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.