Ctesias

This article (written in German) traces the history of the monstruous or marvellous races of India (called Indian or Plinian races, too), the monsters that almost ubiquitous appear in Medieval art and literature. Unfortunately, due to limit of space, the allegorical interpretation of the monsters had to be left untouched. Instead it is argued that these monsters are still pretty alive today - although in far away regions, of course.

„Der Achämenidenhof“ ist die Publikation eines Internationalen Kolloquiums, das die griechischen und lateinischen Quellen zu einem Sachthema der Achämenidengeschichte der einschlägigen altorientalischen Überlieferung gegenüberstellt. Dabei stellen sich wie bei der Behandlung einzelner Autoren (CLeO 1, 3, 5 etc.) die Fragen, wie das Bild vom „Orient“ in der klassischen Überlieferung Gestalt gewonnen hat und in welchem Verhältnis dieses Bild zu den altorientalischen Primärquellen steht. Die im Band versammelten Beiträge verfolgen zur Beantwortung dieser Fragen unterschiedliche methodische Ansätze. Die einen zielen darauf, literarische Zutaten der klassischen Auutoren sichtbar zu machen. Andere nutzen die schriftliche Primärüberlieferung und archäologische Zeugnisse, um zentrale Aspekte wie Selbstverständnis und Kommunikationsabsichten des Herrscherhauses, Hofzeremoniell, Administration, Kult, Wirtschaft und Handel oder auch Geschlechterrollen zu beleuchten. Darüber hinaus verfolgen einige Beiträge einen systemtheoretischen Ansatz und greifen Ergebnisse der jüngeren Hof- und Residenzenforschung auf, um ein Komplement zur lückenhaften Überlieferung der Achämenidenzeit zu bieten. Denn auch in Bezug auf den Achämenidenhof müssen die überlieferten Gegebenheiten im Rahmen der Aufgaben verständlich sein, denen ein Hof seiner Funktion nach dient, als da sind die Organisation des Alltags des Monarchen, die Garantie seiner Sicherheit, die Pflege seines Prestiges, die Integration der Machteliten und die Führung der Regierungsgeschäfte.

The present paper discusses the topos of the gruesome Persian King in Greek and Roman historiography by analysing episodes of human flaying in Asia. The discussion is centered on a single episode from the Histories of Herodotus, in which the Great King Cambyses flays his judge, Sisamnes. This episode significantly impacted later authors, such as Diodorus and Valerius Maximus. As early as one generation after Herodotus, human flaying became an essential characteristic of the Greek perception of the Achaemenid Empire, as attested in extant fragments by the author Ctesias. Nevertheless, cuneiform sources from the 1st Millennium BCE reveal that flaying was indeed used in different contexts and mainly served as a form of propaganda. Herodotus is known to have constructed the literary figure of the gruesome Persian Great King flaying his subjects, which was used as a stereotype by Ctesias for his description of Persian court culture. As the representation of Persians in the later works of Diodorus, Valerius Maximus, and Plutarch illustrates, human flaying - as an embodiment of the theme of "Asian rage" - became a fixed element in the post-Herodotean era.

Very few Bible scholars believe now in the historicity of the book of Esther, but what is really incomprehensible is that their conclusion is based only on the following prejudice: this story looks like a fairy tale, consequently, it is a fairy tale! There is no chronological investigation despite the fact that chronology is the backbone of history and there has been no historical research among archaeological witnesses despite the fact that apart from ancient texts there is no witness. Worse still, to establish their chronology, historians have blind faith in the Babylonian king lists which are nevertheless false (reporting no usurpation and no co-regency). Additionally, in order to establish historical truth, they regularly quote the official propaganda of the time which is very often misleading. Yet it is easy to check in the tablets of Persepolis that Mordecai was an eminent royal scribe called Marduka who worked with Tatennai, the governor beyond the River, under the direction of Uštanu, the satrap of Babylon, during the years 17 to 32 of Darius. Similarly, the narrative of Herodotus regarding Amestris (a name meaning ‘vigorous woman’ in Old Persian), Xerxes' unique wife and only queen known in Persia, corresponds in many ways to Esther (‘star’ in Old Persian”) despite the unfavourable and biased description of the Persian queen.
https://www.lulu.com/shop/gerard-gertoux/queen-esther-wife-of-xerxes-chronological-historical-and-archaeological-evidence/paperback/product-15egvzwr.html

