He must ha ve had a s authority some one who was more or less intimately connected with the Persian court a nd this

was proba bly P olycr itu s of Menda e . The reason assigned

a by Plut rch, as determining Parysatis to the horrible

a deed, is not in accordance with Ctesi s , who , as we

8 a . 1 a see in c , stated th t Parys tis thus took revenge f n o . O for the death Clearchus the other hand Ctesias,

a nd Dinon m not , must be the source for the state ent, tha t Pa rysa tis and Stateira a fter their former difference

began a ga in to associa te w ith ea ch other and . to take f i on 6 their meals together ; or according to D n (c . ) Sta ’ teir a s dea th w a s the immedia te result of this first dif f erence . Th a t Dinon rela ted the punishments of the

a nd a m eunuchs, especi lly of Gigis, must be inferred fro the pa rt which he makes her a nd Mela nta s pla y in the affair ’ of Sta teir a s a a e of death , and that he told the mutu l ng r “ f 2 : the king and his mother ollows directly from c . 3 For

a e me the king did not continue long in his wr th , but b ca f ” or . or t reconciled to her and sent her , etc The auth i y for this statement of the reconciliation must be one w h o

h a d of a n a n d a s . 2 th e told the estr ngement, c 3 ope s with

“ death of Tissa ph er nes which took place full 3 yea rs a fter Ctesias had finished his history, it is altogether improbable that he can be the source for the statement of the recon x x ciliation of Arta er es a nd Parysatis . So nothing is left ino but to accept D n as the source .

21 . s C. The charge made against Ctesia in this chap 6 ter has been discussed above . Haug (p . 9 ) thinks that the notice of the peace of Anta lcida s was taken from

Ephorus , but without ground . Plutarch followed Ephorus

readily in other places , but there is no evidence of his

being used at a ll in this life . He does not once refer to i 1 r n . him, not even c 3, whe e the number of troops of the royal army as given by Ctesias is opposed to that of Xe n o h on B p and inon, although Ephorus agreed with, and most

00 000 Diodor u s probably took from, Ctesias the number 4 ( f XIV, again Plutarch makes no re erence to the story

Diodoru s 1 1 a nd 2 2 I told by Ephorus in XIV, , , that the

P h a rnab a z u s king had already been informed by , before Tissa h ernes p went up , of the coming of Cyrus ; nor does a Diodor u s 2 1 2 he llude to the story told in XIV, , of the double play of the Spartans ; of which things I have no

h a d doubt Plutarch would have taken notice , if Ephorus been before him . Ephorus no doubt related the circum tances of this peace and was probably the authority of

Diodor u s 1 10 in XIV, , but it seems from the close con nection x B with the opening of the ne t chapter, where inon is named, that the latter must have related the same . n a We know positively , however , that Xe ophon rel ted all the details of this peace and to him directly , or indi r ectl y, Plutarch was probably indebted here , as we shall see later .

C. 2 B 2 . In the opening of this chapter inon is named, the sentence is connected in the closest manner with the if B Arta xer preceding chapter, and besides, inon said that x xes, while hating the Spartans above all men, was e ceed in l Anta lcida s g y fond of , he must of course have related the s o cau e of this f ndness, that is the peace brought about by h 8 f t e influence of Anta lcida s . Haug (p . 9 ) thinks rom the 1 8

Dinon a connection in which this reference to occurs , th t he was the source for the reception of Anta lcida s and til ler . . other noted Greeks at the Persian court . M (Hist Gr

Dinon a i n e Frag . ) for the s me reason considers D no th

f u source o the whole account of Anta lcida s . B t Schottin

(Ob s er v. de Plut . vita . Arta x . p . on the strength of the P d fr m . a h a nia s . 8 th e g from , found in Athen 4 , assigns whole story of the reception of these Greeks a t the cou rt

of a x Art erxes to him . We can best arr ive at a conclusion by compa ring the

c f i . ac ounts of Plut . and of P h a n a s in ull

d At/zemzeu s 48

) I Ate xa i r out a ltltou c k n a Il Gr cor "é c a t 83 c ' otv ; ; p p p , ; pq I I ’ ’ t i a r a oi ei aeku r r e evo 6A H a xks zri ' xa i t on Ra o ?! ; B p ; p p qe, ; y n I ( 7 r t o é xa t vo v w ( ct vou or rbr a éc s fi ov {vat 1 6 EpEng pt , e pa ; p ; p p ,

Aei w v oi vfl cbrrw mi w c ov xa l oi v v ai vr v 8 szi c eta v. , p p x7) p l 1 ’ a va tas or a r ou s w a t r ov Av Tev oni v K r a Tt a ti a v i ; , pfl p y p :

I ”b t a l fia v ti n e ' ' a rr' osv ei r ov éx r u vo 83 ( 7 0; (Da pqr q g d g, ; 9 1 " Ilé c va oiv a Ka i wor e ia 6n e m a r xé Evu ov oa oi r . v p ; p ; p m g p ,

‘ ' ’ ' ii Aa ptov éva 1 t oi vfiw w or e 3; ( fil mGuptor oxkéou ; oi véBr‘ I I ( b t o ( i) 1 1 ; iA r a é r 0. v xa i u a a o ov t a otkéa t 9 Bm g ; p p ; B , } p EpEj g, ’ n oku r ekécr a t ov 6m?) Seirw ou oxnvnv r e Sta qpé s ‘ I sc ents u piAvr a iBot' xa t n ow pou oa v t a xoikko; nu t 7 6psi I I ' ’ r e éBa u a c a v r i ) c tltoc oou 8 80 xa i xlttv v a u éu fi a ; p p p pp 1 ; n py p , ’ x i r tb a r a 11 vrj v. érrepdgs 8é a o p p 0M

r aH xa i r ev un om dxoa vr a Further with regard to Ti j p , I t m a ora s : o 83 u x é fo c fi g l tpa y pq. p (poioxw v 06 rr r a a t I w " ' 81d B kou tao t oo E - a un ocr w vvu s w Ka i n p ; M m ; p . ' ypa npa r éw g eiorrépqaa vu ypa p éni t o ou yyevmcv oiptor ov éxa I pa t- (61m) oin oppnr ov ij c fis i; pu Aei r o 6KM; 1 6V Ba ct ' ptou g “cs Ba pefxou ; 63mm xa i Aéa tpu xa yw 'pjc a f 6113 9 os vi I I Q I ( ya lta xr og Bos ton oeopq ) 81 n pér s pov r a w Ekl vjvw v éyé 5 I ’ ’ a ofléveta v 68o xovr a oo vet o oiklt 068 gor s ov s 7 n B ; , p , a I f v a pel wsotl a t n a pnxoAou flou v ar t 1) mph 1 07; ou n évs ct Ste ’ ' Bé xl f i u x x i u oi o t v v xa or a r a < r r sr o. t a e n p p a p lt T p y pq. n v

I u t oo; or w w u vr a en vev ( in r i Afl va ft u n oa xu w oa vr t p ; q , ; p n p, p p j zs 4 . P l a t. c. 22 . At/ mu m 8 d

I c I ‘ r 06 e a ilr tor u w Ekk vw v 6110 a s tkéa xa t a ktcr a r t il svr t p p p n B p pn , c r mw uva t m i ( o ei 1 06 110 06 fiu ‘ er 1:t n a a p , p p ; ; 1 fipi p I I I I o s B a or o t r w a ptCOvr a ; a u r v p xpt a k o ) ; r ttl s pévw v Ba otltet r u r p ' ' 7 I 3 I as f s v o r 0 s k . pa lta xtii ; éxovr a . IIa p v t 0111 t r) ; r pa rrs a ) ; a n s or k Q I ’ ' os m vov érté xrrer o Aa xrt or a r ov Avm ) xt8a 03 1 61 Acixw vt 1 0V p p p , t

( 7 mor e xa t r ov a Belttpov TOO ti a 001 00 cr é 'pa vov s i; popov Boi ‘ ’ ’ I 3 I ” a tltéw Oor a v v $2Tt a o a a a en e as u 0 Evu r g n p y p , k ; m p p p I “ I a w/a t é v oo r etu r "com m a n oMta érrofSL xa i érti (p , p p n n; , 3 y a r a rcé 00 a érri tx m c u evtxov a tor ov exa l t- n p C y p p p ; n p ,

I 7 I fiI ou r w 001. xsxoo évr n a a xa é ( 0 01 Il é oa t a l arm) ; e s p ) p l 3’ ” r w a ) o fito oc o s u o r a t . 1001 0 0 o vet ov ( i) r e r t r m p , p , ; p ) ; np 3 I s I 0800w w a M ov 7 a t u ia értl r a t; 11 p p ) x p éw ) ; xa i s r pa r e ; m I r I I 1 rev w ra s/1 m . l t a o ou oa a t o; p 1 g p y p p Iu ltlta n kw ‘ ‘ I 3 ' 1 1 p 1 3 ou v “t“ ;pl Ompoaoxta v Alin u s 88 x0 1 xlttvnv a or tp a pyu po I ov x é o v u v v va w t {l a va r a r v a . 110601 xa i or pw pvfiv xa i o n fl ' l ’ I I ou pa vopofpov a vfl tvnv xa i 8 p0v0v 3 a ppu pou v xa i sn ixpu oov on e I I 61m» xa i cpta lta ; Mfloxokk qt ou ; 1 I ‘pu c a ; xa t a p( 0pm; 68 peya lta ; r a 3 1; sxa r ov xa i xpa r npa ; a pyu pou ' xa l n a tatoxa ; éxa r ov xa i 1101?

a r I s 001 sxa r ov u oou r e é a xtr ; , xp g E

01 £111 fixtkioo; xw pl; t mv s i; 1

“ t nBeta u a il qpépa v 0t80pévw v. To this ma y be a dded

Athen . for from the a llusion to the prostration before the king in both pas sages we ca nnot be wrong in referring both to the sa me l ’ ' source : xa i Ttpowopa v B a n éit ' r s w a v gt t rr s o eu w v w ; 30 01 , p fl ( I f Aéa u oos xu v s e a u u . p n y v p

