·žiț¢ ¿ ț¢§§ 。 ſae §§ §§ žģ 、、、、、、、、、、、 §§§§§§§§ ſae; *********$.T. --·→******š •Äğș ș.ae. --.*<:-~¿¿.*?）（:: --¿??¿::::::：::：ſº » • …，-- ----★ →--***Š， №·-*'.* * * * * * · * •*******&& ！！ ！！******）， §. Ēī£§§~ ș<！--******** • • * • -，- -§§§§）?（.*¿¿.*-|----- - _■■■■■≤≤ ∞， ∞&ººº...（…）,·--·！ ！！ ）*<<， ≥--> 。。、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、 *: < &ºr;→→→→→→→→*********、、、、、、、、、、、、、、，-- - - ：№ ſae §”，y，xſť，sr$*****¿¿.* ??--ſae！«.***.*¿¿.***-~~xx*** *** 3. *****ą，-，=v*，*，** *-**&&*）?）&&.*?< ***¿.*¿¿.************ -ae， ºſs！****** （~&-Jae-šº--º-º-º-º-ºº.ººº+|--· Ģ******¿¿.************- -- ************±，±，±，±，±，±，±，±，±，±，±，±,±，±，±，±,±，±，±，±，±,±→ ·&&&&&&&&&&&&<！--***#！*，&&&&&- *¿№ſ·-æ: ¿¿.*¿¿.***************（）**********************,*\ſ*:. *：）*）（.*¿¿.*§§±√≠√∞ae.--→- ?！?!?！！?！！?！！?！！?！！?!！?！！?!！！!！！!！！！！！！$$$$$$$$$$（'#*→% Ķķaeº; ¿=r:y，&&&&&&&#xeº:&…';********&& :::*********）?）*_x<∞ √≠√∞&=-\！！!！！！ 17: "I Z ºf . ‘osnoe. As S42xely *oag pºol/ſep A N • §. © ±} §© %§§· Wae 、 Œ CF MICH. LiBRARY UNIV. * WITH ESPECIAL REFERENCE TO THE SOURCES. FOR THE ACQUISITION OF THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY FROM LEIPZIG UNIVERSITY A DISSERTATION BY CHARLES FORSTER SMITH * * OF SPARTANBURG (S. C.) U.S. A. LEIP ZIG PRINTED BY METZGER & WITTIG. I 88 I. : s An investigation of the sources used by Plutarch in the life of Artaxerxes is attended with much difficulty. Though one has little doubt aſter reading the Life that he will have to do mainly with Ctesias and Dinon, yet the meagre excerpts from Ctesias (in Photius) on the one hand offer little, and the fragments of Dinon on the other almost no opportunity of making a comparison. With regard to Heraclides, who is once mentioned in the Life, we are still worse off. As to Xenophon, a compari- son only proves that what Plutarch has from him in the Artaxerxes was taken principally at second hand through Some other source. It seems to me however that the Life bears many marks of a general use of one leading authority by Plu- tarch and that 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 general principle by which I have been guided in the investigation, but after all it must be confessed that the question is largely one of probabilities. - Haug's ') work seems to me to have settled many points in which Plutarch is indebted to Ctesias, but errs, I believe, in assigning too much to this source — a natural conse- quence of the assumption that Ctesias was the leading authority for the first 20 chapters. 1) M. Haug, Die Quellen Plutarchs in den Lebensbeschreibungen der Griechen, 87 ff. Tübingen 1854. }-\) — 2 — On the other hand he does not give Dinon sufficient credit for what he contributed to the former half of the Life, 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 the main followed Haug and has added nothing really of value to his investigation of the sources. It seems to me we are justified by Plutarch's bearing toward Ctesias to suspect in Dinon the leading source for the whole Life, and a close investigation confirms the opinion. ,” In the proper place 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 the battle seems to me to throw 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 must have intended wilfully to deceive; so here a close compar- ison with Xenophon's masterly description of the battle of Cunaxa leaves no doubt in my mind that Ctesias was guilty of great perversion of facts, in order to give a dramatic account of the fall of Cyrus. I have therefore devoted the second part of this dissertation to a consideration of the different accounts of the battle, taking issue mainly with Dr. Aammel in his two interesting articles in Philolo- gus XXXIV. Without further introduction I proceed now to the consideration of the different sources. 1) Schottin, Observationes de Plutarchi Vita Artaxerxis. Bautzen 1865. I. D IN ON. MüLLER, Hist. Graec. Frag. II. 88 seqq. With regard to Dinon's native land we have only the fact that he is cited several times by Pliny (Nat. Hist. — cf. Schaefer, Quellenkunde der griech. Geschichte 60) as Z)?non Colophonius. C. Müller [Clit. Frag. 74. — Anhang zu Arrian (ed. Dübner, Paris 1846)] thinks that for some time he lived in Egypt, at least that his son Clitarch was born there. The work of his with which we have to do was entitled Tlepatzá and extended from the foundation of the Assyrian monarchy (fr. 1) to the Conquest of Egypt by Artaxerxes Ochus 340 B.C. (fr. 30). He seems to have been the chief source for Plutarch in the life of Artaxerxes, for the latter never censures him, as he does Ctesias, though the frag- ments which we have from him seem scarcely to justify that confidence. The only advantage he seems to enjoy over Ctesias in point of historical fidelity is that no instance of willful falsehood is recorded against him, while several seem pretty evident against Ctesias. For the expedition of Cyrus, so far as he treated of it, Dinon’s authority was no doubt Xenophon, and for affairs at the Persian court one of his sources was probably the physician Polycritus men- tioned in c. 2 I of the Artaxerxes. It is a disputed question whether the Polycritus Men- daeus there mentioned was the same as the author of a 1 * history of Sicilian affairs, though it is not improbable that he was (cf. C. Müller, — Anhang Zu Arrian 129 note). Müller (Hist. Gr. Frag. under Dinon; and again under Po- lycritus in Anhang Zu Arrian I29) also advances the opinion that Dinon was acquainted with the history of Ctesias and that from him originally flowed, in part at least, Plutarch's harsh criticisms of Ctesias. The strongest evidence of this seems to be the charge advanced against Ctesias in c. 21 which is as follows: Aéystal 6& 6 Krºgia; tıw Śrtotoxy Maſłów taperſpä4at toic to tod Kávovo; teataxpévote, 6tto; ×ai Ktſatay &Tootsiºſ tºpog adtöv, dog dºpéAtpov čvta taig &ti baxâagº Trpääsaw. 0 33 Kºmata; advöv dº Šaotoč Baatkéa 'pºol ſpoºsiva tºy Metroopſtay agrip taſtny. This charge was evidently made by some one acquain- ted with Ctesias’ narration of the negotiations between Conon and the king. The author was besides no doubt the same who stated that Conon’s letter was to be deliv- ered by Ctesias, only in case neither Polycritus nor Zeno were present; for it is not at all probable that Ctesias’ excessive vanity would have allowed him to make such a statement about himself. Besides we see from exc. 63 of Photius, that Ctesias stated, that a letter had already been sent to himself by Conon, before the one alluded to by Plutarch, and that he had spoken to the king concerning Conon. It is not likely that he, who claimed to have been already in friendly correspondence with and engaged in the business of Conon, would state that he gave such an injunction about the delivery of his letter. As Dinon was constantly before Plutarch in this life, is mentioned in the next chapter, and certainly wrote about the 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 I3, just where Dinon is introduced as differing from Ctesias, cause us to suspect in Dinon an unfriendly disposition toward Ctesias; we are inclined to look to him as the author of . this charge. - *-* 5 * . Then we find, I have no doubt, in c. 13 the expla- nation of Conon’s injunction, namely that Ctesias was a philo-lacone, and Conon feared to intrust, except in case of necessity, to a partisan of Sparta a letter the object of which was to win the alliance of the king against the Spartans.) 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 little doubt that he is the author of the criticisms, it seems clear that we have in c. 13 two more instances of censure of Ctesias on the part of Dinon, and an appeal to Xenophon's authority. In the one case, as to the number of the royal troops, Plutarch says there may be doubt, but the other he brands as false. I believe then that this charge against Ctesias of being a philo-lacone explains Conon's direction about his letter, and that the author for the charge in c. 13 is Dinon. In c. 19 we have very probably some more specimens of Dinon's detail faultfinding with Ctesias. In c. 22 Dinon mentions the hatred of the king toward the Spartans, and the further relation of the conduct of Antal- cidas at the Persian court seems to betray the opponent of Sparta, whom we recognize in the charge of philola- conism in c. 13. From the manner in which Plutarch used Ctesias as authority in c's II, I2, I4–19 it seems more natural to seek the source for his harsh criticisms of that one in some other than himself. Besides it is hardly chance that these two differ so constantly and in such slight par- ticulars, and that Plutarch introduces so often the opposing statements of just these two out of all the number who wrote about many of these events. Of Dinon's use of Xenophon we have almost absolute proof in the following passage from c. 13: “The accounts of Dinon and Xenophon make the combatants far more.” It is not distinctly affirmed that Xenophon and Dinon gave the same number, but it is implied, and we may confidently 1) See also Rettig, Ctesiae Cnidii vita p. 19. — 6 — affirm that the number 900,000 is not here opposed to the 40O,OOO of Ctesias, simply because that number had already 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 had been Supplemented from the Persian side; in some instances 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 the separate chapters. — Dinon's use of Xenophon would, with Plutarch’s great admiration of that author and his reputation for historical integrity, tend to inspire Plutarch's confidence and induce him to trust more readily to Dinon's abuse of Ctesias; and this is probably one explanation of the fact that Plutarch not once finds fault with Dinon, but censures Ctesias repeatedly and sometimes seemingly without CallSé. With regard to Plutarch's general manner of using his sources K. F. Hermann (de fontibus vitae Periclis p. IV) very aptly says: “Si quem auctorem Plutarchus nominat, non ostentandi causa facit, neque ut fidem narrationi suae apud lectorem conciliet, sed aut eorum, quorum veritatem ipse praestare nolit, fontem indicaturus, aut ubi res in con- troversia posita est iudicium suum testimonio suo confir- maturus, in narrando autem nisi quid ambigue relictum sit, vel verba aliena tamguam sua usurpare non dubitat.” So in the life of Pericles Stesimórotus Tasius and Duris of Samos, whom he names oftenest, he really uses least of all, but Thucydides and Ephorus he follows generally without naming them; so he followed Xenophon in various lives, and so he seems to have used Dinon in the greater part of this life. — After 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 king, Ostames and Oxathres, have adopted totally different forms from those given by Ctesias. Certainly Ostanes differs as much from Artostes, as Arsićas from Oarses, and Ctesias had as good apportunity to know the correct form of the one as of the other. The explanation I imagine to be this: with regard to the king's name, which went out of use after he ascended the throne, Plutarch could depend best upon Ctesias, the physician of the king, who had the best opportunities to know; but with regard to the others it was different, as they continued to bear the same names. The form Ostanes is found in Diodorus XVII, 5 and Ora- thres in XVII, 34. These seem to have been then the forms of the names in common use, among the Greeks at least, and this fact probably decided Plutarch’s choice. It is noteworthy that these same forms occur again in c. 5, where there is great probability that Dinon was before Plutarch, and Ostanes again in c. 22 where Dinon is intro- duced by name, though not in connection with Ostanes of course.") The case becomes more probable for Dinon as source for these names when we compare the manner in which he differed from Ctesias in this chapter with regard to the name Oarses, and in c. 19 as to Melantas. The phrase Aapstoo Y&p zai IIa.0034ttào; traides éyévowto téaaapse, Tpeoffétatos pév 'Apto:épêms, pet éxeivov Čš Köpos is taken from the opening sentence of Xenophon's Anabasis, but there is no other trace of Xenophon in this chapter; in this very sentence, however, occur the names Ostanes and Oxathres, and the best explanation seems to be, that this sentence, as Plutarch has it, came from Xenophon through Dinon. The manner in which Dinon is introduced here (“although Dinon says that he was called Oarses”) seems 1) We must be careſul, however, not to take too readily the form of these names as conclusive evidence, wherever they occur, that Ctesias was not the authority, for in C. 17 where Plutarch relates the story of the punishment of the eunuch Mao a 3&t n <, Ctesias was almost certainly the authority of Plutarch, though the eunuch was called by Ctesias Bo Yo - td. tºng. — 8 — to imply a contradiction of Ctesias by Dinon, and the harsh criticism which follows originated