Study of Plutarch (1881) Transl Charles F Smith (microfilmed)

7/30/2019 Study of Plutarch (1881) Transl Charles F Smith (microfilmed)

1/38

MASTERNEGATIVENO. 91-80190


2/38

MICROFILMED 1992COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES/NEW YORK

as part of the"Foundations of Western Civilization Preservation Project"

Funded by theNATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE HUMANITIESReproductions may not be made without permission fromColumbia University Library


3/38

COPYRIGHT STATEMENTThe copyright law of the United States ~ Title 17, UnitedStates Code - concerns the making of photocopies or otherreproductions of copyrighted material...

Columbia University Library reserves the right to refuse toaccept a copy order if, in its judgement, fulfillment of the orderwould involve violation of the copyright law.


4/38

AUTHOR:SMITH, CHARLESTITLE:STUDY OF PLUTARCH'SLIFE OF ARTAXERXESPLACE:LEIPZIGDATE1881


5/38

m^-^^'W^^

Restrictions on Use:

Master Negative #

COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY LIBRARIESPRESERVATION DEPARTMENTBIBLIOGRAPHIC MICROFORM TARGET

Original Material as Filmed - Existing Bibliographic Record

r' ' ^ w '^ l^"'V ' I >m^ff0^m^mi'mm^if^w

88P71TZ

.--_

88P71KZV . 2

Smith, Charles Forster, 1852-1931

.

A study of Plutarch's Life of Artaxerxes, with especial ref-erence to the sources ... Leipzio:, Printed by Metzger & Wit-tig, 1881.

'

1 p. 1., 56 p., 1 1. 22.Inaug.-diss.Leipzig.Vita.Volume of pamphlets .Another copy . Volume of pamphlets .1. jirtnxerxes i. kinp of Persia, tl. ii. c. 42'? 2. Plutnrchiis. Vltae.

parallelae. /^rTAx-rx*^:^.

Library of Congress I . I)S25W.P7SCia37*bl-i

1919912

TECHNICAL MICROFORM DATAFILM SlZE:_,2i^^jyiI^^ REDUCTION RATIO:IMAGE PLACEMENT: lA >4lA? IB IIBDATE FILMED:^^_-J^_-_J5z. INITIALS^:r)O0./.j3_v__.HLMEDBY: RESEARCH PUBLICATIONS. INC WOODBRIDGE. CT

\ I


6/38

1

r

Association for information and image Management1100 Wayne Avenue. Suite 1100Silver Spring, Maryland 20910

301/587-8202

Centimeter12 3 4iiii iiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiTTT

Inches1

5ilii

6 7 8 9iiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiilii

1.0

I.I

1.25

m 10IlllllllllllllTTT 11 12 13 14 15 mm1^63

no

2mI4

1.4

2.5

2.2

2.0

1.8

1.6

n I ill!


7/38

c ./ vt"XA STUDY OF PLUTARCH^SLIFE OF ARTAXERXES

WITH ESPECIALREFERENCE TO THE SOURCES.

\FOR THE ACQUISITION OF THE DEGREE

OFDOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY FROM LEIPZIG UNIVERSITY

A DISSERTATIONBY

CHARLES FORSTER SMITHOF SPARTANBURG (S. C.) U.S. A.

J

^LEIPZIG

PRINTED BY METZGER & WITTIG.1881.


8/38

s^

t

^^

An investigation of the sources used by Plutarch in thelife of Artaxerxes is attended with much difficulty. Thoughone has little doubt after reading the Life that he will haveto do mainly with Ctesias and Dinon, yet the meagreexcerpts from Ctesias (in Photius) on the one handoffer little, and the fragments of Dinon on the otheralmost no opportunity of making a comparison. Withregard to Heraclides, who is once mentioned in theLife, we are still worse off. As to Xenophon, a compari-son only proves that what Plutarch has from him in theArtaxerxes was taken principally at second hand throughsome other source.

It seems to me however that the Life bears manymarks of a general use of one leading authority by Plu-tarch and that his mention of other authors is generallyowing to these being cited either in praise or blame byhis general guide not an unusual thing with him. Thisis the general principle by which I have been guided inthe investigation, but after all it must be confessed thatthe question is largely one of probabilities.

Haug's ') work seems to me to have settled many pointsin which Plutarch is indebted to Ctesias, but errs, 1 believe,in assigning too much to this source a natural conse-quence of the assumption that Ctesias was the leadingauthority for the first 20 chapters.

1) M. Haug, Die Quellen Plutarchs in den Lebensbeschreibungen derGriechen, 87 ff. Tubingen 1854.


9/38

v^ 2

On the other hand he docs not give Dinon sufficientcredit for what he contributed to the former half of theLife, nor does he attempt by a close investigation of sep-arate chapters to show that Dinon was, what he assumes,the chief source for the latter half. Schottin^ has in themain followed Ilaug and has added nothing really of valueto his investigation of the sources. It seems to me we arejustified by Plutarch's bearing toward Ctesias to suspect inDinon the leading source for the whole Life, and a closeinvestigation confirms the opinion.

In the proper place 1 will attempt to account for thefact that Plutarch's narration of the battle^'and its imme-diate consequences at the Persian court is almost entirelyfrom Ctesias. The account of the battle seems to me tothrow light upon the character of Ctesias as a historian.As the discovery of the cuneiform inscriptions prove Hero-dotus to have been nearly always right, while Ctesias musthave intended wilfully to deceive; so here a close compar-ison with Xenophon's masterly description of the battle ofCunaxa leaves no doubt in my mind that Ctesias was guiltyof great perversion of facts, in order to give a dramaticaccount of the fall of Cyrus. I have therefore devoted thesecond part of this dissertation to a consideration of thedifferent accounts of the battle, taking issue mainly withDr. Kcemmel in his two interesting articles in Philolo-gus XXXIV. Without further introduction I proceed nowto the consideration of the different sources.

i) Schottin, Observationes de Plutarchi Vita Artaxerxis. Bautzen 1865.

1

K

I.

DINON.MiJLLER, Hist. Grace. Frag. II. 88 seqq.

With regard to Dinon's native land we have only thefact that he is cited several times by Pliny (Nat. Hist. cf. Schaefer, Quellenkunde der griech. Geschichte 60) asDinon Colophonius. C. Muller [Clit. Frag. 74. Anhang zuArrian (ed. Dubner, Paris 1846)] thinks that for some timehe lived in Egypt, at least that his son Clitarch was bornthere. The work of his with which we have to do was entitledIhpatxa and extended from the foundation of the Assyrianmonarchy (fr. i) to the Conquest of Egypt by ArtaxerxesOchus 340 B. C. (fr. 30). He seems to have been the chiefsource for Plutarch in the life of Artaxerxes, for the latternever censures him, as he does Ctesias, though the frag-ments which we have from him seem scarcely to justifythat confidence. The only advantage he seems to enjoyover Ctesias in point of historical fidelity is that no instanceof willful falsehood is recorded against him, while severalseem pretty evident against Ctesias. For the expedition ofCyrus, so far as he treated of it, Dinon's authority was nodoubt Xenophon, and for affairs at the Persian court oneof his sources was probably the physician Polycritns men-tioned in c. 21 of the Artaxerxes.

It is a disputed question whether the Polycritus Men-daeus there mentioned was the same as the author of a

N. ^


10/38

4 -history of Sicilian affairs, though it is not improbable thathe was (cf. C. Miiller, Anhang zu Arrian 129 note).Muller (Hist. Gr. Frag, under Dinon; and again under Po-l>xritus in Anhang /u Arrian 129; also advances the opinionthat Dinon was acquainted with the history of Ctesias andthat from him originally flowed, in part at least, Plutarch'sharsh criticisms of Ctesias. The strongest evidence of thisseems to be the charge advanced against Ctesias in c. 21which is as follows: khzxrxi 02 o K-r.îa: tt^v etti^toXt^vIrxîmj Ka(i77f>a'!/0it toT; otto too Kovcovo: 7i23Ta>v[Xvoic, otto;AOLi kr/i3iav otTuoarsiA/; Trpo; auTov, m? to'fSAiiiov ovra lal; -1DaXaaa-fj :rpa;aiv. '0 ok krrîiGt; a'^rov acp' iauroG 'âtsiUa7iav atirm raurr^v.

This charge was evidently made by some one acquain-ted with Ctesias' narration of the negotiations betweenConon and the king. The author was besides no doubtthe same who stated that Conon's letter was to be deliv-ered by Ctesias, only in case neither Polycritus nor Zenowere present; for it is not at all probable that Ctesias'excessive vanity would have allowed him to make such astatement about himself. Besides we see from exc. 03 ofPhotius, that Ctesias stated, that a letter had already beensent to himself by Conon, before the one alluded to byPlutarch, and that he had spoken to the king concerningConon. It is not likely that he, who claimed to have beenalready in friendly correspondence with and engaged inthe business of Conon, would state that he gave such aninjunction about the delivery of his letter.

