4435581

Suggestions for a Vita of Ctesias of Cnidus
Author(s): Truesdell S. Brown

Source: Historia: Zeitschrift fr Alte Geschichte, Bd. 27, H. 1 (1st Qtr., 1978), pp. 1-19
Published by: Franz Steiner Verlag
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4435581 .
Accessed: 29/03/2014 09:23
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
.
Franz Steiner Verlag is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Historia:
Zeitschrift fr Alte Geschichte.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 89.25.25.11 on Sat, 29 Mar 2014 09:23:32 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
ABHANDLUNGEN
SUGGESTIONS FOR A VITA OF CTESIAS OF CNIDUS
Although Felix Jacoby warns us that it is impossible to come
anywhere
near determining Ctesias' dates 1, the effort is worth making, because of the
influence his writings have had on the Greek historical tradition. The ancient
evidence is by no means what we would like but neither is it as unreliable
as Ctesias' detractors, ancient and
modern, might lead us to believe. We
may
begin with the following passage from Diodorus Siculus2:
Kvrotag be o Kvibto; Toig
[lEV
XQOVO15 nTQE, xaTa Tr'V KiQoU oUmTQ0Etv
Ei
'AQTQnV T'OV t6vbeP6v, yFvoEvo;
b'
adt4XWTog xdL
bLa
TV 'iaTLTQlV'V
En , , cct C
EUEtTt~tflV
&VaXX)q 1'6E'g t,tEO' TOil
PCEM4X0W,
,E3TQXXcLLbt,AXa ETrj bLte-riXEE
T4[t(o~ts-
vo; v{n aivToi3.
This statement (to the effect that Ctesias came from
Cnidus,
that he lived
at the time of Cyrus' expedition, that he was taken prisoner and retained in
the service of the king for seventeen years as his physician) bristles with
difficulties. The most obvious of these is the fact that if Ctesias was made a
prisoner by Artaxerxes and continued in his service for seventeen years then,
even if he became Artaxerxes' prisoner at the outset of his reign in 404 B.C.,
he cannot have left Persia before 387 B.C., or 388 if we reckon inclusively.
Yet we know, on unimpeachable testimony, that he left in 398/7 B.C.
3
To meet this difficulty Muller proposed that we emend the text to read
EnTa ET'i instead of inTaxa[bExa E This iS
not an unattractive suggestion,
but it has been left dangling. Let us see what the consequences are if we
accept it. Counting back seven years from 398 we reach either 405 or 404,
depending on the method used. We will consider first what follows if the
date of his capture was 405. The obvious conjecture would be that he was
taken prisoner at Aegospotami (despite the absence of many of the crews on
shore some must have been caught on board by the Spartans). There would
certainly have been doctors attad-ed to the Athenian fleet, and by the end
of the war the supply may well have been limited so that a Cnidian volunteer
would have been welcome. Considering that the battle took place in Pharna-
1
See F. Jacoby, "Ktesias", (1), R-E XI, 2036.
2
See Diod. Sic. 2.32.4.
3
See Ctesias Persica 63-64. Jacoby has his own system of numbering but retains the
traditional numbers in the margin. References here will always be to the traditional number-
ing of the Photius summary. See FGrHist No. 688 F 30; see also Plut. Artox. 21.4.
4
See Muller's edition of Ctesias, added on to the Didot Herodotus, Paris 1862, 2b.
Historia, Band XXVII/1 (1978) ? Franz Steiner Verlag GmbH, D-6200 Wiesbaden
2 TRUESDELL S. BROWN
bazus' immediate neighborhood and that Pharnabazus had been a staunch
supporter of the Spartans in time of adversity 5, there would be nothing odd
in Lysander's turning over the captive physician to him, Greek doctors being
very much in demand. Pharnabazus could then have recommended Ctesias
to the court, where he eventually became the personal physician of Artaxer-
xes in time to heal his wound at Cunaxa. For the fact that he attended
Artaxerxes at Cunaxa is attested by Xenophon, who had read the Persica O.
Aegospotami remains a possibility, but there are two objections that might
be raised. The first is, that in 405 Cnidus was on the Spartan side, having
rebelled from Athens some seven years earlier 7. This is not insurmountable,
however, since all Greek cities had exiles and Ctesias could have been an
exiled Athenian partisan. More serious is the second point, that Ctesias is
regarded as particularly friendly to the Spartans. It was he who performed
the kind services for Clearchus in prison before his execution, receiving
Clearchus' signet ring in return 8. But even this falls short of proof, because
Ctesias was not acting as a free agent, but at the behest of his patroness,
Queen Parysatis, just as he was merely an agent later on in the negotiations
that led to Conon's appointment as admiral and the destruction of the
Spartan naval supremacy.
One last argument may be made in favor of Aegospotami as the scene of
Ctesias' capture, and that is the willingness of Conon to make use of Ctesias
in the negotiations with Artaxerxes. Had Ctesias fought at Aegospotami, this
would establish a tie between the two men.
Let us suppose instead that the inclusive reckoning badk from 398 was
used, and that Ctesias was captured in 404 B.C. Are there any likely occa-
sions on which this might have happened? There appears to have been at
least one. It was in 404, when he lay on his death bed in Babylon, that
Darius II sent for his two sons: Arsaces, his heir and Cyrus his younger son,
who then held a governorship at Sardis with extensive powers over the
Persian satrapies in western Asia Minor9. Cyrus was already (with his
5
His services to Sparta were of long standing (see Xen. Hell. 1.1. 5-6; 24). His friendly
relations with Lysander came later (see Plut. Lys. 19-21). See also George Grote, History
of Greece, 12 vol. ed. (London 1869), Vol. 9, 26 n. 1; also see W. Judeich, Kleinasiatiscbe
Studien (Marburg 1892), 32 f. Pharnabazus was the satrap of Dascylium, which was not far
away, though the exact location is disputed. See F. K. Dbrner, "Daskyleion", in Der Kleine
Pauly, Vol. 1 (1964), 1395 f; and I. A. F. Bruce, An Historical Commentary on the 'Helle-
nica Oxyrhynchia', Cambridge Univ. Press, 1967, 146.
8 See Xen. Anab. 1.8.26. This can only refer to the Persica. The effects of Ctesias' account
on that of Xenophon may have been considerable, for what Xenophon could actually have
observed of the actual battle was very limited.
7
See Thuc. 8.35.1. This will be discussed later.
8 See Plut. Artox. 18.2 (on the ring); 13.7 (on his fondness for Sparta).
9
See Xen. Anab. 1.1.2; Hell. 1.4.3. See also A. T. Olmstead, History of the Persian
Suggestions
for a Vita of Ctesias of Cnidus
3
mother's encouragement) thinking of greater things, and he had good reason
to be apprehensive of his brother. Accordingly when he went up to Babylon
he took a bodyguard of some 300 Greek mercenaries along with him 10. After
Darius died and Arsaces became king, as Artaxerxes II ", Tissaphernes
accused Cyrus of treason, and we are told that it was only the intervention
of Parysatis that prevented Artaxerxes from putting his brother to death 12.