no doubt with him. C 2. ‘H 63 pitmp Štipys tow Köpov påAAow pºojaa zai flookopévy flaatkedely āzeïvow originated no doubt in Anab. I, I, 4. The following statement, that Cyrus having been sent for by his father went up to him, seems to have ref- erence to Anab. I, 1, 2; but of the remainder, that he hoped to be appointed to the kingdom, Xenophon says nothing, as he knows nothing of the intrigues of Cyrus' mother in his favor. Here then in two successive chapters the very words of Xenophon are used to form parts of sentences, which contain yet other statements of which he knows nothing. In the excerpts of Photius Ctesias makes no allusion to the hopes of Cyrus, or the intrigues of his mother, yet it is very strange that the excerptor should have omitted such important statements, if Ctesias had made them. There seems to be evident in Ctesias, as in Xenophon, a desire to 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 must have had the same motive. They both mention simply the accusation of Cyrus by Tissaphernes, from which accusation Xenophon says that his mother “begged him off”, Ctesias, however, that he “was acquitted of the charge” by his mother. It may be noticed further that in the scene where Ctesias makes the messenger announce to Parysatis the death of Cyrus (Dem. Phal. de Eloc. S 222–223), when he stated that Cyrus was victorious and that the king had fled, she distinctly assigned the blame for all the evil that had befallen the king to Tissaphernes, as if his false accusation and 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 more plainly in this and the following chapters of Plutarch, than either Ctesias or Xenophon gave it. The allusion to Demaratus is a still further indication — 9 — against the use of Ctesias here, for we see from exc. 23, that Ctesias said that Demaratus came to Xerxes first at Abydus, when he was marching against Greece, while this account assumes that he was at the Persian court, before the expedition of Darius into Greece. Herodotus (VII, 3) states that on the advice of Demaratus, who went to Susa while Darius was still alive, Xerxes was appointed to the throne to the exclusion of an elder brother, who was born before Darius became king. It is not at all improbable that the statement of Ctesias with regard to Demaratus was meant to be a contradiction of Herodotus, as was so often the case in his history, and that we have here Dinon's contradiction of Ctesias in turn. If in this connection the beginning of c. 26 be read, we find a marked similarity in the occurences, related, with a manifest reference to this place, for there it is said: “The well disposed thought that, as he had received it, so he ought to leave the kingdom to Darius as right of the eldest;” and the attempt of Cyrus to come into power through the influence of his mother is just the parallel to that of Ochus to get the appointment by the assistance of Atossa; whence we might infer the same authority in both passages. C. 3. The allusion to Athena looks to Dinon, inasmuch as we should expect from Ctesias the Persian name of the deity. See also in this connection the allusion to Hera in c. 23 and to Artemis in c. 27. These Greek names for Persian deities are just what we would expect from the graecising Dinon. The whole consecration scene is assigned by Haug to Ctesias, because “the account betrays one well acquainted with Persian customs and usages,” but in this he can hardly be correct. In the excerpts of Ctesias there is no allusion to this scene, and it seems hardly probable the excerptor would have omitted it, had Ctesias described it. Besides, the words of Plutarch: “Some say, that the arrest was made after this accusation, others that Cyrus went into the temple and was betrayed in his concealment by the priest”, show that more than one author described the scene. It may be accepted at any rate that Ctesias did not make the statement that Cyrus was betrayed in his place of concealment by the priest, for in that case he could not well have said that Cyrus was “acquitted of the charge”. That Dinon had written about this scene seems clear if we compare with c. 6. There Dinon states that Parysatis plotted against and murdered Stateira, being angry with her on account of her reproaches with regard to the intercession for Cyrus on this occasion. From the connection it is clear that Dinon was at least in part authority for the statement of Stateira's re- proaches which aroused in Parysatis so deadly a hatred, and he must then also have narrated the scene to which these reproaches refer, that is, the accusation of Tissapher- nes and the intercession of Parysatis. The allusions here and in c. 6 to Cyrus' knowledge of Magism are significant, if we compare with fragm. 5, 8, 9, IO 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 Artaxerxes in c's 2, 4 and 30, in the last Dinon being without doubt the 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 glänzendste Licht stellt, verråth den Ktesias. Dinon war sicherlich ein Lobredner des Königs, dem er so viel zu verdanken hatte.” This I think doubtful. The sympathies of Ctesias were with Cyrus and Clearchus. In addition to what is stated above with regard to his position toward Cyrus, consider the manner in which he denied the king the honor of having killed Cyrus (c’s II and 14); the statement that many revolted from the king to Cyrus, but from Cyrus to the king no one (exc. 58); that as far as we can make out of his ac- count of the battle of Cunaxa he put everything in a much less favorable light for the king, than the facts seem to have warranted; and the murders which he relates that Parysatis committed against all who had anything to do with the death of Cyrus. For these must be viewed not simply as a recital 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 fearfully Parysatis avenged the death of her son. At any rate we would as soon expect a favorable characterization of Artaxerxes from the authority for c's 24 and 25, as from any other source. The story of the oath of Artaxerxes by the god Mithra Haug (p. 92) thinks an indication of an author well versed in Persian affairs, and therefore he assumes this to be Ctesias, and with him agrees Schottin (Observ. de Plut. vita Artax. p. 3). In fact this is the main reason why they assign the whole characterization of the king to Ctesias. But Xenophon in Cyrop. VII, 5, 3 makes the elder Cyrus invoke Mithra, as in Oecon. 4, 24 he makes the younger Cyrus, 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. III*, 348) says: “The worship of Mithra, or the Sun, does not appear in the inscriptions until the reign of Artaxerxes 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 kings mention Mithra, yet his emblem appears on all the known royal tombs, except that of Cyrus. Note also the occur- rence of the name Mithridates given to, or by Mithra' in the reign of Cyrus (Ezra 1, 8).” But that the image of this god was first set up by Artaxerxes Mnemon, and that he was the first who invoked Mithra to be his protector, seems clear from the inscription (Spiegel, Keilinschriften p.65): “By the grace of Auramazda have I set up in this temple Ana- hita and Mithra. May Auramazda, Anahita and Mithra protect me!” Berosus Chaldaeus (Hist. Graec. Min. II, 509) — I2 — states also, that Artaxerxes had set up images of Anahita, or Anaſtis, in all the chief cities of his kingdom, among others at Ecbatana; and a temple of Anaſtis at Ecbatana is alluded to by Plutarch in c. 27. Plutarch's authority for the statement about Anaſtis in c. 27 might very well then be supposed to be acquainted also with the worship of Mithra. See also the allusion to the worship of the Sun in c. 29; from which it is clear that there is no good reason for assigning the story of the oath by Mithra to one author, rather than another. In fact Plutarch's author- ity in c. 29 must have had the very knowledge which Haug would allow only to Ctesias.") - - C. 5. The strongest evidence of the use of Dinon in this chapter is the allusion to Tiribazus. This person is not mentioned in the fragments of Ctesias, but he plays a great role in this life, and we have reason to believe did also in Dinon’s Persika (cf. C. Nepos, Conon 5, 4). He is mentioned in this biography in c's 5, 7, IO, 24, 27, 28, 29. In c. 10 he plays an important part which is not mentioned by Ctesias. The encouragement offered by Tiribazus to the king when he puts him upon his horse, after he had been thrown down by Cyrus: “O king remember this day, for it is worthy not to be forgotten,” is so exactly in the style of his exhortation to risk a battle, that we unhesita- tingly assign both to the same source. In c. 5 he is cha- racterized as Ötözoo pos zaï it a p & Popoc, in c. 24 as droppt!pel; tº x ou pétita, again in c. 27 as āvápaxos xat to p & gopog. In c. 7 Plutarch says concerning him: Tºpt- 34.00 6é, Ög pact, tpd)tou to\piaavto: eitsiv., ág off Öst ‘po- Yoplaysiv x. T. A., in c. 24 Typifla.og āvīp toºdzic pèv év Tpºtſ of dvdpayabiay tººet Yevópewoc, both which agree exactly with the part Dinon makes him play in c. 10. This constant agreement is explained only on the supposition 1) AElian. Hist. var. I, 23 tells this same story much fuller, but gives no clue as to the source. The story with which c. 5 opens is given also very fully in AElian, Hist. Var. I, 32. - . — I 3 — that Plutarch followed one general authority for the facts connected with Tiribazus, and is further an evidence of a general use of Dinon in different parts of this life. Besides we may notice here the names Osſames and Orathres, the Statement that the king used to call his brothers to the same table with himself being significant from the fact, that Ostanes is mentioned again in the same connection in c. 22, where Dinon is cited, and was almost certainly the source. C. 6. Rawlinson (Anc. Mon. III, 486, n. IO) doubts if Plutarch had any authority for the statement that Cyrus had a party at court, but that can very well be thought, if we compare with the intrigues mentioned at the opening of c. 26 among the noble and powerful vassals. Besides Anab. I, 1, 5 seems to be a confirmation of this. - The number of the Greek troops of Cyrus (Anab. I, 7, IO) and the statement that Tissaphernes went up to inform the king (Anab. I, 2, 4) would seem to be certainly taken from Xenophon ); yet the statement that the skytale 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 Xenophon was before Plutarch here. This allusion to the skytale gives rise to a very interesting question. The opinion has been advanced that the disobedience of Clearchus to the Spartan authorities was only a made-out affair between Cyrus and Sparta, that the suspicions of the Persian court might not be aroused against Sparta. (Cf. Koch, Zug der Zehntausend, S 9.) This rhymes exactly with Ephorus (in Diod. XIV, II) who states that Alcibiades revealed to Pharnabazus, that 1) Ritschl, Opusc Philol. I, 447, thinks that the number of the Greek troops given by Plutarch at a “little less than 13 ooo” was taken from Dinon, concluding from Xenophon’s disagreement with himself, that the 12 9oo given in Anab. 1, 7, 1 o, must be corrupt, and that 14,900 should be read. But the close agreements between the text as we now have it and the numbers given by Plutarch and Diodorus is a strong argument in favor of the present reading; though it is an interesting, but probably insolvable problem, how to account for Xenophon's disagreement with himself. d — I4 — Cyrus, with the Lacedaemonians, was going to make war on the king, and with Diodorus XIV, 21, 2 (Ephorus again no doubt) who says the mercenary troops sent to Cyrus by Sparta were feigned to be sent by private persons, but in reality were sent by the government, which was trying to keep all things in the dark until it could be seen what would be the result of the expedition of Cyrus. See also Justinus V, II, who agrees perfectly with Diodorus. If this be probable, then, there is no reason to doubt that the skytale was really sent to Clearchus. But even if Clearchus had communicated this fact to Ctesias during his imprison- ment, the latter would hardly have divulged it in his his- tory through fear of the Spartans, with whom he seems to have taken up his residence after his return to Greece. Compare the treatment of the returned Ten Thousand by Sparta, which continued until hostilities again broke out between Sparta and Persia. As Dinon however wrote about the same time with Ephorus, the whole story had probably already come to light. The reference to Dinon and Ctesias at the close of the chapter shows that both were before Plutarch, and if it be improbable that Ctesias would make such a statement as that of the skytale, we turn naturally to Dinon. C. 7. That Xenophon was the source either directly or indirectly for the number of combatants in the royal army, for the disorderly