Diodorus and Ctesias

Author(s): J. M. Bigwood
Source: Phoenix, Vol. 34, No. 3 (Autumn, 1980), pp. 195-207
Published by: Classical Association of Canada
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1087117 .
Accessed: 01/10/2013 11:35
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.

Classical Association of Canada is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Phoenix.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 193.92.136.160 on Tue, 1 Oct 2013 11:35:40 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

DIODORUS AND CTESIAS

J. M. BIGWOOD
SOME

RECENT DISCUSSIONS OF DIODORUS are much more generousin

their attitude to him than has generally been the case.' They draw
attentionto the enormousdifficulties
facingany authorwho undertakes
to write a universal historybased on the works of a series of different
historians. Instead of regardinghim as a mere copyist, incapable of
modifyinga source in any way at all, theypoint out that he has his own
interestsand even his own style, that he set himselfcertain objectives
which by and large he fulfilled.Yet the traditionalview of Diodorus as
the slavish excerptor,even thoughnot always held in its most extreme
form,is still an influentialone.2 A detailed analysis of the chapterson
Assyria and Media (2.1-34), where Diodorus bases himselfprincipally
on the historyof Ctesias," will perhaps make some contributionto the
debate and will perhaps shed some light on Diodorus' methodsof compilinghistory,about whichverylittleis known.4Most of the works,after
all, on whichDiodorus dependedwhencomposinghis Bibliothecaare very
incompletelypreserved;of some almost nothingat all remains.Since on
the otherhand a greatdeal is knownabout Ctesias' Persica, the problems
of how far Diodorus altered or reshaped his originalare less elusive for
the firstpart of book 2 than they are elsewhere.
'See in particular J. Palm, OberSprache und Stil des Diodor vonSizilien (Lund 1955);
R. Drews, "Diodorus and his Sources," A7P 83 (1962) 383-392; C. I. Reid, "Ephoros
Fragment 76 and Diodoros on the Cypriote War," Phoenix 28 (1974) 123-143, and the
introductionsto the followingvolumes of the Bud6 edition, book 12 by M. Casevitz
(1972), book 15 by C. Vial (1977), book 17 by P. Goukowsky (1976).
2The Diodorus of N. K. Rutter, "Diodorus and the Foundation of Thurii," Historia
22 (1973) 155 if.,seems capable oflittle. For W. Peremans, "Diodore de Sicile et Agatharchide de Cnide," Historia 16 (1967) 432-455 and K. Meister, "Absurde Polemik bei
Diodor," Helikon 13-14 (1973-74) 454-459, Diodorus' dependence on his sources is
slavish. F. Biziere, Diodore XIX (Paris 1975) ix ff.,also lays very heavy emphasis on the
closeness with which he followshis authorities.
3For recentbibliographyon Ctesias see my "Ctesias' Account of the Revolt of Inarus,"
Phoenix 30 (1976) 1 n. 1, "Ctesias as Historian of the Persian Wars," Phoenix 32 (1978)
19-41, "Ctesias' Description of Babylon," 7AJAH3 (1978) 32-52. Physician to Artaxerxes II, he was at the court forsome 7 years (from about 404 to 398/7); see F. Jacoby,
RE 11 (1922) 2032 ff.and my commentsin Phoenix 32 (1978) 20 n. 3. His historywas
probably writtensoon afterhis returnfromPersia (Jacoby 2034 if.).
4The question of Diodorus' methods is of course also crucial to the properevaluation
of the early part of Ctesias' history,forwhich Diodorus' evidence is of major importance.
Some recent assessments,in particular those of G. Goossens, "L'Histoire d'Assyrie de
Ctesias," AntCI 9 (1940) 25-45 and W. F. K6nig, Die Persika des Ktesias von Knidos
(Graz 1972) especially 31 ff.,go sadly astray on this issue.
195
PHOENIX,

Vol. 34 (1980) 3.

This content downloaded from 193.92.136.160 on Tue, 1 Oct 2013 11:35:40 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

196

PHOENIX

a fewwordson thequestionof whetherDiodorus

Firstofall,however,
withtheactualhistoryof Ctesiasor knewit onlythrough
was familiar
theworkofan intermediary
beenclaimed.5
author,as has sometimes
to believethatDiodorusdid notmakeuse ofCtesias
It is verydifficult
suggestinga
directly.The narrativeof chapters1 to 34 is self-consistent,

singleauthoras the principalsource,althoughsomematerialhas obThat thisauthoris Ctesias

viouslybeenadded fromotherauthorities.6
is verystrongly
nameshim
indicatedby thefactthatDiodorusexplicitly
11 timesin thissectionofhishistory(below,n. 36). Moreover,thereare
some remarkablecorrespondencesbetweenthe versionof eventsgivenby

Diodorusand whatis otherwise

knownof Ctesias' account.7The citationsof and allusionsto this part of Ctesias' historymade by other
writerswill not of courseprovethat everydetail givenby Diodorus
derivesfromCtesias,but theyare sufficiently
numerous
and sufficiently
to renderthe hypothesis
that Diodorusis workingfrom
representative
an intermediary
Thereis in factnothingin this
extremely
implausible.8
part of the Bibliothecaon which one can build a convincingdemonstra-

tionthat Diodorus'mainsourceis a workwhichsubstantially

revised
Ctesias' account.9

in
If, then,we acceptthat Ctesiasis Diodorus'principalauthority,

what ways and to what extenthas Diodorus adapted the narrative?