Now the 300 Greeks who went up with Cyrus would probably have included
a doctor in their number. Doctors are said to have ranked rather low in such
armies '3, but Cyrus paid exceptionally well on this occasion 4 and that
might have attracted an impecunious physician at the beginning of his career.
Parysatis, in conciliating her elder son, could have suggested to Cyrus that
his brother would appreciate the gift of a doctor trained in Cnidus, and if she
did so Cyrus would have been in no position to refuse the request. That is one
way in which Ctesias could have fallen into Artaxerxes' hands, nor would
this be in contradiction with Diodorus' phrasing:
KTIotag
...
yEv6[tevog
8'aiX[MARaMg,
MaiLbta' ti'v
LaTQLXq)V
LOtTUL'nV
a'vaXTI(pfeig
v7r6 ToiV ,3aCL XEo). From
Ctesias' point of view, having enlisted as a mercenary under Cyrus and then
finding himself forced into service by Artaxerxes with no way of returning
to the Greek world, he was in fact an
atx[dLXwTog.
Xenias, the leader of the
300 mercenaries, remained with Cyrus, however, for we hear of his joining
that prince three years later in Sardis with 4000 hoplites '. The foregoing
offers an attractive solution to the problem because it explains why later on
Parysatis found Ctesias a particularly suitable person to visit Clearchus in
prison. Had they not both served under Cyrus?
The suggestion that Ctesias was one of the 300 was made earlier by L.
Holzapfel, though he did not develop it ". Jacoby refers to it only in passing
and with disapproval. He says that if Ctesias had been one of the 300 he
would have mentioned this in the Persica, being very much inclined to
mention himself on every possible occasion 17. But we do not have the Persica,
only extracts, so we cannot be sure he did not mention it. On the other hand
it would be unnecessary, even irrelevant to do so. His mentioning his presence
at Cunaxa, where he accompanied the king and dressed his wound, was a
matter of historical significance; so was his account of the part he played
Empire, Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago 1948, 369, who calls Cyrus a youth at the time,
"barely sixteen years of age", - but he gives no reasons for this improbable statement.
10 See Xen. Anab. 1.1.2. Cyrus left Lysander behind him as his locum tenens (Xen. Hell.
2.1.13
f.).
11 See Ctes. Pers., 57. 12 See Xen. Anab. 1.1.3.
13 See C. Singer and A. Wasserstein, "Medicine", in OCD2, 660-664, #12; also see J. K.
Anderson, Military Theory and Practice in the Age of Xenophon, Univ. of California Press,
Berkeley and Los Angeles 1970, 70.
14 See Xen. Anab. 1.4.12.
15
Xen.
Anab.
1.2.3.
10
See Berl. Phil. Woch. (1905), 1266-71; esp. 1267. 17 See Jacoby, "Ktesias", 2035.
20
in the negotiations that led to Conon's appointment as the admiral of the
Persian fleet. Therefore Jacoby's reasons for dismissing Holzapfel's sugges-
tion are invalid.
Nevertheless, even though Muller's emendation to Eitc 'ET can be defend-
ed, it remains to be seen whether a satisfactory explanation cannot be made
without emending the text. Jacoby does not believe the text is corrupt, and
he offers a clarification of his own to get around the discrepancies. He begins,
as we have done, with the Diodorus passage, and his argument may be sum-
marized as follows 18: He says that Diodorus is combining the chronographers'
date for Ctesias (xacLa
Kiieov)
with Ctesias' own statement about his residence
in Persia in such a clumsy manner that Tzetzes immediately assumed that
Ctesias was captured at Cunaxa. In point of fact, Ctesias' medical services at
the Persian court began with Artaxerxes, because had they begun under
Darius II he would have said so, since Ctesias is inclined to speak about
himself in great detail [this is a favorite point with Jacoby]. His return in
398/7 is also certain, according to Jacoby, but such an exaggeration of the
time spent in Persia, by which he demonstrates his superiority to all his pre-
decessors, can reasonably be attributed to Ctesias ("Eine derartige Ober-
treibung seines Aufenthalts im Lande, auf den er seine ODberlegenheit allen
Vorgangern gegeniuber griindete, ist K. sehr wohl zuzutrauen").
In other words, while Muller emends one word in the text in order to
reconcile a contradiction between Diodorus and Ctesias, Jacoby prefers to
keep the text but thinks that both authors are in error: Diodorus because he
jumps to the conclusion that since the chronographers date Ctesias at the
time of
Cyrus (i. e., the time of Cunaxa
-
the floruit for
both),
therefore
Ctesias was captured in that battle; Ctesias because he is exaggerating in his
usual fashion (seventeen years instead of seven or less), in order to claim
priority over the other Greek doctors, none of whom stayed in Persia as long
as he did. This argument is neither fair nor accurate: not accurate, because
neither Diodorus nor Tzetzes specifically mentions Cunaxa 19 - and we have
just shown that conceivably Ctesias was captured early enough to explain
his presence as Artaxerxes' physician at Cunaxa -: and not fair because no
statement in the Persica suggests such an interpretation.
The
physician he
does refer to, and with considerable malice, is Apollonides
of
Cos,
but noth-
ing is said about how long he served at court. The whole point is to describe
his vicious conduct and execution 20.
18 See ibid., 2033 f.
19
See Tzetzes, Hist. 1.82f., where we read as follows: 6 be KTnaI4g
IaTL6q
il6;
Toi3
KTTIaL6XOU, itt 1EVOq JrOoX5Og
Ex Kv[o8 TTIj KV7rTSg
(Kae'Ia;) OS 'AQtaC,&fj
XQaTT)fteL;, (
G14tRL>LaXOV TQp KVQT,
EV
fILQoDal;
8LET0,E06
XQ6vou; 0nTa xvi 6Lxa =XTk.
As one of the 300 he would still be described as allied with
Cyrus.
20 See
Pers.
30;
42.
Suggestions for a Vita of Ctesias of Cnidus 5
A part of Jacoby's argument may be retained, however. It is quite reason-
able to think that in reducing his material Diodorus combined the statement
about Ctesias' having been captured in battle with the reference to his pre-
sence at Cunaxa, while failing to make it clear that the two items are not
connected. But it is still possible that Ctesias was a prisoner of war, that he
was present at Cunaxa and that he spent seventeen years in Persia. We need
not be precluded from supposing that his capture came earlier than the reign
of Artaxerxes. Baehr, writing a century and a half ago, has this to say, as
reported by Muller21:
"Quae quum ita sese habeant, Baehrius inquit, multo mihi videtur
verisimilius, Ctesiam vel sponte vel a rege Persarum ipso arcessitum
invitatumque illas in terras profectum esse multo utique ante istud
bellum, quod fatale fuit Cyro. Itaque si conjectari liceat, Ctesiae ad-
ventum in Perside circa annum 461 [416?] a. Chr. n. ponerem, florente
bello Peloponnesio vigenteque Graecorum cum Persis commercio."