We ha ve in this extract of Athenaeus a combination of two different versi o ns of the sa me story ; for not only ’ does Hera clides (probably) call the recipient of th e king s

ma or a s th e Cr eta n P h a nia s es h im favors Ti g , while nam

' o Ca r l n ti Entzmu s f y , but there is a double enumera on of

x t . the gifts , which can be e plained in no o her way I should suppose that the first and shorter enumeration w a s P Hera clides f f h a nia s . from , the second and uller rom Plu ff v tarch o ers a th ird and older ersion ; older, because to this version of the story the following passa ge from Athenaeus “ seems certainly to refer : For to Timag ora s the Athenian who prostrated himself before the king a nd was much hon ” ored this thing did not happen, etc . i as I can v ew this passage in no other light , than a B contradiction of the version given by Plutarch . esides the different names by which the subject of the story is l ff called in Plutarch and in Athenaeus, the fol owing di eren ces are evident in the story itself: 1) With Plutarch it is

Ism e i s h e a i n a t Theban who prostr tes h mself before the king , a nd he assigns as the cause of the great favor shown to Tima g ora s the Athenian a secret letter sent through B e luris the scribe, of which no mention is made in Athenaeus . 2) With regard to the gifts themselves there is by no means a close agreement between Plutarch and Athenaeus . 3) Plu tarch assigns gift - taking as the cause of the condemnation of Timag or a s by the Athenians Athenaeus says he was put to death because he prostrated himself before the king. A 2 P 0 t x. 2 lo r a e . 4) We see by a comparison of with p 3 , that Plutarch represented Anta lcida s as honored by Ar ta xerxes v abo e all the Greeks who went up to his court, while the authority of Athenaeus represented the highest

E u honors as shown to ntim s . We have besides in Plut .

0 h o f - a n a s t e a 1 ) In P el op. 3 e a lludes t g i t t ki g h lleg ed ca use for th e

on emna on of Tima o ra s n nes to th e e h a w a s r a er c d ti g , but i cli vi w t t it th o n to h is a o n P el o idas to re a in a ll h is l a ns th e n wi g ll wi g p p v il p with ki g .

In s h e seems to fo o eno on IIell . V II. 1 w h o s a es thi ll w X ph ( , 33 t t

a h e h a d ref se to s a re th e en Leon h is fe o - a m a ssa or th t u d h t t with , ll w b d , a nd h a d ass s e th e o nse s of P e10 ida s a for ese n s h e w a s i t d c u l p , th t th thi g a se nd ccu d by Leon a condemned by h is coun trymen . 2 1

o 0 a Tima P el . or a s Anta lcida s p 3 the s me account of g , and

P elo ida s a s Tima o p , in this chapter , the presents of g ra s being the same as here I ) ; which strengthens the evidence against the assumption that Plutarch a nd Athenaeus drew

f a their information rom the s me source, since in two differ ent narrations composed at different periods the former

a nd ff f agrees with himself di ers so widely rom Athenaeus . There is sufficient similarity in the a ccounts of Pluta rch and

a Tima ora s Athenaeus with reg rd to the gifts presented to g , Entimu s a v or , to m ke us sure that both are ersions of the

a a s me story, but on the other hand so great divergences s ff to point certainly to di erent sources . The best explanation then seems to me to be this Plutarch has the oldest version of the story and his source

D inon a was , for this author was before him in this ch pter and must in the very nature of the case ha ve related these

P h a nia s Su ida s things ; , who, according to , was a disciple of x Aristotle and flourished at the time of Ale ander the Great, w a s n acquai ted with this version and contradicted it, at least a s far as the subject of the story is concerned . Dinon 23 . . 1 C. We saw at c 9 that only could be considered as authority for the statement here given of the reconciliation between the king and his mother , and from the connection he might well be supposed the authority

Tis a h rn for th e death of s p e es. The circumstances of the

Tissa h er nes death of p were well known, however, as may be inferred from the fact that it is related by Xenophon D odor u s P ol a enu s . i (Hell III, 4, y (Strateg VII, — 80 6 8 a . (XIV, , ) (see lso Plutarch Ages and these dif ferent a ccou nts agree so nearly that it would be impossible ’ to decide whence Plutarch s account came . Haug finds in “ th e expression of Parysatis, that the king should not regard the opinions and laws of the Greeks, since he himself had

P l 0 th e su m of m one resen e 1 ) Th e only difference is tha t in e op. 3 y p t d

im ras is n t s a e e w e find th e a en to th e a rr ers, to T a g o o t t d , whil p y g iv c i

a w hich i s wan ting i n ou r ch pter . been a ppointed by the deity a s the law and judge of right ” and wrong for the Persians an indication of the graecising Hera clides Dinon . The allusion to is without doubt only l a break in the general account, and wil be discussed under

2 a Amestris is te . c . 7 where the marri ge of more fully rela d 1 6 t h . . Gesc Lachmann (Gr II, 35 and 35) assumes tha Ar ta xer xes took part personally in two expeditions against

Ca du sia ns the , no doubt inferring this from the totally dif

' Diodor u s 8 10—1 1 v ferea t account which (XV, and ) gi es ve of Tir ib a z u s at the time of this war, from that gi n by

Plutarch here ; but it seems to me without good reason . It e is plain that Plutarch knew of only one such exp dition . Cornelius Nepos (Da ta mes 1 ) seems to give th e principal h Da ta m es Tiriba z u s a nd role in t is war to , not mentioning , as Diodoru s represen ts Tirib a z u s as taking no part in that

expedition, we might guess the same source for both . Now f 11; A . 1 h o o u s t/zm . T e m we find from 44 , that p p in the 35 book of his Histories told how 7749's the king of the P a ph la g onia ns was brought a s a captive to king Artaxerxes ; 2 just this is represented by Nepos (c . ) as the second of the great exploits of Da ta mes ; hence we might infer that Th eopompu s was the source for Nepos with regard to this x f e ploit a nd also or the Ca du sia n war . The different a c count of Plutarch with rega rd to Tiriba z u s points to a dif

fer ent source . Partly from the way in which Plutarch c a z Tirib a z u s h racteri es here, which agrees so well with the ’ a c s 10 2 2 8 2 m nner in which he appears in 5, 7, , 7, , 9, and partly because this son of Tiriba z u s is introduced aga in

. 0 a w in c 3 , where it is certain that Dino a s before Plutarch, I Dinon think it more natural to refer this account to , than

to any other source .

. . . 8 Muller (Hist Gr Frag II, 9 ) considers the account of Hera clides Aspasia to be taken from , but, except the allu 2 sion made to him in c . 3, there is no evidence in favor of

u . 2 this s pposition In c . 7 where Plutarch tells (according

Her a clides Amestris to ) of the marriage of to the king, she

is said to have been the first of his daughters , whom he

t X I . yu s . ,

o h . su c his 5 t year , as his cessor . There was a law of the Per Darius was appointed king sians that the one appointed “contrary to the law of the a a r e u est to the throne m ke q , Persians with whom the king and that he who appointed is not cha nged except by ” him should, if possible, grant death . whatever w as asked .

!u s t. X . Artaxerxes gave Aspasia The king gave up Aspasia , to Darius 611 dva yxfl; 7 06 vé oo p . Artaxerxes changed his

of mind and made Aspasia a A priestess the sun . priestess of Artemis at Ec batana . No allusion to the illeg iti 50 of the brothers of Da mate brothers of Darius as rius join the conspiracy and e e in th e conc rn d conspiracy, all of his companions , with Tir iba z u s e while a son of is their wives and childr n, are mentioned in c . 30 as the put to death . Ar sa me slayer of s . Tirib a z u s is the leading Not mentioned in Justi

h e n . spirit of t co spiracy. nus

th e After death of Darius, Och u s rids himself of Ar i Artaxerxes died of diseas e Arsames t r aspes and then , and brough on by g ief; no in consequence of these tr ou b allusion being made to th e les Ar taxerxes dies of grief plots of Och u s a gainst Ari a nd despondency. aspes a nd Arsa mes though h is cruelty a gainst a ll th e surviving members of the roya l fa mily after th e dea th a rx s of Art xe e is told . The case then stands a bout as follows : the differences in the two accounts are too gr eat to allow of their being f re erred to the same source ; this story, as Plutarch gives 26 it, is part of a connected account extending from c . to the end of the life and bearing every ma rk of a single

d . . 2 inon a n 0 . D source, Plutarch is found in c 3 (cf frag 9 ) h u to be following Di o , though he does not name him ;

i n u D no was constantly before Pl t . in the composition of ’ c s I 6 10 1 1 2 2 a nd the life, being mentioned in , , 9, , 3, 9, h . 0 T eo om u s quoted from in c 3 , while p p is not once men tioned in the biography . A close comparison of pa ssages in different chapters 2 from c . 3 to the close will make it quite proba ble that

a ll. Plutarch followed one general source in them Compare, 2 for instance, c . 3 the allusion to the marriage of Atossa w ith the king contrary to the laws a nd opinions of the

. 2 A a x Greeks, with c 7, the statement that rt xer es had made Atossa his wife contra ry to the law ; also the reference ’ i n e s 26 28 a nd 30 to t/ze sa me r el a tion a , of Atoss ;

2 6: c . the law with regard to whatever request the 2 heir appointed might make and c . 8 allusion again made

2 6 k ita ris to this law ( ) mention of the upright , and ref 2 2 erence to the same in c . 8 ( 6) Darius stated to have been appointed to the throne, with which compare Tiri ’ 2 8 2 6 ba z us reference to the same in c . ( ) intrigues of ’ Och u s with Atossa and allusions to the same in c s 2 8 and