As Dinon was constantly before Plutarch in this life,is mentioned in the next chapter, and certainly wrote aboutthe connection of Conon with the Persians ^Cornelius Nepos,Conon 5, 4*; furthermore because the censures which Plu-tarch advanced against Ctesias in c's i, 6 and 13, justwhere Dinon is introduced as differing from Ctesias, causeus to suspect in Dinon an unfriendly disposition towardCtesias; we are inclined to look to him as the author ofthis charge.

ik

5 -Then we find, I have no doubt, in c. 13 the expla-

nation of Conon's injunction, namely that Ctesias was aphilo-lacone, and Conon feared to intrust, except in caseof necessity, to a partisan of Sparta a letter the object ofwhich was to win the alliance of the king against theSpartans.') After noticing in c's i and 6 the severe criti-cisms uttered against Ctesias, just where Dinon is repre-sented as differing from him and where there can be littledoubt that he is the author of the criticisms, it seems clearthat we have in c. 13 two more instances of censure ofCtesias on the part of Dinon, and an appeal to Xenophwi'sauthority. In the one case, as to the number of the royaltroops, Plutarch says there may be doubt, but the other hebrands as false. I believe then that this charge againstCtesias of being a philo-lacone explains Conon's directionabout his letter, and that the author for the charge in c. 13is Dinon. In c. 19 we have very probably some morespecimens of Dinon's detail faultfinding with Ctesias. Inc. 22 Dinon mentions the hatred of the king toward theSpartans, and the further relation of the conduct of Antal-cidas at the Persian court seems to betray the opponentof Sparta, whom we recognize in the charge of philola-conism in c. 13. P'rom the manner in which Plutarch usedCtesias as authority in c's 11, 12, 1419 it seems morenatural to seek the source for his harsh criticisms of thatone in some other than himself. Besides it is hardly chancethat these two differ so constantly and in such slight par-ticulars, and that Plutarch introduces so often the opposingstatements of just these two out of all the number whowrote about many of these events.

Of Dinon's use of Xenophon we have almost absoluteproof in the following passage from c. 13: "The accountsof Dinon and Xenophon make the combatants far more."It is not distinctly affirmed that Xenophon and Dinon gavethe same number, but it is implied, and we may confidently

i) See also Keltig, Ctesiae Cnidii vita p. 19.

\>^^


11/38

\'

6 affirm that the number qoo^cxX) is not here opposed tothe 400,000 of Ctesias, simply because that number hadalready been given in c. 7. There are besides several pas-sages in which Plutarch relates the same things that Xe-nophon had told, only a little fuller, as if the latter hadbeen supplemented from the Persian side; in some instancesindeed the very words of Xenophon being found, whereit is perfectly clear that he was not the source, directly atleast, of Plutarch. These passages will be considered underthe separate chapters. Dinon's use of Xenophon would,with Plutarch's great admiration of that author and hisreputation for historical integrity, tend to inspire Plutarch'sconfidence and induce him to trust more readily to Dinon'sabuse of Ctesias; and this is probably one explanation ofthe fact that Plutarch not once finds fault with Dinon, butcensures Ctesias repeatedly and sometimes seemingly withoutcause.

With regard to Plutarch's general manner of using hissources K. F. Hermann (de fontibus vitac Periclis p. IV)very aptly says: "Si quem auctorem Plutarchus nominat,non ostentandi causa facit, neque ut fidem narrationi suaeapud lectorem conciliet, sed aut eorum, quorum vcritatemipse praestare nolit, fontem indicaturus, aut ubi res in con-troversia posita est indicium suum testimonio suo confir-maturus, in narrando autem nisi quid ambigue relictum sit,vel verba aliena tamquam sua usurpare non dubitat." Soin the life of Pericles Stesiinbrotiis Thasius and Duris ofSamoSj whom he names oftenest, he really uses least of all,but Thucydides and P^phorus he follows generally withoutnaming them; so he followed Xenophon in various lives,and so he seems to have used Dinon in the greater partof this life. After these general remarks we enter into aninvestigation of the chapters separately.

C. 1. It is strange that Plutarch while accepting theauthority of Ctesias with regard to the name of Artaxerxesbefore he became king, should yet for the brothers of theking, Ostanes and Oxathrcs, have adopted totally different

"->

7 forms from those given by Ctesias. Certainly Ostanes differsas much from Artostes, as Arsikas from Oarses, and Ctesiashad as good apportunity to know the correct form of theone as of the other. The explanation I imagine to be this:with regard to the king's name, which went out of useafter he ascended the throne, Plutarch could depend bestupon Ctesias, the physician of the king, who had the bestopportunities to know; but with regard to the others itwas different, as they continued to bear the same names.The form Ostanes is found in Diodorus XVII, 5 and Oxa-thres in XVII, 34. These seem to have been then the formsof the names in common use, among the Greeks at least,and this fact probably decided Plutarch's choice. It isnoteworthy that these same forms occur again in c. 5,where there is great probability that Dinon was beforePlutarch, and Ostanes again in c. 22 where Dinon is intro-duced by name, though not in connection with Ostanes ofcourse.') The case becomes more probable for Dinon assource for these names when we compare the manner inwhich he differed from Ctesias in this chapter with regardto the name Oarses, and in c. 19 as to Melantas, Thephrase Aapetoo yap xai napoadxioo; uaioe; eYSVOvro teaaape?,TrpeapuxaTo; [xsv 'Apio^sp^Tj?, {1t exslvov oe K^po; is takenfrom the opening sentence of Xenophon's Anabasis, butthere is no other trace of Xenophon in this chapter; inthis very sentence, however, occur the names Ostanes andOxathrcs, and the best explanation seems to be, that thissentence, as Plutarch has it, came from Xenophon throughDinon. The manner in which Dinon is introduced here("although Dinon says that he was called Oarses") seems

1) We must be careful, however, not to take too readily the form ofthese names as conclusive evidence, wherever they occur, that Ctesias wasnot the authority, for in C. 17 where Plutarch relates the story of thepunishment of the eunuch MaoagcxTT;;, Ctesias was almost certamlythe authority of Plutarch, though the eunuch was called by Ctesias B a y a -7t d X Tj ;.

.^


12/38

^

- 8 -to imply a contradiction of Ctesias by Dinon, and the harshcriticism which follows originated no doubt with him.

r. 2. 'H OS [it]ty]p ottt^p/e tov Kupov jxdXXov -J^iXouaaxat pouXofiivT^ |3aaiXUiv sxsivov originated no doubt in Anab.I, I, 4. The following statement, that Cyrus having beensent for by his father went up to him, seems to have ref-erence to Anab. I, l, 2; but of the remainder, that hehoped to be appointed to the kingdom, Xenophon saysnothing, as he knows nothing of the intrigues of Cyrus'mother in his favor. Here then in two successive chaptersthe very words of Xenophon are used to form parts ofsentences, which contain yet other statements of which heknows nothing.

In the excerpts of Photius Ctesias makes no allusion tothe hopes of Cyrus, or the intrigues of his mother, yet itis very strange that the excerptor should have omittedsuch important statements, if Ctesias had made them. Thereseems to be evident in Ctesias, as in Xenophon, a desireto put the case of Cyrus in as favorable a light as pos-sible; they agree so nearly in their narration of these occur-rences, that it seems only natural to suppose they musthave had the same motive. They both mention simply theaccusation of Cyrus by Tissaphernes, from which accusationXenophon says that his mother "begged him off", Ctesias,however, that he "was acquitted of the charge" by hismother. It may be noticed further that in the scene whereCtesias makes the messenger announce to Parysatis thedeath of Cyrus (Dem. Phal. de Eloc. S 222223), when hestated that Cyrus was victorious and that the king had fled,she distinctly assigned the blame for all the evil that hadbefallen the king to Tissaphernes, as if his false accusationand the dishonor which fell upon Cyrus in consequence,were the sole causes of the insurrection of the latter.Certain it is that the case against Cyrus is stated much moreplainly in this and the following chapters of Plutarch, thaneither Ctesias or Xenophon gave it.

The allusion to Demaratus is a still further indication

i

V /

9 against the use of Ctesias here, for we see from exc. 23,that Ctesias said that Demaratus came to Xerxes first atAbydus, when he was marching against Greece, while thisaccount assumes that he was at the Persian court, beforethe expedition of Darms into Greece. Herodotus (VII, 3)states that on the advice of Demaratus, who went to Susawhile Darius was still alive, Xerxes was appointed to thethrone to the exclusion of an elder brother, who was bornbefore Darius became king. It is not at all improbablethat the statement of Ctesias with regard to Demaratuswas meant to be a contradiction of Herodotus, as was sooften the case in his history, and that we have here Dinon'scontradiction of Ctesias in turn.

If in this connection the beginning of c. 26 be read,we find a marked similarity in the occurences, related, witha manifest reference to this place, for there it is said: "Thewell disposed thought that, as he had received it, so heought to leave the kingdom to Darius as right of the eldest;"and the attempt of Cyrus to come into power through theinfluence of his mother is just the parallel to that of Ochusto get the appointment by the assistance of Atossa; whencewe might infer the same authority in both passages.

C. 3. The allusion to Athena looks to Dinon, inasmuchas we should expect from Ctesias the Persian name of thedeity. See also in this connection the allusion to tiera inc. 23 and to Artemis in c. 27. These Greek names forPersian deities are just what we would expect from thegraecising Dinon. The whole consecration scene is assignedby Hajig to Ctesias, because "the account betrays one wellacquainted with Persian customs and usages," but in thishe can hardly be correct. In the excerpts of Ctesias thereis no allusion to this scene, and it seems hardly probablethe excerptor would have omitted it, had Ctesias describedit. Besides, the words of Plutarch: "Some say, that thearrest was made after this accusation, others that Cyruswent into the temple and was betrayed in his concealmentby the priest", show that more than one author described


13/38

s

lO the scene. It may be accepted at any rate that Ctesiasdid not make the statement that Cyrus was betrayed inhis place of concealment by the priest, for in that case hecould not well have said that Cyrus was "acquitted ot thecharge". That Dinon had written about this scene seemsclear if we compare with c. 6. There Dinon states thatParysatis plotted against and murdered Statcira, being angrywith her on account of her reproaches with regard to theintercession for Cyrus on this occasion.

From the connection it is clear that Dinon was atleast in part authority for the statement of Stateira's re-proaches which aroused in I'arysatis so deadly a hatred,and he must then also have narrated the scene to whichthese reproaches refer, that is, the accusation of Tissapher-nes and the intercession of Parysatis.