And Baehr's suggestion is still valid (except for the idea Ctesias went at the
royal invitation), though the consequences that follow from it need to be
examined. If we count back seventeen years from 398 B.C. we arrive at
either 415 or 414 for the date when Ctesias' captivity began. Therefore we
must look a little more closely into the political situation in the eastern
Mediterranean during that period to determine, if possible, the opportunities
that existed for a Ctesias to enlist.
Before considering the circumstances surrounding Ctesias' capture in 415
or thereabouts, one other possibility needs to be eliminated. Suppose that the
seventeen years Ctesias spent in Persia were not continuous? That he returned
to court again after leaving in 398? In chapter 62 of the Persica we read the
following: "In eight years the burial mound of Clearchus was seen to be
overgrown with palm trees which Parysatis had had sown there secretly by
her eunuchs at the time that man died." If this statement comes from Ctesias'
personal observation, then he must have been in Babylon in 393 or 392 B.C.,
which would put back his first arrival in Persia at least to 410 or 409 B.C.
Presumably this is one reason for the statement by C. H. Oldfather, alluding
to: "... Ctesias of Cnidus who spent seventeen years as physician at the
court of the Persian king, Artaxerxes Mnemon, returning to Greece some
time after 390 B.C."22. The most recent editor of the Persica, F. W. K6nig,
also notes that Ctesias must have been in Babylon in 393 or 392 and there-
fore was taken prisoner in 409. He adds that this does not alter the fact that
Diodorus says he ended his History in 398/7, for these statements are in-
21
See Muller's ed. of Ctesias, I f.
22
See the Loeb edition of Diodorus Siculus, Vol. 1, xxvi. Can he be counting the eight
years from 398 instead of 400 B.C.?
6 TRUESDELL S. BROVN
dependent 23. Jacoby, who always maintained that once Ctesias left Persia
he never returned, suggests that an error has crept into the text: first he
proposed that '8'
(ij)
was written by mistake for '2' ((); later he thought
'years' (FiTOv) had been inserted instead of 'months'
([tjvCv)
24. The weakness
of Jacoby's argument is indicated by his trying two different emendations -
anything in fact rather than to put Ctesias in Babylon in 393/2 B.C. But his
instincts are sound. The pains taken by Ctesias to extricate himself from the
Persian court (Jacoby accuses him of using shady tactics) hardly suggest an
early return25. Konig, however, believes he did go back, and that Ctesias
used that as an opportunity to travel at least a part of the way by road and
caravan to the east, so as to obtain precise information on distances and
stopping places, such as we find in Xenophon's Anabasis. He even suggests
that part of the Indica may well reflect autopsy 26. Konig also finds a veiled
reference in the Persica to the war that broke out between Evagoras and
Artaxerxes at a much later date 27. However, this is an error. Eduard Meyer
pointed out long ago that the reference in Photius is not to the differences
that led to war later on, but rather to the coolness that developed between
Artaxerxes and Evagoras earlier, when Evagoras helped the Athenians,
despite Persia's alliance with Sparta in the last years of the Peloponnesian
War28. All this speculation is as unnecessary as it is unprofitable29 if we
assume that Ctesias heard about the palms growing over Cleardius' tomb, at
second hand, after his return to Cnidus. And why should he not? The
sprouting of the newly seeded palm trees would have occurred long before
he left - and there were surely many ways a Greek visitor later on might have
seen them and mentioned how large the trees had come to be only eight
years after Clearchus' demise. This was a period of close communications
between Persia and the Greeks. The famous naval battle in which Sparta's
fleet was destroyed by Conon and the Persians took place off Cnidus one
year before the palm tree story. Cnidus would appear to have been an ex-
cellent place for reports to reach the Greek world from inside Persia. Only
one conclusion can reasonably be drawn from this report: It gives us a ter-
minus post quem of 393/2 B.C. for the publication
of the Persica.
23
See Friedridc Wilhelm Kbnig, Die Persika des Ktesias von Knidos, Graz 1972, 26 n. 13;
see also Diod. Sic. 14.46.6.
24
Cf.
Jacoby, "Ktesias", 2034; FGrHist 688 F 27
=
Pers. 62. Jacoby cites Plut. Artox. 18.8
as suggesting something occurred 6X'LyQ
XQL6v4),
for whidi 8 years would be too long.
25
See Jacoby, "Ktes.", 2034, lines 29 ff.
26
See Konig, Pers. d. Ktes., 29.
27
See ibid. 199.
28
See Eduard Meyer, Gescbichte d. Altertums, Vol. 5, 3rd ed., Stuttgart and Berlin 1921,
841 A.
29
It is unprofitable because the Indica as we have it suggests garbled information, cer-
tainly not autopsy - the martichora for example!
And now it is time to reexamine the period during which Ctesias would
have left Cnidus if in fact he was captured by the Persians in 415 B.C. or
thereabouts. This brings us to the beginnings of the Athenian expedition to
Sicily which, coming on the heels of the conquest of Melos, led to the break-
down of the Peace of Nicias and to a renewal of full-scale warfare between
Athens and Sparta. But for the moment Sparta was in no mood to challenge
Athens' position in Asia, her half-hearted attempt to do so earlier during
the Mytilenian revolt having ended in failure. Also, thanks to Alcibiades,
the Spartans had been given a scare in the Peloponnese which had only
partially been allayed by Agis' victory at Mantineia. Therefore Sparta was
not prepared to take any unnecessary risks. Nevertheless, the unprecedented
concentration of Athenian military strength in Sicily was bound to affect
Athens' ability to respond to emergencies in the east. With Athens and Sparta
preoccupied elsewhere, there was an opportunity for Persia to improve her
position in western Asia Minor. She had never accepted the Peace of Callias
(whether or not this was a formal treaty) as anything more than a temporary
arrangement. Whatever Persia had once held she intended eventually to
regain. The Great King during this period was Darius II (423-404), who had
come to the throne after eliminating his rivals under decidedly unsavory
circumstances.
The details of Darius' accession are known to us through Ctesias, and need
only be summarized here 30. The successor of Artaxerxes I was an illegitimate
son, Ochus, known to us as Darius II. Before that his half-brother Secun-
dianus had murdered Artaxerxes' only legitimate offspring, Xerxes II, and
attempted to win the throne for himself. But the murder of Xerxes as well
as the slaying of a number of Persian courtiers brought about a reaction
against Secundianus. Darius, who had not been in Susa when these murders
occurred, returned to the capital and had himself proclaimed king. He still
had to face a rebellion led by his own full brother Arsites (their mother being
a Babylonian woman named Cosmartidene) 3', but he was able to get hold of
him through trickery. Both Secundianus and Arsites were put to death and
Darius ruled alone.