30. The general course of the story seems to be inter "t ru ted : 1 . 2 é évr or Aé ou cw p only three times in c 3 t p . y ; 1nd 2 2 in c . 7 where th e story of Hera clides with regard to the ’ i Ames is r d tr . 2 évtm 8 king s marry ng is introduced ; 3 in c 9, é

c a c t. Her a clides 2 p The statement of alluded to in c . 3 is 2 given undoubtedly in c . 7, where Plutarch speaks of the a marriage of the d ughters of the king. We may well b e lieve from the connection that Her a clides told of the wrath of Tiriba z u s against the king and perhaps his counsel to s th e u Dariu , but arg ments by which he rouses Darius to

kita r is th a conspiracy , the allusions to the upright , to e Och u s fa r th e intrigues of in the harem of his the , to suc ’ c a n v ession to the crown, to the king s breaking in iolable

law of the Persians for the sake of a Greek prostitute, all 6 . 2 a nd . 2 refer to c the beginning of c 7, where it is almost

Hera clides sure that Plutarch did not have as source, since he takes no account of the relation of Amestr is to

the king .

a . i . 2 D n n C. 30 e . . o . Muller (Grae Hist Fr g f 9 ) gives

L . cro . Ma b . 1 the following fragment taken from ucian c 5, ’ ’ 6 : a . A r a é r 0 Mv w v ém xl ll et ét v K6 0 p 4 (Didot) p EpE); fip n g, p p ; ' 0 é ot a r sdoa r o a ctksu w v év Il é a a t ér skstit oe p , B p ; n ’ ’ ' wim E xa l o Sor cov-ra ér iiw evé svo cf» 83: Aetvw v icr o ei p E y p y p g, ; p , v t et r aipw xa l évevfixovr a . Without doubt then Dinon w a s the source for Pluta rch

a x x with reg rd to the age and length of reign of Arta er es, and it speaks very strongly for him as main authority for

the latter part of this biography, when we see that it is a

a connected account, evidently from one le ding source, when at the end the death of Artaxerxes is represented as the i result of the accumulated ev ls just described , and just in this connection the age of Artaxerxes is given in exact f accordance with B inon . The fact that Plutarch is ound Dinon here to have used without naming him, is with his of well known method of using his sources, better evidence

a general use of him in the latter part of this life , than

half a doz en open citations would be .

h a d The result to which I come then is, that Plutarch before him throughout the life one main authority, who furnished the groundwork for the whole I) ; though he made ’ 0 s 1 1 —1 use also of Ctesias, especially in 9, of Xenophon, Hera clides and and to some extent also of , others whom

he does not name . At first thought it may seem rather bold to maintain that Dinon w a s the leading authority for

the first nine chapters, since he had no personal knowledge t w s a s th e of the hings there told, hile Ctesia , physician of

1 . eeren de fontib u s P l u ta rch i . ) Cf H , , p 95. 2 7

o a a r y l f mily, had the very best opportunities to know ; but Plutarch seems either to have had a very poor opinion of the integrity of Ctesias, or to have allowed the abuse which Dinon seems to have lost no Opportunity to heap upon

I Ctesias, to influence his opinion . ) From the manner in which Dinon is cited in the first part of the life we have reason to suspect that he was the main source for the latter part, although no allusion is made to him ; but when pursuing the traces of a connected a c count , from one general source , we trace a single impor tant event with perfect certainty to him , the evidence a mounts almost to proof.

Ctesi a s of Cn i d u s .

k 2 i n m e f r 1 . . F B EHR i eru u n u t 8 C . Cn d O R F . A : Ctes a e a ra ! p liq i e, 4

i ii v a H C. RETTIG Ctesia e Cn d t a nnover 1 8 2 . , i , 7 MfiLLER Ct sia Fra menta Anh a n z u Her odotu s , e e g , g , P a r s 1 8 D ot i 44 ( id ) .

v h a s ct E ery other who treated the subje , so far as I x r know , e cept Grote and Rettig, ag ees with the result to

B a x 6 e/zr e c. as which comes , following 4 of Ctesi , name l a e y, that Ctesi s r turned to his native land in 399 or

1 ) From th e efforts of Pa rysa ti s to ha ve Cyrus a ppointed to th e throne

ns ea of r axerxes as re a e in . 2 th e r va as ra ons of Da r s a nd i t d A t , l t d c , i l pi ti iu

C eb s as o i n th e e nn n of . 2 6 a nd th e s a emen in . 0 a u t ld b gi i g c , t t t c 3 th t “ Ar ia s es not e a se h e w as o er an Oel ms e a se h e w as m p , b c u ld th , but b c u ild ” a nd s m e a nd a n ro w a s es re as n th e ers a ns a en i pl phil th pic, d i d ki g by P i , t k into consider a tion with th e fa ct tha t Atossa persua ded th e elder D a ri u s to a ppoint h er son Xerxes to th e throne to th e exclusion of th e elder Arto b az a nes w h o w as orn efore D ar s e a me n ero w e , b b iu b c ki g (H d VII, might suppose tha t th e successi on to th e thr one in Persia w as not a bsolute l fixe l a w o n o e w as th e s om a th e e e y d by , th ugh u d ubt dly it cu t th t ld st son re e e th e n m c iv ki g do . B 1 6 t ds 8 . 39 Rettig (p, ) on the streng h of the wor in 62 8 exe. , that the sepulchre of Clearchus within years

8 6x é v w a s ( 8 1 6) r th ) covered with a growth of palm trees, places the return not earlier than 394 B . C . Grote

2 1X 1 . 2 (Hist . of Greece , , 39 n ) makes a similar B u t a . st tement , without giving his reasons a comparison 6 6 6 exe . 6 Diodoru s of 3 and 4 with XIV, 4 , shows this to 6 w a s c . s be clearly wrong . In ex 3 Ctesia states that he sent with a letter to Conon (the appointment , no doubt, P h a r nab a z u s of Conon as prefect of the fleet under , for immediately after is told how Conon was made navarch by the sa tra pl5 then he relates his own return to his native land, and then his journey to Sparta . According to Dio 1 dorus XIV, 39, the appointment of Conon was made in

8 . exc . the year 39 Ctesias had, moreover, as we see from 6 a nd 4, returned to Greece before he closed his history,

Diodoru s 6 6 according to XIV, 4 , this closed with the year

398 . Ctesias th erefore either heard the remainder of the ’ story of the palm trees over Clearchus burial - place after o his return to Greece, r what is more probable, this, as well as the remainder of the story, is an invention of his . e The only thing that the 8 years does seem to prov , if it t h prove any hing, is that t e history was not published until

B . . about the year 393 C It would be more in accordance, however, with the rest of this wonderful story if we should

chm}: suppose that this passage is corrupt , that originally pnvt was read and this was changed by some transcriber

6n d) ér ibv ? into , as being more probable )

1 W re a r to th e es on e er es as w a s a a e a s s a e ) ith g d qu ti wh th Ct i c ptiv , t t d

B o . II 2 a nd fo o n h im z etz es . 1 8 2 or not . by i d , 3 , 4, , ll wi g , T , Chil I, , , , cf

Ba e r . 1 s . a nd Miiller Fra m of es as . seems to me ere h (p 3 qq ) ( g . Ct i ) It th ca n b e no doubt tha t Ba eh r is r ight i n rej ecting th e sta tement of Di odoru s.

2 If w e h a d n o o er roof th e fa a th e s or rea s off ) th p , ct th t hi t y b k with th e ea r 8 o ma e a lmos er a n a es as ef ers a a t a y 39 , w uld k it t c t i th t Ct i l t P i th t

me for is e more a n a ron e of cou t a ffa rs a nd no rea son ti it littl th ch icl f i , could b e im ag ined for cl osi ng it a br uptly j ust in th e midst of a n i n teresting

er o w e s ose h im to e r a ne on er a t th e o r of ers a . p i d, if upp ha v em i d l g c u t P i 2 9

exe 60 I suspect that Ctesias, who is named in . as physician of Parysatis a nd who certainly stood in a confi

dential relation to her , as we may infer from the allusion x ’ in e c . 49 and the events related with regard to Clearchus t imprisonment , after the dea h of Stateira, when his royal

a r p t oness fell under the displeasure of the king , felt himself

insecure and took the first opportunity to return to Greece . ’ The charge that he added to Conon s letter a request, that

he should be sent to him , if true , would seem to indicate B s something of the kind (c . e ides if we believe Plu ’ ta r ch s statement (c . that he was a partisan of Sparta, how else are we to explain his conduct with regard to the

a ppointment of Conon , than by supposing that he acted a ga inst the Lacedaemonian interests in order to get away from the Persian court ? That he really did not desert his

a Sp rtan principles, may be gathered from the fact that he seems to have taken up his residence at Sparta after his

return to Greece (exc.

c Diodor u s 2 A cording to II, 3 Ctesias claimed, that for the facts of Persian history of the previous time he h a d

atc flé a t a ct txa f consulted the p p B l ; of the remaining facts,

- exe. 1 w according to , he was either an eye itness, or heard

- a ex e directly from eye witnesses . For wh t relates to the p ditio n of Cyrus and the capture of the five generals of the

e . Gr eks , Clearchus was undoubtedly his authority The ’ evidence is about as follows : 1 ) From Ctesias account of

1 8 exc. his intercourse with Clearchus, as related in c . and 8 60 5 and , we see that he had just such an opportunity of getting an account of these events as a historian collect

r 2 ing mate ials for a history would wish . ) Note the prom

cu in t place given in exe. 58 to the difficulty between

a nd Clearchus Menon , which is fully explained when 60 a compared with exc . the statement that Tiss

h ernes p having made a friend of Menon , by means of him got into his power Clearchus and the four other generals , since the troops deceived by Menon forced 30

f Clearchus , against his will , to go to a con erence with

! Tissa ph ernes ) This is the self- justifying account of Clear

chus, who traces his own ruin and that of the generals to ’ ’ a Menon s tre chery, and this further to Menon s jealousy on

account of the preference shown by Cyrus to Clearchus .