manner in which the army of Cyrus was marching, 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, IO sqq.; but the totally different dimensions of the ditch given by Plutarch make it extremely doubtful, whether he consulted Xenophon directly or not (cf. Schottin p. 9). It is hard to conceive a reason why Plutarch, who expresses such con- fidence in Xenophon with regard to his narrative of the battle, should not adopt his dimensions for the ditch, a thing which he certainly had the best opportunity to know. — I 5 — Ritschl (Opusc. Philol. I, 447) supposes the 900 OOO was taken directly from Dinon, and thinks he may have had Xenophon as source. E. Curtius [Gr. Gesch. III, 4, 135 (n. 79)] considers Dinon to be the source here, and Thirl- wall (Hist. of Greece IV, 303 n.) accepts Xenophon as Dinon's authority. The allusion to Tiribazus accords with this view, and a comparison of his advice to the king on this occasion with the invective of Artagerses in c. 9 points to the same authority. Very similar is the exhortation of Tiribazus to the king in c. IO. C. 9. That Dinon, as well as Ctesias, related the fall of 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 Xenophon in this case, than of Plutarch as doing the same. C. 10. The short account of the battle taken from Dinon is doubtless to be explained on the supposition, that he agreed in most respects with Xenophon. It will be noticed that there is no contradiction between the two; in the main facts they agree, namely that Cyrus died on the field and in the presence of the king. It is ſurther notice- able that Dinon differs from Xenophon just where the latter has recourse to Ctesias. Plutarch states in chapter 8 the principle which guides him in the description of the battle, namely, that “no sensible man would attempt to relate anything except whatever worthy of mention Xeno- phon had omitted”, and Dinon's close agreement with Xenophon is the only satisfactory explanation for the shortness of his account. So is best explained the fact that in c. 18 with regard to the deceiving and capture of the Greek generals by Tissaphernes, their death, etc., the ac- — I6 — count of Ctesias alone is given; for Dinon followed here in all probability the authority of Xenophon. C. 13. Dinon’s part in this chapter has already been alluded to. We pass now to c. 19, because the evidence is all in favor of Ctesias as source for Plutarch in c’s II—18, a part of c. 13 excepted. This evidence it will be best to discuss under the head of Ctesias. C. 19. In this chapter Dinon is mentioned three times as differing slightly from Ctesias. It is probable that he and Ctesias however gave in most other respects the same account, excepting of course the time to which allusion is made in c. 6. - The slight particulars in which Dinon differs from Ctesias furnish us again in all probability with some specimens of his faultfinding with regard to Ctesias. He must have had as authority some one who was more or less intimately connected with the Persian court and this was probably Polycritus of Mendae. The reason assigned by Plutarch, as determining Parysatis to the horrible deed, is not in accordance with Ctesias, who, as we See in c. 18, stated that Parysatis thus took revenge for 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 difference began again to associate with each other and to take their 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 the eunuchs, and especially of Gigis, must be inferred from the part which he makes her and Melantas play in the affair of Stateira's death, and that he told the mutual anger of the king and his mother follows directly from c. 23: “For the king did not continue long in his wrath, but became reconciled to her and sent for her, etc.” The authority for this statement of the reconciliation must be one who had told of the estrangement, and as c. 23 opens with the death of Tissaphernes which took place full 3 years after — I 7 — Ctesias had finished his history, it is altogether improbable that he can be the source for the statement of the recon- ciliation of Artaxerxes and Parysatis. So nothing is left but to accept Dinon as the source. C. 21. The charge made against Ctesias in this chap- ter has been discussed above. — Haug (p. 96) thinks that the notice of the peace of Antalcidas was taken from Ephorus, but without ground. Plutarch followed Ephorus readily in other places, but there is no evidence of his being used at all in this life. He does not once refer to him, not even in c. 13, where the number of troops of the royal army as given by Ctesias is opposed to that of Xe- nophon and Dinon, although Ephorus agreed with, and most probably took from, Ctesias the number 400 OOO (Diodorus XIV, 22); again Plutarch makes no reference to the story told by Ephorus in Diodorus XIV, II and 22, I, that the king had already been informed by Pharnabazus, before Tissaphernes went up, of the coming of Cyrus; nor does he allude to the story told in Diodorus XIV, 21, 2 of the double play of the Spartans; of which things I have no doubt Plutarch would have taken notice, if Ephorus had been before him. Ephorus no doubt related the circum- tances of this peace and was probably the authority of Diodorus in XIV, I IO, but it seems from the close con- nection with the opening of the next chapter, where Dinon is named, that the latter must have related the same. We know positively, however, that Xenophon related all the details of this peace and to him directly, or indi- rectly, Plutarch was probably indebted here, as we shall see later. C. 22. In the opening of this chapter Dinon is named, the sentence is connected in the closest manner with the preceding chapter, and besides, if Dinon said that Artaxer- xes, while hating the Spartans above all men, was exceed- ingly fond of Antalcidas, he must of course have related the cause of this fondness, that is the peace brought about by the influence of Antalcidas. Haug (p. 98) thinks from the 2. — I 8 *º-Fºe connection in which this reference to Dinon occurs, that he was the source for the reception of Antalcidas and other noted Greeks at the Persian court. Müller (Hist. Gr. Frag. — Dinon) for the same reason considers Dinon the source of the whole account of Antalcidas. But Schottin (Observ. de Plut. vita. Artax. p. 8), on the strength of the fragm. from Phanias, found in Athen. 48", assigns the whole story of the reception of these Greeks at the court of Artaxerxes to him. We can best arrive at a conclusion by comparing the accounts of Plut. and of Phanias in full. P/u?. c. 22. 3/ Atº zai toog &AAoos Xtrap- A 5 * * Af * } tudtag åst 36skottép.svog 6 Ap- - t / cy točépémº xai wouíčov, 63 pmat Astvov, &věpátov Štávrov y cº p º V J ºvatóeotºtous stwat, tow Av- / Öſtepmºtmosv etc Kot Tote to Xxtóaw IIépaag åwaſ divta. Maſłów Śva rāv Gyöwów ate- / Af ‘pdvov ×al 3&40; eig påpov to to\otekéotatov GT, bettvoo *y *- fº Aſ ërepipe tº Avta)\xiຠzai tāv- y w / tec àbaijuadov táv ºptAoqºpogº- vºmy. Further with regard to Ti- A cº, V * magoras: Tºp; os tºp > V & * A97vatºp dud. Bmxoëptôog toč Ypopulatéog eiotéphavtt Ypop- 3. f t pattotov &tóppmtow jobsic po- P f y w pious te 60 psixoug #600xe xat A. f cº, p cº, 3 Yd Maxtog Bostoo 6eopévºp 6t y f * Gaëévetay 6760 pxovva floog 3 y Af */ GuéAYeobal topmºſokodëouv' éct 63 x\{vºy Xat otpd pata xat - Af 2, toū; atpovyºvra: Šteppey, Ög Athenaeus 484. gº w f IIpótov as IIápaau, äg pilotv e f ºn \ M f Hpax)\etoric, Xat toog Asſop.3- * / vouc atpºtas Épeopov, two x6- y gº / opov Šyſiotpājatczai sãdºpetav. rºl v \ s gº w / >\ Töv obv Kpito. Tupayópav 3. v •) f ey töv čx Tóptowoc, Ög pilot (Da- / víag ö teputatºuxác, "Evtupov, y / - 6; ºp 97 protox\éoos &véſ". ôg Baot).éa, tiptov Aptačépême, A - * axmvºw te éðoxey attº ètapé- v / \ * , y poosaw to xáA\og xai to 9.5- * / 2 / Yeşog xal x\tvmy dipºſopótoča, êtrepipe à& Kat otpd pata toku- texj xai tow tootpdcavta, y * odoxow odz Śttataobaº toog ºf T. W p "EXXVag öTootpovvöstv. Kai ëtti to do'ſ ſevuzov ºptotov čxa- gº * * Aetto è Kpºs ojtoc, tow Baat- / e/ * Aéa boxa (oſmoog' 6ttep oddsvi Af * f tºpótepov tow ‘EX\ºvov čá- } > 5 & 2 f/ ey veto, GAA’ ot;8 totepov, attm 7&p twº toic goſyéveat ove- / / ‘pokátteto. Tupayópg ºv Y&p ~ x y *. g tºp Atºmwatºp, tºp trooaxoviidayti Plut. c. 22. 2 f Af où papai)76tov'EX\ºvov Štro- arpovyºvat, zai popsis toūc zo- y > V f / pičovtz; 28tov učxpt 8a)\gaon; ** y - f , ºn W. pa)\axóg Ézowta. IIapóvtt öé ~ * Af ositvow étéptsto \aptpótatov, cy * * 3 * V ~ ôots xai tow 36expov too 32- 2 / . . .3 Af at Métog'OatAviv “'QT-paſſpo,” / A * pavat, “uéuvm.go to 6tm; tº: > * ** tpattéºng' off Y&p étti utzpois' */ A oùto dot xexoop.évy tapäxel- 35 ~ *. cºx 3 > * tat”. Tooto 6’ my úvetâtopog C / / V to; 5tópºvyotº. Tupa'ſópoo pºv 3. V * º cº oùw ötö tºw dopodoxtow Atºm- ~ a 7 waiot 90 watov xatéYvoday. I9 Athenaeus 483. / 3aatkāa zai 9.6\tata tºpºvtt, s' tow 3& Trapa- p aº A W tú)spévov BootXei todtºp twd. V * - Grö täg tpattéſms &tégtex\ev. tooto odºx ātīp; 'Avraxxâq ūš tº A&xtovt tºw e * f y aútoo otépavoy eig pºpov 36- | y l e * &2 °E y ‘pag step, pe' tºp o vttuq) * - * y W V totaota tox\0 &rotet, xxi étti XV A to doſſevizöv &ptotov Šxâket, * * * ép tº oi IIápaat XaAeróg Épe- pov, dog tåg te tºpic 679.e00- •) p * YV f - eig Tpoãootay 9.3x)\ov Xºpt- pévºs zai atpateia: āti Tây t E A Af 3 / }/ 2XX660 to Alv čoopévºc."Etep- t", = R} rt zXt 3-2. 2 / ps os xxt zatvmv autºp apopo- ^ V \ Toda xal atpop vºw xai axmvºv > / 5 / W / oëpavópopov &vötvöv xxt 8póvov 2 * $ 3-4- 3- appopovy x2, crºposo. 34% Stov Kai pu%Xag AtiyoxoMA'ſ too: * & / Xpooj; xał &pſopäç 33 peºMac Ézatów zai x0atipas àpſopods xai Tatētaxag äxatov xai tai- t / ** ãag äxotów, Xpooooº te ééaxt- * V 3X1Xtoog yopic töv etc tà étt- /c, CA’ –$ ... I cº, p tº deva zai)' huàpav Štěop.évov. To this may be added Athen. 25.1°, for from the allusion to the prostration before the king in both pas- sages we cannot be wrong in referring both to the same * Af cy? Y - source: zai Tupayópav 8 dréx- y A tstvav, 6tt Tºpsaffedov (b: Baat- / * Aéa tºpogezóvnaswad tip. We have in this extract of Athenaeus a combination of two different versions of the same story; for not only 2 * —- 2C –– does Heraclides (probably) call the recipient of the king's favors Timagoras the Cretan, while Phanias names him Entimus of Gortyn, but there is a double enumeration of the gifts, which can be explained in no other way. I should suppose that the first and shorter enumeration was from Heraclides, the second and fuller from Phanias. Plu- tarch offers a third and older version; older, because to this version of the story the following passage from Athenaeus seems certainly to refer: “For to Timagoras the Athenian who prostrated himself before the king and was much hon- ored this thing did not happen, etc.” I can view this passage in no other light, than as a contradiction of the version given by Plutarch. Besides the different names by which the subject of the story is called in Plutarch and in Athenaeus, the following differen- ces are evident in the story itself: 1) With Plutarch it is Ismenias the Theban who prostrates himself before the king, and he assigns as the cause of the great favor shown to Timagoras the Athenian a secret letter sent through Be- 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 Timagoras by the Athenians ); Athenaeus says he was put to death because he prostrated himself before the king. 4) We see by a comparison of Artax. 22 with Pelop. 30, that Plutarch represented Antalcidas as honored by Ar- taxerxes above all the Greeks who went up to his court, while the authority of Athenaeus represented the highest honors as shown to Entimus. We have besides in Plut. 1) In Pelop. 30 he alludes to gift-taking as the alleged cause for the condemnation of Timagoras, but inclines to the view that it was rather owing to his allowing Pelopidas to prevail in all his plans with the king. In this he seems to follow Xenophon (Hell. VII. 1, 33–38), who states that he had refused to share the tent with Leon, his fellow-ambassador, and had assisted the counsels of Pelopidas, that for these things he was accused by Leon and condemned by his countrymen. — 2 I — aſ ºf Pelop. 