It was during the reign of Darius II that Cnidus was brought over to the
Spartan side in the war (not long after the time when Ctesias presumably
took his departure), a political turn-around on the part of Cnidus which we
learn about through an account in Thucydides of a vigorous but unsuccessful
effort made by the Athenians to recover that city in 412 B.C.32 It is tempting
30 See Ctes. Pers. 44-51 (688 F 15 in the FGrHist). This has been discussed at length by
Konig - for text and translation see his Pers. d. Ktes., 17-20; for discussion, 80-88.
31 On her credentials see A. T. Olmstead, Hist. of the Persian Empire, Univ. of Chicago
Press, Chicago 1948, 355; also Konig, Pers. d. Ktes., 87 (he sees a bitter religious struggle,
with Darius II sternly punishing offenders). 32 See Thuc. 8.35.
to connect Ctesias' capture with the fortunes of Pissuthnes, who has aptly
been referred to as, "the restless Persian satrap of Sardes" 3. Our information
about Pissuthnes comes from two sources, Thucydides and Ctesias. Thucy-
dides tells us how he helped the Samian oligarchs in their revolt against
Athens in 440 B.C. Later on he turns up in connection with the revolt of
Mytilene. We also find him supplying the pro-Median Greeks of Colophon
with mercenary troops against those of their fellow-citizens who favored
Athens34. In Ctesias we read that Pissuthnes later revolted from the king
(i. e., Darius II), relying on Greek mercenaries under Lycon of Athens to
defend him, but that they sold him out to the 'king's generals.' Pissuthnes
himself was captured and executed, while Lycon was richly rewarded and
Tissaphernes received Pissuthnes' satrapy 3. Still later we hear of Pissuthnes'
natural son, Amorges, as leading a revolt against the king in Caria. He was
taken prisoner by the Spartans when they captured Iasus, and turned over
by them to Tissaphernes - who probably had orders to send him up to the
king36. It is rather surprising that Thucydides says not a word about Pis-
suthnes' rebellion, while in what remains of Ctesias Amorges is not even
mentioned. Considering Thucydides' high reputation and the generally low
regard in which Ctesias is held, it has been argued that the account of Amor-
ges' capture by Tissaphernes was simply transferred by Ctesias to Pissuthnes
- a view rightly rejected by Beloch37. Unfortunately, Thucydides' silence
leaves us without a date for Pissuthnes' revolt, arrest and execution. Grote,
after mentioning a letter from the Persian king to Sparta that was intercept-
ed by the Athenians in 425 B.C., goes on to say: "It appears that Pissuthnes,
satrap of Sardis, revolted from the Persian king, shortly after this period 38."
Beloch estimates the time as about 420 B.C., while Olmstead says it occurred
in 413 3. Grote, obviously, views the two rebellions as separate - one in
Lydia, the other, years later, in Caria.
33
See F. E. Adcock, CAH, Vol. 5,170.
34
For the first two passages see Thuc. 1.115.4 and 3.31.1 respectively; on Pissuthnes and
Colophon see ibid. 3.34.2, as well as Gomme's Commentary (Vol. 2, 297), where he justly
observes: "This episode well illustrates the strife of parties in these little states . . . and the
way they got involved in greater struggles." Kbnig professes to see Pissuthnes as an impor-
tant religious figure also, a 'Mazdayasna' - see his Pers. d. Ktes. 80; 87 f.
35
See Ctes. Pers. 52
=
FGrHist 688 F 15. See also K.
J. Belodh, Griechiscbe Geschichte,
Vol. 2, 12, 377 and n. 5; A. T. Olmstead, Hist. Pers., 359. In Ctesias the satrap's name is
spelled Pisutbnes.
36 See Thuc. 8.5.5. and 28.2-4. Andocides tells us that Amorges was allied with Athens
(De Pace 29). Olmstead (Hist. Pers., 359) thinks that this "last insult determined the king to
assist the Spartans against the Athenians." However, the mercenaries fighting for Amorges
against the king came from the Peloponnese!
37
See Beloch, GG, Vol. 2, 12, 377 n. 5.
38
See George Grote, History of Greece (12 volume ed., London 1869), Vol. 8, 305.
39 Cf. Beloch, GG, Vol. 2, 12, 377 with Olmstead, Hist. Pers., 358.
Let us examine the Ctesias passage more closely. It may be translated as
follows 40:
"Pisuthnes revolted and Tissaphernes, Spithradates and Parmises were
sent against him. Pisuthnes opposed them, along with Lycon of Athens
and the Greeks under his command. But the king's generals bribed
Lycon and the Greeks with money, to desert Pisuthnes. Then, after
exchanging pledges with him, they took him up to the king, who
'threw him into the ashes' [tSi TI'V Onov v E aXE] 41, giving Pisuthnes'
satrapy to Tissaphernes. Lycon, too, was rewarded for his treachery
with cities and land."
The details given are impressive, especially considering that they reach us
through the distorting mirror of Photius. In addition to Tissaphernes and
Spithradates, who are well-known figures 42,
we meet Parmises, a Persian
general not mentioned elsewhere. Lycon of Athens also is known to us only
in this passage, though his strange behavior as an Athenian military man
operating on his own hook during the life and death struggle with Sparta,
arouses our curiosity 43. The amount of detail indicates a source close to the
events, and obviously one sympathetic with Pissuthnes.
I suggest as a strong possibility that Ctesias served as a volunteer under
Pissuthnes. He would not yet have thought of becoming a historian, but he
would naturally preserve a lively memory of the incidents leading up to his
capture and this is reflected later on in the Persica. If Ctesias did enlist
under Pissuthnes he was obviously not included in the act of treachery by
Lycon and his soldiers or he would not have been made a prisoner. His life
was spared, perhaps because he was a doctor, but his reputation was not yet
sufficient to recommend him as a body physician to the king. Now the date
for Pissuthnes' capture, while not given by Thucydides, can be inferred by
that historian's reference to Tissaphernes as ... iCaotci
AakpEi T-O 'AQTE-
2iQ0OV TQaTniy6g
. . . T x)V &w"TW. This was a position Tissaphernes obtained
after Pissuthnes' removal, which suggests the date 413 B.C. for his capture45.
40
See Ctes. Pers. 52
=
FGrHist 688 F 15.
41
For a discussion of this method of punishment, and when it was introduced, see K6nig,
Persik. d. Ktes., 84-88.
42 Tissaphernes needs no introduction. For Spithradates (or Spithridates) see Xen. Hell.
3.4.10; 4.1.2 ff., 10 f.; 20 f.; and also the Oxyrhyndcus Hellenica, 21.3 f.; 6 (also see I. A. F.
