Andrew Nichols

Ctesias’ Indica and the Origins of

Paradoxography
Abstract: This paper examines the Indica of Ctesias and the role that this work
has played in the development of paradoxography. From around the start of the
5th century, the Greeks began to notice and document marvels and curiosities
within their own contemporary world. The writings of Herodotus and Hecataeus
regularly contained descriptions of oddities in the natural world, but these were
digressions that stood apart from the overall aim of the work. At the end of the
5th century, Ctesias fashioned an innovative composition that was unique for its
focus on marvels. His style of description and the themes which he addressed
would come to greatly influence later generations of paradoxographers and those
interested in mirabilia. Expanding on the work of its predecessors, Ctesias’ Indica
would serve as a bridge between the geographers, historians, and ethnographers
of the 5th century and the collectors of wonders beginning in the 3rd century.

Introduction
The Greeks have shown an interest in the unusual since the time of Homer. Whether
it be the monstrous creatures and flora with amazing properties encountered in
the Odyssey or the hybrid beasts seen on the vase paintings and sculptures of the
early Archaic period, they were clearly fascinated with the unusual and bizarre
at an early stage.1 However, what they considered truly wondrous (θαυμάσιον)
seems to have been the work of the gods.2 It would not be until around the begin-

1 On thauma and Greek art of the Archaic and early Classical Periods, see Neer 2010, 57–69.
2 Cf. Hom. Il. 18.549 in reference to Achilles shield (ἣ δὲ μελαίνετ’ ὄπισθεν, ἀρηρομένῃ δὲ ἐῴκει,
χρυσείη περ ἐοῦσα· τὸ δὴ περὶ θαῦμα τέτυκτο – “the field behind them was black, as if it had
been ploughed, although it was in fact made of gold; this work indeed was a marvel”); in the
Odyssey (3.371–373) we see humans marveling at the sight of Athena (ὣς ἄρα φωνήσασ’ ἀπέβη
γλαυκῶπις Ἀθήνη φήνῃ εἰδομένη· θάμβος δ’ ἕλε πάντας Ἀχαιούς. θαύμαζεν δ’ ὁ γεραιός, ὅπως
ἴδεν ὀφθαλμοῖσι – “Thus spoke gleaming-eyed Athena and, with the appearance of an osprey,
departed; all who were watching were siezed with astonishment. The old man marvelled when
he saw it with his eyes”); cf. Ps.-Hes. Sc. 140, 224, 318. Even where Polyphemus is refered to as a
‘monstruous wonder’ (Od. 9.190; θαῦμ’ ἐτέτυκτο πελώριον), the verb τεύχω still connects him to
the divine by implying that he was created this way. For human actions that inspire awe, Homer
uses the terms θάμβος (Il. 3.342; 23.815; although the passage from the Odyssey above shows that

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110563559-003

Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS

Angemeldet
Heruntergeladen am | 03.05.18 15:47
4   Andrew Nichols

ning of the 5th C that the Greeks began to show a greater appreciation for the mar-
velous in their own contemporary world. Geographers and historians of distant
lands, such as Hecataeus,3 Hellanicus,4 and Herodotus,5 recorded animals,
peoples, and plant life with extraordinary properties from the areas around and
beyond Greece.6 By the end of the 4th C, the amount of written material discussing
the various regions of the world, including the curiosities it contained, was exten-
sive. This, along with the establishment of libraries, especially the great library at
Alexandria, led to the development of paradoxography, a genre that catalogued
marvels culled from earlier sources. Nevertheless, this new field has its roots in
the 5th C historiography and ethnography of Hecataeus, Herodotus, and Hellani-
cus. Although, in the same Ionian tradition, Ctesias’ Indica offered a novel type of
composition, one that would expand upon what his predecessors had begun by
almost exclusively focusing on marvels and thus played a key role in the creation
of paradoxography.

Wonders of the contemporary world

There can be no doubt that Ctesias was influenced by the ethnographic descrip-
tions of his Ionian predecessors. While many of the extraordinary flora, fauna,
and peoples in his description of India would reappear in later collections of
mirabilia throughout Antiquity, the Middle Ages, and into the modern period
(though usually by way of an intermediate source or sources),7 Ctesias’ impact on
paradoxography was perhaps best felt in the themes he addressed rather than in
the individual descriptions of his marvels. Callimachus is widely considered to be

he used it for divinely inspired wonder as well) and τάφος (Od. 21.122–123; 24.441); Prier 1989,
91–97.
3 Although Hecataeus was famously critical of Greek myths and fables (FGrH 1 F1), he neverthe-
less included accounts of myths and wonders (F15, F17, F305); see Fornara 1983, 5–7; Vandiver
1991, 4–6; Munson 2001, 239–240.
4 Hellanicus included natural wonders in his writings on various areas of the world (ex. FGrH 4
F54, F174, F190, F191, F195).
5 The bibliography on Herodotus’ treatment of the unusual is extensive: see particularly Immer-
wahr 1960; Barth 1968; Hartog 1988, 230–237; Hunzinger 1995; Thomas 2000, 135–167; Munson
2001, 232–265; Priestley 2013, 55–108.
6 See Romm 1992.
7 The Indica helped to firmly establish India as a land of marvels, a view continued by Ctesias’
successors, even those who visited the area such as Megasthenes, until the Modern Era. The
majority of Ctesias’ mirabilia reached the writers of the Middle Ages and the Early Modern Era
through Pliny and Isidore of Seville; Nichols 2011, 29–34.

Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS

Angemeldet
Heruntergeladen am | 03.05.18 15:47
 Ctesias’ Indica and the Origins of Paradoxography   5

the first paradoxographer and the founder of the genre, as he essentially estab-
lished the form that others would follow.8 The pseudo-Aristotelian On Marvelous
Things Heard, often assumed to be contemporary with, or slightly later than Cal-
limachus, played a similar role in developing the appearance and content that
later authors adopted.9 And yet, many of the topics or literary motifs that would
come to pervade paradoxography can be traced back to Ctesias at the beginning
of the 4th C and even earlier. While most of these topoi indeed predate Ctesias, his
Indica was the first to emphasize them in a manner that would come to dominate
the field.
Like most of the marvel writers of the Hellenistic period and beyond, Ctesias
was recounting wonders and curiosities existent in his own day rather than those
belonging to the past. Beginning in the early 5th century, this new focus on the
wonders of the contemporary world coincides with the development of histori-
ography and geography, all of which resulted from travellers such as Hecataeus
and Herodotus writing down the tales they encountered, taking particular note
of what they deemed unusual or different from what they were accustomed to.
These early accounts no doubt piqued the curiosity of later travellers, such as
Ctesias, and led them to question whether what their predecessors had said was
true or not. For the poets of earlier periods, discussions of the wondrous were
usually set in a bygone age, forming the backdrop to the adventures of heroes
and gods. Often, the only connection these early marvels had to the contempo-
rary world was aetiological.10 The Ionians, on the other hand, began recount-
ing unusual facets of the world, the sort of which Greeks had hitherto associated
with the heroic tales of the distant past, and now placed them in their own times.
No longer did such wonders solely belong to the removed and surreal realm of a
Jason or Odysseus, but now were part of the readers’ own world and could theo-
retically be encountered by any ordinary person of the day. Applying the ration-
alism of the Ionian Enlightenment, marvels were now not the works of the gods,
but rather the products of a natural world hitherto unexplored. Ctesias continued
and expanded upon this tradition as his entire work, as far as we can tell from the

8 Ziegler 1949, col. 1140–1141; Giannini 1963, 248–249 and 1964, 99; Fraser 1972, 770.
9 Fraser 1972, 771–774; however, as Vanotti 2007, 46–53 notes, the dating of the work is far from
certain; it may have come from the pen of several authors beginning in the 3rd century with
some later additions in the Imperial Age, particularly that of Hadrian; see also Schepens/Del-
croix 1996, 427.
10 Archilochus (Fr. 122 West) was the first to use the term θαυμάσιος in reference to a contempo-
rary phenomenon, the solar eclipse of 648 BC. However, like his predecessors, he employs the
term in relation to a divinely created wonder rather than one occuring naturally.

Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS

Angemeldet
Heruntergeladen am | 03.05.18 15:47
6   Andrew Nichols

fragments, was bereft of discussions of the divine and, in dealing only with con-
temporary India, was completely lacking in any historical events or personages.
There are many other themes featured so prominently in the Indica that
would come to be characteristic of paradoxography. Ctesias’ practice of focusing
on one particular region, although certainly not an innovation of his,11 would
be adopted by several paradoxographers, such as Philon, who wrote on Scythia;
Myrsilos, the author of a Lesbiaca which contained numerous wonders, also cred-
ited with writing an Historika Paradoxa;12 and Nymphodorus13 and Polemon, who
both wrote on the wonders of Sicily (see below). Similarly, water marvels, which
were a favorite topic for paradoxographers, featured most prominently in Ctesias’
India.14 Like later writers of mirabilia, the Cnidian writes of three types of bodies
of water: lakes, rivers, and springs. He begins with a description of the Indus
River, a marvel itself on account of its size. Of the Indus’ width, Ctesias says it is
between 40 and 200 stades, or 7–35 km (F45 § 1). While these measurements are
clearly an exaggeration, the Indus was nevertheless far larger than any river in
the Greek part of the world. According to Ctesias, it was also unusual in that it
was barren, except for a large worm with one tooth on each jaw that, when killed
and hung from a tree, oozed a combustible oil (§ 3; § 46). Thus, otherwise devoid
of aquatic life, the Indus was fantastic not just for what it had, but also for what it
lacked. The Greeks were regularly amazed by the absence of expected elements.
For example, Herodotus (4.30) expresses awe (θωμάζω) that no mules can be con-
ceived in Elis, and elsewhere Ctesias says there are no thunderstorms (F45 § 18) or
swine (F45 § 27) in India.15