As for the overall historicity of the book —despite widespread dismissal from skeptics— there is likewise a remarkable body of evidence for it, including the historical identity of Queen Esther herself. For more on this, read a thorough investigation by Gerard Gertoux (The Armstrong Institute of Biblical Archaeology https://armstronginstitute.org/674).

The pivotal date of 465 BCE for the death of Xerxes has been accepted by historians for many years without notable controversy. However, according to Thucydides, a historian renowned for his high chronological accuracy, Themistocles met Artaxerxes, who had succeeded Xerxes, his father, just after the fall of Nexos (The Peloponnesian War I:98;137) which occured after the fall of Skyros dated at the beginning of the archonship of Phaedo in 476 BCE, according to Plutarch (Life of Theseus §§35,36). Thus, the meeting with Themistocles would have occurred soon after 475/474, not 465/464.
The present Achaemenid chronology comes mainly from official Babylonian king lists which ignore coregents and usurpers. This official version is contradicted by contracts dated in "year, month, day" proving the existence of frequent co-regencies and usurpers. In addition, according to the astronomical tablet referenced BM 32234 the death of Xerxes is dated 14/V/21 between two lunar eclipses, one dated 14/III/21 (26 June 475 BCE), which was total, and a second dated 14/VIII/21 (20 December 475 BCE), which was partial. Thus the death of Xerxes has to be dated 24 August 475 BCE. Likewise, the death of Artaxerxes I is fixed precisely by Thucydides (The Peloponnesian War IV:50-52) just before a partial solar eclipse (21 March 424 BCE) which would imply an absurd co-regency of Darius II with a dead king for at least one year! In fact, Plutarch and Justinus have effectively described a long co-regency of Artaxerxes but with his first son Darius B (434-426), not Darius II, and afterward two shorts reigns: Xerxes II for 2 months then Sogdianus for 7 months, which occurred before the reign of Darius II.
The arrangement of the intercalary months in a chronology without co-regency has several anomalies especially the presence of two months Ulul in a single cycle. By contrast, in a chronology with co-regency, and thus two distinct cycles, the abnormal intercalary month in year 30 of Darius (Persepolis) corresponds to another cycle ending in year 4 of Xerxes. The titular of Xerxes (496-475) in Egypt and the data of Diodorus confirm the co-regency of 10 years with Darius (522-486), likewise Elephantine papyri with many double dates with civil and lunar calendars.
Lunar dates were supposed to come from a Babylonian calendar, but this is impossible because the city of Elephantine, in the far south of Egypt, was largely administered by Egyptian officials who used a civil calendar to date their documents. Parker (1950) assumed that the Egyptian lunar calendar began with the 1st invisibility (day after the new moon and just before the new crescent). As lunar day 1, called psdntyw "shining ones", has played a major role in Egyptian religious celebrations, it is regularly quoted in ancient documents, which sometimes also date it in the civil calendar. In the papyrus Louvre 7848 containing a double date, lunar and civil, in the year 44 of Amasis, the first date (II Shemu 13) is lunar and the second (I Shemu 15) is civil and as the civil date fell on 21 September 558 BCE the lunar date fell on 9 (= 21 – 12) September 558 BCE which was a full moon day according to astronomy, not 1st invisibility "shining ones"! The lunar calendar at Elephantine with its system of double dates used by Persians officials and Jewish scribes from 500 to 400 BCE confirms that the Egyptian lunar day 1 was a full moon.