Bruce, An Historical Commentary on the Hellenica Oxyrhynchia, Cambridge Univ. Press
1967, 137-39).
43
Incidentally, it is worth noting that Ctesias disapproves of mercenaries who act in this
way. Elsewhere he takes the trouble to mention three Milesian mercenaries who remained
loyal to their employer despite the treachery of the rest (Pers. 50).
44
See Thuc. 8.5.4.
45
See e. g., D. E. W. Wormell, "Tissaphernes", in OCD2. This also confirms the date
given by Olmstead (Hist. Pers., 358).
10
TRUESDELL S. BROWN
Therefore Ctesias must have been captured in an earlier engagement, say in
414 B.C., which is perfectly reasonable. He would still have learned of
Pissuthnes' betrayal and capture, even though he was a prisoner at the time.
The capture of Ctesias marks the beginning of the most important period
in his life, that of his residence in Persia. It would be helpful to know how
old he was when he joined up with Pissuthnes. If we assume he was about
the same age when he embarked on his adventures that Xenophon was when
he joined Cyrus, then he will have been some thirteen years older than
Xenophon. Therefore if Xenophon was born in 428 B.C., Ctesias will have
been born in 441
-
a rough estimate but one not apt to be very wide of the
mark". Some thirteen or fourteen years after his capture we find Ctesias
in attendance on Artaxerxes at the battle of Cunaxa, where he dressed his
wounds. Artaxerxes had become king three years earlier in 404. It is not
unlikely that as a captive Ctesias attracted favorable notice from one of the
satraps, and that it was this satrap who introduced him to Artaxerxes,
perhaps even before the latter became king.
It will be remembered the possibility was examined earlier that Ctesias
had gone up to Babylon as one of Cyrus' 300 mercenaries in 404, but this
possibility was rejected on the ground that the emendation of our text of
Photius from seventeen years to seven was unnecessary, and therefore that
404 was too late for Ctesias to become a captive. However, if he had been
taken prisoner while serving under Pissuthnes he could very well have
found himself in the custody of 'Iissaphernes. Tissaphernes also went up to
Babylon in 404, and he may conceivably have introduced Ctesias to Arta-
xerxes at that time. The point in mentioning this is merely to show the many
plausible explanations that can be given for Ctesias' presence at Cunaxa,
and his seventeen years of enforced residence in Persia, without there being
any presumption that he was lying.
It is not the purpose of this paper to discuss Ctesias' writing, but rather
to provide a chronological framework for his activities. Clearly, as physician
to the king he would have had greater opportunities to pursue his intellectual
interests than before, and probably more time in which to do so. As Artaxer-
xes' physician he must have followed the court, and this gave him a chance
to become familiar with cities like Babylon and Susa as well as Ecbatana
and perhaps places even farther to the east 4.
Although we can only speculate as to why Ctesias left Cnidus to seek his
fortune elsewhere, there is an obvious parallel in the career of Democedes
46
Precision is impossible. I have accepted the date given for Xenophon by D. J. Mosley
(OCD2, "Xenophon", 1141). For discussion of Xenophon's date see H. R. Breitenbach,
in
his article "Xenophon", in R-E, Vol. 9 a, 1572 f.
4
We read in Pers. 64 that Ctesias gave the distances and the stopping places on the road
from Ephesus to Bactra, but this does not mean he had gone all that way himself.
of Croton, and one that has often been noted. Democedes could not get
along with his father and therefore left Croton. As a successful doctor he
did very well in Aegina, and even better under Polycrates in Samos, only to
find himself first the prisoner and then the official doctor of King Darius 48.
But it is dangerous to draw any conclusions from this about Ctesias. How-
ever, by a rare bit of good luck one precious piece of information about
Ctesias the doctor has come down to us in the writings of Oribasius, personal
physician to Julian the Apostate in the fourth century A.D. This is what
Oribasius has to say49:
"'Ctesias on hellebore: 'In the time of my father and my grandfather
no physician used to prescribe hellebore, for they did not know how
to mix it or what quantity or weight they ought to use. And if
anyone
did prescribe drinking hellebore he ordered [the patient] to make his
will first, as though he were about to run a great risk. Many of those
who drank it choked to death and few lived. But now it is looked on
as perfectly safe'."
This brief glimpse of Ctesias the man of science puts him in the same class
as the better Hippocratic writers, and shows that he was not a traditionalist
but a believer in improving medical practices by experimentation. He may
have thought that there were too many restrictions on making changes in a
place like Cnidus, one of the oldest known centers for the medical profession,
and have welcomed the opportunity of joining some military expedition
where he would be able to do as he chose 5.
If this interpretation is acceptable, then we should think of Ctesias at the
time he enlisted (under Pissuthnes?) as being at much the same stage as
Xenophon when he joined his friend Proxenus, that is, with his entire career
still ahead of him. Unlike Xenophon, there is nothing to suggest earlier
intellectual influences operating on Ctesias comparable to the influence
Socrates had on Xenophon. Captivity no doubt brought with it ennui, and
this may well be what set Ctesias to reading
-
rereading Herodotus in all
probability, but also turning to Hellanicus and other Greek logographers51.
Also (like Herodotus) he must have picked up a great deal of information
orally. Unlike Herodotus, of course, he had not gone abroad to gather
material for a book, but once there, with time on his hands the idea would
naturally have occurred to him. It should be added, that unlike Herodotus,
48
See Hdt. 3.131. 49 See FGrHist 688 F 68.
50
Galen cites Ctesias as an innovator in treating a dislocation of the hip. See ibid. F 67.
As a Cnidian physician it probably gave Ctesias some satisfaction to report the unethical
conduct of Apollonides, who came from the rival center of Cos (Pers. 42).
51 See Pers. 57 ad
fin., where Ctesias is said to have accused both men of lying. As Gilbert
Murray says of Xenophon, Ctesias may have become "a man of letters ... mainly because
he was not allowed to continue as a man of action" (Greek Studies, Oxford 1946, 150).
he had no training in historie. Tentatively, then, we may assume desultory
reading and conversations with Persians or other barbarians as well as exiled
Greeks, perhaps also what he picked up from the cicerones whom he met in
Babylon and other popular resorts 52. All this led ultimately to his decision
to write up his findings. However, much of the information he got hold of
was sensational, and some of it concerned leading persons, such as the terri-
fying dowager queen, Parysatis. This was the sort of thing that could not
safely be published in Persia, so that if he ever intended to bring it out it was
imperative for him to leave the country.
By successfully treating Artaxerxes' wound at Cunaxa, Ctesias had won
a claim to the royal favor, but as his reading of Herodotus will have proved
to him, his services might only lead to the honor of exchanging iron fetters
for golden ones 3. If he were to obtain permission to leave Persia two things
would be necessary: a way of making himself useful to the king by his de-
parture; and the procurement of a satisfactory replacement for himself as
court physician. As we shall see, fortune eventually supplied him with both.