The allusions here and in c. 6 to Cyrus' knowledgeof Magism are significant, if we compare with fragm. 5, 8,9, 10 of Dinon, from which it is evident that he paid con-siderable attention to this religion.C 4. Mildness is represented as a quality of Artaxerxesin c's 2, 4 and 30, in the last Dinon being without doubtthe authority. On the other hand the first act of his men-tioned by Ctesias was one of exceeding cruelty (exc. 57).Haug (p. 91) says: "Die Schilderung von Artaxerxes Cha-rakter, die seine Tugenden in das glanzendste Licht stellt,verrath den Ktesias. Dinon war sicherlich ein Lobrednerdes Konigs, dem er so viel zu verdanken hatte.'' This Ithink doubtful. The sympathies of Ctesias were with Cyrusand Clearchus. In addition to what is stated above withregard to his position toward Cyrus, consider the mannerin which he denied the king the honor of having killedCyrus (c's 11 and 14); the statement that many revoltedfrom the king to Cyrus, but from Cyrus to the king noone (exc. 58); that as far as we can make out of his ac-count of the battle of Cunaxa he put everything in a muchless favorable light for the king, than the facts seem tohave warranted; and the murders which he relates that

^

II Parysatis committed against all who had anything to dowith the death of Cyrus. For these must be viewed notsimply as a recital of the cruelties of Parysatis; but, as the

death of Stateira is attributed by Ctesias to revengefor

the death of Clearchus, so these punishments must belooked upon as showing especially how fearfully Parysatisavenged the death of her son. At any rate we would assoon expect a favorable characterization of Artaxerxes fromthe authority for c's 24 and 25, as from any other source.

The story of the oath of Artaxerxes by the godMithra Haug (p. 92) thinks an indication of an author wellversed in Persian affairs, and therefore he assumes this tobe Ctesias, and with him agrees Schottin (Observ. de Plut.vita Artax. p. 3). In fact this is the main reason why theyassign the whole characterization of the king to Ctesias.But Xenophon in Cyrop. VII, 5, 3 makes the elder Cyrusinvoke Mithra, as in Oecon. 4, 24 he makes the youngerCyrus, before the accession of Artaxerxes to the throne,invoke the same deity; and the same author in Anab. V,4, 24 and 35 mentions the rearing of horses for the king,to be sacrificed to this deity. Rawlinson (Anc. Mon. Lond.111% 348) says: "The worship of Mithra, or the sun,does not appear in the inscriptions until the reign ofArtaxerxes Mnemon, the victor of Cunaxa. It is howe-ver impossible to doubt that it was a portion of the Per-sian religion at least as early as the date of Herodotus".And in a note he adds: "None of the early kingsmention Mithra, yet his emblem appears on all the knownroyal tombs, except that of Cyrus. Note also the occur-rence of the name Mithridates ^given to, or by Mithra^ inthe reign of Cyrus (Ezra i, 8)." But that the image of thisgod was first set up by Artaxerxes Mnemon, and that hewas the first who invoked Mithra to be his protector, seemsclear from the inscription (Spiegel, Keilinschriften p. 65): "Bythe grace of Auramazda have I set up in this temple Ana-hita and Mithra. May Auramazda, Anahita and Mithraprotect me!" Berosus Chaldaeus (Hist. Graec. Min. II, 509)

/


14/38

^

12 states also, that Artaxerxes had set up images of Anahita,or Anaitis, in all the chief cities of his kingdom, amongothers at Ecbatana; and a temple of Anaitis at Ecbatanais alluded to by Plutarch in c. 27. Plutarch's authorityfor the statement about Anaitis in c. 27 might ver>' wellthen be supposed to be accûainted also with the worshipof Mithra. See also the allusion to the worship of the sunin c. 29; from which it is clear that there is no goodreason for assigning the story of the oath by Mithra toone author, rather than another. In fact Plutarch's author-ity in c. 29 must have had the very knowledge whichHaug would allow only to Ctesias.'"*

C, 5. The strongest evidence of the use of Dinon inthis chapter is the allusion to Tiribazus. This person isnot mentioned in the fragments of Ctesias, but he plays a^reat role in this life, and we have reason to believe didalso in Dinon's Persika (cf. C. Nepos, Conon 5, 4). He ismentioned in this biography in c's 5, 7, 10, 24, 27, 28, 29.In c. 10 he plays an important part which is not mentionedby Ctesias. The encouragement offered by Tiribazus to theking when he puts him upon his horse, after he had beenthrown down by Cyrus: "O king remember this day, forit is worthy not to be forgotten/' is so exactly in thestyle of his exhortation to risk a battle, that we unhesita-tingly assign both to the same source, hi c. 5 he is cha-racterized as uTTOxoocpo; xat irapaôpo?, in c. 24 as(iTToppffsi; Ota xou 90x7; tot, again in c. 27 as avtt)|i.aXo; xatTrapa'fopoc. In c. 7 Plutarch says concerning him: TYjpt-Pa!ôo 5s, >; cpaat, Trptotou ToX|Jir]aavTo; eiVsIv, (u; ou Bsl cpu-

YOfxa/stv X. T. k.f in c. 24 rr^pijSalô; avTjp TroXXaxt: jxiv ev7cpci)r-(] ot' avopaYaiK'av Ta;t Y'Vofxevo;, both which agreeexactly with the part Dinon makes him play in c. 10. Thisconstant agreement is explained only on the supposition

K

13 that Plutarch followed one general authority for the factsconnected witli Tiribazus, and is further an evidence of ageneral use of Dinon in different parts of this life. Besideswe may notice here the names Ostanes and Oxathres, thestatement that the king used to call his brothers to the

\ same table with himself being significant from the fact, thatOstanes is mentioned again in the same connection in c. 22,where Dinon is cited, and w as almost certainly the source.

C. 6. Rawlinson (Anc. Mon. Ill, 486, n. 10) doubts ifPlutarch had any authority for the statement that Cyrushad a party at court, but that can very well be thought,if we compare with the intrigues mentioned at the openingof c. 26 among the noble and powerful vassals. BesidesAnab. I, i, 5 seems to be a confirmation of this.

The number of the Greek troops of Cyrus (Anab. I,7, 10) and the statement that Tissaphernes went up toinform the king (Anab. I, 2, 4) would seem to be certainly

^ taken from Xenophon^); yet the statement that the ^Xj/^/^was sent to Clearchus, which is directly opposed to Xeno-phon's statement (Anab. I, i, 9), that Clearchus was a Lace-daemonian fugitive, makes it very doubtful whether Xenophonwas before Plutarch here. This allusion to the skytale givesrise to a very interesting question. The opinion has beenadvanced that the disobedience of Clearchus to the Spartanauthorities was only a made-out aft'air between Cyrus andSparta, that the suspicions of the Persian court might not> be aroused against Sparta. (Cf. Koch, Zug der Zehntausend,g 9.) This rhymes exactly with Ephorus (in Diod. XIV, 11)who states that Alcibiades revealed to Pharnabazus, that

I) /Elian. Hist. var. I, 23 tells this same story much fuller, but givesno clue as to the source. The story with which c. 5 opens is given alsovery fully in îilian, I list. Var. I, 32.

1) Ritschl, Opusc Philol. I, 447, thinks that the number of the Greektroops given by Plutarch at a "little less than 1 3 000" was taken fromDinon, concluding from Xenophon's disagreement with himself, that the12900 given in Anab. i, 7, 10, must be corrupt, and that 14.900 shouldbe read. But the close agreements between the text as we now have it andthe numbers given by Plutarch and Diodorus is a strong argument in favorof the present reading; though it is an interesting, but probably insolvableproblem, how to account for Xenophon's disagreement with himself.

\*_^


15/38

^

- 14 Cyrus, with the Lacedaemonians, was going to make waron the king, and with Diodorus XIV, 21, 2 (Ephonis againno doubt) who says the mercenary troops sent to Cyrusby Sparta were feigned to be sent by private persons, butin reahty were sent by the government, which was tryingto keep all things in the dark until it could be seen whatwould be the result of the expedition of Cyrus. See alsoJustinus V, II, who agrees perfectly with Djodorus. If thisbe probable, then, there is no reason to doubt that theskytale was really sent to Clearchus. But even if Clearchushad communicated this fact to Ctesias during his imprison-ment, the latter would hardly have divulged it in his his-tor>' through fear of the Spartans, with whom he seems tohave taken up his residence after his return to Greece.Compare the treatment of the returned Ten Thousand bySparta, which continued until hostilities again broke outbetween Sparta and Persia.

As Dinon however wrote about the same time withEphorus, the whole story had probably alread)' come tolieht. The reference to Dinon and Ctesias at the close ofthe chapter shows that both were before Plutarch, and ifit be improbable that Ctesias would make such a statementas that of the sk}'tale, we turn naturally to Dinon.

C. 7. That Xenophon was the source cither directlyor indirectly for the number of combatants in the royal army,for the disorderly manner in which the army of Cyrus wasmarching, the consternation caused by the sudden announce-ment that the king was near at hand, the quiet and or-derly manner in which his troops came forward, is per-fectly clear from a comparison with Xen. Anab. I, 7, 10 sqq.;but the totally different dimensions of the ditch given byPlutarch make it extremely doubtful, whether he consultedXenophon directly or not (cf. Schottin p. 9). It is hard toconceive a reason why Plutarch, who expresses such con-fidence in Xenophon with regard to his narrative of thebattle, should not adopt his dimensions for the ditch, athing which he certainly had the best opportunity to know.

W>

>

}

A

15 Ritschl ^Opusc. Philol. I, 447) supposes the 900000 wastaken directly from Dinon, and thinks he may have hadXenophon as source. E. Curtius [Gr. Gesch. Ill, 4, 135(n. 79)] considers Dinon to be the source here, and Thirl-wall (Hist, of Greece IV, 303 n.) accepts Xenophon asDinon's authority. The allusion to Tiribazus accords withthis view, and a comparison of his advice to the king onthis occasion with the invective of Artagerses in c. 9 pointsto the same authority. Very similar is the exhortation ofTiribazus to the king in c. 10.