as an
5C.Jacoby,"Ktesiasund Diodor,"RhM 30 (1875) 555ff.,proposedCleitarchus
intermediary,
Volquardsen,Bursian7ahresb.7 (1876) 387 ff.,suggestedHieronymus,
and J. Marquart,"Die Assyriakades Ktesias," Philol.Suppl. 6 (1891/3)504ff.,put
forwardAgatharchides.
RhM 41 (1886) 321-341,50 (1895)
However,P. Krumbholz,
205-240,and 52 (1897) 237-285,arguedat lengththatDiodorusmusthaveused Ctesias
himselfand his positionwas acceptedby bothE. Schwartz,RE 5 (1903) 672 and F.
source
Jacoby(above, n. 3) 2040,2070ff.Despite this,the theoryof an intermediary
has beenslowto die. It is acceptedby Goossens(above,n. 4), W. W. Tarn, Alexander
theGreat2 (Cambridge1948)50, Konig(above,n. 4), and byF. Schachermeyr,
"Alexander in Babylon,"SB Ost. Akad. d. Wiss. Phil.-Hist.K1. 268 (1970) 60 ff.R. Drews,
TheGreekAccounts
D.C. 1973) 195 n. 32, believesthat
ofEasternHistory(Washington,
Diodorusused Ctesiasdirectly.P. Schnabel,Berossosunddie babylonisch-hellenistische
Literatur
Diodorus1 (Cambridge,Mass. 1933)
(Leipzig 1923) 34 and C. H. Oldfather,
xxvii,are uncertain.
6Belown. 11 and 202 ff.SuchmaterialdoesnotofcourseprovethatDiodorusbaseshis
accounton an intermediary
source,althoughmanyhave believedthis.
'The briefaccountof queenSemiramis,
forexample,givenin an anonymoustreatise
on women(Anon.De mul.1 = FGrHist688 F Ic) and derivingfromCtesias,confirms
a wholeseriesof thedetailsin Diodorus.
theyarecan be readilyseenin Jacoby'seditionofthefragments.
sHowrepresentative
'For thefullsourceanalysissee thearticlesof Krumbholz
(above,n. 5). Of thosewho
have recently
favouredthe theoryofan intermediary
(above, n. 5), onlyGoossenshas
attemptedto arguethe positionin detail. But amongotherthingshe underestimates
whatis knownof Ctesias' account,neglecting,
forexample,theevidenceprovidedby
Nicolausof Damascus,whosehistoryof Assyriaand Media (90 Ff 1-5 and F 66) is
clearlybasedon thatof Ctesiasand whoat timesfollowshimverycloselyindeed;see
and mynotein Phoenix30 (1976) 5 n. 17.
Jacoby'scommentary

This content downloaded from 193.92.136.160 on Tue, 1 Oct 2013 11:35:40 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

DIODORUS

AND CTESIAS

197

There can be no doubt that at timesDiodorus followsthe originalvery

closely indeed. Unlike Nicolaus of Damascus, who corrects Ctesias'
blunderof locating Nineveh on the Euphrates, instead of on the Tigris
(90 F 3 line 23), Diodorus in book 2 is contentto reproducethe error.He
repeats it in fact several times (2.3.2, etc.), whereaselsewhere,when he
is modellinghimselfon a different
authority(17.53.4 and 55.3), he gives
the location correctly.'1
Even more noteworthyare two furtherpassages. Diodorus begins
his account of the Median empirewiththe pronouncementthat,since the
earliest writerson Media disagree, it is the duty of a historianwho
loves the truth to set the differingaccounts side by side (2.32.1). He
followsthisfirstwith a summaryof what is reportedby Herodotus,or so
he claims (2.32.2-3), and then with the factsas given by Ctesias (2.32.4
ff.).The sentimentsare lofty,but they should not mislead the reader
about the quality of thispart of Diodorus' history.The alleged summary
of Herodotus informsus that the Assyrianempire lasted for500 years
(Hdt. 1.95 gives 520 years), that afterthe fall of Assyria no rulerarose
formany generations(in Hdt. 1.95 ff.the Median empireis created at a
time when Assyria is still mistressof Asia), and that finallyCyaxares
(Deioces in Hdt. 1.96 ff.)was chosen king by the Medes. Diodorus, who
may wellhave been workingin haste,has clearlyfailedto checkthe actual
wordsof Herodotus. He is merelyrepeatingin blissfulignoranceCtesias'
blatant misrepresentations
of his predecessor'saccount.11
An earlierpassage is remarkablysimilar.When describingEthiopian
burial customs(2.15.1 ff.),Diodorus claims to give firstof all Herodotus'
account, then that of Ctesias. But Herodotus had stated clearly and
unambiguously that the Ethiopians, after covering the bodies with
gypsumand paintingthem,set themwithinpillars made of hyelos.He is
not responsible for the absurd statement attributed to him that the
Ethiopianspouredhyelosover the bodies,thusmutilatingthem.Diodorus
again is merely repeating Ctesias' misrepresentationsof Herodotus
withoutconsultingthe originalwork.
In these passages Diodorus is quite clearly guilty of the "slavish"
summarisingforwhich he has often been criticised.But this aspect of
his work can be exaggerated.His very close adherenceto Ctesias with
regard to some details does not mean that he is similarly "slavish"
1OI noted this in Phoenix 30 (1976) 24.
"We cannot naturally be dealing with misrepresentationsof Herodotus on the part
of Diodorus; cf. my discussion of Ctesias' polemic and his distortingof Herodotus'
narrative(Phoenix 32 [1978] 23 f.). But the commentin 2.32.3 that Cyaxares, according
to Herodotus, was chosen king in the second year of the 17th Olympiad (711/0) cannot
of course come from Ctesias, who would not have used Olympiad dating. The date
perhaps derives from a chronographicsource, although Diodorus, who has just been
writingabout Cyaxares, has perhaps replaced Deioces with Cyaxares (711/0 is much
too early forHerodotus' Cyaxares).

