It is the aim of this book to build a bridge between two worlds or two branches of scholarship which have been sadly separated in research: the historically oriented Achaemenid/Persian Studies and the historically or literary-oriented studies of Greek imperial litera-ture, in particular the studies of the biographer and essayist Plutarch of Chaeronea (c. 45–c. 120 CE). The book intends to provide a better understanding of the character of the (now lost) fourth century BCE portrayals of ancient Persia, as well as of the manner of the reception and adaptation of these works nearly five hundred years later. Understanding these two sets of texts will allow us, on the one hand, to appreciate the information given on Persia within the extant texts of Plutarch, and on the other, through a study of several of Plutarch's texts, in particular his Artaxerxes, to offer scholars insight into the way he composed his works in general.

More often than not, Greek authors are our only guide to ancient Persia. This is true for any Greek text describing Persia besides Herodotus, including the extant Artaxerxes and his sources, the lost fourth century BCE works called by future generations Persica (= ‘Persian Matters’). In order to evaluate the historical descriptions of the political and social reality of the period in Plutarch's works, we have to address two historiographic questions. The first concerns Plutarch, the other concerns the works he employed. In our case:

• (1) What do we know about Plutarch's work method?

• (2) What do we know of the Persica works?

In general, one might begin to answer the first query by comparing extant works of other authors with Plutarch's use of them. We could have said something more accurate on the second question had we known that Plutarch's work method is constantly the same throughout his entire oeuvre. But it is not. We do not, therefore, tread on solid ground when we attempt to answer either of these two questions. Indeed, absolute certitude in the matter of the intriguing problem of Quellenforschung (source criticism) is beyond expectation, and especially in the case of Plutarch. Some of my proposals below are, therefore, conjectural.

Sadly, the text of Ctesias is lost. Given the disappearance of Ctesias’ work, this chapter proposes to check Plutarch's adaptation of the physician's work in the following three parts. The first compares Plutarch's confirmed use of Ctesias (mostly in the sections of the Artaxerxes where he is explicitly mentioned and which are given in the previous chapter) with the same stories or details as they appear in the works of other ancient readers, mainly in Photius’ epitome. The second explores Plutarch's employment of the differences between Ctesias’ work and other texts (mainly Xenophon's Anabasis) as part of his method of characterisation, building on his readers’ expectations. The third part studies Plutarch's probable use of Ctesias in cases where the physician's name is not explicitly mentioned; these passages (from Art. 1–4, 9, 12–17 of the biography) are usually included as fragments of Ctesias (e.g. by Jacoby, Lenfant, Stronk and Llewellyn-Jones/Robson). This part advances a cautious approach with regard to these sections, and suggests a way to locate them in the original work.

USE OF CTESIAS

This is what Photius relates of the corresponding sections in the Persica (FGrH 688 F 15.47, 51 = Bibl. cod. 72 p. 41 b 42–42 a 8, 42 b 3–15):

Edinburgh Studies in Ancient Persia focuses on the world of ancient Persia (pre-Islamic Iran) and its reception. Academic interest with and fascination in ancient Persia have burgeoned in recent decades, and research on Persian history and culture is now routinely filtered into studies of the Greek and Roman worlds; Biblical scholarship too is now more keenly aware of Persian-period history than ever before; while, most importantly, the study of the history, cultures, languages and societies of ancient Iran is now a well-established discipline in its own right.

Persia was, after all, at the centre of ancient world civilizations. This series explores that centrality throughout several successive ‘Persian empires’: the Achaemenid dynasty (founded c. 550 BCE) saw Persia rise to its highest level of political and cultural influence, as the Great Kings of Iran fought for, and maintained, an empire which stretched from India to Libya and from Macedonia to Ethiopia. The art and architecture of the period both reflect the diversity of the empire and proclaim a single centrally constructed theme: a harmonious world order brought about by a benevolent and beneficent king. Following the conquests of Alexander the Great, the Persian Empire fragmented but maintained some of its infrastructures and ideologies in the new kingdoms established by Alexander's successors, in particular the Seleucid dynasts who occupied the territories of western Iran, Mesopotamia, the Levant and Asia Minor. But even as Greek influence extended into the former territories of the Achaemenid realm, at the heart of Iran a family of nobles, the Parthian dynasty, rose to threaten the growing imperial power of Rome. Finally, the mighty Sasanian dynasty ruled Iran and much of the Middle East from the third century CE onwards, proving to be a powerful foe to Late Imperial Rome and Byzantium. The rise of Islam, a new religion in Arabia, brought a sudden end to the Sasanian dynasty in the mid-600s CE.

