BMCR 2009.01.36, Carsten Binder, Plutarchs Vita des Artaxerxes

Carsten Binder, Plutarchs Vita des Artaxerxes: Ein historischer
Kommentar. Goettinger Forum fuer Altertumswissenschaft. Beihefte N.F.
1.  Berlin/New York:  Walter De Gruyter, 2008.  Pp. xii, 417; CD-ROM.
ISBN 9783110202694.  $157.00.

Reviewed by M. Weiskopf, Carondelet High School (Concord, CA)
([email protected])
Word count:  590 words
-------------------------------
To read a print-formatted version of this review, see
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/2009/2009-01-36.html
To comment on this review, see
http://www.bmcreview.org/2009/01/20090136.html
-------------------------------

Binder has written a sober and cautious commentary on Plutarch's
Artaxerxes, itself a unicum in subject and treatment in the corpus of
lives.  He begins with introductory material describing Plutarch's life
and career, moving towards a discussion writings, work habits, and
sources used (pp. 1-78).  The next section is the lemma-by-lemma
commentary (pp. 80-360), its tone set by the admonition that it is
practically impossible to investigate the historicity of the 'facts'
recounted in Plutarch's text (p. 76).  Detailed bibliographies and
indices complete the work (pp. 361-411).  The appended CD represents
excerpts from the 2007 Goettinger Forum fuer Altertumswissenschaft, of
which the present work is the first of the Beihefte, Neue Folge.

The strength of the introductory material resides in its fair,
dispassionate analysis of Plutarch's use of sources, a characteristic
particularly valuable for those Achaemenid scholars more familiar with
Near Eastern sources, but who will consult the commentary with or
without modern translations of Plutarch's original text.  Binder argues
the Artaxerxes is an earlier work, one which stands apart from the
later emperor-biographies and more commonly known parallel lives.  He
places proper emphasis on Stronk's and Bleckmann's perceptions of
Ctesias as removed from true historical writing.  Only to Xenophon can
one assign greater worth.  It is not possible to achieve any more
precision in a source analysis of the Artaxerxes one is only
manipulating ground fog.

The main body of the commentary is valuable for both Classical and Near
Eastern studies.  Binder is versed in the latest Achaemenid
scholarship, evidenced by his ability, with the citation of
complementary literature, to clarify for Classicists the importance of
the Murashu archive (e.g. p. 88) and the cuneiform evidence thought to
record a Cadusian campaign (pp. 316 ff).  Unfortunately, Fiktion
masquerades as Geschichte with no lack of frequency in the Artaxerxes,
resulting in numerous inconsistencies in Plutarch's narrative (e.g. p.
108 ff, 189 ff, 234 ff).  Binder takes pains to gather together the
scattered primary sources and the necessary scholarship, particularly
the recent work on Ctesias, but there is little which can be saved of
the "Plutarchian phenomena".

There are only minor points with which I take exception. Like
Christopher  Tuplin, I am uncertain of the lasting value of Hilmar
Klinkott's satrap study as a standard work.  One article is assigned
improperly (a defective manuscript tradition?).  On p. 118 (and in the
bibliography, p. 366) one should read "(Maria) Brosius", not "(Mary)
Boyce".

A more pleasant task is supplementing the commentary.  To Binder's
discussion of the kitaris/kidaris should be added Christopher Tuplin,
"Treacherous Hearts and Upright Tiaras:  The Achaemenid King's
Head-Dress," pp. 67-97 in Persian Responses:  Political and Cultural
Interaction with(in) the Achaemenid Empire. Tuplin. Ed.  Swansea: The
Classical Press of Wales, 2007. One should also take notice of a
reasonably argued Seleucid-era parallel to the Metonomasie (from
"private-name" to "throne-name") noticed in Artaxerxes 1.4, 2.5 (pp.
96-98, 108) found without reference to Achaemenid scholarship on pp. 34
ff in Peter Mittag, Antiochos IV Epiphanes.  Berlin: Akademie Verlag,
2006.  It is perhaps time to tie together these two bodies of evidence.

Finally, and this is the strength of Binder's scholarship, a number of
works are utilized but have yet to appear in readily available form:
Stronk's edition of Ctesias, forthcoming studies of Ctesias and of the
Achaemenid court.  These works and promised studies of Dinon by Binder
and Lenfant, along with Brill's revamping of Jacoby, should be
consulted by Achaemenid historians.  Binder, in his cautious
scholarship, has laid up a store of goodwill in the houses of all those
studying the Achaemenids.