Life of Artaxerxes

by Plutarch

“ Le premier roi de Perse qui porta le nom d’Artaxerxès surpassa tous les autres princes en douceur et en magnanimité : il fut surnommé Longue-main, parce qu’il avait la main droite plus longue que la gauche. Il était fils de Xerxès. Celui dont nous écrivons la Vie, le second Artaxerxès, surnommé Mnémon, était petit-fils du premier par sa mère ; car Darius avait eu quatre fils de Parysatis, sa femme : Artaxerxès était l’aîné, Cyrus le second, et les deux plus jeunes, Ostanès et Oxathrès. Cyrus porta le nom du fondateur de la monarchie des Perses, que celui-ci avait pris du soleil, appelé Cyrus par les Perses. Artaxerxès fut d’abord nommé Arsicas. Dinon cependant lui donne le nom d’Oartès ; mais, quoique Ctésias ait rempli son histoire de fables absurdes et ridicules il n’est pas croyable pourtant qu’il ait pu ignorer le nom d’un roi à la cour duquel il vivait, étant de plus son médecin, celui de sa mère, de sa femme et de ses enfants...”

32 pages, Kindle Edition

First published March 1, 2001

About the author

Plutarch (later named, upon becoming a Roman citizen, Lucius Mestrius Plutarchus; AD 46–AD 120) was a Greek historian, biographer, and essayist, known primarily for his Parallel Lives and Moralia. He is classified as a Middle Platonist. Plutarch's surviving works were written in Greek, but intended for both Greek and Roman readers.

Reviews

[David Sarkies · Rating 2 out of 5]

A Persian King
20 December 2020

I’m sort of a bit baffled as to why, all of a sudden, Plutarch decides to pick a Persian to write a biography about. Like, isn’t this supposed to be the Lives of Noble Greeks and Romans, and well, yeah, a Persian is neither. Sure, the events that Plutarch is writing about occurred something life 400 years before he was born, and that it sort of like the same length of time between now and the English Civil War. Yeah, from where Plutarch was standing, it was quite a long time ago, and as well all know, a lot can happen in 400 years.

Hell, a lot can happen in 4 days. Like, from when I am writing now, Sydney has gone from being a potential place to spend a weekend to a literal persona non gratia. Yeah, Covid (or the Rona, as we call it here in Australia) is sort of like that, which sort makes things like going for holidays somewhat riskier than it was previously, especially these days since there is no way travel insurance is going to pay me out if my holiday has to be cancelled because of the Rona.

Then again, the more things change, the more they stay the same, as they a prone to say (or it was the French philosopher Jean-Baptiste Alphonse Karr who coined the phrase) and this was the case with Persia. Sure, by Plutarch’s time it was now known as Parthia, but they still weren’t on particularly friendly terms with the Romans, but that sort of happens when you keep on getting invaded. Yeah, you could sort of say that Parthia represented the limits of Roman Power.

Mind you there were multiple Artaxerxeses (if that is the plural of Artaxerxes) as Plutarch points out, and the one he is writing about is the one that was made famous by Xenophon in his Anabasis (a book that all scholars of the Greek language seem to have to read). Mind you, the whole dispute arose because while Artaxerxes was the firstborn, Cyrus was the firstborn after their father become king. Yeah, sounds a bit tricky, but at least it wasn’t a fight to the death as was the case in the Roman empire at the time.

Actually, it was a fight to the death because Cyrus raised an army and marched on Artaxerxes and even won the battle. There was only one problem – in that same battle Cyrus was killed, so yeah, you probably could say that it didn’t work out all that well for the challenger. Mind you, it wasn’t as if Artaxerxes was a great or unifying king either because he faced a revolt of the satraps, and also faced a revolt of the Egyptians. Then again, the Egyptians always seemed to be revolting, particularly when the Persians were occupied elsewhere.

So, I guess the question comes down to why Plutarch ended up writing a life about him, especially since he doesn’t stand out in the way that some of the other Persian kings did – such as Cyrus the Great (you don’t earn the name The Great for being mediocre). Probably because of the influence that he had in Greece, and the fact that he was acting as a mediator between the warring states. Notably between Sparta and Thebes, since this was the period of the Theban ascension. Anyway, I guess by this time I have read so many of these biographies that when we get to the lesser-known ones I, well, just fade out. It isn’t that it is any good, it is just that in reality we only read the good ones, and the ones that we know, and tend not to get too caught up with the rest.

[Ashley Ritchie · Rating 3 out of 5]

Fascinating history, but one cannot help feel grateful to the Greeks for their cultural heritage. And though this life has given me a some what better impression of the Persians, I cannot help thinking what a vile and bloody lot those pagans are.

[Rachel]

I don’t have stars for this. Read as part of an annual reading challenge. Lots of descriptions of torturous death and war and who sought to kill who. Really not about Artaxerxes as much as all the treachery during his reign.

[Eric · Rating 4 out of 5]

Dark!