This book chapter, published in 2008, discusses the intellectual world in which Berossus lived. Berossus was a Babylonian priest, who lived in the early Hellenistic period, and produced a Babyloniaca in three books about the culture and history of Babylonia from the beginnings to his own time. This article focusses on the history of Babylonia in the first millennium BC. For this history he had many sources to go on. One of the most important are the Babylonian Chronicles; other sources are royal inscriptions. The article discusses the character of the Babylonian chronicles in the light of a general discussion on what historiography ideally is. A ladder of 11 characteristics, which I compiled during lectures on historiography in dialogue with students (and thus called sometimes with a pun on my name ‘the Ladder of Baconius’), was used to evaluate these chronicles as historiography. The article shows how Berossus used Babylonian chronicles for his survey of Neo-Babylonian history and he appeared to have followed closely the so-called East India House Inscription of Nebuchadnezzar for the description of the royal palace. Berossus (or was it Alexander Polyhistor?) adds a paragraph on the “Hanging Garden” of Babylon, of which there is no mention in the inscription or in any other. This anomaly gets ample discussion.
------ ADDENDA ET CORRIGENDA:    In the last seven years many important new publications appeared regarding chronicles and Berossus. I mention:
On Berossus:
Geert de Breucker, ‘Berossos (680)’, Brill’s New Jacoby Online, 2010.
--- ‘Abydenos (685)’, Brill’s New Jocoby Online, 2010
--- ‘Berossos between tradition and innovation’, in: Karen Radner, Eleanor Robson eds., The Oxford Handbook of Cuneiform Culture (Oxford 2011), 637-57
--- De Babyloniaca van Berossos van Babylon. Inleiding, editie en commentaar. PhD dissertation University of Groningen. 2012.
--- ‘Alexander Polyhistor and the Babyloniaca of Berossos’, BICS 55 (2012) 57-68.
Johannes Haubold, Giovanni B. Lanfranchi, Robert Rollinger, John M. Steele (eds.), The World of Berossos: Proceedings of the 4th International Colloquium on “The Ancient Near East between Classical and Ancient Oriental Traditions”, Hatfield College, Durham 7th-9th July 2010. Classica et Orientalia, 5. Wiesbaden:  Harrassowitz Verlag, 2013.

------ On Babylonian Chronicles:
Waerzeggers, Caroline. “The Babylonian Chronicles: Classification and Provenance.” JNES 71 (2012) 285–98.
--- ‘Facts, propaganda or history? Shaping political memory in the Nabonidus Chronicle’ in: Jason M. Silverman and Caroline Waerzeggers, Political Memory In and After the Persian Empire, Atlanta GA: Society of Biblical Literature, forthcoming.
R.J. van der Spek, ‘Coming to terms with the Persian Empire. Concluding Remarks and Responses’, ibidem.

------ On the Hanging Garden:
Stephanie Dalley, The Mystery of the Hanging Garden of Babylon. An Elusive World Wonder Traced (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2013).

------ Additional Addenda et corrigenda:
p. 280: On the Babylonian Chronicles of the Hellenistic Period. Note that many of the latest “chronicles”, esp. of the Parthian periods, are in fact historical sections of the Astronomical Diaries. So e.g. BCHP 18, the “Bagayasha Chronicle”.
p. 280-287 on the Babylonian chronicles. See now the articles by Caroline Waerzeggers, who discovered the origins of the chronicles as coming from Borsippa or Babylon and is very critical of the concept of “chronicle series”. She now argues that the Nabonidus Chronicle is a new creation of the early Hellenistic period.
p. 283, first line third paragraph, words are missing. Read: In my view the Neo-Babylonian collection of chronicles about the recent past is a unique and outstanding piece of historiography. Although … (etc.)
p. 286, line 8 from below: remove comma after ‘compilers’.
p. 287-8; 313: Berossus’ dedication of his work to Antiochus. See now: Johannes Bach, ‘Berossos, Antiochos and die Babyloniaka,’ AWE 12 (2013) 157-180, who argues that the book was dedicated to Antiochus II. Interesting proposition, difficult to prove. He is certainly right that the traditional dating to the third YEAR of Antiochus I (278 BC) is a wrong interpretation by Verbrugghe and Wickersham. The number refers to the “third” KING after Alexander (Tatianus, Or. Ad Graecos 36) or Seleucus (Eusebius, Praep. Evang. 10.11.8).
p. 288-9: on the question of the authorship of the astronomical sections: John Steele, ‘The ‘Astronomical Fragments’ of Berossos in context’ in: Haubold et al. eds. The World of Berossos, 107-122. He argues that the fragments belong to Berossus, but his knowledge was based on literary rather than on astronomical texts.
p. 296, n. 35. New evidence of copies on clay tablets of the Cyrus Cylinder has come to light: I.L. Finkel, ‘The Cyrus Cylinder: the Babylonian Perspective’ in I.L. Finkel ed., The Cyrus Cylinder. The King of Persia’s Proclamation from Ancient Babylon. London: I.B. Tauris 2013, 4-34.