3) We can trace still further the self- j u stifica tion of Clear

: oi ldtd xa i {l oiva r o Kti ou citra tilofi vr o chus in the words g p , ; a o o f Klts aipxq) (cxc . 4) Note the fact th t the hist ry a Ctesias goes no further with the ccount of the Greeks,

of . a than the capture the generals This l st I look upon,

moreover, as a proof that Ctesias wrote his history in Per

sia ; for if he had composed it after his return to Greece, where he had opportunity to trace the full history of the

v return of the Ten Thousand, he would no doubt ha e done

so a n , especially as it is questionable whether at that time y x account of the e pedition had been published . That it

was composed in Persia is besides, just what the following

' Diod . 2 061 0 06V g a w éx 1 e a passage means ( II, 3 , ; n B

c ) “ ctlttxriuv Bt fle ci w év a i oi ll é cou. t o ma ll a rd a oi s t xa r oi p p , ; p ; ; p E ; ’ ' t w at vd ov si ov ou vr er a ' éva a oku a a ov oa t r at xa tl éxa or a p y yp g, p yp fi " xa l o o vr a i oi p e vov r nv i o r o pfa v s i ; t o r) ; Ek l nva ; ’ ’ é e v s x i v Miiller s v Reh da ntz E y s . This is also iew ; but 1 (Introd . to Anab . S 7) considers the history to have been written after his return to Greece .

1 nd i C. . a a D non Had we the works of both Ctesi s , I have no doubt that many of the facts sta ted by Pluta rch

. 1 a t x from c up to the b tle of Cuna a , might be traced

. . 1 B to either source In c Ctesias , as well as inon , was

as before Plutarch, may be seen by comparing, for instance ’ : - th e passage in exe. 49 r ifl er a t avopa 0161 06 0c r od ’ Mou Kfi ov x : 0 év 06V Kfi o fi p , with Plutarch s e pression p p g

1 Cf. na . . 2 8 from is ea r a ea r s s s e ) A b II, 5 , which it cl th t Cl chu u pect d

Menon a nd a a re or re a e o in th e ers a n a rm a nd a t o r ; th t p t p v il d b th P i y c u t,

m a n ro en s Menon i n th e rea er a a n s th e enera s is i plic ti g P x u with t ch y g i t g l , s o w n th e s r m s a n t h by clo e a g ee ent between Ctesi a ( exc. 60) d h e sta tement “ o f Ar ia eu s na . II a ro en s a nd Menon e a se e h a d ( A b , 5, th t P x u b c u th y ” s ose th of ea r s di cl d e plot Cl chu we re i n g rea t honor .

a u to Ctesi s , to have beg n at the very commencement of x h e the reign of Artaxer es , when to gratify Stateira put

Udia stes Terit ch mes exc . to death , the slayer of y ( c With regard to the date of the onsummation of the plot,

Plutarch expressly prefers Ctesias .

8 . C. There can be no doubt that the occasion of this chapter was the fact that Ctesias had assigned as the cause of the death of Cyrus his disregard of the injunction of Clearchus , not to expose himself to danger in the ’

. e e 8 8 u 01 3 06 0 battle ; cf x . 5 6m m ; Ktipo 11 18 V1 ; From this phrase too we may reach a certain conclu ’ sion as to the source of Clearchus admonition to Cyrus x and the reply of the latter, for from these we learn e actly ’ what the 011161306V1 0; Kl eoipxtp means? )

9. C. That Ctesias was before Plutarch in this chapter

a u is shown by the allusion to the n me of the horse of Cyr s, “ P k : h a d a sa a s x i . 1 1 , and the e press on in C Cyrus when he ”

Ar ta erses . killed g , etc ’

1 1. a C. Abridgement of Ctesias ccount of the death of Cyrus . — I agree with Haug (p . 93 Schottin (p . 4 5) and ii M ller r m . a s n Hi r a c . sto . G e a , ( r F g Ctesi s) in con ideri g Ctesias ’ — principal or perhaps sole authority in c s 1 2 and 14 1 8 .

12. . C. The argument of Haug (p that the account “ ’ ” w Artas r a s i of the manner in hich y , the k ng s eye , brings x l to Artaxer es inte ligence of the death of Cyrus, as well as the sending of a number of attendants to ascertain the

th e truth of report , is from Ctesias, is quite satisfactory,

a a th e namely that, ccording to Dino , Cyrus fell in thick of the fight and in the presence of the king, and therefore he could not have said anything of news of this event being

s a brought to the king ; according to Cte i s , however , the ki ng retired fr om the field as soon as he was wounded .

1 M er s ra e. Fra m . es a s in n a n z u ero Cf. u . ) ll , Hi t G c g Ct i ( A h g H d ”;

S o n v a Arta x. Ob ser . de P . ch tti , lut vit

ma ta . 2 . na . a nd P ol a enu s Stra te e 2 ) Cf A b I, 7 , 9 y , g II, , 3 Arta s ra s I cannot see, however, that the designation of y “ ’ ” ' as the king s eye betrays so accurate a Knowledge of ' afla ir s Persian that this of itself would point to Ctesias, for f H u 1 1 . the same designation is ound in erodot s I, 4 The statement that the king was suffering in body from thirst and his wound, can only be from Ctesias, inasmuch as ’ ino n a D n says nothing about the king s receivi g a wound . S tiba rz a nes is mentioned in exe. 57 and 63 as one of the most trusted eunuchs of king Artaxerxes . Only Ctesias alludes to the participation of the K a u nians in the battle ' and the expression 1 15V Ka u vfw v éxs tvw v 1't xa xofi tw v is a 1 1 : v direct reference to that of Ctesias in c . Ka tivw f 1 1 s;

dvfi w m t 1101116101 . i K a u nia n r e p 8 The rewarding of th s , as 1 lated in c . 4, where he is represented as a man unknown f and poor, must be also rom Ctesias . ’ 13 off u C . Ctesias told of the cutting of Cyr s head f r i exc . 8 and ght hand, as we see rom 5 , and only with his account ag rees the scene around the body of Cyrus, where the king grasps the head of Cyrus by the thick and long ” hair and shows it in the light of torches to the still flying ’ Dinon s Persians ; for, as was said above, Cyrus in account th e fell in the thick of the fight , in presence of the king, and his death must have been known to the army imme

dia tel . s y In this chapter , moreover , Ctesia is named in ’ a connection with the king s army, the number of the f llen and the fa lse statement with regard to the participa tio n in

I the embas—sy sent to the Greeks . ) C. 14 18 s . The next five chapters are almo t cer

inl a ta a . B y from Ctesi s inon evidently followed, in the m in, Xenophon’s account of the battle and hence had no occa sion to allude to either the reward or punishment of Mi th r idates B a a ates z , nor so far as we know of g p (or Ma a

1 r o e s or of ree e 0 no e not a ow th e m u a on ) G t (Hi t y G c IX , 7 t ) will ll i p t ti a g a i nst Ctesi as i n this pla ce ; but tha t Xenophon rea lly mea n t by th e

e ress on to on ra es a s do not o . s so h e xp i c t dict Ct i , I d ubt !u t

on ra ed h im i n na 1 0 1 1 0 1 a nd th e o e c t dict A b . I, 7 , , I, 9; 3 , I, , 5 wh l ’ story of Cyrus fa ll . 34

bates), while what he says of the rewarding of the Carian,

. 1 8 . who was reported to have struck Cyrus, was given in c Besides the punishing of each of the three just mentioned t d n is in Plutarch commit ed to Parysatis , who accor i g to ’ Dinon s account must have been at this very time under

the displeasure of the king for the murder of Stateira, which was represented by Din0n as committed during the w a r Dinon (c . Mithridates while not mentioned by , is said by Ctesias to have been the first w h o struck Cyrus and c one of his attendants is said ,to have pi ked up the saddle

v w h m . 1 co er, to ich allusion is ade again in c 4 ; besides in k . 1 a a c 5, Mithrid tes is made to rel te how he struc Cyrus

e 1 1 . just xactly as Ctesia s had related the same thing in c . 0 Dinon (c . 1 ) mentions the report that Cyrus fell by the

n a s s ha d of the king , if by no mean unlikely ; here it is o penly represented as false , which agrees precisely with 6 1 1 . . 1 the story of Ctesias in c . In c allusion is made

again to the wound of the king , which, as we have seen, m does not agree with the story of Di on . Haug considers the expression used by the h ost at “ the feast (c . L et us eat and drink doing reverence to th e x a r e demon of the king , and avoid e pressions which too high for us as so genuinely Persian that only Ctesias

v exc . could ha e been the source . There is, it is true , in

a 59, where the de th of Mithridates is alluded to , no ref erence to h is execution by means of the trough

0 a s s but we see from exe . 3 th t Cte ias had described thi

a K nu mode of punishment . The C rian or a ian is alluded 1 to in c . 4 a s the one by whom Cyrus was struck on the

1 1 . knee , just as Ctesias told in c . There is no difficulty n with regard to his bei g called in this chapter a Carian,

1 1 u whereas in c . he was called a K an ian ; for as Haug

th e K a u nia ns a says, were tribe of Caria , and besides in

' xe i e . 59 of Ctesias he s twice called a Ca r za n ; so that the

xc . terms must have been used indiscriminately . In e 59 it is simply stated that Parysati s tortured the Ca rian a nd then u t p him to death , but we need not doubt that Ctesias u h is described f lly the mode of punishment , for whole history shows that he was as apt at describing horrible

a s w as methods of punishment, Parysatis at inventing them x f . e e. o n (cf 54, 55, 57 The story the pu ishment Ba a a tes of g p was related fully by Ctesias, as we see from

exc . x 59, which agrees in every respect with Plutarch, e cept

' ' that Ctesia s makes no allusion to the zmpa l zng on th r ee

a e o f s t t s . o This was, however, evidently an mission the 6 exe . h a d excerptor , for it may be seen from 3 that he

described this method of punishment . It is strange that the form of the name in Plutarch is so different from that

in Ctesias , but the remaining proof is too strong to allow

a as c doubt to the source . We have in this hapter

moreover, two allusions to Stateira as still living, ’ whereas according to Dinon s account she w a s long d since dea .