30 the same account of Timagoras, Antalcidas and Pelopidas, as in this chapter, the presents of Timagoras being the same as here'); which strengthens the evidence against the assumption that Plutarch and Athenaeus drew their information from the same source, since in two differ- ent narrations composed at different periods the former agrees with himself and differs so widely from Athenaeus. There is sufficient similarity in the accounts of Plutarch and Athenaeus with regard to the gifts presented to Timagoras, or Entimus, to make us sure that both are versions of the same story, but on the other hand so great divergences as to point certainly to different sources. The best explanation then seems to me to be this: Plutarch has the oldest version of the story and his source was Dinon, for this author was before him in this chapter and must in the very nature of the case have related these things; Phanias, who, according to Suidas, was a disciple of Aristotle and flourished at the time of Alexander the Great, was acquainted with this version and contradicted it, at least as far as the subject of the story is concerned. C. 23. We saw at c. 19 that only Dinon 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 for the death of Tissaphernes. The circumstances of the death of Tissaphernes were well known, however, as may be inferred from the fact that it is related by Xenophon (Hell III, 4, 25), Polyaenus (Strateg. VII, 16), Diodorus (XIV, 80, 6–8) (see also Plutarch Ages. IO); and these dif- ferent accounts agree so nearly that it would be impossible to decide whence Plutarch's account came. Haug finds in the expression of Parysatis, that the king “should not regard the opinions and laws of the Greeks, since he himself had 1) The only difference is that in Pelop. 30 the sum of money presented to Timagoras is not stated, while we find the pay given to the carriers, which is wanting in our chapter. — 22 — been appointed by the deity as the law and judge of right and wrong for the Persians” an indication of the graecising Dinon. The allusion to Heraclides is without doubt only a break in the general account, and will be discussed under c. 27 where the marriage of Amestris is more fully related. Lachmann (Gr. Gesch. II, 35I and 356) assumes that Ar- taxerxes took part personally in two expeditions against the Cadusians, no doubt inferring this from the totally dif- ferent account which Diodorus (XV, 8 and IO-II) gives of Tiribazus at the time of this war, from that given by Plutarch here; but it seems to me without good reason. It is plain that Plutarch knew of only one such expedition. Cornelius Nepos (Datames I) seems to give the principal role in this war to Datames, not mentioning Tiribazus, and as Diodorus represents Tiribazus as taking no part in that expedition, we might guess the same source for both. Now we find from Athen. I 44 f., that Theopompus in the 35" book of his Histories told how Thys the king of the Pa- phlagonians was brought as a captive to king Artaxerxes; just this is represented by Nepos (c. 2) as the second of the great exploits of Datames; hence we might infer that Theopompus was the source for Nepos with regard to this exploit and also for the Cadusian war. The different ac- count of Plutarch with regard to Tiribazus points to a dif- ferent source. Partly from the way in which Plutarch characterizes Tiribazus here, which agrees so well with the manner in which he appears in c's 5, 7, Io, 27, 28, 29, and partly because this son of Tiribazus is introduced again in c. 30, where it is certain that Dinon was before Plutarch, I think it more natural to refer this account to Dinon, than to any other source. - Müller (Hist. Gr. Frag. II, 98) considers the account of Aspasia to be taken from Heraclides, but, except the allu- sion made to him in c. 23, there is no evidence in favor of this supposition. In c. 27 where Plutarch tells (according to Heraclides) of the marriage of Amestris to the king, she is said to have been the first of his daughters, whom he — 23 — married; afterwards he married Atossa also, as it is said. But in c. 23 the king’s infatuation for and marriage with Atossa is related as if the first thing of the kind that had happened. Heraclides’ story about his marrying Amestris is alluded to merely to be put off for another occasion. Then at the beginning of c. 27, in the very midst of the story about Aspasia and Darius, Plut. says of Artaxerxes: “Al- though he had Atossa, having made her his wife contrary to the law, etc.”; not the slightest allusion to Amestris, as there must have been if Heraclides had been the source here.") Heeren (De Trogi Pomp. font. et auct., pars altera p. XIII — Frotscher's Edition of Justinus) thinks that in the following account with regard to Artaxerxes and his sons Plutarch and Justinus have the same source and sup- poses this to be Theopompus, but a close comparison of Plut. and Just. shows quite a divergence. Jusz. A, 1. Ariarates and Pluſ. 26 and 30. 3 legitimate sons of Ar- taxerxes: Darius, Ariaspes and Ochus. P/u?. 26. Artaxerxes becoming old Darius, Ochus. Artaxerxes appointed Cy- perceived that his sons were intriguing for the throne, and in order to take away all hope from the younger, Ochus, and to prevent such a calamity as had befallen himself in the war with Cyrus, appointed Darius, who had now reached rus King per indulgentiam, considering that nothing was taken from himself which was given to his son, and that his own pleasure would be more real, if he saw during his own lifetime the insignia of majesty upon his son. 1) Athenaeus (576d) states that Xenophanes said that Aspasia was called Milto, and Aelian, who gives the same story as Plutarch, only much fuller, says also that she was called Milto, but this is hardly ground enough to assume Xenophanes to be Plutarch’s source. Plut. 26. his 50th. year, as his suc- CeSSO1. There was a law of the Per- sians that the one appointed to the throne make a request, and that he who appointed him should, if possible, grant whatever was asked. A/zzz. 27. Artaxerxes gave Aspasia to Darius Štt &vaſwi; tod wópoo. Artaxerxes changed his mind and made Aspasia a priestess of Artemis at Ec- batana. No allusion to the illegiti- mate brothers of Darius as concerned in the conspiracy, while a son of Tiribazus is mentioned in c. 30 as the slayer of Arsames. Tiribazus is the leading spirit of the conspiracy. Ochus rids himself of Ari- aspes and then Arsames, and in consequence of these troub- les Artaxerxes dies of grief and despondency. 24 - Jusſ. A, 1. Darius was appointed king “contrary to the law of the Persians with whom the king is not changed except by death.” - 9 usz. X. The king gave up Aspasia pro indulgentia. A priestess of the sun. 5O of the brothers of Da- rius join the conspiracy and all of his companions, with their wives and children, are put to death. Not mentioned in Justi- IlllS. After the death of Darius, Artaxerxes died of disease brought on by grief; no allusion being made to the plots of Ochus against Ari- aspes and Arsames, though his cruelty against all the surviving members of the royal family after the death of Artaxerxes is told. — 25 — The case then stands about as follows: the differences in the two accounts are too great to allow of their being referred to the same source; this story, as Plutarch gives it, is part of a connected account extending from c. 26 to the end of the life and bearing every mark of a single source, and Plutarch is found in c. 3O (cf. frag. 29 Dinon) to be following Dinon, though he does not name him; Dinon was constantly before Plut. in the composition of the life, being mentioned in c's I, 6, 9, IO, I 3, 19, 22 and quoted from in c. 30, while Theopompus is not once men- tioned in the biography. A close comparison of passages in different chapters from c. 23 to the close will make it quite probable that Plutarch followed one general source in them all. Compare, for instance, c. 23 the allusion to the marriage of Atossa with the king contrary to the laws and opinions of the Greeks, with c. 27, the statement that Artaxerxes had made Atossa his wife contrary to the law; also the reference Žn c's 26, 28 and 30 to the same relation of Atossa; c. 26: the law with regard to whatever request the heir appointed might make and c. 28 allusion again made to this law – (26) mention of the upright kitaris, and ref- erence to the same in c. 28 – (26) Darius stated to have been appointed to the throne, with which compare Tiri- bazus’ reference to the same in c. 28 – (26) intrigues of Ochus with Atossa and allusions to the same in c’s 28 and 30. The general course of the story seems to be inter- rupted only three times: I* in c. 23 Švuot pévrot Aéroogly; 2nd in c. 27 where the story of Heraclides with regard to the king's marrying Amestris is introduced; 3" in c. 29, Évrot dé 'pool. The statement of Heraclides alluded to in c. 23 is given undoubtedly in c. 27, where Plutarch speaks of the marriage of the daughters of the king. We may well be- lieve from the connection that Heraclides told of the wrath of Tiribazus against the king and perhaps his counsel to Darius, but the arguments by which he rouses Darius to a conspiracy, the allusions to the upright Æitaris, to the – 26 — intrigues of Ochus in the harem of his father, to the suc- cession to the crown, to the king's breaking an inviolable law of the Persians for the sake of a Greek prostitute, all refer to c. 26 and the beginning of c. 27, where it is almost sure that Plutarch did not have Heraclides as source, since he takes no account of the relation of Amestris to the king. C. 30. Müller (Graec. Hist. Frag. f. 29 Dinon) gives the following fragment taken from Lucian. Macrob. c. 15, p. 64 (Didot): 'Aptačépême & Mväpov ćrizāmūsis, ép by Köpos ū 36expos éatparedoaro, Baalkedow év IIápaatz éreºsºtmas vögq 8; Kai 6x60% owta étow Yevögewoc, Ög 68 Aetwow iotopei, tetrópov wai évevåxovta. Without doubt then Dinon was the source for Plutarch with regard to the age and length of reign of Artaxerxes, and it speaks very strongly for him as main authority for the latter part of this biography, when we see that it is a connected account, evidently from one leading source, when at the end the death of Artaxerxes is represented as the result of the accumulated evils just described, and just in this connection the age of Artaxerxes is given in exact accordance with Dinon. The fact that Plutarch is found here to have used Dinon without naming him, is with his well known method of using his sources, better evidence of a general use of him in the latter part of this life, than half a dozen open citations would be. The result to which I come then is, that Plutarch had before him throughout the life one main authority, who furnished the groundwork for the whole'); though he made use also of Ctesias, especially in c's II — 19, of Xenophon, and to some extent also of Heraclides, and others whom he does not name. At first thought it may seem rather bold to maintain that Dinon was the leading authority for the first nine chapters, since he had no personal knowledge of the things there told, while Ctesias, as physician of the 1) Cf. Heeren, de fontibus Plutarchi, p. 95. — 27 — royal family, 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 Ctesias, to influence his opinion.") From the manner in which Dinon is cited in the first part of the liſe 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 ac- count, from one general source, we trace a single impor- tant event with perfect certainty to him, the evidence amounts almost to proof. Ctesias of Cnidus. J. C. F. BAEHR: Ctesiae Cnidii Operum Reliquiae, Frankfurt 1824. — RETTIG, Ctesiae Cnidii vita, Hannover 1827. — C. MüLLER, Ctesiae Fragmenta, - Anhang zu Herodotus, Paris 1844 (Didot). Every other who has treated the subject, so far as I know, except Grote and Rettig, agrees with the result to which Baehr comes, following exc. 64 of Ctesias, name- ly, that Ctesias returned to his native land in 399 or 1) From the efforts of Parysatis to have Cyrus appointed to the throne instead of Artaxerxes, as related in c. 2, the rival aspirations of Darius and Ochus as told in the beginning of c. 26, and the statement in c. 3o that “Ariaspes, not because he was older than Ochus, but because he was mild and simple and philanthropic, was desired as king by the Persians,” taken into consideration with the fact that Atossa persuaded the elder Darius to appoint her son Xerxes to the throne to the exclusion of the elder Arto- bazanes, who was born before Darius became king (Herod VII, 3), we might suppose that the succession to the throne in Persia was not absolute- ly fixed by law, though undoubtedly it was the custom that the eldest son receive the kingdom, — 28 — 398 B. C.”). Rettig (p, I6) on the strength of the words in exc. 62, that the sepulchre of Clearchus within 8 years (Öt Öztü, êtów) was covered with a growth of palm trees, places the return not earlier than 394 B. C. Grote (Hist. of Greece, IX*, 391 n. 2) makes a similar statement, without giving his reasons. But a comparison of exc. 63 and 64 with Diodorus XIV, 46, 6 shows this to be clearly wrong. In exc. 63 Ctesias states that he was sent with a letter to Conon (the appointment, no doubt, of Conon as prefect of the fleet under Pharnabazus, for immediately after is told how Conon was made navarch by the satrap); then he relates his own return to his native land, and then his journey to Sparta. According to Dio- dorus XIV, 39, I the appointment of Conon was made in the year 398. Ctesias had, moreover, as we see from exc. 64, returned to Greece before he closed his history, and according to Diodorus XIV, 46, 6 this closed with the year 398. Ctesias therefore either heard the remainder of the story of the palm trees over Clearchus’ burial-place after his return to Greece, or what is more probable, this, as well as the remainder of the story, is an invention of his. The only thing that the 8 years does seem to prove, if it prove anything, is that the history was not published until about the year 393 B. C. It would be more in accordance, however, with the rest of this wonderful story if we should suppose that this passage is corrupt, that originally Öztó ºnvoy was read and this was changed by some transcriber into Öxtö, ätälv, as being more probable.”) 