11 Perhaps the earliest such work would be the Arimaspea by Aristeas of Proconnesus. The
Arimaspea, a poem in three books detailing the Arimaspi and their environs north of the Black
Sea (Suda s.  v. Ἀριστέας), served as a source for Hecataeus (FGrH 1 F193), Hellanicus (FGrH 4
F187), Damastes (FGrH 5 F1), and Herodotus (4.13–15). Unfortunately, little is known of this com-
position, of which the largest fragment consists of merely six lines (Longinus On the Sublime
10.4); see Bowra 1956. In Antiquity the authorship was in question (Dion. Hal. de Thuc. 23), as
Aristeas continued to be a figure enshrouded in folklore (Strab. 13.1.16; 14.1.18).
12 Athen. XIII, 610a; Giannini 1964, 116–117 contends that this may merely be a generic title given
to the Lesbiaka because of its focus on wonders; or, as Laqueur 1933, col. 1149–1150 believes, it
could be a title later given to excerpts drawn from the Lesbiaka, and thus it is not a separate work.
13 Nymphodorus’ On the Wonders of Sicily may in fact have been a collection of materials taken
from his opus magnum, the Periplous, and formed into a separate treatise to appeal to the current
predilection for reading about the fantastic; Giannini 1964, 119–129.
14 Though not to the extent of Ctesias, Herodotus too showed a keen interest in water marvels,
particularly on the unique attributes of the Nile (Angelucci 2014, 10).
15 The absence of features would also be a prominent source of wonder among later marvel col-
lectors. Antigonus (§ 15) claims there are only two ravens living in Thessaly; the Paradoxographus
Vaticanus (§ 13) mentions both a marsh and a lake that have no birds; etc.

Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS

Angemeldet
Heruntergeladen am | 03.05.18 15:47
 Ctesias’ Indica and the Origins of Paradoxography   7

In addition to the Indus, Ctesias writes of a river of honey that flowed from a
rock (§ 29), the added element of honey being a recurring theme in Greek mirabil-
ia.16 For instance, Antigonus describes a method for cultivating bees by burying
an ox so that only its horns remain above ground. When the ox’s horns are later
sawn off, bees that have been formed by the decomposing carcass beneath the
soil are released.17 Ps.-Aristotle dedicates seven (§ 16–22) sections of his On Mar-
velous Things Heard to honey and bees, including honey with medicinal proper-
ties and honey taken from trees. In the same vein, Ctesias also describes a lake
and spring that both produce oil (F45 § 25;18 F76). Naturally, such oil, like most of
the things produced at the edges of the earth, is superior to that which is procured
by more commonplace means. As was standard for such natural wonders, these
are placed in a idealistic setting, one in which the earth freely produces commod-
ities otherwise sought after with exertion.
Springs and fountains were Ctesias’ favorite type of water marvel, provid-
ing the model for the widespread motif of the miraculous spring, a hallmark of
paradoxography. No less than ten appear in the surviving fragments of his work.
Ctesias tells of springs that produce liquid gold and iron with extraordinary
properties that can affect the weather (F45 § 9), one from which a truth serum
is derived (F45 § 31), and another called Ballade, that expels whatever is thrown
into it (F45 § 49). Both springs are also recounted by Callimachus (apud Antigon.
Hist. mir. 50), and the Ballade appears in the Paradoxographus Florentinus (§ 3) as
well. The expulsion of objects is a feature that later would extend to other bodies
of water in Sicily, as shown by Philostephanus. Philostephanus also described
a spring called Sila, first mentioned by Hellanicus (FGrH 4 F190) and later by
Ctesias (F47a-b), that did the exact opposite, a spring in which nothing, no matter
how light, could float.19

16 Herodotus (1.198) tells of how the Babylonians embalmed their dead in honey. Although
there are several incidents of Greeks doing this in order to transport a body a great distance
(Xen. Hel. 5.3.19; Diod. 15.93.6), the earliest we hear of it occurring in the Greek world is the early
4th cent. Thus, what was something to marvel at for Herodotus in the 5th cent., seems to have
become fairly common for Greeks a generation later. He also speaks of people (δημιοεργοί) who
produce honey (4.194; 7.31).
17 Antigon. Hist. mir.19; this was a popular and oft repeated tale among the Greeks (Plin. H.N.
11.70; Ael. N.A. 2.57; Ov. Met. 15.364–366; Ver. Geo. 4.284–314).
18 This account is repeated by Callimachus (apud Antigon. Hist. mir. 150).
19 Antigonus (Hist. mir. 146 = F47a) follows Ctesias in describing this spring. Pliny (N.H. 31.21 =
F47b) also following Ctesias, calls the spring Side, but this is most certainly a mistake on his part
(or perhaps he had a copy of Ctesias with a scribal error; see Nichols 2011, 153–154). Obviously
a source of fascination for the Greeks, the spring is also mentioned by Megasthenes (FGrH 715

Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS

Angemeldet
Heruntergeladen am | 03.05.18 15:47
8   Andrew Nichols

Following the precedent set by Callimachus, water marvels and miraculous

bodies of water continued to be a favored topic of paradoxographers. Callima-
chus exhibited a keen fascination with water, as can be ascertained by the first
part of Antigonus’ Mirabilia,20 a treatise largely based on Callimachus,21 in which
the first half is devoted to rivers, lakes, and springs with fantastic qualities. Other
works of Callimachus, which we know by title alone, further attest to this: On the
Rivers of Europe, and On the Rivers of the Inhabited World (Sud. s.  v. Καλλίμαχος).
Although these could merely be titles of sections of his Collection Of Wonders
rather than individual compositions, Callimachus’ interest is clear. Later authors
would follow suit with a few writing entire essays on bodies of water. Polemon
is said to have written On the Wondrous Rivers of Sicily;22 Philostephanus, the
pupil of Callimachus, continued in the footsteps of his teacher and authored On
Fantastic Rivers; and the Paradoxographus Florentinus, which is wholly devoted
to miraculous lakes, rivers, and springs. Similarly, Sotion, to whom the text pre-
served in the Florentinus manuscript was once attributed,23 wrote a treatise on
marvelous rivers, springs, and lakes, of which only the title survives. Others
devoted large sections of their work to similarly wondrous waters. Isigonus, for
instance, dedicated a significant portion of his paradoxa to water marvels, which
also form the second, and second largest, part of the anonymous treatise Para-
doxographus Vaticanus.
Another prominent feature of paradoxography that Ctesias more thoroughly
developed was a focus on stones, minerals, and gems that contained extraordi-
nary powers. Like the paradoxographers, to add a touch of credibility, Ctesias
often provided specific names for such stones. For example, in addition to more

F10b), Democritus and Aristotle (apud Strabo 15.1.38), and Diodorus (2.37 who may be following
Megasthenes).
20 Ziegler 1949, col. 1140–1141; Musso 1986, 9, followed by Dorandi 1999, XIV-XVII, asserts that
the Mirabilia is actually a Byzantine compilation falsely attributed to Antigonus; on this issue,
see also Ziegler 1949, col. 1145–1149.
21 Ant. mir. § 129–173; the title of Callimachus’ oeuvre is unknown – see Ziegler 1949, col. 1140–
1141; Schepens/Delcroix 1996, 383.
22 Two separate titles alluding to wonders have been attributed to Polemon: On the Wonders of
Sicily (Athen. VII 307b = FGH F82) and On the Wondrous Rivers of Sicily (Macrob. Sat. V 19 = FGH
F83). Each may have been a part of a larger work divided according to geography (Giannini 1964,
120–121), however the matter is far from clear (the question is neatly analyzed by Angelucci 2014,
14–17).
23 The attribution was first made by Stephanus, based on a title of something written by Sotion,
Marvelous Things in Rivers, Springs, and Lakes, mentioned by Photius (Bibl. cod. 189, 144b); see
Ziegler 1949, col. 1161–1162; Giannini 1964, 135–136.

Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS

Angemeldet
Heruntergeladen am | 03.05.18 15:47
 Ctesias’ Indica and the Origins of Paradoxography   9

conventional gems like sardonyx and onyx,24 he speaks of a gemstone called pan-
tarbe that held magnetic properties to which other gems are attracted (F45 § 6).25
He also tells of one called antipathes that cures leprosy.26 Less miraculous metals
such as gold, silver, iron, and lead also appear several times in the fragments,
usually in relation to a marvel, or have some fantastic property themselves (e.  g.,
F45 §  35, §  49). Paradoxographers likewise displayed a penchant for unusual
gems, stones, and metals, often employing language similar to that of Ctesias. For
instance, Antigonus (Hist. mir. 151) describes a stone that kindles when doused
with water, another that exhales fire when the suns rays fall upon it, and yet
another that retains its combustible properties after prolonged use (Hist. mir.
168). Ps.-Aristotle (M.A.33b; 41) speaks of two stones called marieus and spinos
that, like the one described by Antigonus, both ignite after coming into contact
with water. He also describes another called machaira that induces madness
(M.A. 173).
Ctesias’ India, moreover, abounds in fantastic plants, animals, and races of
men. Some plants and trees produce the best perfumes (F45 § 47) and sweetest
wines (F45 § 48), while others are of extraordinary size, like the Indian reed (F45
§ 14; F45c),27 which is said to be as tall as the mast of a merchantman and to have a
circumference so big that two men could hardly embrace it. In keeping with Greek
topoi, the yield of many of these floral and faunal wonders is exceptional, and of
far better quality, or potency, than those available in the more densely inhabited
regions of the world. The medicinal benefits of several of these plants (and when
processed, some animals as well) form another recurring theme in both the Indica
and later marvel collections. However, each had a different motive for including
such information: as the product of a book culture, marvel writers were simply
relating what they read, often in scientific treatises,28 and meant to impress their
audience with the medical wonders of far off or hard to reach places (as we now
have, for example, articles and news stories on the medicinal benefits of plants
found deep in the rain forests). Ctesias, on the other hand, was a traveller and a
doctor serving at the court of the Persian king. As a physician, and especially one
with such powerful and sometimes vindictive clientele, he had a professional and