These successive Persian dynasties left their record in the historical, linguistic and archaeological materials of the ancient world, and Edinburgh Studies in Ancient Persia has been conceived to give scholars working in these fields the opportunity to publish original research and explore new methodologies in interpreting the antique past of Iran.

In more ways than one, the production of this book has been encouraged by many friends and scholars. Above all, I would like to express my profound and heartfelt thanks to Lloyd Llewellyn-Jones, the editor of this series, for his comments, his kind assistance and for guiding my approach to Edinburgh University Press. I am also grateful for the helpful suggestions and useful feedback received during fruitful discussions over the years on various forms of some of the ideas presented here. Special thanks go to Fred Brenk, Edward Dąbrowa, Ken Dowden, Joseph Geiger, Thomas Harrison, Amelie Kuhrt, John Marincola, Christopher Pelling, Tim Rood, Jacek Rzepka, Donald Russell, Nicholas Sekunda, Joseph Skinner, Rex Stem, Rolf Strootman, Christopher Tuplin, Luc Van der Stockt, Tim Whitmarsh and Alexei Zadorojnyi. I am also indebted to the many colleagues and friends who heard presentations of my methodology on various occasions and responded with inspiring remarks and observations.

As the distant origins of this book lie in my PhD dissertation (‘Plutarch's Artaxerxes: Historical and Literary Commentary’, the Hebrew University), I would also like to convey my deepest and continuous gratitude and appreciation to my supervisors, Deborah Gera and Doron Mendels, for their help and support, for reviewing that version and for their valuable comments on it. The errors that remain in this version are, of course, entirely my own. I am deeply grateful to Carol Macdonald for her aid and encouragement during the stages of composition and preparation of the text, and to Camilla Rockwood and James Dale. I would like to thank Nili for helping me put ideas into comprehensible and communicative phrases, and Hilly for her patience and loving care – and for being there.

The attempt to arrive at Plutarch's method of work through a literary reading of his Lives and other treatises has yielded some interesting results in the case of the fourth century BCE Persica volumes. Let us start with our understanding of these works and conclude with Plutarch's manner of composition.

THE PERSICA

Some of the features which can be attributed to the lost works used by Plutarch and to their authors were probably those that the biog-rapher presumed to be common knowledge and regarded as infor-mation shared by his intended readers. This inference is feasible due to the fact that Plutarch seems to have worked with the assumptions and anticipations of his audience, and therefore had to postulate their beliefs and the degree of their familiarity with texts or portrayals in order for his imagery and messages to be successfully decoded. However, our study has shown that certain other traits appear to be unknown to Plutarch.

Ctesias

A fundamental distinction that recurs in Plutarch's text is that between Ctesias as a historical agent spending time in Persia and acting as the king's physician and Ctesias as an author, depicting, among other stories, his own activity. Plutarch testifies to the extent that Ctesias mentioned himself in the last books of his Persica as a significant agent acting in the circles of the king and of his mother, mediating between the king and Clearchus and his Greeks, between Clearchus and Parysatis and between Artaxerxes and Conon and Evagoras in Cyprus. Ctesias also emphasised his role in saving the king when he was injured. The fact that Ctesias was a figure in his own narrative enabled the physician to allude to the circumstances in which his own work was created.

Plutarch seems to stress an element in Ctesias’ work which is not noticed in other passages ascribed to him and is hardly ever discussed in connection to his work. This is the feature of subtle and elusive metapoetic references to Ctesias’ own historical writing and his awareness of the methods and imagery employed, including awareness of the question whether, and to what extent, historical reports can be truthful.