1) With regard to the question whether Ctesias was a captive, as stated by Diod. II, 32, 4, and, following him, Tzetzes, Chil. I, 1, 82, or not, cf. Baehr (p. 13 Sqq.) and Müller (Fragm. of Ctesias). It seems to me there can be no doubt that Baehr is right in rejecting the statement of Diodorus. 2) If we had no other proof, the fact that the history breaks off with the year 398, would make it almost certain that Ctesias left Persia at that time (398); for it is little more than a chronicle of court affairs, and no reason could be imagined for closing it abruptly just in the midst of an interesting period, if we suppose him to have remained longer at the court of Persia. — 29 — I Suspect that Ctesias, who is named in exc. 60 as physician of Parysatis and who certainly stood in a confi- dential relation to her, as we may infer from the allusion in exc. 49 and the events related with regard to Clearchus' imprisonment, after the death of Stateira, when his royal patroness 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 something of the kind (c. 21). Besides if we believe Plu- tarch's statement (c. 13), that he was a partisan of Sparta, how else are we to explain his conduct with regard to the appointment of Conon, than by supposing that he acted against the Lacedaemonian interests in order to get away. from the Persian court? That he really did not desert his Spartan principles, may be gathered from the fact that he seems to have taken up his residence at Sparta after his return to Greece (exc. 64). According to Diodorus II, 32 Ctesias claimed, that for the facts of Persian history of the previous time he had consulted the Ötºpi)épat Baat) wai; of the remaining facts, according to exc. I, he was either an eye-witness, or heard directly from eye-witnesses. For what relates to the expe- dition of Cyrus and the capture of the five generals of the Greeks, Clearchus was undoubtedly his authority. The evidence is about as follows: I) From Ctesias’ account of his intercourse with Clearchus, as related in c. 18 and exc. 58 and 60, we see that he had just such an opportunity of getting an account of these events as a historian collect- ing materials for a history would wish. 2) Note the prom- inent place given in exc. 58 to the difficulty between Clearchus and Menon, which is fully explained when compared with exc. 60 — the statement that Tissa- phernes 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 — Clearchus against his will, to go to a conference with Tissaphernes.) This is the self-justifying account of Clear- chus, who traces his own ruin and that of the generals to Menon's treachery, 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-justification of Clear- chus in the words: 3XX& xai Öqvato; Köpoo, äteti)06vto: KAeópxºp (exc. 58). 4) Note the fact that the history of Ctesias goes no further with the account of the Greeks, than the capture of the generals. This last 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 return of the Ten Thousand, he would no doubt have done so, especially as it is questionable whether at that time any account of the expedition had been published. That it was composed in Persia is besides, just what the following passage means (Diod. II, 32, 4): 06to; ody ºaw & tow 30- ot}\txdow ºwpi}epov, Św at of Ilêpoat tag taxatic Tºpºget: xati, two vápov styov govretaſpévac, Toxotpaypovical tº zai) &aata zai o ovt at 6 p. evow thv to top tav etc too : "EA Mºvac ê; every siv. This is also Müller's view; but Rehdantz (Introd. to Anab. S 17) considers the history to have been written after his return to Greece. C. 1. Had we the works of both Ctesias and Dinon, I have no doubt that many of the facts stated by Plutarch from c. I up to the battle of Cunaxa, might be traced to either source. In c. I Ctesias, as well as Dinon, was before Plutarch, as may be seen by comparing, for instance the passage in exc. 49: tú)stat to ºvoga adroß &ro too #Atoo Köpov, with Plutarch's expression: á páv obv Köpo: 1) Cf. Anab. II, 5. 28, from which it is clear that Clearchus suspected Menon; and that a report prevailed both in the Persian army and at court, implicating Proxenus with Menon in the treachery against the generals, is shown by the close agreement between Ctesias (exc. 60) and the statement of Ariaeus (Amab. II, 5, 38), that “Proxenus and Menon because they had disclosed the plot of Clearchus were in great honor.” —- 3 I – ătº Köpoo too taxatoo točvopa šayev, &zetvº 3è &ro tod #Atoo Yevédèat pact. Köpov Yºp zańsiv Tlápaag row \tov; also the name Apoºzac, which form Plutarch prefers to that of Dinon: Odpang (cf. Haug). C. 2. The source for the statement in this chapter that Artaxerxes by his supplications to his mother saved the life of his wife Stateira, when she was about to be put to death by order of his father Darius, was no doubt Ctesias, as a comparison with exc. 53–56 will show. The excerpts of Ctesias, however, seem to me to offer no satis- factory evidence, that he was the authority for the scene at Pasargadae and the plot of Cyrus against his brother (cf. above c. 2 under Dinon). Haug's assertion that the anecdotes in c's 4 and 5 point to Ctesias, because he was so fond of relating such things, seems to me to amount to nothing. If we may judge by the fragments, Dinon was quite as fond of telling anecdotes; so were also Heraclides, Phanias and Theopompus. C. 6. That Ctesias, as well as Dinon, related the scene of confusion at the palace, when Tissaphernes announced that Cyrus was marching on Babylon, may be inferred from what 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 the king as possible, since she hated her most of all, and espe- cially because she wished herself to have power”; again at the end of c. 17: “But Stateira both in other things opposed her, and was especially angry, because she cruelly and unlawfully killed, for the sake of Cyrus, eunuchs who were faithful to the king”; again in c. 19: “After their former suspicion and hostility beginning again to associate together and to dine with each other”, which can refer only to c. 6 and can be from no other than Ctesias. All these passages prove clearly that Ctesias described the state of hostility in which Parysatis and Stateira lived for several years be- fore the final catastrophe. This hostility seems, according — 32 — to Ctesias, to have begun at the very commencement of the reign of Artaxerxes, when to gratify Stateira he put to death Udiastes, the slayer of Teritychmes (exc. 57). With regard to the date of the consummation of the plot, Plutarch expressly prefers Ctesias. -- C 8. 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 battle; cf. exc. 58 ºwntos Kópoo &Tetêoëvrog KXed pyg).') From this phrase too we may reach a certain conclu- Sion as to the source of Clearchus’ admonition to Cyrus and the reply of the latter, for from these we learn exactly what the Grettoivros KXeºpxºp means.”) C 9. That Ctesias was before Plutarch in this chapter is shown by the allusion to the name of the horse of Cyrus, Pasakas, and the expression in C. II: “Cyrus when he had killed Artagerses, etc.” C. 11. Abridgement of Ctesias’ account of the death of Cyrus. I agree with Haug (p. 93 Sqq.), Schottin (p. 4–5) and Müller, (Histor. Graec. Fragm. Ctesias) in considering Ctesias principal or perhaps sole authority in c's 12 and 14–18. C. 12. The argument of Haug (p. 93), that the account of the manner in which Artasyras, “the king's eye”, brings to Artaxerxes intelligence of the death of Cyrus, as well as the sending of a number of attendants to ascertain the truth of the report, is from Ctesias, is quite satisfactory, namely that, according to Dinon, Cyrus fell in the 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 brought to the king; according to Ctesias, however, the 'king retired from the field as soon as he was wounded. 1) Cf. Müller, Hist. Grace. Fragm. – Ctesias (in Anhang zu Herod;) Schottin, Observ. de Plut. vita Artax. 2) Cf. Amab. I, 7, 9 and Polyaenus, Strategemata II, 2, 3. I cannot see, however, that the designation of Artasyras as “the king's eye” betrays so accurate a Knowledge of Persian affairs that this of itself would point to Ctesias, for the same designation is found in Herodotus I, I 14. The statement that the king was suffering in body from thirst and his wound, can only be from Ctesias, inasmuch as Dinon says nothing about the king's receiving a wound. Sa- tibarzanes is mentioned in exc. 57 and 63 as one of the most trusted eunuchs of king Artaxerxes. Only Ctesias alludes to the participation of the Kaunians in the battle and the expression tow Kaoytov čxstvow tow xaxoſtov is a direct reference to that of Ctesias in c. 11: Kačvuot tweg āvūpoſtol xazó3tot. The rewarding of this Kaunian, as re- lated in c. I4, where he is represented as a man unknown and poor, must be also from Ctesias. C. 13. Ctesias told of the cutting off of Cyrus' head and right hand, as we see from exc. 58, and only with his account agrees 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 Persians; for, as was said above, Cyrus in Dinon’s account fell 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 in connection with the king's army, the number of the fallen and the false statement with regard to the participation in the embassy sent to the Greeks.”) C 14–18. 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 imputation against Ctesias in this place; but that Xenophon really meant by the expression eig "EXXmy to contradict Ctesias, I do not doubt. Just so he contradicted him in Anab. I, 7, Io, I, 9, 31, I, Io, I 5 and the whole story of Cyrus’ fall. . bates), while what he says of the rewarding of the Carian, who was reported to have struck Cyrus, was given in c. 18. Besides the punishing of each of the three just mentioned is in Plutarch committed to Parysatis, who according 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 Dinon as committed during the war (c. 6). Mithridates while not mentioned by Dinon, is said by Ctesias to have been the first who struck Cyrus and one of his attendants is said to have picked up the saddle- cover, to which allusion is made again in c. 14; besides in C. I5, Mithridates is made to relate how he struck Cyrus just exactly as Ctesias had related the same thing in c. I I. Dinon (c. IO) mentions the report that Cyrus fell by the hand of the king, as if by no means unlikely; here it is openly represented as false, which agrees precisely with the story of Ctesias in c. I I. In c. 16 allusion is made again 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 at the feast (c. 15): “Let us eat and drink doing reverence to the demon of the king, and avoid expressions which are too high for us” as so genuinely Persian that only Ctesias could 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 (axopéo), but we see from exc. 3o that Ctesias had described this mode of punishment. The Carian or Kaunian is alluded to in c. 14 as the one by whom Cyrus was struck on the knee, just as Ctesias told in c. I I. . There is no difficulty with regard to his being called in this chapter a Carian, whereas in c. 11 he was called a Kaunian; for as Haug says, the Kaunians were a tribe of Caria, and besides in exc. 59 of Ctesias he is twice called a Carian; so that the terms must have been used indiscriminately. In exc. 59 it is simply stated that Parysatis tortured the Carian and then put him to death, but we need not doubt that Ctesias described fully the mode of punishment, for his whole history shows that he was as apt at describing horrible methods of punishment, as Parysatis was at inventing them (cf. exc. 54, 55, 57 etc.). The story of the punishment of Bagapates was related fully by Ctesias, as we see from exc. 59, which agrees in every respect with Plutarch, except that Ctesias makes no allusion to the impaling on three stakes. This was, however, evidently an omission of the excerptor, for it may be seen from exc. 36 that he had 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 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 long since dead. C. 18. Ctesias is introduced as the source for this chapter and we have besides in exc. 60 exactly the same aCCOunt. C. 13. From exc. 61 we see that Ctesias narrated the death of Stateira just as Plutarch gave it, except that the latter differs from Ctesias with regard to the immediate cause of the murder, which Ctesias alleged to have its motive in anger at the execution of Clearchus. With the few slight differences alluded to by Plutarch, there is every probability that Ctesias and Dinon gave the same story and with about the same fullness. C. 21. There remains only the allusion to Ctesias in this chapter which has been already discussed above. The remaining events of this life belong to a period succeeding the close of the history of Ctesias. 