24 F45 § 11, § 33; the language of Photius makes it seem likely that Ctesias had fuller discussions
on these stones than what appears in Photius’ epitome. As they were both commonplace in Pho-
tius’ time, he likely passed over them quickly in favor of items of a more marvelous nature.
25 Cf. Philostr. 3.46.
26 F 73; on the questions surrounding authenticity of the fragment, see Nichols 2011, 36.
27 Cf. Megasth. FGrH 715 F27b.
28 Scheppens/Delcroix 1996, 382–389.

Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS

Angemeldet
Heruntergeladen am | 03.05.18 15:47
10   Andrew Nichols

personal interest in learning everything he could about remedies for all sorts of
ailments.29

Narrating Wonders
While the Ionian historians and ethnographers of the 5th C were fascinated with
marvels, the overriding aim of these works was not simply to document the
unusual, but to investigate the lands and cultures of the known world, taking
note of many of the curiosities that existed. These narratives, although peppered
with marvels and wonders, held their focus elsewhere – namely geography, his-
torical events, and ethnography of more familiar regions closer to Greece. Ctesias’
Indica, on the other hand, not only recounted marvels, but seemed to focus on
them almost exclusively. Herodotus’ aim, as he states in his prologue, was to
investigate the origins of the conflict between the Greeks and Persians, and his
ethnographic accounts were merely digressions from the main topic. The Indica,
on the other hand, completely lacks any historical narrative – there are no epi-
sodes, events, or specific individuals mentioned – a common feature of paradox-
ography. In other words, his entire work is largely comprised of the type of brief
ethnographic descriptions that make up Herodotus’ digressions. One of Ctesias’
main goals was to amaze his audience (the same purpose of paradoxography), as
can be seen from his closing remarks, in which he claims to have omitted many
items even more wondrous (θαυμασιώτερα), indicating that much of what he
includes is θαυμάσιον:

ταῦτα γράφων καὶ μυθολογῶν Κτησίας λέγει τἀληθέστατα γράφειν, ἐπάγων ὡς τὰ

μὲν αὐτὸς ἰδὼν γράφειν, τὰ δὲ παρ’αὐτῶν μαθὼν τῶν ἰδόντων· πολλὰ δὲ τούτων
καὶ ἄλλα θαυμασιώτερα παραλιπεῖν διὰ τὸ μὴ δόξαι τοῖς μὴ τεθεαμένοις ἄπιστα
συγγράφειν.

These are the stories Ctesias writes and asserts that they are completely truthful;
adding that he personally saw some of the things he wrote about while others
he heard from first-hand witnesses. He says that he omitted many other more
incredible tales in order to not seem untrustworthy to those who have not seen
them personally. (F45 § 51)

29 Cf. Nichols 2011, 20–21.

Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS

Angemeldet
Heruntergeladen am | 03.05.18 15:47
 Ctesias’ Indica and the Origins of Paradoxography   11

One characteristic feature of the paradoxographic genre is insistence on

veracity. The authors of mirabilia not only wanted to inform their audience of
the oddities of the world, but they wanted their readers to believe in them as
well. This is a point where Ctesias, as far as we can tell, stands out from his pre-
decessors, especially Herodotus, who, when relating tales steeped in folklore
and the unusual, often expressed skepticism at what he was told.30 He thus
attempted to protect himself from liability of falsehood or gullibility. Ctesias, on
the other hand, in his Indica, goes out of his way to remind the reader that what
he says is trustworthy and not fabricated. According to Photius, he concludes the
work with an emphatic promise that he only writes what is completely truthful
(λέγει τἀληθέστατα γράφειν) and that he omitted what he thought would not be
believed.
Beginning with Callimachus, it became a trend in paradoxography to assert
authenticity and validity. Even so, paradoxographers differed in their methods
of establishing credibility. Rather than relying on empirical evidence, for which
many of the collectors of mirabilia were not in a position to attain, they empha-
sized the authority of their sources, citing them by name at a far higher rate than
authors in other fields. Callimachus repeatedly called attention to his sources,
citing no less than twelve by name.31 Of course, he was referring his readers to
what he read at Alexandria rather than what he heard or saw first hand. This is
also why paradoxographers tended to cite men of science such as Aristotle, The-
opompus, and Eudoxus, rather than logographers and historians of the Ionian
tradition such as Hecataeus, Herodotus, and Ctesias, whose reputations did not
carry the same prestige as the more “academic” writers. In some cases, they even
referred to inscriptions (Philon at Delphi32 and Nymphodorus at Syracuse33) to
emphasize their reliability.34
One way to highlight authority was to be as geographically specific as possi-
ble. It added to the realism of a wonder, if one could say exactly where it could be