C. 9, That Dinon, as well as Ctesias, related the fallof Artagerses, is clear from the fact that Plutarch says:''That Artagerses then was killed by Cyrus, about all agree";and at the beginning of the following chapter: "Dinon says,then, that when Artagerses had fallen etc.'' I must think,then, that the facts in c. 7 came through Dinon as inter-mediate source. It is strange that he should

not have a-dopted the dimensions of the ditch as given by Xenophon,but it is easier to think of him as differing from Xenophonin this case, than of Plutarch as doing the same.

C 10. The short account of the battle taken fromDinon is doubtless to be explained on the supposition, thathe agreed in most respects with Xenophon. It will benoticed that there is no contradiction between the two; inthe main facts they agree, namely that Cyrus died on thefield and in the presence of the king. It is further notice-able that Dinon differs from Xenophon just where thelatter has recourse to Ctesias. Plutarch states in chapter 8the principle which guides him in the description of thebattle, namely, that "no sensible man would attempt torelate anything except whatever worthy of mention Xeno-phon had omitted", and Dinon's close agreement withXenophon is the only satisfactory explanation for theshortness of his account. So is best explained the fact thatin c. 18 with regard to the deceiving and capture of theGreek generals by Tissaphernes, their death, etc., the ac-


16/38

-s 16

count of Ctesias alone is given; for Dinon followed herein all probability the authority of Xenophon.

C. f3. Dinon's part in this chapter has already beenalluded to. We pass now to c. 19, because the evidenceis all in favor of Ctesias as source for IMutarch in c's 11 18,a part of c. 13 excepted. This evidence it will be best todiscuss under the head of Ctesias.

C. 19. In this chapter Dinon is mentioned three timesas differing slightly from Ctesias. It is probable that heand Ctesias however gave in most other respects the sameaccount, excepting of course the time to which allusion ismade in c. 6.

The slight particulars in which Dinon differs fromCtesias furnish us again in all probability with somespecimens of his faultfinding with regard to Ctesias. Hemust have had as authority some one who was more orless intimately connected with the Persian court and thiswas probabl)' Polycritus of Mendae. The reason assignedby Plutarch, as determining Parysatis to the horribledeed, is not in accordance with Ctesias, who, as wesee in c. 18, stated that Parysatis thus took revengefor the death of Clearchus. On the other hand Ctesias,and not Dinon, must be the source for the statement,that Parysatis and Stateira after their former differencebegan again to associate with each other and to taketheir meals together; for according to Dinon (c. 6) Sta-teira's death was the immediate result of this first dif-ference. That Dinon related the punishments of theeunuchs, and especially of Gigis, must be inferred from thepart which he makes her and Mclantas play in the affairof Stateira's death, and that he told the mutual anger ofthe king and his mother follows directly from c. 23: "Forthe king did not continue long in his wrath, but becamereconciled to her and sent for her, etc.'' The authorityfor this statement o{ the reconciliation must be one whohad told of the estrangement, and as c. 23 opens with thedeath of Tissaphernes which took place full 3 years after

C^

>

_ 31 aTTO Kupoo ToG TiaXaioG Touvofia sa^rsv, ixsivo) os airo toGYjXioo Y2Vaf>ai ^aoi. KGpov ^ap xaXelv Flspoa; tov r^Xtov;also the name /\paoi/ac, which form Plutarch prefers to thatof Dinon: Bapar,; (cf. Haug).

C. 2. The source for the statement in this chapterthat Artaxerxes by his supplications to his mother savedthe life of his wife Stateira, when she was about to be putto death by order of his fiithcr Darius, was no doubtCtesias, as a comparison with exc. 53 5^ will show. Theexcerpts of Ctesias, however, seem to me to offer no satis-factory evidence, that he was the authority for the sceneat Pasargadae and the plot of Cyrus against his brother(cf. above c. 2 under Dinon). Haug's assertion that theanecdotes in c's 4 and 5 point to Ctesias, because he wasso fond of relating such things, seems to me to amount tonothing. If we may judge by the fragments, Dinon wasquite as fond of telling anecdotes; so were also Heraclides,Phanias and Theopompus.

C. 0. That Ctesias, as well as Dinon, related the sceneof confusion at the palace, when Pissaphernes announcedthat Cyrus was marching on Babylon, may be inferred fromwhat he says about the enmity of Parysatis and Stateira;for instance exc. 62: "Stateira was exceedingly watchful,that she might not suffer what did befall her"; c. 17:" Pa-rysatis allowed Stateira to have as little to do with theking as possible, since she hated her most of all, and espe-cially because she wished herself to have power"; again atthe end of c. 17: "But Stateira both in other things opposedher, and was especially angry, because she cruelly andunlawfully killed, for the sake of Cyrus, eunuchs who werefaithful to the king"; again in c. 19: "After their formersuspicion and hostility beginning again to associate togetherand to dine with each other", which can refer only to c. 6and can be from no other than Ctesias. All these passagesprove clearly that Ctesias described the state of hostilityin which Parysatis and Stateira lived for several years be-fore the final catastrophe. This hostility seems, according

X


24/38

) ^

32 to Ctesias, to have begun at the very commencement ofthe reign of Artaxerxes, when to gratify Stateira he putto death Udiastes, the slayer of Teritychmes êxc. 57).With regard to the date of the consummation of the plot,IMutarch expressly prefers Ctesias.

C. 8. There can be no doubt that the occasion of thischapter was the fact that Ctesias had assigned as the causeof the death of Cyrus his disregard of the injunctionof Clearchus, not to expose himself to danger in thebattle; cf. exc. 58 Uav^cio? kupou (xttiiUouvto: kXsao/o).')From this phrase too we may reach a certain conclu-sion as to the source of Clearchus' admonition to Cyrusand the reply of the latter, for from these we learn exactlywhat the otTTEiiôuvro; KXcao^*!* means.')

C. 9. That Ctesias was before Plutarch in this chapteris shown by the allusion to the name of the horse of Cyrus,Pasakas, and the expression in C. 1 1 : "Cyrus when he hadkilled Artagcrses, etc."

C. IL Abridgement of Ctesias' account of the deathof Cyrus.

I agree with Ilaug (p. 93 scjq.^ Schottin p. 45) andMuller, (Histor. Graec. Fragm. Ctesias in considering Ctesiasprincipal or perhaps sole authority in c's 12 and 1418.

C. /:>. The argument of Ilaug (p. 93, that the accountof the manner in which Artasyras, "the king's eye", bringsto Artaxerxes intelligence of the death of Cyrus, as wellas the sending of a number of attendants to ascertain thetruth of the report, is from Ctesias, is quite satisfactory,namely that, according to Dinon, Cyrus fell in the thickof the fight and in the presence of the king, and thereforehe could not have said anything of news of this event beingbrought to the king; according to Ctesias, however, thekine retired from the field as soon as he was wounded.

1) Cf. Miiller, Hist. Grace. Fragm. Ctesias (in Anhang zu Herod;)Schottin, Observ. de Plut. vita Artax.

2) Cf. Anab. I, 7, 9 and Polyaenus, Strategemata II, 2, 3.

V

>- ^

k

33 I cannot see, however, that the designation ofArtasyras

as "the king's eye" betrays so accurate a Knowledge ofPersian affairs that this of itself would point to Ctesias, forthe same designation is found in Herodotus I, 114. Thestatement that the king was suffering in body from thirstand his wound, can only be from Ctesias, inasmuch asDinon says nothing about the king's receiving a wound. Sa-tibarzanes is mentioned in exc. 57 and 63 as one of themost trusted eunuchs of king Artaxerxes. Only Ctesiasalludes to the participation of the Kaunians in the battleand the expression tcLv Rauviwv exstvwv ruiv xaxoîcwv is adirect reference to that of Ctesias in c. 1 1 : Kaovioi tivs?avi)pa>7roi xaxopioi. The rewarding of this Kaunian, as re-lated in c. 14, where he is represented as a man unknownand poor, must be also from Ctesias.

C, /.v. Ctesias told of the cutting off of Cyrus' headand right hand, as we see from exc. 58, and only with hisaccount agrees the scene around the body of Cyrus, wherethe king grasps the head of Cyrus b)^ the thick and longhair and shows it in the light of torches to the still flyingPersians; for, as was said abcwe, Cyrus in Dinon's accountfell in the thick of the fight, in the presence of the king,and his death must have been known to the army imme-diately. In this chapter, moreover, Ctesias is named inconnection with the king's army, the number of the fallenand the false statement with regard to the participation inthe embassy sent to the Greeks.')C 14 tS, The next five chapters are almost cer-tainly from Ctesias. Dinon evidently followed, in the main,Xenophon's account of the battle and hence had no occa-sion to allude to either the reward or punishment of Mi-thridates, nor so far as we know of Bagapates (or Maza-

1) Grote (History of Greece IX, 70 note) will not allow the imputaliimagainst Ctesias in this place; but that Xenophon really meant l)y theexpression i;"KXXt^v to contradict Ctesias, I do not doubt. Just so hecontradicted him in Anab. I, 7, 10, I, 9, 31. I io ^5 and the wholestory of Cyrus' fall.

3


25/38

i ^

- 34 -bates), while what he says of the rewarding of the Carian,who was reported to have struck Cyrus, was given in c. i8.Besides the punishing of each of the three just mentionedis in Plutarch committed to Parysatis, who according toDinon's account must have been at this very time underthe displeasure of the king for the murder of Stateira, whichwas represented by Dinon as committed during the war(c. 6). Mithridates while not mentioned by Dinon, is saidby Ctesias to have been the first who struck Cyrus andone of his attendants is said to have picked up the saddle-cover, to which allusion is made again in c. 14; besides inc. 15, Mithridates is made to relate how he struck Cyrusjust exactly as Ctesias had related the same thing in c. 11.Dinon (c. 10) mentions the report that Cyrus fell by thehand of the king, as if by no means unlikely; here it isc^penly represented as false, which agrees precisely withthe story of Ctesias in c. 11. In c. 16 allusion is madeagain to the wound of the king, which, as we have seen,does not agree with the story of Dinon.

