The most important writer of the group of authors who are said to have composed Persica works is Ctesias of Cnidus (fl. 400–390 BCE). Of all the authors treated in this book, Ctesias the physician is the only one about whom we have relatively secure information concerning his life and work, even though it all appears to ultimately come from his own descriptions, and despite the fact that certain issues are still unclear. Contrary to other scholarly treatments of Plutarch's use of Ctesias, we shall divide the discussion here into two chapters: the first is the group of passages in which Ctesias’ name is explicitly stated as a source by Plutarch, and the second is the class of sections which can be attributed to Ctesias with a high degree of probability. In this chapter, after an analysis of the passages in Plutarch's work, we shall combine our observations with what is known of Ctesias from other sources, to infer Plutarch's work method and his purpose of using Ctesias in the Artaxerxes and mentioning this source.

PLUTARCH AND CTESIAS

Apart from one instance, all the explicit references to Ctesias in Plutarch's corpus come from the Artaxerxes. This fact leads to the most likely conclusion that Ctesias’ work was only read and used by Plutarch for this biography, even though abridged sections from his Persica may have been encountered by the biographer in other works and collections of which we have no possibility of knowing. The first passage comes from the beginning of the Artaxerxes and seems to imply that the intended readers are familiar with Ctesias’ name and reputation (Art. 1.4):

WAS TIRIBAZUS PRESENT AT THE BATTLE OF CITIUM?

The question whether Tiribazus was present at the scene of the naval Battle of Citium, in which Artaxerxes defeated Evagoras of Salamis, has bearing on the issue of his presence in another place where he may have been employed for his diplomatic skills, namely, the Cadusian Campaign. One notes that there is something interestingly disconcerting about the accounts we have of the battle.

Diodorus (15.2.2) first calls Tiribazus ‘a commander of the fleet’ (στρατηγοὺς δ᾽ ἀπέδϵιζϵ τῆς πϵζῆς δυνάμϵως Ὀρόνταν κηδϵστήν, τῆς δὲ ναυτικῆς Τιρίβαζον; ‘as commanders he [Artaxerxes] chose for the land force his son-in-law Orontes, and for the naval Tiribazus’). Soon, however (15.3.2), it is Glos, Tiribazus’ son-in-law (cf. 15.9.3), who is called the ‘naval commander’ (ὁ τῆς ναυτικῆς δυνάμϵως ἡγούμϵνος, ὀνομαζόμϵνος δὲ Γƛῶς; ‘leader of the naval armament, known as Glos’) and who suppresses a mutiny. Again, Tiribazus is the supreme commander after the Battle of Citium (15.8.1: τῶν ὅƛων ἔχων τὴν ἡγϵμονίαν). Some scholars believe that this discrepancy can be solved by postulating that there was a division of powers between the two persons.

Nevertheless, there may be a different interpretation. The two were probably commanders, but not at the same time; Tiribazus was not at all present during the preparations leading to the sea battle of Citium, and during the actual clash. He only arrived in Cyprus after the defeat of Evagoras to negotiate the terms of capitulation, and then assumed supreme command.This may be gathered from the other source we have of this event, namely Thopompus, or rather the summary made by Photius to book 12 of his Philippica (FGrH 115 F 103 = Bibl. cod. 176 p. 120 a 25–34):

Next among the Persica authors in terms of importance and of the extent of his employment by Plutarch is Deinon, one of the most obscure authors from antiquity, and certainly one of the most mysterious writers in the corpus of lost Greek historians. Plutarch's employment of Deinon can be divided into passages in which the ascription is explicit or plausible, and those which are implicit and conjectured. Correspondingly, the present chapter will treat the first type of references, and the next will attempt to substantiate the attribution of sections of Plutarch's text to Deinon. It can be seen that Plutarch uses Deinon mostly in the Artaxerxes (he is mentioned in 1.4, 6.9, 9.4, 10.1, 13.3, 19.2, 6, 22.1), but also refers to his work in the Themistocles (27.1), Alexander (36.4) and De Iside et Osiride (31.363c). This means that Plutarch's employment of Deinon or knowledge of his text was more widespread than his use of Ctesias, and may have even spanned several periods of his writing. As in the study of Ctesias, let us commence with an analysis of Plutarch's passages, and explore what we can learn of Deinon from these sections, proceed to compare them with what can be said of Deinon and his work in general from other sources, and then present some ideas on Plutarch's adaptation of Deinon's work.

PLUTARCH AND DEINON

The references to Deinon in the Artaxerxes, as well as in the other three works of Plutarch mentioned, treat themes related to the Achaemenid monarch. Specifically, Plutarch quotes Deinon for matters of court protocol (especially in the reign of Artaxerxes II) or the behaviour of Artaxerxes III Ochus in Egypt. It would not be far-fetched to claim that Deinon's work appears thus to have had the Great King and matters of court as its focus, and perhaps was chosen by Plutarch for this reason.

In the beginning of the Artaxerxes, Deinon is contrasted with Ctesias on the issue of the monarch's original name (1.4):

Artaxerxes was at first called Arsicas; although Deinon gives the name as Oarses.

Very little is known of Deinon and his writings; even less can be said of Heracleides of Cyme, the third Persica author who appears in Plutarch's corpus. In all, this figure appears about eight times in the extant Greek literature. It may be, however, that use was made of his work without explicit credit. Let us begin with the literary interpretation of the references to Heracleides in Plutarch's works, turn to what we know of his Persica, and on the basis of what we can conjecture about the structure of Heracleides’ work, attempt to arrive at Plutarch's work method concerning this author.