30 E.  g. 2.73, 4.42, 4.104, et al.; Herodotus (3.123; 7.152) claims it is his duty to record all that he
has heard as he heard it, whether he believes it or not.
31 Callimachus (apud Antig. Hist. mir. 129–173) cites authors such as Ctesias (145,150, 165,166),
Theophrastus (130, 158), Aristotle (144, 169), and others (passim). In a passage worded very
similarly to Ctesias’ famous closing statements, Callimachus insists that he “sings of nothing
unattested” (Pfeiffer F612). Although mostly pertaining to his poetry, this assertion holds equal
weight for the methodology he adopted in compiling his collection of marvels; see Schepens/
Delcroix 1996, 383–384.
32 Giannini 1966, F1.
33 Giannini 1966, F2.
34 For a full discussion of paradoxographers and their sources, see Schepens/Delcroix 1996,
382–386.

Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS

Angemeldet
Heruntergeladen am | 03.05.18 15:47
12   Andrew Nichols

found.35 Paradoxographers often named specific regions, cities, and even villages
in order to give a precise home to the oddities they described, as if to afford their
audience an opportunity to visit the marvels themselves. Again this is a method
employed by Ctesias. Although he never mentions any cities or villages in his
Indica (he does not seem to be aware of the names of any), nevertheless he strives
for geographical accuracy. He often locates more than one marvel in the same
locale, even when he treats them in different sections of his work, by cross-ref-
erencing them. For example, he mentions the amber bearing trees (F45 § 36) and
then returns to this area several sections later (§ 39) when mentioning an insect
that lives in those trees. This is all a part of a discussion on the region where the
Cynocepehali (Dog-Heads) live in the mountains around the source of the Indus
(F45 § 37–43). In fact, the lands surrounding the source of the Indus form a spe-
cific geographical location that houses numerous wonders in the Indica.
This attempt at geographical specificity is even better illustrated in Ctesias’
discussion of the Indian reed, which occurs fairly early in his account (F45 § 14).
He vaguely says that the giant reed grows in the mountains through which the
Indus flows. He then returns to this location at the end of the Indica (F45 § 50)
to describe a fantastic tribe whose women only give birth once, and show other
interesting traits, such as white hair that turns black as they grow old (an example
of ‘inversion of normalcy’ paradoxon), eight fingers on each hand, and ears big
enough to cover their elbows and their backs at the same time. The people of this
tribe make no use of the Indian reed, which is only mentioned as a geographical
reference point.
So then, in light of all these shared motifs with the field of paradoxography,
should we conclude that Ctesias  – and not Callimachus, as currently agreed  –
was the founder of the genre? While this may seem tempting on account of the
many common traits that the Indica’s fragments share with paradoxographical
writing, the differences are in fact significant enough to preclude such a proposi-
tion. Ctesias was certainly grouped with later marvel writers, as can be seen from
the much discussed passage of Aulus Gellius (N.A. 9.4), who found Ctesias’ books
alongside other writers of mirabilia – both paradoxographers and those who just
incorporated marvels into their narratives.36 To be sure, the fragment cited by our
main source for Ctesias’ Indica, the 9th C Byzantine Patriarch Photius, certainly
reads similar to many of the later paradoxographical collections. It essentially

35 Schepens/Delcroix 1996, 392–394; Herodotus uses similar methods when describing some of
the unusual tribes at the edges of the world. For example, in his account of the region Scythia
he offers specific directional routes along with distances measured in days journey (4.16–23).
36 For an excellent discussion on this passage, see Schepens/Delcroix 1996, 411–425.

Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS

Angemeldet
Heruntergeladen am | 03.05.18 15:47
 Ctesias’ Indica and the Origins of Paradoxography   13

appears as a catalogue of marvels in short, simple, indicative sentences with no

narrative thread. However, this arrangement is more likely to be a result of the
Patriarch’s (and his fellow readers’) own method of compilation (ἐκλογή),37 itself
no doubt influenced by the epitomizers of Hellenistic and later times, especially
those active in the field of paradoxography. Even in its drastically abbreviated
form, Photius’ epitome offers much lengthier accounts of certain wonders – such
as the unicorn (F34 § 45), the manticore (F45 § 15) and the Cynocephali – than
what one sees in paradoxographical writings. Moreover, the fragments preserved
by other ancient writers, such as Pliny and Aelian, show that Ctesias described
his subjects in greater and lengthier detail than often appears in the epitome of
Photius.38
While Ctesias shared with the paradoxographers a need to emphasize his
credibility, his approaches were in fact more wide-ranging than theirs. We can
glean from Photius that his work also dealt with more ordinary elements, such
as Indian customs and medicine, which implied little if any fantastic material
and so were passed over by later excerptors, including Photius himself.39 This
should come as no surprise since, although best known as an author and histo-
rian, Ctesias was in his profession a doctor. As a native of Cnidus who served as
court physician to Artaxerxes II and the royal family in Persia, Ctesias was in an
unusual position for a Greek to encounter peoples from the far eastern edge of the
known world. While we can be fairly certain that he never visited India,40 he had
access to a continuous supply of travel accounts from merchants and visitors to
the court. He was also able to view many artifacts brought to the court by these
visitors, which were often accompanied by fantastic tales about their properties or
origins in order to enhance their value and impress the Great King. The resulting
text, based both on personal observations and travellers’ tales, offered a collec-
tion of marvels and curiosities that corroborated pre-existing Greek views of the
eschatiai, the outer edges of the known world. In this respect, Ctesias’ methodol-
ogy falls more into the realm of Greek scientific writing, which placed a premium
on autopsy,41 than into the field of literary compilation, where paradoxography
often belongs.42 Such a product differs greatly from the armchair investigative