Haug considers the expression used by the host atthe feast (c. 15): "Let us eat and drink doing reverence tothe demon of the king, and avoid expressions which aretoo high for us" as so genuinely Persian that only Ctesiascould have been the source. There is, it is true, in exc.59, where the death of Mithridates is alluded to, no ref-erence to his execution by means of the trough (axctf iw),but we see from exc. 30 that Ctesias had described thismode of punishment. The Carian or Kaunian'is alludedto in c. 14 as the one by whom Cyrus was struck on theknee, just as Ctesias told in c. 11. There is no difficulty'with regard to his being called in this chapter a Carian,whereas in c. 1 1 he was called a Kaunian; for as Haugsays, the Kaunians were a tribe of Caria, and besides inexc. 59 of Ctesias he is twice called a Carian , so that theterms must have been used indiscriminately. In exc. 59 itis simply stated that Parysatis tortured the Carian and thenput him to death, but we need not doubt that Ctesias

V

>'

k

- 35 -described fully the mode of punishment, for his wholehistory shows that he was as apt at describing horriblemethods of punishment, as Parysatis was at inventing them(cf. exc. 54, 55, 57 etc.). The story of the punishmentof Bagapates was related fully by Ctesias, as we see fromexc. 59, which agrees in every respect with Plutarch, exceptthat Ctesias makes no allusion to the impaling on threestakes. This was, however, evidently an omission of theexcerptor, for it may be seen from exc. 36 that he haddescribed this method of punishment. It is strange thatthe form of the name in Plutarch is so different from thatin Ctesias, but the remaining proof is too strong to allowa doubt as to the source. We have in this chapter(17), moreover, two allusions to Stateira as still living,whereas according to Dinon's account she was longsince dead.

C. IS. Ctesias is introduced as the source for thischapter and we have besides in exc. 60 exactly the sameaccount.

C. 13. From exc. 6 1 we see that Ctesias narrated thedeath of Stateira just as Plutarch gave it, except that thelatter differs from Ctesias with regard to the immediatecause of the murder, which Ctesias alleged to have itsmotive in anger at the execution of Clearchus. With thefew slight differences alluded to by Plutarch, there is everyprobability that Ctesias and Dinon gave the same storyand with about the same fullness.

C. 21. There remains only the allusion to Ctesias inthis chapter which has been already discussed above. Theremaining' events of this life belong to a period succeedingthe close of the history of Ctesias.


26/38

t 9

3^

Xenophon.That the Anabasis and the Ilellenica were the sour-

ces of much of the information contained in this bio- 3-

C\ 3. Cf. Anab. I, i, 34 for Xenophon's story ofTissaphernes' accusation of Cyrus, though Plutarch followedsome other authority here.

r. 4. The allusion to Xenophon, with regard to themercenary Greek troops of Cyrus, has reference to Anab.I, 1,6 s(iq. For the statement that his mother was presentand took away the suspicions of the king, while Cyruswrote dutifully to his brother, cf. Anab. I, i, 8.

C. fi. Cyrus' application to the Lacedaemonians; cf.Hell 111, I, I, though Plutarch in all probability did notconsult Xenophon here. Number of Greek troops of Cyrus;cf. Anab. I, 2, 4 (cf. II, 3, 19). Pretences assigned by Cyrusfor the expedition; cf. Anab. I, 2, i (III, 1,9) and I, 3, 20.

C. 7. Belief prevalent in the army of Cyrus that theking would not fight; cf. Anab. I, 7, 1820. For the

V ?

V.

37 number of the king's army, cf. Anab. I, 7, 12; for theremainder of the chapter I, 7, 19 - - I, 8. 11.C S. Position of the Greeks on the river; cf. Anab.I, 8, 4 and 13. The king did not perceive that he wasbeaten (outs vixr^J^eU otoio? y^^Ucio); cf. Anab. I, 10, 5.

Cyrus' order to Clearchus to lead the Greeks againstthe centre; cf. Anab. I, 8, 12-13.

r. tK Victory and pursuit of the Greeks; cf. Anab.I, 8, 1821.

C. 13, Embassy of Phalinus; cf. Anab. II, i, 7.C. 20. For the cause of the expedition sent by the

Spartans into Asia to relieve the Greeks in that quarter,cf. Hell. Ill, I, 3, where it is stated that these cities sentmessengers to Sparta begging aid against Tissaphernes.With regard to Thibron, cf. Hell III, 1,4 7; Dercyllidas,III, I, S 2, 21; Agesilaus, III, 4. 2 sqq., IV, i, 15 sqq.,and IV, 2, 2; Timocrates and the bribery of the leaders inseveral Greek cities. III, 5, i and IV, 2, i. Except thesaying of Agesilaus with regard to the 30000 bowmen ofthe king (cf. Plut. Ages. 1 5, 7), Xenophon must have beenthe original source for this chapter. Plutarch's account ofTimocrates and the bribery of the Greek leaders is pre-cisely that of Xenophon, and the evident partiality for Age-silaus points clearly to the same author.C 21. Xenophon seems to have been undoubtedlythe direct or indirect source for the latter part of thischapter. Cf. Hell. IV, 3, 11 12, account of the battle ofCnidus; IV, 8, 712, Conon and Pharnabazus win the seafrom the Spartans; IV, 8, 1213 ambassadors sent fromleading Greek states to Tiribazus; IV, 8, 14, Antalcidas'proposition to yield to the king the Greek cities in AsiaMinor, stipulating only that the remaining cities and islandsshould remain free; V, I, 2$, Antalcidas, with Tiribazus,returns from the king, having gained all that he desired,V, I, 3031, proclamation of Tiribazus to the Greeks andthe rescript of the king. The evidence for Xenophon isthus seen to be much better than for Ephorus (Haug 96)

N


27/38

( 1

- 38 -or Phanias (Schottin p. 8. Hut I think it very probablethat Dinon formed here an intermediate source betweenXenophon and Plutarch.

r. ?.V. Death of Tissapherncs, cf. Hell III, 4> 25 andAges. I, 3S.

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

Heraclides of Cumae.C. Mi'iJKK, Ilistor. Cracc. Frag. 11, 95 s(i(i.

The only other alluded to by name in this biographyis Heraclides of Cumae. It is not known precisely whenhe lived ^cf. MiiUcr p. 95;^ and we know definitely only ofhis work lUpaixa in five books. Plutarch cites him in c. 23and the fact there alluded to is given in c. 27 ,d. Mullerp. 7). It is quite possible that Heraclides was used to someextent elsewhere in the composition of this life, but if socertainly very little; and that little we have no means ofascertaining.

Other authors are alluded to in c's 3, 4, 23, 29, andperhaps elsewhere, but the attempt to determine who theywere and to what extent they were used has been withoutresult.

II.1

CTESIAS' REPORT OF THEBATTLE OF CUNAXA.Otto Kakmmei. in Philologiis XXXIV, 516538 and 665696.

It will not seem improper perhaps to add here a shortexamination with regard to the credibility of Ctesias' report

1V

>

39 of the battle of Cunaxa, so much of it at least as Plutarchhas preserved for us in this life. Inasmuch as Ctesias wasin immediate attendance on the king during the battle, wemight expect to get an accurate and trustworthy report ofjust those events which Xenophon was obliged to relatefrom hearsay. But the slightest examination into his ac-count, especially in connection with the other reportsof the battle that we have, shows that it is utterlyinconsistent not only with Xenophon and the rest,but also with the very nature of the case. Grote,Curtius, Thirlwall and Rawlinson have therefore rejec-ted his account entirely and follow Xenophon alone.')Lachmann puts the two accounts side by side, but doesnot decide definitely between them, or show how theycan be made to agree. So does Rehdantz who acceptsCtesias' report as true and supposes that he passed overin silence the second contest with the Greeks. OttoKcemmel in Philologus XXXIV, S 1^^-538 and 665696gives a very lengthy and in many respects ingenious crit-icism and combination of the accounts of Xenophon,Ctesias and Diodorus; but I find it impossible to agreewith him on many points, and especially with regard tothe combination. It is his treatment of some of the mainpoints of difference between these reports that will occupyus here.