"Abstract. The prominence of eunuchs in Ctesias’ account on Persia has given rise in the last decades to a paradoxical combination of scepticism about their historicity and realistic interpretation questioning whether they were in fact castrated. The present paper brings to light the difficulties of the assessment of them as historical figures. It first takes into account the fact that we know Ctesias’ eunuchs only through fragments, that is, through the filter of later authors who refer to him while possibly having a personal relationship to eunuchs in their own society. It then describes the distinctive features of Ctesias’ eunuchs within Greek literature on Persia and presents the main interpretative trends on them. It examines possible touchstones and shows how difficult it is to cross-check Ctesias’ account of eunuchs with Near Eastern evidence. It assesses the foundations of current prevailing positions, and shows that a hypothesis has become a – questionable – dogma on two sorts of historical referents for Ctesias’ eunouchoi. Last, it questions the pertinence of ‘orientalism’ as a label for the representation of eunuchs in Ctesias’ account, and even highlights its shortcomings. All in all, this issue is in fact a perfect illustration of the methodological problems that modern historians often have to face when they try to study ancient Persia through the accounts of Greek historians.

Résumé. L’importance des eunuques dans le récit de Ctésias sur la Perse a donné lieu, dans les dernières décennies, à une combinaison paradoxale de scepticisme quant à leur historicité et d’interprétations réalistes mettant en doute qu’il se soit agi de castrats. Le présent article met en lumière la difficulté à les évaluer en tant que figures historiques. Il prend d’abord en compte le fait que nous ne connaissons les eunuques de Ctésias qu’à travers des fragments, c’est-à-dire à travers le filtre d’auteurs postérieurs qui se réfèrent à lui tout en ayant parfois un rapport personnel avec des eunuques dans leur propre société. Puis il définit les traits distinctifs des eunuques de Ctésias à l’intérieur de la littérature grecque sur la Perse et résume les principales tendances interprétatives à leur sujet. Il examine les pierres de touche possibles et montre la difficulté à croiser le récit de Ctésias sur les eunuques avec des sources proche-orientales. Il évalue les fondements des positions qui prévalent actuellement et montre qu’une hypothèse est devenue un dogme – discutable : celle qui voudrait que derrière les eunuques de Ctésias se cachent deux sortes de référents historiques. Pour finir, il met en doute la pertinence de la notion d’orientalisme pour cataloguer la représentation des eunuques dans le récit de Ctésias et souligne même ses inconvénients. Au total, on a là une parfaite illustration des problèmes méthodologiques auxquels se heurtent souvent les historiens modernes quand ils tentent d’étudier la Perse antique à travers les récits d’historiens grecs."

Inaros, son of Psammetichus, an Egyptian ruler of Libyan descent, rebelled against his overlord Artaxerxes I. The purpose of this paper is to re-evaluate the conven-
tionally accepted dates of this event. It is commonly held that Inaros rebelled on hearing about the death of Xerxes, King of Persia in 465/4 B.C. The ensuing struggle between Persia and Egypt, supported by Athenian allies, is commonly dated between 460/59 and 454 B.C. This reconstruction of dates and events is based on acceptance of the version given by Thucydides, his interpretation of the political situation in Greece and his chronological order of events. The reconstruction of the rebellion of Inaros here will be based on Diodorus Siculus, Thucydides and Ctesias, but also on Aramaic and Egyptian documents from Egypt written in demotic script.