37 Bigwood 1989.
38 See for example FGrH 688 F45g, F51a, et al.
39 Nichols 2011, 19–21.
40 Nichols 2011, 17–18.
41 Aristotle, for example, relied on second hand information only when autopsy was impossi-
ble; Li Causi 2002, 149.
42 Scheppens/Delcroix 1996, 382–389.

Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS

Angemeldet
Heruntergeladen am | 03.05.18 15:47
14   Andrew Nichols

approach of the paradoxographers whose main resource for marvels, as far as we

can tell, was libraries and earlier authorities.
Lastly, and as a direct result of this unusual access to material, Ctesias differs
from the paradoxographers in that he inserts himself into his work. The collec-
tors of marvels often name their sources and in so doing, even when they intend
to augment their credibility, they distance themselves from their content. At the
end of it all, they are removing themselves from culpability by appealing to other
authorities; ultimately, if something is deemed too incredible for belief, or can
even be proven false, then it is the source cited that is to blame. Ctesias, as we
have seen above, asserts his own place in his narrative, saying on several occa-
sions that he personally saw all the things he describes and that he attests to
their veracity. In other words, Ctesias is attempting to establish himself as the sole
authority on his subject rather than relying on the reliability of earlier writers.

Conclusion
So then, how can we classify Ctesias’ Indica, if at all? Like his Persica,43 the Indica
is difficult to categorize, since it does not fall neatly into any one genre. It is at the
same time a compendium of marvels, as later paradoxographical works would
be, and the product of a personal scientific investigation. The result was a work
of interest not only to marvel collectors but also those engaged in the sciences.
To confirm this, one need only to look at how Ctesias was used by later writers.
While his reputation suffered even in Antiquity, especially after the campaigns of
Alexander allowed for Greeks to visit India in person, he continued to be used as
a resource for natural scientists into the Roman period. Even if he is skeptical at
times, Aristotle nevertheless accepts Ctesias as a legitimate authority on India.44
He follows Ctesias in his descriptions of the elephant45 and the parrot46 (both
marvels to Ctesias) and in accepting as real some of the more fantastic creatures,

43 Recently, there has been a lot of debate over how to read the Persica with some suggesting
to view it in light of historical fiction, poetry, or the novel. The bibliography has grown rapidly
in the last few years, but see the recent works of Stronk 2011; Madreiter 2012; Wiesehöfer 2013.
44 He is especially reliant on Ctesias in zoological matters of India; Reese 1914, 99; Jacoby 1922,
col. 2072.
45 F45 §  7, F45bα; on Aristotle’s use of Ctesias for his account of the elephant, see Bigwood
1993a, 539–544; Nichols 2011, 29.
46 H.A. 597b27; His use of the name bittakos, instead of psittakos as per Ctesias, indicates that he
may have used an additional source; see Bigwood 1993b.

Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS

Angemeldet
Heruntergeladen am | 03.05.18 15:47
 Ctesias’ Indica and the Origins of Paradoxography   15

such as the manticore (Arist. H.A. 2.1 p.  501a 24 = FGrH 688 F45dα)47 and the
unicorn (HA 499b18; PA 663a18).48 Aelian and Pliny both use Ctesias as a scientific
source as well (although with Pliny, science and marvel writing often overlap).
It is thus difficult place the Indica into any single category. It essentially
served as a transitional composition that bridged the gap between the ethno-
graphic digressions containing marvels of the 5th C Ionian historians and the
later collections of mirabilia that would define paradoxography. In addition to
being used as a source for natural scientists, Ctesias’ name appears on several
occasions in paradoxographical writings. As the evidence by Aulus Gellius shows
(see above), he was associated with marvel writers, even if not considered one
himself. In the mid 4th C, Theopompus would continue the tradition begun by
Ctesias of devoting a lengthy discussion solely to marvels in Book 8, and possibly
some of book 9, of his Philippica.49 So by the early 4th C, the reporting of marvels
had grown from the digressions of Herodotus to the lengthy reports of Ctesias and
Theopompus before evolving into the Callimachean catalogues of mirabilia that
would define a new genre.