This content downloaded from 193.92.136.160 on Tue, 1 Oct 2013 11:35:40 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

198

PHOENIX

throughoutthe entiresectionon Assyriaand Media, or that this part of

the Bibliothecacontains nothingat all of Diodorus himself.Let us look
at the various ways in whichhe has adapted his main source.
In the firstplace and most obviously Diodorus greatly abbreviated
Ctesias' history.Ctesias loved protractedtales, as is clear fromPlutarch's
caustic commentsabout his mannerof writing(Artax. 11.11 = T 14 b),
or fromthe wearisomedetail preservedby Nicolaus of Damascus, even
though Nicolaus provides but a shortened version of the original.12
Diodorus naturallydispenseswith Ctesias' speeches and dialogues,13and
where the narrative lingers can ruthlesslycurtail it. In addition, a
generalisationmay replace a series of specific details; Diodorus, for
example, who can be quite imprecisewherethe originalwas exact, talks
vaguelyof the silverand gold whichSardanapallus heaped upon his pyre
(2.27.2), while Athenaeus, describingthe same incident,lists the individual items (F 1 q)." Or Diodorus may omit entire episodes; a conspiracyagainst Semiramisthat is relatedby Nicolaus (90 F 1) disappears
and Semiramis'Egyptian campaign,to whichDiodorus makes an allusion
in book 1 (56.5 = F 1 k), all but disappears (2.14.3). Presumablyhe did
not wish to say verymuch about a countrythat he had discussedat such
lengthin his precedingbook.
Moreover,the degreeof abbreviation,it is clear,is veryfarfrombeing
consistent throughoutthis part of the Bibliotheca.Diodorus deals at
considerablelength with the historyof Assyria,i.e., with the material
of the firstthree books of the original (his account occupies some 47
pages of the Teubner edition).15But the historyof the Median empire
(2.32.1 ff.),which Ctesias related in books 4 and 5 and perhaps a part
of 6,16is covered much more briefly(it takes up only 5 Teubner pages).
Here the reader is given the barest outline. The quarrel of the hero
Parsondes with the kingreceivesa vague reference(2.33.2); part of the
very lengthytale can be foundin Nicolaus (90 F 4). Diodorus tells us
somethingof the Sacan queen Zarinaea (2.24.3-5), but the pathetic
20OnCtesias' manner of writingcf. also Demetrius (T 14 a) and my comments in
Phoenix 30 (1976) 4 f. At 2.2.4 Diodorus informsthe reader that he is abbreviating.
'3For the evidence of direct speech in Ctesias' narrativesee Phoenix 30 (1976) 5.
"In Athenaeus (F 1 p) we have a enuch named Sparameizes; in Diod. 2.24.3 he is
"one of the eunuchs." Athenaeus (F 1 q) writes"3,000 talents of gold;" Diod. 2.26.8 has
"much money." Sardanapallus' pyreis 4 plethrahighin Athenaeus (F 1 q); "very large"
in Diod. 2.27.2. Just possibly in these last two passages Diodorus' imprecisionis due to
his mistrustof Ctesias' extravagant figures(below, n. 36) rather than to the desire to
abbreviate.
'SFor the book-divisionsof the early part of Ctesias' work see Krumbholz, RhM 52
(1897) 242 ff.Diodorus gives books 1 and 2 togethersome 36 pages. But the summaryof
book 3 (the story of Memnon and the account of Sardanapallus) is shorter,only about
11 pages. We do not of course know the length of the individual books of Ctesias.
'6A large part of book 6 must have been devoted to the very lengthy tale of Cyrus'
youth (cf. Nicol. Dam. 90 F 66), which Diodorus does not summarise.

This content downloaded from 193.92.136.160 on Tue, 1 Oct 2013 11:35:40 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

DIODORUS

AND CTESIAS

199

storyof Stryangaeus'unrequitedlove forher (Ff 7, 8a & 8b, 90 F 5) is

totallyomitted.
The abbreviationcan thus be quite drastic, but Diodorus naturally
has altered the originalin other ways. Afterall, although the language
of his source may make an impressionon him,he writesby and large in
his own style and uses his own terminology,as is oftenforgotten.17
The
opening section of book 2, then, will not tell us much about Ctesias'
language (of which very little is preservedin any of the fragments),18
althoughin a couple of passages Diodorus has apparentlybeen influenced
by the wording of his authority.We may note, for example, in the
descriptionof the Ethiopian lake the word "cinnabar" (2.14.4). This is
clearly an expressionused by Ctesias (it occurs also in the parallel
descriptionsgiven by Antigonusand by the Florentineparadoxographer,
F 1 a and 0). Indeed apparentlyit was a favouriteexpression;it occursa
numberof times in Ctesias' Indica,"9 whereas Diodorus does not use it
elsewhere.
In the second passage a change in terminologyseems to reflecta
change of source. In chapter 10, whereDiodorus has abandoned Ctesias
in favourof Cleitarchus,he uses "Syrian" in thesense of"Assyrian," as
apparentlydid Cleitarchus. Elsewhere in this section of the Bibliotheca
and elsewherein the work as a whole, Diodorus (and presumablyalso
Ctesias) writesfor"Assyrian" 'Ao-o-bpLos.20
"1See the discussion of Palm (above, n. 1). Goossens' problem (above, n. 4) 43 with
the word dioieketes(2.21.7), which in his view is a specificallySeleucid term and an
indication that Diodorus' immediate source is a historian of the Hellenistic period, is
thus illusory.The word of course can be applied to the chieffinancialofficerof Ptolemaic
or to a Seleucid financialofficial(E. Bikerman, Institutions
Egypt (LS7 s.v.
oLKqr7tis) It can serve as a Greek termforLatin
des Sileucides [Paris
1938] 129).
procurator(H. J.
Mason, GreekTermsfor Roman Institutions[Toronto 1974] 38 and 143) and also occurs
in a more general sense (cf. Menander Pk 280 and Kolax 7 and Plutarch Mor. 179 f).
It could well be not Ctesias' termbut that of Diodorus, even thoughit occurs elsewhere
in Diodorus only at 2.41.4.
"sThe longest passage of Ctesias' own words is the papyrus fragmentF 8 b, which
G. Giangrande, "On an Alleged Fragment of Ctesias," QUCC 23 (1976) 31-46, unconvincinglyargues is froma later elaboration of Ctesias' story (note that the opening
sentence of the letter in the papyrus is identical to that of Ctesias as quoted by Demetrius,F 8 a).
19F 45.8; F 45.15 (cf. the parallel excerpts F 45 d a and P); F 45.39 (cf. F 45 py);
F 45.45, but not in the parallel description of Aelian F 45 q. F. Biziere, "Comment
Travaillait Diodore de Sicile," REG 87 (1974) 370, notes terminologyin books 18-20
which mightderive fromHieronymus.
200n Cleitarchus as the source of chapter 10 see Jacoby FGrHist on 137 F 10 and my
"Ctesias' Description of Babylon," A7AH 3 (1978) 45 n. 11. Jacoby (on 137 F 2) also
comments on Cleitarchus' use of "Syrian" for "Assyrian." But whether in 2.13.2
Diodorus (or his source) wrote 'ArrvploLs
(Jacoby's emendation) rather
"ypixuuaatov
than
is uncertain. In this
expression both formsare used: see Th.
-ypaixtzatouv
Z-vpLots
Hermes
5 (1871) 443 ff. In Diodorus 19.23.3 and 19.96.1 we have 2vplots
N6ldeke,