In what follows I demonstrate that the disagreements between the accounts of Thucydides, Diodorus, and Ctesias on the Athenian expedition to Egypt in the 450s BC are of minor significance and that Ctesias provides valuable information which allows a more complete reconstruction of the Athenian involvement in the Egyptian rebellion.

Ctésias de Cnide était un médecin grec qui vécut à la cour perse à la fin du Ve siècle av. J.-C. et qui composa une histoire de la Perse (Persica) et une description de l'Inde (Indica) qui nous sont exclusivement connus par des "fragments", citations et paraphrases de passages de son œuvre par des auteurs postérieurs.
Le texte des fragments (généralement en grec) fait ici l'objet d'une nouvelle édition avec apparat critique et traduction française en regard. Il est précédé d’une introduction de près de 200 pages, qui aborde à la fois les questions liées à la transmission du texte et à son interprétation (établissement de la source ; synthèse historique sur la vie de Ctésias et surtout analyse historique de son œuvre) ; il est accompagné et suivi d’un millier de notes de commentaire qui tiennent compte des recherches récentes sur l'empire perse.

The revolt of Kaunos against Athens (Ctesias F14.45) probably occurred in 429/8 BCE, and did not involve a simple transfer of allegiance from Athenian to Persian control.  Rather, internal divisions within the Kaunian community resulted in the effort to surrender to Athens and the killing of the Persian exile Zopyros, Athens' proxy in the surrender negotiations; and later Kaunian resistance to the Persians best explains their execution of Zopyros' assassin.

Cet article offre une interprétation politique de la mutilation du cadavre de Cyrus le Jeune de la part de son frère, le Grand Roi Artaxerxès II, après la bataille de Counaxa de 401 av. J.C. L'analyse se concentre en particulier sur la symbolique de la main droite dans la Perse achéménide et l'exploitation propagandiste qu'en fut faite par le Grand Roi et par son jeune frère et adversaire, Cyrus.

Résumé. Historiens et médecins de l’Antiquité grecque avaient souvent en commun non seulement la pratique du voyage et de la mobilité durable, mais aussi celle d’une écriture liée à ces voyages. Pourtant, parmi les professions et rôles sociaux exercés par les historiens de l’Antiquité, le métier de médecin est rarement attesté, si ce n’est en la personne de Ctésias de Cnide. La biographie de ce dernier montre que, s’il devint historien, ce fut doublement lié à sa condition de médecin, parce qu’elle lui permit, en tant que médecin exilé à la cour perse, de (prétendre) disposer d’informations inédites et parce qu’il avait été formé dans le milieu cultivé des Asclépiades. De plus, sur le plan épistémologique, on observe, dès avant Ctésias, des affinités certaines entre histoire et médecine grecques, tant chez Hérodote que chez Hippocrate et Thucydide, qui partagent souvent des centres d’intérêt, voire des méthodes d’analyse. Les fragments de Ctésias lui-même montrent que sa formation médicale a laissé dans son œuvre historique une forte empreinte. La rareté des médecins-historiens suggère cependant que la science médicale n’orientait pas en soi vers l’écriture de l’histoire.

Abstract. Historians and physicians of ancient Greece often shared not only the practice of travelling, but also of writing works due to their mobility. Yet among occupations and social roles exercised by ancient historians, the medical profession is rarely documented, except in the case of Ctesias of Cnidus. The latter’s biography shows that he became a historian because he was a physician, since, as a doctor exiled to the Persian court, he could (pretend to) have new information and probably also because he had been educated in the cultivated milieu of the Asclepiads. In addition, from an epistemological standpoint, even before Ctesias, there were some affinities between Greek history and medicine, as show the works of Herodotus, Thucydides or Hippocrates, who often share interests or methods of analysis. Fragments of Ctesias himself show that his medical background left a strong impression in his historical work. The small number of physicians-historians, however, suggests that medical science did not lead by itself to the writing of history.

