Eran Almagor
- Published in print:
- 2018
- Published Online:
- May 2019
- ISBN:
- 9780748645558
- eISBN:
- 9781474453523
- Item type:
- book
- Publisher:
- Edinburgh University Press
- DOI:
- 10.3366/edinburgh/9780748645558.001.0001
- Subject:
- Classical Studies, Ancient Greek, Roman, and Early Christian Philosophy
This book addresses two historical mysteries. The first is the content and character of the fourth century BCE Greek works on the Persian Achaemenid Empire treatises called the Persica. The second is ...
More
This book addresses two historical mysteries. The first is the content and character of the fourth century BCE Greek works on the Persian Achaemenid Empire treatises called the Persica. The second is the method of work of the second century CE biographer Plutarch of Chaeronea (CE 45-120) who used these works to compose his biographies, in particular the Life of the Persian king Artaxerxes. By dealing with both issues simultaneously, Almagor proposes a new way of approaching the two entangled problems, and offers a better understanding of both the portrayal of ancient Persia in the lost Persica works and the manner of their reception and adaptation nearly five hundred years later. Intended for both scholars and students of the Achaemenid Empire and Greek imperial literature, this book bridges the two worlds and two important branches of scholarship. The book builds a picture of the character and structure of the lost Persica works by Ctesias of Cnidus, Deinon of Colophon, Heracleides of Cyme. While focusing on the Artaxerxes (and certain other passages), it shows how Plutarch used the Persica.Less
This book addresses two historical mysteries. The first is the content and character of the fourth century BCE Greek works on the Persian Achaemenid Empire treatises called the Persica. The second is the method of work of the second century CE biographer Plutarch of Chaeronea (CE 45-120) who used these works to compose his biographies, in particular the Life of the Persian king Artaxerxes. By dealing with both issues simultaneously, Almagor proposes a new way of approaching the two entangled problems, and offers a better understanding of both the portrayal of ancient Persia in the lost Persica works and the manner of their reception and adaptation nearly five hundred years later. Intended for both scholars and students of the Achaemenid Empire and Greek imperial literature, this book bridges the two worlds and two important branches of scholarship. The book builds a picture of the character and structure of the lost Persica works by Ctesias of Cnidus, Deinon of Colophon, Heracleides of Cyme. While focusing on the Artaxerxes (and certain other passages), it shows how Plutarch used the Persica.
Eran Almagor
- Published in print:
- 2018
- Published Online:
- May 2019
- ISBN:
- 9780748645558
- eISBN:
- 9781474453523
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Edinburgh University Press
- DOI:
- 10.3366/edinburgh/9780748645558.003.0004
- Subject:
- Classical Studies, Ancient Greek, Roman, and Early Christian Philosophy
The chapter's subject is Deinon, one of the most obscure authors from antiquity. It treats Plutarch's employment of Deinon in which the ascription is explicit or plausible. Plutarch uses Deinon ...
More
The chapter's subject is Deinon, one of the most obscure authors from antiquity. It treats Plutarch's employment of Deinon in which the ascription is explicit or plausible. Plutarch uses Deinon mostly in the Artaxerxes, but also refers to his work in the Themistocles (27.1), Alexander (36.4) and De Iside et Osiride (31.363c). Plutarch's employment of Deinon or acquaintance with his text was more widespread than his use of Ctesias, and may have even spanned several periods of his writing. The chapter begins with an analysis of Plutarch's passages, and explores what we can learn about Deinon from these sections, proceeds to compare them with what can be said of Deinon and his work in general from other sources, and then presents some ideas on Plutarch's adaptation of Deinon's work.Less
The chapter's subject is Deinon, one of the most obscure authors from antiquity. It treats Plutarch's employment of Deinon in which the ascription is explicit or plausible. Plutarch uses Deinon mostly in the Artaxerxes, but also refers to his work in the Themistocles (27.1), Alexander (36.4) and De Iside et Osiride (31.363c). Plutarch's employment of Deinon or acquaintance with his text was more widespread than his use of Ctesias, and may have even spanned several periods of his writing. The chapter begins with an analysis of Plutarch's passages, and explores what we can learn about Deinon from these sections, proceeds to compare them with what can be said of Deinon and his work in general from other sources, and then presents some ideas on Plutarch's adaptation of Deinon's work.
Eran Almagor
- Published in print:
- 2018
- Published Online:
- May 2019
- ISBN:
- 9780748645558
- eISBN:
- 9781474453523
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Edinburgh University Press
- DOI:
- 10.3366/edinburgh/9780748645558.003.0005
- Subject:
- Classical Studies, Ancient Greek, Roman, and Early Christian Philosophy
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 ...
More
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. The two sections of the Artaxerxes addressed here are (1) chapters 26-30, (2) chapters 24-25. It starts with a literary understanding of these sections, and then proceeds to assumptions concerning their original internal organisation based on Plutarch's passages and external material. Through a comparison to passages in Diodorus, Nepos and Trogus/Justin, it proposes a "common source" used by all authors as well as by Plutarch, which may be Deinon.Less
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. The two sections of the Artaxerxes addressed here are (1) chapters 26-30, (2) chapters 24-25. It starts with a literary understanding of these sections, and then proceeds to assumptions concerning their original internal organisation based on Plutarch's passages and external material. Through a comparison to passages in Diodorus, Nepos and Trogus/Justin, it proposes a "common source" used by all authors as well as by Plutarch, which may be Deinon.
Eran Almagor
- Published in print:
- 2018
- Published Online:
- May 2019
- ISBN:
- 9780748645558
- eISBN:
- 9781474453523
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Edinburgh University Press
- DOI:
- 10.3366/edinburgh/9780748645558.003.0007
- Subject:
- Classical Studies, Ancient Greek, Roman, and Early Christian Philosophy
This chapter describes the main features of the content and structure of the Persica works as gathered in this study, and outlines Plutarch's method of employing these sources. Some of the features ...
More
This chapter describes the main features of the content and structure of the Persica works as gathered in this study, and outlines Plutarch's method of employing these sources. Some of the features which can be attributed to the lost works used by Plutarch and to their authors were probably those that the biographer presumed to be common knowledge and regarded as information shared by his intended readers. The outcome of this study shatters the image of Plutarch as an author who largely copied his sources or echoed royal propaganda reflected in the Greek texts he used. In fact, some of the 'fragments' commonly regarded as such by scholars are not really fragments of the Persica works but rather sections which Plutarch composed himself, using several works while twisting them around, omitting and adding details. Drawing together the main strands of the book, this chapter presents a general argument concerning the manner Plutarch preserved ancient authors. Reiterating the aforementioned discussions on Plutarch's handling of the Persica works, the chapter suggests an outline of his work method in composing a Life by using the Artaxerxes as an example.Less
This chapter describes the main features of the content and structure of the Persica works as gathered in this study, and outlines Plutarch's method of employing these sources. Some of the features which can be attributed to the lost works used by Plutarch and to their authors were probably those that the biographer presumed to be common knowledge and regarded as information shared by his intended readers. The outcome of this study shatters the image of Plutarch as an author who largely copied his sources or echoed royal propaganda reflected in the Greek texts he used. In fact, some of the 'fragments' commonly regarded as such by scholars are not really fragments of the Persica works but rather sections which Plutarch composed himself, using several works while twisting them around, omitting and adding details. Drawing together the main strands of the book, this chapter presents a general argument concerning the manner Plutarch preserved ancient authors. Reiterating the aforementioned discussions on Plutarch's handling of the Persica works, the chapter suggests an outline of his work method in composing a Life by using the Artaxerxes as an example.