The defeat and death of Cyrus was followed by indignation in Persia over
Sparta's alleged assistance to the rebel prince, and this in direct violation of
the treaty between Sparta and Persia which had been instrumental in bring-
ing about the downfall of Athens in the Peloponnesian War. Obviously it
was of great importance to find out the extent of Sparta's commitment to the
cause of the Younger Cyrus. Therefore the episode described with such felling
in the Anabasis, where Clearchus and the other generals are tricked into
accepting Tissaphernes' invitation, and then were arrested and (supposedly)
murdered on the spot 5z, takes on a very different coloring when viewed from
the Persian side. Tissaphernes, always loyal to the crown, clearly acted under
orders from above. Clearchus and his fellow officers were to be apprehended
- by any means that might suggest themselves
-
and then sent on up to the
king for questioning 5. This provided Ctesias with an opportunity, and he
took full advantage of it. Queen Parysatis, who had favored Cyrus rather
than her older son, is represented in the Persica as continuing her vendetta
with Cyrus' enemies even after his death. She also tried to help his friends,
and though she could not save Clearchus' life, she did arrange to have gifts
sent to him in prison, and she employed Ctesias as her representative'".
Ctesias is said to have refused to smuggle a knife in to enable Clearchus to
avoid death by torture, but he did make himself agreeable in other ways, in
52
This is not the place to discuss the
PaOLtlxai
&vayQcLa'L (Diod. Sic. 2.22.5; 32.4).
I
agree with Jacoby (see "Ktes.", 2048).
53 See Hdt. 3.130.
54 See Xen. Anab. 2.5.30 f.
55 See Pers. 60, and the discussion of the two accounts of Xenophon and Ctesias by Konig
(Persik. d. Ktes., 108 f.).
55 See Ctes. Pers. 60; also Plut. Artox. 18. 1-5.
return for which Clearchus gave him his signet ring57. As time went on, and
Persia and Sparta drifted into war, this ring was as good as a passport for
Ctesias,
were he ever to leave Persia and find himself under Spartan juris-
diction. Meanwhile he now had a claim, not only on the gratitude of the
king, but on the queen mother as well 58.
It may be pointed out that Ctesias had already had some experience as a
negotiator for the king. He was one of those sent by Artaxerxes to Cyrus'
Greek mercenaries after Cunaxa. Plutarch, our source for this information,
with his usual distrust of Ctesias, takes pleasure in remarking that Xenophon,
who was there, says nothing about Ctesias' appearance before the mer-
cenaries, and yet he adds that Xenophon knows all about Ctesias and is
familiar with his account of the battle 59. What Plutarch forgets is that Xeno-
phon only learned about Ctesias later on, by reading the Persica, and while
it is true that Xenophon mentions Phalinus as the only Greek member of
Artaxerxes' embassy to the Greek mercenaries, Apfel notes that other envoys
were sent later to negotiate the terms for a truce, and that Ctesias might well
have been one of them60.
In the negotiations that took place subsequently, involving Evagoras of
Cyprus, Conon, Pharnabazus and the king, Ctesias took an active part. It
can hardly be doubted that Queen Parysatis was instrumental in having
Ctesias rather than someone else used in the diplomatic maneuvering. But
though her influence was considerable it was not decisive; just as earlier when
she failed to obtain a reprieve for Clearchus, so on this occasion the king was
determined to have the last word. Artaxerxes personally must have been
satisfied with using Ctesias as an intermediary, both because he regarded
him as a suitable agent and also because Ctesias' departure would not leave
him without competent medical advice. Let us turn now to the account of
these negotiations.
There are two passages, the first of which is from Photius, and may be
translated as follows"':
"[The author] describes the reasons for the bad feeling that arose
between Evagoras the King of Salamis and King Artoxerxes; and also
the messengers sent by Evagoras to Ctesias to receive the letters of
Abulites; also Ctesias' letter to him about reconciliation with the
Cyprian king, Anaxagoras; and the return of Evagoras' messengers to
Cyprus; and the delivery of Ctesias' letter to Evagoras; and Conon's
5' See Plut. Artox., 18.2. Clearchus may also have given Ctesias his version of what
happened at Cunaxa.
58 It is worth noting that in the Persica Ctesias pays Parysatis a compliment in vouching
for her impeccable marital behavior - the only really favorable comment we have about her
by anyone (see Pers. 57). 5' See Plut. Artox. 13.5.
60
See Apfel in Berl. Phil. Woch. (1905), 1269. "I See Pers. 63.
14
TRUESDELL S.
BROWN
conversation with Evagoras about going up to the king; [he de-
scribes] Evagoras' letter on how he had been honored by him [by the
king]; and Conon's letter to Ctesias; and the tribute of Evagoras to the
king; and the transmission of the letters to Ctesias; Ctesias' conver-
sation with the king about Conon, and the letter to Conon; [he de-
scribes] the gifts presented to Satibarzanes by Evagoras, and the return
of the envoys to Cyprus; and Conon's letter to the king and to Ctesias;
and how the envoys sent to the king by the Lacedaemonians were kept
under guard; and the king's letters to Conon and to the Lacedae-
monians which Ctesias delivered in person; and how Conon was
appointed admiral by Pharnabazus."
The meaning of this text is not always entirely clear, thanks to Photius'
painful condensation of the Persica (the archbishop himself had probably
had enough experience in such matters to be weary of negotiations), but the
main points are not in doubt02. Hostilities between Sparta and individual
satraps had reached an intensity where out and out war between Sparta and
the Persian empire could no longer be avoided. The problem was to convince
Artaxerxes to take effective action, while concealing what was going on
from the Spartans. The passage summarizes the diplomatic steps that led to
the appointment of Conon as admiral by Pharnabazus. Evagoras, Abulites,
Conon, Satibarzanes, King Artaxerxes and the Lacedaemonian envoys are
the principals, while Ctesias plays the role of intermediary63. The most im-
portant obstacle to be overcome in these negotiations was the distrust of
Evagoras by King Artaxerxes. Beloch explains Evagoras' position con-
vincingly when he argues that while the Cyprian monarch found his plans
for expansion opposed by the Great King, he preferred not to side with
Sparta, which would mean exchanging a Persian yoke for a Spartan one.
Instead he intended to use his strong position to bargain with Persia for
recognition as an autonomous power, in return for helping Persia against
Sparta". Evagoras had friends among the Persian grandees, especially
Pharnabazus (satrap of Dascylium) who found himself hard-pressed by the
Spartans. What was needed was a fleet to ched or destroy the Spartan fleet,
and both Pharnabazus and Evagoras thought they had found a competent
admiral in the Athenian Conon, who had been living in Cyprus ever since
Aegospotami. The object was to persuade King Artaxerxes to adopt their
62
For text and translation see R. Henry's Buds edition of Photius, Vol. 1 (Paris 1959),
131 f.; also Konig, Persika d. Ktes., 26. Henry later comments on the difficulties in trans-
lating Photius (Bude ed. of Photius, Vol. 7 (Paris 1974), 134 n. 1).