Semiramis, die legendäre Königin von Babylon, gehörte bis in das 20. Jahrhundert hinein zu den bekanntesten und am stärksten rezipierten Gestalten der antiken Welt. Als Frau, die von Babylon aus das Großreich der Assyrer regierte und erfolgreiche Eroberungskriege führte, wurde sie in einer Vielzahl antiker Quellentexte teils mit Bewunderung, teils mit tiefer Abscheu beschrieben. Schnell avancierte sie so zum Paradigma – einerseits für das weibliche Geschlecht, andererseits für die Ausübung von Macht, aber auch für den antiken ‚Orient‘ im Allgemeinen. Semiramis findet sich in der Folge in nahezu allen Literatur- und Kunstgattungen der Spätantike, des Mittelalters, der Renaissance und der Frühen Neuzeit und erhielt so einen festen Platz im kulturellen Gedächtnis der westlichen Welt. An ihr wurden über die Epochen hinweg Weiblichkeit und Herrschaft miteinander verknüpft, Transgressionen von weiblichen Handlungsräumen thematisiert, Geschlechterordnungen und Geschlechternormen verhandelt und Handlungsspielräume für das weibliche Geschlecht reflektiert.
Kerstin Droß-Krüpe folgt den Spuren der Semiramis durch die Jahrhunderte – von der griechischen Historiographie des 5. Jahrhunderts v.Chr. bis auf die Opernbühnen des Barock. Sie kombiniert so eine historisch-kritische Aufarbeitung des in den antiken Quellentexten präsentierten Semiramisbildes mit der späteren Wahrnehmung, Aneignung und Verargumentierung der Semiramis als Figur der Erinnerung.

تاکنون نگاه چندان خوشبینانه‌ای به آنچه که سیاهه‌ی کتسیاس درباره‌ی فرمانروایان آشور و ماد آورده، در میان باستان‌شناسان دوره‌ی تاریخی و تاریخ‌پژوهان دانشگاهی دیده نشده است. به طوری که گاه این گزارش‌ها را به کل افسانه و گزافه‌گویی نویسنده یا راویان می‌دانند. در این نوشته، کوشیده شد تا به هویت‌شناسی تاریخی این چهره‌های ناشناخته پرداخته و سپس یک گاهنگاری علمی برایشان یافته  شود.

کلیدواژه‌ها: ماد، آشور، کتسیاس، اوسبیوس، دیودور

Résumé. C’est à tort que le feu « immortel » de Phasélis (Lycie) évoqué par Ctésias de Cnide a été identifié par des Modernes à un volcan. L’historien grec est en fait notre témoin le plus ancien sur un phénomène naturel rare que l’on peut encore observer sur place aujourd’hui, à l’endroit que les Turcs appellent pour cette raison Yanartaş, « pierre en feu » et les touristes Chimaera (Chimère) : des émanations de gaz naturel qui s’échappent du sol s’enflamment spontanément au contact de l’oxygène. On parcourt ici les témoignages antiques et modernes sur ce phénomène régulièrement mentionné par les voyageurs. On montre en outre que, contrairement à une idée reçue, la Chimère n’a jamais été pour les Anciens l’allégorie d’un volcan.
Abstract. The "immortal" fire of Phaselis (Lycia) mentioned by Ctesias of Cnidus has sometimes been wrongly identified with a volcano. The Greek historian is actually our oldest witness to a rare natural phenomenon that can still be seen today on the spot, at the place that the Turks call for this reason Yanartaş "burning stone" (and tourists Chimaera). Emanations of gas escaping from the ground ignite spontaneously on contact with oxygen. This paper loops over the ancient and modern accounts of this phenomenon regularly mentioned by travelers. It also shows that, contrary to popular belief, for the Ancient Greeks and Romans Chimaera has never been the allegory of a volcano.