. 1 C 8 . Ctesias is introd u ced as the source for this

nd s xe 60 sa chapter a we have be ides in e . exactly the me account .

13 . exe. 1 C. From 6 we see that Ctesias narrated the

a a x a death of St teira just as Plut rch gave it , e cept th t the latter differs from Ctesias w ith regard to the immediate

a v cause of the murder , which Ctesi s alleged to ha e its v x moti e in anger at the e ecution of Clearchus . With the

ff ve few slight di erences alluded to by Plutarch, there is e ry prob a bility that Ctesias and Dinon gave the sa me story and with about the same fullness . 1 C. 2 a . There remains only the allusion to Ctesi s in th is chapter which h a s been already discussed a bove . The remaining ev ents of this life belong to a period succeeding the close of the history of Ctesias . 36

X en oph on .

That the Anabasis and the Hellenica were the sour ces of much of the information contained in th is bio Reh d n graphy is very evident . a tz (Einleitung z u der 1 Anab . S 7) says that Plutarch supplements here to some extent from the Persian side the first two books ’ of Xenophon s Anabasi s with which he was also acquaint s x ed , and thi is no doubt correct ; but to what e tent . w Xenophon was used directly by Plutarch , and to hat de gree indirectly , it is impossible to say definitely . The question has been discu ssed in the foregoing pages under

B inon . We will here therefore simply point out the pas sages where Xenophon seems to have been the source for

Plutarch either at first or second hand .

‘

C. 1 . Aa efoo ot IIa 00 80 33 é v 11 p y p p 0i1 1 ; 11011 ; yévo r o .

1 . . . 1 . L ; cf Anab I, ( 1 81: r é . 1 . . I . C. 2. a 11 H a s . L p j np fipx , cf Anab I, , 4 ’ ’ ' A111 1010121313 A 1 0 é 1 s1 0v0 a 088 f K60 as A08101 ( ; p EpE) ; p p g, p ; ;

' ' 0011 0i11 11011 1 6311 é11l fla koioa 01 a 1 6 . . p q; q; p n7 ; ; cf Anab I, 9 , 7

and Hell . I, 4, 3.

’ 3 — o C. . . 1 Cf. Anab I, , 3 4 for Xenoph n s story of ’ Tissa h ernes p accusation of Cyrus, though Plutarch followed

some other auth ority here .

C. 4 . The allusion to Xenophon, with regard to the

s . mercenary Greek troop of Cyrus, has reference to Anab

1 6 . I, , sqq For the statement that his mother was present

th e and took away the suspicions of king , while Cyrus

8 . . . 1 wrote dutifully to his brother, cf Anab I, ,

’

L a s . C. 6. Cyrus application to the cedaemonian ; cf 1 1 Hell III, , , though Plutarch in all probability did not t consult Xenophon here . Number of Greek roops of Cyrus ;

. 2 cf Anab . I, , 4 (cf. II, 3, Pretences assigned by Cyrus

for d 2 1 1 20. n . the expe ition ; cf. A ab I, , (III, , 9) and I, 3,

7 . C. Belief prevalent in the army of Cyrus that the — . . 1 8 2 0 . king would not fight ; cf Anab I, 7, For the ’

a . 1 2 number of the king s army, cf. An b I, 7, ; for the 1 8 1 1 . remainder of the chapter I, 7, 9 I, .

8 . C. Position of the Greeks on the river ; cf. Anab .

8 1 . v I, , 4 and 3 The king did not percei e that he was i 0 6 x tl e 0161 . a 0 1 3 vt a . 10 be ten ( n ; ; cf An b I, , 5. ’ Cyrus order to Clearchus to lead the Greeks against — . . 8 1 2 1 the centre ; cf Anab I, , 3.

C. 9 . Victory and pursuit of the Greeks ; cf. Anab . 8—2 1 8 1 . I, , 1 3. P linu s . C. h a . 1 . Embassy of ; cf Anab II, , 7

20. C. For the cause of the expedition sent by the a o ve Sp rtans int Asia to relie the Greeks in that quarter, l 1 cf. Hel . III, , 3, where it is stated that these cities sent m Tiss h er n essengers to Sparta begging aid against a p es .

i o - l W Th r n . 1 Derc lida s ith regard to b , cf Hell III, , 4 7 ; y , 2 2 A 2 I 8 1 esila u s . 1 1 III, , , ; g , III, 4, sqq , IV, , 5sqq . , 2 2 Timocr a tes and IV, , ; and the bribery of the leaders in

v 1 2 1 . x se eral Greek cities, III, 5, and IV, , E cept the saying of Ag esila u s with regard to the 30 000 bowmen of

cf. 1 the king ( Plut . Ages . 5, Xenophon must have been _ ’ the original source for this chapter . Plutarch s account of Timocra tes and the bribery of the Greek leaders is pre cisel y that of Xenophon, and the evident partiality for Age silaus points clearly to the same author . 21 m C. . Xenophon see s to have been undoubtedly the direct or indirect source for the latter part of this 1 1 —1 2 chapter . Cf. Hell . IV, 3, , account of the battle of 8 —1 2 P h a r na b a z u s Cnidus ; IV, , 7 , Conon and win the sea 8 1 2 — 1 a from the Spartans ; IV, , 3 ambass dors sent from ’ n Tir ib a z u s 8 1 Anta lcida s leadi g Greek states to ; IV, , 4 , proposition to yield to the king the Greek cities in Asia

Minor, stipulating only that the remaining cities and islands 1 2 Anta lcida s Tir ib a z u s should remain free ; V, , 5, , with , returns from the king, having gained all that he desired , 1 0— 1 Tir iba z u s V, , 3 3 , proclamation of to the Greeks and the rescript of the king . The evidence for Xenophon is thus seen to be much better than for Ephorus (Haug 96) 38

B u t h l or P h a nia s (Schottin p . I t ink it very probab e that Dinon formed here a n intermediate source between

Xenophon and Plutarch . d 3 Tissa h er nes . 2 a n 2 . C. Death of p , cf Hell III, 4, 5

1 . Ages . , 35

27 . . 10 2 . C. Capture of Aspasia at Cunaxa ; cf Anab I, ,

H er a cl i d es of Cu m a e .

Fra II i t r ra e . s M LLE R H o . G . C . U s c . , g , 95 qq

The only other alluded to by name in this biogra phy is Hera clides of Cumae. It is not known precisely when

u . he lived (cf. M ller p 95) and we know definitely only of

xoi . 2 his work Il epct in five books . Plutarch cites him in c 3

' 2 and the fact there allu ded to is given in c . 7 (cf. Muller Her lid p . It is quite possible that a c es was used to some th e m extent elsewhere in co position of this life , but if so certainly very little ; and tha t little w e have no means of s a certa ining . ’ O in o s 2 2 ther authors are alluded to 3, 4, 3, 9, and e n p rhaps elsewhere, but the attempt to determi e who they were and to what extent they were used h a s been without

result .

11 . CTESIA S’ R EP ORT OF THE BATTLE OF CUNAXA .

01 1 0 K AEMM EL in P h o o u s XXXIV 1 6— 8 a nd 6 — 6 . il l g , 5 53 5 696 It will not seem improper perhaps to add here a short ’ examina tion w ith regard to the credibility of Ctesias report

' 40

rea der (p . In order to reconcile the statement of

Diodor u s w a s , that there a short fight with missiles , then for a little while the Persia ns resisted in hand - to - hand con ’ flict s with the Greek , with Xenophon s statement that the Persians turned and fled before the Greeks came within ' ' w 11 83 1 63 0 01 é txvsi c il a t 31111lt1v0001v bo shot , the phrase v 5 p E oi oi l 600 x a ov. 1101 3 01” B pB p 0 7 is thus e plained , that they were so close that the arrows flew harmless over their heads

iodo u s v (p . The time given by D r for the second mo e ‘ a i 81 v0111 11 ment of the Persians ag inst the Greeks, 1 ) ; ’ Diodor u s or te is rejected for a like reason ( f , forsooth, does not lie in the description of battles) (p . Xeno ’ phon s report of the time when the purs u it of the Greeks

: 0 386v 661 3 1 0161 01 v 1101l 110 38631 0 ended X i , $ ; , that is the sun set just as the messengers of Clearchus from the top of the hill observed the troops of the king flying over the

a a h pl in, will not ccord with the t eory which had made the

a a n sun to set h lf hour before , so it is to be translated “ th e About the time when these things were taking place,

sun had set . The time at which, according to Xenophon, the Greeks reached their camp after the day ’ s work was ’ ‘ 01 1 1 Bé a or ov ended, p p p n , must be incorrect, if the pursuit

s ended at dark in place of sunset , and hence the econd

' watch of Diodor u s 113 pl 83 01 3p01v cpu lta xflv is substituted for Diodor u s a it (p . notwithstanding cert inly missed the

time in both his other statements . The position which

s Tissa h er nes Xenophon a signs to p in the battle, and which

that satrap says himself that he occupied, does not accord ’ Diodor u s n with statement, hence in addition to the ma y

a f lsehoods of this deceitful satrap another must be added, that is to flatter the Greeks and give credit to the official falsehood of the Persian court with regard to the death of

h e n e ff Cyrus, assig ed to hims lf a totally di erent part in the K m battle from that which he really had (p . mmel

supposes that the battle bega n about 4 30 p . m . (though

a it is far more probable that it beg n an hour earlier), that

m . a nd u about 5p Cyrus received the first wound fell unconscio s, that he lay long in this state , in fact it had become twi light before he recovered sufficiently to attempt to go on ;