About after the following manner he proceeds withregard to some of these points. The time given by Ctesiasfor the wounding of the king is found to be not only in-consistent with Xenophon's statement, but utterly irrecon-cilable with the circumstances of the battle, so, as it doesnot suit the combination theory, it is promptly rejected,and indeed as an addition of Plutarch, or some attentive

1) Grote, Hist, of Greece IX, 59 sqq.; Fachmann Geschichle Gnechen-lands IT, 337-340; Rehdantz, Einleitung zur dritten Ausgabc der Anabasisp. XXVIIXXX; Curtius, Gr. Geschiclite 111, 135 ff-; Rawlinson. AncientMonarchies III, 492 sqq ; Thirlwall, Hist, of Greece IV, 305 sqq.

n


28/38

- 40 reader p. 685V In order to reconcile the statement ofDiodorus, that there was a short fight with missiles, thenfor a little while the Persians resisted in hand-to-hand con-flict with the Greeks, with Xenophon's statement that theI'ersians turned and fled before the Greeks came withinbowshot, the phrase irr/tv 0 To^soaa ;ixvTaUoti ixxAivo-j-ivoi poir>paf>oi xal 'fsuYOoaiv is thus explained, that theywere so close that the arrows flew harmless over their heads(p. 672). The time given by Diodorus for the second move-ment of the Persians against the Greeks, r^fJr^ vuxto; iizzl-ihoar^;, is rejected for a like reason ^^Diodorus'/c^r/r, forsooth,does not lie in the description of battles (p. 686 . Xeno-phon's report of the time when the pursuit of the Greeksended: aj^soov o'ots Tauta t^v, xoti ijXio; iousTo, that is thesun set just as the messengers of Clearchus from the topof the hill observed the troops of the king flying over theplain, will not accord with the theory which had made thesun to set half an hour before, so it is to be translated:"About the time when these things were taking place, thesun had set." The time at which, according to Xenophon,the Greeks reached their camp after the day's work wasended, ajicpi SopTcrârov, must be incorrect, if the pursuitended at dark in place of sunset, and hence the secondwatch of Diodorus irspt osuripav cpoXaxi^v is substituted forit (p. 687), notwithstanding Diodorus certainly missed thetime in both his other statements. The position whichXenophon assigns to Tissaphernes in the battle, and whichthat satrap says himself that he occupied, does not accordwith Diodorus' statement, hence in addition to the manyfalsehoods of this deceitful satrap another must be added,that is to flatter the Greeks and give credit to the officialfalsehood of the Persian court w ith regard to the death ofCyrus, he assigned to himself a totally different part in thebattle from that which he really had (p. 68 1\ Kremmelsupposes that the battle began about 4 30 p. m. thoughit is far more probable that it began an hour earlier', thatabout 5 p.m. Cyrus received tlie firstwound and fell unconscious,

V /

>-

V. y\

41 that he lay long in this state, in fact it had become twi-light before he recovered sufficiently to attempt to go on;for it was so dark when the Kaunians approached them,that only when they were quite near could they distinguishthe purple tunics of Cyrus' troops from the white ones ofthe royal cavalry; then took place the remaining occur-rences as related by Ctesias. The object is to prove thatthe events related by Ctesias cover the whole time fromthe beginning of the brittle, as given by Xenophon, tillsome time after dark. Xenophon's account of the time,not only because of his general truthfulness, but becausethe nature of the events related by all parties confirms itsaccuracy, must be accepted; and, inasmuch as it is im-possible that an eyewitness who meant to be truthful couldmake such a statement, the tôyj axoiou; ovto; of Ctesias isrejected as an interpolation. But a comparison of thestatements of Ctesias in connection with the

events relatedby Xenophon and Diodorus shows that Ctesias' report did notadmit of the lapse ofso long a time between the first wound ofCyrus and his death, and that therefore there is no good reasonto doubt that the phrase rôr^ axorou; ovto; really had its sourcein Ctesias. It is clear that the impression made upon Plutarch,who had before him the full account of Ctesias, was that theevents related occupied only a short time. At the time the kingis wounded there is flight and confusion of his body-guard )when Cyrus recovers sufficiently from the blow given byMithridates to proceed, he hears his flying enemies callhim king and beg for mercy. Who are these flying enemies?

. Certainly no others than those who were put to flight atthe first attack. We may accept as true the general courseof events going on in the field at this time, 'as related byXenophon and Diodorus, and from these it is clear thatafter the dispersion of the immediate body-guard of theking there was no rout of an\' part of the king's forcestill they fled a second time before the Greeks. Cyrus' fall

i) Cf. Ctesias in Artax. 11, Xcn. Anab. I, 8, 25 and Diod. XIV, 23, 78.

I


29/38

- 42 .

call it first wound or death took i)lacc then in the sight ofthe army, at least was known to both armies; for that ofthe king was encouraged, that of Cyrus disheartened thereby;and if Cyrus had lain so long unconscious there could be notalk of flying enemies at this time. That there was continualnight and turmoil in the rear of the king's army is not to bethought, since this is totally at variance with the occurrencesnarrated by Diodorus and also by Xenophon, and is incon-sistent with the events stated by Ctesias to have taken placeabout the body of Cyrus. According to all rei)orts there musthave been a period of quiet in the rear after the first confusionwas over. Besides the king had taken possession of a hillnear the army Artax. c. ii and was, or could have been,in easy communication with it. Artasyras, when he findsthe dead body of Cyrus, rides straight to the king; theCarian (we may infer) went also and announced his death(cf. Artax. c. 14 ; there were plenty of attendants about theking, for he sent off 30 at one time to the body of Cyrus.

If this long time had elapsed, that is from near themiddle of the afternoon till dark, the king could easilyhave sent forward couriers and ascertained that Cyrus wasdead, at least was thought so, and that the Greeks werevictorious on the left wing. Uut it is only just when hereceives the news of the death of Cyrus, after dark, thathe learns that the Greeks were victorious in the firstengagement. If we are to accept from Ctesias that theking lay on the hill in despair and tliinking all was lost(Artax. c. 14), we may be perfectly sure that this state ofthings was not represented as lasting three hours. Thenthat Cyrus and the eunuchs could so long escape notice inthe rear of the army, the number of camp followers ofwhich was probably nearly as large as the real fightingforce, and these continually traversing the space in therear, as we may infer from Tlut. (c's li and 12\ is insup-posable. Further it is not stated that Cyrus became totalh'unconscious, or recovered slowly from the effects of theblow given by Mithridates, but only that when he was

V y

43 struck he bcaw:c giddy and stupefied and fell from hishorse, and that he recoroered with difficulty and not thor-oughly. There is then really no ground for the suppositionthat he lay long unconscious, and every thing goes to provethat the events related by Ctesias cover a comparativelyshort space of time, and therefore the tJot^ oxotoo; ovto; isperfectly consistent with his remaining report.

Kc^mmel's Objections to Xenophon'sNarration.

Xenophon states that Tissaphernes commanded the leftwing of the Persian army and stood with the cavalry onthe extreme left next to the river, that he did not fleewith the remainder of the left wing when the Greeks at-tacked, but breaking through the line opposed to himentered the camp and began to plunder it, where

somewhatlater he was joined by the king (Anab. I, 10, 7 and I, 8, 9).Diodorus (XIV, 23, 7) states that after the king was wound-ed Tissaphernes succeeded to the chief command of thePersian army and by extraordinary valor, aided by thefact that the news of Cyrus' death had spread throughboth armies, proved completely victorious. Ka^mmel, assum-ing that Diodorus followed Ctesias here, rejects the state-ment of Xenophon and accepts that of Diodorus. Thereis no doubt that Tissaphernes is in part at least the author-ity of Xenophon for the position he assigns him, that is,in his speech to the Greeks (II, 3, I9) he confirms whatXenophon had no doubt already heard from deserters andcaptives (cf. I, 8, 9 with I, 7, 1 3:^. Is there any good reasonfor supposing that Tissaphernes made a false statement tothe Greeks? The only authority against Xenophon's state-ment is Diodorus, but since it is very questionable, as weshall see below, whether Ctesias was the source for thisparticular statement of Diodorus, or not, and thereforedoubtful whether it originated from an eyewitness, notmuch stress can be laid on it. Indeed if this account of


30/38

42 .call it first wound or death took place then in the sight ofthe army, at least was known to both armies; for that ofthe king was encouraged, that of Cyrus disheartened thereby;and if Cyrus had lain so long unconscious there could be notalk of flying enemies at this time. That there was continualflight and turmoil in the rear of the king's army is not to bethought, since this is totally at variance with the occurrencesnarrated by Diodorus and also by Xenophon, and is incon-sistent with the events stated by Ctesias to have taken placeabout the body of Cyrus. According to all reports there musthave been a period of quiet in the rear after the first confusionwas over. Besides the king had taken possession of a hillnear the army Artax. c. ii) and was, or could have been,in easy communication with it. Artasyras, when he findsthe dead body of Cyrus, rides straight to the king; theCarian (we may infer) went also and announce' his death[c{. Artax. c. 14}; there were plenty of attendant:, about theking, for he sent off 30 at one time to the body of Cyrus.

If this long time had elapsed, that is from near themiddle of the afternoon till dark, the king could easilyhave sent forward couriers and ascertained that Cyrus wasdead, at least was thought so, and that the Greeks werevictorious on the left wing. But it is only just when hereceives the news of the death of Cyrus, after dark, thathe learns that the Greeks were victorious in the firstengagement. If we are to accept from Ctesias that theking lay on the hill in despair and tJiinking all tvas lost(Artax. c. 14), we may be perfectly sure that this state ofthings was not represented as lasting three hours. Thenthat Cyrus and the eunuchs could so long escape notice inthe rear of the army, the number of camp followers ofwhich was probably nearly as large as the real fightingforce, and these continually traversing the space in therear, as we may infer from Plut. (c's 11 and 12^, is insup-posable. Further it is not stated that Cyrus became totals-unconscious, or recovered slowly from the effects of theblow given by Mithridates, but only that when he was

45 many opportunities for learning the truth of the matter,and carefully collected and investigated reports of the battle(cf. Anab. I, 7. 13; h 8, 9; i> 8. 20; i, 8, 2829; i. io> 7;I, 10, 12}; as his narration was famous even in ancienttimes for its clearness and simplicity in a ll its details, sothat, as Plutarch says, he "almost represents the battle beforethe eye and brings before the reader the events not as havingtaken place, but as taking place", we must prefer his report tothat of Diodorus. It seems very probable that Diodorus, orEphorus, accepting the report that the king was carried fromthe field and knowing that Tissaphcrncs was the leading gen-eral on the Persian side, both in rank and merits, arrangedthe matter as seemed to him most probable. The explanationthat Tissaphcrncs really commanded the left wing, but waswith the part of it nearest the centre and hence was notborne away by the attack of the Greeks, is not satisfactory(Kaemmel 674). In the army of Cyrus, Ariaeus who hadcommand of the left wing stood with a body of cavalry onthe extreme left; Clearchus, who seems to have beenappointed by Cyrus as commander ofthe whole right wing,stood near the extreme right of the Greeks; so we mightinfer that Tissaphcrncs was placed. The king and Cyruseach stood with a body-guard of cavalry about them, andso far as I can discover it seems to have been a customwith the Persians that the leading commanders stand withthe cavalry, the king of course occupying the centre ofthe line of battle. Now Xenophons' authority for the po-sition of the Persian cavalry of the left wing is indispu-table, inasmuch as he could see this himself and learn itsmovements from the Greeks of that part of the line, andwhen Tissaphcrncs says he was in command of this bodythere is positively no reason to doubt his truth. The ex-planation of the phrase Tiptv 6s ToEsojia iSi^vsIaDcti: before anarrozv reached them, because they were so near that theivhole volley flew harmless over their heads, by which ex-planation Xenophon and Diodorus are to be made to agree,I need not stop to consider; for it is as certain that it can


32/38

1^

- 46 -never gain credit, as that Xenophon never intended it tobe so understood.