ypauL
lao.t.

This content downloaded from 193.92.136.160 on Tue, 1 Oct 2013 11:35:40 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

200

PHOENIX

On the whole, however,the language of the early chaptersof book 2

must be that of Diodorus and it is not always appropriateto the lifetime of Ctesias. Take the oriental names. It is often assumed that
Diodorus reproducesthese exactly in the formin which they appeared
in the original.21But is this the case? Among the territoriesconquered
by Ninus we findCoele Syria (2.2.3),22a name unknownto Herodotusor
to Xenophon, which in fact occurs in the period beforeAlexander the
Great onlyin the Periplus of pseudo-Scylax(section 104), a workwritten
circa 338 B.C.23 In the Hellenistic period Coele Syria is very common
and whateverDiodorus thoughtit meant,he makes quite frequentuse of
it.24It looks as if here Diodorus has substitutedforthe originalname a
termwhichwould be familiarto himselfand to his readers.
Again, we may speculate about formssuch as Bactriane, Susiane,
etc.21Tarn has pointed out that names foreasternprovinceswhich end
in -ene or -iane are very common in Hellenistic times and he suggests
that,althoughthe correspondingadjectives (Bactrianusetc.) occur quite
frequentlyin authorswritingbeforeAlexander,the nominalformswere
perhapsnot used in the Achaemenidperiodor at the timeofAlexander.26
We may also note (although the argumentis not conclusive) that names
of this type appear neitherin Photius' summaryof Ctesias, although
21Below,n. 22 and n. 30.
22The list of Ninus' conquests (in 2.2.2 Diodorus names his source) must be from
Ctesias. Note Diodorus' Borkanioi (Barkanioi in Photius F 9.6 and F 9.8; cf. Tzetzes
F 9 a). Ctesias distinguishedthem fromthe Hyrcanians (cf. Curtius 3.2.5 f.,presumably
influencedby Ctesias), but in fact they are an imaginary people, the name being an
alternativein Greek for 'TpKcl'OL, O. P. Varkaina-;see Krumbholz,RhM 52 (1897) 272
and Tomaschek, "Barkanioi," RE 3 (1897) 19. A. Shalit, "KolXi
fromthe Mid7-,vplaHierosolymitana
Fourth Century to the Beginningof the Third Century B.C.," Scripta
1 (Jerusalem 1954) 64 and E. Bikerman, "La Coel6-Syrie; Notes de geographie historique," Revue Biblique 54 (1947) 257, among others, assume that Ctesias used the
term Coele Syria.
23F. Gisinger,"Skylax," RE 3 A (1927) 641 ff.O. Leuze, Die Satrapieneinteilungin
Syrien und im Zweistromlandevon520-320 (Halle 1935)210, suggests that the expression
in pseudo-Scylax may be a later gloss.
24Theoriginof the name is disputed (cf. K. Galling, Studien zur GeschichteIsraels im
persischenZeitalter[Tiibingen 1964] 202), and the area which it designates varies according to date and author; see most recently A. B. Bosworth, "The Government of
Syria under Alexander the Great," CQ N.s. 24 (1974) 46-64. In Diodorus it occurs 5
times in books 1-5; 17 times in book 18 and the followingbooks.
25In the firstpart of book 2 we also findCaspiane (2.2.3) and Paraetacene (2.11.1-2).
26"Seleucid-Parthian Studies," ProcBritAc (1930) 126 ff. and The Greeks in India
and Bactria2 (Cambridge 1951) 1 ft. and 442 ff.,although his theory that such names
denote Seleucid eparchies has been much criticised; see H. Bengtson,Die Strategiein der
HellenistischenZeit2 2 (Munich 1963) 30 ff.and Altheim in F. Altheim and R. Stiehl,
GeschichteMittelasiensim Altertum(Berlin 1970) 325 ff.Tarn does not note that Ctesias
has a city named Barene (F 9.5) and that Chares of Mytilene, if Athenaeus' quotation
can be trusted,used Susiane (125 F 3).