Herodotus in the fifth century BC, only about a hundred years after the death of Cyrus the Great, reminds us that there were many different stories about the death of the great founder of Achaemenid dynasty. In fact, the number of narrations about the death of Cyrus II of Achaemenid in the time of Herodotus was probably more than the narrations that have survived to this day. The main source for researchers to find out the reality of the death of Cyrus the Great or at least approach it, is the classical texts, among which Herodotus, Ctesias and Xenophon are the primarily sources. In this study, an attempt has been made to examine Herodotus’ Narrative and other historians of antiquity with regard to other historical evidence, including the originality of the tomb of Cyrus the Great in Pasargadae and the relations of the first Achaemenid kings with the Scythians. As shown at the end, Herodotus’ account, despite its reputation over time, is inconsistent with much of the historical evidence, and its validity must be seriously questioned. Xenophon’s narrative, despite some of its Iranian roots is also doubtful. But Ctesias’ account, that is also apparently derived from an Iranian tradition, is consistent with much of the historical evidence.

Ktesias’ Beschreibung Babylons erweist sich als ein farbenfroher Bericht, in dem er – ganz wie Herodot – Einzelheiten, die er allgemein verbreitetem Wissen über die mesopotamische Metropole entnahm, wie Stichworte nutzte und phantasievoll ausschmückte. Dabei war er in seiner Gestaltung ganz wesentlich Herodot verpflichtet, auch wenn er sich von diesem abzusetzen versuchte. Das von Herodot und Ktesias entworfene Bild blieb prägend und hat auch diejenigen, die die Möglichkeit hatten, auf Auskünfte von Zeugen zurückzugreifen, die Babylon aus erster Hand kannten, so nachhaltig bestimmt, dass sie sämtlich das Bild der Stadt mit ins Gigantische gesteigerten Maßen ihrer Bauwerke und ihrer Umwallung reproduzierten. Dass wir aus dem Hellenismus keine Darstellung haben, die nicht nur ausnahmsweise eine vereinzelte Richtigstellung vornimmt, sondern auf breiter Basis mit den Phantasiegrößen von Herodot und Ktesias aufräumt, ist letztlich doch überraschend.
Betrachtet man Ktesias’ Schilderung Babylons unter dem Aspekt, ob der Knidier autoptēs war, so wird man dies ebenso verneinen, wie dies die jüngere Herodot-Forschung im Falle des Halikarnassiers getan hat. Wenn man allerdings berücksichtigt, wie wenig der vergleichsweise reiche Informationsstrom, der seit dem Alexanderzug über Babylon verfügbar gewesen sein muss, die Überlieferung der Folgezeit, vielleicht sogar die Beschreibung des Berossos, beeinflusst hat, kann man die Argumentation auch umkehren: Wenn sich im Hellenismus beim Widerstreit von Autopsie und Erzähltradition letztere als stärker erwies, vielleicht aber auch im Ringen um die Publikumsgunst phantasievolle Bilder sich als erfolgreicher erwiesen als eine Schilderung der Realität, kann dies auch schon für die Zeit des Ktesias und diesen selbst gegolten haben. Die Argumentation führt so in eine Aporie, aus der nur schwer ein Ausweg zu finden ist. Und auch für die von Bigwood aufgeworfene Frage, ob Ktesias’ Stadtbeschreibung uns Auskunft geben kann über die Grundlagen, auf denen der Knidier sein Geschichtswerk komponierte, ist das Ergebnis ambivalent.