K a u nia ns for it was so dark when the approached them, tha t only when they were quite near could they distinguish the purple tunics of Cyrus’ troops from the white ones of the royal cavalry ; then took place the remaining occur rences a s related by Ctesias . The object is to prove tha t th e events related by Ctesias cover the whole time from i the beg nning of the battle , as given by Xenophon , till ’ some time after dark . Xenophon s account of the time,

u not only because of his general truthf lness , but because th e nature of the events related by all parties confirms its im accuracy, must be accepted ; and , inasmuch as it is possible tha t a n eyewitness who meant to be truthful could 3 a s a 811 01161 00 0v1 0 m ke uch statement, the 6) ; ; of Ctesias is

B u t a rejected as an interpolation . a comp rison of the sta tements of Ctesias in connection with the events related ’ by Xenophon and Diodor u s shows that Ctesias report did not a dmit of the lapse of so long a time between the first wound of

Cyrus and his death, and that therefore there is no good reason to doubt that the phra se 664 01161 00; 6v1 0; really had its source

a . in Ctesi s It is clear that the impression made upon Plutarch, who had before him the full account of Ctesias, was that the events related occupied only a sh or ttime . At the time the king is wounded there is flight a nd confusion of his body - gu a rd when Cyrus recovers sufficiently from the blow given by

Mithridates to proceed , he hears his flying enemies call a nd ? him king beg for mercy . Who are these flying enemies Certainly no others than those who were put to flight at the first attack . We may accept as true - the general course th e of events going on in field at this time, as related by

Diodor u s Xenophon and , and from these it is clear that after the dispersion of the immediate body - guard of the ’ king there was no rout of a ny part of the king s forces ’ till they fled a second time before the Greeks . Cyrus fall

' Cf Ar — 1 . es a s i n ta x. 1 1 Xen . Ana . 8 2 a nd Di od . 2 8 . ) Ct i , b I, , 5 XIV, 3, 7 42 call it first wound or death took place then in the sight of k the army, at least was nown to both armies ; for that of u the king was encouraged, that of Cyr s disheartened thereby; a nd l if Cyrus had lain so ong , unconscious there could be no ta lk of flying enemies at this time . That there was continual flight and turmoil in the rear of the king’s army is not to be thought, since this is totally at variance with the occurrences

a iodoru s inc n rrated by D and also by Xenophon, and is on sistent with the events stated by Ctesias to have taken place a bout the body of Cyrus . According to all reports there must have been a period of quiet in the rear after the first confusion B was over . esides the king had taken possession of a hill A rta x. . 1 1 w a s near the army ( c ) and , or could have been,

Ar r . ta s a s in easy communication with it y , when he finds u th e the dead body of Cyr s , rides straight to king ; the Carian (we ma y infer) went also and announced his death a x (cf. Ar t . c . there were plenty of attendants about the off 0 king, for he sent 3 at one time to the body of Cyrus .

a If this long time had elapsed , th t is from near the n middle of the afternoo till dark , the king could easily have sent forw ard couriers and ascertained that Cyrus was dead , at least was thought so , and that the Greeks were

B u victorious on the left wing . t it is only just when he e e t rec iv s the news of the death of Cyrus , after dark , hat he lea rns that the Greeks were victoriou s in the first engagement . If we are to accept from Ctesia s that the king lay on the hill in despair and fl anking a ll w a s l ost r x (A ta . c . we may be perfectly sure that th is sta te of things was not represented a s la sting three hours . Then that Cyrus and the eunuchs cou ld so long escape notice in u e the rear of the army , the n mb r of camp followers of which was probably nearly a s large a s the real fighting f orce , and these continually traversing the space in the ’ c s 1 1 insu rear, as we may infer from Plut . ( and is p posable . Further it is not stated that Cyrus became totally ff unconscious , or recovered slowly from the e ects of the b low given by Mithridates , but only that when he was 43

' str uck he beta me g iddy a nd s tupefira a nd fell fr o m h is

a r se a nd t/za t Ice r ecover ed w it/t di cu lt a nd not t/zor Iz , ffi y h is n r u ou g h ly. T ere the really no g ound for the s pposition that h e lay long unconscious, and every thing goes to prove tha t the ev ents related by Ctesias cover a comparatively

c 81 01161 00 6v1 0 short spa e of time, and therefore the 64 ; ; is perfectly consistent with his remaining report .

’ ’ K ae m m e l s O bj e c t i o n s t o X e n o ph o n s N a r r a t i o n .

Xenophon states that Tissa ph ernes commanded the left w ing of the Persian army and stood with the cavalry on

the extreme left next to the river, that he did not flee with the remainder of the left wing when the Greeks a t tacked , but breaking through the line opposed to him

entered the camp and began to plunder it, where somewhat 8 . 10 later he was joined by the king (Anab I, , 7 and I, , Diodor u s XIV 2 ( , 3, 7) states that after the king was wound ed Tissa ph ernes succeeded to the chief command of the

Persian army and by extraordinary valor , aided by the fact that the news of Cyrus’ death had spread through K aemmel both armies, proved completely victorious . , assum Diodor u s c ing that followed Ctesias here , reje ts the state

ment of Xenophon and accepts that of Diodoru s . There is no doubt that Tissaph er nes is in part at lea st the author e ity of X nophon for the position he assigns him, that is, e 1 h e co w in his speech to the Gre ks (II, 3, 9) nfirms hat Xenophon had no doubt already heard from deserters and

. 8 captives (cf I, , 9 with I, 7, Is there any good reason for supposing that Tissa ph ernes made a false statement to ? ’ the Greeks The only au thority against Xenophon s state is Diodoru s i e ment , but since it is very quest onabl , as we s shall see below , whether Ctesias was the sou rce for thi

Diodoru s r particular statement of , or not , and the efore d e a n n oubtful wh ther it originated from eyewit ess , not ca n be i if i o o much stress la d on it . Indeed th s acc unt f 44

' Diodor u s n Tissa h ernes concerni g p be from Ctesias, it is 1 rather remarkable that Plutarch in the beginning of c . 4 ma kes no allusion to the rewards of Tissa ph er nes . As

v K a mmel moti e for this falsehood, as he calls it, considers the following : to flatter the Greeks and especially to give

ci l a lse/toa d o t/ze P er sia n cou r t credit to the offi a f f , which claimed tha t Cyrus fell by the hand of the king . The king

K a emmel . must then , infers , have remained on the field B u t does the official report claim that the king remained ? 1 1 6 e on the field In Ar ta x . 4 and we have b yond f a ll doubt the o ficial falsehood as Ctesias gave it . “ When the king rewards the Carian he says : I give

‘ z these things to you as second pri e for good tidings , for first Arta syra s and after him you announced to me the ” dea th of Cyrus . These words have meaning only on the supposition that the king was not present at the death of A his brother . rta syra s first brought to him the news of

a the death of Cyrus , the king says in the offici l report, and it follows then that the whole story of his lying wounded th e and in despair on the hill , of joyful announcement of Arta s ra s y , and the occurrences which took place in con ’ nection with Cyrus body, were not inconsistent with the

a court st tement . We must suppose this court statement

u : to have been abo t as follows the king was wounded, but in the contest he had struck Cyrus withou t knowing the fatal effect of the blow ; he himself w a s carried out of the

a nd i fight lay in bodily pain , consumed w th thirst, and

v Arta s ra s worse still belie ing all was lost , until y brought him the joyful news that Cyrus was dea d ; then came th e

Carian and confirmed it , and when the thirty, who had ’ Ar a s ra s been sent to ascertain the truth of t y report,

w d . returned , the king himself ent to the bo y If Tissa ph er nes really comma nded the troops of the Diodor u s king after his fall , as states , it is hard to find a reason why he should deny himself the glory of winning the day when this conflicted in no way with the claims h that t e king made . Since then Xenophon must have had many opportunities for learning the truth of the matter, and carefully collected and investigated reports of the battle 8 1 8 20 1 8 2 8— 1 10 . 1 1 1 2 (cf. Anab , 7, 3; , , 9 ; , , ; , , 9 ; , , 7 ; 1 1 0 , , as his narration was famous even in ancient its o times for clearness and simplicity in all its details , s “ that, as Plutarch says, he almost represents the battle before the eye and brings before the reader the events not as having ” taken place, but as taking place , we must prefer his report to iod Diodoru s . D oru s that of It seems very probable that , or

Ephorus, accepting the report that the king was carried from the field and knowing that Tissa ph er nes was the leading gen n eral on the Persian side, both in ra k and merits, arranged the matter as seemed to him most probable . The explanation

Tissa h er nes w a s that p really commanded the left wing, but with the part of it nearest the centre and hence was not th e borne away by the attack of Greeks, is not satisfactory

K a emmel Ar ia eu s ( In the army of Cyrus, who had command of the left wing stood with a body of cavalry on x the e treme left ; Clearchus, who seems to have been n appointed by Cyrus as comma der of the whole right wing, stood near the extreme right of the Greeks ; so we might i h n infer that T ssa p er es w a s placed . The king and Cyru s

- each stood with a body guard of cavalry about them, and so far as I can discover it seems to have been a custom with the Persians that the leading commanders stand w ith v n the ca alry , the ki g of course occupying the centre of ’ the line of battle . Now Xenophons authority for the po sition of the Per sian cavalry of the left wing is indispu

table , inasmuch as he could see this himself and learn its

movements from the Greeks of that part of the line , and when Tissa ph er nes says he was in command of this body

s there is positively no rea on to doubt his truth . The ex planation of the phrase 11 v 83 1 653 01101 éEtxvei otla t : befor e a n ’ a r r ow r ea c/tea tlzem é eca a se t/ze w er e s o nea h e , y r t a t tlz ’ w /zol e troll e ew li a r ml ess over t/i ei r lzea a s ex y fl , by which