33
For the background of these negotiations see W. Judeich, Kleinasiatische Studien,
Mar-
burg 1892, 40-51; K. J. Beloch, Griechiscbe Geschichte, Vol. 3, 12, 33-39;
Ed. Meyer,
G.d.A.,
Vol. 5, #838-842 and Theopomps Hellenika, Halle 1909,
65 f.
(Gesdcichte
des Seekriegs).
64
See Belodh, GG, 3, 12, 37 f.
plan. To insure a favorable hearing correspondence was carried on with
Abulites (whom Meyer regards as 'one of the Court
Secretaries')"5, and gifts
were made to Satibarzanes". The same general purpose of allaying the
suspicions of Artaxerxes was also to be served by a reconciliation between
Evagoras and the Cyprian king, Anaxagoras, but it is uncertain whether this
ever came about87. A further important step was sending the tribute from
Cyprus to the Great King. There is also a rather pointless statement about a
letter from Evagoras, apparently referring to the honors he had received
from the king (xaos
E{vayo6q
ETLTOrX'
tEQL
xv ilt
thi
un' acluTo)), unless the
context has been lost by Photius. Could Ctesias have been referring to the
praises bestowed on himself (?), or on Conon (?), in a letter from Evagoras?
However that may be, Ctesias' importance in the negotiations is unmistak-
able in Photius' excerpt of the Persica. Not only does Ctesias act as a go-
between in transmitting confidential letters, but he also talks directly with
the king about Conon -
obviously supporting him. In return he is later sent
down by Artaxerxes with letters to deliver personally to Conon and to the
Lacedaemonians.
How did Ctesias happen to be employed in such matters? Meyer half
accepts Plutarch's version of what went on (to be discussed presently) and
speaks of Ctesias as an opportunist, who made use of the situation for his
own purposes, as Nehemiah had once done at the court of Artaxerxes I68;
while Judeich speaks of Evagoras' earlier acquaintance with Ctesias89; and
Beloch also assumes that Ctesias was the first choice of Evagoras as his inter-
mediary with the king70. In the background, however, was the dowager
queen, Parysatis. Her influence was still great, and this was a fact of which
Evagoras must have been fully aware, and of which his good friend Pharna-
bazus could have informed him 71. Conon, after cooling his heels in Cyprus
for seven years was understandably eager for immediate action. This is re-
flected in "Conon's conversation with Evagoras about going up to the king"
(Kovcvog nt6og Eiiay6pcav
X6yog {UItFQ
TOii
;'Qt6
P3aoCtXL avapivx).
Henry trans-
lates this as though Conon was urging Evagoras to go to Susa to talk to
Artaxerxes, while Konig and Judeich imply that it was Conon himself who
85
See Meyer, Theop. Hell., 66.
66
Both men have namesakes, perhaps descendants, in high position in Alexander's day.
Meyer speaks of Evagoras as giving Bakschisch while Judeidc mentions his gifts to the
Grosswurdentrager. (See Theop. Hell., 66 and KI. St., 49 resp.).
57 Meyer thinks Anaxagoras is the King Agyris of Diod. Sic. 14.98.2 (G.d.A., Vol. 5,
#841 A).
If that is so the reconciliation never occurred or it soon broke down.
68
See Meyer, Theop. Hell., 66 n. 3. 09 See Kl. St., 49.
70
See his GG, 3, 1 , 38.
71
Grote long ago credited Queen Parysatis with an important role here, and also thought
Ctesias had considerable influence with her (Hist. of Greece (12 vol. ed.), Vol. 9, London
1869, 78.).
16
TRUESDELL S.
BROWN
offered to seek an audience with the king in order to win him over to the
Athenian cause72. Even though Conon did make this suggestion it was re-
jected, and for good reasons. In view of the presence of the Lacedaemonian
envoys, who were being detained in Persia at that very time, it would have
been awkward to have the former Athenian admiral arrive to consult with
the Persian king. Ctesias may have made his influence felt here behind the
scenes. His being given a letter by Artaxerxes later to deliver in Sparta, as
well as the charges he subsequently faced in Rhodes (to be discussed later)
indicate his close association with Persian policy towards Sparta. If that is
so, we might better compare his activities with those of Sosibius with refer-
ence to the emissaries of Antiochus III, than with the machinations of Nehe-
miah73!
The result of all this feverish activity was the appointment of Conon as
admiral by Pharnabazus. Photius goes on to describe Ctesias' return, but
before examining his account we must take note of a passage in Plutarch's
Artoxerxes which conflicts on important points with Ctesias' report (through
Photius) of the diplomatic negotiations. The passage may be translated as
follows 74:
"He [i. e., Artoxerxes] drove the Lacedaemonians from the sea, mak-
ing use of the Athenian general Conon along with Pharnabazus. For
Conon remained in Cyprus after the naval battle at Aegospotami, not
because he wanted to avoid danger, but rather waiting for a shift in the
political situation as one waits for a change in the sea. Realizing that
his own plans required military force while the king's military forces
needed an intelligent leader he sent a letter to the king concerning what
he had in nmind. He told the man who bore the letter to transmit it, if
possible, through Zeno of Crete or Polycritus of Mende: of these, Zeno
was a dancer while Polycritus was a physician. However, if they were
not available he was to make use of the physician Ctesias. It is said
that Ctesias opened the letter and added a postscript to what Conon
had written, asking the king to send Ctesias to him, as he was a useful
man in maritime matters. Ctesias, however, says the king assigned
this
duty to him on his own initiative."
This is the evidence on which Jacoby depends
when he accuses Ctesias of
using shady tactics to get away
from Persia, a trick "which he himself did
72
Henry (Bud6 Photius, Vol. 1, 132) translates: "Conon discute avec P:vagoras pour
l'engager I venir chez le roi"; Konig (Persika d. Ktes., 26) renders it: "die Konon-Rede an
Euagoras dariiber, dass er selbst zum Grossk6nige hinaufgehen werde." Judeich (KI. St.,
48)
comments: "dennoch entschloss sich Konon personlidi nach Babylon zu reisen und wombglich
Artaxerxes fur Athens Sadce zu gewinnen."
73
See Polyb. 5.63.
74
See Plut. Artox. 21.1-4.
not find it necessary to mention
7."
But here it is Jacoby who is being unfair.