Bibliography
Angelucci, M. (2014), “Water and Paradoxography: Polemon’s Work Περὶ τῶν ἐν Σικελίᾳ
θαυμαζομένων ποταμῶν”, Orbis Terrarum 12, 9–26.
Barth, H. (1968), “Zur Bewertung und Auswahl des Stoffes durch Herodot (die Begriffe θῶμα,
θωμάζω, θωμάσιος und θωμαστός)”, Klio 50, 93–110.
Bigwood, J. (1989), “Ctesias’ Indica and Photius”, Phoenix 43, 302–316.
– (1993a), “Aristotle and the Elephant Again”, AJPh 114, 537–555.
– (1993b), “Ctesias’ Parrot”, CQ 43, 321–327.
Bowra, C. M. (1956), “A Fragment of the Arimaspea”, CQ 6, 1–10.
Dorandi, T. (1999), Antigone de Caryste: Fragments, Paris.
Fornara, C. (1983), The Nature of History in Ancient Greece and Rome, Berkeley.
Fraser, P. M. (1972), Ptolemaic Alexandria, (3 vols.), Oxford.
Giannini, A. (1963), “Studi sulla paradossografia greca, I. Da Omero a Callimaco: motivi e forme
del meraviglioso”, RIL 97, 247–266.
– (1964), “Studi sulla paradossografia greca, II. Da Callimaco all’età imperiale: la letteratura
paradossografica”, Acme 17, 99–140.
– (1966), Paradoxographorum Graecorum Reliquiae, Milan.
Hartog, F. (1988), The Mirror of Herodotus: The Representation of the Other in the Writing of
History, Berkeley.

47 Li Causi 2002, 143–145.

48 Li Causi 2002, 142–143.
49 FGrH 115 F64–77; see Shrimpton 1991, 15–20.

Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS

Angemeldet
Heruntergeladen am | 03.05.18 15:47
16   Andrew Nichols

Hunzinger, C. (1995), “La Notion de θῶμα chez Hérodote”, Ktèma 20, 47–70.
Immerwahr, H. (1960), “Ergon: History as a Monument in Herodotus and Thucydides”, AJPh 81,
261–290.
Jacoby, F. (1922), “Ktesias”, RE XI, 2032–2073.
Laqueur, R. (1933), “Myrsilos”, RE XVI, 1148–1150.
Lenfant, D. (2004), Ctésias de Cnide. La Perse, L’Inde, Autres Fragments, Paris.
Li Causi, P. (2002), “Il mondo ipotetico: Aristotele e il trattamento delle rappresentazioni
relative agli animali ‘favolosi’”, in: V. Ando/A. Cozzo (eds.), Pensare all’antica. A chi
servono i filosofi?, Rome, 136–158.
Madreiter, I. (2012), Stereotypisierung – Idealisierung – Indifferenz: Formen der Auseinander-
setzung mit dem Achaimeniden-Reich in der griechischen Persika-Literatur, Wiesbaden.
Munson, R. V. (2001), Telling Wonders: Ethnographic and Political Discourse in the Work of
Herodotus, Ann Arbor.
Musso, O. (1986), [Antigonus Carystius]. Rerum mirabilium collectio, Naples.
Neer, R. (2010), The Emergence of the Classical Style in Greek Sculpture, Chicago.
Nichols, A. (2011), Ctesias. On India and Fragments of his Minor Works, London.
Prier, R. A. (1989), Thauma Idesthai: The Phenomenology of Sight and Appearance in Archaic
Greek, Tallahassee.
Priestley, J. (2014), Herodotus and Hellenistic Culture, Oxford.
Reese, W. (1914), Die griechischen Nachrichten über Indien bis zum Feldzüg Alexanders des
Grossen, Leipzig.
Romm, J. S. (1992), The Edges of the Earth in Ancient Thought, Princeton.
Schepens, G./K. Delcroix (1996), “Ancient Paradoxography: Origin, Evolution, Production and
Reception”, in: O. Pecere/A. Stramaglia (eds.), La letteratura di consumo nel mondo greco
latino, Cassino, 374–460.
Shrimpton, G. S. (1991), Theopompus the Historian, Montreal.
Stronk, J. (2011), “Ctesias the Poet”, in: J. Wiesehöfer/R. Rollinger/G. B. Lanfranchi (eds.),
Ktesias’ Welt – Ctesias’ World, Wiesbaden, 385–401.
Thomas, R. (2000), Herodotus in Context: Ethnography, Science, and the Art of Persuasion,
Cambridge.
Vandiver, E. (1991), Heroes in Herodotus: The Interaction of Myth and History, Frankfurt.
Vanotti, G. (2007), Aristotele. Racconti meravigliosi. Introduzione, traduzione, note e apparati,
Milan.
Wiesehöfer, J. (2013), “Ctesias and the History of the Greek Novel”, in: T. Whitmarsh/S.
Thompson (eds.), The Romance Between Greece and the East, Cambridge, 127–141.
Ziegler, K. (1949), “Παραδοξόγραφοι”, RE XVIII, 1137–1166.

Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS

Angemeldet
Heruntergeladen am | 03.05.18 15:47