Un demi-siècle après Ctésias, Dinon de Colophon et Héraclide de Kymè poursuivent la tradition des Persica, récits grecs entièrement consacrés au passé et aux coutumes de l’empire perse. Sans dédaigner les anecdotes piquantes et les histoires d’intrigues, ces deux auteurs décrivent l’univers du Grand Roi, de ses prérogatives et du faste qui l’entoure aux subtiles hiérarchies qui organisent sa cour. Ils dévoilent tout un pan méconnu de la vision grecque des Perses. Leur témoignage est cependant biaisé tant par leur point de vue grec que par la transmission fragmentaire de leurs textes et requiert de ce fait une approche spécifique.
Le présent ouvrage donne pour la première fois, avec le texte et la traduction de leurs fragments, un commentaire qui prend en compte leur mode de transmission et qui les confronte à l’ensemble des sources, grecques et non grecques, textuelles et iconographiques. Il permet d’apprécier dans chaque cas les apports de ces sources à l’histoire de l’empire et propose enfin une vue synthétique du genre des Persica.

Comptes rendus :
– Bryn Mawr Classical Review 2009-10-46, par Michael Weiskopf.
http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2009/2009-10-46.html.
– Revue des Études anciennes 112/1, 2010, p. 225-227, par Pascal Payen.
– L'Antiquité classique 79, 2010, p. 387-389, par Monique Mund-Dopchie.
– The Journal of Hellenic Studies 131, 2011, p. 220-222, par Eran Almagor.
– Rivista di Filologia e di Istruzione Classica 141, 2013, p. 184-192, par Lellida Todini.
– Syria 90, 2013, p. 509, par Maurice Sartre.

As many have pointed out, the cognitive type of the unicorn, later on spread like wildfire in western culture, has one of its prototypes in Ctesias' Indian ass, described for the very first time in his Indika (FGrHist 688 F 45, 45 and 45q = Ael. NA IV 52). Over the last two centuries, several scholars have raised questions on the real extra-linguisitc referent: what had the Physician of Cnidus really talked about in his account? An Indian rhino? A bull? An antelope? Or was it a fake, good to implement his ethnographic fiction on the extreme peripheries of Persian empire? Whatever Ctesias' Indian ass was, Aristotle (HA 499 b 15-31) shows no hesitation in believing in its effective existence, and accepts it as a part of the animal kingdom. This happens because some of the zoological features of the paradoxical beast are not so incompatible with the etiological system developed in De partibus animalium.

RESUMEN Galeno cita a los tres historiadores recogidos en este trabajo (Heródoto, Ctesias y Jenofonte) como argumento de autoridad, bien en apoyo de teorías y prácticas, médicas o de otro tipo (así sobre el daño que la nieve causa en los ojos, y acerca de la importancia de la belleza), bien como garantía de términos especiales poco utilizados ya en el siglo II d. C. ABSTRACT «Reception of Herodotus, Ctesias and Xenophon on Galen». Galen cites the three historians collected in this paper (Herodotus, Ctesias and Xenophon) as an argument of authority, or in support of theories and practices, medical or otherwise (as the damage that snow causes in the eyes, and of the importance of beauty), or as a guarantee of special terms little used in the second century AD. KEY WORDS: Galen, reception Herodotus, Ctesias, Xenophon. 1. Hace poco he revisado la presencia del término historía y algunos otros de su fami-lia léxica en las obras de Galeno, así como las menciones de historiadores relevan-tes en el citado 1. El gran médico de Pérgamo es una fuente de primera magnitud por sus muchos conocimientos literarios y científicos, y, en ese sentido, la historia y los historiadores no le fueron ajenos. Galeno (129-216 d. C.) 2 , nacido en Pérgamo, murió quizá en Roma o en su ciudad natal, aunque la tradición árabe habla de Egipto y de Sicilia. Su biografía, recogida parcialmente por el propio autor, nos explica los extraordinarios cimientos de su enorme obra: el ambiente familiar desahogado en que vivió; la preocupación de su padre, arquitecto, por que obtuviera la mejor educación; su paso por los centros más reputados de su época en busca de alcanzar la más alta formación en numerosas disciplinas, no solo en medicina (Pérgamo, Esmirna, Corinto, Alejandría y su regre-so a la primera nombrada, donde durante casi cuatro años (157-161) fue médico de los gladiadores, ampliando mucho sus conocimientos anatómicos y dietéticos); sus viajes por diversos lugares del imperio (Siria, Palestina, Chipre, Licia, Lemnos)