After telling us that the statement does not come from Ctesias, and without
saying what Plutarch's source was, he also assumes that it is completely reli-
able and therefore that Ctesias is guilty as charged! Before coming back to
Plutarch's putative source, let us consider the two new names that have been
injected into the proceedings: Zeno the Cretan and Polycritus of Mende. Of
these, Zeno is also known to us through a fragment of Ctesias preserved by
Athenaeus, as a celebrated Cretan dancer who was a great favorite with
Artaxerxes 7f. There is no suggestion there of any friction between Zeno and
Ctesias. But what of Polycritus? A Polycritus of Mende, who is known to
have been a historian, wrote a Sicilica (among other things) in the fourth
century B.C.77 I have argued elsewhere that the physician and the historian
are the same person, and even Jacoby, who opposes this view, does regard
them as related T. Nothing, however, justifies us in assuming that Polycritus
wrote about these events or that he can have been Plutarch's source, directly
or indirectly. Nevertheless (whether or not Ctesias mentioned him in the
Persica) the physician of Mende is a real person at the court of Artaxerxes.
In my opinion he probably entered the Persian service, like Ctesias earlier,
as a prisoner of war, but whether he did or not, his presence at court must
have helped Ctesias to satisfy the second prerequisite he needed for obtaining
permission to leave Persia, that of finding a satisfactory substitute for the
post of personal physician to the king.
The source used by Plutarch for his variant account of the negotiations
was almost certainly Dinon, who also lived in the fourth century B.C. He
wrote a Persica in three parts, which is supposed both to be a reworking and
a continuation of Ctesias. He is also known as the father of the well-known
and little trusted Alexander historian Clitarchus 79. Miiller suggested long
ago, and with reason, that Plutarch prefers to use Dinon when possible,
because of his dislike for Ctesias 8. But once we have traced Plutarch's
75See Jacoby, "Ktes.", 2034, 29-31. 76 See FGrHist 688 F 31
=
Ath. 1.40
p.
22 C.
77
See FGrH No. 559. His dates are uncertain (Jacoby suggests c. 370140 B.C.). The
Sicilica is said to have been written in epic form (Ps. Arist., De mirab. ausc. 112). He also
wrote about Dionysius the Younger.
78 See FGrHist Vol. 3 b (Komm. Text), 516; and T. S. Brown, Greek Historians, 80. I might
add to this that the medical profession generally was hereditary in Greece, a fact symbolized
by the assumption that all physicians were descended from Asclepius. Therefore the historian
comes from a medical family, even on Jacoby's terms.
79
For the fragments of Dinon see FGrH No. 690; also see L. Pearson, Lost Histories of
Alexander the Great, Oxford 1960, 226 and n. 56, where he shows how little we know
about Dinon, not even whether he came from Colophon, as is commonly said. See also A.
Lesky, Geschichte der griechischen Literatur, 2nd. ed., Bern and Munich 1963, 671.
80 See Muller, FHG, Vol. 2, 88a: "Plutarchus quoque uti Ctesiae infensior est, sic favisse
Dinoni, videtur.").
2 Historia, Band XXVII/1 (1978)
variant account to Dinon we cannot seriously prefer it to the account of
Ctesias. How would Dinon have learned that Ctesias had tampered with
Evagoras' letter to Artaxerxes - even if he had? This is not evidence but
slander. Had Ctesias done such a thing he was sure to be found out - when
Artaxerxes later referred to Evagoras' alleged request in his letter to
that
monarch. Ctesias can hardly be supposed to have censored the letter of
Artaxerxes! The story makes for exciting reading but it should have been
ruled out of court long ago.
Photius concludes his summary of the Persica with these remarks81:
"'Ctesias' arrival in his native city of Cnidus and in Lacedaemon; and his
trial in Rhodes at the instance of the Lacedaemonian envoys, and his ac-
quittal."
It seems likely that when the Lacedaemonian envoys finally managed to
leave Persia, they returned by way of Rhodes, which was still in the Lace-
daemonian sphere of influence, and succeeded in having Ctesias arrested82.
What the charges were we are not told, merely that he was exculpated. Had
they known of Conon's appointment and Persia's decision to build a fleet
along with Ctesias' part in those arrangements, it is unlikely Ctesias would
have been able to complete his mission by delivering Artaxerxes' letter in
Sparta83. Clearchus' signet ring may have saved the day for him. The head
of the Lacedaemonian delegation is thought to have been Lysander's man",
and any friend of Clearchus would therefore have been looked on with favor.
Was it not the revolt of Cyrus and the exploits of the Ten Thousand that
encouraged Sparta to break with Persia, and embark on the imperialistic
policy long advocated by Lysander? However, reasons of state rather than
personal sentiment probably brought about Ctesias' acquittal.
We have now come to the end of the evidence for the life of Ctesias. Pre-
sumably he went back to Cnidus after completing his mission in Sparta (not
the other way around as Photius implies) and was presently able to give
his
attention to writing. If he was taken prisoner, as I have argued, some seven-
91
See Ctes. Pers. 64.
8t Meyer suggests the Spartan admiral Pharax was the one who presided over this in-
quiry (Theop. Hell., 68).
83 Presumably the letter he delivered in Sparta was conciliatory
in tone - perhaps
accepting an extension of the truce. Meanwhile Conon was
making
his
preparations
and
Sparta was also getting ready to send out Agesilaus. Each had something to hide. See Meyer,
ibid., 67.
84
See Judeidh, Ki. St., 46f., who thinks Aracus was the head of this embassy as well.
Despite the appearance of the Hell. Ox. Judeich has not become useless as Belodi
suggested
(GG, Vol. 3, 1', 35, end of note from previous page). A certain reaction has set in against
the Hell. Ox. See e. g., J. K. Anderson, "The Battle of Sardis in 395 B.C.", C.S.C.A.,
Vol. 7
(1975) 27-53; and G. A. Lehmann,
"Die Hellenika von Oxyrhynchos
und Isokrates' Philip-
pos", Historia, Vol. 21 (1972), 385-398.
teen years before his return, and also if he was about the same age when he
began his foreign adventure as Xenophon was when he joined Proxenus, then
Ctesias would have come back to Cnidus when he was about forty-four years
of age. This is, of course, the merest approximation, but it may safely be
taken as a terminus ante quem. He cannot have been born much (if at all)
later than 441, and he is unlikely to have been born before 451, which would
mean that he was no older than fifty-four years on his return. These con-
clusions are based on what seems to me a reasonable interpretation of the
evidence. His writing both in popular history and in the medical field was
considerable, and this was probably all published after he came back to
Cnidus. We have seen that the Persica was not yet completed in 392 (in view
of the reference to the palm trees on Clearchus' grave) 85, perhaps because he
found himself very busy professionally. It would be hard for other doctors
to compete with a man who had once been physician to the Persian king.
Dept. of History, University of California, Truesdell S. Brown
Los Angeles
85
See Ctes. Pers. 62.
2*

4435581

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

4435581

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Suggestions for a Vita of Ctesias of Cnidus

Author(s): Truesdell S. Brown

Potrebbero piacerti anche