The expression a/sSov S' ots ra-jxa v xai tJXio: IoJstoK.xmmel translates to suit his combination theory: "Aboutthe time when these things were taking place the sun hadset." This would probably never have occurred to anyone who was not trying to reconcile Ctesias and Diodoruswith Xenophon; but at any rate the proof is at hand, thatXenophon meant that the sun set just as from the topof the hill the announcement was made to Clearchusthat the Persians were fleeing at full speed over the plain.When the Greeks in their second pursuit of the Per-sians reached the village and halted, they saw, they said,on the summit of a hill above the village "the royal stan-dard, something like a golden eagle placed on a staff."If the sun had already gone down half an hour before,')how could they recognize the golden eagle? There can beno doubt that it was the gleaming of the golden eagle inthe sunlight that made it conspicuous. Besides, the timewhen the Greeks reached their camp after the day's workwas ended is a proof of the correctness of this view. Thisexpression afxcpi oopTrr^arov does not accord with the com-bination theory, for, says Kxmmel, if the pursuit came toa standstill about half an hour after sunset (650) theGreeks would not have time to deliberate what they shoulddo and get back to their camp by supper time. Of coursenot, but if the sun set when Xenophon said it did, therewas ample time. Compare the movements, which, accord-ing to Xenophon, the Greeks executed between the middleof the afternoon and sunset, that is in about 3 hours, andthere will seem to be no reason to doubt that the Greeks

3) Rut half an hour after sunset by no means accords with Ctesias,for the king is represented by him as sending ofT 30 attendants with torch-lights and afterwards himself encompassed with much light, descending fromthat same hill (in all probability) to which Xen. alludes (see Ainsworth);so that Kaemmel should have said at least an hour after sunset, whichwould agree with Diod.

i

< ^

47 had ample time to get back to their camp by supper time.It is useless to inquire here what may have been the usualtime for the osTttvov among the Greeks, for that has nothingto do with Xenophon's narration in this place. Xenophonrefers evidently to the osItivov of the army, and this byan army under march would be taken necessarily aboutdark; certainly not before, nor yet much after. The Greekshad had no dinner, and it is not at all likely that soldiers whohad been marching, fighting, or pursuing all day, wouldnow half-famished take until near midnight to get back totheir camp and food, when this lay at most not more than3 miles off. Indeed it is impossible to imagine anythingmore accurate than the description of all the movementsof the army as given by Xenophon, and especially withregard to the points of time mentioned by him he is per-fectly consistent with himself and the circumstances of thebattle, and certainly could not have made a mistake if hemeant to tell the truth, which nobody doubts.')

Disaereements between Ctesias andDiodorus.

That PLphorus in the extract given by Diodorus wasacquainted with and used to some extent Ctesias, especiall)^as to the number of the royal army and perhaps the troopsof Cyrus, as Kaemmel (521 sqq.), Ritschl (Opusc. I, 446)and others suppose; and also as to the double play ofSyennesis, the statement that the king, after he was wound-ed, was removed from the field, and the fate of Menon,can scarcely be doubted. But this only makes the caseworse for Ctesias' story of the battle and the fall of Cyrus,inasmuch as a comparison will make pretty sure that

i)'I have no doubt that these definite statements of the time are meantnot only to give an accurate view of the battle, but are pointed againstCtesias, as was Anab. 1, 7, 13 (no. of troops in the royal army), I, 9' S^(position of Ariaeus), II, i, 7 (with regard to Phalinus).


33/38

- 48 -Ephorus, just as Xenophon did^ took from Ctesias whathe considered trustworthy and rejected the rest.

49

Diodonis XIV, 28, 0.Cyrus and the king occu-

pying the centre of theirrespective forces saw wliathad happened (the victory

|of the Greeks) and hastenedagainst each other, hopingto decide the battle by asingle contest.

23. 7.Tissaphernes succeeded to

the command, after the kingretired, and by great valorwon the day.

23, 8.Cyrus elated by the victory

of those about him rushedin to the midst of his ene-mies and at first recklesslybold slew many, but after-wards incurring danger toorashly, was struck by someone of the common soldiersand fell.Hy his death the troops of

the king were encouraged,and AriaenSj who was in

Ctesias (Pint. c. 12.)The king knew nothing of

the victory of the Greeks atthis time and only about thetime he learned the death ofCyrus did he hear of it.

C. J3.Ctesias represents the royal

troops as defeated and onl}'stopped in their headlongflight by the king's showingthem the head of Cyrus, sothat he could not have beenthe authority for the partDiodorus assigns to Tissa-phernes.

C. //.Cyrus surrounded by ene-

mies is borne away by hishighmettled steed not recog-nized by his enemies, as itwas already getting dark,and sought by h\< friends.Riding hither and thither,his tiara happened to fallfrom his head and a youngPersian named Mithridatesstruck him on the templeby the eye, and he fell.

V


34/38

V i

- 50 -of the Greeks in the place of Clearchus and no mention ismade of Xenophon.

The account seems to me to have rather a Greek,than a Persian coloring, and is in many points so likeXenophon's description, that one might believe it was large-ly copied from him, though disagreements, such as thepart performed by Tissaphernes, the times assigned for thedifferent events, the ditch dug by the king, slight differenceswith regard to the interview with Phalinus; as well as manyother points where he is fuller than Xenophon, as for in-stance with regard to the rewarding of Tissaphernes andthe plans for the destruction of the Greeks, above all,however, the fact that Xenophon's part and merits in theretreat are totally ignored, make it altogether improbablethat Xenophon was before him. The most probable viewseems to be that of Kriiger (De Authentia Anab. Xenoph.)and Volquardsen (Untersuchungen uber die Quellen Dio-dors 65 and 131) who consider Sophaenetus in his Ana-basis the chief source for Ephorus in the extract given byDiodorus.

Dinon.Artaxerxes c. 10.

The extract from Dinon which Plutarch gives is veryshort, but in the main points agrees very nearly with thiitof Xenophon, that is the king remained on the field andwas present at the death of Cyrus. In both these pointshe differs from the royal report which Ctesias professes togive, as also in stating that the Carian, who claimed thathe had killed Cyrus, was rewarded for that service and

of Cyrus was made, Clearchus could not have seen anything at the distancenamed; soon after, the Persians reformed to march against the Greeks andthen the night was coming on, which would just leave time for the opera-tions described by Diodorus.

^

\

ii

51 -not as a messenger of good tidings. The report mentionedby him, that Cyrus fell by the hand of the king, may havesomething to do with the royal official report.

Justiniis V, 1 1.His account is very short and unsatisfactory, but agreeswith Xenophon, Dinon and Diodorus in the fact that Cyrus

died in the thick of the fight.')There are four authors then, besides Ctesias, who givemore or less full accounts of the battle: Xenophon, Epho-

rus, Dinon and Justinus, all of whom agree in stating thatCyrus fell in the midst of the battle. The probabilityagainst the truthfulness of Ctesias becomes stronger whenwe consider that his full narration was before Xenophon,who even quoted from him in two particulars, the woundof the king and the number of the slain, that there isscarcely any doubt that his history was in the hands ofE^phorus, who made use of him in more particulars thanXenophon did, that Dinon also was most probably acquaintedwith his work; yet these all agree, while differing in someother respects, in rejecting Ctesias' story of Cyrus' fall.

If the integrity of Ctesias as a writer were unimpeachedhis testimony would outweigh that of the four others allcombined, inasmuch as he was the only eyewitness ofthem all and had every opportunity to know the exacttruth. But between him and Xenophon there are graveand irreconcilable differences in point of time. Ctesias saysfor instance, when Artaxerxes was carried wounded from

1) I think Justinus' account must be traced to Ephorus as source; forthe story that Cyrus was preparing secretly to make war upon Artaxerxes,before he had been accused by Tissaphernes of plotting against the king's life,and that this was announced to the king, agrees exactly with Ephorus inDiodorus XIV, II, 3 and 19, 2; also the allusion to the double play ofthe Spartans is in exact accord with Diod. XIV, 21, 2, where Ephorus waswithout doubt source for Diodorus.