3 * Xenophon. That the Anabasis and the Hellenica were the sour- ces of much of the information contained in this bio- graphy is very evident. Rehdantz (Einleitung zu der Anab. S I 7) says that Plutarch supplements here to some extent from the Persian side the first two books of Xenophon’s Anabasis with which he was also acquaint- ed, and this is no doubt correct; but to what extent Xenophon was used directly by Plutarch, and to what de- gree indirectly, it is impossible to say definitely. The question has been discussed in the foregoing pages under Dinon. 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. Aapstoo Y&p zai IIapodáttào; traids; ##vowto x. t. A.; cf. Anab. I, I. . C 2. ‘H 63 pºſtmo Štipys z. t. A., cf. Anab. I, I, 4. 'Atteåeiyêm flaatje'); 'Aptočépêms pºstovopoai)sic, Köpog º Aoota: garpáti; xai tāv šti bakóao's otpatmás; cf. Anab. I, 9, 7 and Hell. I, 4, 3. C. 3. Cf. Anab. I, I, 3—4 for Xenophon's story of Tissaphernes’ accusation of Cyrus, though Plutarch followed some other authority here. C. 4. The allusion to Xenophon, with regard to the mercenary Greek troops of Cyrus, has reference to Anab. I, I, 6 sqq. For the statement that his mother was present and took away the suspicions of the king, while Cyrus wrote dutifully to his brother, cf. Anab. I, I, 8. C. 6. Cyrus’ application to the Lacedaemonians; cf. Hell III, I, I, though Plutarch in all probability did not consult Xenophon here. Number of Greek troops of Cyrus; cf. Anab. I, 2, 4 (cf. II, 3, 19). Pretences assigned by Cyrus for the expedition; cf. Anab. I, 2, 1 (III, I, 9) and I, 3, 20. C 7. Belief prevalent in the army of Cyrus that the king would not fight; cf. Anab. I, 7, 18–2O. For the number of the king's army, cf. Anab. I, 7, 12; for the remainder of the chapter I, 7, 19 – I, 8. II. C. S. Position of the Greeks on the river; cf. Anab. I, 8, 4 and 13. The king did not perceive that he was beaten (ošte vixmileic advög #2i}sto); cf. Anab. I, Io, 5. Cyrus' order to Clearchus to lead the Greeks against the centre; cf. Anab. I, 8, 12–13. C 9. Victory and pursuit of the Greeks; cf. Anab. I, 8, 18–2 I. C. 13. Embassy of Phalinus; cf. Anab. II, 1, 7. C. 20. For the cause of the expedition sent by the Spartans into Asia to relieve the Greeks in that quarter, cf. Hell. III, 1, 3, where it is stated that these cities sent messengers to Sparta begging aid against Tissaphernes. With regard to Thibron, cf. Hell III, 1, 4–7; Dercyllidas, III, I, 8 – 2, 2I; Agesilaus, III, 4, 2 Sqq., IV, I, I5 sqq., and IV, 2, 2; Timocrates and the bribery of the leaders in several Greek cities, III, 5, I and IV, 2, 1. Except the saying of Agesilaus with regard to the 30 OOO bowmen of the king (cf. Plut. Ages. I 5, 7), Xenophon must have been the original source for this chapter. Plutarch's account of Timocrates 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 undoubtedly the direct or indirect source for the latter part of this chapter. Cf. Hell. IV, 3, II—I2, account of the battle of Cnidus; IV, 8, 7–12, Conon and Pharnabazus win the sea from the Spartans; IV, 8, 12–13 ambassadors sent from leading Greek states to Tiribazus; IV, 8, 14, Antalcidas' proposition to yield to the king the Greek cities in Asia Minor, stipulating only that the remaining cities and islands should remain free; V, 1, 25, Antalcidas, with Tiribazus, returns from the king, having gained all that he desired, V, I, 30–31, proclamation of Tiribazus 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 — or Phanias (Schottin p. 8). But I think it very probable that Dinon formed here an intermediate Source between |Xenophon and Plutarch. C. 23. Death of Tissaphernes, cf. Hell III, 4, 25 and Ages. I, 35. C. 27. Capture of Aspasia at Cunaxa; cf. Anab. I, IO, 2. Heraclides of Cumae. C. MüLLER, Histor. Graec. Frag. II, 95 sqq. The only other alluded to by name in this biography is Heraclides of Cumae. It is not known precisely when he lived (cf. Müller p. 95) and we know definitely only of his work IIepoixà in five books. Plutarch cites him in c. 23 and the fact there alluded to is given in c. 27 (cf. Müller p. 7). It is quite possible that Heraclides was used to some extent elsewhere in the composition of this life, but if so certainly very little; and that little we have no means of ascertaining. Other authors are alluded to in c's 3, 4, 23, 29, and perhaps elsewhere, but the attempt to determine who they were and to what extent they were used has been without result. - - II. CTESLAS’ REPORT OF THE BATTLE OF CUNAXA. OTTO KAEMMEL in Philologus XXXIV, 516–538 and 665–696. It will not seem improper perhaps to add here a short examination with regard to the credibility of Ctesias’ report of the battle of Cunaxa, so much of it at least as Plutarch has preserved for us in this life. Inasmuch as Ctesias was in immediate attendance on the king during the battle, we might expect to get an accurate and trustworthy report of just those events which Xenophon was obliged to relate from hearsay. But the slightest examination into his ac- count, especially in connection with the other reports of the battle that we have, shows that it is utterly inconsistent 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 does not decide definitely between them, or show how they can be made to agree. So does Rehdantz who accepts Ctesias’ report as true and supposes that he passed over in silence the second contest with the Greeks. Otto Kaemmel in Philologus XXXIV, 516–538 and 665–696 gives 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 agree with him on many points, and especially with regard to the combination. It is his treatment of some of the main points of difference between these reports that will occupy us here. About after the following manner he proceeds with regard to some of these points. The time given by Ctesias for 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 does not 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.; Lachmann Geschichte Griechen- lands II, 337–34o; Rehdantz, Einleitung zur dritten Ausgabe der Anabasis p. XXVII—XXX; Curtius, Gr. Geschichte III, 135 ff.; Rawlinson. Ancient Monarchies III, 492 sqq.; Thirlwall, Hist. of Greece IV, 305 sqq. — 4O — reader (p. 685). In order to reconcile the statement of Diodorus, that there was a short fight with missiles, then for a little while the Persians resisted in hand-to-hand con- flict with the Greeks, with Xenophon's statement that the Persians turned and fled before the Greeks came within bowshot, the phrase tpiv Čá tćeppa ëévyweigi)0.1 #xx},twoo aw of Báp?apot zai peºfooow is thus explained, that they were 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, ºn woxtog áre)- točams, is rejected for a like reason (Diodorus' forte, forsooth, does not lie in the description of battles) (p. 686). Xeno- phon's report of the time when the pursuit of the Greeks ended: oyedov d'âte taſta ºv, zai ºtos éðūeto, 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 plain, will not accord with the theory which had made the sun to set half an hour before, so it is to be translated: “About the time when these things were taking place, the sun had set.” The time at which, according to Xenophon, the Greeks reached their camp after the day's work was ended, &pſpi 66ptmatov, must be incorrect, if the pursuit ended at dark in place of sunset, and hence the second watch of Diodorus trepi 6sotépaw poxaxºv is substituted for it (p. 687), notwithstanding Diodorus certainly missed the time in both his other statements. The position which Xenophon assigns to Tissaphernes in the battle, and which that satrap says himself that he occupied, does not accord with Diodorus' statement, hence in addition to the many falsehoods 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 Cyrus, he assigned to himself a totally different part in the battle from that which he really had (p. 681). Kaemmel supposes that the battle began about 4–30 p.m. (though it is far more probable that it began an hour earlier), that about 5 p.m. Cyrus received the first wound and fell unconscious, — 4 I — 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 distinguish the purple tunics of Cyrus’ troops from the white ones of the royal cavalry; then took place the remaining occur- rences as related by Ctesias. The object is to prove that the events related by Ctesias cover the whole time from the beginning of the battle, as given by Xenophon, till some time after dark. Xenophon's account of the time, not only because of his general truthfulness, but because the nature of the events related by all parties confirms its accuracy, must be accepted; and, inasmuch as it is im- possible that an eyewitness who meant to be truthful could make such a statement, the jöm axótoog ávtos of Ctesias is rejected as an interpolation. But a comparison of the statements of Ctesias in connection with the events related by Xenophon and Diodorus shows that Ctesias’ report did not admit 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 phrase #0m axótoo; Śwrog really had its source in Ctesias. 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 short time. At the time the king is wounded there is flight and confusion of his body-guard'); when Cyrus recovers sufficiently from the blow given by Mithridates to proceed, he hears his flying enemies call him king and 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 of events going on in the field at this time, as related by Xenophon and Diodorus, and from these it is clear that after the dispersion of the immediate body-guard of the king there was no rout of any part of the king's forces till they fled a second time before the Greeks. Cyrus’ fall — 1) Cf. Ctesias in Artax. 11, Xen. Anab. I, 8, 25 and Diod. XIV, 23, 7–8. call it first wound or death — took place then in the sight of the army, at least was known to both armies; for that of the king was encouraged, that of Cyrus disheartened thereby; and if Cyrus had lain so long unconscious there could be no talk 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 narrated by Diodorus and also by Xenophon, and is incon- sistent with the events stated by Ctesias to have taken place about the body of Cyrus. According to all reports there must have been a period of quiet in the rear after the first confusion was over. Besides the king had taken possession of a hill near the army (Artax. c. I I) and was, or could have been, in easy communication with it. Artasyras, when he finds the dead body of Cyrus, rides straight to the king; the Carian (we may infer) went also and announced his death (cf. Artax. c. 14); there were plenty of attendants about the king, for he sent off 30 at one time to the body of Cyrus. If this long time had elapsed, that is from near the middle of the afternoon till dark, the king could easily have sent forward couriers and ascertained that Cyrus was dead, at least was thought so, and that the Greeks were victorious on the left wing. But it is only just when he receives the news of the death of Cyrus, after dark, that he learns that the Greeks were victorious in the first engagement. If we are to accept from Ctesias that the king lay on the hill in despair and thinking all zwas lost (Artax. c. 14), we may be perfectly sure that this state of things was not represented as lasting three hours. Then that Cyrus and the eunuchs could so long escape notice in the rear of the army, the number of camp followers of which was probably nearly as large as the real fighting force, and these continually traversing the space in the rear, as we may infer from Plut. (c’s II and I2), is insup- posable. Further it is not stated that Cyrus became totally unconscious, or recovered slowly from the effects of the blow given by Mithridates, but only that when he was — 43 — struck he became giddy and stupéfical and fell from his /orse, and that he recovered with difficulty and not thor- oughly. There is then really no ground for the supposition that he lay long unconscious, and every thing goes to prove that the events related by Ctesias cover a comparatively short space of time, and therefore the #67 ozótoo; avto; is perfectly consistent with his remaining report. Kaemmel’s Objections to Xenophon’s Narration. Xenophon states that Tissaphernes commanded the left wing 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 at- tacked, but breaking through the line opposed to him entered the camp and began to plunder it, where somewhat later he was joined by the king (Anab. I, IO, 7 and I, 8, 9). Diodorus (XIV, 23, 7) states that after the king was wound- ed Tissaphernes 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 both armies, proved completely victorious. Kaemmel, assum- ing that Diodorus followed Ctesias here, rejects the state- ment of Xenophon and accepts that of Diodorus. There is 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, 19) he confirms what Xenophon had no doubt already heard from deserters and captives (cf. I, 8, 9 with I, 7, 13). Is there any good reason for supposing that Tissaphernes made a false statement to the Greeks? The only authority against Xenophon's state- ment is Diodorus, but since it is very questionable, as we shall see below, whether Ctesias was the source for this particular statement of Diodorus, or not, and therefore doubtful whether it originated from an eyewitness, not much stress can be laid on it. Indeed if this account of Diodorus concerning Tissaphernes be from Ctesias, it is rather remarkable that Plutarch in the beginning of c. 14 makes no allusion to the rewards of Tissaphernes. – As motive for this falsehood, as he calls it, Kammel considers the following: to flatter the Greeks and especially to give credit to the official falsehood of the Persian court, which claimed that Cyrus fell by the hand of the king. The king must then, Kaemmel infers, have remained on the field. But does the official report claim that the king remained on the field? In Artax. 