Diodoru s planation Xenophon and are to be made to agree, I need not stop to consider ; for it is as certain that it can 46

h never gain credit , as t at Xenophon never intended it to

be so understood . ’ f’ The expression 0x388v 8 61 3 1 0161 01 i v qltto; 38631 0 “ K ze mm el translates to suit his combination theory : About th e time when these things were taking place th e sun h a d

set . This would probably never have occurred to any one who was not trying to reconcile Ctesias and Diodor u s is t with Xenophon ; but at any rate the proof at hand, hat Xenophon meant that the sun set just as from th e top of the hill the announcement was made to Clearchu s

a e th t the Persians were fleeing at full sp ed over the plain. When the Greeks in their second pursuit of th e Per

ac sa w e sians re hed the village and halted , they , th y said, “ on the su rmn it of a hill above the village the royal stan ” someth in lik e a olden ea le dard, g g g placed on a staff. If the sun had already gone dow n half an hour how could they recogniz e the golden eagle ? There can be no doubt that it was the gleaming of the golden eagle in

n u . B th e the su light that made it conspic ous esides, time ’ when the Greeks reached their camp after the day s work

was ended is a proof of the correctness of this view . This ‘ expression oipcpt 86p111q01 0v does not accord with the com K mmmel u bination theory, for, says , if the purs it came to — a standstill about half an hour after sunset (6 50) the Greeks would not have time to deliberate what they should

do and get back to their camp by supper time . Of course

su n not , but if the set when Xenophon said it did , there

was ample time . Compare the movements , which, accord x ing to Xenophon, the Greeks e ecuted between the middle u of the afternoon and sunset, that is in abo t 3 hours, and there will seem to be no reason to doubt that the Greeks

B u t a a n o r a ter s nse no mea ns a or s i t es as 1) h lf h u f u t by cc d w h Ct i , for th e ki ng is represented by h im a s sendi ng off 30 a ttenda nts with torch

s a nd a er w a r s mse en om a sse m es en n rom light ft d hi lf c p d with uch light , d c di g f

a sa me in a ll r X a s th t hill ( p oba bili ty) to which en . llude ( see Ai nswor th) ; so a K a emmel s o a e sa a t ea s a n o r a f er s nse th t h uld h v id l t h u t u t , which o B w uld a g ree with iod .

a s Ephorus, just Xenophon did , took from Ctesias what he considered trustworthy and rejected the rest .

X I V 23 0. Ctesia s P la t c Di odoru s , , ( . .

Cyrus and the king occu The king knew nothing of pying the centre of their the victory of the Greeks at respective forces saw wh at this time and only about the had happened (the victory time he learned the death of s of the Greeks) and hastened Cyru did he hear of it . 0 against each other , h ping to decide the battle by a single contest .

C. 13 23 7 . . .

Tissa ph ernes succeeded to Ctesias represents the royal f s d the command, a ter the king troop as efeated and only

a retired, and by great v lor stopped in their headlong ’ won the day . flight by the king s showing

them the head of Cyrus, so that he could not have been the authority for the part Diodor u s assigns to Tissa

ph er nes .

23 8 I! . , . C.

Cyrus elated by the victory Cyrus surrounded by ene of those about h im rushed mies is borne away by his

steed not in to the midst of his ene highmettled / recog a nd s niz ed mies at fir t recklessly by his enemies , as it bold slew many, but after was already getting dark,

s wa rds incurring danger too a nd s ought by h i fr iends . a a nd r shly, was struck by some Riding hither thither, one of the common soldiers his tiara happened to fall and fell . from his head and a young By h is death the troops of Persian named Mithridates e the king were ncouraged, struck him on the temple

Ar ia eu s . and , who was in by the eye , and he fell 49

i odor us X V 23 8 D I , , . command on the left wing of Recovering and attempting w c Cyrus , resisted for a hile, to go forward, he was stru k n K nu but whe the enemy began again by a a ian , and a flank movement and he had fa lling struck his wou nded learned the death of Cyrus, temple against a stone and

w . he fled ith his own troops died . Ctesia s represents Ar ia eu s as taking part in the conflict

with the king in the centre, and the death of Cyrus as not known to the royal

troops .

C. 13 .

Nu m ber of th e slain of the Ctesias sa ys th e official

1 000. w a s 000 royal troops 5 report 9 , he himself

estimated at 20 000. Night was coming on a s the It w a s already getting dar k a C Persi ns, after plundering y when the first conflict took ’ 8 01161 00 rus camp, began to move place ( 54 ; out aga inst the Greeks (1)8~ q vu 11r 8g

Tha t Ephorus did not follow Ctesias exclusively is thus L quite manifest . The fact that the acedaemonians are brought into prominence does not point necessarily to th e a Ctesias as authority for Ephorus, for same thing p pears in the narra tion of Ephorus after the capture of the ’ i generals, where Ctesias account ended ; for nstance Chiri soph u s the Spartan is represented as chosen commander

1 a E or s mea n 81 v0111 8 3113718060 n w a s now ) Th t ph u t by 6) ; nc, ig ht ” “ om n on is ea r rom th e fa a h e sa s a ea r s see n c i g , cl f ct th t y th t Cl chu , i g ( Gemprb v) tha t th e centre w as broken a nd th e rest of th e allies rout s o e th e rs h ad b en a rea e n da r en th e a a k t pp d pu u it . If it e l dy g tti g k wh tt c 50 of the Greeks in the place of Clearchus and no mention is made of Xenophon .

The account seems to me to have rather a Greek, than a Persian coloring , and is in many points so like ’ n a Xe ophon s description, that one might believe it was l rge l a s th e y copied from him, though disagreements, such

Tissa h er nes th e a s part performed by p , times signed for the ff ff di erent events, the ditch dug by the king, slight di erences with regard to the interview with P h a linu s ; as well as many in other points where he is fuller than Xenophon , as for stance with regard to the rewarding of Tissa ph er nes and

a the pl ns for the destruction of the Greeks , above all, ’ v howe er , the fact that Xenophon s part and merits in the

a retre t are totally ignored , make it altogether improbable that Xenophon was before him . The most probable view

ii r A n i . seems to be that of K r g e (De u th e t a Ana b Xenoph . ) and V olqu a rdsen (Untersuchungen tiber die Q u ellen Dio dors 65and 1 31) who consider SOph a enetu s in his Ana ba sis the chief source for Ephorus in the extract given by d Dio oru s .

D i n o n .

Ar ta xerx es c . 1 0 .

The extract from Dinon which Pluta rch gives is ver y

a short, but in the main points grees very nearly with that

d n h of Xenophon, that is the king remaine o t e field and w a s a present at the de th of Cyrus . In both these points he differs from the royal report which Ctesias profess es to

t a give , as also in s ating that the C rian , who cla imed tha t

he had killed Cyrus , was rewarded for that service and

of r s w as ma e ea r s o not a e seen a n t th e Cy u d , Cl chu c uld h v ythi ng a dista nce

na me soon a f er th e ers ns reforme to ma r d ; t , P ia d ch ag a inst th e Greeks a nd

en th e n w as om n on o s e me for t th ight c i g , which w uld j u t lea v ti h e opera ons es r e Diodoru s ti d c ib d by . not a s a messenger of good tidings . The report mentioned by him, that Cyrus fell by the hand of the king, may have

something to do with the royal official report .

u s ti n u s V 1 1 ! , .

is His account very short and unsatisfactory, but agrees

n Dinon a nd Diodoru s with Xenopho , in the fact that Cyrus

1 died in the thick of the fight . )

f There are our authors then, besides Ctesias, who give

th e : E h o more or less full accounts of battle Xenophon, p B n rus, ino and Justinus, all of whom agree in stating that th e i Cyrus fell in m dst of the ba ttle . The probability against the truthfulness of Ctesias becomes stronger when h is a we consider that full n rration was before Xenophon, w who even quoted from him in two particulars , the ound

is of the king and the number of the slain , that there scarcely any doubt that his history was in the hands of

a Ephorus , who made use of him in more particul rs than Dinon Xenophon did, that also was most probablyacquainted t ff wi h his work ; yet these all agree, while di ering in some ’ ’

s r . other respects, in rejecting Ctesia sto y of Cyrus fall If the integr ity of Ctesias as a writer were unimpeached his testimony would outweigh that of the four others a ll

a a s th e combined , in smuch he was only eyewitness of them a ll and had every opportunity to know the exact

u h truth . B t between him and Xenophon t ere are grave

and irreconcilable differences in point of time . Ctesias says

a x w a s for instance , when Art erxes carried wounded from

’ 1 ) I thi nk !usti n us a ccoun t must be tra ced to Ephorus a s sour ce ; for

th e s or a r s w a s re a r n se re to m a e w a r on r a er es t y th t Cy u p p i g c tly k up A t x x , ’ efore h e h a d een a se Tissa h ernes of o n a a ns th e n s e b b ccu d by p pl tti g g i t ki g lif ,

a nd a s w a s a nn o n e to th e n a rees e a E or s i n th t thi u c d ki g , g x ctly with ph u

Diod or u s 1 1 a nd 1 2 a so th e a s on to th e o e a of XIV, , 3 9, ; l llu i d ubl pl y

th e S a r a ns i s i n e a a or B od . 2 1 2 ere E or s w as p t x ct cc d with i XIV, , , wh ph u

o o so r e for Di od ru with ut d ubt u c o s . the field and Cyrus was borne away by h is ungovernable

a l r e d horse into the midst of his enemies , that it was a y ’ ettin a a r h so th a t h e w a s not r eco niz ed h h is enemi es g g , g y and sought by his fr iends ; a ccording to Xenophon it was n the just about the middle of the afternoon , or very little

r s later . Ctesias says that when Cy us w a wounded the

w a s o K a u nia ns second time it so dark , that nly when the came quite clos e could they distinguish white tunics from purple ; tha t the events which followed about the king and the body of Cyrus took place by torchlight ; whereas Xeno phon says that before sundown the Persians had fled from this very hill (in all probability the sa me I ) where the king

r v a ou r is repo ted to ha e l in, and at least an h r befo e, over th e very r egion where Ctesias says all these events took b e place, the royal army had passed in their second flight t fore the little band of Greeks . Again the statement tha all the friends and table companions of Cyrus fell over h is ’ a Arta a tes ci e body, especi lly p , cannot be recon l d with Ctesias r eport ; for it is perfectly plain that a ccording to him no contest took place over Cyrus when he was wounded by Mith

i mmel 68 1 . a t r da tes (cf. K ae ) The l ter did not know who he was a nd a n - of only ascert i ed from the saddle cover , which one

. We his followers picked up, that it was Cyrus he had struck cannot suppose a contest after this when the Carian stru ck him ; for it is stated that only a few eunuchs were w ith Arta s r as c i him then , and y finds these same eunu hs sitt ng mourning by the corpse of their dead master . I cannot ’ see that Xenophon s opportunities for learning how these friends of Cyrus died, were not as good as those of Ctesias, and the probability that he would tell the truth is certainly greater .