This content downloaded from 193.92.136.160 on Tue, 1 Oct 2013 11:35:40 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

DIODORUS

AND CTESIAS

201

Photius does not avoid them in other summaries,"7nor in any of the

otherfragmentsof Ctesias, and that forBactriane,in fact,Photius gives
BaKTpLa (F 14.35; cf. Steph. Byz. F 11) and BaKTPLOL(F 9.2; 9.8, etc.)
When Diodorus, who uses Bactriane, Susiane and
among other forms."2
such terms frequentlyelsewhere(particularly,as one would expect, in
books 17, 18, and 19),29 makesuse ofthemin book 2, he may be employing
not that of Ctesias.30
Hellenisticterminology,
Apart fromnames whose formmay be foreignto Ctesias, there are
other featuresof this section of book 2 which are perhaps more characteristicof Diodorus thanof his source.The battles,shornofmuchof their
circumstantial detail, seem stereotyped. Favourite expressions of
and its derivatives,occur repeatedly
Diodorus, such as
KaTa7rXiiTTErOL
These
2.17.7,
particular words do not, as is significant,
(2.16.8,
etc.)31
in
the
lengthybattle-descriptions
preservedby Nicolaus F 66.)
appear
27In cod. 92 p. 71 b (Arr. Historyof Alexander's Successors) Photius writes Susiane,
Bactriane, etc.
281t may be significantthat Photius in his summaryof Ctesias also avoids Bactrianoi,
in the summaryof Arr. Anab.
although he uses similar formselsewhere(e.g. 2ovotavW^v
cod. 91 p. 68 a). Diodorus on the other hand, who nowhereuses BaKTpLa or BAKTpLOL,
uses Bactrianoi 6 times in the firstpart of book 2 as well as elsewhere.
29Bactriane,for example, occurs 10 times in the early part of book 2, 11 times in
books 17-19, and not elsewhere. Susiane occurs once at the beginningof book 2, 10
times in books 17-19, and not elsewhere.
30Altheim,(above, n. 26) 328, on the basis of Diodorus, believes that Ctesias used
Bactriane.
The formassumed by many of the geographical names in Ctesias is, in fact,uncertain,
the evidence (none of which can be regarded as reliable on this question) being often
contradictory.With Xwponvalwovin Diod. 2.2.3 compare XwpaAlvwv (Photius F 9.8)
and XwpapvaoLt (Steph. Byz. F 12). Diodorus himselfis inconsistentover the inhabitants of Parthia (0. P. Parthava). In 2.2.3 they are called HapOva^ot; cf. Anon. De Mul.
2 = F 7 and Nicol. Dam. 90 F 66.46 (lapOvaLa occurs 7 times in Diod. books 17-19).
But in Diod. 2.34.1-2, whichis also based on Ctesias (F 5), theyare HItpOot(the formtised
in the Constantinian excerpts frombooks 33 and 34/35). Photius, who uses the other
formsin other summaries,in 688 F 9.8 gives HIiptOLt.For the Median capital we have
in Diod. 2.13.5-7 etc. 'EK036TaVa, the only formof the name which appears in Diodorus
(cf. Phot. F 9.5 and F 13.26), but according to Steph. Byz. (F 42), who need not be
correct,Ctesias used 'Ayodirava. Again, in both Diod. 2.2.3 and Phot. F 9.7 we find
A poLKES. Steph. Byz. F 43 states that Ctesias used AEp3Lovs(?) . . .
TEpfcobos.
The meaningis unclear (did Ctesias allegedly use both formsor one of the two?) and the
commentmightbe based on a passage of Ctesias which was corrupt.And would Ctesias
have writtenApa-yyat (Diod. 2.2.3) for the people of Drangiana, O.P. Z(a)ra(n)ka?
Hdt. writes
In Arrian we have both ZapivyyaL and ApayyaL (see A. B.
l-apayyat.
in Arrian," CQ N.s. 26 [1976] 127 ff.).Diodorus elsewhere (6 examples
Bosworth,"Errors
in books 17-19) uses the formin delta, the more common formin the Hellenistic period
(Bosworth 129).
31Onthe frequentappearance of this word in Diodorus see Palm (above, n. 1) 167. Vial
(above, n. 1) xx ff.discusses stereotypedbattles in book 15, and C. B. Welles, Diodorus
8 (Cambridge, Mass. 1963) 14, commentson stereotypingin the battles of book 17.

This content downloaded from 193.92.136.160 on Tue, 1 Oct 2013 11:35:40 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

202

PHOENIX

Equally noteworthyare the descriptionsof character.Ctesias himself

was apparentlyfondof stereotypes.Besides the sluggishand effeminate
Ninyas and Sardanapallus, there is the very similar Annarus (F 6; cf.
90 F 4). Along with the warriorqueen Semiramis,we have two more,
the Saka queens Zarinaea (Diod. 2.34.3 ff.) and Sparethra (F 9.3). In
Diodorus, however,the characters become even more stereotyped.To
several are given the conventional epithets which describe many of
Diodorus' heroes. The Mede Arbaces bears the label aivbpeil
Kil vUX7S
XaMlrp6b771L
tLbtaopwv(2.24.1), as do Memnon (2.22.3), Epaminondas
(15.88.3), Philip (16.1.6.), and others.Later he receivespraise forthose
favouritevirtuesof Diodorus,
(2.28.5) and iTrLELKEia
(2.28.5-7).
In the slightlymore detailedMEyaXoJvx'a
descriptionsof Nicolaus (90 F 2), where
among other thingshe is a skilled huntsman,he is less uninteresting.
When Diodorus comes to the hero Parsondes,who is admiredEir'
avs'ape
Kai vvoctL and other virtues (2.33.1; cf. Cyrus the Great in 9.22, Mardonius in 11.1.3, Epaminondas and Pelopidas in 15.62.4, Alexander in
17.1.3 etc.), once morewe have a formula.32
Nicolaus, who notes his good
looks, huntingprowess,skill in all kinds of armed combat (90 F 4), is
again less bland.
In Diodorus' hands Ctesias' highly colourfulnarrative has clearly
become somethingratherdull and conventional.But a furtheraspect of
theopeningpartofbook 2 shouldreceiveattention,an aspect of Diodorus'
writingwhich is easily overlooked.AlthoughDiodorus could very well
have been contentmerelyto summarisehis one principalsource,Ctesias,
this is not his method.Supplementaryinformationhas been added from
other authorities.33Let us look at some examples beforeasking which
othersources were consulted.34
Diodorus does not presentCtesias' versionof the tale of Semiramisas
if it were the only one. He also provides an outlineof the very different
account given by Athenaeus (2.20.3-5), whoever this Athenaeus was.
Elsewhere,he notes that to give an accurate descriptionof the ziqqurrat
at Babylon was not at all an easy task; thisgreatmonumentwas in ruins
and there were discrepancies in the reports given by his authorities
(2.9.4).35 Again, although he does not systematicallycompare the descriptionof Babylon given by Ctesias with that givenby Cleitarchus,he
does indicate that over a numberof details the two historiansdisagreed
32Goukowsky(above, n. 1) xxxivft.and Vial (above, n. 1) xxii discuss the clich6swhich
Diodorus applies to his heroes.
33Cf.the commentsof Goukowsky (above, n. 1) xiv f. on the procedure probably followed by Diodorus in book 17.
34All the additions to which I allude, except for those discussed below (204 f.), are
indicated by the small type in Jacoby's edition.
35Forthe alleged discrepancies between the sources, which Diodorus outlinesin 2.15.1
ff.and in 2.32.1 ff.,see above, 197 f.

