Conclusion

If historians were neither the only nor the first Greek authors to mention Persians, they differ nonetheless from most of the rest by moving beyond simple cliches on barbarians and pure celebration of the Greco-Persian Wars. Indeed, even if that specific event contributed to the motivation to compose the first Persica and, at the same time, stimulated the birth of Greek historiography in general (Drews 1973: 36-43), it is a common feature of the Persica that they do not focus on the military confrontation between Greeks and Persians.

Indeed, they were original attempts to show the Persian empire as if seen from inside, with events concerning the successive kings and some views on local practices. The result may exhibit obvious weaknesses using the criteria of modern historians and perhaps also by comparison with Herodotus. Nevertheless, one should not fail to observe that it was no easy task to understand and describe a power which had been for many cities a hostile enemy or even a ruler, a land that was portrayed by European Greeks, especially by the influential Athenian ideology, as an anti-Greece (Hall 1989), and a society with practices and values which were in fact so different in so many respects.

In any case, the works shed interesting light on Greco-Persian cultural relations. Nearly each generation had its own Persica, from the time of the Persian Wars to the expedition of Alexander. Each author had certainly literary motivations in his own Greek world, where he often had to compete with a predecessor, but he was also motivated by the many vivid accounts that could be found throughout the empire. There was thus a constant interest in the Persian world, and a constantly changing approach, and this proves that there were specific individual contacts between some Greeks and Persians, and moreover that the Persian world was itself felt to be complex and changing, fascinating in many respects and well worth discovering; and indeed although the Greeks attempted understanding in some various aspects, Persia also remained sometimes an ideal space to locate sensational tales.

It is not by chance that such a constant interest in the Persian world was expressed by Asiatic Greeks, who had personal experience of the empire not only through geographical proximity or individual ventures, but also because their city had been or even still was under Persian rule and because it had also been outside the Achae-menid empire at some time. Composing Persica was undeniably an original reaction to intermittent domination, which clearly did not lead to a black-and-white world view. Such an attitude from Asiatic Greeks is obviously in sharp contrast with that of the Athenians, to take the best known mainland example, who seem to have been generally lacking in that sort of interest, but whose viewpoint, because of their political and (especially) cultural domination, overshadowed for a long time every other perspective on the Persian empire.

FURTHER READING

The fragments of Persica have been edited in FGrHist III. C: nos. 687 (Dionysius of Miletus), 687a (Hellanicus of Lesbos: see also the Testimonia at FGrHist 4, pp. 104-107), 687b (Charon of Lampsacus), 688 (Ctesias of Cnidus), 689 (Heracleides of Cumae), 690 (Dinon).

There is no general study of Persica, but Drews 1973 has some interesting views (although sometimes too brief and questionable). Stevenson 1997, supposedly on Ctesias, Dinon, and Heracleides, takes into account many later texts (e. g., Diodorus) assumed to go back to them (without naming them) and, on the other hand, comments on only a selection of themes (ignoring, e. g., religion) and on a limited period (contemporary with the authors). In spite of gaps in the bibliography and some unconvincing hypotheses, the book often presents interesting views, especially on Dinon, and revises convincingly the common idea that the Persica were confined to ‘‘trivial tales of scandals at the Persian court.’’

An edition of Persica, with Greek text and French translation and commentary of Dinon’s and Heracleides’ fragments, is in preparation by Lenfant.

Specific analyses: on Dionysius, Moggi 1972 (fundamental on every question); on Charon, Pearson 1939: 139-151 (rather brief on the Persica); Moggi 1977 (fundamental on chronology; with commentary on the fragments). On Hellanicus, Jacoby 1913c (cols. 130-131 treat the Persica); Pearson 1939 (with 203-209 on Persica); Drews 1973 (22-24 on Persica); Ambaglio 1980 (survey of life and works, with Italian translation of Persica, pp. 81-83, and commentary of the fragments, pp. 132-135). On Ctesias, Jacoby 1922; Bigwood 1976, 1978, 1983; Lenfant 2004 (edition, translation, and commentary, with earlier bibliography). On Dinon and Heracleides, Stevenson 1987, 1997 (especially interesting on Dinon); and Lenfant’s forthcoming edition, mentioned above. On the king’s dinner (Heracleides F 2), Lewis 1987; Briant 1989.