1 R eh da ntz E n e n z u r na a s s I 66 n s th e sa me. ) ( i l itu g A b i XXXI I, ) thi k it

K a emmel o . 6 sa s th e r o a roo s m s a e a sse o er ( Phil l XXXIV, 53 ) y y l t p u t h v p d v

s er s o in r Th e firs u rsu thi v y p t their second flig ht before th e G eeks . t p it

a sse a on th e a n s of th e E ra es in th e se on onfl th e p d l g b k uph t , but c d c ict

ree s e r a s o a r t er e th e a a nd r G k with th i b ck t w d h e r iv b g a n tta ck pu su it . 53

These are not points in which one of the narrators

might have made a mistake , but they are directly contra dictor w a s y; if one true, then the other was necessarily

f . Th and s alse e time of the day, especially the sun et, was a fact about w hich Xenophon could not w ell have made a mistake , and the events related agree perfectly with his ’ 1 of account. Ctesias statement (c . 3) that the troops the king were astonished when he showed them the head of

r Cy us and that quickly collected about him, leaving out all considerations of time, cannot be made to agree with the other reports of the battle ; for t h is means that they did not know Cyrus was dead and were in doubt and a nd fleeing, only the sight of the gory head of their ene ’ mies leader , whom they thought alive and victorious, in

a w or the h nds of their king, hom they supposed dead , in

flight, brought them to a stand . ’ Th e only manner in which Ctesias account can be brou ght into any sort of connection with that of Xenophon

Diodor u s v and is to suppose , that after the e ents quoted

r h th e f om him by Plutarc , king went back into the camp of Cyrus and after that followed the plunder ing of the i b e camp, the second meeting with the Greeks, and fl ght

B u t Diodoru s . fore them , as told by Xenophon and the late hour of the night , the fact that this presupposes a defeat of the whole royal line and not of the left wing alone and requires a much longer space of time tha n a o tu a lly elapsed between the first attack of Cyrus upon the centre and the plundering of the camp makes this suppo sition n impossible . O the other hand we must suppose

a that Ctesi s gave no account, or at least the most confused, of x the battle itself, mi ed up the two contests with the

1 ) Th e events rel a ted by Ctesia s could not by a ny mea ns b e embra ced in th e time a ll owed by Xenophon between th e beg inning of th e ba ttle a nd th e n er n of th e a m for th e ree s h a d a rea e n th e rs be plu d i g c p, G k l dy b g u pu uit

ore r s ma e th e a a on th e n a nd et h a d one on a ou 0 f Cy u d tt ck ki g , y g ly b t 3 sta dia when they a scer ta ined tha t th e r oya l troops were in thei r ca mp . ’ a a n Greeks, made the king s troops tot lly defeated and ignor t

ff n Diodoru s of the fall of Cyrus, di ered from Xe ophon and both as to facts and time . Under these circumstances we can have no hesitation in preferring the narration of Xeno ’

. t s s r s phon The whole story of Cyrus death, wi h Cte ia , est f w as of upon the oundation that it dark, which must course

1 be rejected . ) I believe the w hole thing is best understood on the w a m supposition that Ctesias, ishing to give highly dra atic

u f acco nt of the death of Cyrus , did not concern himsel about the facts of the case and constructed th e story to Was ? . t suit himself he capable of this Aristotle, An igonus,

L r ucian, Strabo spoke slightingly of his general integ ity as If ’ ’ 6 d a writer . we believe Plutarch s statement in c s a n 1 8 he was given to just such dramatic displays a t the ex pense of truth . He did r ender a most incredible dra matic account of the death and burial of Clearchus , and

we may well suppose that he, who to do honor to Clear c hus made so improbable a statement a s that Parysa tis murdered Stateira in revenge for the death of Clearchus, could without scruple dramatiz e the death of Cyru s. We get further insight into his drama tic proclivities and talent from the extract given by Demetrius P h a lereu s (De Elocu — tione 52 2 2 2 3) concerning the announcement of the death s of Cyrus to his mother , which might be true of cour e, but which no one will consider other than a dramatic

effort of Ctesia s . Nor does the a ffa ir of the embassy with P h alinu s incline us to a better impression of his truth fulness .

D i o d o r u s .

’ Having been forced in the consideration of Ctesias account of the fa ll of Cyrus to go pretty fully into an

x a b e e amin tion of other events of the battle , it may not out of place to add a few words here with regard to Dio

1 . no es of r o e 62 a nd r a ) Cf t G t (IX, ) Thi lw ll (IV,

56

w a s ment that there a short contest with missiles , then a n 2 hand to ha d combat (XIV, 3, is in direct contradiction ’ to Xenophon s assertion tha t the Persians ran before th e

a w 8 Greeks c me ithin bowshot (I, , With regard to the

Diodor u s a second meeting too there is a contradiction, s ying that t h e Greeks received the a tta ch of th e P er sia ns bravely n th 2 and soo put em to flight (XIV, 4, whereas Xeno phon says that the Greeks r u sh ed for w a r d to th e a tta ch with better will than at first and the Persians fled at a

a 1 0 ca n gre ter distance than before (I, , No doubt be ’ entertained w ith regard to Xenophon s accuracy in both c a nd m cases , for he took part in both atta ks was ost probably in th e centre with Proxenus . The motive Dio dorus assigns as actua ting the king and Cyrus in their

a r s comb t, namely that they, seeing the victory of the G eek ,

a hastened to decide the b ttle by a single contest (XIV, 2 ff 3, not only di ers from that assigned by Xenophon as actuating Cyrus, but could not have influenced th e king ;

. 10 s x. for according to Xenophon (Anab I, , Ctesia (Arta A r . . c . and Plutarch ( ta x c he knew nothing of the victory of the Greeks at this time . The role assigned to Tissa h er nes p is not credible, as we have seen above, being contradicted by Xenophon’s express statement and that of the satrap himself. The time as signed by Diodoru s for the different events is not only in direct contr a diction to Xeno phon , but incompatible with the occurrences which he him of self relates . The statement the trophy set u p by the

as 2 a e Greeks after the second pursuit ce ed (XIV, 4, 4) is sc rc l e r e th e y to be accept d , since Xenophon , who desc ib d minutest details of th e movements of the Greeks jus t at

s w o . IX 6 thi point, ould scarcely have mitted it Grote ( , 3 note) puts no faith in th e statement tha t most of the 1 5000 ’ e n e e s XIV d ad of the ki g s army wer slain by the Gr ek ( , “ ” “ 2 As s a e 4, the Greeks , say he, lost not man, th y e e in th e e could hardly hav kill d many pursuit, for th y had scarcely any cava lry and no great number of Pelta sts r n while Hoplites could not have ove taken the flying Persia s . V I T A .

Charles Forster Smith w a s born June 30 1 8 52 in Abbe U ville County , South Carolina , nited States of America . h th From his 7 t to his 16 year he availed himself with a s great regularity as possible of the rather limited educa tional 86 ct. 1 8 w facilities of that section . In O he as matr iculated th ff . C. 26 1 8 2 at Wo ord College, Spartanburg S , and June 7 , e w a s having finished the four y ars academic course , grad r Ar t m u a ted with the degree B a cca la u eu s i u . During the a t a 1 8 . ye r 73 he was engaged in teaching Greenwood S C . 1 8 Jan . 74 he entered Harvard University as a resident

a L gradu te and studied Greek , atin , German and English . 1 8 L z October 74 he was matriculated at eip ig University, a nd during the winter semester attended the lectures of Li i s f siu s r tz ch e. Pro essors Curtius , p and F The next se mester he attended for a few weeks in B erlin the lectures Z K . P 1 u tz . of Professors irchhof, E Curtius, eller, Grimm and

Oct. 1 Compelled to return to America, he accepted in 875 a position as teacher of Classics and German in Wofford

College . Four years of hard work put him in possession of the means of renewing his studies in Germany, and in 1 L z ct. 8 O 79 he was rematriculated at eip ig University . During the following semesters he attended the lectures

L Ga rdth a u sen of Professors Voigt, Curtius, ange, Windisch, a nd 1 8 i Meyer, in the winter semester 79 attended as rregular member the r 6misch - antiquarische Gesellschaft of Professor Lange and the Seminar of Professor Curtius and at the opening of the summer semester 1 880 became a regular mem ber of the grammatische Gesellschaft of Professor Curtius . t ff He takes this opportuni y to o er to his instructors, t for both in Germany and America, sincerest hanks th e kindness and encoura gement which he h a s always received .