This content downloaded from 193.92.136.160 on Tue, 1 Oct 2013 11:35:40 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

DIODORUS

AND CTESIAS

203

(2.7).36 Whatever his failingselsewhereand whatever his procedurein

other parts of the work, in this section of the Bibliothecaat any rate
Diodorus shows some concern foraccuracy and some awareness of the
involvedin ascertainingthe truth.Hence some of the additions
difficulties
to his main source.
But not all of the informationsupplementaryto Ctesias is of this
nature. Diodorus clearly had to turn to a different
authoritywhen his
which
could
him
with
so
much of what he
source,
supply
principal
of
of
all
marvels
deeds
every variety-let
description,
wanted-mighty
him down."7Ctesias' commentson astrology(Belesys and the unnamed
Babylonian in Nicolaus F 66 are astrologers)were perhaps ratherbrief.
Diodorus, who refersin several books to Chaldaean forecastsof the fate
of Alexander the Great and that of Antigonus,38and who must surely
have had some interest in Babylonian astrology,adds a substantial
sectionon the Chaldaeans froma different
authority(2.29.1-31.10, where
the referencesto events after Ctesias' lifetimeshow that the source
cannot be Ctesias).
Equally noteworthyare some furtherpassages. One of Diodorus'
chiefaims, as is veryclearlystated in the prefaceto the Bibliotheca,was
to writea moralisinghistory.39
He may improveupon his source by his
men
insertions.
"When
edifying
enjoy good fortune,"we read in the
account of Ninus, "their success promptsthe desire formore" (2.2.1)-a
commentsurelyof Diodorus not of Ctesias. Then thereis Sardanapallus.
Ctesias' descriptionsof this degenerate,spinningpurple wool among his
concubines (2.23.1-2), was highlycolourfuland certainlyfamous, but
Diodorus
evidently for Diodorus' moral purposes it was insufficient.40
360n Cleitarchus as the source of the correctionsin this chapter see AJAH 3 (1978)
45 n. 11. This passage is also significantfor Diodorus' attitude to the grossly inflated
figurescharacteristicof Ctesias' history.Of his 11 citations of Ctesias in book two 7 are
forfigures,all of themabsurd. In 2.7.4 he gives the moreplausible numeralof Cleitarchus
along with that of Ctesias. He also notes the figuresupplied by each in 2.7.3, althoughhe
does not realise that here both Ctesias and Cleitarchus hopelesslyexaggerate (AJAH 3
[1978] 36). Despite his stout defenceof the enormousarmysize of 2.5.4, he evidentlyhas
some awareness that over numbersCtesias is not to be trusted.At least he seems to feel
it desirable either to note the existence of controversyor to absolve himselfof the
responsibilityby citing his source.
37SinceDiodorus himselfis greatlyinterestedin marvels (cf. Palm [above, n. 1] 195), it
is amusing that he criticises Ctesias' description of the remarkable Ethiopian lake
(2.14.4).
"3Both prophecies are referredto in 2.31 and in 19.55. That concerning Alexander
occurs also in 17.112, while that concerningAntigonus appeared in a missingsection of
book 21.
"3This is properlyemphasised by R. Drews (above, n. 1) 383 ff.
40Sardanapallus of course, with his idle, effeminate,and self-indulgentways, is the
very opposite of the kind of characterwhom Diodorus admires. Note in connectionwith
him the repeated use of the word 7pv4il, a vice which Diodorus abhors; cf. his criticism

This content downloaded from 193.92.136.160 on Tue, 1 Oct 2013 11:35:40 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

204

PHOENIX

reinforcesthe king'suttershamelessness,tackingon to Ctesias' storythe

well-known epitaph which portrays Sardanapallus revelling in his
depravity,41and ending the section with his own explicitcondemnation
of the base mannerin whichthe kingended his life(2.23.4), a condemnation whichclearlyconflictswiththe tale as relatedby Ctesias (cf. F 1 q).
When he writes about the Assyrian and Median empires,Diodorus
makes a substantial number of additions to his main source, however
briefsome of these are. He may in fact habituallysupplementhis basic
authoritywitha muchgreaterdegreeof freedomthanis usuallyimagined.
Two furtherexamples fromthe beginningof book 2, which have not
hithertobeen recognisedas additions,may be noted.42In his description
of the principal monumentsof Babylon (the primarysource here is
certainlyCtesias) Diodorus makes the statementthat the palaces and
other buildingsare now in ruins (2.9.9). But this must be a comment
added to the material supplied by Ctesias. It is quite inappropriateto
the Babylon of Ctesias' lifetime.43
In a later passage dealing with the events leading up to the final
destructionof Nineveh, Diodorus again cannot be merelyrepeating a
statementof Ctesias whenhe claims that varioustypesofsiegeequipment
had not yet been invented:
.)
Xwo-rpiLEs
7rcrpopbXotL.. XEXcowva