PLUTARCH AND HERACLEIDES

The last third of the Artaxerxes does not name any source, apart from the mention of Heracleides apropos of the king's incestuous relationship with his daughter (Art. 23.6 = FGrH 689 F 7a):

Within the story of Artaxerxes’ passion for and marriage to his own daughter Atossa (Art. 23.3–5) comes this information, which is admittedly from a different source than the rest of this section. Mimicking the excess of the king who marries not only one, but two daughters, Plutarch finds evidence for this incestuous behaviour of Artaxerxes not only in one source (his main one), but in two (including Heracleides).

It would seem that Art. 23 has three parts: (a) In the first section (23.1–2) the king is portrayed positively, specifically favoured by the Greeks. He executes Tissaphernes the satrap and restrains his anger towards his mother by forgiving and appeasing her. (b) In the second segment (23.3–6), Artaxerxes is revealed as the complete opposite of Greek morality when he engages in an incestuous relationship with his daughter and adopts an arrogant attitude, believing that he is law incarnate and acts on behalf of the gods; he is presented as taking two daughters in wedlock.

Discussion on the difficult issue of the relationship between the Persian material within the Regum et Imperatorum Apophthegmata (The Sayings of Kings and Commanders) and the Persica works has been postponed to this point and relegated to a mere appendix for the simple reason that we are not certain whether this work is indeed Plutarch's own and whether the material in it comes exclusively from Plutarch. Yet this question cannot be ignored completely, despite the fact that full justice to this issue could not be done in this brief analysis, focusing on its Persian section.

The work itself is listed as no. 108 in the Lamprias Catalogue (ἀποφθέγματα ἡγϵμονικά, στρατηγικά, τυραννικά, cf. no. 125: ἀπομνημονϵύματα), and was evidently attributed to Plutarch already in late antiquity. It has the character of a facta/acta et dicta (words and deeds) collection, used by orators and rhetorically inclined historians. There would seem to be three available options concerning this work:

• (1) Plutarch composed this work and intended it to be circulated more or less in its present format, with its introduction.

• (2) Plutarch prepared the material which ended up in this work during his lifetime, presumably with the purpose of incorporating it in other works. The task of the arrangement and presentation of this material as a work encompassing ‘sayings’ of notable persons was taken by a later hand. In this sense, the work is a posthumous treatise of Plutarch.

• (3) Plutarch did not prepare any of the material found in this work. The treatise was composed after Plutarch's death by culling passages from his works and from other volumes, most likely collections of anecdotes bearing the same character as this very work.

Of these options, (2) and (3) – with some variation – can peacefully coexist side by side with each other. There is no contradiction in the hypothesis that even though Plutarch prepared some of the material found in the work, another part came from a different source after his death. By contrast, (1) and (2) both postulate that Plutarch prepared material which he deliberately did not intend to use in his biographies, and preferred either to leave it out or include it in another work.

The present chapter deals with sections of Plutarch's Artaxerxes which may be ascribed to Deinon with a certain degree of likelihood, although they are not explicitly attributed to him. In assigning these passages to Deinon, the chapter follows a cautious course, progressing from sections that are more probable to ones that are less so. We shall start with a literary understanding of these sections, and then proceed to assumptions concerning their original internal organisation based on Plutarch's passages and external material. Most of the episodes here, which Plutarch presumably adopts from Deinon but does not ascribe to him explicitly, belong to the period after the conclusion of Ctesias’ Persica (that is, events after 398 BCE).

SECTION (I): PLUTARCH, ARTAXERXES, 26–30

The first section we shall examine is the unit consisting of the last five sections of the biography, all taking place in the royal court and revolving around the same court figures. The story has an internal unity of plot, which indicates that it came from the same source.

The section begins with the bestowal of the title of heir to the king's eldest son Darius (26.4: ἀνέδϵιζϵ τὸν Δαρϵῖον βασιƛέα) and not to his youngest child Ochus. This is said to take place while the king is still alive, and is intended to shatter Ochus’ hopes already at this stage, to prevent the recurrence of the course of action adopted by Cyrus the Younger in instigating revolt and war. Since according to a Persian custom, the heir apparent usually has his wish granted, Darius asks for Aspasia, a Greek concubine of Artaxerxes who was formerly of Cyrus’ retinue (26.5: ᾔτησϵν Ἀσπασίαν ὁ Δαρϵῖος τὴν μάƛιστα σπουδασθϵῖσαν ὑπὸ Κύρου, τότϵ δὲ τῷ βασιƛϵῖ παƛƛακϵυομένην). Plutarch then uses the device of flashback (ana-lepsis) to return to the first encounter between Cyrus and Aspasia (26.6–9). Artaxerxes is offended by Darius’ request (27.1: ἠνίασϵ τὸν πατέρα), and gives Aspasia the choice to decide whether she agrees (27.3: ƛαμβάνϵιν ἐκέƛϵυσϵ βουƛομένην). Since she chooses Darius (27.3: παρ’ ἐƛπίδας τοῦ βασιƛέως ἑƛομένης τὸν Δαρϵῖον), the king is forced to oblige, and indeed does so, but soon changes his mind and takes Aspasia back, making her a priestess of Artemis (Anaitis), and celibate for life (27.4: ἱέρϵιαν ἀνέδϵιζϵν αὐτήν, ὅπως ἁγνὴ διάγῃ τὸν ἐπίƛοιπον βίον).