14 and 16 we have beyond all doubt the official falsehood as Ctesias gave it. When the king rewards the Carian he says: “I give these things to you as second prize for good tidings, for first Artasyras and after him you announced to me the death of Cyrus.” These words have meaning only on the supposition that the king was not present at the death of his brother. Artasyras first brought to him the news of the death of Cyrus, the king says in the official report, and it follows then that the whole story of his lying wounded and in despair on the hill, of the joyful announcement of Artasyras, and the occurrences which took place in con- nection with Cyrus' body, were not inconsistent with the court statement. We must suppose this court statement to have been about as follows: the king was wounded, but in the contest he had struck Cyrus without knowing the fatal effect of the blow; he himself was carried out of the fight and lay in bodily pain, consumed with thirst, and worse still believing all was lost, until Artasyras brought him the joyful news that Cyrus was dead; then came the Carian and confirmed it, and when the thirty, who had been sent to ascertain the truth of Artasyras' report, returned, the king himself went to the body. If Tissaphernes really commanded the troops of the king after his fall, as Diodorus 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 that the king made. Since then Xenophon must have had — 45 — many opportunities for learning the truth of the matter, and carefully collected and investigated reports of the battle (cf. Anab. I, 7, 13; 1, 8, 9; I, 8, 20; I, 8, 28–29; I, IO, 7; I, IO, I2); as his narration was famous even in ancient times for its clearness and simplicity in all its details, so 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 that of Diodorus. It seems very probable that Diodorus, or Ephorus, accepting the report that the king was carried from the field and knowing that Tissaphernes was the leading gen- eral on the Persian side, both in rank and merits, arranged the matter as seemed to him most probable. The explanation that Tissaphernes really commanded the left wing, but was with the part of it nearest the centre and hence was not borne away by the attack of the Greeks, is not satisfactory (Kaemmel 674). In the army of Cyrus, Ariaeus who had command of the left wing stood with a body of cavalry on the extreme left; Clearchus, who seems to have been appointed by Cyrus as commander of the whole right wing, stood near the extreme right of the Greeks; so we might infer that Tissaphernes was placed. The king and Cyrus 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 with the cavalry, the king of course occupying the centre of the 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 its movements from the Greeks of that part of the line, and when Tissaphernes says he was in command of this body there is positively no reason to doubt his truth. The ex- planation of the phrase tºpiy 6& tógeopa šćuxweigi) at: before an arrow reached them, because they zºere so mear that the whole volley flew harm/ess 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 never gain credit, as that Xenophon never intended it to be so understood. The expression oysööv 8 ºre rajra ºw zai #Atos éâûero Kaemmel translates to suit his combination theory: “About the time when these things were taking place the sun ſhad set.” This would probably never have occurred to any one who was not trying to reconcile Ctesias and Diodorus with Xenophon; but at any rate the proof is at hand, that Xenophon meant that the sun set just as from the top of the hill the announcement was made to Clearchus that 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 be no doubt that it was the gleaming of the golden eagle in the sunlight that made it conspicuous. Besides, the 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 &pſpi 66ptmatov does not accord with the com- bination theory, for, says Kaemmel, if the pursuit 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 not, but if the sun set when Xenophon said it did, there was ample time. Compare the movements, which, accord- ing to Xenophon, the Greeks executed between the middle of the afternoon and sunset, that is in about 3 hours, and there will seem to be no reason to doubt that the Greeks 3) But half an hour after sunset by no means accords with Ctesias, for the king is represented by him as sending off 3o attendants with torch- lights and afterwards himself encompassed with much light, descending from that same hill (in all probability) to which Xen. alludes (see Ainsworth); So that Kaemmel should have said at least an hour after sunset, which would agree with Diod. — 47 *º-sº had ample time to get back to their camp by supper time. It is useless to inquire here what may have been the usual time for the deitwow among the Greeks, for that has nothing to do with Xenophon's narration in this place. Xenophon, refers evidently to the deitvow of the army, and this by an army under march would be taken necessarily about dark; certainly not before, nor yet much after. The Greeks had had no dinner, and it is not at all likely that soldiers who had been marching, fighting, or pursuing all day, would now half-famished take until near midnight to get back to their camp and food, when this lay at most not more than 3 miles off. Indeed it is impossible to imagine anything more accurate than the description of all the movements of the army as given by Xenophon, and especially with regard to the points of time mentioned by him he is per- fectly consistent with himself and the circumstances of the battle, and certainly could not have made a mistake if he meant to tell the truth, which nobody doubts.") Disagreements between Ctesias and Diodorus. That Ephorus in the extract given by Diodorus was acquainted with and used to some extent Ctesias, especially as to the number of the royal army and perhaps the troops of Cyrus, as Kaemmel (52 I sqq.), Ritschl (Opusc. I, 446) and others suppose; and also as to the double play of Syennesis, 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 case worse for Ctesias’ story of the battle and the fall of Cyrus, inasmuch as a comparison will make pretty sure that 1) I have no doubt that these definite statements of the time are meant mot only to give an accurate view of the battle, but are pointed against Ctesias, as was Anab. I, 7, 13 (no. of troops in the royal army), I, 9, 31 (position of Ariaeus), II, 1, 7 (with regard to Phalinus). 48 Ephorus, just as Xenophon did, took from Ctesias what he considered trustworthy and rejected the rest. Diodorus XIV, 23, 6. Cyrus and the king occu- pying the centre of their respective forces saw what had happened (the victory of the Greeks) and hastened against each other, hoping to decide the battle by a single contest. 23. 7. Tissaphernes succeeded to the command, after the king retired, and by great valor won the day. 23, 8. Cyrus elated by the victory of those about him rushed in to the midst of his ene- mies and at first recklessly bold slew many, but after- wards incurring danger too rashly, was struck by some one of the common soldiers and fell. By his death the troops of the king were encouraged, and Ariaeus, who was in Ctesias (Plut. c. 12.) The king knew nothing of the victory of the Greeks at this time and only about the time he learned the death of Cyrus did he hear of it. C. 13. Ctesias represents the royal troops as defeated and only stopped in their headlong flight by the king's showing them the head of Cyrus, so that he could not have been the authority for the part Diodorus assigns to Tissa- phernes. C. 11. Cyrus surrounded by ene- mies is borne away by his highmettled steed not recog- nized by his enemies, as it was already getting dark, and sought by his friends. Riding hither and thither, his tiara happened to fall from his head and a young Persian named Mithridates struck him on the temple by the eye, and he fell. Diodorus XIV, 23, 8. command on the left wing of Cyrus, resisted for awhile, but when the enemy began a flank movement and he had learned the death of Cyrus, he fled with his own troops. Number of the slain of the royal troops 15 OOO. Night was coming on as the Persians, after plundering Cy- rus’ camp, began to move out against the Greeks (jöm voxtog árekbočams.") - 49 sº- A/u.f. 11. Recovering and attempting to go forward, he was struck again by a Kaunian, and falling struck his wounded temple against a stone and died. Ctesias represents Ariaeus 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. Ctesias says the official report was 9 OOO, he himself estimated at 20 OOO. - It was already getting dark when the first conflict took place (ºn axótoog ávros). That Ephorus did not follow Ctesias exclusively is thus quite manifest. The fact that the Lacedaemonians are brought into prominence does not point necessarily to Ctesias as authority for Ephorus, for the same thing ap- pears in the narration of Ephorus after the capture of the generals, where Ctesias’ account ended; for instance Chiri- sophus the Spartan is represented as chosen commander 1) That Ephorus meant by ºn wuxtà: étre),8o30’ms, “night was now coming on”, is clear from the fact that he says that Clearchus, “seeing (8eopów) that the centre was broken and the rest of the allies routed”, stopped the pursuit. If it had been already getting dark when the attack 4 * 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 Xenophon's description, that one might believe it was large- ly copied from him, though disagreements, such as the part performed by Tissaphernes, the times assigned for the different events, the ditch dug by the king, slight differences with regard to the interview with Phalinus; as well as many other points where he is fuller than Xenophon, as for in- stance with regard to the rewarding of Tissaphernes and the plans for the destruction of the Greeks, above all, however, the fact that Xenophon's part and merits in the retreat are totally ignored, make it altogether improbable that Xenophon was before him. The most probable view seems to be that of Krüger (De Authentia Anab. Xenoph.) and Volquardsen (Untersuchungen über die Quellen Dio- dors 65 and 131) who consider Sophaenetus in his Ana- basis the chief source for Ephorus in the extract given by Diodorus. Din On. Artaxerxes c. 1 o. The extract from Dinon which Plutarch gives is very short, but in the main points agrees very nearly with that of Xenophon, that is the king remained on the field and was present at the death of Cyrus. In both these points he differs from the royal report which Ctesias professes to give, as also in stating that the Carian, who claimed that he had killed Cyrus, was rewarded for that service and of Cyrus was made, Clearchus could not have seen anything at the distance named; soon after, the Persians reformed to march against the Greeks and then the night was coming on, which would just leave time for the opera- tions described by Diodorus. — 5 I — not as 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, Justinus V, I I. His account is very short and unsatisfactory, but agrees with Xenophon, Dinon and Diodorus in the fact that Cyrus died in the thick of the fight.') There are four authors then, besides Ctesias, who give more or less full accounts of the battle: Xenophon, Epho- rus, Dinon and Justinus, all of whom agree in stating that Cyrus fell in the midst of the battle. The probability against the truthfulness of Ctesias becomes stronger when we consider that his full narration was before Xenophon, who even quoted from him in two particulars, the wound of the king and the number of the slain, that there is scarcely any doubt that his history was in the hands of Ephorus, who made use of him in more particulars than Xenophon did, that Dinon also was most probably acquainted with his work; yet these all agree, while differing in some other respects, in rejecting Ctesias’ story of Cyrus’ fall. If the integrity of Ctesias as a writer were unimpeached his testimony would outweigh that of the four others all combined, inasmuch as he was the only eyewitness of them all and had every opportunity to know the exact truth. But between him and Xenophon there are grave and irreconcilable differences in point of time. Ctesias says for instance, when Artaxerxes was carried wounded from 1) I think Justinus’ account must be traced to Ephorus as source; for the 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 in Diodorus XIV, 11, 3 and 19, 2; also the allusion to the double play of the Spartans is in exact accord with Diod. XIV, 21, 2, where Ephorus was without doubt source for Diodorus. :: * 4. — 52 — the field and Cyrus was borne away by his ungovernable horse into the midst of his enemies, that it was already getting dark, so that he was not recognized by his enemies and sought by his friends; according to Xenophon it was then just about the middle of the afternoon, or very little later. Ctesias says that when Cyrus was wounded the second time it was so dark, that only when the Kaunians came quite close could they distinguish white tunics from purple; that 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 same ) where the king is reported to have lain, and at least an hour before, over the very region where Ctesias says all these events took place, the royal army had passed in their second flight be- fore the little band of Greeks. Again the statement that all the friends and table companions of Cyrus fell over his body, especially Artapates, cannot be reconciled with Ctesias’ report; for it is perfectly plain that according to him no contest took place over Cyrus when he was wounded by Mith- ridates (cf. Kaemmel 681). The latter did not know who he was and only ascertained from the saddle-cover, which one of his followers picked up, that it was Cyrus he had struck. We cannot suppose a contest after this when the Carian struck him; for it is stated that only a few eunuchs were with him then, and Artasyras finds these same eunuchs sitting 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) Rehdantz (Einleitung zur Anabasis XXXIII, 66) thinks it the same. Kaemmel (Philol. XXXIV, 536) says the royal troops must have passed over this very spot in their second flight before the Greeks. The first pursuit passed along the banks of the Euphrates, but in the second conflict the Greeks with their backs toward the river began the attack and pursuit. 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 necessarily false. The time of the day, and especially the sunset, was a fact about which Xenophon could not well have made a mistake, and the events related agree perfectly with his account. Ctesias’ statement (c. 13) that the troops of the king were astonished when he showed them the head of Cyrus and that quickly 70,000 collected about him, leaving out all considerations of time, cannot be made to agree with the other reports of the battle; for this means that they did not know Cyrus was dead and were in doubt and fleeing, and only the sight of the gory head of their ene- mies’ leader, whom they thought alive and victorious, in the hands of their king, whom they supposed dead, or in flight, brought them to a stand. The only manner in which Ctesias’ account can be brought into any sort of connection with that of Xenophon and Diodorus is to suppose, that after the events quoted from him by Plutarch, the king went back into the camp of Cyrus and after that followed the plundering of the camp, the second meeting with the Greeks, and flight be- fore them, as told by Xenophon and Diodorus. But 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, than ac- tually elapsed between the first attack of Cyrus upon the centre and the plundering of the camp'), makes this suppo- sition impossible. On the other hand we must suppose that Ctesias gave no account, or at least the most confused, of the battle itself, mixed up the two contests with the *º-º-º-º-----------, -—---------------- 1) The events related by Ctesias could not by any means be embraced in the time allowed by Xenophon between the beginning of the battle and the 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 30 stadia when they ascertained that the royal troops were in their camp. Greeks, made the king's troops totally defeated and ignorant of the fall of Cyrus, differed from Xenophon and Diodorus both as to facts and time. Under these circumstances we can have no hesitation in preferring the narration of Xeno- phon. The whole story of Cyrus’ death, with Ctesias, rests upon the foundation that it was dark, which must of course be rejected.") I believe the whole thing is best understood on the supposition that Ctesias, wishing to give a highly dramatic account of the death of Cyrus, did not concern himself about the facts of the case and constructed the story to suit himself. Was he capable of this? Aristotle, Antigonus, Lucian, Strabo spoke slightingly of his general integrity as a writer. If we believe Plutarch’s statement in c's 6 and 18 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, and we may well suppose that he, who to do honor to Clear- chus made so improbable a statement as that Parysatis murdered Stateira in revenge for the death of Clearchus, could without scruple dramatize the death of Cyrus. We get further insight into his dramatic proclivities and talent from the extract given by Demetrius Phalereus (De Elocu- tione S 222–23) concerning the announcement of the death of Cyrus to his mother, which might be true of course, but which no one will consider other than a dramatic effort of Ctesias. Nor does the affair of the embassy with 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 an examination of other events of the battle, it may not be out of place to add a few words here with regard to Dio- 1) Cf. notes of Grote (IX, 62) and Thirlwall (IV, 307). dorus' narration. He offers little that is credible in addition to Xenophon's account. For instance the statement that when 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 400 OOo men (Diod. XIV, 23, 2), that is, that the fight began along the whole line at once, cannot be correct; for the whole army of Cyrus did not reach even to the centre of the king's forces and therefore it was impossible for the whole royal line to become engaged at once. We ascertain the same thing clearly from Xenophon's account. Cyrus and the king being posted with cavalry in the centre of 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 must have struck the centre, or any portion of the left wing that was not swept away by the attack of the Greeks; if the latter, Cyrus would have been shut out from all view of the centre by those fighting between, and could not have stood watching what the king would do (Anab. I, 8, 2I). The centre had not yet become engaged, for the king find- ing no one to oppose him in his direct front, began to wheel his force for the purpose of flanking Cyrus' army, and the latter, seeing this and fearing that the Greeks might be cut off, rode against him. He had necessarily to change his position then nearer to the left, which he could not have done, if his own left was already engaged between him and the king. If, as Rehdantz assumes (Einleit. Zu Anab. XXXII), Cyrus took his position later on the extreme left, the battle might have been going on in the remainder . of the line, without interfering with Cyrus' observation of the king's movements, but neither in Xenophon nor Diodorus is there any statement to this effect. Besides, this would have brought Cyrus directly to the position of Ariaeus, who according to Xenophon stood on the extreme left; but Xenophon gives as the reason why Ariaeus did not fall with the remaining friends of Cyrus, that he was not pre- sent with him, but in command of the left wing. His state- ------ 56 — ment that there was a short contest with missiles, then a hand to hand combat (XIV, 23, 3), is in direct contradiction to Xenophon's assertion that the Persians ran before the Greeks came within bowshot (I, 8, 19). With regard to the second meeting too there is a contradiction, Diodorus saying that the Greeks received the attack of the Persians bravely and soon put them to flight (XIV, 24, 3), whereas Xeno- phon says that the Greeks rushed forward to the attack with better will than at first and the Persians fled at a greater distance than before (I, Io, I I). No doubt can be entertained with regard to Xenophon's accuracy in both cases, for he took part in both attacks and was most probably in the centre with Proxenus. – The motive Dio- dorus assigns as actuating the king and Cyrus in their combat, 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 as actuating Cyrus, but could not have influenced the king; for according to Xenophon (Anab. I, Io, 5), Ctesias (Artax. c. 12), and Plutarch (Artax. c. 8), he knew nothing of the victory of the Greeks at this time. The role assigned to Tissaphernes is not credible, as we have seen above, being cöntradicted by Xenophon's express statement and that of the satrap himself. The time assigned by Diodorus for the different 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 the Greeks after the second pursuit ceased (XIV, 24, 4) is scarce- ly to be accepted, since Xenophon, who described the minutest details of the movements of the Greeks just at this point, would scarcely have omitted it. Grote (IX, 63 note) puts no faith in the statement that most of the 15 OOO dead of the king's army were slain by the Greeks (XIV, 24, 5). “As the Greeks”, says he, “lost not a man, they could hardly have killed many in the pursuit, for they had scarcely any cavalry and no great number of Peltasts — while Hoplites could not have overtaken the flying Persians.” V I T A. Charles Forster Smith was born June 30 1852 in Abbe- ville County, South Carolina, United States of America. From his 7th to his 16th year he availed himself with as great regularity as possible of the rather limited educational facilities of that section. In Oct. 1868 he was matriculated at Wofford College, Spartanburg S. C., and June 26th 1872, having finished the four years academic course, was grad- uated with the degree Baccalaureus Artium. During the year 1873 he was engaged in teaching at Greenwood S. C. Jan. 1874 he entered Harvard University as a resident graduate and studied Greek, Latin, German and English. October 1874 he was matriculated at Leipzig University, and during the winter semester attended the lectures of Professors Curtius, Lipsius and Fritzsche. The next se- mester he attended for a few weeks in Berlin the lectures of Professors Kirchhof, E. Curtius, Zeller, Grimm and Prutz. Compelled to return to America, he accepted in Oct. 1875 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 Oct. 1879 he was rematriculated at Leipzig University. During the following semesters he attended the lectures of Professors Voigt, Curtius, Lange, Windisch, Gardthausen and Meyer, in the winter semester 1879 attended as irregular member the rômisch-antiquarische Gesellschaft of Professor Lange and the Seminar of Professor Curtius and at the opening 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 the kindness and encouragement which he has always received. *****3 + –• II. 4 | iii. OF MICHIG 3 9015 O7472 | №ºš！！！！！！！！！！！！！！ -**********************·-·--· ****--&-ºxº-ae）. №ž;ĒLĒ+- … --- -|× --- ... • ~~~:-, ！ ！ » : . . ，- && （！！！!！！！！！！！！！！！！$$， È?-*;*.----·-- - -;---,··-***&& №šķeš5=×。、、、、、、、、·- ··- -- -_- -- -·~-} --~~; ~~.~±%-º;、、、。 *ș;.- *-s****-º → -+ +·§！！！- ~~~~）;±±，±，±****¿№ №ſēšķe* --， --★ - - ---| ±***·±，±，±，±，±，±，±，±，±，±，±∞ae- -* - *|-~！=x&=& ！=x，-，*，**x） ***（№º！！**********************æ→→→→→→∞ zrae::：:：：：№żae *--><！--<！--***=~~~=+>->-*lººº… ►►►！= --！ ！！！！！！！！！ ſaeaeaeaeaeae :！?**.*************** : №w«*» :：：：:::::::：:::*№， saes…saess~--~~~~ -…-…:，：），x3ē，، ، ، ،----- ----， - - -، ، ، ، ، ، ،~--- --- - - - -！» ••• • • →****--ſae！ :-) :* -， ŠT！！！º-º-º-º-º--：