KpLO

(2.27.1). Ctesias, of course, writinghis historysoon after398/7, might

well have alluded to batteringrams, whichwere much used in his day.44
But it is difficultto believe that he could have commentedon petroboloi.
No formof artilleryis known in the Greek world or in the Near East
before about 399 when Dionysius I of Syracuse introducedthe arrowshooting catapult.45 Machines which discharged stones, although
possiblyinventedsoon after399, are not heard of beforePhilip's conflict
with the Phocian Onomarchusin 354 B.c.46 To one scholar the sentence
is proofthat a historianwritingin the period of Demetrius Poliorcetes
of Pausanias (11.44.5 and 11.46.2), of Acrotatus (19.7.3), and of Damophilus of Enna
(34/35.2.34 f.), with the commentsof Goukowsky (above, n. 1) xlii.
41Verypopular with the historians of Alexander, as well as with others; see Jacoby
FGrHist on Aristobulus 139 F 9 and the literaturecited there. For another example of
Diodorus' adding of moralisingmaterial to his main source see 31.26.2, where Diodorus,
who is here basically followingPolybius, adds a commenton his own times.
42Theyare not indicated in Jacoby's edition.
"3See AJAH 3 (1978), especially 40 ff.
"4Frequentlyemployed of course by the Assyrians (Y. Yadin, The Art of Warfarein
Biblical Lands 2 [Jerusalem1963] 314 ff.),they are used in Greek sieges fromthe second
half of the fifthcentury onwards; cf. Y. Garlan, Recherchesde poliorcdtiquegrecque
(Athens 1974) 137 ff.On the dating of Ctesias' Persica see above, n. 3.
45E. W. Marsden, Greekand Roman Artillery(Oxford 1969) 48 ff.and Garlan (above,
n. 44) 164 ff.
46Polyaenus 2.38.2 and Marsden (above, n. 45) 43. One may also wonder whether
Ctesias alluded to XeXWcVat
cf. Diod. 17.24.4 (Fischer's emendation),
XWOrpliE;

This content downloaded from 193.92.136.160 on Tue, 1 Oct 2013 11:35:40 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

DIODORUS

AND CTESIAS

205

has revisedCtesias' history.47

Surely,however,it is an observationmade
by Diodorus himself. Diodorus certainly appears to have had some
interestin sieges and in siege equipment.48
If Diodorus has thus enlarged his basic source with a considerable
amount of supplementaryinformation,fromwhere does he derive the
extraneousmaterial and will it shed any light at all on his methodsof
working,to turnbrieflyto the finaland most vexed of the problems?
Some details no doubt come fromDiodorus' general knowledge,e.g.,
the strategememployed by Perseus when faced with elephantsin the
Roman army (2.17.3), or the size of Dionysius' army and fleet(2.5.6),
Sicilian historybeing naturally one of Diodorus' major interests.49As
we have seen, Cleitarchus,who is named as a sourcein 2.7.3, has supplied
some information-thecorrectionsto Ctesias' descriptionof the walls of
Babylon in chapter7 (above, 202 f.), the account of theHangingGardens
in chapter 10 (above, 199), and very possiblypart of the descriptionof
Babylonia in chapter 11. He may well have provided more.50Apart
fromthe mysteriousAthenaeus (above, 202), no other authoritiesare
named, althoughJacoby has suggestedthat Agatharchidesmightbe the
source of the Ethiopian claims that Memnon was an African,not a man

of Asia (2.22.4),51and othershave postulatedthat the sectionon the

Chaldaeans(2.29.1ff.)comesfromPoseidonius."

20.91.8, and 20.95.1, Athenaeus Mechan. 15.12 ff.etc., and Garlan (above, n. 44) 234 ff.
Although no doubt some formof the "tortoise" was in use by the fifthcentury, the
XeXAvrlXworTpisseems to be firstmentioned in connectionwith Philip of Macedon's
siege of Methone (Didymus citing Theopompus, FGrHist 115 F 52).
47To Goossens (above, n. 4) 43.
48See R. K. Sinclair, "Diodorus Siculus and Fighting in Relays," CQ N.s. 16 (1966)
249-255, especially 254 f., and Goukowsky (above, n. 1) xv.
49The size of Darius' army in Scythia (80 myriads), referredto in this same passage,
must be fromCtesias (cf. F 13.21).
SoCtesias cannot have referredto the Ganges (11.1) or to the seven wonders of the
world (11.5); see Krumbholz, RhM 52 (1897) 276. And how much of the material in
chapters 11 and 12 comes from him is uncertain. As Krumbholz believed (275 f.),
Cleitarchus may have provided the description of Mesopotamia (11.1-3), which has
parallels with Curtius 5.1.13. Jacoby (app. crit.442 and commentaryto 137 F 2) has suggested that the source for Sardanapallus' epitaph (2.23.3) might be Cleitarchus. Could
he also have supplied the account of Semiramiswhich Diodorus attributesto Athenaeus
(2.20.3-5) ? It is verysimilarto the storyrelated by Deinon, Cleitarchus' father(690 F 7).
51App. crit. 442. In Jacoby's edition lines 10-16 are printed in small type. But the
materialsupplementaryto Ctesias is surelyonly lines 10-13. Memnon does not, it seems,
appear as an Africanuntil the Hellenistic period; see R. Drews, "Aethiopian Memnon,
African or Asiatic?," RhM 112 (1969) 191-192. Diodorus' informationmight possibly
derive once more from Cleitarchus, if Cleitarchus is Curtius' source for an African
Memnon (4.8.3).
52E. Schwartz, "Diodoros," RE 5 (1905) 672 and K. Reinhardt,"Poseidonios," RE 22
(1953) 823 ff.,but consideredvery doubtful by Jacoby FGrHist II C 157. For Diodorus'
possible use of a chronographicsource see above, n. 11.