35/38

52 the field and Cyrus was borne away by his ungovernablehorse into the midst of his enemies, that it was alreadygetting dark^ so that he 7vas not recognized by his e^iemicsand sought by his friends; according to Xenophon it wasthen just about the middle of the afternoon, or very littlelater. Ctesias says that when Cyrus was wounded thesecond time it was so dark, that only when the Kaunianscame quite close could they distinguish white tunics frompurple; that the events which followed about the king andthe body of Cyrus took place by torchlight; whereas Xeno-phon says that before sundown the Persians had fled fromthis very hill (in all probability the same ') where the kingis reported to have lain, and at least an hour before, overthe very region where Ctesias says all these events tookplace, the royal army had passed in their second flight be-fore the little band of Greeks. Again the statement thatall the friends and table companions of Cyrus fell over hisbody, especially Artapates, cannot be reconciled with Ctesias'report; for it is perfectly plain that according to him nocontest took place over Cyrus when he was wounded by Mith-ridates(cf. Kaimmel68i). The latter did not know who he wasand only ascertained from the saddle-cover, which one ofhis followers picked up, that it was Cyrus he had struck. Wecanitot suppose a contest after this when the Carian struckhim; for it is stated that only a few eunuchs were withhim then, and Artasyras finds these same eunuchs sittingmourning by the corpse of their dead master. I cannotsee that Xenophon's opportunities for learning how thesefriends of Cyrus died, were not as good as those of Ctesias,and the probability that he would tell the truth is certainlygreater.

i) Rehdantz (Einleitung zur Anabasis XXXIII, 66) thinks it the same.Kaemmel (Philol. XXXIV, 536) says the royal troops must have passed overthis very spot in their second flight before the Greeks. The first pursuitpassed along the banks of the Euphrates, but in the second conflict theGreeks with their backs toward the river began the attack and pursuit.

/

53 These are not points in which one of the narrators

might have made a mistake, but they are directly contra-dictory; if one was true, then the other was necessarilyfalse. The time of the day, and especially the sunset, wasa fact about which Xenophon could not well have made amistake, and the events related agree perfectly with hisaccount. Ctesias' statement (c. 13) that the troops of thekins were astonished when he showed them the head ofCyrus and that quickly 70,000 collected about him, leavingout all considerations of time, cannot be made to agreewith the other reports of the battle; for this means thatthey did not know Cyrus was dead and were in doubt andfleeing, and only the sight of the gory head of their ene-mies' leader, whom they thought alive and victorious, inthe hands of their king, whom they supposed dead, or inflight, brought them to a stand.

The only manner in which Ctesias' account can bebrought into any sort of connection with that of Xenophonand Diodorus is to suppose, that after the events quotedfrom him by Plutarch, the king went back into the campof Cyrus and after that followed the plundering of thecamp, the second meeting with the Greeks, and flight be-fore them, as told by Xenophon and Diodorus. But thelate hour of the night, the fact that this presupposes adefeat of the whole royal line and not of the left wingalone and requires a much longer space of time, than ac-tually elapsed between the first attack of Cyrus upon thecentre and the plundering of the camp % makes this suppo-sition impossible. On the other hand we must supposethat Ctesias gave no account, or at least the most confused,of the battle itself, mixed up the two contests with the

i) The events related by Ctesias could not by any means be embracedin the time allowed by Xenophon between the beginning of the battle andthe plundering of the camp, for the Greeks had already begun the pursuit be-fore Cyrus made the attack on the king, and yet had gone only about 30stadia when they ascertained that the royal troops were in their camp.

*"\


36/38

>.

54 Greeks, made the king's troops totally defeated and ignorantof the fall of Cyrus, differed from Xenophon and Diodorusboth as to facts and time. Under these circumstances wecan have no hesitation in preferring the narration of Xeno-phon. The whole story of Cyrus' death, with Ctesias, restsupon the foundation that it was dark, which must of coursebe rejected.*)

1 believe the whole thing is best understood on thesupposition that Ctesias, wishing to give a highly dramaticaccount of the death of Cyrus, did not concern himselfabout the facts of the case and constructed the story tosuit himself. Was he capable of this? Aristotle, Antigonus,Lucian, Strabo spoke slightingly of his general integrity asa writer. If we believe Plutarch's statement in c's 6 and1 8 he was given to just such dramatic displays at the ex-pense of truth. He did render a most incredible dra-matic account of the death and burial of Clearchus, andwe may well suppose that he, who to do honor to Clear-chus made so improbable a statement as that Parysatismurdered Stateira in revenge for the death of Clearchus,could without scruple dramatize the death of Cyrus. Weget further insight into his dramatic proclivities and talentfrom the extract given by Demetrius Phalereus (De P^locu-tione ^ 22223) concerning the announcement of the deathof Cyrus to his mother, which might be true of course,but which no one will consider other than a dramaticeffort of Ctesias. Nor does the affair of the embassywith Phalinus incline us to a better impression of his truth-fulness.

Diodorus.Having been forced in the consideration of Ctesias'

account of the fall of Cyrus to go pretty fully into anexamination of other events of the battle, it may not beout of place to add a few words here with regard to Dio-

,;>

i) Cf. notes of Grofe (IX, 62) and Thirlwall (IV, 307).

55 dorus' narration. He offers little that is credible in additionto Xenophon's account. For instance the statement thatwhen the army of Cyrus drew near to the line of the king,they received such a shower of missiles as might be expect-ed' from 400000 men (Diod. XIV, 23, 2), that is, that thefight began along the whole line at once, cannot be correct;for the whole army of Cyrus did not reach even to thecentre of the king's forces and therefore it was impossiblefor the whole royal line to become engaged at once. Weascertain the same thing clearly from Xenophon's account.Cyrus and the king being posted with cavalry in the centreof their respective forces were necessarily in the front line,or in advance of the remaining line; as the king was out-side of the left of Cyrus an attack of the latter's left musthave struck the centre, or any portion of the left wingthat was not swept away by the attack of the Greeks; ifthe latter, Cyrus would have been shut out from all viewof the centre by those fighting between, and could not havestood watching what the king would do (Anab. i, 8, 21).The centre had not yet become engaged, for the king find-ing no one to oppose him in his direct front, began towheel his force for the purpose of flanking Cyrus' army,and the latter, geeing this and fearing that the Greeksmight be cut off, rode against him. He had necessarily tochange his position then nearer to the left, which he couldnot have done, if his own left was already engaged betweenhim and the king. If, as Rehdantz assumes (Einleit. zuAnab. XXXII), Cyrus took his position later on the extremeleft, the battle might have been going on in the remainderof the line, without interfering with Cyrus' observation ofthe king's movements, but neither in Xenophon nor Diodorusis there any statement to this effect. Besides, this wouldhave brought Cyrus directly to the position of Ariaeus,who according to Xenophon stood on the extreme left; butXenophon gives as the reason why Ariaeus did not fallwith the remaining friends of Cyrus, that he was not pre-sent with him, but in command of the left wing. His state-


37/38

56 -

u

I4

ment that there was a short contest with missiles, then ahand to hand combat (XIV, 23, 3), is in direct contradictionto Xenophon^s assertion that the Persians ran before theGreeks came within bowshot (I, 8, 19). With regard to thesecond meeting too there is a contradiction, Diodorus sayingthat the Greeks received the a/Zaci' of the Persians bravelyand soon put them to flight (XIV, 24, 3), whereas Xeno-phon says that the Greeks nished fonvard to the attackwith better will than at first and the Persians fled at agreater distance than before (I, 10, 1 1). No doubt can beentertained with regard to Xenophon's accuracy in bothcases, for he took part in both attacks and was mostprobably in the centre with Proxenus. The motive Dio-dorus assigns as actuating the king and Cyrus in theircombat, namely that they, seeing the victory of the Greeks,hastened to decide the battle by a single contest (XIV,23, 6), not only differs from that assigned by Xenophon asactuating Cyrus, but could not have influenced the kinr^;for according to Xenophon (Anab. I, 10, 5), Ctesias (Artax.c. 12), and Plutarch (Artax. c. 8), he knew nothing of thevictory of the Greeks at this time. The role assigned toTissaphernes is not credible, as we have seen above, beingcontradicted by Xenophon's express statement and that ofthe satrap himself. The time assigned by Diodorus for thedifferent events is not only in direct contradiction to Xeno-phon, but incompatible with the occurrences which he him-self relates. The statement of the trophy set up by theGreeks after the second pursuit ceased (XIV, 24, 4) is scarce-ly to be accepted, since Xenophon, who described theminutest details of the movements of the Greeks just atthis point, would scarcely have omitted it. Grote (IX, 63note) puts no faith in the statement that most of the 1 5 000dead of the king's army were slain by the Greeks (XIV,24, 5). "As the Greeks", says he, "lost not a man, theycould hardly have killed many in the pursuit, for they hadscarcely any cavalry and no great number of Peltasts while Hoplites could not have overtaken the flying Persians."

^-'^A'

VITA.Charles Forster Smith was born June 30 1852 in Abbe-

ville County, South Carolina, United States of America.From his 7'^^ to his 16^'^ year he availed himself with asgreat regularity as possible of the rather limited educationalfacilities of that section. In Oct. 1868 he was matriculatedat Wofford College, Spartanburg S. C, and June 26*^ 1872,having finished the four years academic course, was grad-uated with the degree Baccalaiirciis Artium. During theyear 1873 he was engaged in teaching at Greenwood S. C.Jan. 1874 he entered Harvard University as a residentgraduate and studied Greek, Latin, German and English.October 1874 he was matriculated at Leipzig University,arid during the winter semester attended the lectures ofProfessors Curtius, Lipsius and Fritzsche. The next se-mester he attended for a few weeks in Berlin the lecturesof Professors Kirchhof, E. Curtius, Zeller, Grimm and Piutz.Compelled to return to America, he accepted in Oct. 187 sa position as teacher of Classics and German in WoffordCollege. Four years of hard work put him in possessionof the means of renewing his studies in Germany, and inOct. 1879 he was rematriculated at Leipzig University.During the following semesters he attended the lectures-of Professors Voigt, Curtius, Lange, Windisch, Gardthausenand Meyer, in the winter semester 1879 attended as irregularmember the romisch-antiquarische Gesellschaft of ProfessorLange and the Seminar of Professor Curtius and at theopening of the summer semester 1880 became a regular mem-ber of the grammatische Gesellschaft of Professor Curtius.

He takes this opportunity to offer to his instructors,both in Germany and America, sincerest thanks for thekindness and encouragement which he has always received.

.>


38/38

Date post:	14-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	waterwind
View:	220 times
Download:	0 times

Study of Plutarch (1881) Transl Charles F Smith (microfilmed)

Documents