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 .