This content downloaded from 193.92.136.160 on Tue, 1 Oct 2013 11:35:40 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

206

PHOENIX

Two furtherpassages, where again the informationcannot derive

fromCtesias, are of interest.One is the briefdescriptionof Arabia in
2.1.5-6, whichis verysimilarto what is said about Arabia in 2.48.1-5.53
The second passage (2.16.3-4), which introducesIndia to the reader,
closely resemblesthe lengthierdescriptionof India given in 2.35.3-36.4,
wherepossiblythe sourceis Megasthenes.54To Krumbholzthesedescriptions are apparentlynot part of Diodorus' originalaccount of Assyria,
but insertionsof the author, added perhaps afterhe had composed the
later descriptions."5
Krumbholzapparentlybelievesthat Diodorus would
not have been familiarwith works which dealt with Arabia and India
when he began the writingof book 2. But would Diodorus have been
utterly incapable of doing a little reading in advance? It is at least
possible that both passages alluded to belong to the period of initial
writing.
However negligentlyDiodorus summarises, and he can be very
careless, surely he must have planned the Bibliothecawith a certain
amountofattentiveness.Afterall, hisintentionofwritingabout Ethiopia,
carriedout in book 3, was formulated,as we can see fromthe reference
at 2.15.5, considerably in advance of the actual writing."6It seems
entirelypossible that he planned the later sections of book 2, including
those on India (2.35 ff.) and Arabia (2.48 ff.),long beforehe began to
compose his account of Assyria, and that at that point he did a considerable amount of preliminaryreading. Pieces of informationfrom
authorssuch as Megasthenescould quite well have been insertedinto an
account of Assyriabased largelyon Ctesias at the timeof firstdrafting.57
53Cf.also 19.94 and Krumbholz, "Wiederholungen bei Diodor," RhM 44 (1889) 291,
who suggests that Diodorus' source in 2.48.1-5 made use of Hieronymus.
54Jacoby,app. crit.434. The very briefdescriptionof Bactria in 2.2.4 (cf. 2.5.3 and
2.6.1) is also similar to that of 17.74.2 (Cleitarchus?). Krumbholz,RhM 44 (1889) 296,
commentsthat Cleitarchus would have made use of Ctesias.
55RhM44 (1889) 291 ff.;cf. Jacoby, app. crit.421 and 434. Krumbholz suggestsin the
case of otherpassages in book 2 which repeat material given elsewherein the Bibliotheca
that Diodorus possibly inserted them while he was revising his work for publication.
However, it is very uncertain how far the historywas revised; clearly Diodorus did not
make a thoroughrevision afterthe whole had been completed (cf. A. Burton, Diodorus
Siculus Book I, a Commentary
[Leiden 1972] 43 f.). And the question of which authors he
would have read beforeembarkingon the writingof book 2 deserves some attention.
561fthe comment at 2.15.5 is not a later addition, which thereis no reason to believe
it is. We do not of course know in what order Diodorus composed the individual books
of the Bibliotheca.But it is reasonable to suppose that he wrote them in roughly their
presentorder (cf. Burton [above, n. 55] 43 f.). If taken at theirface value, the references
in the firstpart of book 2 suggest that book 2 was writtenbeforebooks 9 (2.34.6), 17 and
19 (2.31.2), as well as beforebook 3.
57He could have reread worksdealing with Arabia and India when he came to give his
own account of those areas. We may note that when Diodorus composed book 1, which
was presumably written before book 2 (above, n. 56), he was already familiar with

This content downloaded from 193.92.136.160 on Tue, 1 Oct 2013 11:35:40 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

DIODORUS

AND CTESIAS

207

In otherwordsit can be plausibly argued that Diodorus was tolerably

well read when he began writingabout the Assyrian and Median empires.58The material supplementaryto Ctesias, a considerablepart of
which was perhaps added frommemory(surely Diodorus did not painfullyunwind and rewind a large numberof papyrus rolls in order to
locate all the individualpieces ofinformation),may be derivedultimately
froma varietyof authors.
To conclude, although Diodorus is obviously not a historianof the
firstrank, neitheris he the purelymechanicalcompilerthat he is often
representedas being. For his historyof Assyriaand Media Diodorus has
clearly made extensive use of one basic author, Ctesias, and despite
passages where the abbreviationis extreme,he gives us a great deal of
informationabout the originalnarrative.But althoughhis account may
not be a drastic adaptation, it is still an adaptation-in Diodorus' own
style,using mostlyDiodorus' terminologyand with a significantnumber
of additionsfromotherauthorities.The question of Diodorus' sourcesin
the Bibliothecaas a whole may in fact be far more complex than many
would care to admit. In this particularsection of the work,at any rate,
there would appear to be much more of Diodorus in Diodorus than is
oftensupposed.59
VICTORIA COLLEGE, UNIVERSITY

OF TORONTO

Ctesias' history.There seems no reason to believe that the referencein 1.56 is a citation
at second hand or a comment added later.
68His methods of workingin general may well have been similar to those which have
been suggested forother ancient authors; forLivy see T. J. Luce, Livy: the Composition
of his History (Princeton 1977), especially 139 ff.,and for Plutarch in the Roman Lives
see C. B. R. Pelling, "Plutarch's Method of Work in the Roman Lives," 7HS 99 (1979)
74-96. Pelling (91 ff.) comments that a number of writersappear to have carried out
extensive preliminaryreading. He also suggests that to rely (for any individual episode)
on one principal source, which the author might have at hand and to which he might
add supplementary material from a variety of other sources, would have been a not
unusual procedure and one which is readily understandable given the difficultyof
workingwith papyrus rolls.
5"I am very gratefulto M. B. Wallace for a number of helpfulsuggestions. My informationabout the frequencywith which Diodorus uses certain terms has been provided by C. R. Rubincam from her computer-compiledconcordance. I am deeply
indebted to her forsupplying me with all these details and also forher commentson an
earlier draftof this article.

This content downloaded from 193.92.136.160 on Tue, 1 Oct 2013 11:35:40 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions